TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › It is time for a third political party in the United States***
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

It is time for a third political party in the United States***

post #1 of 27
Thread Starter 
Neither the Dem or Repub party want to protect our borders. Dems want the votes that come with pandering, and Repubs are just as bad seeking cheap labor for their big business base.

Neither party wants to cut spending. The national debt is a disgrace, and our children and grandchildren will pay for it. Neither party has a meaningful plan for restoring the manufacturing base to this country. Both parties pray at the alter of free trade, while America watches its industrial base get outsourced all over the globe. Industry is what made this country great. History has proven time and time again that free trade doest work. America used to consume 96% of what it manufactured. Now we are a consumer country of foreign goods, and all that money is going to buy up America's property, and its stocks and treasuries. We have become "owned" by China, Japan, and other countries.

Neither party understands American military power and what it has been historically used for. Repubs now think its our job to build democracy all over the globe. The Dems talk a good game by objecting to our presence in Iraq, but then call for American military intervention in Darfur, a place that has nothing to do with our national security. We are not the world's police. We have survived and thrived by being stingy with our military power. No country in history has ever survived spending blood and treasure fighting never ending wars.

Neither party has the courage to face the impending financial disaster looming in Medicare and Social Security, and other entitlement spending. With boomers ready to retire by the millions, these systems will soon be bankrupt unless action is taken NOW. If we wait until it happens, you will see massive unprecedented increases in taxes, reductions in benefits, and the scaling back of the eligibility date for social security to well past 70 years of age. What politician will take on the big companies in this Country that are completely wiping out worker defined benefit pensions, in place of useless 401K's, the biggest fraud ever perpetrated upon the American worker. The median balance of the 401K's in this country is $17,000! Try retiring on that. But it costs these companies much less to fund 401K's, than it does to fund a pension. What politician is willing to expose this sham???

Neither party has the backbone to completely eliminate big money lobbyists who literally buy votes for their special interests rendering the average Jane and Joe American practically powerless in the political process. Both parties pay lip service to lobbying reform, but they all want their free international trips and perks. Then they say that curtailing lobbyists is restricting their rights of political speech, and first amendment rights. Well let them do what I do, send letters to my congressmen and Senators, and let them know how I feel. They shouldnt be heard more than anyone else simply because they enclose a $100,000 with their letter.

Where are the leaders of this country with backbone and integrity, that wont sell us out so they can keep power?????? This country is heading for a huge crisis, and soon. We need a third ploitical party to save this Country from ruin.
post #2 of 27
There are probably over 50 parties you can choose from. You don't need to be of the major two, especially if they do not fit your ideals. Liberatarians are on the rise. Will we ever have a dominant 3rd party that could take presidancy? Probably not for a long time. Our government will have to get a lot worse for people to abandon their obligate party. If you feel so strongly then you should look into a new party.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._United_States
post #3 of 27
I"m trying to understand your logic here too... Whats the problem with companies offering 401k's? I would hardly look at an average or median amount in a 401k because we do not know where that statistic comes from. You need to look at what the value of all retiree's 401k's are for that statistic to be remotely valid (ie most young people do nto contribute - this is there fault but nonetheless will skew the statistic, not to mention newly opened 401k's will also skew the statistic). And even then most retiree's have not been offered 401k's for their lifetime.

Most people I know with 401k's heading into retirement have well over $250,000 in them and that was only offered for a portion of their working life unlike people right out of college. For those that are not offered 401k's then a pension should be offered. Of course a combination of benefits would be best. Is it the governments job to dictate how a company awards benefits? The people drive benefits. If I'm unhappy with what a company offers, I go elsewhere. They lose and if they lose enough they have to change.

I agree with you on social security. It is a problem that I thought Bush would handle but it has taken a back seat and I'm afraid no one will face it until its to late. I'm also of the opinion that I can take care of myself but I've seen how social security can be incredibly beneficial to those who need it though.
post #4 of 27
Boy do I hear ya on most of your talking points! (Although I disagree about 401(k)'s being useless - it puts the individual in control and OWNING their own retirement, which I think is always better that depending on someone else to do it for you.)

