November 6, 2006 at 10:54 PM #7856
It’s now Election Day on the East Coast and initial reports are that voter turnout is very low at this hour. Dems aren’t throwing in the towel yet, but it looks like Republicans will hold the House and Senate based on my early projections.November 6, 2006 at 11:04 PM #39365PerryChaseParticipant
I’m rooting for the Democrats. However, it won’t be all that bad if the Republicans hang on…. because that will mean a landslide accross the board for the Democrats in 2008.
Iraq, like the housing market, will not get better. Iraq will devolve into civil war before long.November 7, 2006 at 7:33 AM #39380no_such_realityParticipant
Me too, unfortunately, our government seems to work best when it is divided against itself.November 7, 2006 at 7:50 AM #39382
Contrary to my late night joke above, I think this election is all about anger at Bush and Congress and will be a landslide for the Democrats. Most voters say Iraq is their primary issue, yet I’ve never heard a coherant Iraq plan from Democrats. None of this matters though because the President is viewed as arrogant and out of touch and even his base isn’t happy with him, nor with a Republican Congress that has lost the edge it commanded on the moral issues. The only hope for Republicans is if enough Americans decide that the alternative of Nancy Pelosi and Co. is worse than the status quo.November 7, 2006 at 10:08 AM #39390zkParticipant
I got a chuckle out of the 1:00 a.m. EST prediction. Good one.
I, too, have not heard a coherent Iraq plan from Democrats. Of course, I haven’t heard a reasonable one from the Republicans, either. Stay until the Iraqis can stand up for themselves. Not gonna happen. What do you think we should do, JES? (Tone of that question: Not a pointed barb, but rather a quest for someone’s opinion)
Pelosi’s plan for her first few days as speaker (if that happens):
Day One: Put new rules in place to “break the link between lobbyists and legislation.”
Day Two: Enact all the recommendations made by the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Time remaining until 100 hours: Raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, maybe in one step. Cut the interest rate on student loans in half. Allow the government to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients.
Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds — “I hope with a veto-proof majority,” she added in an Associated Press interview [October 5].
All the days after that: “Pay as you go,” meaning no increasing the deficit, whether the issue is middle class tax relief, health care or some other priority.
To do that, she said, Bush-era tax cuts would have to be rolled back for those above “a certain level.” She mentioned annual incomes of $250,000 or $300,000 a year and higher, and said tax rates for those individuals might revert to those of the Clinton era. Details will have to be worked out, she emphasized.
That all sounds quite good to me right here in the center (despite jg’s rants, I’m not a liberal – not that there’s anything wrong with that). I’d like to hear arguments against it from the right.
True, there’s nothing about Iraq in there. But it’s a plan for her first few days; Iraq isn’t something that can be solved that quickly. It’s not just a comma. It will never be just a comma, especially to the thousands of dead service men and women and their families. (I’m surprised that bush got away so easily with his “comma” comment. Kerry got more flak for a botched joke than bush did for minimizing the deaths of our people.) Iraq is a national disaster. Trillions of dollars, thousands of lives, tens of thousands of Americans maimed, the world hates us more than ever (which is fine unless we ever need them, which at this rate will be sooner rather than later), and terrorists more angry and numerous than ever. And what have we gotten/will we get out of it? Second chance to answer that question, right-wingers. No takers the first time.November 7, 2006 at 10:14 AM #39392no_such_realityParticipant
Actually, they should roll back the child tax credit.
Children put a huge tax burden on the Government and here were are giving a credit per kid.November 7, 2006 at 10:32 AM #39394AnonymousGuest
Regardless of Iraq plan or not, the Republicans deserve to be punished for continuing to support Bush and his failed policy. At some point you need to desert a sinking ship but many of these Republicans chose to go down with it, serves them right.
It was nice to see the Military times editorial to fire Rumsfield. Of course Bush, the Commander in Chief somehow escapes criticism becuase he is above reproach. In the corporate world, if you are the CEO, you are generally responsible for all the problems in the company and promptly fired. In thoery, the same goes for the leaders of the military.November 7, 2006 at 10:53 AM #39396
I’m a pretty moderate Republican when it comes to most issues, but tend to be socially conservative.
