Welcome to PatsFans.com

Nov. 7, the Dems got a mandate

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Patters, Nov 17, 2006.

  1. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,768
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +169 / 4 / -4

    Man, I can't believe I almost got tricked by all the spin -- that a difference of 77,000 votes and the Dem's wouldn't have won, that conservative Dems won, etc., but the more I read, the more I find out how untrue it is. In this week's, New Yorker's Talk of the Town column, they have this passage:

    "In 2000, the last time this year's 33 Senate seats were up for grabs, the popular-vote totals in those races, like the popular-vote totals for President were essentially a tie. Democrats got 48% of the vote, Republicans slightly more than 47%. This time, in those same 33 states, Democrats got 55% of the vote, Republicans not quite 43%. In raw numbers, the national Democratic plurality in the 2000 senatorial races was the same as Al Gore's: around half a million. This time, despite the inevitably smaller off-year turnout and the fact that there were Senate races in only 2/3rds of the states, it was more than 7 million."

    Now, think about it, Bush thought he had a mandate with a "win" of 500,000 votes. So, using that standard it's pretty clear that the American people are really calling for a return to Democratic values, and the nonsense from the righties is simply more of their spin and lies.
  2. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    An election's like a football game, man, it doesn't matter if the score is 31-0 or 14-13, it still goes down as a W. When Bush won the 2000 election despite losing the popular vote, he still wielded his power like he had won in a landslide. Once an election's over, gotta move on, nobody's going to care how the Democrats won, but everyone will be watching to see if they f up. The second they start thinking "we got a huge mandate, we can be arrogant", it'll slip away.
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2006
  3. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    One thing that may point the Senate Dems in the direction of a mandate is the fact that in '08 there's 22 Republicans up for re-election and only 11 Democrats. Of those 22, there's 5 Senators that won by less than or equal to 5% last time around. Which makes them vulnerable to attack and should keep the RNC on the defensive. That makes flipping the Senate in '08 highly unlikely. Which allows the Senate Democrats to think in terms of four years to establish a positive record as leaders rather than only two.
  4. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,639
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +126 / 7 / -13

    Well the dems ran on a hate Bush agenda, and it worked, now they have to actually come up with policies, we'll see how popular they are with the electorate. I fond it interesting that many (most?) of the House members who were elected ran as blue dog, ie conservative dems.
  5. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,411
    Likes Received:
    144
    Ratings:
    +297 / 9 / -9

    #24 Jersey

    Unfortunately the American people thought that the solution for a dislike for Bush was to vote in the Dems. I don't think the American people believe in the values of the Democrats but it was the only alternative. Consider it cutting off their nose to spite their face. Now we're stuck with pro abortion, pro homosexuality, pro high taxes, pro national health care crap.

    It is what it is.
  6. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,832
    Likes Received:
    147
    Ratings:
    +313 / 4 / -2

    I pray that the Dems don't make the mistake of thinking that 7,000 votes out of millions in Virginia is a mandate, or that 1,700 in Montana is a mandate, or a few thousand in Missouri is a mandate. GW made the mistake of thinking people wanted him in '04 as opposed to people being petrified of the other guy. If the Dems think they have a mandate then it will mean continued extremism, only, from the left side. The people clearly voted in moderate candidates. The only "mandate" made by the people is that they disliked the current course of the country & wanted a more centrist approach to government. When polls show the Repubs at 27% approval, and the Dems at 34%, it is not a mandate when the Dems win. It's simply Coke or Pepsi guys. I pray that the Dems move to the center, and that the Repubs follow. It's good to have an extremist voice or two, but it's counter productive to have extremists guiding the ship.
  7. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,768
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +169 / 4 / -4

    Real World, I think it's a mandate to work on issues that affect people's lives and to clean up government. Bush seemed so focused on foreign policy that he did nothing to address the deficit, poverty, corruption, etc. I don't think the people gave a liberal mandate. Even I recognize that people don't want tax increases (though they may not object to increasing taxes on the truly wealthy) and don't want big new government programs. They might favor better regulation, laws that protect people from being ruined from Enron-style corruption, and so on. They also might favor new programs if they're run in an open way by private enterprise. An example of that would be some sort of univeral health care, but that will be a battle royale since there are many competing interests.
  8. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,832
    Likes Received:
    147
    Ratings:
    +313 / 4 / -2