I am a conservative, and I believe in the traditional conservative principles - small government, big individual rights, and I don't believe that religion should trump logic because not everyone has the same religious beliefs (i.e. abortion, gay marriage). Unfortunately, what USED to be the GOP base thought now has to be redefined - I'm a fiscal and governmental conservative and social libertarian (because of the religion thing). And even that doesn't fit anymore as there is no such thing in national government as a true fiscally conservative politician.

So who in the heck can I support? I'm getting closer and closer to the Libertarians on many issues simply because their main premise is individual freedom, although there are some points I simply don't agree with and other questions I have yet to see addressed. The GOP has become a *******ized version of itself, and I feel like the Democrats are the same thing. Of the 50 "3rd" parties on the last presidential ticket, at least 30 were Socialist parties, which I am absolutely 100% against.

Somehow, I would love to see the parties just centralize themselves. Both Republicans and Democrats seem to think they have to cater to the right and left fringe extremists, especially when it comes to a Presidential nomination.
post #5 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolarityBengals
There are probably over 50 parties you can choose from. You don't need to be of the major two, especially if they do not fit your ideals. Liberatarians are on the rise. Will we ever have a dominant 3rd party that could take presidancy? Probably not for a long time. Our government will have to get a lot worse for people to abandon their obligate party. If you feel so strongly then you should look into a new party.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._United_States
Thats true, but the problem with that is there is virtually no chance of your candidate winning. Way too many citizens will only vote Dem or Rep. I've tried voting for the less popular parties and just ended up throwing away my vote.
post #6 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb
So who in the heck can I support?
McCain? I was giving this question some serious thought today, and he's the only potential Presidential candidate that I feel is autonomous enough to resist partisan politics. This is going to sound crazy, but the "ideal ticket" for me at present would be McCain/H. Clinton. I don't want anybody who tries to appeal to the extremists in either big party. I would love to see a female running for a major office, but the Concubine/Stepford Wife II (Condi) has been tarred with the same brush as Rumsfeld and Cheney.
post #7 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat
McCain? I was giving this question some serious thought today, and he's the only potential Presidential candidate that I feel is autonomous enough to resist partisan politics. This is going to sound crazy, but the "ideal ticket" for me at present would be McCain/H. Clinton. I don't want anybody who tries to appeal to the extremists in either big party. I would love to see a female running for a major office, but the Concubine/Stepford Wife II (Condi) has been tarred with the same brush as Rumsfeld and Cheney.
I think the unbeatable ticket (and level headed to boot!) would be McCain/Guilliani. Well, from a right-biased point of view.

The problem as I see it is that McCain isn't extreme enough to get the ultra-Republican vote, which is what the nomination process is all about. And the exact reason you would like him (he's independent enough not to pander to the party) is why they don't want him to get any more powerful than he is.

Hillary may get the nomination because although she is trying to go (or appear) more middle-of-the-road right now, her track record is clearly very left of center.

Unfortunately, the way the process is set up, they have to appeal to the extremists of whichever party they choose in order to get the nomination, because it's the hard core of the party that are involved in that portion of the election process. And that leaves the 85-90% of the population who aren't extremists (on either side) choosing the lesser of two evils, because neither represent our interests.
post #8 of 27
There are third parties already... but they are too small to win any important elections. How would a new third party become well known enough to even become a threat to the two parties already in existance?
post #9 of 27
Actually, the majority of voters in the US are registered as Independent. Not the Independent party, but as in not Dem/Rep. I've worked on several campaigns, and the rosters of voters always have an extremely heavy number of I's next to the names. If you've never voted in a primary, yours most likely does as well. What we need to do is send a message that partisan politics is doing nothing helpful by refusing to vote just one party or the other and examine each candidate by their attributes, and refuse to vote for candidates who do nothing but follow the party line. That said, our situation in America is still, partisan-politics-wise, significantly better than in Britain.

Heidi- My political views could only be described as far-left (though I share some social libertarian with you) and I would vote for McCain! Not Guiliani, though.

