We’re now 38 days out. Reading the tea (party) leaves, what do you think will be the outcome of the election as far as electing social conservatives goes?
Based on your prediction, how do you think the pro-life issue will be impacted by the 2010 election?
[Graphic via BBDesigns by Bridget Barrios at Cafe Press]
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
The ability to actually pass meaningful pro-life legislation in the next Congress and through the balance of the Obama presidency will be greatly diminished if the pro-life Democrats currently being targeted for defeat actually lose. A House without strong pro-life Dems like Steve Driehaus (OH) and Kathy Dahlkemper (PA) will be less likely to pass anything of substance that will lower the abortion rate
It won’t look any different – the house will be in slight control of the GOP – the Senate in slight control of the Dems. But the GOP has already said in their 21 page “pledge” that abortion isn’t a hot topic issue – so nothing will be different at all quite frankly. I don’t see how anyone can really argue differently.
Personhood is gaining ground quickly both here in Colorado and throughout the nation. The electorate here especially, are getting educated about the humanity of the unborn child and why we should never kill little kids! This is a link to our Amendment 62 talking points that have convinced so many on the issues of rape, incest, etc.
http://coloradortl.org/files/docs/co-a62-personhd-talkingpoints.pdf
Regarding the social conservatives, at least here, you really have to look hard at the person and not the party. And often you have to actually talk to them to see if they really care about anything or they just lying because the want your vote to get the power.There are some democrats that are very pro-life and there are some republicans that will back stab the babies in an instant, so you can’t really go by the letter after the name. Colorado is pretty messed up so we will likely end up with a gaggle of liberals running things again but as personhood gains ground and eventually stops abortion, it will be the dagger that strikes the heart of liberalism in this country!
JamesC – throughout the nation? Isn’t this the only abortion related ballot initiative in the nation?
I think most voters will vote in conservatives solely on the basis of fiscal responsibility. Voters are just darn tired of the bailouts and spending in Washington that even moderate Repubs partake in. So they are saying ENOUGH. We want people who will STOP THE SPENDING which happens to be ultra-conservative Repubs and 3rd party candidates. They just also happen to be pro-life too but I don’t think the abortion issue is first and foremost on voters minds. At least the tea parties I have been to the voters are angry about money not about dead babies.
You’ll be asking the same question in 20 years.
Oh, Hal. Ever the optimist…
Nick, the bailouts started looooong before GW Bush. I wasn’t a Bush fan so sure, he did a lot of things that added to the deficit. But its been going on for YEARS. I am sick of all of them.
Nick G:
“…the Republicans are MORE fiscally irresponsible even than the Dems.”
How so?
Jerry – I know you asked Nick G, and it is his statement, but I’d like to take a quick stab as well.
The Dems obviously spend a lot of money, but they aren’t afraid to raise taxes – so the government spends more, but takes in more.
What the GOP does that is so irresponsible (and Huckabee summed it up well with his “budget busters” quote), is they decrease the revenue side by cutting taxes, but don’t match it with cutting spending.
Now, this is highlighted greatly in the Bush years – Reagan cut spending while cutting taxes – but still – go look at budget deficits long term. I don’t think there’s been a Republican in a long, long time that has come close to a balanced budget because they don’t have the courage to ever match their tax cuts with decreased spending.
Even now, what is the argument between the two parties – the GOP wants to raise the debt 4 trillion more – the Dems 3 trillion more. Yes, they have learned so much!
Um Nick, x-GOP raising taxes actually stifles economic growth and thus brings in LESS revenue. Take an economics class (and history class) this has been proven time and time again. So I wouldn’t be so quick to say the Dems are any better than the Repubs.
OK, I see where Nick and ex are coming from–however they both fail to mention the revenue increasing results of tax cuts and the deleterious effect of tax increases on the economy. As for the Bush prescription drug program–if that is the gauge of repub vs. dem fiscal responsibility I assure you more repubs voted against that than do dems vote against their huge entitlement proposals. In fact, speaking of entitlements: not a single dem senator and only a few dem house members voted against the granddaddy of all entitlements that dwarfs the Bush prescription plan. So if we are talking about fiscal matters, those saying dems are more “fiscally responsible” ought not to bring up health care related legislation.
As a bit of an aside, I do not recall hearing a single governor (from either repub or dem ranks) complain about increased revenues to their state’s coffers during the boom years, which came about only as a result of the tax cut spurred economic growth. I bet they wish they had that revenue now!
We have only two ways of increasing revenue: taxes or growth. One, like the tax cuts from dem pres JFK: “a rising tide raises all boats” and the tax cuts from Reagan and Bush 2 creates more revenues through increased economic activity, or we have the tax increases which ultimately stymie business activity due to their inherent anti-stimulative effects on business. When business activity slows we all lose and all of the tax increases in the world will not help.
Let’s go back to Jimmy Carter. The antidote to that disaster was the Reagan tax cuts (and more recently Bush 2) that ushered in decades of growth. The meltdown we were dealt in 2008 came principally from lax mortgage lending which in turn was exacerbated by the dirivatives trading on fake money. It was the democratic controlled congress that refused to reign in mortgage lending to those who were unqualified, even after pleas by republicans (including McCain) fell upon ideological deaf ears from leftists like Barney Franks and Senator Schumer.
