Irreconcilable Differences?

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

It is pretty clear that, politically, our nation is split into two camps with antithetical views about the role of government..

I really think there are 3 groups. Two groups that are deeply committed to the liberal or conservative ideology, that spend a lot of time watching news shows, surfing the net, and discussing political issues. Then there's a third group that work 40+ hours a week, spending their evenings and weekends cleaning and working on the house, supervising homework, taking the kids to soccer practice, swimming meets, play dates, dental appointments, doctor appointments, paying bills, and church. Then after all the kids are in bed, the final hours of the day are spent dozing in front of the TV and catching 10 or 15 mins of news, weather and sports. And it's the third group that often determines election outcomes.

Actually I think the group you describe as the 'third group' are probably more politically involved and savvy than you think. They might not be as up on every detail as those of us haggling over stuff on a message board, but they know what is going on because it affects them, their jobs and businesses, and their families/children. If you call them up on a political survey, they will have answers for most of the questions and those answers will have some substance behind them.

For me the third group are those who don't have a clue. They probably know who Barack Obama is and who Sarah Palin is, but they can't tell you who is vice president or Speaker of the House or majority leader in the Senate or which party is in power in Washington or any details about anything in the news. If they vote at all it is purely on their impression of who is the good guys and who is the bad guys or who is sending them their government check.

See, I put them as sub groups within my two major groups. I mean read this message board. My God so many people with so many uneducated opinions, just someone has told them that X Party is better for them than Y Party and by God they will defend that party no matter what.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is pretty clear that, politically, our nation is split into two camps with antithetical views about the role of government..

I really think there are 3 groups. Two groups that are deeply committed to the liberal or conservative ideology, that spend a lot of time watching news shows, surfing the net, and discussing political issues. Then there's a third group that work 40+ hours a week, spending their evenings and weekends cleaning and working on the house, supervising homework, taking the kids to soccer practice, swimming meets, play dates, dental appointments, doctor appointments, paying bills, and church. Then after all the kids are in bed, the final hours of the day are spent dozing in front of the TV and catching 10 or 15 mins of news, weather and sports. And it's the third group that often determines election outcomes.

Actually I think the group you describe as the 'third group' are probably more politically involved and savvy than you think. They might not be as up on every detail as those of us haggling over stuff on a message board, but they know what is going on because it affects them, their jobs and businesses, and their families/children. If you call them up on a political survey, they will have answers for most of the questions and those answers will have some substance behind them.

For me the third group are those who don't have a clue. They probably know who Barack Obama is and who Sarah Palin is, but they can't tell you who is vice president or Speaker of the House or majority leader in the Senate or which party is in power in Washington or any details about anything in the news. If they vote at all it is purely on their impression of who is the good guys and who is the bad guys or who is sending them their government check.

See, I put them as sub groups within my two major groups. I mean read this message board. My God so many people with so many uneducated opinions, just someone has told them that X Party is better for them than Y Party and by God they will defend that party no matter what.

Yes there are those sub groups. The only thing they have to contribute to the board are personal insults, red herrings, straw men, non sequitur, etc. and/or cut and pasted materials that they could not articulate extemporaneously if their lives depended on it. The affectionate labels I use to identify these sub groups are 'trolls', 'idiots' and/or 'exercises in futility', or to save time "numbnuts". But these are different from my third group up there because they are participating in the process however ineptly or ignorantly or incompetently or whatever they are doing it.

That third group I described up there doesn't know, doesn't care, doesn't think about it, doesn't have any interest whatsoever in the process. They are tuned out, drugged out, zoned out, or just out of the loop in all regards.

 

[Rotagilla]

It is pretty clear that, politically, our nation is split into two camps with antithetical views about the role of government. As a result, we are moving towards a system where whichever side gains a temporary majority can dictate its views without any regard for the minority. This, in turn, creates a feeling of disenfranchisement which undermines confidence in our democracy and leads to civil unrest, which can be expressed in many ways.

One way to avoid this developing situation is to return to the concept of State Sovereignty as envisioned by our Founders in the Constitution. (I avoid the term "States Rights" because of its association with the obviously unconstitutional practice of racial segregation.) This concept, specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights, limited the Federal government's authority to impose its will on the various States without their consent. It was the basis upon which 13 political entities, with widely divergent views, were able to join together to create an exceptional new country. The beauty of this system is that it allows people to agree to disagree without infringing on each others' rights.

