Posted on 11/08/2006 6:35:06 AM PST by flixxx
THIS ONE IS PRETTY EASY TO EXPLAIN. Republicans lost the House and probably the Senate because of Iraq, corruption, and a record of taking up big issues and then doing nothing on them. Of these, the war was by far the biggest factor. Unpopular wars trump good economies and everything else. President Truman learned this in 1952, as did President Johnson in 1968. Now, it was President Bush's turn, and since his name wasn't on the ballot, his party took the hit.
(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...
Your comments are spot on, IMO.
As is mine.
Post Mortem Why Republicans got shellacked in the midterms:
While there are a lot of truthful insights here, the losses were almost pre-ordained by the historical experiences of elections in a presidents 6th year.
The best we can hope for is that Bush uses his veto pen liberally (so to speak) and that the dems true colors are shown to the mostly disinterested masses so we can repair the damage in 2008. IMO, this hurts Hillary and the rest of her ilk in 2008. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
If we insist on perpetuating this nonsense, the 2008 election is going to go down the sh!tter for the GOP, too.
The "statistical" side of our casualty figures are only the surface of what's really happening here. What's driving so much of the discontent about this war is that a substantial number of the troops in Iraq are not "regular" military but are National Guard and Reserve forces instead. The disruption this causes in the lives of ordinary Americans -- along with the multiple military funerals in specific geographic areas whenever a single unit in Iraq is hit particularly hard -- is starting to wear them down.
Now, you might suggest -- and rightly so -- that these Americans are "tougher than most" and are willing to sacrifice and "stay the course" in Iraq for a long time. But that number declines constantly under duress, and not because people themselves are any less tough, patriotic, etc. than they used to be. I bet a lot of them have simply looked around at all the illegal immigrants who pour across our southern border (with the complicity of our own government, by the way), at all the leftists who show up at anti-war demonstrations in their SUVs and Volvos in between trips to Starbucks, and are asking themselves: "What's the f#%&ing point of all this?"
Keep in mind that the Democrats had overwhelming majorities in Congress for most of that time -- mainly because the party was much more conservative at the time, and because the population of the U.S. was heavily concentrated in Democratic strongholds such as the Northeast and Midwest.
The GOP majority in 1994 wasn't a huge one, and it hasn't varied much in size over the last 12 years. The Democratic majority in the House isn't a huge one, and their Senate majority is as slim as it could possibly be. I suspect there will be a lot of changes in dominance in both houses of Congress over the next couple of decades -- and that's not necessarily a bad thing.
"I bet a lot of them have simply looked around at all the illegal immigrants who pour across our southern border (with the complicity of our own government, by the way), at all the leftists who show up at anti-war demonstrations in their SUVs and Volvos in between trips to Starbucks, and are asking themselves: "What's the f#%&ing point of all this?"
This last part, I have no disagreement with, and certainly wouldn't blame them. That might even be my sentiments if I were in their shoes.
However, I still don't belive it is why the election was lost. It was due to ignorance, and the head of the snake is the media. Ignorance is real, and it won this time.
Good riddance to Mr. Shaw -- and I have no idea (and no concern) what he stands for. I want every GOP House and Senate member who lost in this election working in the private sector at least 500 miles from Washington, D.C. for the next five years. Then they can come back and serve as the best campaign strategists this party has ever seen.
I haven't seen any numbers on this, so this is just a hunch here -- but I think the biggest story behind this election is going to be the number of military votes the GOP lost (either to their Democrat opponents, or to apathy) in this election cycle. In fact, I would not be surprised if military votes ended up being the decisive factor in George Allen's loss to James Webb in Virginia.
No, the real Democratic stronghold was the so called solid South. The South influenced the Dem party because it was more conservative. There is a reason why most of the committee chairmen were from the South. LBJ's support of civil rights essentially laid the foundation for the South moving over to the Rep side. Depending on what period you are referring to, the Northeast and Midwest were Rep strongholds. The Javits/Rockerfeller/Taft Reps. The urban areas were always Dem.
