Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

LordofHats wrote:

I don't know about that. Romney can't woo the rightiest rights without alienating moderates.

I thought this as well, but frankly while the rightest of the right will not like Romney, I think they don't like Obama more. They'll do what the rest of us do. Pick the lesser of two evils and to them, Romney I think is going to come out as the lesser evil.

One part of the equation here is that voter turnout can drop when partisans aren't enthusiastic about their candidate. People would rather be inspired.


From stuff I've read, the Obama team plans to embrace and "own" things like Obamacare and not run away from them. Which I think is very smart, and right out of the Dubya/Rove playbook. It's the old "you might not agree with me, but you know where I stand and that I did what I said I would do" approach that works because people tend to vote for the devil they know, especially in presidential races. It should be especially powerful against Romney, who really can't criticize health care since he passed similar legislation in his home state. Unless he feels like throwing gasoline on top of the flipflopper fire. Romney's in a tough spot here for a variety of reasons.

IMO, there appear to be three possibilities in November -- 1) Romney wins a nailbiter, 2) Obama wins a nailbiter, and 3) Obama wins comfortably, although short of a landslide. I think Romney has very little margin for error, which is not a good place to be. The one good thing for him is that it's only April.

Gorgon wrote: I don't know about that. Romney can't woo the rightiest rights without alienating moderates.

Quite frankly he doesn't NEED to woo the rightie rights once he UAS the nomination they are in his pocket. Through a combination of racism, anti-socialism, and other wierdo positions they simply will NEVER vote for Obama. Wooing the moderates is the ONLY thing Romney has to do to win, the deep right isn't going to cross the party line just because they don't like Romney.

AustonT wrote:Quite frankly he doesn't NEED to woo the rightie rights once he UAS the nomination they are in his pocket. Through a combination of racism, anti-socialism, and other wierdo positions they simply will NEVER vote for Obama. Wooing the moderates is the ONLY thing Romney has to do to win, the deep right isn't going to cross the party line just because they don't like Romney.

While it's certainly true that the far right wing won't jump ship and vote for Obama if they hate Romney, it is possible that they may dislike Romney enough to simply not vote (or vote for whatever minor candidate they fancy). That has the potential to be problematic for Romney, and is why he needs to pander to them at least a little.

Anti-Obama sentiment will win Romney second place in the general election. Therefore, the important question is what will having nominated Romney mean in the wake of his defeat to the competing shades of Republicans. Santorum's crowd will shake a finger at the Tea Partiers, chiding "we told you so!"

AustonT wrote:

Gorgon wrote: I don't know about that. Romney can't woo the rightiest rights without alienating moderates.

Quite frankly he doesn't NEED to woo the rightie rights once he UAS the nomination they are in his pocket. Through a combination of racism, anti-socialism, and other wierdo positions they simply will NEVER vote for Obama. Wooing the moderates is the ONLY thing Romney has to do to win, the deep right isn't going to cross the party line just because they don't like Romney.

Was ninjaed a bit by Icy Cool, but no, it really doesn't work that way.

For one thing, you assume a fixed amount of people headed to the polls. Some partisans would rather stay home than go to the polls to vote for someone they aren't enthusiastic about. This is a reality in politics, and I also think you underestimate some of the divisions in the GOP right now. Will Romney get most of the available GOP votes? Sure. But "most" isn't going to get the job done in November. He needs a motivated and unified GOP turning out in big numbers, AND to woo some moderates to his side even though they're moving toward Obama. That's a game of Twister, right there.

And honestly, I dunno that Obama is any more hated by righties than Clinton was. Heck, they tried to impeach him and spent years and millions trying to bring him down. Nor is he any more hated than Bush was by lefties. Note that both men were re-elected.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:Anti-Obama sentiment will win Romney second place in the general election. Therefore, the important question is what will having nominated Romney mean in the wake of his defeat to the competing shades of Republicans. Santorum's crowd will shake a finger at the Tea Partiers, chiding "we told you so!"

Eventually I think we'll see the GOP become more moderate again. With demographics trending against them, I don't see how they have much choice. IMO, the Tea Party got it half-right. The answer for the GOP is refocusing on economic issues and taxes. There are plenty of registered Republicans in northern states like PA who'd be happy to vote for a GOP candidate if they just talked more about taxes than bedrooms, religion, and the legality of certain medical procedures. But those people have been going Dem in the national races even as they vote straight GOP in the local ones.

