- HubPages»
- Politics and Social Issues»
- Politics & Political Science
BROWN VICTORY FALLS ON DEAF DEMOCRATIC EARS
Terry McAuliffe, the former Democratic National Committee chairman came out after Massachusetts republican state senator, Scott Brown won the vacant senatorial seat that was long held by the democratic senator, Ted Kennedy, and said, "This is a giant wake-up call."
How profound.
The wake-up call should have come much sooner when the Obama administration came out and proclaimed they'd "saved" jobs, when the unemployment numbers were actually rising. The wake-up call should have come when Congress was setting out to rip-off the American taxpayer with a massive health care bill that no one wanted. The wake-up call should have come when the Obama administration and the democratic party refused to take a strong stance against terrorists who wish to kill us.
Make no mistake, this list could get very long.
McAuliffe went on to say that the democrats need to focus on job creation. "Everything we have to do is related to job creation. We have to do a much better job on the message."
My thinking is that you first have to understand how jobs are created. The reason there has been no real growth in this area, and the reason unemployment numbers aren't falling, is largely due to high taxation and thousands upon thousands of pages of regulations that govern how a business can operate. If the democrats get their way, they will effectively raise taxes on every American, and every American company. This does not create jobs, it loses them.
Interestingly the White House also signaled that they'd focus more on sending out the message that the democrats are the defenders of the people against Wall Street—
Look, people have to get one thing very clear in their heads once and for all. The people of Wall Street are Main Street. Our 401k retirement accounts are tied to Wall Street and the stock market. Our jobs are related to business. The products we buy are all made by Wall Street companies. Any new taxes will be passed on to the American consumer in the form of higher prices. We'll see lower matching on our 401k retirement accounts. Companies who pay higher taxes will hire less people, or even downsize operations. They will lower wages or reduce benefits.
Not ever in the history of American business has it ever been the intent of the business to pay the cost of its overhead. All costs incurred by the company are passed along to the consumer and the worker, including their tax bills. Every single red cent.
We keep on thinking we're somehow sticking it to the big guy, when the reality is we're really just sticking it to ourselves. The more they pay the more we pay. The more they have to pay, the less we'll be paid. It really isn't rocket science.
McAuliffe needs to get that. Reid and Pelosi need to get that. Mr. Obama needs to get that. The democratic party needs to get that. The republicans already do, and so does Scott Brown. I think many more Americans are starting to get that as well, and this will be made ever more clear when we roll into elections later this year.
And let's not forget that this five-year state senator didn't just take anyone's seat. He took Ted Kennedy's seat. Long-time ambassador of universal health care. You know, that thing that Congress is trying to ram through? That thing that everybody wants, right?
Apparently not. A giant wake-up call it is indeed. Still, based on McAuliffe's statement after Scott Brown won Massachusetts, I think he and the democrats are sadly still fast asleep.
Related
Popular
Comments
- Author
You're probably right about them knowing exactly what they're doing in that there IS a large progressive group in the democratic party, and they are fast eating the blue dogs for lunch. I just find that to be a scary prospect.
Thanks for the compliments, BTW. I appreciate that.
While I applaud your intent I disagree that they don't know what they're doing when they raise taxes, make tons of regs, and give billions to the big guys. They are systematically destroying this country from the inside out to advance their insidious political agenda of absolute control - Constitution be damned.
But you're right, most regular people need to understand that raising taxes on the big guys is just as dumb as raising them for the individual.
I really enjoy your take on things - and you write beautifully :)
- Author
We're heading back to being more a red state than we've been recently. Certainly Tommy Thompson, a republican, was a VERY popular governor in the state, and there was even talk he may have been interested in running for governor now that Jim Doyle, a democrat, has decided not to run. Most Wisconsinites I talk to still lean conservative.
I love this hub, but I'm from the South. Do others up there in Wisconsin feel this way??
- Author
Hey, that would be an excellent idea. Why on earth should it take $200 million dollars to be president. If you have the right message, and you have the ability to make people interested in following you, then why is the MONEY so important. Sort of speaks to that old question, "who are you trying to convince?"
spring,
It's like the old episode from "Dallas." It's only a dream!Isn't it amazing how stupid these so called intelligent advisors are?
I thing the Constitution needs another ammendment. No more Ivy League graduates will run for President or the Senate.
- Author
I don't argue with you at all about why taxes are needed—of course they are. My argument, however, is that when taxes are lower tax rolls actually increase. More people working paying income taxes is one reason. More people with money who are able to afford homes means more live-in homeowners take better care of property and property values rise, therefore increasing tax revenue. More people with money will invest meaning tax revenue from cap gains and dividends will go up. Increased commerce means more sales tax revenue.
