2006 Mid-Term Elections.. What does this hold for America's Future?

I'm sorry, but believe it or not, not everybody is capable of helping themselves. Some people truely can't support their family, and it's the best their doing.

Temorarily, sure. But for months or years? Even generations? No.

Not all jobs give families enough to money to be supported.

Why? 75% of the minimum wage jobs are held by high schoolers.

I'm sorry, but that is selfish. I am very glad that you worked hard to earn your money, but there are others who are less fortunate and either can't earn that money and can't support themselves. Basic morality dictates you should help others.

Less fortunate? How? We live in the same country?

But in another sense, I disagree. Some people have jobs that don't pay enough for them to support their family or even themselves. Some parts of welfare (or a similar one) should be designed to support families. Some people honestly will need support for the rest of their lives.

Barring an injury, this is an impossibility. The rest of their lives? Explain this to me.

I guess that's where I disagree with conservatives. Not everything is as simple as peope getting a job which can provide for them for the rest of their lives. I do think the government should help out people for logn periods of time, as long as they are doing the best they can.

But them most, if not all, will never do the best that they can.

Possibly. I do disagree though that people can start getting better jobs if they just work at it. Some people will simply always be in need, and some people will never get a job good enough to support their families.

That's crap. Show me.

And why would they, then, have families if they cannot and will never be able to afford them? What right do they have to expect you and me to pay their bills? None. No right at all.

Once again, believe it or not, not everybody can get to a point where they don't need help just by working hard. The American dream, IMO, means America provides a vast spectrum of opportunities, not that anybody who lives in America will find a job well-paying job.

Well, quit underselling the American dream. This is a country where a fatherless uneducated kid can make something of himself. (That's me, BTW)

 

Well it's not entirely crap; some people simply lack the motivation and goals to be responsible for themselves. Victimhood is a suit that fits some snugly.

E_S

 

Ahhhh...if nothing else, we both agree in at least one area!

If only neoliberlaism was called something else...

 

Hey, you guys messed up the term "liberalism". Not my fault, considering technically you are a liberal.

 

Oh...oh man...I...I've never been called that before...

So here's a good question. How did the two terms get switched in America? And when did it happen? Was it simply due to the confusion caused by the religious right? Social conservatism?

'Cause I know for my whole life, the definition of conservative in America has always been the same.

 

Temorarily, sure. But for months or years? Even generations? No.

Depends on how big the family is and how much money it takes to support it.

Why? 75% of the minimum wage jobs are held by high schoolers.

I'm not sure I understand your point.

Less fortunate? How? We live in the same country?

But we are not all born with the same advantages in life which include environment, intelligence, talents that produce success. Some people are born in the ghetto, or some might be born without much talent or intelligence to get them anywhere in life.

And growing up in the ghetto leads to bad choices. Like drugs, gangs, and the lack of education would lead to giving birth to lots of children (if you don't know about birth control). Now I know these people made bad choices, but that doesn't mean they don't deserve any help.

I'm willing to help a mother with seven kids addicted working at a minimum wage job, even if its her fault for having too many children. (which, actually isn't totally her fault)

Barring an injury, this is an impossibility. The rest of their lives? Explain this to me.

Some people just don't have what it takes to find a job good enough to support their family which may include many kids. Again, is it their fault for having all those kids? Maybe. Does that mean we should help them at all and let those kids starve? No.

But them most, if not all, will never do the best that they can.
That's crap. Prove it.

And why would they, then, have families if they cannot and will never be able to afford them? What right do they have to expect you and me to pay their bills? None. No right at all.

Yeah, so maybe they made bad choices. That doesn't mean we should turn our backs and let them starve. Or maybe they just didn't know any better. Again, going back to the "ghetto," there isn't very good education there and some woman probably didn't learn about birth control and how not to have kids. (it's funny how conservatives say they would rather these people help themselves, but they are against educating kids about safe sex) Without education about preventing pregnancy, they create large families to support which they can't provide for.

Well, quit underselling the American dream. This is a country where a fatherless uneducated kid can make something of himself. (That's me, BTW)

If your view of America is anybody can get a job and pay for any family they wish no matter how stupid of how "ghetto" their childhood was, then that's way oversimplified.

 

If the election had been this November, there is a good chance that the Democrats would have been able to make some gains. As it is, the Republicans will be back in fullswing by next November and you will see the Republicans remain in control of Congress until 2008. Which means that Bush is essentially going to have free reign for the rest of his term.