The GOP majority in 1994 wasn't a huge one, and it hasn't varied much in size over the last 12 years. The Democratic majority in the House isn't a huge one, and their Senate majority is as slim as it could possibly be. I suspect there will be a lot of changes in dominance in both houses of Congress over the next couple of decades -- and that's not necessarily a bad thing.
The GOP "majority" was indeed slim and almost an anomoly. The idea that we "controlled" Congress and government is nonsense. This "majority" cannot compare with what the Dems had during the 62 years prior. Composition of Congress by Political Party. The only brake on the Dems was the Southern conservatives.
It took us 40 years to gain the House and the Dems 12 years to regain it. I don't see the current split being maintained or control shifting back and forth, except for perhaps the Senate. Demographics will play a part. I see the Dems increasing their control as the percentage of minorities grows. The trend is in the Dems favor. Approximately, one out of every three Dem voters is black or Hispanic. The percentages are higher in places like California and Maryland. It remains to be seen whether the white, rich liberal Dems can maintain control of the party and what the impact on the body politic will be as they surely will lose control. Will the party become more radicalized? Will more middle class whites become disenchanted with the party?
Overall, it will be a long time before the Reps ever regain control of the House. Depending on how the entitlement programs are fixed, the Reps could become a permanent minority party. It is sobering to realize that 80% of Americans pay more in FICA taxes than income taxes. As the wealth disparity grows and the income tax burden falls on fewer and fewer, there will be pressure for more and expanded government programs since the costs will not be borne by a majority of the people. Tax the "rich" is an easy, painless solution to all of our problems--according to the Dems.
I sometimes wonder if Incumbentstan on the Potomac even recalls that there is such a thing as the private sector, except as that mysterious place tax money is extorted from.
I certainly agree that was the case in VA. Webb was an USNA grad, former Marine, a legitimate war hero [winner of the Navy Cross], former SecNav under Reagan, and had a son who is a Marine stationed in Iraq. Thanks to Webb's resume, Allen did not win enough votes in Norfolk and Virginia Beach to offset Webb's Northern VA margin of victory. But Webb is not your typical Dem candidate.
There also may be greater unhappiness with the war by the military and their families, especially in the National Guard. They are getting weary of the war in Iraq and the sacrifices they are making, especially with the additional demonization of the war by the cut and run Dems. Who wants to die for a mistake?
It's worth noting that the GOP's ascension to power over the last 25 years has really been tied to the party's ability to secure conservative votes from conservative parts of the country that used to be heavily Democratic. The "conservative" part hasn't changed all that much -- only the party affiliation has.
It is sobering to realize that 80% of Americans pay more in FICA taxes than income taxes.
That's not such a bad thing. The FICA tax is an income tax for all intents and purposes (most people don't realize this -- and it's better to keep them ignorant over it), and since there's a cap on income subject to FICA taxes it's actually a regressive income tax.
As the wealth disparity grows and the income tax burden falls on fewer and fewer, there will be pressure for more and expanded government programs since the costs will not be borne by a majority of the people. Tax the "rich" is an easy, painless solution to all of our problems--according to the Dems.
Even most Democrats are smart enough to realize that raising tax rates on upper-income earners won't generate enough revenue to support these stupid programs. This is why the "tax the rich" component of the party's last big tax-hike scheme (Clinton's 1993 budget) basically obscured the fact that the biggest revenue-generators in that tax bill were extremely regressive taxes borne primarily by middle-income and low-income people (the fuel tax hike, the new taxation of Social Security benefits, etc.).
Even more absurd was the way Clinton became a "fiscal conservative" by signing Republican tax cuts in 1995 that made the tax code even more regressive -- by imposing steep tax cuts on capital gains (most people in low-income brackets have no idea what a "capital gain" is) but by leaving the other 1993 tax hikes in place!
