Think about it. Is that what you really want?
If Democrats take control of the White House and maintain control of both Houses of Congress it means one party controls both legislative and executive branches of government.
We've just went through six years when one party controlled both places. There were a lot of things that didn't go well. Before that we had six years when the power was split. There were some problems but as a whole things went well. It was only temporary but during those six years there was more fiscal responsibility than we've saw for forty years before that. It was only on paper but there was a surplus.
Let's take a look at some times past. Under LBJ we got heavy into Viet Nam and spent a ton of money and 50K lives. For what? LBJ's social programs in the "War on Poverty" have cost the US 6 trillion dollars so far and the figure is still climbing. Are we winning or losing this war?
Update:Under Carter we had inflation that was double digit and oil prices that went through the roof. If you think we are in a recession today you should have been around then.
I guess that is why LBJ chose not to run again and Carter was a one termer. Frankly if the Democrats hadn't run Kerry I believe Bush would have been a one termer as well. But that is just my uneducated opinion.
Answers & Comments
Verified answer
What I really want is someone that will fix things and not break anything else.
Clinton's reign economically was purely due to Regan-o-mics. We were at peace mostly until he cut the military budget to nearly nothing which balanced the books, but things broke. Then we had 9/11.
Carter was a joke. Kerry would have been a disaster. But you are right, it balances things out and one party does not have too much power.
More then anything I would like to see congress balance the budget and stop blaming the president. They are in charge of the check book.
EDIT: Sam C - I dont' think that war with Iran is immanent with anyone. Unfortunately we have let our military go since the early days of Clinton. In the process we have become vulnerable. And the UN is letting all these rogue governments have nukes. What the heck is up with that?
Actually Sam C, there's a SECOND choice: Ron Paul.
And he comes with the elimination of the IRS and a chance to reign in the Federal Reserve which makes him the better choice IMHO.
Let's get the hell out of Iraq, and then MAYBE we can talk about restoing the balance of power in Washington. Right now the president is basically ignoring the congress and doing what he wants. That's not a balance of power. If we need to give the democrats a supermajority in two branches of government to do a u-turn on our foreing policy and nominate some progressive justices to SCOTUS, then let's do that.
From the frying pan into the fire! Out of Iraq (MAYBE) and straight into Iran! With the possibility of nuclear war too!
And the national debt continuing to climb as well of course, as a result.
That's if we vote for either Clinton OR Obama. With McCain of course, there's the double whammy- war with Iran AND in Iraq!
And in response to the other question I got about this, yeah, there IS a danger, because Clinton and Obama and McCain all voted for the Lieberman-sponsored bill last year which gives covert authorisation for war against Iran.
There's only one real possible option on the Presidential ballot where we might avoid this fate.
Mike Gravel '08 (yeah, I think Paul would oppose military action in Iran too)
http://www.gravel2008.com/
To the Ron Paul supporter, yeah, did he vote against the Lieberman bill on Iran in Congress? I'm not sure.... but I just disagree with him (Paul) strongly on environmental issues and the 'Christian' Right stuff, his attitude to gun control, education policy, social justice, some aspects of health care policy, taxation policy and ESPECIALLY his attitude to immigration, social welfare and Social Security.
But yeah, opposing war with Iran would be Paul's likely position too I think.
Wait a minute,so what you are saying is that the prosperous Clinton years were because we had a Democratic president and a republican split house and senate.I thought it was because of Bill that we were so prosperous,at least that all we hear about.
Would'nt it be nice to have a balance of
power! Dem,Rep,Ind & such all working together for the
people of America! What a concept, it should be put in
writing! (yes, I'm being sarcastic!).
Democrats belong out of the White House. I like my paycheck going mostly to me.
No
I don't want either democrat candidate in the office. Both are too socialist leaning for me. Socialism is the basis for communism. Those who deny it are too blind to see it.
Check the numbers. According to this article in the Christian Science Monitor,
Income disparities in the United States grew substantially from 2002 to 2003, new Internal Revenue Service statistics indicate. After adjusting for inflation, the after-tax income of the richest 1 percent of households rose by 8.5 percent, or nearly $49,000 apiece - helped by the Bush tax cuts. The bottom 75 percent of filers saw real after-tax incomes fall. The middle fifth of taxpayers, for instance, lost $300.
----
So just to be clear, Republican policies make the top 1 percent richer by fifty grand each while those of us making less than fifty grand all year had less income.
If you make less than 50 grand, you are poorer now because of Republican policies
Honestly i don't mind so long as it's a democrat in the office and a Partially republican controlled senate. That is what we had in the clinton years and we seemed to have a great economy at the time.