I have to admit it was pretty giddy around here yesterday, at least among those voting Democrat. A veritable "ding dong the Witch is dead" feeling surfaced when we heard Rumsfeld had resigned. It felt like the ending of The Return of the Jedi, complete with cloying ewoks prancing around. And yes, I DO mean the annoying version. There's a reason for that.
Frankly, I'm not surprised by the reaction. This is the first "Election Results" day since the 90's that I haven't greeted with a mixture of horror and contempt. And it's not like some of the giddiness isn't justified, I think. After all, Democrats needed about 16 seats in the House to take control, they got 33. Prior to the election, the Senate was questionable at best, but by the end of the day, we'd taken the Senate back as well. Democrats won a sizable number of Governorships. The day was being hailed as a repudiation of "Stay the Course" and the end of the Neo-Con revolution. Damn right we're giddy.
Of course, now comes the reality. The new Congress would have to work REALLY hard to be nearly as bad as the outgoing Congress, but Democrats are going to have to step up and actually accomplish something quickly (and no, that doesn't mean setting arbitrary and artificial dates for pulling out of Iraq) or 2008 could be an even uglier election than 2004.
My big fear is that, now that the Dems have a chance to actually accomplish something, that it will all descend into the same kind of partisan BS we've been living with for years, nothing will be accomplished and in 2008 we're facing the specter of President Giuliani.
Of course, everyone is promising bipartisan cooperation, but let's not forget that Bush has been promising that after every election since 2000, and in his first year in office, he was so "bipartisan" he chased a Moderate Republican Senator right out of the Party. Bush's idea of bipartisan apparently devolves to "you just do as I say and we'll all get along now, ya hear?" Not that I think the Democrats are guiltless here… I'm just hoping they step up where the Republicans have so blatantly rejected the notion.
All I can do at the moment is cross my fingers and hope for the best. But that's a hell of a lot better place I've been in, post-election, than recent years, so I can accept that.
Frankly, I'm not surprised by the reaction. This is the first "Election Results" day since the 90's that I haven't greeted with a mixture of horror and contempt. And it's not like some of the giddiness isn't justified, I think. After all, Democrats needed about 16 seats in the House to take control, they got 33. Prior to the election, the Senate was questionable at best, but by the end of the day, we'd taken the Senate back as well. Democrats won a sizable number of Governorships. The day was being hailed as a repudiation of "Stay the Course" and the end of the Neo-Con revolution. Damn right we're giddy.
Of course, now comes the reality. The new Congress would have to work REALLY hard to be nearly as bad as the outgoing Congress, but Democrats are going to have to step up and actually accomplish something quickly (and no, that doesn't mean setting arbitrary and artificial dates for pulling out of Iraq) or 2008 could be an even uglier election than 2004.
My big fear is that, now that the Dems have a chance to actually accomplish something, that it will all descend into the same kind of partisan BS we've been living with for years, nothing will be accomplished and in 2008 we're facing the specter of President Giuliani.
Of course, everyone is promising bipartisan cooperation, but let's not forget that Bush has been promising that after every election since 2000, and in his first year in office, he was so "bipartisan" he chased a Moderate Republican Senator right out of the Party. Bush's idea of bipartisan apparently devolves to "you just do as I say and we'll all get along now, ya hear?" Not that I think the Democrats are guiltless here… I'm just hoping they step up where the Republicans have so blatantly rejected the notion.
All I can do at the moment is cross my fingers and hope for the best. But that's a hell of a lot better place I've been in, post-election, than recent years, so I can accept that.
Comments
The Dems have announced their intentions. They SAY they plan to 'push the lobbyists off the congressional floor'. Ummm...I'll believe it when I see it. Something changes when you actually HAVE power - let's see how much it changes Nancy and the gang. She is two heartbeats away from the Presidency. You don't think that changes things?
The Dems also have a small internal problem as well. Rohm Emanuel ran a smart campaign. The problem is, of the 33 new seats gained, over 20 of them are conservative southern Democrats. Evangelical Christian types who are pro-life, and pro-business/growth. They are also vehemently anti-tax. How will those Dems side? I have a feeling the posturing by Nancy and crew will change - they don't have the votes to raise taxes or withdraw from Iraq or even pass funding for embryonic stem cell research.
