The Democrat's Contract With America.

ViRedd

New Member
The Democrats' contract with America
By Ben Shapiro
Wednesday, October 25, 2006


Democrats claim they have consistently lost elections over the past six years based on their inability to define a platform. Democrats were for the war before they were against it; they were for social security reform before they were against it; they were for sexual impropriety by politicians (Bill Clinton, Gerry Studds, Barney Frank) before they were against it (Mark Foley); they are unsure about the morality of gay marriage, but will slander those who oppose it. Democrats are consistent on two issues, and two issues only: abortion and tax cuts. They're for the former and against the latter. Which is, of course, why Democrats have not fully defined their platform: Their platform is unpalatable to most Americans. Ambiguity is a better option than clarity.
Ambiguity remains a better option than clarity for today's Democratic Party. Hence the fawning over first-term Senator Barack "Blank" Obama (D-Ill), who, to paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, can compress the most words into the smallest ideas better than any man in politics. Obama is the culmination of a decade-long Democratic attempt to run from their own ideas. He refuses to be pinned to policy. According to Blank's own proclamations on "Meet the Press" on October 22, he is for "common sense and pragmatism" and "smart government." This will surely distinguish Blank from those politicians who campaign on the basis of stupidity, impracticality and imbecilic government.
Sen. Blank has the right idea: obscure, obfuscate and obstruct when it comes to questions of policy. Unfortunately for them, Democrats are buying into their own rhetoric about the lack of a platform. Democrats have identified a problem: They have no platform. But they have not identified the problem: Their platform is ridiculous. And so, for the 2006 election, their platform looks something like this:
Dump the tax cuts. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) would be head of the House Ways and Means Committee were the Democrats to retake the House. He has stated that he would not renew a single tax cut. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi would be Speaker of the House. She has promised "a rollback of the tax cuts." Democrats are far more willing to talk about rollback of domestic tax cuts than they ever were to discuss rollback of communism.
Investigate everything. Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) would become the head of the House Energy and Commerce Committee if Democrats regained House control. He pledges investigations regarding everything from climate change to port security. Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), as prospective head of the Government Reform Committee, declares he would dig into Halliburton. Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) would be elevated to head the Judiciary Committee and plans to investigate the Patriot Act and domestic wiretapping. If you've enjoyed the partisan wrangling of the past few years, you'll love a Democrat-controlled House focused on bringing down the Bush administration.
Hamstring the War on Terror. Democrats have already targeted the Patriot Act and domestic wiretapping; monitoring terrorists offends their delicate sensibilities. Democrats have been undermining the prosecution of the war in Iraq since its inception. Now they would initiate investigations into intelligence and the FBI's treatment of leakers. They would attempt to set a hard, fast and immediate deadline for American troop withdrawal, regardless of the consequences.
Impeach Bush. Don't buy Nancy Pelosi's denials on this score. Pelosi doesn't want to become the left's version of Newt Gingrich, but she doesn't have strong enough control over her fellow Democrats to stanch their poisonous desire for retribution after a 12-year exile from the majority. Besides, if Democrats managed to impeach both President Bush and Vice President Cheney, Pelosi would be next in line for the presidency.
Democrats have not been subtle about their plans. Egged on by their radical Daily Kos/Ned Lamont/Howard Dean base, they have spoken clearly on the issues. And though Democrats protest when Republicans point out their far-left agenda, the American people know enough not to trust Pelosi, Rangel, Dingell and Conyers with war or the economy. Pelosi shouldn't chortle over which House office suite to pick just yet.


Ben Shapiro is a regular guest on dozens of radio shows around the United States and Canada and author of Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America's Youth. Be the first to read Ben Shapiro's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox. Sign up today!


Copyright © 2006 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
 

medicinaluseonly

Well-Known Member
there you go with your anti-Democratic rants! Have you ever listened to Arack Obama, I doubt it! you seem to enjoy using other peoples ideas about positions on politics. When will I ever hear your thoughts in any positive way. For example: you've never said what it is about the Republican party that winds your clock, in your own words. you bring out Ann Coulter to do your talking for you. I'm starting to think you don't have your own view, just a mish mash of other peoples views. Tell me in your own words what is wrong with Arack Obama, tell me what he says that offends you. The only thing I can glean from all your second person rants is that you're against any tax increase that might hurt your bottom line, so the only view it leaves me of you is that you're Greedy, uncaring about your fellow human and you don't want anyone to question your relentless tirade against democrats, Sort of like your Idle, Ann Coulter!
 

ViRedd

New Member
I rant about the Democrats because it Soooo easy to do.

Osama YoMama has no relevence except that he's a new face speaking old platitudes. He hasn't even finished his first senate term yet, and the Dems are touting him as their next Savior. He has NO SOLUTIONS! Its one thing to say Bush is a Nazi and needs to go, or that the war in Iraq is midguided ... but what are the solutions? The Dems NEVER come up with solutions, only complaints. That goes for you too, Med. You squeal like a little bitch about the rich, the robber barons, the evil corporations, the greedy ... but even though I've asked you numerous times how YOU would make the country/world look if you were King ... you never answer the question. The reason is ... you have no solutions either and your way will never work, because your way is anti-human nature. It is anti-Mankind. The only way your program would work is at the point of a gun with the threat of the Gulag.

How's that for original thought?