We need to stop thinking of ourselves as members of any political party and start thinking about everything for ourselves without any preconceived labels attached. I think everyone would vote differently if they ran like judges, with no (D) or (R) or anything else next to their name. Then people would actually have to know what they stood for! Third parties are, currently, a joke. They are not meant to be voted for, even to themselves usually, and mostly just use the power of whatever support they do have to swing mainstream politicians slightly their way. Such as, if Ralph Nader were not a complete traitor to those who supported him for many years, he would have backed Al Gore after negotiating, say, some environmental policy promises out of him. The same thing is true on the right.

Basically, you can't argue for a three-party system because it will eventually succumb to the same problems as a two-party system. What will happen is the middle-ground folk will become one party and extremists on both sides will become two more and it will be the same as always. What we do need is to gradually forget about political parties in general and vote on issues and history rather than membership in some ever-changing esoteric "group".
post #10 of 27
Personally I think the US needs a labor party, one that is quiet on social issues but fights for workers rights and the middle class. I could care less about all these social issues like abortion and stem cell research and on and on... but what I want is someone to help the working class by stop this outsourcing and globalization. We need to go back to a manufactuing economy because this service economy SUCKS !!! You either have to be a Dr, or a Lawyer, or move other peoples money around. What happend to the good ole days when you good make a great wage and support a family by going to work in the factory? It makes me sick how far the US has gone down the crapper. All the republicans care about is putting more money in the pockets of corporate america . It will not be long before there is NO middle class, you will either be REALLY POOR, POOR, or FILTHY RICH. I just finished law school. Do I want to be a lawyer? HELL NO. I did as a matter of survival. In NY it costs you at least a million to buy a single family house in good neigborhood, or at least 400,000-500,000 in a slightly ghetto neigborhood. How do you afford that without making a 6 figure salary?

And the Democracts, They dont care about you unless you are on welfare or make less then 10,000 a year. the middle class is the largest group of people in this country, yet we have NO representation.

May I make a suggestion, Write in votes for Lou dobbs
post #11 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by touro1979
Personally I think the US needs a labor party, one that is quiet on social issues but fights for workers rights and the middle class. I could care less about all these social issues like abortion and stem cell research and on and on... but what I want is someone to help the working class by stop this outsourcing and globalization. We need to go back to a manufactuing economy because this service economy SUCKS !!! You either have to be a Dr, or a Lawyer, or move other peoples money around. What happend to the good ole days when you good make a great wage and support a family by going to work in the factory? It makes me sick how far the US has gone down the crapper. All the republicans care about is putting more money in the pockets of corporate america . It will not be long before there is NO middle class, you will either be REALLY POOR, POOR, or FILTHY RICH. I just finished law school. Do I want to be a lawyer? HELL NO. I did as a matter of survival. In NY it costs you at least a million to buy a single family house in good neigborhood, or at least 400,000-500,000 in a slightly ghetto neigborhood. How do you afford that without making a 6 figure salary?

And the Democracts, They dont care about you unless you are on welfare or make less then 10,000 a year. the middle class is the largest group of people in this country, yet we have NO representation.

May I make a suggestion, Write in votes for Lou dobbs
Um... Touro, can you tell us how you really feel (just kidding) Seriously, you make some excellent points.
post #12 of 27
Thread Starter 
Thanks for the comments. Just a couple of thoughts...on the 401k's..it was NEVER enacted to be a replacement for retirement benefits. Its origianl purpose had nothing to do with retirement. It was really a tax shelter for affluent Americans. The person that mentioned that many people they know are retiring with $250,000 in their account, well that wont do much for them. If you invest that amount in conservative investments because you want to preserve the principal, lets say you are lucky to get 5%; thats $12,500 a year!! Thats hardly something to live on. Defined benefit plans on the other hand would yield $20,000-35,000 a year (unless of course you are a Senator or a Congressman; then you get a yearly $100,000+ pension from the taxpayers). The 401k's cost less to fund and run, thats why companies are dumping their "normal" pension plans.