All that said - congratulations. Frankly, the Dems scare me, but I also felt there was a need for change. I would point out that the 'day after' the last 3 elections, we heard cries of voter fraud, cheating, stealing, intimidation, abuse, and worse. The 'day after' this election, we heard the Republicans talking about how they failed. What they did wrong. How they needed to change. That's a significant party difference - and, it is one of the main reasons I remain Republican despite my horror at some of the representatives. I hope new Republican leadership raises its head.
And, yes, I am greatful Rumsfeld is gone. It should have come 2 years ago, but at least it has happened!
The 2008 campaign has begun. Watch carefully!
Q
This is indded going to be an interesting period up until the 2008 election. I would love to be part of the party strategy discussions. What the heck do the Dems do to get the top spot and how do the Republicans plan to keep it? Fascinating.
Bush must be relieved the democrats are in power for his guest worker program. For the rest, nice toss of Rumsfeld under the bus after all that posturing that he would always stand behind him. And now, "I'm open to suggestions about Iraq"! The republicans voted out of office this term must be furious at their party leader, a day late and a dollar short for them.
I think there were allegations of voter fraud, weren't there? You didn't hear too much about it once the democrats won. Hmm, maybe it's SOP.
Chris
OK, Sarcasm momentarily aside, there are moments when I almost wish I could embrace that "Republicans as the purveyors of everything good" notion, with Democrats some kind of whiny demonic creature (pitchfork in one hand, pacifier in the other) single-mindedly trying to inflict their aberrant notions on a helpless US populace.
But then I realize my sanity and my soul are simply worth more than that. Have you not been paying attention in recent years? Say what you will about Democrats, but the Republicans have been acting like a gang of thugs in recent years, firmly in control of Congress and therefore unwilling to even entertain notions of compromise while they push their agenda on the rest of the country. I'm not saying the Dems will be any better, but please don't pretend to me that Republicans have been any bastions of integrity.
As for the "day after the election" fraud comments… well, maybe it's that results actually matched the exit polls this year, so no one felt justified in crying foul. Or maybe, since Republicans already own all the voter machines, they realized that if they couldn't steal the election in the first place, complaints the day after wouldn't do any good (remember, I said 'momentarily' setting sarcasm aside).
But the real difference here may simply be the difference between a mid-term election and a Presidential election. There were no electoral votes at stake, no swing state that could turn defeat into victory. The only thing at stake after Tuesday's election was whether the Senate would be tied or under Democratic leadership. Maybe they just decided to cut their losses at that point and move on. Bravo, one 'noble' deed in six years.
But, having mentioned the past three elections, I have to point out that Kerry conceded the election to Bush the day after the election in much the same time frame as the Republicans conceded the Senate. I don't remember any great uproar in the 2002 elections, aside from the very real concern over the reliability and questionable nature of the new electronic voting machines. And, frankly, the 2000 election was a disgrace and I fully supported Al Gore's challenges to the Florida results… a challenge that was borne out by the Miami Herald's recount done after the dust settled. (Ironically, it showed that, had they done the recount Gore asked for, the results would have been the same. But if they'd done the recount the Republicans said would be needed—that of the whole state, instead of select districts—Gore would have won.)
Personally, I'm pretty certain that, if this were a Presidential election and the results of the election hung on one state and an 8000 vote difference, the Republicans would have been just as quick to demand those recounts as the Democrats have been. But hey, if it makes you feel better to believe the Republicans are more honorable here, go for it. Just don't waste my time with that notion.
Yes - I firmly believe that any party whose leaders are saying the day after a whooping "what did we do wrong?" and "we have failed" is noble. They are also DOING something to fix the problem - Rumsfeld out, Mehlman out, Rove is essentially retiring with Bush.
The Dems HAVE been whiny bitches with conspiracy theories the last 3 elections, and they have kept people like Dean, Kennedy, and Shumer in power.
You have admitted you don't pay that much attention to what those guys say - I suggest you do before you defend them. They are scary.
As for, "Say what you will about Democrats, but the Republicans have been acting like a gang of thugs in recent years, firmly in control of Congress and therefore unwilling to even entertain notions of compromise while they push their agenda on the rest of the country."
Really? You need to pay more attention to politics and the world and less attention to propaganda. Yes, the Repubs were in the majority, but they have barely been "in control". And, I challenge you to prove how they have "pushed their agenda" on anyone.
