Ex-Cyber wrote:I think what's actually happened is that the Republican Party has been so successful at branding (both itself and the Democrats) and marketing "conservatism" as a tribal identification that the perception of the center has shifted right (even though polling on the issues themselves indicates much stronger support for "liberal" positions than this would suggest). Dennis Kucinich is now considered to be on the left fringe of the party; 50 or 60 years ago he'd probably be a mainstream (non-Southern) Democrat. Nixon would probably be considered a "RINO" by today's standards. It doesn't matter how far right the Democrats move, though; the Republican marketing machine will continue calling them the "far left" despite the presence of the Green Parties, the various Socialist Parties, and so on (even the Communist Party USA is still around, albeit with greatly diminished membership). Similarly, the "far right" is mostly represented by parties such as the Libertarian Party (on economic issues) and the Constitution Party (on both social and economic issues).
I believe both parties are moving more to the left now. Wouldn't the Democratic Party be the target for the more far-left if it is more left-wing than the Republican Party? The conservatism the Republicans are pushing now is pretty bullshit. I'd say Ron Paul is a true conservative, and he's mocked by the GOP and Fox News.
Clinton was rather centrist. His administration pushed for a balanced budget, passed "welfare-to-work", cut the number of government employees, and fought for tougher sentences for criminals.
While this is partially true, a few of those actions aforementioned were done after Newt Gengrich and the Republicans won the Senate. I believe he was definitely more liberal when the Democrats had majority in the first half of his first term. After the Republicans won, he did move more to center.
The main point of deficit spending in a recession is that demand has to come from somewhere in order to get the economy moving again. If the private sector is frozen/sluggish, the only other place that increased demand can come from is the government, whether by the government spending money or the Fed increasing interest rates.
These companies (like General Motors) aren't turning profits, so the government is really just backing up companies that are failing and adding to the debt in the process of "aiding the economy".
Maybe it's these restrictive policies the government has where companies are stuck behind so much bureaucracy and red tape that they're forced to pay millions of dollars to jump through bullshit inefficient hoops (unless they can bribe) that cripple industries until they go bankrupt or get swallowed up by the government.
For example, the plant my father used to work at, Finerran & Haley, was forced to undergo several changes to make it more environmentally-friendly back in 1993 that ended up costing them millions of dollars. In 1999-2000, they were forced upgrade everything that they bought because it was "obsolete" and had to take out everything added in '93, which cost even more money. This badly hurt the company, and a lot of it's productivity and jobs were cut due to it.
I can understand having policies protective of the environment (i.e. no dumping, proper recycling of wastes, cleaner burning smoke stacks, etc.), but what they did to the FH plant ended up destroying the company!
I'd say a good way for the government to make money is through maintenance of roads (as shown by toll boths, turnpikes, pike passes, etc.) and railroad tracks. A high-speed transcontinental railway could be incredibly profitable if utilized properly, but it'd require an incredible amount of work (jobs anyone? from construction to manufacturing to engineering) and effort. I know I'd prefer hopping on a train to Philadelphia or New York in about half the amount of time without traffic and driving.
