|
Changes in Presidential Term Limits (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DrummeRaver86 |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Actually I think the best way to be registered is as a republican. If you are registered as a republican you can vote in the primaries for both parties, however if you are registered as a democrat I think you can only vote in the democratic primaries. It might be vice-versa not 100% sure.
Edit: Hmmm I think it also depends on what state you're in. But at either rate I think that by registering as an independant you're throwing your vote away! Primaries are critical in determining who represents which party. |
Fill me in here...can you register a a republican but not actually suppourt republican views? I'm guessing yes. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrummeRaver86
Fill me in here...can you register a a republican but not actually suppourt republican views? I'm guessing yes. |
Yes the standard across most states is that you can register any party you want to and vote for anyone in the general election. However, to vote in the primaries for your party you must register as being affiliated with that party. I think that some states have different rulings for voting in primaries. At any rate unless a state has open primaries (meaning you can vote either party's primary ************ of party affiliation) registering as an independant will be a waste (yay perot). |
|
|
| LiquidX |
| Mmm.... hence the fact that the Republican and Democratic party are the biggest ones in the nation, if you are registered on either one, for primaries you are to vote for the party in which you are registered into. My gov't teacher said that if one does not want to be affiliated on anyone of those two major parties, register Independent, since the two major parties are always in control and so on, an Independent register can vote for anyone of the two major parties.. Now, Im thinking he said it for the Primary elections, cause for presidential elections it doesn't matter on under which party your registered under. Maybe is like you said.. depends on the state.. but thats what he said, I could be wrong or heard him wrong in some point, but Im sure about the been registered under Independent. Also, I doubt that you could do that for been registered under the republican party .. or I dont know, for what I can remember you cant. |
|
|
| biznology |
'voting independent=throwing your vote away'
sure, as of now an independent vote may not count for much- but if no one ever makes that choice, we are stuck with the ol' "lesser of two evil" choice, which isnt much of a choice at all. doesnt anyone else see a bigger problem here than L/R bickering? dunno| |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by biznology
'voting independent=throwing your vote away'
sure, as of now an independent vote may not count for much- but if no one ever makes that choice, we are stuck with the ol' "lesser of two evil" choice, which isnt much of a choice at all. doesnt anyone else see a bigger problem here than L/R bickering? dunno| |
True, but there haven't been any independant candidates that have been particularly noteworthy. But at any rate, registering as an independant is worthless since I don't think you can vote in either primaries. Liquid: Not sure if this holds true in Florida or not. Well, check the voting laws of the state you live so you don't take me for my word. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| Our system is flawed, but could be a LOT worse. |
|
|
| CortexBomb |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Our system is flawed, but could be a LOT worse. |
Not meaning to single you out here, but this is one of those statements that I wish would completely disappear from the english language...
Think about it, at any point in life it "could be a lot better" or "could be a lot worse".
The US system is flawed, it's not as flawed as a dictatorship, but it's nowhere near perfection either; as a result discussion on how to improve it is certainly warranted IMO. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Our system is flawed, but could be a LOT worse. |
Yes prepare for backseat drivers from abroad explain how our system IS worse and that it's tantamount to a totalitarianism Nazi regime :haha: |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Yes prepare for backseat drivers from abroad explain how our system IS worse and that it's tantamount to a totalitarianism Nazi regime :haha: |
I love it. Makes my day to read the criticisms. You're exactly right, though. |
|
|
| dubblies |
Ahh...the political debate, one of the most ongoing set of conflicts known to man. Any true TA knows that bias within the media causes bias in the people, and the opposite is true as well. To determine the validity of a presidential term, one must figure out how much the government needed to do to impress them politically. So many people these days tune in to the extremely biased and entertainment-based cable news providers in the United States. This is the root to many of our problems and ideological seperation in America.
Former President Bill Clinton, in my opinion, was a highly successful president for our country. I think mostly everybody would agree that the country was very successfull during his time of leadership. The history books will show that when your kids are going to school, they already do for the most part.
"An impressive 66 percent of the American people approved of the job Bill Clinton did at the end of his two years."
* higher than Reagan's 63%
* higher than Eisenhower's 60%
"Clinton's greatest successes were sustaining economic growth and job development, reducing the debt and creating a budget surplus, reforming the welfar system, keeping America out of war, and encouraging international trade through the North American Free Trade Agreement."
Albert R. Hunt, "Clinton Ends his Tenure on High Note," The Wall Street Journal, December 14, 2000, p. A9)
Personally, I feel that Current President George W. Bush has not done as great a job as Clinton in the actual presidential responsiblities. It appears that he has gained the obvious post-war support that historically has followed any president following crisis and conflict, however I feel this will soon diminish. The surplus that Clinton fought for so hard has been demolished becuase of Bush's constant war and defense spending. The social security surplus is especially troubling for me to hear about since thousands of elderly will now suffer because of the shortage of funds. And finally, the presidential tax-cut only damages these problems further by removing more funds that could be spent on these programs and the general budget deficit. And if that wasn't enough, the tax-cut is so much less than what President Bush actually asked Congress to provide for him. Bush wanted a tax cut twice the size of what the final bill stated and his constant support for the oil industry and the other corporations astounds me.