Where the Tea Party obviously got it wrong is all the wingnut stuff.

IcyCool wrote:

AustonT wrote:Quite frankly he doesn't NEED to woo the rightie rights once he UAS the nomination they are in his pocket. Through a combination of racism, anti-socialism, and other wierdo positions they simply will NEVER vote for Obama. Wooing the moderates is the ONLY thing Romney has to do to win, the deep right isn't going to cross the party line just because they don't like Romney.

While it's certainly true that the far right wing won't jump ship and vote for Obama if they hate Romney, it is possible that they may dislike Romney enough to simply not vote (or vote for whatever minor candidate they fancy). That has the potential to be problematic for Romney, and is why he needs to pander to them at least a little.

I think you're mising the point. Obama pisses righties off enough to get up and vote, almost in the way (or because of) Obama was able to mobilize new voters in his campaign. Those voters are in the bag for Romney, he simply has to convince them he can win. That fight is in the media polls. Romney needs to convince moderates and independants to support him enough publically that polls show him up on Obama. Then those righties will flock to the polls under the "well feth it's still Romney but anyone is better than Obama" banner. The base that Romney needs to mobilize is the centre not the wing, the wing will vote anyway. If they stay at home they really have no right to complain about how bad Obama is ever again, because they got thier chance.
The odds are very good this will be a closer race than I would have anticipated when the primaries began and we all went "WTF?!?" at the pack. It wont be decided by fringe voters: you know like every other election.

gorgon wrote:Eventually I think we'll see the GOP become more moderate again.

I think they will have to in order to survive politically. I am surprised they haven't already with how the country turned away from Bush politics in 2008, basically handing the presidency to Obama with the quack job that was Palin being associated with republicans. Caine's biggest error in judgement right there.

It is a mark of obvious hypocrisy when they tell you that homosexual couples cannot get married and in the same breath scream about less government.

Social conservatism is on its way out, and the bible thumpers can scream about it all they want but the majority of the country is evolving away from concerning themselves about personal liberties being constrained by religion under the guise of government.

Republicans should stick to what they do best, and that is fiscal conservatism. No political party has any business sticking their nose into social issues such as homosexuality.

Many see homosexuality as the next civil rights movement. Not many segregationist politicians lasted after the racial civil liberties were dealt with. Such precedence should be viewed as political suicide to adhere that strongly and Santorum showed that while his views were popular with certain demographics, it wasn't popular enough to be the majority thought pattern.

Repubs need to stick to fiscal conservatism. They would be more likely to get my votes that way instead of sticking their noses into peoples bedrooms and ovaries.

I'd say the GOP will have to become even more radical to survive. That is what we've seen between 2000 and now, especially since 2008. The GOP has pulled the whole country toward the right. Republicans who have remained moderate will find a comfy home in the Democratic Party, which has always been roomy but has more right-of-center space now than ever before. The GOP, meanwhile, will rely on radicalized young, inexperienced politicos to refresh its numbers. This is kind of like the Cultural Revolution. If it's red or dead and somebody has to die then you had better be redder than anybody else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hellfury wrote:Social conservatism is on its way out ...

Rather, what was considered progressivism in the sixties has reified into the current social conservatism.

Hellfury wrote:

gorgon wrote:Eventually I think we'll see the GOP become more moderate again.

I think they will have to in order to survive politically. I am surprised they haven't already with how the country turned away from Bush politics in 2008, basically handing the presidency to Obama with the quack job that was Palin being associated with republicans. Caine's biggest error in judgement right there.

It was going to swing one way or the other after 2008 for sure. It seems that Romney has been the choice of the GOP elite for some time now, so you could argue his nomination is actually a move to the middle -- and toward economic/financial issues -- even as the ground floor of the party seems to get more ideological and shrill. But that's problematic for Romney and the GOP...although he's the candidate most able to beat Obama, he doesn't really represent the current reality of his party.

IMO, the loss in 2008 stung the GOP -- and especially the rightiest rights -- incredibly badly. I mean, they had their old white war hero named John McCain lose to a younger black man named Barack Obama. In their world view, that's just not supposed to happen. So the response at the ground level of the party was less thoughtful and calculating and more emotional and visceral. That spawned all the pockets of denial (birthers), anger (Tea Party), etc, even as the party elite realize course adjustments are necessary.

