gazpacho and spoke- you may well be right. The truth is, we really don’t know. A lot depends on the numbers and the timing. Consider these scenarios:
1- a devastating attack early in 2003 leaves 50,000 Americans dead. Short term reaction would be a unified country, and we would all want to kick some serious ass. Once we did so, then the party in power is going to be hurting. Nobody blamed Bush for 9/11, it was a sucker punch that we didn’t see coming. However, if it happened again today, there would be some question as to whether the government could have prevented it. This may or may not be fair to Bush, but I think a lot of people believe our guard should be up and no more punches should land.
2- a devastating attack in October 2004 leaves 50,000 Americans dead. Bush’s reelection would be a foregone conclusion. Otherwise, I wouldn’t see any particular advantage to either political party . Everybody would be outraged, everybody would want to kick some ass. The difference in this case is that we would still be in the initial shock and not would have had time to consider what could have been done to prevent it.
This is all unchartered territory and hopefully will remain so.
I’m certainly losing no sleep over this. There will be gridlock in the Senate now, just as there was before. The GOP may control the agenda but they don’t control a damn thing when it comes to passage of that agenda. It will still take 60 votes for most legislation to pass through the Senate, and with the GOP having max 52, that’s going to be a bit harder than it sounds. Especially with every Democrat digging in their heels like never before.
The Dems know that anything that happens in the next two years will land squarely on the backs of the GOPs. That means that it’s in the Democrats best interest to block any and all legislation, and blame any gridlock on the Republicans. If legislation does happen to get by them, then I’m sure they’ll just hope it flops.
This mid term election almost certainly means that it will be much harder for Bush to get re-elected, due to the perverse nature of the American voter, and that when something goes wrong (and in two years it most certainly will) Bush will have no choice but to take the fall.
Over all remember that the current Senate controlled by the Dems has been the least productive in history, and this isn’t about to change.
Reforming bankrupcy law := “screw the consumer”. I worked in credit card collections for a few years. I also collected car payments for Chrysler financial. It is entirely too easy to just rack up literally 100’s of thousands of dollars of credit card debt and then just wipe it out with a bankrupcy. This can be done with certain items “withheld”. Like car payments and mortgage, and that one platnum card that you never got in trouble with. Bankrupcy attorneys are particularly good at abusing this system. All consumers pay for this behavior, so if anybody is “screwing the consumer” it is the system now that is. The republicans want to fix this. That doesn’t make them the evil pawns of MBNA. How are the terms of the contracts going to change?
Hooray!
**
**
WTF? Hyperbole, anyone?
**
I already paid tax on my income. I shouldn’t have to pay again when I sell my condo.
OF course you did. They’re not there. Rather, they’re pro-pillaging and pro-private schools. Same end result, of course.
Actually, many times it means exactly that.
But pro-education does require adequate funds.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA! That must be why he’s revoking all those new SEC regulations! LMAO!
Duh, who isn’t in favor of more money in their pockets? But the mainstream is also in favor of paying the bills, not cash advances on America’s credit card.
Bullshit. Poll after poll reveals that Americans support reasonable restrictions on gun ownership.
Duh.
No. There is no movement whatsoever towards harsher treatment of criminals. The public seems quite satisfied with the current draconian measures.
Oh, like that means a damn thing. Everyone’s opposed to government that’s too big. Only question is which parts they want to lop off. Of course, the Republicans never want to make those hard choices, do they? Put the budget where your mouth is, Pubbies.
minty, with all due respect, since voters, in the last two elections, have elected a Republican president (granted, Gore got the popular majority, but even there the margin was less than a million) and Republican majorities in both houses of Congress (remember that the Democrat Senate majority of the last two years was unelected, caused by the Jeffords defection), you leave two possible interpretations of your statement:
There is a mainstream which is stupid enough to either not vote or vote against what you claim are their interests, or
You have a definition of “mainstream” which somehow does not involve how the majority (or nearly half, if you wish to quibble the 2000 presidential popular vote - even adding Nader’s totals to Gore’s doesn’t put Bush’s total that far below 50%) of Americand vote. Care to enlighten us?