Why can't we return to that concept for the future? Why must one side impose its will on the other side on an increasing variety of social and moral issues? Why can't the people of individual states decide for themselves? We are all free to express our views with our ballots (and our feet, if necessary). What ever happened to tolerance for opposing viewpoints?

Zealots on both sides should reconsider their authoritarian positions, lest they reap what they have sown.

I think we're headed towards Civil War, and not in the way many would think.

40% of the populaton have turned into liberal idiots hell bent on shutting up anyone who dares disagree with them
40% of the population have turned into conservative idiots trying to do the same.

20% of the population are sick of all the idiots and just want to be left the hell alone as much as possible.

Us 20% are going to have to stand up and fight to shut the 80% up.

I'm sick of hearing about gay rights
I'm sick of hearing about abortion
I'm sick of hearing about an offensively named fish
I'm sick of hearing about things would be better if we didn't have a minimum wage law
I'm sick of hearing that the rep party hates women and minorities
I'm sick of hearing that Obama is a Kenyan Marxist

etc, etc, etc.

Common sense, decency , and actually caring about something other than our own selfish wants has became a minority in this country and that could be our doom as a nation.

I don't know about civil war...people vs gvmt....I think gvmt collapse, the bloodshed that always goes along with that because people will have to choose sides, then partitioning to keep the sides apart and stop the bloodshed and maintain peace.. and then reconstruction/founding of several smaller nations is a much more likely scenario than an all out rebellion of all people overthrowing the gvmt.
Hell, there are undoubtedly millions who think everything is great and these are good times in america.

 

[Flopper]

It is pretty clear that, politically, our nation is split into two camps with antithetical views about the role of government..

I really think there are 3 groups. Two groups that are deeply committed to the liberal or conservative ideology, that spend a lot of time watching news shows, surfing the net, and discussing political issues. Then there's a third group that work 40+ hours a week, spending their evenings and weekends cleaning and working on the house, supervising homework, taking the kids to soccer practice, swimming meets, play dates, dental appointments, doctor appointments, paying bills, and church. Then after all the kids are in bed, the final hours of the day are spent dozing in front of the TV and catching 10 or 15 mins of news, weather and sports. And it's the third group that often determines election outcomes.

Actually I think the group you describe as the 'third group' are probably more politically involved and savvy than you think. They might not be as up on every detail as those of us haggling over stuff on a message board, but they know what is going on because it affects them, their jobs and businesses, and their families/children. If you call them up on a political survey, they will have answers for most of the questions and those answers will have some substance behind them.

For me the third group are those who don't have a clue. They probably know who Barack Obama is and who Sarah Palin is, but they can't tell you who is vice president or Speaker of the House or majority leader in the Senate or which party is in power in Washington or any details about anything in the news. If they vote at all it is purely on some vague impression of who is the good guys and who is the bad guys or who is sending them their government check.

I think your 3rd group and mine are a lot closer than you think. I know a lot of people, some in my family that work long hours and spend almost all their free time on family obligations. There's no time to watch hour news programs in the evening or surf the net for political news and opinions. They want better schools, better job opportunities, better highways, better parks, better job security, better healthcare, better retirement, and of course lower taxes. However, when it comes to an intelligent opinion of how to achieve those desires they fall back on the same hackneyed statements of their parents. Eliminate waste and corruption in government. Throw the crooks out of office. We need to send good honest people to Washington. etc. etc..... .

 

[Flopper]

It is pretty clear that, politically, our nation is split into two camps with antithetical views about the role of government. As a result, we are moving towards a system where whichever side gains a temporary majority can dictate its views without any regard for the minority. This, in turn, creates a feeling of disenfranchisement which undermines confidence in our democracy and leads to civil unrest, which can be expressed in many ways.

One way to avoid this developing situation is to return to the concept of State Sovereignty as envisioned by our Founders in the Constitution. (I avoid the term "States Rights" because of its association with the obviously unconstitutional practice of racial segregation.) This concept, specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights, limited the Federal government's authority to impose its will on the various States without their consent. It was the basis upon which 13 political entities, with widely divergent views, were able to join together to create an exceptional new country. The beauty of this system is that it allows people to agree to disagree without infringing on each others' rights.