Manchu wrote:I'd say the GOP will have to become even more radical to survive.

It's interesting.

I mean, they obviously agree. Once they knew they were not going to be in power in 2008, instead of understanding where they lost the majority they instead clung on to radical ideology even more tightly.

The only reasoning I can think of for this is if they do not maintain such radical opposition to social liberalism, then they have admitted that Bush II politics were flawed and need to be addressed. Or that if democrats getting anything done during their occupancy, that it is tantamount to heresy as they would get credit for doing anything positive for the country.

But while I view myself as a social liberal, I am very much a fiscal moderate. I would love to vote for more moderate or conservative fiscal representatives, yet their social mores are akin to ignorance on a fundamental level.

I could be won over by a fiscal conservative that keeps his nose out of social affairs. From what I am seeing (anecdotal, I know), I think I am not alone in this.

The current radical GOP climate is preventing a lot more voters to swing their way than they are attracting from social conservatives. I have no basis for that assertion other than my own belief, but many conservative repubs I know refuse to vote repub because their relatives have homosexual members or are feminist enough to scorn the thought of government invading their reproductive systems.

GOP is trying to prove you can catch more flies with vinegar than honey, but while they are succeeding at least partially, it still ignores that honey is better bait.

Hellfury wrote:
Repubs need to stick to fiscal conservatism. They would be more likely to get my votes that way instead of sticking their noses giant, cold, probing wands into peoples bedrooms and ovaries.

There. I fixed that for you.

Hellfury wrote:GOP is trying to prove you can catch more flies with vinegar than honey, but while they are succeeding at least partially, it still ignores that honey is better bait.

But out some balsamic vinegar and see what happens.

I get the impression that the religious extreme will be the direction that the GOP continues to head into, simply because it happens to coincide with nicely with corporate de-regulation, which is the real aim of the GOp, since that's where their money comes from. However, I think it's getting harder and harder to sell middle-class America on the latter, so it becomes more necessary to intertwince it with the former.

However, as an outside I suspect that I get only a very skewed perspective of all this from the media.

so even up here in canada the local paper has declared romney the man. the told about how santorum quit the race, but never mentioned ron paul. even up here in canada the man gets no press

AustonT wrote:

IcyCool wrote:While it's certainly true that the far right wing won't jump ship and vote for Obama if they hate Romney, it is possible that they may dislike Romney enough to simply not vote (or vote for whatever minor candidate they fancy). That has the potential to be problematic for Romney, and is why he needs to pander to them at least a little.

I think you're mising the point. Obama pisses righties off enough to get up and vote, almost in the way (or because of) Obama was able to mobilize new voters in his campaign. Those voters are in the bag for Romney, he simply has to convince them he can win. That fight is in the media polls. Romney needs to convince moderates and independants to support him enough publically that polls show him up on Obama. Then those righties will flock to the polls under the "well feth it's still Romney but anyone is better than Obama" banner. The base that Romney needs to mobilize is the centre not the wing, the wing will vote anyway. If they stay at home they really have no right to complain about how bad Obama is ever again, because they got thier chance.
The odds are very good this will be a closer race than I would have anticipated when the primaries began and we all went "WTF?!?" at the pack. It wont be decided by fringe voters: you know like every other election.

I think this argument doesn't hold up in relation to the last couple of Presidential elections. Each of those was in large part determined by which side was better able to mobilize their base. Bush beat down Kerry in significant part because of the Republican strategy of getting anti-gay marriage ballot measures and Constitutional amendments on state ballots in 2008, thus getting the Evangelical vote out in droves.

I'm probably voting for Romney this time around. I'm due for a switch. It's gone Bush, Kerry, Obama. Time to head back to the middle. Plus, much as I like him, we really do need to get some economic growth going, and I'm starting to buy the Republican argument on that.

I can't get behind "lower taxes = recovery". Low taxes + high expenditures + deregulation for eight years drove the economy into the hole, and I don't see much evidence that Romney's not planning more Bush-style economic polices. We had a colossal collapse and it's naturally taking a while to fully recover. Romney's trying to say Obama's had three years of failure, but that's silly on its face. We dug ourselves a damn deep hole and it's taking a while to climb back out. But the economy has been improving, and unemployment getting better. Fraz swore we were going to have a double-dip recession, but i haven't seen it yet.