    You know, health care is an animal that there is no easy answer for. I've thought about it over and over again and I really can't come to a solution. I think there are some issues that would help, like limiting malpractice suits & barring illegals from any form of care, but that alone doesn't solve the bulk of the problems. One thing I do oppose is a government takeover. I've seen what government healthcare is like in Italy and it is certifiably aweful. I pay, well my work pays, $400 a month for my insurance. Absolute joke. Mean while some illegal walks into an ER and gets care for free. Obviously that is why my insurance is $400 a month as opposed to $200, or $300.
  9. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,411
    Likes Received:
    144
    Ratings:
    +297 / 9 / -9

    #24 Jersey

    I pay on the order of $450 a month. That's my part, my employer pays some too. I get good coverage for catastrophic stuff like cancer or a heart attack. And reasonable coverage on prescription drugs. No optical. No dental. No general doctors visits. All that I pay 100%. I'm basically OK with it, I would prefer the cost to be lower and not have every Tom, Dick and Harry wanting my tax money to pay for their teeth cleaning or prostate exam. You want it, you pay for it. You have a heart attack and are rushed to the hospital, OK, that's different because it's life and death.

    One thing companies are adding is Health Savings Accounts where you can put pre tax money in an account to spend on health care. That gives you a 25-30% discount. I'm starting one for the first time, wanting to lower my taxable income in anticipation of the Liberals raising my taxes. I should have done it before but this Democrat win pushed me into action. I can put up to $5K a year to help offset medical costs. It's a nice little tax shelter for those who are looking to save a little money.
  10. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,832
    Likes Received:
    147
    Ratings:
    +313 / 4 / -2

    Whats funny is that in my eyes, you are a very accountable, and prudent person. You're sense of accountability toward education, use of investmenting to ensure a healthy retirement, and smarts in utilizing the health savings shelters are all available to the common joe. Unfortunately to some, they view you as some rich jerk who doesn't care about poor people. Makes me want to vommit sometimes. Seriously. I just wish people were more responsible for themselves.
  11. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,411
    Likes Received:
    144
    Ratings:
    +297 / 9 / -9

    #24 Jersey

    Thanks :)

    Sure, I have a bit more money than the average person as my wife and I are both engineers so we have a decent household income. Of course, with both of us working that means we have the additional cost of daycare for the kids which eats into some of it. But we are not rich. My parents were a one income (engineer) family, my wife's family struggles day to day as grape farmers. Just normal working people (and I actually do work, today is my day off :)).

    What I really wish people would do, though, is stop complaining and take advantage of what they can.

    Max out their 401K. Some say they can't afford to, I say they can't afford not to.
    Put money in a Roth IRA if they can. All the money earned is tax free.
    Put money in a Health Savings Account.

    After that, enjoy what little might be left. Don't be a prisoner to savings. But remember, over 70 years the S&P 500 has made 12% annually. But don't be afraid to make money. If you can put $2K and year in the S&P 500 starting at 18 years old, when you're 58, using the 70 year average of the S&P 500, that account would be worth a tidy $1.7M. And your contribution to that would be a mere $80K. Twenty one times what you put in.

    It pains me to think of social security along those lines. If they just let everyone put $2K of their SS contribution every year into a safe fund like that we'd all be millionaires when we retired :eek:
  12. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,832
    Likes Received:
    147
    Ratings:
    +313 / 4 / -2

    Shhhhh! The sheeple might hear you and realize they don't need to government afterall.
  13. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,768
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +169 / 4 / -4

    BF, I don't think you realize how many people can't put aside $2K/year. Figure out how much a family of four for instance would need to be able to do that, especially if they have student loans, pay for health insurance, and are just starting a family. Remember, nearly 13% of the population lives in poverty.

    Also, let's not forget that that $1.7 million after 40 years might be worth only $500K or so after 40 years, which is not much, especially for the person who was able to afford to save $2000/year at the age of 18.

    Lastly, what do you do about people who retire when a serious recession hits? Even if they have a lot of money, they may have to withdraw principle if their timing is unlucky. There are a lot more factors to saving for retirement than just setting aside money. Social Security as it now is protects against these factors.