They failed to change social security. A terrible failue, IMO. Something I would have LOVED to see "pushed" on us. They failed to pass any marriage amendment or flag burning amendment. (though, states...even liberal ones like Oregon and Wisconsin HAVE passed marriage acts - by the people, not government) They failed to sell the port rights to Dubai. And, they have failed to do anything about illegal immigration. There is absolutely NO Republican agenda that has been shoved down our throats. And, there won't be a Democrat one either - things are too close in the houses, and have been for a while.
The Repubs did pass Medicare change and prescription drug help - along with enthusiastic Democratic support. Yes, they "pushed" through tax cuts despite Dem opposition. Thank God - we have been rewarded with a strong economy, more tax revenue than ever, and a rapidly shrinking deficit.
The only thing you could even try to suggest they have "pushed" on us is the war. And, the Dems enthusiastically supported it at first as well. I would agree the Repubs have BOTCHED it, but they haven't pushed it on us. And, the Military Commisions act? That is an abortion of corrupt politics on both sides. If the Dems had balls, they could have fought it. You know why they didn't? Because they wanted to win the election. Success! Don't blame this one on one party.
Speaking of abortion...the Repubs couldn't even outlaw partial birth abortion!!! They didn't even stop Congress from passing federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Took a veto for that. And, he'll veto it again when it comes down the pike (with my support).
So, all due respect...don't waste MY time with myths about an all powerful Republican cadre hell bent on controlling the country with their evil agenda. It never happened. Politics - as corrupt as both parties are - is still about compromise.
Q
As for that "stem cell funding" failure? Much as you believe the Democrats let the Military Commissions Act pass to win an election, that could have been a chance for moderate Republicans to please their moderate constituencies without any fear of the bill passing. Political status quo.
It's funny, you seem to mistake my contempt for the Republican party as devotion to the Democrats. "Say what you will" hardly seems like a ringing endorsement to me. But even taking into account my defending their actions later on in my comment, I'm well aware that I'm talking about the lesser of two evils here.
The Republican party's platform and policies, for most of my adult life, has been out of step with what I believe. This hasn't changed, and has frankly grown worse as the Party has grown more conservative. (The Democrats, too, have grown more conservative. Maybe it's a function of those aging baby-boomers).
Since I functionally have two choices when it comes to politics in this country (lacking the interest in throwing away what little voting clout I have on Peace & Freedom or the Green Party or whatever fringe group might be closer to my politics) I choose to vote Democrat. And will continue to call the Republicans on everything that I find that I disagree with them on. You want to see that as buying into propaganda, have a good time. I've thought the same thing dozens of times listening to you bash Democrats. Frankly, I assume we're both guilty of hearing and seeing what we want to hear, but I doubt you'll agree with that.
I'm not calling you on disagreeing with Republican positions. I know you do! I would equally disagree with Democratic positions if I knew what they were! I disagree with their tax positions...and, then it gets murky.
The 'propaganda' I'm accusing you of caving into is the conspiracy theory that the "evil, power hungry Republicans" are "pushing their positions on us." Sure, they are advocating them...but, despite a majority in both houses for, what?, 12 years? They failed to "push" any of them on us! I didn't say they don't try...the Dems try to raise taxes every quarter...but, as you say, 'status quo' is what we usually get. Which means neither party is "all powerful" or evilly pushing their platform on us. They're just getting rich while not much happens.
Did they get their judges passed? Yeah. But, despite the hoo-hah, they nominated a couple of relatively moderate guys. Alito is more conservative, but barely. The threat of Democratic grousing kept them from nominating a Janice Rogers Brown, and you know it.
Did they threaten to nuke the filibuster? Yep. Did they do it? Nope.
I'm still waiting for you to give me ONE example of them pushing their agenda on us.
You can't blame ANY party for advocating their agenda. But, when you say they are pushing it on us it sounds like all the typical Democratic propaganda trying to make the Repubs sound like they've taken over the country! No, they aren't, and neither will the Dems.
Of course, you may not have been saying that...I could have just been hearing it. But, of course I know you disagree with Republican positions!
As for ANWR...did you really cry for a bunch of displaced birds? Dude...I love nature too...I love cows, fish, chickens, and pigs. But, I eat them. ANWR is going to happen. The sooner it does, the better our position will be. The only thing I want is a rider on the bill MAKING the government spend money on alternative solutions to oil.
