Races in Missouri

First of all, I’m annoyed. Maybe I’m just dumb, but I figured that when I changed my address at the DMV (where I was originally registered to vote) my voter’s registration would also be updated. Unfortunately, you have to re-register moving from St. Louis city to St. Louis county. So I was not able to vote today. Disappointing.

Talent is ahead now, but St. Louis and Kansas City have not yet reported. Amendment 2 is going down as of now, but we will see.

Obviously, the House has been lost to Democrats. All this talk about a ‘new direction’ is stupid. Apparently no one who voted for Democrats cares in which direction the country goes. By what measure can it possibly be better to have Democrats in control? We’ll see what happens in the next two years, but I’m optimistic we’ll see that the Democrats have no plan. How can they when they run purely negative campaigns–by which I mean purely oppositional. When your entire platform consists of opposing the President, the substance has got to be lacking.

We’ll see what things look like in the morning.

Timotheos

Advertisements

11 thoughts on “Races in Missouri

  1. “By what measure can it possibly be better to have Democrats in control?”

    -Return to pay as you go in government spending reducing the deficit

    -A congressional ethics committee that actually policies members. The current committee was so ineffective that the FBI or media dealt with errant members

    -Congressional oversight of Iraq which has largely been absent

    -Better funding of Veterans, health care for poor children (including for pregnant women)

    -Many fewer members under indictment, fewer members accused/admitted of domestic violence and many fewer members who accepted Abramoff contributions.

    I could go on, but to say that these things will not make things better puts you in very small company.

    “…I’m optimistic we’ll see that the Democrats have no plan.How can they when they run purely negative campaigns–by which I mean purely oppositional?”

    -Pelosi put out the “first 100 hours” sometime ago including issues that would get immediate consideration
    -Many campaigned on working people’s issues

    -Most campaigned to participate in oversight to deal with the quagmire that is Iraq…this oversight was not allowed or wanted, a better plan is simply putting changes to the policy on the table

    -If voters don’t like the President’s policies across the board, the only way to put the brakes on them is to support an opposition candidate –that happened again and again yesterday. Sometimes voters just want some checks and balances restored and that’s perfectly reasonable.

  2. david, I’m interested in your comment about “reducing the deficit.” Since President Bush’s tax cuts have had a profoundly positive affect on the economy, and since the deficit has been reduced by billions, in half the time that President Bush initially said it would take. The Democrats are always talking about reducing the deficit, but President Bush has already done it. I fear the Democrats would increase taxes and in the process adversely affect the economy and increase the deficit.

    Also, unemployment at 4.4% is close to being without precedent. That would seem to be of some assistance to the “working people.”

  3. Yet, the fact remains that:

    “The country remains receptive to conservatism. That doctrine — were it to become constraining on, rather than merely avowed by, congressional Republicans — can be their bridge back from the wilderness.” – George Will, Nov. 9, 2006.

  4. David,

    I have to admit that Democrats deserve their wins. I hope they do well. But before I buy the arguments I need to see the results. I’m tired of getting burned by politicians.

    And I take exception to three of your comments:

    1. -Congressional oversight of Iraq which has largely been absent.

    Not true. Congress has been in complete oversight they way they have always been in any previous war. What they haven’t had is final say-so of the conduct of the war, which is a power the constitution gives to the Executive Branch, specifically the President.

    2. -Better funding of Veterans, health care for poor children (including for pregnant women).

    Democrats as a party have never, in my life time, supported better funding of the military. Veterans or otherwise. I know we all would like it if what you say is true, but the Dems gotta show me before I buy this argument.

    3. -If voters don’t like the President’s policies across the board, the only way to put the brakes on them is to support an opposition candidate –that happened again and again yesterday.

    Not exactly. While a lot of Democratic voters supported their candidates, a lot of Republican voters stayed home. Republicans for the most part did not support the opposition by voting for the opposition, which means the Democrats wone as much by default as by purpose. My argument is backed up by the narrow vote margins by which most Democrats won.

    This is not a mandate for Democratic socialism and secular society, which is the core platform of the current Democratic party. It is a message against Republicans abandoning the platform that got them elected in the first place.