And perhaps the mainstrean is pro-environment but thinks a tiny slice of tundra isn’t too much to sacrifice for more oil; pro-education but feel that public education can be improved through innovation that comes through competition from the private sector; pro-choice but don’t think birth-control abortions should be federally funded; pissed at criminal CEOs but not willing to blame the lawmakers since said acts were already criminal and the perpetrators are being duly prosecuted; hear a lot of talk about bad HMOs but rarely encounter problems with their own?
At least in regard to your last matter, about HMOs, I can give you some clear cites: This government survey from 1993 and this one from 2000 both show customer satisfaction levels topping 75% for commercial health plans, including HMOs. Tell me, minty, are those 75+% out of the “mainstream”?
I suggest you re-think your assumption of where the “mainstream” stands on issues, or at least give an indication of how you define “mainstream.”
Solution: Stop issuing huge lines of credit to people not sophisticated enough or financially stable enough to handle them. Ah, but that would require the credit card companies to take some responsibility for their own poor credit decisions, wouldn’t it? Easier to correct those mistakes after the fact by changing the law.
(You don’t dispute that MBNA is the primary mover behind “Bankruptcy Reform” do you? Or that they have filled Republican coffers this campaign season?)
Easy. The credit card company and the consumer enter into a credit card agreement with one set of bankruptcy laws in place. Both parties are presumed to be aware of this law, and take it into account in arriving at the terms of their agreement.
(That is, the credit card company knows a certain percentage of consumers will declare bankruptcy, and takes this into account in setting high interest rates.)
Now, with the contract signed, the credit card company gets the law changed. Now it gets to charge high interest rates and prevent consumers from discharging credit card debts in bankruptcy.
In other words, the terms of the bargain originally struck by the parties (which took into account the then-existing law) have been changed.
Not at all. Eliminate capital gains tax and estate tax, and income tax is carrying the entire load of federeal taxation. I.e., only working people will pay federal taxes.
People who inherit their wealth, or who make their money playing the markets would not carry their share of the federal tax burden (though they would enjoy the benefits of federal government).
Why not?
Your position is that someone who works for their money should have to pay taxes on it, but that someone who has money fall into their lap in the form of inherited wealth should not pay taxes. Is that it?
Pro-private schools does not mean “anti-education”.
**
I think you mis-understand. If you asked people if they are pro-environment of course they would say yes. But that people are not in favor of environmental protection if it costs thousands of jobs, was my point.
**
“adequate funds” = throw money into a broken system. Pro-education can mean privatization of public schools. Pro-education can mean school choice. The republicans have different ideas on how to fix our failed schools. This doesn’t mean they are anti-education.
**
The people who stole money from companies like Enron were already breaking the law. They should be punished. Has Bush ever done or said anything that indicated he didn’t want them punished harshly? We don’t need new laws passed because of these people that were already breaking existing laws. The government needs to enforce the existing law.
**
The people of my highly democratic state just nearly voted away our entire income tax which generates 40-60% of government revenue. I started a thread on it, here. American’s want less taxes, even at the expense of government programs.
**
We already have about 30,000 “reasonable restrictions” on gun ownership. Americans are in favor of gun ownership. The left has recently started to become aware of this. They didn’t make anti-gun stuff a big part of this years campaigns because they are starting to figure out that it is a losing political issue for them. For a long time, though, I don’t think the Democrats realized that their anti-gun stance was not agreed with by american people. I think this was especially true during Clinton’s administration.
Being anti-gun was just about the only issue that you can find on Clinton that he disagreed with the majority of American people. I think this was because he didn’t know he was in the minority. Like I said, it took the left a while to figure this one out somehow.
What will be enacted will be further tax cuts, tilted toward the rich. Increasing federal decifits and increasing dependence on foreign oil.
There will be demands on the part of religous right for the Republicans to “couch up” on abortion, school prayer and such.
Don’t be surprised if the Republicans get back down to 50 Senators thru replacements due to death or resignation, a moderate Republican senator will become an independent or Democrat to block the more conservative agenda.
—1) Revoke the tax cuts (and no, Apos, it is not at all misleading to refer to this as a tax hike)—
Well, maybe I mistated that. It’s DISHONEST to refer to it that way. Failing to reduce rates is simply not the same thing as raising them. Heck, how many anti-redistributionist rants have I posted? That still doesn’t make black white.