At least we still both believe we are splitting the hair of the lesser of two evils. Hell, I long for a Kennedy (that would be Jack) or a Truman. Those are two Dems I could get behind right now. Of course, in today's Democratic party, they would be pushed to the Republican party.
Much as you do with Democrats, I tend to paint all Republicans with the same brush, based upon the actions and comments of their leaders. When I hear Tom Delay foaming at the mouth (imagery here—I'm pretty sure he wasn't actually foaming) and threatening a "nuclear strike" on the filibuster if the Dems don't get in line and do as they're told, I tend to think of Republicans as a gang of thugs. When Dick Cheney acknowledges that the President's orders for illegal wiretaps were part of an ongoing plan to strengthen the Presidency, I tend to think of Republicans as power-hungry.
No, I don't honestly believe in some kind of evil, power-hungry Republican cabal that's taken over the country. I DO deeply mistrust Karl Rove and Dick Cheney and think they wield too much power in this country, due to what I consider their questionable agendas, but I'm well aware that not all Republicans share their mindset. But this is the Republican leadership that we're saddled with, so if I don't trust these clowns, the whole party suffers for it.
And while I can't blame anyone for promoting their agenda, if it's one that I find as distasteful, dangerous or disastrous as the ones this Republican administration has been promoting, then I'm sure as hell not going to give them a free pass simply because they didn't SUCCEED in that agenda.
It occurred to me that we debate a lot about what the platform/agenda is for each party often enough that I thought we should clarify our personal agenda is since the real agenda for both Repubs and Dems is "get rich, stay in power/office".
I THINK I know what your beliefs are...but, if I KNEW, it might lead to better communication.
So, here goes my attempt to pigeonhole myself and get a clearer bead on your liberal ass:
I know we both dislike the suspension of habeus corpus. It clearly crosses the line, and any party naysayers are koolaid drinking.
It does seem you have a problem with the wire-tapping as well. Me, not so much. I figure if you are making calls to Beirut your ass should be listened to. The warrant thing? It seems to be something that could be easily handled...but, I haven't delved into it much. What about the NSA search for patterns in calls? They don't listen to anyone, but they absolutely look at calls being made. Dems have a problem with this. You?
So, clearly you have a love for personal liberties and don't like them being fucked with. There are two "crossover" issues in this category that I want to pick your brain over:
The first is abortion. Yes, I'm pro-life and you are pro-choice. I guess. I hate the labels. I actually do support a woman's choice - but, I do not support an indiscriminate right to fetal termination. So, I want to know your position - let's dump the whole "when is an embryo life?" thing and get down to brass tacks - a fetus is viable at 22 weeks. It can live on its own. Do you believe there should be absolute freedom to abort a viable 22 week old fetus? Many Dems do. They are insistent over it. They will not give any ground. I am 100% in favor of any and all laws restricting partial-birth abortions. There's even a doctor who injects a poison into the baby's brain and delivers a still-birth. Nice. That's not against the law. Do you support that?
Second...how do you feel about judges legislating from the bench? You're clearly AGAINST fucking with the constitution. We both are. Yet, "liberal" (read: ACLU types) judges do it all the time. Roe v. Wade (despite how you feel about the issue) is a judiciary acting on its own. There really is no constitutional provision allowing for Roe v. Wade - it should be left up to State law. The recent eminent domain ruling is a scary one. Historically speaking, conservative judges don't like to fuck with the constitution, but liberal judges do. I know you're against conservative judges because they may overturn Roe v. Wade. Is that the ONLY reason? Are you ok with all the other abuses judges may make as long as Roe v. Wade stays intact? Or, would you be more in favor of judges keeping their opinions to themselves and letting state law legalize abortion? BTW, I also believe conservative judges can exercise their opinions too liberally - they should have stayed out of the 2000 election. So, this is not a clear-cut issue - judges are dangerous things if abused for either "side".
Ok...so, what about ecology? I thought we were both essentially pro-ecology with some reservations. But, apparently, you cried over ANWR. I draw a line, and I also don't necessarily think global warming is man-made. I still think we should be responsible...but, I have no problem drilling in ANWR.