Vi
 

Dankdude

Well-Known Member
Just remember it took the Republicans 12 years to get corrupt when it took the Democrats 40 years.
 

medicinaluseonly

Well-Known Member
That goes for you too, Med. You squeal like a little bitch about the rich, the robber barons, the evil corporations, the greedy ... but even though I've asked you numerous times how YOU would make the country/world look if you were King ... you never answer the question. The reason is ... you have no solutions either and your way will never work, because your way is anti-human nature. It is anti-Mankind. The only way your program would work is at the point of a gun with the threat of the Gulag.

How's that for original thought?

Vi[/quote]
and your solution is?
 

ViRedd

New Member
Nope, my solution would be to cut taxes for those who pay taxes. Whoops, Bush did that and the friggin' economy boomed. Come to think of it, JFK did the same thing and the economy boomed. Hmmm ... so did Reagan ... and another economic boom. Must be a pattern here, eh?

Vi
 

Resinman

Well-Known Member
It was clintons policys that had the best economy and the best returns on stocks in The USA historys


The current boom in the economy ,,,last 3 years

was from greenspan lowering the fed funds rate to 1%,,,and the excessive free money supply,,,creating a inflationary enviroment,,,Bushes taxes are nothing more than a political lie,,,

now that they have raised the rate the economy is puttering at 1.6%


If the tax cuts were benificial,,,, the economy would not be at 1.6%


Resinman
 

ViRedd

New Member
Dank & Med ...

How can I defend my position on tax cuts if you guys never define the term "rich?"

In your estimations, what size income deems a person "rich?"

Vi
 

medicinaluseonly

Well-Known Member
It's like saying "The one eyed man is king in the land of the blind" How much is too much. Let's pick a figure: If you've got 100,000 in a savings acct or stock acct, and you don't owe it for anything except your dwelling, your rich. This does not count your other assets like autos and dwellings and various things like jewelery etc, I suppose if you,ve got 100,000 more than me,your rich. Hell I don't know it's so subjective, I guess a net worth of half a mil would do it, Basically it's the attitude of smug I've got more than you assholes I can't stand, no matter how much they have. In the order of the world I'm in the top 2% of wealth and I don't have squat, but I'm rich compared to 98% of the population, It's that.1999% I can't stand!
 

Dankdude

Well-Known Member
Anyone who makes over $300,000 a year can be considered rich.. How's that for you Vi, give you something to work with?
 

ViRedd

New Member
Med ...

So, anyone with more than you is rich, is that it? Like I said in a previous post, you suffer from envy, jealousy and greed. And by the way, I'm getting a bit tired of you continually referring to me as an asshole. For the life of me, I cannot fathom your irrational responses to a simple political discussion. Why don't you go run along and torque down a few head bolts or something.

Dank ...

An income of 300k a year would put that individule into the top 1% of wage earners. Now, its not likely that that person would have that income if he lived in Cut-N-Shoot Texas where 300K a year would probably be a ton of money. BUT ... in Manhattan or Malibu that would just about pay the interest on the home mortgage. Wealth is relative and in the eye of the beholder.

Vi
 

Dankdude

Well-Known Member
Regardless, the tax breaks that were past by the Bush Administration don’t even have any real benefit to anyone until they reach the $300,000 wage bracket.
And yes, not just the top 1% need to be taxed, the top 5% should be taxed.
BTW there are places in Texas where $300,000 a year isn’t enough, Try Houston and Dallas and Austin.
 

ViRedd

New Member
Dank ... the top 5% already pay the majoroity of the income tax now. And, you statists keep missing the fact that Bush's tax cuts not only caused the economy to boom, but also caused the budget deficit to be cut in half.

Vi
 

Dankdude

Well-Known Member
The Economy has only boomed in the stock market, it nas not reached the street. And before you start dragging out your Unemployment figures, need I remind you that those are figures for new filings and in no way reflect those who are on benefits or those who's benefits have ran out.
 

ViRedd

New Member
Hmmm ...

OK, forget the unemployment figures for now.

Interest rates are still at near record lows with no raises in sight.

Home ownership is at an all time high with 68% of Americans owning their own homes.

Stock Market is at a record high, benifiting the "man in the street" by bolstering up retirement plans, 401k plans and the security of those already retired from the private and public sector.

The federal government's deficit has been cut in half due to the tax cut causing an increase in revenue to the government's coffers.

If you Big Government guys want to increase revenue, stop punishing success through tax increases. Cut taxes further to allow the engine of capitalism to produce more revenue. It works every time.

And by the way, Clinton was no great shakes. The Democrats tout Clinton's budget surplus. Well, that surplus was gained though raising taxes right after he took office in his first term. It was a record tax increase, made retroactive, and that caused major disruptions in the business community.

A government surplus is nothing to brag about as it just means that the government has confiscated more of the nation's wealth than government needs.

Vi
 

medicineman

New Member
Vi, I'm sorry my old fart friend, I calls em as I sees em. Maybe if I met you in person I'd change my mind, highly unlikely, but possible. Yeah just chalk me up to jealousy,greed, and whatever other asshole name you are calling me, I'll just stick with asshole. I'd like to torque your headbolt a little, I know that would be wonderful. BTW that is no threat as I'll never meet you and I'm a very non-violent person. all of my posts about doing harm to you are in jest, in the vernacular if you must. So lighten up and enjoy my banter, after all who else do you have to argue with besides me and Dank, and as far as researching facts, show me how to post links and maybe I'll do one once-in-a-while, I'm far from being a computer Guru!
 
Top