For Valanhb, you are right, Repubs have abandoned Reagan conservatism, and it is killing the Country. But there is nobody in the higher echelon of the Repub party at this time that fits that bill. The closest is Pat Buchanan, but he has already shown that he cannot win. The Repub party has been taken over by the neoconservatives, who are big gov't, big interventionist, free trading "conservatives".
post #13 of 27
ANd like I said those that retire with that much were only offered 401k's for a portion of their life and have a combination of pension to back their savings. 401k's have not been around THAT long for current retirees to take advantage of. I project to have more than a million in my 401k or a combination of accounts so I can retire comfortably. The problem is people don't plan for their futures early enough and take financial responsibilities for themselves. I'm only 23 and am well on my way to saving for retirement. I also take a minimal goverment point of view and I don't see the job of the goverment as making sure everyone can retire comfortably, thats a personal responsibility.

What happens when a company goes bankrupt. Your pension is gone! Even if you worked there for 40 years, you lose. 401k's puts the money in your own name, once its in and vested nobody but you can touch it. To me that means financial security. Pensions are uncertain.
post #14 of 27
Thread Starter 
What happens when a company goes bankrupt. Your pension is gone! Even if you worked there for 40 years, you lose. 401k's puts the money in your own name, once its in and vested nobody but you can touch it. To me that means financial security. Pensions are uncertain.[/quote][Solarity Bengals]
_________________________________________________________
Pensions are guaranteed by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, although that has its problems with funding as well. But generally speaking the days of losing your pension to bankrupt companies have long been over. (though you can still lose your post retirement health benefits which are being slashed left and right now) 401k's for most people are not the answer, You may have more discipline etc and that is good. Most people dont. And if they reach retirement age without a safety net such as Soc Security, they will become your burden as a taxpayer anyway. Also what about the millions of people who are stuck in a 401k with only the stock of their company? Witness what happened with Enron. Some people with million dollar balances in their 401K lost everything in a matter of days. If you want to self-direct your investments, that can be done with IRA's and some other vehicles. But selling employee America on 401k's as your retirement is a total sham IMHO.
post #15 of 27
What about people laid off about 10 years before retirement age? They might get a cash package but probably nothing close to full pension they had built up. A good friend of mine had this happen.

I would never invest in a company 401k with only company stock. No more than 2-5% of investment should be in your own company. In that case an IRA is certainly a better option.

Also if you leave a company your 401k can go with you. Your pension does not. The best you can do is take the cash package and invest that in an IRA. Job movement is something that should not be discouraged. Pension plans do encourage people to stay with the same company because you severely lose out if you move. Sometimes movement is for the best, just to keep your skills competitive at least.
post #16 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolarityBengals
ANd like I said those that retire with that much were only offered 401k's for a portion of their life and have a combination of pension to back their savings. 401k's have not been around THAT long for current retirees to take advantage of. I project to have more than a million in my 401k or a combination of accounts so I can retire comfortably. The problem is people don't plan for their futures early enough and take financial responsibilities for themselves. I'm only 23 and am well on my way to saving for retirement. I also take a minimal goverment point of view and I don't see the job of the goverment as making sure everyone can retire comfortably, thats a personal responsibility.

What happens when a company goes bankrupt. Your pension is gone! Even if you worked there for 40 years, you lose. 401k's puts the money in your own name, once its in and vested nobody but you can touch it. To me that means financial security. Pensions are uncertain.
Prior to Sept 11 2001 I would have agreed... but I have seen the down side to investing for yourself via my mother ... for example .. mutual fund one had 35000 on sept 10th 2001 by the next year it was worth 4900 which was far less than she put in about 12 yrs prior.......
post #17 of 27
There are risks but some funds are riskier than others. This has to be adjusted the closer the person gets to retirement. The younger you are the more agressive the investment, the older the more conservative. If your money is sitting in a savings account and not making about 5% a year then it will hardly be keeping up with inflation, so essentially you are losing money every year. Its true you could lose money very fast in any investment (I have also seen this with my dad) but mostly it was becuase he had to much company stock and to aggressive of funds for his age. The idea with the market is to ride out bumps, yes it may look bad for a while but on average you should see improvement in the long-run.
post #18 of 27
When the 2008 election year does come, it will be interesting to see which way the U.S. votes.
I'm sure everyone will agree, the Dems didn't pick a strong candidate for the 2004 election. To me it's almost like they wanted Bush to win again. Kerry couldn't keep what he said straight.