My primary agenda/beliefs are economic based. Even moreso now with the whole MBA thing. I think capitalism works, and I think tax cuts work, and I think corporate America needs to be strong. I'm also not a fan of handing money to the poor - entitlement spending. I prefer incentive spending to get people to want to work and educate themselves.
Speaking of which - I like school vouchers. It's not perfect, but it's SOMETHING. Time has proven spending more money on education is throwing money away. We need to change WHERE the money goes. Vouchers give people a chance to have a say.
Same thing with "privatized" SSN. Which isn't privatized at all. It just gave people an option. What is wrong with options?
And, yes, I'm a big "spend money on defense and carry a big stick" guy. Not a warhawk, but here is my theory: America is #1 (for now). EVERYONE hates the top guy. Even if they don't say it all the time, even if they pretend to be nice...they hate us. And, not because we are "imperialistic bullies" (a lot of Dems truly believe this country is bad...I don't think you're one of them). They hate us because we have what they don't. I believe this CANNOT be changed as long as we're #1. You can be as nice as you want - it still won't change. So, I think we should be nice, but I think we should be firm. And, when it's necessary, we should tell the world to fuck itself. Be responsible, be generous, but be strong dammit! We could have and should have pacified Iraq in the first 6 months. And, by pacify, I mean kill a lot of people. Yes, it would have caused an outrage. Countries would have cried for our heads. And, it would all pass within, say, a year. And, Iraq would not be the trouble it is now. Would there still be issues? Sure. But, there would not be the big fucking shanker there is now. We blew it, and everyone STILL hates us.
Enough blathering...I think you are as cynical as me. You know politics has gotten out of control. I actually think you would advocate smaller national government if it didn't have the bad taste of being purely Republican (though, the party rarely practices that core belief).
I think you see a lot of the same problems I see (taxes, SSN, corruption, bureaucracy, etc.), and want solutions. And, like me, see little hope either party can really solve anything.
But, my main observation is that you are a big human rights guy and your pro-life desires may influence all your political opinions a bit too much. Am I wrong? Is that not your main issue? And, what are your economic views? I've heard you bash tax cuts, but why? Do you dispute the health of our economy right now?
I didn't even cover Gay marriage, corporate payoffs, trade initiatives, or stem cell research.
Damn.
I am here in Texas visiting Sueanne. Nightmare because she actually supports Lou. ARGH!!!!! Well, she likes both arguments, but really, when it comes down to it, she is not savable. She is one of "them".
However, we are both wondering if either of you work? We notice the length, depth and time of postings of the blog entries and just have to think we want your jobs.
I was going to bookmark this site for Sueanne, but she is intimidated, as am I, by this discussion. Where do you two get your knowledge? Do you belong to one of the think tanks? Probably not the same one.
Later boys! We are off for fun and excitement. Yes, happy birthday to me in freakin Texas of all places. BTW, my pain?, no one is interested in seeing Bond tomorrow. NIGHTMARE!!!!!! "there's a new Bond?", "what happened to sean connery?", "oh does that open tomorrow?", "i will wait until video", "oh, bond, i saw the spy who loved me, that song was pretty good", "i really liked sean connery".
Earlier this week, a friend said movies were dead, similar to George Lucas's beliefs per this person. Has this been the worst vacation ever? (I won't go on with this nightmare week, however I will note, I have just been given --last minute-- a trial to handle all by myself when I return.)
Sueanne says hello to you both and to Dani and Karen and the kids she has not met.
The unknown
If you had been around, we could have met, finalized the filing, AND gone to see Bond.
I will be going to Bond tonight and LOVING it!!!
I hope it dies its final death. What is with the left's love affair with socialized (oh, they call it "universal") medical care? Go live in freakin' Canada...for just a month! You'll come back smarter for it and never speak of "universal" coverage again.
So I tend to agree that socialized medicine doesn't work (and I'm not terribly pleased to hear Hilary stumping for it now).
BUT, with the rising cost of health care, and more and more people unable to afford it, either because they don't have work or their job doesn't provide it or—worst of all—the company provides it, but you can't afford it on your wage (hello, Walmart)… What do we do about these people, especially when we start having to pick up the tab, via taxes, for the emergency care that they need since they can't afford preventive health care?