I think the argument the Dems need to make is that if you take a wrong turn, and drive the wrong way for eight years, it takes more than three years to get back where you want to be, even after turning 180 degrees.

Mannahnin wrote:

AustonT wrote:

IcyCool wrote:While it's certainly true that the far right wing won't jump ship and vote for Obama if they hate Romney, it is possible that they may dislike Romney enough to simply not vote (or vote for whatever minor candidate they fancy). That has the potential to be problematic for Romney, and is why he needs to pander to them at least a little.

I think you're mising the point. Obama pisses righties off enough to get up and vote, almost in the way (or because of) Obama was able to mobilize new voters in his campaign. Those voters are in the bag for Romney, he simply has to convince them he can win. That fight is in the media polls. Romney needs to convince moderates and independants to support him enough publically that polls show him up on Obama. Then those righties will flock to the polls under the "well feth it's still Romney but anyone is better than Obama" banner. The base that Romney needs to mobilize is the centre not the wing, the wing will vote anyway. If they stay at home they really have no right to complain about how bad Obama is ever again, because they got thier chance.
The odds are very good this will be a closer race than I would have anticipated when the primaries began and we all went "WTF?!?" at the pack. It wont be decided by fringe voters: you know like every other election.

I think this argument doesn't hold up in relation to the last couple of Presidential elections. Each of those was in large part determined by which side was better able to mobilize their base. Bush beat down Kerry in significant part because of the Republican strategy of getting anti-gay marriage ballot measures and Constitutional amendments on state ballots in 2008, thus getting the Evangelical vote out in droves.

I think you meant in 2004; it's 2012 and the incumbent is Barack Obama...if you see where I'm going with this.Bush beat down Kerry because as a politician he was a cardboard cut out. Which is a shame because John Kerry the man is kind of a bad ass: Silver Star, Bronze Star, 3 Purple Hearts; and recently just shy of 70 a black eye from playing hockey (if that was a true story). Also, Bush didn't really "beat down" Kerry the popular spread was 51% to 48% much smaller than McCain's loss to BarryO who beat him down to the tune of 53% to 46% although the state count was closer in 2008 the electoral vote was a vast gulf.
From the 1992 election to the 2008 election we saw a lot of relatively close fights, some obviously less close than others. Clinton beat Bush Sr by a wide margin but we don't look back and think man he trounced him, Dole on the other hand got pounded: or did he. Dole and Bush received nearly the same number of votes, and Clinton only gained 3M even though 10M LESS people voted for Perot. Really the closest races we saw recently were Bush/Gore (duh) and Bush/Kerry pretty much the lot of them bleh candidates.
I could be wrong, I frequently am, but I think that pandering to the far right will hurt Romney more than help him. They already don't like him, they wont like him, if they are going to vote they have no other choice anyway. Why waste time or money on them? The voters Romney CAN reach are moderate Reps, conservative Dems, and Independents his focus should be there. Obama is providing all the momentum to mobilize the rightie base with Obama-care, Eric Holder (the man himself is an issue, Barry should have dumped him last year or the second he played the race card), perception of him as a gun grabber, and his persona on the right as a socialist. What Romney has to do is avoid looking like any of those things (he's kind of hosed on healthcare) and hope to God he can be more popular than Obama(but don't say God).

Thanks, typo.

Romney's definitely the guy to play to moderates more, but the question is whether the folks who hate Obama and love Santorum will find Romney conservative enough to get out and vote for. If he spends the next four+ months running to the middle, especially.

hmm, Obama or a Mormon?

I choose Obama.

Amaya wrote:hmm, Obama or a Mormon?

I choose Obama.

Bigoted much?

AustonT wrote:

Amaya wrote:hmm, Obama or a Mormon?

I choose Obama.

Bigoted much?

I would vote for a Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Wiccan, and so forth before I voted for a Mormon.

So yes, I am bigoted against Mormonism.

Know something good about santorum,
He faought alot of worthy causes, Like congressional aid for HIV/AIDS, Autism Research, and in some cases helped the poor.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
y'know, I know feel bad for making fun of santorum, He is going and went through alot that he should have to. He seems like a nice guy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Amaya wrote:

AustonT wrote:

Amaya wrote:hmm, Obama or a Mormon?