As for Bush being tough on the SEC: didn’t I hear that Harvey Pitt resigned last night? Was I drunk? Imagining things? Isn’t that a good sign as far as SEC reform?
—And the Democrats have only themselves to blame here - they opposed just about every nominee Bush sent their way - even the moderate ones.—
Cite? If I remember, they approved more than the Pubs let Clinton pass. There were a few highly publicized rejections.
Point well made, but even taking that into account, the effect of the elimination of the capital gains tax and the estate tax is to shift a greater share of the tax burden onto those who actually have to work for their money.
The problem isn’t that people are not sophisticated enough or financially stable enough. I specifically reffered to people abusing the system. These people are highly sophisticated.
**
I don’t know, but I’ll take your word for it. I don’t feel like the two of us going on an afternoon cite hunt to find how many dollars exactly MBNA gave to every candidate. However, I am sure that Republicans weren’t the only ones to take their money.
**
This argument is flawed. You could use the same logic to argue against changing any law. Examples:
Changing the speed limit.
Insurance companies and consumers enter into an insurance policy with one set of speed limits in place. Both parties are presumed to be aware of this law, and take it into account in arriving at the terms of their agreement.
Changing any housing laws.
Landlords and tenants enter into a lease with one set of housing laws in place. Both parties are presumed to be aware of these laws, and take them into account in arriving at the terms of their agreement.
-----> Paranoia note to mods: I am using nearly his exact words back at him to show the flaw in his reasoning. I am not attributing this quote to him in any way shape or form! So, please do not ban me.
**
Because the bankrupcy laws change, doesn’t mean the credit card companies can suddenly change the amount of interest they are charging customers. If you are arguing this then please show a cite.
**
Like I showed above, so what? The rules change all the time. The laws in this country are fluid. What makes the credit card agreements so sacred that they can’t handle any change. Every other aspect of our society deals with laws changing just fine.
**
Yes, that is my position. I work hard my whole life, paying taxes along the way. When I die, it’s not fair for the government to punishe my family by taxing my death.
In addition to it being immoral, there are some logical arguments against this tax.
The costs of administering the tax eat away most of the money raised.
The money has already been taxed once when I earned it in the first place.
It hurts the economy.
The government ulitimately generates less revenue.
To specifically address your example: Someone inherits a large amount of money. They then invest it all in the stock market.
Ok, under my system, this person wouldn’t have to pay taxes to inherit the money. It’s already been taxed by the parent who earned it in the first place. Our theoretical person then has a large amount to invest in the market, which is really just buying ownership in American companies. This creates more jobs, more wealth, and more employees for the companies invested in. These new employees will pay taxes. Also, the new plants, property and equipment the company buys with the investment are all taxed. The company sells more of its products and services which all generates more money for the federal government to tax.
You don’t seem to understand how the economy works. You see, eventually, the government will get to tax the money. You just want to tax it at the front end, where the money doesn’t get to do any good for anyone. If they tax it like you want then here is what happens.
Our theoretical person gets his inheritance, which is heavily taxed. This money is gone to be spent by the government and is not invested in the stock market with all the above mentioned benefits for government revenue and society at large. Then he invests the rest in the stock market. Only for his proceeds to be taxed away from him once he makes any money. This means people will be less likely to invest at all and the economy will suffer.
Debaser: I am not going to engage in a scattershot pissing contest on six dozen issues with you to see which party’s more mainstream. I will be happy to debate individual issues with you in appropriate threads.
cmkeller: Contrary to your claim, the American public opposes opening up ANWAR to oil drilling.
Milo: Don’t think I’m any kind of fan of the far-left special interests in the Democratic party. It’s time to put them in their place. If you’d do that to your bad guys, I’d still be voting Republican.
My own predictions regarding the new balance of power in Washington:
Of primary relevence, of course, judicial nominees will again begin to at least receive votes in the Senate.
The Dept. of Homeland Security will be formed.
The tax cuts will be made permanent, including the repeal of the death - I mean “inheritance” - tax.
Republicans will not be overly ambitious. With the new command of the Senate, the republicans will begin to re-assign the heads of committees, and such. However, they currently have only a one-seat lead. (Maybe two, after the December election in Louisiana, which would change things slightly.) Assuming they keep the one-man lead, they haven’t exactly ousted all Democratic influence. Under Senate rules, if they can’t agree upon a distribution of committee members, the old organization stands - advantage dems. The Republicans, then, will need to compromise somewhat. They’ll be in a vastly superior position then they were before, but it won’t be a cake-walk.