BTW… Chris… HAPPY BIRTHDAY! My condolences that you're stuck in Texas and having problems finding anyone interested in the new Bond film. But really, what did you expect? It's Texas, for Christ's sake… some of these yokels probably just recently got 'lectricity in their homes. You expect them to care about those dadburn talking picture?
(Sorry Sueanne… couldn't resist. Present company excluded, of course.)
I think the best angle (I don't know if it's an answer or not) to making progress on the health care issue is to address insurance reform and tort reform.
If you can clean up insurance and weed out bad lawsuits, prices will go down.
But, guess what? Insurance companies and lawyers are HUGE lobbies. So, that will never happen!
For the rest, you two are way over my head, but thank you both for the enlightened discussion. It's Hannity and Colmes (?), with intelligent people, well, except for Lou with his positions!!!!!
And I notice my poor profession is maligned once again.
As for wiretaps, I think it's the accountability that gets me. The President orders them, there's no authorization process, no "paper trail", as it were. I'm not naive… I agree, if you're talking with Beriut on a regular basis, it behooves us to have someone check up on it. But the warrants are an essential part of the process in keeping the President and his administration accountable, so that we're sure there's justification for those wiretaps. As for the NSA searching for patterns, I'm less bothered by it, I think. It's borderline, but we need those patterns identified in order to justify the warrants I say we need. Jury's still out on that one for me.
As for abortion… talk about a loaded question. Even the term 'partial-birth abortion' is loaded. I think an argument can be made that 22 weeks is a valid cut-off date if, as you say, a fetus is viable at that point. (How are we defining viable? What kind of life support do we need to take into account? Here's the sticking points for me, if we're getting into taking more extreme measures to preserve that fetus.) And I can see the argument that, by 22 weeks, you should be able to have come to that decision. (How many women hold off till the last moment simply because it IS the last moment. And DAMN, am I going to get blasted by Chris for that statement, if she's still hanging around for this one.) But, as that last line may indicate, it's easy for me to say a woman should be able to make that decision by 22 weeks. It's another matter entirely when you're the woman actually making the decision.
But let's say I'm open to that option. That my main concern is that abortion remain an option for any woman, up to whatever arbitrary date the law states. The reason, I think, that so many in the pro-choice camp dig in their heels is a kind of bunker mentality. There is no middle ground on this. The pro-lifers don't have a compromise position (hell, how do you compromise on this issue?). So pro-choice digs in and says "no! We're not changing anything, because any change is a victory for our enemies and further emboldens them to push for more change." It's not a reasonable stance, perhaps, but it's pretty much human nature and not without some real world justification.
My big problem with the pro-life group is their insistence on trying to restrict access to birth control options at the same time they're fighting abortion. Look, I understand the "save the unborn" argument, even if I don't agree with it. But restricting access to birth control, or rejecting education about birth control options has nothing to do with that argument, and you don't get to have both. The more you restrict abortion, the more we need better birth control education. Or, better yet, the better your birth control education and opportunities, the less the need for abortions.
As for the courts, yeah, legislating from the bench is a problem. As you point out, conservative judges can be as prone to it as any (and, in fact, I seem to remember a lot of the complaints about at least one of Bush's nominees was a propensity for that same problem). So let's say it's a bad idea, no matter who's doing it.
As you mention, I have strong opinions where personal liberties are concerned. Roe v. Wade is the big ticket issue here, obviously, but it's the overarching question that influences me, and leaves me opposed to Bush's choices. What I read on both of them showed a tendency toward rulings that bothered me, either in limiting personal liberties or dismissing notions of personal privacy, or a tendency to rule in favor over the corporation over the individual. (Yes, I know I'm simplifying… I'm trying NOT to write a novel.) These, along with the potential likelihood that they'll be influential in any attempt to Roe v. Wade, were the deciding factors. (Well, that and they were Bush nominees and I didn't trust them for that reason alone. Let's be honest, right?)
Global warming may not be entirely man made, but we sure as hell are giving it a huge helping hand. I have problems with rain forests being depleted at record breaking rates, and opening up regions like ANWR to drilling, and the concomitant ecological damage that can result. I also think we need to do more about weaning ourselves from our dependence on foreign oil and oil in general. If drilling in ANWR had come with a serious commitment from the feds to promote alternate fuel options, maybe I'd be more willing to consider the trade-off.