And any discussion on fiscal responsibility cannot go without mentioning a tiny little thing called “deficit spending”. Our dem controlled congress and dem pres have given us two consecutive years (with no end in sight for the years ahead) of TRILLION dollar deficits. No repub has even come close to that.
Want more on the fiscal irresponsibilty of the dems? Go to this link and count the ways in which they destroyed social security.
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/history-lesson-on-your-social-security-card/blog-379619/
Jerry – but our conversation isn’t about if taxes help or hurt the economy. Just a few points:
1) The issue with Bush/Reagan on taxes is that they cut taxes, but didn’t cut spending at the same rate. So when you talk about the Medicare plan vs Obamacare – the difference is that the Medicare plan had no taxes to offset it, while Obamacare does (and grades out as budget positive by the CBO). Yes, there’s debate if it will do that, but at least they tried. Look up what Orrin Hatch said in regards to the Medicare plan – something along the lines of “back then, we didn’t worry about paying for stuff”.
2) Bush Jr didn’t not bring in “decades of growth”. In fact, if you look at the GDP, we had two of the most massive single quarter declines at the end of his term.
3) Instead of hitting the two “trillion” dollar deficits head on, I’d like to ask a question – what would have been different in regards to the deficits if a Republican had won Presidency?
Thanks!
Ex:
Surely the deficit would have been smaller had McCain won. Obama has been on a spending binge like none other. The federal bureaucracy has grown by over a hundred thousand new jobs and their wages are going up, even as private sector jobs are going nowhere and our wages declining. And no trillion dollar health care entitlement from McCain–and no, it will not be paid for. Not only will it not be paid for, but everyone knows how they raided 500 billion from medicare in a flim flam smoke and mirrors exercise to make the costs look less onerous, and every realist knows for certain that the true costs will be two or three times that which is estimated.
Bush 2’s tax cuts helped to extend the boom years.
Did you get a chance to look at the link on how our friends in the democratic party over the years have raided social security time after time?
Finally, a point that has a great deal of relevance but I failed to mention. Would we be better off economically if we had not destroyed 50 million tiny lives since 1973? I say YES! The tens of thousands of classrooms not built (NEA–where are you?) and accompanying jobs not created, the tens of thousands of farms not needed to feed these extra mouths, fewer cars being built, and on and on and on….. Let’s not forget the dems standing against any attempt to legislate protections for the unborn.
Don’t get me wrong–rebubs have their faults. But the question which started this thread was which party is MORE fiscally irresponsible. Hands down–it’s the dems!
On Bush’s tax cuts, you are talking about the boom of the eight years before (the Clinton years?).
Also – can you provide a link on the 100K+ job increase? It would depend on what areas they are in – for instance, if some of them are military, I am doubting that you are suggesting McCain would have cut military.
There have been a couple of good analysis written up in regards of the roots of the deficit – majority of the debt (2009 and 2010 deficits) would have been there regardless of party unless you are suggesting that the GOP would have increased taxes, cut the Medicare expansion, ended the wars faster, or that the economy would have simply brought in billions in revenue (which would be tough to argue).
Maybe McCain doesn’t pass the 2nd stimulus bill – but then you could argue we’d be in a Depression – but I will say that is the one possible difference in debt between the two.
I think both parties are pretty irresponsible, and don’t see that changing until we really crash.
To answer your question – no different. The GOP are even wary of the rhetoric at the moment. Nothing will change.
Nick:
“The models you learn about in Econ 101, that say cut taxes for higher revenue, are just models. Very different from the real world.”
Where in this “real world” is an example where Keynesian economics ever worked?
Most economists agree that the Reagan years tax cuts did indeed spur the unprecented boom. I would argue that the Reagan/Volker/Greenspan fiscal and monetary policies broke the back of inflation and built the foundation for solid economies right on through the Bush 1 and Clinton presidencies. Both of the latter experienced moderate recessions. Bush 2 inherited the Clinton recession plus he also had to deal with the sucker punch delivered to the economy by 9/11, so a boost from his tax cuts provided a recovery and extended the boom through most of his presidency. Some 7 million jobs were created during Bush 2.
Of course it is preposterous to suggest we have no taxes, even though as I understand it the Federal government revenues were at first mainly from tariffs. But if we are looking for real world ideas on how to jump start our ailing economy I sure wouldn’t mind trying something like McCain suggested in the campaign, i.e. reducing corporate taxes to bring them into line with what competitor economies are doing. Providing a level playing field is key to getting industry moving again. Burdening them with additional taxes and regulations is going to prevent a robust recovery. Worse, it may cause even greater unemployment problems, thus creating a downward spiral.
Ex: Check this out for the increased gov payroll numbers. Note that even though it is from the hated (by libs) Washington Times, they do source all of the info directly from the Obama administration.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/02/burgeoning-federal-payroll-signals-return-of-big-g/
Seven million under Bush? Actually the Wall Street Jr has it at 3 million (375K per year). Clinton had 23.1 during his Presidency, or 2.9 million a year.
We are talking about fiscal responsibility though, and while I think Reagan brought the country back from near disaster (as I would argue Obama has), the budget was never balanced until Clinton came in.
On your link though, this quote stuck out: “the administration says 79 percent of the increases in recent years are from departments related to the war on terrorism: Justice, Defense, Homeland Security, State and Veterans Affairs.”
Which of those federal departments should be slimmed down? Doesn’t seem like the expansion is because of Obama’s grand desires.