Let's not forget that more people able to fend for themselves means we'll REQUIRE less taxes as well, as fewer people will be on welfare and food stamps, energy assistance, unemployment, and more will be able to obtain and pay for medical coverage. Crime rates would go down as well, meaning you'd need less police. The list goes on.
I hate to make the comparison, but Wal-Mart is a good example of the power of taking a little from a lot than a lot from a few. If your idea of how it works were true, then Macy's or Bloomingdales, or some other very expensive store would be outpacing Wal-Mart by miles. But that's not the case.
The more you tax me the less I'm going to spend. The more you tax me the less I'm going to invest. The lesser the mean value of the effort I expend, the less effort I will expend.
Putting more and more money into the government expecting IT to grow the economy is ludicrous. The government does not operate for profit like businesses do, and so economic growth is not truly possible. Dollars spent privately are the driving force for innovation and job creation—it's the incentive.
So, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this issue. In any event I value your opinion and you are welcome here any time.
That's public option.LOL
What are you talking about? I'm not rich, and I paid taxes!
I'm sure you pay taxes, maybe you're rich. I don't think anyone like taxes, but it's the revenue that keep our country strong. Taxes pay for the military that protects us, provide service we all need, and many want, this also includes the rich and corporations. No one wants to be over taxed, but all should pay their share.
Also, I dont understand where this idea came from that, government was giving away homes. Do you remember ARM mortgages, the ones that greedy bankers and lenders sold to good homeowners who had fix rates, and then later sold those same mortgages on the stock market for profits, almost unregulated. The homeowners program had been started in the 90's, it was a good program. Then after 2001, with deregulation of real estate, banks, financial markets, and the creation of the swaps martkets, things got out of control. So I disagree, I blame wall street, banks and government, not so much the little guy.
Finally, all this about corporations being overburden, and that keep wages down, that's an old song. Corporations are making more profits than ever, income for the upper 1% is growing, while the middle and working poor incomes are shinking.
I do agree, out of control healthcare cost puts a burden on businesses and families, this is why we need reform with a pulic option.
Thanks for talking
- Author
Spending our way out of a recession requires money in order to do that. That money will come from only one place. That is, the rich, and the corporations. Poor people do not pay taxes. Unemployed people do not either. So, this is the only place the money can come from. So we tax corporations and we tax the wealthy and we tax risk and investment and guess what...
Less money goes into capital expenditures. Less money goes into wages and job creation. Less money goes into investing in either the companies who will build their companies, innovate their products, or hire people.
Even still, I'll say it again. All taxes paid by the rich will ultimately be paid by you and I.
As far as Wall Street goes, there are problems there. But the finger pointing needs to go in all directions. It's not just greedy bankers who got us here, or the government who thought everyone should own a home even if they couldn't afford one, or the folks who bought too much house, who is at fault. It's all three of them collectively.
I disagree with what you saying here,cutting tax alone and spending cuts are not the way to came out of recessions,you have to spend you way out of recessions,can you say Herbert Hoover? Bush tried taxes cut in the first stimulus it did not work,that is what made this current recessions GREAT!Also,main street is not wall street,this is why wall street is having record profits and main street is still hurting!They need one another,but they are different!You are so wrong on so many fronts,this is just two of them.
This was a great hub. I found it very interesting and agreeable! Thank you for taking the time to write this!
- Author
Very many thanks for stopping by and sharing your thoughts. I'm elated that I was able and effective in articulating my thoughts, and allowing at least one young man to get it. :)
Nice work here, Springboard--in BOTH the hub and the comments. You'd think it would be as obvious as a golden sunrise to everyone that, as you stated so succinctly, "The people of Wall Street ARE Main Street". You'd think.
We have a young man staying with us for a while. He thinks well but simply hadn't considered the equation that means any government-created job is by definition a job that has first been stolen from the private sector (via taxation)... and that government is not a "jobs creator" but a "jobs thief" at best.
Then I introduced him to HubPages. When I read your text (and following comments) aloud to him...he got those, too.
Good work.
- Author
I've said this before and I will say it again that it is a misconception that conservatives are against health care reform. It's a misconception that conservatives are against a health care bill. The problem is when all alternative solutions made by the republicans were rejected, republicans were shut out from meetings and discussions, and when the democratic party was being anything but democratic about the process...
As far as the taxes go, I'm a hard working person. I also take risk and invest my money. The taxes levied by the democrats and all of their plans for health care or whatever else, wish to take money out of my pocket for working hard, paying my bills on time, and putting money aside to invest so I can support MYSELF, all to give it to people who don't work, don't pay their bills, buy houses they can't afford, and spend their money without a care for what happens if they run out of it.
With regard to the health care companies, we could solve that problem, such as the case you cited in Maine, by doing something the republicans tried to do...that is, open competition between state lines for health care insurance companies which would effectively lower the cost of that coverage. The dems wanted a public option, and I think that they could have gotten it had they allowed health care insurance companies to compete in multiple states like every other company is allowed to. Hell, I'd have then supported the public option under that situation.
