Wednesday, December 19, 2018

Why the Democrats winning IS a good thing

by J. La Mont (writer), , November 08, 2006


In the spirit of true journalism I want to say that I was on the Democrats payroll for a few years. Not because I blindly believe what they say (I'm a registered independent) but because they've been

In the spirit of true journalism I want to say that I was on the Democrats payroll for a few years. Not because I blindly believe what they say (I'm a registered independent) but because they've been the voice of the moderates and of the middle class. In short they've been my voice.

1. Congress will have oversight and accountability. Our government was built around the concept of checks and balances but this essential feature was lacking under the rubber stamping Republican congress. The Democratic majority, if it's has learned from past mistakes of both parties, will make corruption and lobbying reform the first act of business. It will also force compromise which in the end will be better for us all. Rumsfield's overdue resignation was merely the first sign of a better tomorrow.

2. The middle class will finally have a chance. Comrade Carson says that Bush has led us into the best economy we've ever been. I admire the devotion after such a public thumping and imposing reality. Our debt following the era of Reganomics II has ballooned to nearly $9 trillion which my generation will be forced to pay. This policy helped lead to the recession that the first Bush faced which Clinton pulled us out of while balancing the budget.

Since Bush took office health premiums are up over 80% (Kaiser Family Foundation), college costs are up 44% (College Board) and housing is the least affordable in 19 years (National Association of Realtors). The Wall Street Journal reported "Since the end of the recession of 2001, a lot of the growth in GDP per person -- that is, productivity -- has gone to profits, not wages. The real household income is down $1,300 a year. So if you don't have to worry about paying for health insurance, education, housing or your bills then I guess the economy is good.

So the rich get richer while we get poorer. Before I forget the National Priorities Project found the tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% could have been given California:

*19,603 Affordable Housing Units or
*98,798 Elementary School Teachers or
*2,442,764 Children with Health Care or
*121,843 Public Safety Officers or
*87,540 Port Container Inspectors.

3. Most importantly this election has moved the country radically towards the center and back to bipartisanship. Both sides are forced to avoid extreme polemics and instead focus on the governing of our country. In 2008 this nation will take the final step in electing a moderate president, republican or democrat, and finally be cleansed of the Bush experiment.

About the Writer

J. La Mont is a writer for BrooWaha. For more information, visit the writer's website.
Want to write articles too? Sign up & become a writer!