I think that one thing DOES need to be changed in the Elections is the electoral votes. The majority of Americans have a TV and access to the internet in some way (work, home, cafe). We aren't rural America anymore, we've become urbanized. Information is extremely accessible to us and most of us have gotten a decent education to form an opinion.

There have only been a few presidents that were of a third party. I think Jefferson may have been of the Wigs party, and There was one more. I can't remember his name though.
post #19 of 27
Political parties have changed names so many times its crazy. Here's a good link:http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/platforms.php

The Whigs were not a third party. They also were part of a two-party system, if you scroll on down there. No third party has ever done anything particularly successful aside from anomalies like Jesse Ventura in MN and Ross Perot. And if there's one thing both sides of the aisle agree on, its keeping third parties out at all costs. The American political system is a two-party one and there is no way to simply have a third party of equal importance without radical overthrow and reform of the current one or else hundreds of years.
post #20 of 27
I agree. A strong third party runnign usually takes the votes away from a rep or dem lopsided enough that the oposite party will almost always win.
post #21 of 27
I disagree about getting rid of the electoral college. I think that is still a good system, although those who supported Gore disagree. The reason is the same as it was when it was created: There are still central places with a higher density of population, such as New York and LA. Get rid of the electoral college and places like Wyoming, South Dakota and Utah may as well not even bother to vote because there is no way they could be heard over the 2-3 big cities that comprise a larger population (each city) than their whole state. While the US is becoming more urbanized, it certainly isn't without rural areas and less populated areas. Their voice should be heard as loudly as the cities, which was the point of the electoral college.
post #22 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb
I disagree about getting rid of the electoral college. I think that is still a good system, although those who supported Gore disagree. The reason is the same as it was when it was created: There are still central places with a higher density of population, such as New York and LA. Get rid of the electoral college and places like Wyoming, South Dakota and Utah may as well not even bother to vote because there is no way they could be heard over the 2-3 big cities that comprise a larger population (each city) than their whole state. While the US is becoming more urbanized, it certainly isn't without rural areas and less populated areas. Their voice should be heard as loudly as the cities, which was the point of the electoral college.
But are they heard? I doubt it. How many candidates actually campaign in states like Alaska, Wyoming, or Montana? Three electoral votes are "nothing". Despite the existence of the electoral college, it's the states with high population densities that get the attention and "pork".
I was a bit dismayed when I received my absentee ballot for my home state's primary election, since I was required to vote for an equal number of male and female candidates for the state legislature. The system is simply too complicated, and distorts the "people's will".
post #23 of 27
People in all of the US hardly bother to vote...

I think the Electoral college is a joke. It was established not to give everyone an equal voice but because the founders didn't trust the American people and wanted a safeguard in case we ever decided to vote someone like, say, Hitler or Pol Pot into office due to mass hysteria or something.

Also, why should someone living in a less populous area have a vote thats worth more than people living in cities? I don't know if you've thought about this, but rural folk tend to be more conservative... thus the backing for the Electoral college. It gives less voice to the already disenfranchised poor and minorities in densly populated districts. You've already said so yourself, Heidi, just the other way around. If less dense populations' votes count as more, then wouldn't more dense populations' votes count less? And who lives in the densest populated districts, esp after the finagling they do with "redistricting" to make sure there are districts that are mostly minority or poor or both? That is the stated purpose of redistricting, but supposedly its supposed to help said people have their own representation. In reality, it prevents the people from spilling over to neighboring districts where their votes might tip the balance one way or the other.

Everyone's vote should count as exactly one vote.

Also, the electoral college is one of the reasons that nobody votes, they think their vote doesn't count for anything because, well, in some cases it doesn't! It's an outdated system, it discourages people from voting, and it creates a system in which typically Conservative people's votes count more than typically liberal(ler) people's votes. Just look at the detailed reports of Florida or Ohio sometime if you don't believe me, or polls of people as to why they won't vote.
post #24 of 27
I'm telling you straight out - if New York and LA (or the more densely populated coasts, if you will) chose the president every election because of the abolition of the electoral college, there would be another civil war in not too long. As it stands, the last few elections have been so close that I still think it's a fair system (and yes, I'm referring to the Clinton elections too). Just because your boys lost the last two doesn't mean the system needs an overhaul.