  5. Jim,

    You said that our deficit has been reduced, which sort of ignores that when Bush came into office, there was a surplus and no deficit of any kind. The deficit, which built up to substantial levels during Reagan’s, and Bush I’s terms, was reduced through the 1993 budget deal (Dems in control) and a subsequent budget deal (Clinton & Reps in control) as well as adherence to “pay as you go” which actually restrained government spending growth. Under Bush and his congresses, none of those agreements have continued, so spending increased and was combined with tax cuts and recession and *surprise!* massive deficits have resulted.

    Also, regarding the 4.4% unemployment, yup, that’s a low rate, but many working people can’t find jobs to make ends meet, with adequate pay and health insurance. Wage growth has stagnated and jobs with health insurance have declined. Say 4.4 all you want, but talk to those Ohio voters and tell them that the economy is great, especially if they’ve lost their $23/hour manufacturing job and are now working at Home Depot for $12. If this is a great economy, I’d hate to see a bad one.

  6. Lawrence,

    Regarding your 1…congress has the right to full oversight of Iraq, but they certainly have not taken advantage of it. Meanwhile, Democrats have been sidelined and despite their wanting to take action, the majority stifled them at every turn.

    And on your 2…budget cuts were proposed by the administration for VA programs, yes, right while we see veteran’s coming home with horrendous, life-altering disabilities. Changes proposed for Social Security and other safety net programs not only hurt veteran’s but their families who may have to depend on the government after they’ve lost a family member to war, or lost their labor due to war injuries. It’s disgraceful that this happened while tax cuts for the extremely wealthy were defended accompanied by cuts to food stamps and proposed cuts to Medicaid, both the latter helping the needy get by. You will always have the poor with you, but under this administration, you have more of them.

    On your 3…checks and balances are in the constitution. When congress changes hands due to elections, say what you will about the cause, but the opposition can “check” the power of the president. That’s what happened on Tuesday, for a variety of reasons and it’s the same sort of change that happened in 1994.

    I never argued, and neither did Pelosi or Reid argue for Democratic Socialism or a society devoid of religion. This election was about Iraq, about corruption in congress, about the ecomony and about moving away from conservatism bordering on extremism in social issues and oligarchy on business ones. I’m sorry to say that once-heralded Republican budget discipline is as lost as Atlantis and if that depressed voters, well, it depressed me too, but I voted anyway. For those that wanted fiscal discipline, they had to vote for the other party too.

  7. David,

    You said: “so spending increased and was combined with tax cuts and recession and *surprise!* massive deficits have resulted.” Now, who’s “sort of ignoring” facts? I’m sure you haven’t forgotten the events of September 11, 2001. And the Asian tsunami, and the hurricanes, of which Katrina was merely the worst. All of these events took a terrible toll on our economy and were far beyond anything that Clinton had to deal with. The bottom line is, and this was my initial point, that President Bush has done very well with respect to the economy and has reduced the deficit much more quickly than was anticipated. (Kind of makes those comments by many Democrats about “burdening our grandchilden” look pretty foolish.) The U.S. economy, by the way, is humming along at a pace that outstrips any of the other industrial countries.

  8. David,

    You said: “so spending increased and was combined with tax cuts and recession and *surprise!* massive deficits have resulted.” Now, who’s “sort of ignoring” facts? I’m sure you haven’t forgotten the events of September 11, 2001. And the Asian tsunami, and the hurricanes, of which Katrina was merely the worst. All of these events took a terribel toll on our economy and were far beyond anything that Clinton had to deal with. The bottom line is, and this was my initial point, that President Bush has done very well with respect to the economy. The U.S. economy, by the way, is humming along at a pace that outstrips any of the other industrial countries.

  9. David,

    D: “Regarding your 1…congress has the right to full oversight of Iraq, but they certainly have not taken advantage of it.”

    L: What I said was that congress does have the right, and they very much did oversight. The fact that Democrats where not able to take advantage of manipulating the process and usurping Executive branch authority is what your argument is about.

    D: Meanwhile, Democrats have been sidelined and despite their wanting to take action, the majority stifled them at every turn.

