Prognostication (or “Why Democrats Are Retarded”)
October 20th, 2006 by Wulf
Okay, here’s my prediction. If I’m right, I’ll probably surprise a lot of people. If I’m wrong, I leave myself wide open for the I-told-you-sos. Anyhow, here it is.
The Democrats will win the mid-term elections, and lose it in 2008
Americans are so sick of the curent administration, including a congress riddled with corruption and scandal, and an unwillingness to reevaluate our approach to Iraq, that the Democrats will most likely take at least the House, and probably the Senate. Hell, the current state of affairs and the way the neo-cons have hijacked our government makes me almost want to vote a straight D ticket, even though it goes against my principles. However, the D’s are too idiotic to keep it. Here’s why.
1.) They are too splintered–The D’s tend to be more diverse than their elephantine counterparts. This COULD work to their advantage. . . if they manage it right. They won’t. To succeed, they need to get together and come up with a solid agenda that reverberates with their constituents. They won’t. Instead, they will try too hard to go too far, and promote a secular humanist, academian agenda. They have lost touch with their logical base.
2.) They will raise taxes and spending–With our deficit, there is no question that taxes cannot remain where they are. But spending also needs to be cut and the tax code needs to be simplified. Americans know this, the Democrats don’t. I’m not saying we should cut all our social programs, but they need some work–which brings us to the next subject.
3.) They will blindly follow the same programs that made people tired of their leadership in the late 90’s–Social security needs to be reformed, and so does welfare. So do any number of programs. They don’t need to be abandoned, just reformed to make them more workable and less prone to abuse.
4.) They will not enforce immigration laws–something needs to be done. They have made it abundantly clear that they do not stand with the majority of the country on this issue. That will frustrate voters.
5.) They will gridlock with the President–granted, this one is not entirely their fault. The president has shown himself incredibly reluctant to reach accross the aisle. But they won’t either. They’ll be seen as an obstructionist congress, and very little will get done. THis will especially frustrate people on security issues. The D’s may even have some better ideas on security, but they won;t get them through because they will be more interested in attacking the President’s position than compromising.
6.) They won’t reform health care–Americans will never go for a purely socialist system (nor should they), but Democrat politicians are too beholden to the dollars of drug companies and insurers, just like the Republicans. They will be unwilling to go against their funders, and Americans will remain uninsured and underinsured. They will come off no better than Republicans on this one.
7.) They won’t address middle class concerns–I’ve already touched on health care and illegal immigrants driving down wages. They also won’t do anything about outsourcing or loss of all manufacturing jobs in America. They will be too busy pursuing their social agenda. Unions will remain powerless to promote the working man’s interests, and corporations will grow ever more powerful. Anti-trust laws still won’t be enforced and mergers will continue to push small business owners out into the snow. They may increase minimum wage, but not to a livable wage. People will still live beyond their means (just like the country), savings will shrink to an all time low, and those coming up on retirement will panic when they see that STILL no one is looking out for them. Republicans already have an advantage in that Republicans will receive a lot of middle class votes because of the Ds’ far left image on social positions and the prevalence of “voting your religion” among the middle class.
That covers most of it. Feel free to add your own examples of Democrat stupidity in the comments sections. I won’t moderate unless it becomes excessively vulgar or profane. As for me, I’ll be voting third party in the congressional elections, mostly because of the shameless mudslinging in Arizona’s elections and the fact that neither side is really stating a position. They seem content to hurl half-true allegations at the other guy. Screw all the Republicrats and Democans. The Washington party needs some real competition before things will change. . .
“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”
-Winston Churchill
Nice post. I disagree with parts, but nothing outrageously so. I’m not sure that the Dems will win in November, but heaven know’s it’s theirs to lose. Frankly, if they weren’t so tone-deaf on the issues you point out, they’d be slamming the Republicans hard right now.
You did miss one, though–and it’s the biggest one. All they’d have to do to take both 2006 and 2008 is commit to the War on Terror–even if they defined it in their own terms. It’s largely their refusal to admit there *is* a war that’s held them back the last four years. Instead, they drove the one pol they had who was strong on the war out of the party (Lieberman).
Spencer, Why do you think an increase in minimum wage is necessary? My understanding is that the vast majority of minimum wage earners are teenagers, part timers and entry level workers. These people aren’t trying to support a family on this wage. Or in the case of entry level workers, they aren’t there for long. It is meant to be a training wage to help the business owners who are spending time and resourses training new workers. I also believe that no one has to be stuck with minimum wage. Sonic has a sign that they are hiring starting at $7.oo/hour and In-N-Out Burger pays $9.00/hour. If fast food already pays more than minimum, who in the world stays at minimum wage for any length of time?
anywhere from 15-20 percent of those working minimum wage are the family breadwinner. Now I have no problems with having a separate minimum wage for teenagers that is lower than those over a certain age. I also have no problems with allowing a lower, temporary minimum wage for entry level positions that have a fair chance of promotion or for those with fewer than 2 years working experience. THe point is that, even at $9.00 per hour, that’s less than $19K per year. that’s $1600 per month. With no apartments for less than $600, and groceries for a family of four being $400, power being 200, water $50, clothes (averaged) $50, $100 for car insurance, That leaves precious little for contingencies or quality of life, and nothing for savings. What’s going to happen when those people retire?
Unless we want masses of impoverished retirees in 50 years, something has to be done to allow people to meet their basic needs (even without owning homes or going on vacations) and still have a way to provide for their future. Minimum wage is only a start of what has to be done to reform the economy.
What kills me is how social conservatives lament the lack of stay-at-home moms, yet set up an economic system where both parents have to work to stay above the poverty line. Go fig.
[…] up the ghost and do what’s best for her party, but then, I’ve already pointed out that democrats are retarded, and I don’t think it will ever happen. She’s really like a chihuahua clamped down on […]