3 comments on Why the Democrats winning IS a good thing

Log In To Vote   Score: 0
By D. E. Carson on November 09, 2006 at 02:31 am
Finally, someone who seems to want to debate me without calling me every epithet in the book (or accusing me of being "abusive" -- you know who you are). Let me begin by saying that I am *NOT* a neo-con. In fact, I didn't cast my first vote for a Republican presidential candidate until Robert Dole ran for president. Prior to that, I voted for Bill Clinton (1992) and Michael Dukakis (1988) (for those of you who remember back that far). Before that, I was not old enough to vote, but I did help campaign for Jimmy Carter in 1976 and 1980 as well as Walter Mondale in 1984. I did not jump on the conservative wagon like everyone else when we were attacked on 9/11. I was already on there when the rest of them jumped on. I'm all for checks and balances but not when it compromises my personal security. I want to know exactly what is the Democrat's plan for Iraq? I don't want to hear "We can do better" or "we have a better plan." I want the plan, in its entirety. I want to see every single jot and tittle. The problem is, there IS NO PLAN! Every Democrat who has been asked this question cannot come up with an answer! I would love to hear what the Democrats plan to do with Iraq! When they finally pull their thumbs out of their mouths and actually come up with a plan, I will read it beginning to end. As for Rumsfeld, I am sorry to see him go. I liked him. But, I support Bush's decision and frankly, I'm glad it waited until today. If it had happened before yesterday, it would have been seen as a Republican ploy to shift the vote. What exactly do you mean, "the middle class will finally have a chance"? Last time I looked this is America and everyone in this country has the same chance as everyone else -- or is that just some myth made up by the Republicans? I'm a member of the so-called "middle class". I'm not "rich" by any means. You know, I can go back to magazines dated March through October 2000 that talk about the recession (and I just can't seem to remember the name of the guy who was president in 2000. His name just escapes me). Besides, all the anti-Bush-ites can't seem to get this through their heads, so I'm going to repeat it again: Bush cut the taxes on the poor and middle class in May of 2002 and NOTHING HAPPENED! When Bush went back to Congress in April of 2003 and demanded his tax cut for the rich, THE ECONOMY BEGAN TO GROW. The problem is, everyone wants to look at just the national debt. They don't realize that the budget gap has narrowed over the last three years, revenues to the federal government are higher than they've been since Reagan was president and the budget deficit is at a mere 2% -- LOWER than when Reagan was president which was 2.7%. Anti-Bush-ites just don't seem to get it. The greatest paradox in economy is that when taxes are LOWER government revenues are HIGHER. Never mind that Bush's plan to reduce the budget deficit is actually three years ahead of schedule! I wish that someone would actually try to refute these facts, but the truth is, it cannot be done. Now, can you please tell me exactly how you arrived at the notion that Clinton pulled us out of a recession? I want to see data, not speculation. Point #3: Exactly how is it that Bush is responsible for the increases you cite? Exactly whom did he call on the telephone and order to raise these? I'm not disputing your data, just the source of what your data reflects. You're blaming Bush because he's a Republican. That is a weak argument. In my critical thinking class that is called a fallacy and had I really cared enough to pay closer attention, I could tell you exactly what type of fallacy it is. Point #4a: "so the rich get richer while we get poorer." If only I had a dollar for every time I've heard that line of baloney, I'd have more money than Bill Gates. Of course, there would be some socialist Democrat trying to steal it from me. What is it that you so vehemently hate about rich people? Do you not believe in the free enterprise system economy we have in America? Like I said before, I come from a blue-collar family. I don't have millions of dollars in the bank. I have college loans that I'm trying to work off. I have credit card debt. I drive a second-hand car, but what is it about being rich that you so openly criticize? Is it because they have money and you don't? Is it because someone was smart enough to figure out how to "build the better mouse trap" and it wasn't you? I feel sorry for you if that is your motivation for hating the rich. I thank God I live in America where I have the chance to become rich if I put my effort into it instead of sitting on my couch with my feet up and my thumb in my mouth clutching a blanket. Point #4b: Did you know that the wealthiest 1% of this nation pay over 70% of the tax revenue that is collected by the IRS every year? Whoops! Let me say that again: The wealthiest 1% of this nation pays over 70% of the tax revenue that is collected by the IRS every year. Let's look at your figures. -- In order to build 19,603 affordable housing units, they need to be built somewhere. Who's going to pay for the land on which you build these? Some rich developer probably. -- Where would those 98,798 elementary school teachers teach? Schools are over-crowded everywhere. How about instead of buying more teachers, we build bigger schools? Then we actually teach students instead of babysitting them! Of course for that to happen, parents need to do a better job of being parents instead of using the school as a babysitting service. -- 2,442,764 children with health care. Hmmm...sounds like socialism to me. I thought we lived in a capitalist economy. Government-provided health care has to be paid for by tax dollars and frankly, I'm not real excited knowing that my hard-earned money is going to pay for a tonsillectomy on the child of some dead-beat parent who would rather live off food stamps than get a job. -- 121,843 Public Safety Officers wouldn't be necessary if parents would teach their children better. I can't tell you how many cops I know who wish parents would take the time to be responsible for their children. One of them even told me that if parents would spank their children more, his job would be a lot easier. Of course in California, corporal punishment is verboten because some thumb sucker in Sacramento didn't like the idea that he was spanked as a child. -- 87,540 port container inspectors won't be necessary by 2010 anyway. The NASCO super corridor will eliminate the need for port inspectors because the shipping containers will land in Mexico and be trucked to Kansas City to a Mexican government owned and operated super port being built there now. Do I think Bush was the greatest president? No. Are there things I wish Bush had done differently? Sure. For example, I don’t agree with his idea for dealing with illegal aliens. George W. Bush was handed a tough presidency. I will give him credit for standing on principle and not vacillating with public opinion. I want to see anybody who criticizes Bush try to handle the job he was given. You go stand on a pile of rubble that used to be part of two of the tallest buildings in the world and tell the families of those lying under your feet that you’re not going to do anything about what happened. You tell their children that they have to go to bed at night worrying that a nuclear bomb may drop on them while they are asleep. I grew up with that threat over my head (I even lived where they shot the movie The Day After and seeing the faked devastation was enough to keep me awake at night). I don’t want my daughter to have to live through that, too. I believed that as long as Bush was president and the Republicans controlled Congress, I could tell my 7-year-old daughter that she could sleep peacefully at night. That no one was going to launch an ICBM at her while George W. Bush was in the White House. I’m thankful that she doesn’t remember 9/11. Now I have to lie to my daughter and tell her that everything will be all right even when I believe it is not. Then I get to lie awake at night worrying that a nuclear warhead is going to come over the North Pole. I don’t expect anyone to change their political affiliation because of this, but I would like it if you at least understand where I’m coming from.
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 0
By J. La Mont on November 09, 2006 at 10:57 pm
I'm going to be traveling for a bit but before I go I want to quickly respond. College prices are up from reduce federal funding to students & to reduce money to the states who thereby give less money to state schools and who then raise prices on students. Also Republicans have refused bills that would make tetbooks cheaper and tuition deductible. You want bigger schools guess where that money comes from. His healthcare policy is a example A of governmental bungling. Removing medicare's ability to negotiate lower prices while creating more government red tape that benefitted big pharma than the average citizen. The top 1% also have 90+% of the money so the fact they pay 70% of taxes is absolutely acceptable. I don't hate rich people, I hate entrenched bureacracy that limits the equality of opportunity that is essential to the American dream in the guise of libertarian ideals. I'm also from Larryville and the nukes over the north pole argument is flash not substance. Any president would have went after Afghanistan and the terrorists. Few, including Bush's dad, would have went into Iraq especially with such a nonexistant occupation strategy. We are less safe now than before invading Iraq. There are so many points that you're factually wrong and many more I strongly disagree on principle and opinion. Unfortunately I don't have time for a political pissing match but if this helps someone form an opinion then we've done our job.
 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 1
By E Jo on January 30, 2007 at 01:56 pm
720 days 22 hours 07 minutes and 43 seconds cleansing commences
 Report abuse

Add A Comment!

Click here to signup or login.

Rate This Article

Your vote matters to us