    L: This is an excuse, not a reason. Democrats where not in the majority. Now they are. Time to stop whining about the past and do something constructive for the future. I do hope the Democrats are able to be constructive and successful. Rather than continue to be vengeful and partisan in their own way.

    D: And on your 2.. budget cuts were proposed by the administration for VA programs, yes, right while we see veteran’s coming home with …

    L: It is interesting that prior to a Republican controlled congress; it was Democrats seeking budget cuts for the military and a number of VA programs. But suddenly, when in the minority, Democrats switch in support of? Interesting, no? Democrats complaining about the deficit, but promoting a spending program? This is just more Democrat priority-due-jour.

    D: It’s disgraceful that this happened while tax cuts for the extremely wealthy were defended accompanied by cuts to food stamps and proposed cuts to Medicaid, both the latter helping the needy get by. You will always have the poor with you, but under this administration, you have more of them.

    L: But this just isn’t true. The economy boomed under Bush’s administration, average salary went up, and unemployment went down. My point is that this argument you post isn’t about the poor, but about your distrust and wealth envy of successful people.

    D: On your 3…checks and balances are in the constitution. When congress changes hands due to elections, say what you will about the cause, but the opposition can “check” the power of the president. That’s what happened on Tuesday, for a variety of reasons and it’s the same sort of change that happened in 1994.

    L: In 1994 yes. In 2006 no. In this case, it was Republicans not voting for their own candidates that handed Democrats a win. In this election is is not the Democrats that checked the power of the Republican government, it was Republicans themselves.

    D: I never argued, and neither did Pelosi or Reid argue for Democratic Socialism or a society devoid of religion.

    L: No, you didn’t. But Pelosi and Reid are the visible leaders of the political party that does.

    D: This election was about Iraq, about corruption in congress, about the ecomony and about moving away from conservatism bordering on extremism in social issues and oligarchy on business ones.

    L: True. But not because Democrats have better ideas, but because Republicans abandoned a political party that first abandoned it’s own conservative agenda. Bush signed every liberal bill and law presented to him. Including issues that even Clinton couldn’t get passed. Bush did more for Democrats than any past president since Carter, and they hate him for it.

    D: I’m sorry to say that once-heralded Republican budget discipline is as lost as Atlantis and if that depressed voters,..

    L: True. But depressed isn’t the correct term. Angered is more appropriate. Point is that budget discipline is still a Republican issue, just not one the current Republican government was promoting, and Republican voters let them know.

  10. Funny thing about Bush’s tax cuts.

    Federal tax revenues actually went up.

    Yes, spending also went up.

    But the end result was the deficit percentages went down.

    Just can’t argue with these facts.

    >>>>
    However, these facts that the tax cuts actually stimulated the economy and increase the average standard of living of Americans are irrelevant, because Democratic believe the tax cuts are simply unfair.

    Again,.. this isn’t an argument based on economic improvement or social welfare. This is an argument based mostly on wealth envy.

    Except that this really is about social welfare in the context of wealth-distribution Socialism.

  11. Lawrence,

    This statement of yours is a show stopper and is simply wrong and unsubstantiated,

    “My point is that this argument you post isn’t about the poor, but about your distrust and wealth envy of successful people.”

    I might add also that your statement was an unkind thing to say about me because it suggests that I hold my political views for only selfish reasons. I don’t call you selfish for supporting lower taxes. It also says that I am distrustful and envious of rich people. Did you interview my friends, pastors, teachers, mentors, etc. to get that information? Probably not since that’s not what they think about me. Which means you made it up.

    Lawrence, the point is that you don’t know me, don’t know my job, don’t know how much money I have, or my net worth and for you to make assumptions about these things and my motivations is just flat wrong, especially since your assumptions were fairly unkind and somewhat of an assault on my character as a person. Worse, they were innaccurate.

    I would not do that to you. I don’t know why you felt it necessary to do it to me. You could have kept the discussion to the merits/disadvantages of particular policies, and now I’m left wondering if I should even respond to you further considering what other unkind psychoanalysis you might have in store following a subsequent comment by me.

    I think you crossed the line and hope you would reconsider your statement.

    –David

    ps-This site has been buggy and I haven’t been able to post my reply until now.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s