Why can't we return to that concept for the future? Why must one side impose its will on the other side on an increasing variety of social and moral issues? Why can't the people of individual states decide for themselves? We are all free to express our views with our ballots (and our feet, if necessary). What ever happened to tolerance for opposing viewpoints?

Zealots on both sides should reconsider their authoritarian positions, lest they reap what they have sown.

I think we're headed towards Civil War, and not in the way many would think.

40% of the populaton have turned into liberal idiots hell bent on shutting up anyone who dares disagree with them
40% of the population have turned into conservative idiots trying to do the same.

20% of the population are sick of all the idiots and just want to be left the hell alone as much as possible.

Us 20% are going to have to stand up and fight to shut the 80% up.

I'm sick of hearing about gay rights
I'm sick of hearing about abortion
I'm sick of hearing about an offensively named fish
I'm sick of hearing about things would be better if we didn't have a minimum wage law
I'm sick of hearing that the rep party hates women and minorities
I'm sick of hearing that Obama is a Kenyan Marxist

etc, etc, etc.

Common sense, decency , and actually caring about something other than our own selfish wants has became a minority in this country and that could be our doom as a nation.

I don't know about civil war...people vs gvmt....I think gvmt collapse, the bloodshed that always goes along with that because people will have to choose sides, then partitioning to keep the sides apart and stop the bloodshed and maintain peace.. and then reconstruction/founding of several smaller nations is a much more likely scenario than an all out rebellion of all people overthrowing the gvmt.
Hell, there are undoubtedly millions who think everything is great and these are good times in america.

Yes, there are millions of people who think things are pretty good now, maybe not as good as they could be but a lot better than 5 years ago. For example,5.5 million new immigrants and legal residents, those that scoffed at the doomsayers in 2009 and put their money in the stock market, people like my neighbor who was able to get a health insurance policy, or 6 million people that have jobs today that didn't 5 years ago.

 

[AtheistBuddah]

It is pretty clear that, politically, our nation is split into two camps with antithetical views about the role of government. As a result, we are moving towards a system where whichever side gains a temporary majority can dictate its views without any regard for the minority. This, in turn, creates a feeling of disenfranchisement which undermines confidence in our democracy and leads to civil unrest, which can be expressed in many ways.

One way to avoid this developing situation is to return to the concept of State Sovereignty as envisioned by our Founders in the Constitution. (I avoid the term "States Rights" because of its association with the obviously unconstitutional practice of racial segregation.) This concept, specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights, limited the Federal government's authority to impose its will on the various States without their consent. It was the basis upon which 13 political entities, with widely divergent views, were able to join together to create an exceptional new country. The beauty of this system is that it allows people to agree to disagree without infringing on each others' rights.

Why can't we return to that concept for the future? Why must one side impose its will on the other side on an increasing variety of social and moral issues? Why can't the people of individual states decide for themselves? We are all free to express our views with our ballots (and our feet, if necessary). What ever happened to tolerance for opposing viewpoints?

Zealots on both sides should reconsider their authoritarian positions, lest they reap what they have sown.

Firstly, cudos for a thoughtful and well put post.
I also have my own ideas for resolving our current political strife that I'd like to throw into the ring.

I think that if we start by taking a percentage of our numerous government budgets and putting it into the education budget we can use that money to emulate the education system of whatever country is currently #1 in education. Then we need to create an electoral system that discourages low information voting and encourages high voter turnout. Additionally we need to throw out the two party system we have and replace it with a multiparty system similar to what they have in India. The sheer number of different parties keeps any of them from becoming too large or too wealthy. This gives the common man a shot at higher office and allows our Congress to be more representative of all walks of life. I think if we did these few things that many of our problems would get worked out as a result.

 

[Flopper]

It is pretty clear that, politically, our nation is split into two camps with antithetical views about the role of government. As a result, we are moving towards a system where whichever side gains a temporary majority can dictate its views without any regard for the minority. This, in turn, creates a feeling of disenfranchisement which undermines confidence in our democracy and leads to civil unrest, which can be expressed in many ways.