But I can see your point about some not feeling as if their vote means anything. A democrat voting in Wyoming would be about as pointless as a republican in Massachusetts in a Presidential election. But that's also why I will never be moving to Massachusetts.
post #25 of 27
If you do the math though you typically have 2 candidates and 50 states. Wyoming may not be heard as well since the census reports them at an est. 509 thousand. However, they're not voting just alone. They're heard with the rest of the nation: say California (36 Million) and Wyoming team up for the Dem. candidate. that would equal 36.5 Mil votes for 1 candidate.

(http://www.census.gov/popest/states/NST-ann-est.html)
Or maybe just do 1 vote per state. Depending on which candidate the state chooses, that's one vote from the state. Use DC as the oddball number and then we can do a 25/26 vote.

I admit I didn't vote for a long times because I figured what's the purpose if my opinion really isn't heard. I finally voted in this last election.

Oh, and as for my comment about the third party presidents...my high school teacher LIED to me. then my college prof was just too cute...and I was studying other things
post #26 of 27
You know, I kept thinking about this Third Party notion last night. Honestly, I do not think it will work. Let me give you an example,
You grew up middle class. You buy a little higher end clothes, such as from the GAP, or Hudson's. One day you meet and marry a man that's from old money. You two live in a neighborhood that is wealthy. Your neighbors have swimming pools, jacuzzis, ponds all in their backyards. They take skiing trips to the Alps. Are you going to keep going about your middle class ways? As much as you're thinking "No" right now, it is the American culture and a bit of human nature that we want more. Even if you decide "Oh maybe 1 swimming pool in the backyard won't hurt", that's giving in.
My example would illustrate the notion for a third party. S/he would get into politics, and demostrate that they're about the middle class. They would grow in their careers and maybe one day the citizens elect them into the office of presidency. After promises of fixing social security, fixing medicare, fixing the military and stopping this bloodshed, s/he may or may not be able to do it. Even if s/he did do it, there still would be some light that would shine in his favor that would make him seem that he got corrupted.
Plus this may make one class of the U.S. happy, say the middle class, but then you have the lower class and the upper class that would complain and begin threads in a similar fashion as this one is.

I don't think a third party would fix what is wrong with our government. They could in turn make it worse then better. I think that we, as citizens, need to become participates in the primaries prior to election. If you're listed as "Independent" on your voting card, then join both the republican and democratic party. Not all Republicans are extreme right-wings and not all democrates are extreme left wings. There are some politians that are smack in the middle of it all. By YOU participating in the primaries, YOU can learn more about the potential party candidates and help choose them to become a presidential candidate.
Then in turn, YOU vote for them on election day. This nation was built "Of the people, by the people, for the people". We are the people. We're all intelligent people, let's start acting like it!!!!

*steps off soapbox*
post #27 of 27
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough on expressing what I think should happen...
It shouldn't matter where you live, your vote should count as one vote. If New York and LA end up electing all the presidents then thats because the majority of the population lives there-- which isn't true, and wouldn't happen. Why should it be the reverse, with rural America deciding who should govern everyone? It comes down to whether you want a conservative or a liberal president, doesn't it? You want a conservative one, so of course you want the electoral college. I don't so why would I want to maintain a system which helps them win?

Oh, and Bush didn't win the first election he ran in... which is another reason the electoral college is bad. Even when someone actually loses the election they can still become President. And yes, this also happened with Kennedy, I know.

Also, as for all states getting equal representation-- that is accounted for already. The House of Representatives goes by population in your state, so that each person is equally represented. Then every single state gets two, no more, no less, Senators in the Senate, which is the more important one anyway. So, folks in Wyoming are way over-represented in the Senate to make up for the fact that their vote doesn't mean piddly in the House.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › It is time for a third political party in the United States***