Page 1 of 3
Separation of powers, not separation of parties
Posted:
Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:27 am
by Professor
Re: Separation of powers, not separation of parties
Posted:
Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:34 am
by OGPhilly
Stalemate IS what we have, and it sucks.
Also, I disagree with this thread, so it belongs in the conspiracy theory section.
Re: Separation of powers, not separation of parties
Posted:
Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:35 am
by Indy
How is stalemate desirable when nothing gets done?
Re: Separation of powers, not separation of parties
Posted:
Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:41 am
by cool_chick
Re: Separation of powers, not separation of parties
Posted:
Fri Nov 02, 2012 9:07 am
by Professor
OK, allow me to lay out the evidence:
PERIODS OF SAME-PARTY CONTROL
1977-1981 - Not exactly a benchmark of American progress; 3rd (or 2nd?) worst recession since the Great Depression
2003-2007 - Record deficits, Patriot Act, uneccessary wars, beginning of the 2nd (or 3rd?) worst recession since the Great Depression
2009-201x - Largest increase in government power over the state and individual since the inception of Medicare, continuation of recession; high unemployment; record deficits
PERIODS OF DIFFERENT-PARTY CONTROL
1981-1993 - Huge increases in eonomy; fall of Communism; (yes, there was a recession, but nothing like the ones above)
1995-2001 - Again, massive economic increases; deficits? nope - we had surpluses!; another "bubble burst", but nothing like above
Bascially, split government gives us the Clinton years, while same-party control gives us the Bush Administration.
Re: Separation of powers, not separation of parties
Posted:
Fri Nov 02, 2012 9:22 am
by OGPhilly
ZOMG IN 2008 WHEN OUR ECONOMY COLLAPSED WE HAD SPLIT PARTY CONTROL
Re: Separation of powers, not separation of parties
Posted:
Fri Nov 02, 2012 9:31 am
by Stratego
Our political system is set up in a way that the rational decision is never to be responsible. When you're trying to balance the budget by raising taxes or cutting spending you get the bulk of the flak. If its successful, someone else will be in office by the time your policy takes effect.
Re: Separation of powers, not separation of parties
Posted:
Fri Nov 02, 2012 11:18 am
by exploited
Despite the naysayers, I think you are fundamentally correct. There is a reason why all the best men in American history had serious misgivings about the party system.
Re: Separation of powers, not separation of parties
Posted:
Fri Nov 02, 2012 11:22 am
by Indy
Yup.
Washington argued that political parties needed to be restrained in a free country with a government empowered by the consent of the governed and established through popular elections. He warned of the possibility fearing they could distract the government from its required duty to the people and even lead to the eradication of the freedoms established by the founding.
Read more: George Washington's views on political parties in America | Washington Times Communities
Follow us: @wtcommunities on Twitter
-Speaking of: George Washington
Re: Separation of powers, not separation of parties
Posted:
Fri Nov 02, 2012 11:25 am
by John Galt