One way to avoid this developing situation is to return to the concept of State Sovereignty as envisioned by our Founders in the Constitution. (I avoid the term "States Rights" because of its association with the obviously unconstitutional practice of racial segregation.) This concept, specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights, limited the Federal government's authority to impose its will on the various States without their consent. It was the basis upon which 13 political entities, with widely divergent views, were able to join together to create an exceptional new country. The beauty of this system is that it allows people to agree to disagree without infringing on each others' rights.

Why can't we return to that concept for the future? Why must one side impose its will on the other side on an increasing variety of social and moral issues? Why can't the people of individual states decide for themselves? We are all free to express our views with our ballots (and our feet, if necessary). What ever happened to tolerance for opposing viewpoints?

Zealots on both sides should reconsider their authoritarian positions, lest they reap what they have sown.

Firstly, cudos for a thoughtful and well put post.
I also have my own ideas for resolving our current political strife that I'd like to throw into the ring.

I think that if we start by taking a percentage of our numerous government budgets and putting it into the education budget we can use that money to emulate the education system of whatever country is currently #1 in education. Then we need to create an electoral system that discourages low information voting and encourages high voter turnout. Additionally we need to throw out the two party system we have and replace it with a multiparty system similar to what they have in India. The sheer number of different parties keeps any of them from becoming too large or too wealthy. This gives the common man a shot at higher office and allows our Congress to be more representative of all walks of life. I think if we did these few things that many of our problems would get worked out as a result.

I agree with some of your post with the exception of a multiparty system.
A basic problem with many multiparty systems is that it can be difficult to create a governing legislative majority. So the problem we have now in Congress which we hope is temporary becomes permanent.

 

[AtheistBuddah]

It is pretty clear that, politically, our nation is split into two camps with antithetical views about the role of government. As a result, we are moving towards a system where whichever side gains a temporary majority can dictate its views without any regard for the minority. This, in turn, creates a feeling of disenfranchisement which undermines confidence in our democracy and leads to civil unrest, which can be expressed in many ways.

One way to avoid this developing situation is to return to the concept of State Sovereignty as envisioned by our Founders in the Constitution. (I avoid the term "States Rights" because of its association with the obviously unconstitutional practice of racial segregation.) This concept, specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights, limited the Federal government's authority to impose its will on the various States without their consent. It was the basis upon which 13 political entities, with widely divergent views, were able to join together to create an exceptional new country. The beauty of this system is that it allows people to agree to disagree without infringing on each others' rights.

Why can't we return to that concept for the future? Why must one side impose its will on the other side on an increasing variety of social and moral issues? Why can't the people of individual states decide for themselves? We are all free to express our views with our ballots (and our feet, if necessary). What ever happened to tolerance for opposing viewpoints?

Zealots on both sides should reconsider their authoritarian positions, lest they reap what they have sown.

Firstly, cudos for a thoughtful and well put post.
I also have my own ideas for resolving our current political strife that I'd like to throw into the ring.

I think that if we start by taking a percentage of our numerous government budgets and putting it into the education budget we can use that money to emulate the education system of whatever country is currently #1 in education. Then we need to create an electoral system that discourages low information voting and encourages high voter turnout. Additionally we need to throw out the two party system we have and replace it with a multiparty system similar to what they have in India. The sheer number of different parties keeps any of them from becoming too large or too wealthy. This gives the common man a shot at higher office and allows our Congress to be more representative of all walks of life. I think if we did these few things that many of our problems would get worked out as a result.

I agree with some of your post with the exception of a multiparty system.
A basic problem with many multiparty systems is that it can be difficult to create a governing legislative majority. So the problem we have now in Congress which we hope is temporary becomes permanent.

It only becomes permanent if we don't foster a society that values compromise. Our very culture is part of our problem in our current system. Hopefully such a diversity of opinions would enrich the dialogue on capitol hill and the fact that there are so many parties would prevent the perpetual stalemate that we are stuck in now. It also doesn't make forming a voting majority on an issue impossible since like minded parties can band together temporarily for a vote. Every system has its problems the real thing to decide is which is the lesser of two evils?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

It is pretty clear that, politically, our nation is split into two camps with antithetical views about the role of government. As a result, we are moving towards a system where whichever side gains a temporary majority can dictate its views without any regard for the minority. This, in turn, creates a feeling of disenfranchisement which undermines confidence in our democracy and leads to civil unrest, which can be expressed in many ways.