Sound like good times to me. I hope you Dems out there don't mind.

 

I think you are making predictions that in no way you can take to the bank.

While I agree that local and national factors will change between now and 11/06, they are still very important and could easily be against the republicans come that time.

There is simply no way to predict.

Welcome to the boards, by the way .

Peace,

V-03

 

"Your overconfidence is your weakness"

Iraq is KILLING the Republicans
The Economy still isnt that great, and what Greenspan said doesnt help
Bush can't find a good nominee for the SC

I agree that the Republicans will remain the majority, however, the Senate and House will both tighten up

Its 55-44 and one Independent who caucuses with the Dems (Jim Jeffords who is retiring) I expect is to become about 52-48 with then someone such as Lincoln Chaffee of RI potentially switching parties and making it a 51-49

The House is 231-202 with one Independent. I expect the gap to close to about 223-210

 

I think it is funny how in one thread I can be for one group and I go into another and agree with the people that I felt like screaming obsenities at only moments before, but I guess that's what I get for being socially conservative and economically liberal or is it economically conservative? I get confused.

There are people in this country who simply do not have the skills to make a living wage, and people like me who are being paid obsenely to waste my time posting here.

2006 depends almost entirely on Iraq, the Dems have a chance to win big but they apparently are too stupid/stubborn. Historically it would be huge if the Reps managed to keep control of both houses like they did in 2002. The loons on the left need to let someone like Hillary go to the center to take control of the party and move in back into the mainstream otherwise they will continue to be marginalized.

 

Up! Current events, I think, deserve to bring this thread back to life. We now have Tom Delay relinquishing his position, Bill Frist still under investigation, Libby being charged, and Abramoff and Scanlon turning state's evidence, which could damage members of both parties, but at a time when the Republicans are in the majority.

So the quesion is, in ten more months, will these carry any weight, or will the party manage to convince the whole country, of what Tom Delay has always told his constituents: it's all a left-wing conspiracy to criminalize conservative politics. That all the people being branded as criminals are really being persecuted for their political, and evangelical, beliefs. Will they be seen as corrupt politicans, or as victims? At this point, I don't see them being able to sell vicitmhood to the American people.

 

i am going to up this thread now. there are a ton of developments in the abramoff scandal. i don't know how many in congress are going to be touched signifigantly by this but i hope i speak for everyone when i say "enough with the corruption already. i don't care if you are a democrat or a republican...if you are corrupt you need to get tossed out of congress. i think new blood is needed in congress."

 

Let's sum up:

1. The stock market is about where it was when George Bush took office at the beginning of his first term. The best you can say is that the market has dug itself out of the incredibly deep hole caused by anticipation of the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

2. Unemployment remains higher than when George Bush took office

3. The housing market has seen incredible growth over Bush's presidency. The downside of this however, is that the boom may soon be over. And because of points 1) and 2), most of people's sense of economic well being is directly tied now to home ownership and home values. If the housing market collapses, consumer spending will collapse with it.

4. The war on Iraq continues unabated. George Bush's only accomplishment there to-date is the Iraqi elections, something about which most Americans don't give a damn.

5. Corruption, corruption, corruption. We can bet that most Americans have already forgotten all about the Plame leak, but other scandals have sprung up to take its place.

6. Further political polarization caused by Bush's choices for SC nominees.

7. Oil prices. The long-term trend for oil/gas prices seems to be inevitably up.

8. The high cost of the war on terror on American integrity. We're now a torture state by official policy. We're also a country that wiretaps its own citizens without any due process. Over time, these bleak facts of the trade off offered to Americans by the Bush administration between freedom and security can only hurt America's self-image and international standing.

What effect will this have on mid-term elections? Probably not much.

 

Your #5 had quite an effect twelve years ago when the Republicans swept in. In fact, for the Republicans to hold on, they may only have one hope....

Victimhood is a suit that fits some snugly.

How appropriate! The Republicans now claim to be victims. Tom DeLay claims to be the victim of a politically motivated witch hunt. Bill Frist claimed that Bush's judicial nominees were victims of a "filibuster against people of faith." (Strange, considering that many more of Clinton's nominees were filibustered. Bush, by comparison, has been on easy street.) The Republicans need to really sell that victim story this year.

 

And why would they, then, have families if they cannot and will never be able to afford them? What right do they have to expect you and me to pay their bills? None. No right at all.