Most of the shift has taken place in the South, but that has come at a cost. Now the Reps are branded as racists and bigots by the Dems. There have been other subtle shifts. I am concerned about trends in the Southwest and Midwest, the Northwest, and VA. The Dems are making inroads. Who would have thought we would have two Dem senators from Montana and ND? The Dems now control more governorships than the Reps. We need to refocus and reevaluate our party values and standards. It was just a few years ago, people were saying that the Dems were no longer a national party, now it looks like we are headed that way. We need to select better candidates statewide. Dole and Reynolds did a lousy job compared to Emmanuel and Schumer. For example, Webb and Sestak were inspired choices. They took down Allen and Weldon.
That's not such a bad thing. The FICA tax is an income tax for all intents and purposes (most people don't realize this -- and it's better to keep them ignorant over it), and since there's a cap on income subject to FICA taxes it's actually a regressive income tax.
Not really. The cap on OASDI increases automatically every year. In 2000 the cap was $76,200. In 2007, it will be $97,200. The Dems are talking about raising it to $200,000 as part of an immediate fix. Contribution and Benefit Base. There is no cap on Medicare contributions. I agree that OASDI and Medicare are really income taxes. Most people don't realize that the taxes increase automatically each year. Unless you make over the cap, you don't feel it, which is why it is insidious. Since the increase is tied to the average wage index, more and more Americans will find themselves having more and more of their incomes taxed, which will make it less and less regressive. We are on automatic pilot with out entitlement programs. Our government is raising taxes evey year and neither Congress or we vote on it.
Most people are unaware that the so-called SS Trust Fund is filled with IOUs in the form of non-market T-Bills, i.e., they are not real assets and can only be redeemed by the USG. They would be surprised to find out that almost half of our $8.5 trillion national debt is from the SS Trust Fund and similar trust funds and is held as "intragovernmental" holdings.
SS is a pay as you go system and starting in 2017, we will be paying out more than we are taking in. We will have to borrow more "real" money to pay benefits. Now, approximately, 17 cents out of every dollar of total tax revenue collected is immediately used merely to pay the burgeoning interest on the Federal debt. This is now surpassing the costs for our entire defense establishment, and it is exceeded only by the revenues needed to fund the total Medicare and Medicaid programs.
Even more absurd was the way Clinton became a "fiscal conservative" by signing Republican tax cuts in 1995 that made the tax code even more regressive -- by imposing steep tax cuts on capital gains (most people in low-income brackets have no idea what a "capital gain" is) but by leaving the other 1993 tax hikes in place!<
About half of Americans are invested in the stock market, directly or indirectly. So, more people derive a benefit than just the "rich."
While you may view many of the taxes as regressive, we also have a graduated or progressive income tax system. The more you make, the higher your rate of taxes. The whole tax system has grown like topsy and is a product of special interest groups. Trying to make fundamental changes is almost a hopeless exercise given the lobbyists, special interest groups, and possible unintended consequences of change. I do know that the Dems "targetted" tax cuts will not work and will hurt our economy.
This is a misleading point in the context of this discussion. A good chunk (maybe most) of those "half of Americans" are invested in the stock market through deferred-taxation plans like IRAs, 401(k) plans, etc. I suspect very few of them even understand the financial statements they receive every quarter or every years, and even few of them understand the implications on their assets of changes in capital gains tax rates.
The primary beneficiaries of reduced capital gains tax rates were people invested in things that reported capital gains outside tax-deferred investments -- like real estate, stock market investments, etc. By and large, these tend to be more sophisticated investors who are dealing with larger sums of money than your ordinary investor.
Not really. The cap on OASDI increases automatically every year. In 2000 the cap was $76,200. In 2007, it will be $97,200. The Dems are talking about raising it to $200,000 as part of an immediate fix. Contribution and Benefit Base. There is no cap on Medicare contributions. I agree that OASDI and Medicare are really income taxes. Most people don't realize that the taxes increase automatically each year.