I'm not as economic based as you. Entitlement spending may be a bad idea, but criminalizing someone for being poor is too. So where's the middle ground on this one? Unlike abortion, there could actually be a compromise position here, but the Republicans are determined to cut taxes so we can't afford these programs, and the Dems are determined to keep the programs running so they raise taxes. There will always be poor… isn't the sign of great society in the way it treats its poor and unfortunate? I want us to be great. (See, the more I write, the more my blazing idealism shows through.)
I understand the logic behind tax cuts (that the less you tax, the more people are willing to pay their fair share), but it sounds like voodoo economics to me. Or, at the very least, putting too much trust in human nature. I love the idea of tax cuts. I just don't want to end up shouldering more of the burden so that George W and Dick Cheney can get more millions back at the end of the year. A little balance is what I'm asking. (Now, it may be that the last round of taxes were balanced, and did not shift more of the tax burden on the middle class. But that's not the way I've heard it, and I frankly doubt it was a "fair and balanced" tax cut.)
Corporate America may need to be strong, but when it does it at the cost of the individual, I tend to rise up in anger. Maybe that's the idealist in me again.
I'm not fond of school vouchers… we've got enough under-educated people in this country as it is and anything that pulls money away from the schools I find troubling. Vouchers benefit those that can afford the extra trouble and expense of private education, while those who can't are stuck in schools that now have less funding due to the vouchers that have redirected that money. And "Time has proven spending more money on education is throwing money away" may well trump pretty much any of MY previous cynicism.
Again, I like to think I'm not naive and understand that we need a strong military to defend our interests. I'm well aware that there are people that hate us because we're rich and powerful and have what they don't. (Or, even worse, have what they don't think anyone should have.) Having said that, I think invading Iraq was a bad idea, that the justification for it were misleading to outright false, and that it's done nothing to make Americans and American interests safer in the short or the long run. The notion of "preventive" war as justification for the invasion of Iraq disgusts me, even while I grant the notion that there could be instances when such a policy is absolutely the only viable choice.
Beneath the blazing idealism is a cynical core that says, no matter what I think should happen, it won't. I think we're stuck with a political system that rewards the rich for being rich and the powerful for exerting that power. That's nothing even remotely new, it's just not living up to that democratic notion the country's supposed to have been founded on. I don't find that Democrats are necessarily any better at running things these days, I just find that I disagree with them on fewer fundamental issues.
And finally (for now) I think you've got my priorities flipped. I'm a strong human rights guy, as you put it. I believe, vehemently, in personal freedoms and liberties and object to anything that attempts to restrict those freedoms. (Even while acknowledging that the majority of people in this country might not be fully capable of handling those freedoms.) My pro-choice beliefs are an outgrowth of that core belief… it's just the thing most on everyone's mind these days, so it gets the most attention.
IS the economy that healthy now? I hadn't noticed. I'm still paying $2.50+ at the pump, housing prices are plateauing (at best) and interest rates have been on the rise. Maybe these aren't viable metrics for measuring the economy, but they're the ones I can relate to. Are we still getting our relief from the marriage penalty this year, or did that somehow get wiped out in the five years since the cuts in capital gains and estate taxes rolled through?
Honestly, I'm not great at economic theory, I just know what I read and hear on the news, and it only gets off the financial pages when it's really good or really bad. I did hear that the stock markets been posting record or near record highs lately… excellent. Last I remember hearing, we were struggling, so this is good news. If you ignore, of course, the budget surplus we had 6 years ago that is now a multi-trillion dollar deficit. How does one look at the economy and say we're doing well without taking that into account and wondering how we, our children and our children's children will deal with that?
OK, seriously… if I don't post this now, I never will and I'll just keep writing about this and never get to talk about Casino Royale or anything fun. Have at it (and no, I don't want to talk about gay marriage or stem cell research or any of that other stuff now!)
But I've gotta point out that all Q said was that lawyers are huge lobbies, which I don't think is necessarily maligning them. Unless, of course, you find that lobbying somehow guilt inducing. Hmmm&helllip;
We're closer together than we are apart. Which doesn't surprise me.
A few comments:
RE: Vouchers - Here's my problem with public education: it may be as corrupt or more corrupt than our government. The more money we throw at it, the worse things get. Which means (to me) we need to give the people a say in WHERE the money goes. Vouchers is a plan to do this. Is it a perfect plan? No. But, it is so bad right now, that I support any plan. Give me a better one, and I'll get in line.
