The reason why is that there quite a few pro-choice Republicans, and Republican politicians. Finding pro-life Democrat politicians isn’t easy. The reason is that a clear majority of Americans are pro-choice. While Republican leaders claim to support the religious right agenda, in practice they don’t do so. And the religious right crowd tends to be suckers and don’t realize this.
squeege:
A balanced budget law passed as a simple law rather than a Constitutional Amendment would be toothless…look what happened to Gramm-Rudman. Passed with simple majority, overridden with simple majority as part of the regular budget process.
I was referring to term limits.
Congressional term limits would require a constitutional amendment, because the constitution spells out the restrictions on who’s allowed to run for Congress. Adding any (i.e., anyone who’s served X years is not eligible to run again) can’t be done except by amendment.
No, I read your cite. Are you claiming that it does not propose increased taxation on investment? My idea that it would discourage savings and investment - an opinion, clearly, but not a dishonest one - is based on the Jack Kemp Law of Social Action.
This part is wrong, obviously, unless you never heard about the partial privatization proposal.
But you are probably correct that if the Dems have no new ideas, it would be a mistake for them to propose anything.
Actually, “or shall we increase taxes by trillions of dollars over the next few decades, crippling our economy, in order to prop up a failing Ponzi scheme?”
That’s the debate.
Not at all. The point is to get the Democrats, if they genuiinely want a Democratic Contract with America, to do what the Republicans did - come up with some new ideas (not repackaging the same stuff as ever), make them clear and specific and measurable, and present them. You apparently don’t want them to do so on Social Security or Iraq (or, apparently, national security in general). And again, so far the only proposal made that is specific was a hike in the minimum wage. And that doesn’t strike me as bold and exciting, or even (for Democrats) very new.
The rest of the time it’s “No, we aren’t coming up with any specific proposals until we definitely reject all of your proposals”. How this does not constitute trying to beat something with nothing is beyond me.
That the Democrats aren’t very good at coming up with new ideas or specific proposals to address the country’s problems. So far, the only specific is the minimum-wage hike that you guys trot out every five years or so, and a lot of attempts at repackaging and vague boilerplate for the same old same old.
The point of the Republican CwA was that it was specific, and new. So far, the Democratic CwA doesn’t seem to be either.
squeegee - I have been looking, and I can’t find the totals for the votes on the proposals on the CwA. IIRC, they were not completely unanimous for the Republicans in favor, but it was nearly so for the Democrats against it. I could be wrong on this.
As to why it is not important now, because they don’t want to have to balance the budget. Which is why it was a good idea in 1992.
Regards,
Shodan
Well, thanks anyway Shodan. If I can google up anything I’ll post it here.
My DCwA would include nationwide redistricting reform for national elections (Senators, Congressmen, President) including non-partisan standards for drawing districts (no, I don’t know the exact mechanics; TBD), and allowable time limits for when they could be drawn, tied to the 10 year census.
Look, Shodan, I’ll say this just once: I don’t have to debate every tangent to a tangent you care to bring up. This thread, if you’ll look up, is the “David Horowitz’ theory: A “Shadow Party” is trying to pull the Democrats leftward” thread. From there, we got into a discussion of where the Democrats actually were, and where they should be, and what they should do. So far, so good.
In that context, we both agreed that a Democratic “Contract With America” would be a good thing for the Dems, as long as it was specific, rather than too general and airy to be nailed down. I gave an example or two, in order to say something about specificity.
But I did NOT have in mind writing such a CwA on the spot, in that thread. I already made that clear, back in post #60. That was a ways before you said this:
Your inference of what I want, or don’t want, in such a contract, is completely out of bounds. You are telling me what’s going on in my head, simply based on my desire to place some bounds on the debate.
You don’t know what’s going on in my head, and I don’t know what’s going on in yours, OK? I’ll deal with your arguments, and you deal with mine, is the way it should work.
But since you can’t grasp that simple concept, I honestly can’t see any point in continuing to discuss anything with you; you are not debating in good faith. You aren’t even worth a Pit thread. Good day.