The cap increases with the rate of inflation every year, so this would tend to mean that it would roughly correlate with increases in incomes people earn. And there may not be a cap on Medicare contributions, but there are some creative mechanisms by which a savvy person who owns a company can reduce Medicare taxation entirely -- by converting income from "salary" to "dividends" and paying both a reduced dividend tax rate and by eliminating payroll taxes on those dividends entirely.
No, the cap does not increase with the rate of inflation. It is based on National Average Wage Index, which is actually going up faster than the rate of inflation. The result is that more and more of people's salaries are falling under the cap. For example, the cap in 2005 was $90,000. Two years later, it will be $97,500. That increase in the cap is more than the rate of inflation.
Some "saavy" person who owns a company can use a way to reduce his own Medicare taxes and some of the stockholders in the company who are paid in dividends in lieu of salary, but anyone who receives an income, which encompasses the vast majority of people, must pay into medicare at the rate of 1.45% for the employee and 1.45% for the employer's share [or 2.9% for the self-employed] with no cap. It is also interesting to note that the Medicare tax started out at .35% in 1966 and is now 2.9%. In addition, Medicare Part B costs are increasing almost every year for recipients. You can see how OASDI and HI costs have increased from 1% in 1937 on a cap of $3,000 to the current 15.3% today. You can bet that the costs will continue to go higher as will the salary caps.
Also, remember that SS benefits are based on contributions and those at the lower end of contribution scale actually get more in benefits than those at the higher end. The calculation of benefits formula weights the contributions to give slightly more benefits to those who contributed less. And the sad reality is that you really don't own anything. A single person who started paying into SS at 18 and died at 61 with no dependents would have his estate receive nothing except a small burial allowance. It is all a Ponzi scheme, which is unsustainable. In 1950, there were 15 workers for every retiree, today there are 3.3, and in 2030, there will be 2. Couple that with indexing benefits to COLAs and you have a trainwreck ahead.
There are still 15 workers for every retiree -- it's just that 12 of them are living in places like China and Indonesia right now.
It sounds silly, but there's a lot of truth to this. I've long suspected that the burgeoning growth of trans-Pacific trade -- along with China's insistence on pegging their currency to the U.S. dollar (which ensures that their manufacturing costs will always be lower than ours but also ensures that their standard of living will always be lower than ours) -- is largely driven by an overall scheme to perpetuate these unsustainable Ponzi schemes by allowing people in the U.S. to avoid the pain of perpetuating them ourselves.
The goal here is to ensure that people in 2030 who are paying 50% of their income in Social Security and Medicare taxes will actually have a much higher standard of living than people in 2006 who are paying 10% of their income to support these two Ponzi schemes.
There will be more investigations than heretofore ever seen at a greater cost, with no results.
They are not paying into SS or Medicare.
The goal here is to ensure that people in 2030 who are paying 50% of their income in Social Security and Medicare taxes will actually have a much higher standard of living than people in 2006 who are paying 10% of their income to support these two Ponzi schemes.
It depends on what jobs are being exported. If we become a society without a middle class, we will resemble a third world economy. Also, if workers are paying 50% of their income to the government, we are well on our way into socialism similar to what is happening in Sweden. That is a hell of a price to pay for security. I can just imagine what kind of control the government will exercise over our lives. I say that advisedly having worked for the USG for 36 years. r
Not directly -- but when you think about it, they are (in the form of an artificially stunted standard of living).
If we become a society without a middle class, we will resemble a third world economy.
You might be right. On the other hand, there may be an inevitability about this whole thing. I never understood why slavery in some form was the norm in almost every culture in human history, but I'm starting to wonder if this is because the human condition is such that slavery is a "necessity" at some point and a sizeable middle class is the exception, not the norm.
*
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.