RE: Abortion - No middle ground? No wonder it is tearing our society apart. A fetus is considered viable at 22 weeks by most doctors. It will require lots of life support and attention, but can grow to a healthy child with no health issues. Before that, the survival rate is low and the health issues grow exponentially. In Holland (the most liberal country in the world) they have the morning after pill over the counter, and do not allow abortion after 22 weeks.
Sounds like we're on the same page on most other stuff, though I am a little less "green".
As for economics...I'm willing to answer any questions any time! ;-)
A few answers for now...
$2.50 a gallon sucks - but it is mostly state taxes so that California can have the "cleanest" air in America. And, it's nothing compared to the world (it's around $8 a gallon in Europe).
The "idea" behind tax cuts is not that people will be more charitable. That would be GREAT! But, it is, essentially, a 'voodoo economics' theory. The "idea" behind tax cuts is simple - it develops wealth. The more wealth in the country, the more spending, the more spending, the more making, the more making...you get the point. By cutting taxes, tax revenue INCREASES, consumer spending INCREASES, and the power of the dollar INCREASES. That CREATES jobs.
Cutting taxes is why we have record tax revenue, why the deficit (which grew ridiculously due to Iraq and Bush's medicaid bill) has come down so fast, and why the unemployment rate has stayed so low.
Estate taxes were not eliminated. The idiot Repubs couldn't figure that one out in time.
Personally, I would like to see more tax benefits for married couples with children (to promote population - yes, we need it) and for charitable gifts. But, the tax cuts were fair and balanced in that they were across the board. Unfortunately (or fortunately) 3% of a million is a shit load more than 3% of zilch.
And, you'll still get your marriage bonus.
Interest rates are rising because they must. Sounds weird, I know, but the Fed raises them to fight potential inflation. I won't get into how it all works - trust me when I say that we still have remarkably low interest rates (our parents saw double what we have now), and that inflation has been successfully curbed by their raising over the past 2 years. Housing is always cyclical...and, it is settling right now. But, it didn't burst and drop - a great sign. It will begin to raise again when interest rates inevitably begin to come down.
As for the deficit...it is also complicated. But, I will say that as long as tax revenue continues to increase (with the tax cuts becoming permanent), it will continue to shrink at record rates. I should also clear something up: the federal deficit is the difference between the annual federal budget and how much we bring in in revenue (taxes). This is quite different from the national debt. The federal deficit last year was $247 billion. In other words, the government was spending in its budget $247 billion more than it made. Bad. And, because they spend too much fucking money. The answer? Not higher taxes - that will DECREASE the revenue. The answer is LESS SPENDING!!
The national debt is around 7 or 8 trillion. This number has never in our lifetime not been a huge negative. America has NEVER not been in debt. The budget surplus Clinton had meant that government's annual budget was not spending all the revenue it was making. They were thrifty. But, the debt was around 7 trillion under Clinton too.
Reducing the debt is possible...eliminating it in our or our grandchildren's lifetime is not probable. But, what you must look at is how much of a percentage it is of the GNP and GDP. It is currently around 50% of the GDP and 2% of the GNP. In other words, it is like you or I with a mortgage and some credit card bills that are well within our range. America is not overextended and its credit rating is solid. But, we must continue to generate wealth and products in order for this to continue.
So...the economy is very strong right now. Enjoy!
Let's talk Bond...
The interest rate thing I get. And yes, I know that housing prices leveling off isn't a bad thing. But, having finally bought a house only a few years ago, I'm on the sensitive side there. ; )
Abortion's a tough issue. Much as I'm open to compromise on most things, how do you compromise when the pro-life camp simply says "abortion is evil and needs to be outlawed". Where's the middle ground where we can meet? I can grant that 22 weeks is not unreasonable. But what will pro-life give up in return? Where's the compromise. (Speaking of pro-life and this ever ugly debate, I understand the President's new head of Health and Human Services family planning program is firmly opposed to birth control as "demeaning to women". That's birth control, not abortion. Yeah, that's going to help the dialog in this country.) So I'm not holding out much hope for compromise or a reasonable solution to this one.
Enough already! The next time I post, it's Casino Royale or bust!