One way to avoid this developing situation is to return to the concept of State Sovereignty as envisioned by our Founders in the Constitution. (I avoid the term "States Rights" because of its association with the obviously unconstitutional practice of racial segregation.) This concept, specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights, limited the Federal government's authority to impose its will on the various States without their consent. It was the basis upon which 13 political entities, with widely divergent views, were able to join together to create an exceptional new country. The beauty of this system is that it allows people to agree to disagree without infringing on each others' rights.

Why can't we return to that concept for the future? Why must one side impose its will on the other side on an increasing variety of social and moral issues? Why can't the people of individual states decide for themselves? We are all free to express our views with our ballots (and our feet, if necessary). What ever happened to tolerance for opposing viewpoints?

Zealots on both sides should reconsider their authoritarian positions, lest they reap what they have sown.

Firstly, cudos for a thoughtful and well put post.
I also have my own ideas for resolving our current political strife that I'd like to throw into the ring.

I think that if we start by taking a percentage of our numerous government budgets and putting it into the education budget we can use that money to emulate the education system of whatever country is currently #1 in education. Then we need to create an electoral system that discourages low information voting and encourages high voter turnout. Additionally we need to throw out the two party system we have and replace it with a multiparty system similar to what they have in India. The sheer number of different parties keeps any of them from becoming too large or too wealthy. This gives the common man a shot at higher office and allows our Congress to be more representative of all walks of life. I think if we did these few things that many of our problems would get worked out as a result.

That is insane, no offense.

We already spend more per student than almost every nation on Earth.

 

[SixFoot]

It is pretty clear that, politically, our nation is split into two camps with antithetical views about the role of government. As a result, we are moving towards a system where whichever side gains a temporary majority can dictate its views without any regard for the minority. This, in turn, creates a feeling of disenfranchisement which undermines confidence in our democracy and leads to civil unrest, which can be expressed in many ways.

One way to avoid this developing situation is to return to the concept of State Sovereignty as envisioned by our Founders in the Constitution. (I avoid the term "States Rights" because of its association with the obviously unconstitutional practice of racial segregation.) This concept, specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights, limited the Federal government's authority to impose its will on the various States without their consent. It was the basis upon which 13 political entities, with widely divergent views, were able to join together to create an exceptional new country. The beauty of this system is that it allows people to agree to disagree without infringing on each others' rights.

Why can't we return to that concept for the future? Why must one side impose its will on the other side on an increasing variety of social and moral issues? Why can't the people of individual states decide for themselves? We are all free to express our views with our ballots (and our feet, if necessary). What ever happened to tolerance for opposing viewpoints?

Zealots on both sides should reconsider their authoritarian positions, lest they reap what they have sown.

The two party system has wrongly dominated our political environment for a long time now. The DNC and the RNC are nothing more than the remnants of the single Democratic Republican Party of yesteryear, i.e. a one party hill.

I think we all need to stop pretending they aren't all in bed with the same lobbyists, the same corporations etc..

 

[Flopper]

It is pretty clear that, politically, our nation is split into two camps with antithetical views about the role of government. As a result, we are moving towards a system where whichever side gains a temporary majority can dictate its views without any regard for the minority. This, in turn, creates a feeling of disenfranchisement which undermines confidence in our democracy and leads to civil unrest, which can be expressed in many ways.

One way to avoid this developing situation is to return to the concept of State Sovereignty as envisioned by our Founders in the Constitution. (I avoid the term "States Rights" because of its association with the obviously unconstitutional practice of racial segregation.) This concept, specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights, limited the Federal government's authority to impose its will on the various States without their consent. It was the basis upon which 13 political entities, with widely divergent views, were able to join together to create an exceptional new country. The beauty of this system is that it allows people to agree to disagree without infringing on each others' rights.

Why can't we return to that concept for the future? Why must one side impose its will on the other side on an increasing variety of social and moral issues? Why can't the people of individual states decide for themselves? We are all free to express our views with our ballots (and our feet, if necessary). What ever happened to tolerance for opposing viewpoints?

Zealots on both sides should reconsider their authoritarian positions, lest they reap what they have sown.

Firstly, cudos for a thoughtful and well put post.
I also have my own ideas for resolving our current political strife that I'd like to throw into the ring.