I choose Obama.

Bigoted much?

I would vote for a Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Wiccan, and so forth before I voted for a Mormon.

So yes, I am bigoted against Mormonism.

I hate say it buuuuut, I agree. My best friend is mormon, and he devotion to his religion is leading him down a really stupid path.
Quitting school to go on a mission is just.....Well, it explains itself.
And the fact he said he wants to have kids as soon as possible.(only 20)

Blanket negative comments toward all adherents of a religion are not acceptable on Dakka.

hotsauceman1 wrote:
Quitting school to go on a mission is just.....Well, it explains itself.

That's not a huge deal, and its actually pretty good experience, and will look good on any resume.

Hell, I have a friend that dropped out his Junior year to kick around Central Asia for a year, and he still ended up graduating from a good school, and now he works for the Red Cross.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Amaya wrote:
I would vote for a Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Wiccan, and so forth before I voted for a Mormon.

So yes, I am bigoted against Mormonism.

I'm generally wary of anyone that strikes me as too religious when it comes to voting. Romney is fine, his Mormonism doesn't seem central to any of his political positions, nor can it be really. If he started quoting Brigham Young his campaign would have lasted a day.

In any event, I agree with Auston that, barring some utter fiasco on one side or the other, it's going to be a very tight race. I also agree that Romney should try to capture moderates, rather than conservatives. I think they will have more influence (the base is going to vote anyway, and their enthusiasm gap for Romney is going to be cancelled out for their dislike of Obama). It's going to be harder to appeal to the center after saying ridiculous hard-right stuff in the primaries, and frankly after his etch-a-sketch stuff he needs to strongly avoid the impression that his beliefs are utterly malleable.

Ouze wrote:...(the base is going to vote anyway, and their enthusiasm gap for Romney is going to be cancelled out for their dislike of Obama).

Well, I think the thing is really that if the base isn't motivated to vote against Obama, its unlikely that Romney will be able to motivate them to vote for Romney, so it might not be worth his time.

hotsauceman1 wrote:Know something good about santorum,
He faought alot of worthy causes, Like congressional aid for HIV/AIDS, Autism Research, and in some cases helped the poor.

So he's willing to give money to treat people with HIV, but completely against prevention of HIV. (safe-sex education, condoms, etc.)

That is assinine, both fiscally and in principle.

hotsauceman1 wrote:y'know, I know feel bad for making fun of santorum, He is going and went through alot that he should have to. He seems like a nice guy.

He seems like a nice guy unless you live a lifestyle that doesn't conform to his own narrow worldview; in which case he'd like to see you suffer rather than let bygones be bygones. He is a living avatar of religious oppression over your personal life.

Amaya wrote:I would vote for a Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Wiccan, and so forth before I voted for a Mormon.

So yes, I am bigoted against Mormonism.

I won't say anything in response because you haven't stated a motive. May I ask what fuels the decision to vote specifically against Mormons?

hotsauceman1 wrote:I hate say it buuuuut, I agree. My best friend is mormon, and he devotion to his religion is leading him down a really stupid path.
Quitting school to go on a mission is just.....Well, it explains itself.

You do know that they come back after about a year, right? This is absolutely no different than kids that take a year off to go backpacking or just generally go Kerouac on every's ass for a year before going to college.

hotsauceman1 wrote:And the fact he said he wants to have kids as soon as possible.(only 20)

I really don't understand your reasoning. Granted, it's not my chosen path, either. But I don't see the internal stupidity that you're proclaiming.

azazel the cat wrote:

Hellfury wrote:
Repubs need to stick to fiscal conservatism. They would be more likely to get my votes that way instead of sticking their noses giant, cold, probing wands into peoples bedrooms and ovaries.

There. I fixed that for you.

Hellfury wrote:GOP is trying to prove you can catch more flies with vinegar than honey, but while they are succeeding at least partially, it still ignores that honey is better bait.

But out some balsamic vinegar and see what happens.

I get the impression that the religious extreme will be the direction that the GOP continues to head into, simply because it happens to coincide with nicely with corporate de-regulation, which is the real aim of the GOp, since that's where their money comes from. However, I think it's getting harder and harder to sell middle-class America on the latter, so it becomes more necessary to intertwince it with the former.

