header image
[ # ] Thoughts on the Election
November 9th, 2006 under Politics, poor

My friend D.R.’s reflections on the election has caused me to reflect on what the Dem “takeover” means to me. My thoughts on the elections:

Pros: It means that Americans are tired of the corruption and abuse of power that has been rampant these past few years. That being said, I’m sure that the corruption and abuse of power by Republicans is not due to their being Republicans. Given the same chance, I think Dems would do the same thing. Sure, the Dem majority of the past did not have the same level of corruption, but I think it’s because of a huge culture change in Washington.

It means that Americans are fed up with the Bush administration’s flat out lies and incompetence about the War in Iraq. We are tired of Rove and Bush playing on our fears. No one really believes that some politicians want us to lose in Iraq. We’re not that stupid.

It means that everything that Bush wants to do will not be rubber-stamped by a Republican Congress or lazy Dems who don’t have the fortitude to stand up against torture and other abuses.

Maybe the poor will get help from the richest nation in the world. Maybe my parents will be able to afford their medication again. Maybe all children will have access to healthcare. Maybe some folks will be able to support themselves by working hard for 40-60 hours a week.

Maybe there will be less rhetoric about homosexuals and undocumented workers. It’s obvious that these issues were used to manipulate voters and have been very divisive.

Cons: Gas prices will rise again. Trust me. The only reason gas prices have been low is so that Republicans could take credit for it. Now that the Dems have won, the gas companies will screw us again. I will never forgive EXXON for what it did after Katrina.

The economy will suffer. There’s now an excuse for corporations to lay off folks so that they can “maintain” their profitability and I’m sure they will. Let’s be honest. Our “booming economy” hasn’t helped the poor. There are more poor than ever and the richest Americans are now more wealthy.

The Dems won’t be able to solve all of the problems either. Pretty pessimistic I know, but they won’t fix the way our politicians use their offices for personal gain. They’re just as greedy as Republicans, but they are a lot less hypocritical.

BTW–William Jefferson got 30% of the vote. This vote, and the fact that C Ray Nagin was re-elected causes me great sorrow. $90,000 in a refrigerator. Innocent until proven guilty? Come on.

Read the Comments

[ # 19775 ] Comment from jasonk [November 10, 2006, 3:09 am]

I praise you for your honesty! That was a great take on Tuesday’s events. There will still be
corruption at the top. There will still be war (because the Dems don’t have a good solution for
getting us out of Iraq), and there will still be the need for social security and immigration
reform. But will it get done? Not likely.
The economy will suffer, which means that more of us regular guys will suffer. I don’t like it
when the poor suffer, but if they are poor because they don’t care, or won’t work, then so be it.
What I don’t want to see happen is the hard working people lose the opportunity to build wealth
for their future.
Honestly, as long as the White House keeps Congress honest, and vice versa, I think everything
will turn out fine.
Again, very well written article. Thanks!

[ # 19777 ] Comment from Michael [November 10, 2006, 3:23 am]

Some further pros: Rumsfeld is gone, Bolton won’t get confirmed, minimum wage will be rising soon, there will be hearings on the energy policy and Iraq war “intelligence.” I’d keep in mind that many of these new Dems are to the right of Reagan on most issues. Now get ready for two years of vetos. Will Bush be able to find the stamp? Also, I keep hearing about the war in Iraq’s impact on the elections. What about Katrina? Surely that mattered.

[ # 20086 ] Comment from jasonk [November 11, 2006, 12:25 am]

Howie, you were right on the gas prices. They jumped ten cents a gallon overnight here in T Town. And the price of
oil is still low. Jerks.
Michael, the minimum wage may go up, but if that forces the small business owner to lay off his employees because he cannot afford
to pay them, how does that help the economy?
Katrina may have been an issue in the south, but I doubt it mattered to most people outside of the south, unless it was just
one more mitigating factor in peoples’ decisions.

Here is the rip to those who were calling for the ouster of the Republican leadership–you are in really good company:

[ # 20461 ] Comment from howie [November 11, 2006, 9:18 pm]

The great news about the minumum wage is that several states have done it already with no ill-effects and a recent study I came across in teaching Business Ethics show that raising the minimum wage doesn’t cause unemplyment to rise.

[ # 20559 ] Comment from Michael Westmoreland-White [November 12, 2006, 4:10 am]

The best thing the govt. could do for business is not to keep the minimum wage low, but to enact universal health care.
Healthcare is the biggest labor cost. If it was single-payer, tax supported, U.S. businesses would be more competitive with
European rivals. It would also save health care costs by cutting down on the paperwork from multiple insurance companies and
allow doctors to take care of patients without worrying about what was covered. It could be paid for by a capital gains tax on
the big pharmaceutical companies making 200% profits.

Raising minimum wages, far from causing unemployment, usually generates more economic activity because those earning the bare
minimum need to put their extra money directly back into rent, food, etc. which added activity helps small businesses!

Anger over Katrina, and Bush’s attitude, was the chink in the armor that allowed all the other frustrations, with the war,
corruption, etc., to come to the surface. People had been bullied into submerging those feelings in the name of patriotism–but
the flood waters ripped the cover off and bubbling up came the anger over preemptive war (and being lied to about the reasons),
3-4 deployments of the same reserve and National Guard units (even in ‘Nam only one tour was required), tax breaks to oil
companies, etc. All the many, many complaints surfaced when people saw Katrina and the govt.’s reaction of “tough; take care
of yourselves.”

[ # 20945 ] Comment from jasonk [November 13, 2006, 4:46 am]

It is still amazing to me that people are giving Bush and the feds the finger over Katrina. It was
not the hurricane that caused the most damage, it was the levies giving way. And the levies gave
way because of corrupt politicians in Baton Rouge. Say what you want to about response time, but the
damage of Katrina in New Orleans would have been far less had the levies held.

I am no political scientist, just a consumer, but universal health care would be a disaster! I do not
want the same people treating my medical condition that run the post office and the public school system.

Write a comment

howieluvzus' photos More of howieluvzus' photos

Recent Posts
Save This Page