In the mid-90s, we had a budget surplus. Despite what one may wish to believe, this is not because Clinton was a financial or genius, or that the Republican Congress was any better economically. We had a surplus because the two government branches constantly bickered and fought for their ideals.
Will a similar situation benefit Americans as a whole if the opposing party competes with the White House?
2006-10-28 06:41:28 · 9 answers · asked by Tofu Jesus 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Thank you. Democracy is an adversarial system similar to the courts. It works best when the sides are balanced.
2006-10-28 06:46:58 · answer #1 · answered by notme 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The President is lame duck no matter who wins the Congress.
because he doesn't have answers to solve the problems we face. We are in a situation were we have no good answers to choose from so we will "stay the course" and the next president will inherit these problems.
Regarding Economic issues our surplus was eaten up by fighting abroad. We defeated the Iraqi military and in that sense won the war. However, we will never win the peace. It is far to difficult and expensive to build something in relation to how simple and inexpensive it is to tear it apart. Moreover, if we continue to spend like we have been spending trying to win the peace we will defeat ourselves.
Much like the way that we defeated the Russians in the cold war. We were able to out produce and out spend them financially until they finally bankrupted themselves. They would not admit to themselves that they could not win an Arms Race againest us. As a result thier government and country has broken up.
On the othe hand, the Japanese are intelligent proud people, they didn't surrended in WW II because they are "cut and runners" They humbled themselves and faced reality and made an intellegent decsion to surrendered in order to survive.
The Japanese surrendered to win a better tommorrow for thenselves, the Russians did not.
Our survival is on the line. We can't be confused by thinking that since we have the strongest military we will win. It isn't about body count. It is economics. The Enemy can't defeat us .However, to "stay the course" will lead to our own SELF destruction.
It is a paradox, that sometimes you have to surrender to win.
And we must always remember, We never want our solution to be worse than our original problem.
2006-10-28 14:22:38 · answer #2 · answered by quarterton2001 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The best legislation has always come out of compromise, the good news here is George Bush will not be able to run rough shod over the constitution like he has the past 6 years, the democratic congress will stop that, and the other good news is the democrats will not be able to raise taxes or spend like crazy because George Bush can stop that. Virtual grid lock with the important legislation getting though in a palatable manor.
2006-10-28 13:47:18 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
I'm concerned it own't work that way because of the people involved. The Democrats as a rule are spenders and tax hikers, the President is a spender also, but believes strongly in tax cuts. Bottom line we'll have a lot of spenders and no real conservatives.
2006-10-28 13:46:25 · answer #4 · answered by MEL T 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
When Dumbya wants to march the USA to hell, shouldn't there be someone there to say "Let's think about this. Why don't YOU go there first and report back about how it is"? Down with Dictator Dumbya!!!
2006-10-28 14:15:49 · answer #5 · answered by rhino9joe 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Giving the Democrats congress is like giving a drug addict crack.
2006-10-28 17:09:42 · answer #6 · answered by Idonta Feelwell M.D. 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
in Clinton's case he needed to be reined in
bush needs a push to make him do anything
2006-10-28 13:48:13 · answer #7 · answered by ken y 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The same old thing
2006-10-28 13:44:21 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Only if one considers gridlock to be balance.
2006-10-28 13:43:31 · answer #9 · answered by ? 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