In addition, there was talk before the election of one Republican pulling a Jeffords and switching to the dems (which seems to me an amazingly dishonest thing to do mid-term, but that’s a different thread). This was (depending on your sources) almost a certainty if the Republicans took 50 seats, which would’ve been bad. With the pubs’ 51-seat lead, though, it seems far less likely, but still, I expect them to play it low-key (read: moderate) for the next couple of years. If the Republican candidate wins the LA revote, though, I think the pubs may behave little less conservatively - which is to say, a bit more conservatively, I guess. But mostly, I expect all of the right-wing rhetoric to come out of the House, since the Pubs there offered up a metaphorical bitch-slap to the Democrats, and have a more-than-comfortable lead.
The war will come, and soon, but this was going to happen regardless. Unless, possibly, the dems had token both the House and Senate, but that was never more than a pipe dream.
The notion of drilling in ANWR will go by the wayside. Shame, really.
Europe will be taken aback by the naive and ignorant US’s reaffirmation of our foolish president’s cowboy-like demeanor. Look for much fretting and fussing overseas by the European elite and politicians alike.
Rhenquist will retire, safe in the knowledge that he will see a conservative-leaning successor.
I agree with Apos regarding the economy. The people will complain, the pubs will offer something up - most likely of token value - and the economy, completely of its own accord, will rebound. The Republicans will receive credit, and will bask in their glory. This, combined with the successful war in Iraq (which lasts roughly 6 weeks) will give Bush the re-election in '04.
Barbra Streisand will spend the next 2 years faxing poorly spelled memos to Democratic leaders, telling them to remember the lesson learned in '02.
Dan Rather will cry himself to sleep every night for the next week.
I’ll cry myself to sleep as well, after the realization that Gray Davis is still my governor seeps in. (California to Davis: “We love corruption, as long as it’s coupled with unbridled incompetence!”)
That’s true to a point, but it’s also misleading to refer to it as simply failing to reduce rates. Imagine I promise to give you $1000 tomorrow, and you spend the evening planning out how you’re going to spend your wealth. Then tomorrow I come to you and so, “Oh, I changed my mind. Sorry.” Now, it’s true that this isn’t the same thing as me taking $1000 from you, but in your mind, you’re still $1000 poorer than you thought you were going to be. Thus it’s not the same as if I’d never promised you the money at all.
These tax cuts have been passed. At this point, revoking them would much closer to a tax hike than to simply not having a tax cut.
OK Debaser, you’ve hijacked this thread enough. The OP asked for opinions on what the Republicans would do, and I listed polices which they have said they would pursue. Now you want to debate the merits of each of those policies. I’ll be happy to do that, but please open a new thread for the purpose.
I do have to respond briefly to this argument against the estate tax, though:
This is the bullshit “double taxation” argument.
Why bullshit? An illustration:
Let’s say you pay me $5000 to paint a house. Uncle Sam taxes me on that income.
Now let’s say I take $2000 of that same money and hire somebody to fix my car. He gets taxed for that income.
Wait a minute! That money has already been taxed! Double taxation! Double taxation!!!
What you seemingly do not understand is that what is really being taxed is not the money itself, but the transfer of money. When it gets transfered from me to my mechanic, it gets taxed.
So why shouldn’t money which gets transfered from your Daddy to you get taxed? (Actually, why shouldn’t it be treated the same as any other income?)
Your position is that my mechanic, who worked to get his $2000 should be taxed for it, but you, receiveing money for which you did not work, should not be taxed.
If you wish to debate this further, please open a new thread to debate the merits of the estate tax.
Back to the OP: I think the Republicans, now that they are in control, are going to enlist a swarm of flying monkeys to do their bidding.
Hmm, are Presidents supposed to base their actions on the percentage of votes they received? I was under the impression that the Prez was the Prez, and was charged with exercising the duties of the office. The really funny thing about your post is that just prior to the election in 2000 the dems were saying much the same about the likliehood that Bush would win the popular vote instead of the electroral vote. Your guys sung a different song then.