I think that if we start by taking a percentage of our numerous government budgets and putting it into the education budget we can use that money to emulate the education system of whatever country is currently #1 in education. Then we need to create an electoral system that discourages low information voting and encourages high voter turnout. Additionally we need to throw out the two party system we have and replace it with a multiparty system similar to what they have in India. The sheer number of different parties keeps any of them from becoming too large or too wealthy. This gives the common man a shot at higher office and allows our Congress to be more representative of all walks of life. I think if we did these few things that many of our problems would get worked out as a result.

I agree with some of your post with the exception of a multiparty system.
A basic problem with many multiparty systems is that it can be difficult to create a governing legislative majority. So the problem we have now in Congress which we hope is temporary becomes permanent.

It only becomes permanent if we don't foster a society that values compromise. Our very culture is part of our problem in our current system. Hopefully such a diversity of opinions would enrich the dialogue on capitol hill and the fact that there are so many parties would prevent the perpetual stalemate that we are stuck in now. It also doesn't make forming a voting majority on an issue impossible since like minded parties can band together temporarily for a vote. Every system has its problems the real thing to decide is which is the lesser of two evils?

You need only look at other nations such as France that are cursed with many political parties. As you increase the number of political parties in government, it may or may not increase the representation of the people, however it almost always increases instability. In the US, control of the House and Senate would not be determined by the voters but by deals made between parties. Congress could be controlled by one faction one week and another the next week, In our system this can mean new leadership in House and Senate, changes in committee leadership and membership, and a new agenda which may only last only for weeks until another coalition forms. Instability in government is reflected throughout society. Since the American revolution France has had a dozen attempted coups, insurrections, civil wars, and revolution. They are now on their 5th republic.

The chaos we see in the Iraqi government is caused by the 22 separate parties and coalitions fighting for control of the government.

We may think the two party system doesn't work well but it works a lot better than a government controlled by a number of parties. As the saying goes "too many hands in the kitchen spoils the broth".

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

The American Idiotic voter let this happen.

Has ANYONE noticed that our government function best when the same party doesn't control the executive and the legislative?

IT FORCES compromise. Look at what we see today, the liberal Democrats just don't give a shit what anyone thinks as they ramrod their crap through, and don't think for a second that the conservatives wouldn't do the same thing if they controlled both Congress and the White House.

 

[Flopper]

The American Idiotic voter let this happen.

Has ANYONE noticed that our government function best when the same party doesn't control the executive and the legislative?

IT FORCES compromise. Look at what we see today, the liberal Democrats just don't give a shit what anyone thinks as they ramrod their crap through, and don't think for a second that the conservatives wouldn't do the same thing if they controlled both Congress and the White House.

I have seen damn little compromise in congress since the Republicans took control of the House. The 114th Congress will probably be less productive than the 113th which holds the record.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

The American Idiotic voter let this happen.

Has ANYONE noticed that our government function best when the same party doesn't control the executive and the legislative?

IT FORCES compromise. Look at what we see today, the liberal Democrats just don't give a shit what anyone thinks as they ramrod their crap through, and don't think for a second that the conservatives wouldn't do the same thing if they controlled both Congress and the White House.

I have seen damn little compromise in congress since the Republicans took control of the House. The 114th Congress will probably be less productive than the 113th which holds the record.

Every rule has an exception

 

[jwoodie]

The American Idiotic voter let this happen.

Has ANYONE noticed that our government function best when the same party doesn't control the executive and the legislative?

IT FORCES compromise. Look at what we see today, the liberal Democrats just don't give a shit what anyone thinks as they ramrod their crap through, and don't think for a second that the conservatives wouldn't do the same thing if they controlled both Congress and the White House.

I have seen damn little compromise in congress since the Republicans took control of the House. The 114th Congress will probably be less productive than the 113th which holds the record.

Don't forget that the ACA was passed without a single Republican vote and before newly elected Scott Brown (R-MA) could take his seat in the Senate. This is reminiscent of the 1993-94 federal budget that was ramrodded through Congress by the Democrats. Contrary to popular misconception, this budget (10/1/93-9/30/94) had nothing to do with the 1993 economic recovery and contributed to the 1994 slowdown which helped the GOP take over the House and Senate. The subsequent economic expansion resulted from Clinton working with the Republicans, something that Obama and the Senate Democrats have refused to do.