To be totally blunt, I can see your point in some respects. If people have children they can't afford to take care of, that in and of itself doesn't mean you should be expected to foot the bill. You've got your own mouths to feed, etc.

That's totally reasonable on some level.

However, to put it in the most mercenary self-interested way possible, if the parents can't take care of the kids, and the government doesn't take care of the kids, the kids aren't gonna get taken care of, and the money you don't spend on social programs will be outweighed by what you spend on law enforcement and the prison system.

When it comes down to it, I'm not some starry-eyed idealist. I just know that people society ignores don't just go away, and it makes more sense to be proactive and try to fight poverty than it does to let things go to hell and

Are the Democrats social programs working? No, not really, to be honest. However, they're like the little Dutch boy with his finger in the dyke, and it would be a good idea to find something else to plug the hole before you tell him to pull his finger out.

So here's a good question. How did the two terms get switched in America? And when did it happen? Was it simply due to the confusion caused by the religious right? Social conservatism?

I think it was with the Cold War alliance between social conservatives and economic liberals (who saw religion and the free market as the things which set us apart from the Soviets), and the widespread embrace of the Great Society by social liberals.

 

It's pretty important in Maryland, we're getting a new governor that could decide which direction the state goes in. Plus, my dad is running for County Commissioner

 

And why would they, then, have families if they cannot and will never be able to afford them? What right do they have to expect you and me to pay their bills? None. No right at all.

And, you know, maybe if conservatives supported teaching teenagers about birth control methods, maybe they wouldn't have had those families.

 

And, you know, maybe if conservatives supported teaching teenagers about birth control methods, maybe they wouldn't have had those families.

There's really no "maybe" about that. It's pretty well-proven.

 

And, you know, maybe if conservatives supported teaching teenagers about birth control methods, maybe they wouldn't have had those families.

There's really no "maybe" about that. It's pretty well-proven.
Indeed. Other countries that teach comprehensive sex education have lower per capita teen pregnancy rates than we do. That means that, armed with information, rather than igorance and fear, teenagers have decided to A) use condoms, B) abstain from sex, and make an informed decision about it, rather than simply parroting what they've been told, or C) both.

 

I think it's funny, I wonder how this might affect future politics...

HERE

 

House Republicans elect Boehner as leader
Thu Feb 2, 2006 2:39 PM ET



WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Rep. John Boehner of Ohio upset a former deputy to indicted Texan Tom DeLay on Thursday to become majority leader of the scandal-rocked U.S. House of Representatives.

Rep. Roy Blunt had appeared to be the front-runner, based on a long list of public commitments, but Boehner, who campaigned on a vow to seek to renew the party's "spirit and vision," defeated Blunt and Rep. John Shadegg of Arizona in a secret election by fellow Republicans.

Boehner had 122 votes to Blunt's 109. Shadegg dropped out after a first ballot loss.

Boehner's election represented a shake-up in the House leadership, as Republicans effectively gave a vote of no-confidence to Blunt, the acting majority leader and a close ally of DeLay.

But Blunt will remain in the House Republican leadership, holding onto his job as majority whip, the person responsible for making sure Republican-backed bills pass the House.

Blunt became acting majority leader in September after DeLay was forced under House Republican rules to step down when he was indicted in Texas on campaign-related felony charges.

In January, DeLay, under pressure from members, announced he would not seek to reclaim the job after lobbyist Jack Abramoff, a close associate, pleaded guilty in a mushrooming influence-peddling investigation that threatens the Republicans hold on Congress.

Pardon the pun, but I hope Boehner can straighten things out in the House.

With DeLay gone, there is an opportunity for more bipartisanship. If the new Majority Leader is more inclusive with the Dems, then hopefully the Dems will reciprocate.

There is much that needs to be done, and the best ideas from both sides of the isle should be considered.

 

Bipartisanship would be nice. So would positive campaigning, as opposed to A) the democrats running on what the Republicans have done wrong, rather than what they themselves will do right and B) Republicans ignoring the bipartisan support they got soon after 9/11 in favor of pretending that they alone responded to the attacks, fighting the Democrats all the way.

 

I agree, the Democrats need to start saying HOW they will change things for the better. How will they handle the economy? How will they handle Iraq? How will they handle gas prices? How will they put and end to corruption?

HOW HOW HOW HOW HOW