When you look at whether or not a president should beable to gain the presdency more than twice, there doesn't seem to be a problem, atleast not for me. I fully support the idea of presidents being in office longer than eight years. Why not? As long as there are fair and frequent elections, there really shouldn't be a problem. Sure, the electoral college should be romoved too, but I'm not a congressman. Just keep having elections every four years and if the public still supports the president, let him continue to run. This whole "consecutive" vs. "non-consecutive" argument is irrelevent. Just keep it consecutive or whatever as long as there are more elections. Yikes...back to the music.
Peace. |
|
|
| trintiy |
Sometime I feel like the relationship between Clinton and the American people was like a scene from the Wizard of Oz. You know, the one with the little man behind the curtain pulling the levers so something appears, but its not really happening.
The economy flourished despite Clinton not because of him! Here’s the only credit Clinton should get for the economy. Deal with Greenspan! This is what Bush is doing wrong(but that’s another discussion).
The last two presidents were willing to strike a deal with Greenspan. Bush the Elder struck it too late, of course. Greenspan began raising short-term interest rates in 1988, at the start of Bush's presidency, and squeezed until the Elder cried uncle. Bush finally agreed to hike taxes, despite what the public had read on his lips. But by then, growth had stalled and unemployment had shot upward. Bush was kicked out of office by an electorate worried about the economy, stupid.
When Bill Clinton was elected, Greenspan made the deal explicit: You saw what I did to Bush, he said. I could do the same to you, and you'll be another one-term president. Alternatively, you can take my deal right away.
Forget your giant $50-billion-a-year plan to invest in schools, training and health care. Cut the deficit instead. Raise taxes and squeeze spending so that the deficit shrinks. In return, I'll reduce interest rates. And when I do, the economy will boom, and you'll be re-elected in 1996.
Clinton took the deal, and the rest is history. The economy expanded. The stock market soared. Unemployed dropped. True, most Americans didn't get much out of the booming '90s. Median income rose a tad, largely because the typical American family put in more hours of work. And the bottom 60% of earners ended up with lousier schools and less health care. But, hey, most Americans stopped worrying about the economy. Every year of the Clinton presidency, Americans spent more than they earned. Consumer optimism reached record highs, as did consumer debt and stock market valuations. |
|
|
| trintiy |
Furthermore Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan identified the current economic slowdown as occurring during the Clinton-Gore administration.
The Federal Reserve Board met and while refusing to lower interest rates, it did finally signal its belief that its previous hyper-focus on inflationary fears was misplaced.
What is clearly in order is a reduction in the Federal Funds Rate, which is then, in due course, reflected in lower interest rates to consumers and businesses. During times when the economy is "moderating" – to borrow the Fed’s characterization – lower interest rates provide incentives to spur growth. At the same time, this news from the Fed will likely provide a greater impetus for passage of reductions in marginal tax rates. When the Federal Reserve Bank raised interest rates by a quarter of appoint on February 2, The Wall Street Journal said the Fed was trying to "steer the highflying economy to a soft landing.
But a "soft landing" for whom?
By increasing interest rates now and threatening to increase them again in the spring, Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Fed, has made clear that he wants the economy to slow down. Which means he wants unemployment to go up. That's what happens when interest rates rise. It costs more for consumers to buy houses and cars, so the demand for houses and cars (and other goods and services) goes down. When the demand goes down, companies lay off employees.
For the people who get laid off, there's nothing cushy about a "soft landing."
Greenspan and the Fed are worried about inflation, even though it stood at only 2.7 percent in 1999. They were more than willing to risk throwing hundreds of thousands of people out of work than to let inflation--and wages--rise by 4 or 5 percent.
Why is the Fed, the nation's central bank, biased toward fighting inflation?
Because it is a bankers' board, not a workers' board, or a citizens' board.
Bankers don't like inflation because it cuts into the profits they make on their loans. Banks want to protect the value of their loans and the other financial instruments they have sold.
For instance, if you're an executive at a bank, and you've lent out 30-year home loans to thousands of customers with fixed interest rates of 8 percent, you're doing fine when inflation is considerably below that. But if inflation rises close to that 8 percent, you're not making nearly as much money. So, for the lenders, even moderate inflation is bad. But, for the borrowers, it can be a blessing.
The dirty little secret about U.S. economic policy is how undemocratic it is. Congress, the people's chamber, does not set monetary policy. EVEN THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES CANNOT SET MONETARY POLICY. That huge decision is in the hands of the Fed, which is composed of twelve regional branches. And those banks are controlled by the commercial banks in each region. While the President appoints the Fed's board of governors, the commercial banks have an enormous influence on policy decisions.
There is no representative of labor on the Fed, no representative of consumers, no representative of borrowers. Just bankers.
For the last few years, Greenspan has modified his anti-inflation mania, worried that raising interest rates might destabilize the world economy after the crisis in Asia. But when that crisis subsided, Greenspan was back on his crusade.
And Clinton's reappointment of Greenspan came back to haunt heir apparent Al Gore.
If you don’t believe me follow the link:
http://www.mclaughlinonline.com/new.../001222post.htm
So, let it be clearly understood that Bill Clinton left a declining economy as yet another part of his sorry legacy. |
|
|
|
|