    Saving is a great idea, but again after rent, student loans, and health care, I don't think many young people are in a position to save.
  14. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,639
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +126 / 7 / -13

    Social Security is a ponzi schere, with the ratio of workers/ retirees moving towards 2/1 (from 14/1) the system is headed towards collapse. Perhaps if the 50 million aborted babies were in the work force we wouldn't have such a big problem.
  15. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,411
    Likes Received:
    144
    Ratings:
    +297 / 9 / -9

    #24 Jersey

    OK, one by one :

    - Yes I know not everyone can save $2K. But remember if you do it as part of a 401K it's really only costing you $1.5K due to the tax benefit - although most who can't save $2K wouldn't pay any taxes. How's this, Patters. For anyone making under, say, $30K I'll vote for giving them the $2K a year but it has to go in the market for retirement and cannot be taken out until then. Between $30 and $50K I'll vote for half. If they put in $1K the government will match the other $1K. Over $50K you're on your own. How's that ? It would be paid for over time as the SS mess would go away as people retired with actual assets.

    - The money might only be worth $500K ? I guess but that's not what history says. And even then your downside to what I'm saying is people may only have half a million dollars when they retire. The horror :D But that is almost unrealistically low based on 70 years of history.

    - Bad timing on retirement ? Not a serious issue. It's a rare year that the S&P 500 actually loses money. Looking at the historical returns over the last 10 the only negative years were the ones coming out of the unusually high years at the end of Clinton and after 9/11. There are never long, drawn out negative periods. Even if you retire after a 10% loss (very bad luck), your $1.7M is still $1.5M. And people should be taught to move into things a little safer within 5 years or so of retirement.

    I know you're scared of people having money and not being reliant on social security but it's OK. You'll survive.
  16. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,411
    Likes Received:
    144
    Ratings:
    +297 / 9 / -9

    #24 Jersey

    It's just depressing. The Democrats protected their stupid lockbox. This year the S&P 500 is up 14%. The past three years, about the time since Bush tried to move on social security, the S&P 500 has averaged 11.3%.

    You know what that means ? Every social security dollar that had been put into the S&P 500 3 years ago would now be worth $1.38. $1000 would be worth $1,378. But, no, why would we want that ?

    :mad:
  17. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,832
    Likes Received:
    147
    Ratings:
    +313 / 4 / -2

    I see where some people can't afford to save. My problem is that most seriously could. I walk into some of my subsidized units and see 58" HDTV's with an an HDTV cable box sitting on top. Meanwhile these loosers are paying $87 rent, while you and I pick up the other $1,113 each month. All these clowns had to do to save a buck or two, would be to get basic cable. They'd save $60 a month. Oh, but wait, they are poor right? Hehehe....please, these people, and the vast majority of them, totally play the system. I once had a tenant who drove a Mercedez. That's the God's honest truth. My issue with the "poor" arguement is that too many people expect a government hand out, and therefore are not willing to personally sacrafice. I see it everyday first hand. It's a joke. If some of you only knew the waste and manipulation I see you'd be outraged. Welfares intention is noble, but as most government run programs, it's completely over funded and inefficient. The more they increase it, the worse off this country will be.
  18. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,411
    Likes Received:
    144
    Ratings:
    +297 / 9 / -9

    #24 Jersey

    Yep. I'm sure it's less than 10% who can't put away $2K a year if they really tried. Most who say they can't probably drop $40 on a Friday night at a bar, or whatever. Some can't save, most can and just make excuses.
  19. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,639
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +126 / 7 / -13

    IIRC the ROI for the avg worker for their SS payments is going to be .5% oer annum, heck even putting the mioney in to T bonds or muni's would have a far higher ROI.

    But the pols want the power to control the bucks.
  20. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,411
    Likes Received:
    144
    Ratings:
    +297 / 9 / -9

    #24 Jersey

    That's why the lockbox and safety argument is flat out stupid. Could the S&P 500 be lower over the next 10, 20, 50 years than the 12% average it's had over the last 70 ? Sure. But even if it gained 5% we'd gain significantly. Even 3% and we would. The Liberal argument is a joke. It's similar to the "why save for retirement, I might die before I get there". Sure you might. But you probably won't.

    The fact that I have to "invest" 6.2% of my income and put it under my pillow until the government tells me I can take it out is sickening at best and perverse at worst.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>