However, as an outside I suspect that I get only a very skewed perspective of all this from the media.

I'd agree if the Democrats did the same thing. Of course at that point that means everyone's a Libertarian - like me- yet I see all kinds people willing to get into my personal business.

Mannahnin wrote:Thanks, typo.

Romney's definitely the guy to play to moderates more, but the question is whether the folks who hate Obama and love Santorum will find Romney conservative enough to get out and vote for. If he spends the next four+ months running to the middle, especially.

Yeah, a good chunk of the GOP base doesn't like him already. How are they going to like Romney after he spends months courting moderates? And how would he court moderates, exactly? By changing his position *again* on things like abortion and health care? Flipflopper alert! Seriously, you can't say he'll "appeal to moderates" but act as though there'll be no repercussions for that.

Like I said earlier, it's quite the game of Twister when you don't have your base firmly behind you. It also doesn't help that they haven't found a central message for his campaign with any traction. It's good for him that it's only April, because his team has a lot of work to do.

Ouze wrote:In any event, I agree with Auston that, barring some utter fiasco on one side or the other, it's going to be a very tight race. I also agree that Romney should try to capture moderates, rather than conservatives. I think they will have more influence (the base is going to vote anyway, and their enthusiasm gap for Romney is going to be cancelled out for their dislike of Obama). It's going to be harder to appeal to the center after saying ridiculous hard-right stuff in the primaries, and frankly after his etch-a-sketch stuff he needs to strongly avoid the impression that his beliefs are utterly malleable.

The problem for Romney is that particular genie is already out of the bottle. Did you see the SNL skit with him at the RPGA conference, etc.? The flipflopper narrative is already out there and well-established. And Obama's team will be feeding that fire from now to November.

Truthfully I don't see how any politician in our era can avoid the "flipflopper" label with how clownish our primary system is. Maybe we can tweak our system to one that doesn't require you to say extreme nonsense to pander to your base and then, once nominated, distance yourself from all of those things you said in the long-ago dark days of, like, 3 months ago to appeal to the mainstream.

I really wish we'd abolish the whole electoral system entirely, truth be told. Maybe strict term limits all around, along with a jury duty style lottery for all currently elective offices.

azazel the cat wrote:Also: Can you guys answer a question for me? Why is so much of the country opposed to universal health care? I honestly just don't understand that sentiment. I can't imagine it's all just propaganda and misinformation, nor can I internally understand why people would not want it.

Are the stories of British ambulances sitting around with patients for hours waiting to get into the emergency rooms, etc, inaccurate?
Are the stories of Canadians coming to America for healthcare inaccurate?

I've heard that you purchase your meds up there, but come down here for procedures even though you have (theoretically) already ponied up for it up there.

Cheers, eh?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:

I don't know about that. Romney can't woo the rightiest rights without alienating moderates.

I thought this as well, but frankly while the rightest of the right will not like Romney, I think they don't like Obama more. They'll do what the rest of us do. Pick the lesser of two evils and to them, Romney I think is going to come out as the lesser evil.

Despite my dislike of Obama, even though I'm a far right wing conservative I could never vote for someone that based his life around a fraudulent religion concocted by Joe Smith.

I will vote 3rd party, as usual. I prefer to vote for someone, rather than the lesser of two evils.

Cheers,



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:I can't get behind "lower taxes = recovery". Low taxes + high expenditures + deregulation for eight years drove the economy into the hole, ....

Not really.
What created the financial crisis was started with the community reinvestment act. Janet Reno forced banks to give home loans to people that could not afford the house because of social justice. Banks were left holding bad loans, and being creative and profit-driven they came up with a way to bundle, market, and profit off of them as long as the bubble held.

Democrats in congress for years defended the CRA, despite warnings from experts and republicans.
Janet Reno forced banks to comply by threatening a governmental prostrate exam of their companies. Nobody wants that, even if you are clean!

It has been historically proven that low taxes does equal economic growth. anyone that says otherwise is lying, uninformed, or misinformed.
Government tinkering and micro/macro-managing hinders this process.

Deficit spending, regardless of how much revenue comes in, will hurt an economy because as the CRA proved, the bill always eventually comes in.

Cheers,