I disagree strongly with the notion that the current Democratic administration is not on the right track.
The Republicans primarily opposed the Health Care bill for one reason.
It's not clear. It's going to levy a tax.
What you and all other ignorant Americans fail to realize is that the tax excised on the people is minuscule compared to the amount of control and monopoly Health Care companies have over states at the moment. The state of Maine has roughly 90% of it's populace controlled by ONE health care company. It goes unchecked and the population has no other choice. The democrat's reform targets these scenarios and hopes to change that.
I pray you all analyze the facts rather than read and nod your head to preposterous allegations with unsupported claims from somebody who is obviously not too well grounded in facts or reason.
- Author
Thanks Putz, and thanks for stopping by. Glad to have you here.
Great hub springboard.
As a history major with a strong reading of history I will stick my ground. Obama is doing well, and his detractors forget how the Republicans were the ones that got us here. Actually this seat does not say a lot more than I think, as a student of history I do not buy into the hysteria. Parties change back and forth, and eventually Republicans will be in charge again. It has been going back and forth between the two parties for years, nothing new here.
- Author
SweetiePie—you and I agree only on one point, and that was that the McCain/Palin ticket was not necessarily the right ticket, and for too many reasons to state here. One big issue I had with McCain as the nominee was simply that he is not a conservative, never has been, and I'm not exactly sure where the republican party was trying to go with this, other than they potentially recognized a countrywide shift just slightly to the left. I've said it many times for a while now that what we're lacking in the republican party is leadership. Palin is an interesting person, but I'm not sure I consider her a leader—at least for now. My opinion could change. That's a hurdle I see for us going forward into 2012.
As for Roosevelt and the Great Depression, the two economic situations are very different even if they have some similarities. The things that Roosevelt did, while inarguably social in nature, actually were good and necessary things. If those things were not in place now, I fear we'd have fallen for sure into a depression, so it's possible we could thank Roosevelt twice. With everyone maxxed out on credit, having no savings, and losing jobs, the lack of unemployment insurance alone would have had a profound impact.
As far as Barack Obama's economic policy, it's clear that he's way off in his thinking, and I would dispute that we've seen better economic times during democratic presidencies. The biggest economic growth in our history followed policies put into effect by Ronald Reagan.
Bush drifted from republican principle a bit in the end. He spent too much, clearly. He grew government too much, clearly. He got the hole started with a shovel. Barack's come in with a backhoe and he's got an order in for a bigger scoop. We'll recover, but it'll be slower thanks to Barack, not faster, and while I agree one seat doesn't determine the state of the nation's overall attitude, when a republican takes a seat when all other lawmakers are democrats in that state, and have been for the better part of the last 5 or so decades, it says a lot more than I think you may think.
To SweetiePie, James and PJ, thanks for stopping by and sharing your thoughts.
Thank you for stating this, especially where jobs come from. You would think this would be self evident, but those on the far left don't seem to get it.
Excellent article. I agree with every word written here. Thank you for the fine articulation of the truth.
Being a strong Democrat I disagree with many of your points. Thanks for sharing though. Still voting for Obama in 2012, and I saw Palin and McCain as not the good choice. Republicans got us into this mess with Bush and his need to start an unneeded war in Iraq. It is funny how Republicans forget they are really big spenders also, and then proclaim they want to fix the economy. We elected Obama because the Republicans got us into this mess. Obama is doing what he can to get us out, and yes the stimulus has helped to save some jobs. Roosevelt was criticized a great deal during the Depression, just as Obama is now. By the way, a vote for a Republican senator in one state is not a vote against Obama, and in 1994 the Republicans being elected enmasse to Congress did not keep Clinton from being re-elected to a second term in office.
Also, the historical record has show since World War II overall we have faired better under Democrat administrations as opposed to the Republicans.
- Author
OpinionDuck—to a point I agree with you. Still, the fact remains we are a two-party system, and I think historically we've always fared better under republicans than democrats. Of course, that is an opinion, and I'm sure not one which would be shared by democrats. :)
eovery—I don't think they are.
We are making a difference. But are people in congress listening?
Keep on hubbing!
Unfortunately, just flipping from Democrat to Republican is not going to save the country. This has been done in recent history several times, and look where we are today.
Excellent job! They have been warned and it is up to them to listen now. This win was a massive referendum on the direction is going, let's hope they understand.
Great hub Springboard. Let's face it the people in Washington don't really have a clue as to what ails us and how to cure it.
Springboard- Great Article. While I'm an independent, I have to agree that the stick to the big guy won't work. Business is business and cost are costs, the consumer will pay since absorbing new costs puts you out of business. Not a political statement just reality. Punching the green button on this one. Good Job!
29