I actually agree with you on:
-New rules to “break the link between lobbyists and leg.”
-Enact all the recommendations made by the 9/11 commission.
-Raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour
-Cut the interest rate on student loans in half.
-Allow the government to negotiate directly with the pharm. companies for lower drug prices for Medicare.
-Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed.
-Reverse some tax cuts on those earning above for ex. 500k.
I support the right on almost all social issues, but tend to be more open minded. For example, I’d favor a law that bans abortion in all cases except rape, incest and the mothers life. Anything more restrictive will never pass and this approach would have the support of a majority of Americans. I also have a broader range of issues that I consider ‘social’ issues and would include homelessness and healthcare, for example, and on these issues I lean Democratic. But Democrats have allowed the far left to dominate their party, they have been afraid to engage with Christians and have not done a good enough job defining the moral issues and standing apart from the radical actions of groups like the ACLU. The far left disgusts me, and in many ways this is one reason that I vote Republican. I am also not pleased with the Democratic ideas for immigration and support of affirmative action.November 7, 2006 at 11:01 AM #39400poorgradstudentParticipant
Once I “got it”, I got a good chuckle out of the joke in the original post.
Interestingly, Wall street seems very excited about the prospect of a divided government. For good reason, as it lowers the risk that some weird legislation will come out of left or right field and rock the market.
The Democrats don’t have a consensus on what should be done now in Iraq. To my knowledge there are at least 3 separate plans being promoted. All have potential along wit potential problems, but all sound better than “Stay the Course”.November 7, 2006 at 11:26 AM #39404zkParticipant
“The far left disgusts me, and in many ways this is one reason that I vote Republican. I am also not pleased with the Democratic ideas for immigration and support of affirmative action.”
The far left disgusts me also. The far right also disgusts me.
I am against affirmative action of any kind. Immigration is complex; while I believe we should protect American jobs, I don’t think those jobs are as at risk as the right would have us believe.
I am not a christian, yet I am against abortion as “contraceptive.”
So we’re closer on a lot of things than most.
And, as far as the left-right battle goes, it’s not so much that people on the right disgust me with their positions (although I disagree with some of them strongly), it’s their tactics that I find repulsive. Everything is fought with attacks, rhetoric, emotion, and manipulation. Let’s talk issues (like you and I are here).
I understand that talking issues isn’t what got them elected, and I suppose that’s the real problem. People respond more to their emotional tactics than to any logical ones.November 7, 2006 at 1:22 PM #39422AnonymousGuest
JES, just a modest warning that you are edging to the outer areas of the Republican ‘big tent’ with that talk of higher minimum wage, favorable rates for student loans, stronger role for government in drug pricing, Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, and targeted tax cuts. You’re sounding like a Rockefeller/Bloomberg/Governator type of Republican, man, on economic issues. Turn back, before it’s too late!
Hey, maybe you ‘ghost wrote’ that Army Times editorial; nefarious Marine plot to, once again, embarrass the Army!November 7, 2006 at 1:28 PM #39423PerryChaseParticipant
I don’t think that the Democrats will do any better on Iraq than the Republicans. The point is that Iraq was a Republican mistake so they should pay a political price for the bad policy. We should never have gotten into Iraq. Our French friends warned us but we didn’t listen.
It’s like buying a house in 2003/2004. You have to take the big loss, swallow your pride and move on. Either that, or stay for the next 20 to 30 years.November 7, 2006 at 1:38 PM #39424sdcellarParticipant
Honest question here, but what’s the motivation for cutting the student loan interest rate?
I know when I was young there was a belief that the investment made in education was worthwhile because it typically increased your lifetime earning potential by much more than the cost of the higher education.
Also, last I checked the interest rates on student loans weren’t bad at all. Cutting them at half would put them below market (actually, below cost?). So again, why should that happen?November 7, 2006 at 1:40 PM #39427
I believe they were raised this past year. If you didn’t lock in at a low rate last year, and you take out a new loan this year, you have a much higher rate. Don’t know all the details, but as far as encouraging higher education goes I say that they should have kept the lower rates.November 7, 2006 at 1:43 PM #39428sdcellarParticipant
I see. I know just a couple of years ago, they were between 6 and 8 percent. Anybody know if they’re now between 12 and 16?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.