Phoenix

So, back at it again here at The Democracy. I'm pretty sure that what I suffered from post election day 2004 was merely a burnout caused by so much anticipation and then such a huge let down as the results poured in. But thankfully, I'm rejuvenated and while I cannot speak for my partner in crime, KB, this site should be filling up with new and improved posts. Much like the Phoenix rising from the ashes, The Democracy, and all that it stands for will rise and be a beacon of hope for those who believe that their fundamental freedoms are being severely hindered by modern day politics. Actually, it's probably nothing like the Phoenix, but whatever. More to come.

I think I wasted my vote.

I think I wasted my vote. I did not agree with either of the major candidates stances, but I still voted for Senator Kerry. Why? Why did knowingly go against my convictions? The only explanation that I can come up with is that I thought that getting Bush out of office was the most important thing. I was wrong. I feel stupid for not voting the way that I know I should have. If John Kerry had won, we would have been no better off than we are right now.

Now I'm left wondering why I went against my convictions and essentially wasted a vote. I say it's a wasted vote because my ballot doesn't represent my true belief in who the next president should have been. I don't even know what to say about it. I did something that I thought I was stronger than. I thought I was strong enough to realize that a major party candidate is virtually the same as the other major party candidate. Why vote for one rich millionaire who claims he is in touch with the middle class over another? You know damn well that neither one really is in touch with the middle class. The closest they come to connecting to the middle class is by staying in their small mansion instead of their huge mansion.

I'm disenfranchised from the actions of the government and it's major players. I'm pissed off that elections are now a legal proceeding. I'm mad that the American political system revolves around two major parties that both profess the same issues, with skewed interpretations. It's millionaires v. millionaires with the middle class and poor standing back and watching them throw their money at us in the form of advertisements. It's time for a change. I'm no longer middle of the road, the nation can't afford for so many people to be middle of the road. I'm shifting. How can I not? How can intelligent people who understand the system of politics not?

None of this is revolutionary but it's a realization for me. It's a sign of me growing intellectually. It's something that was on the tip of my tongue for a long time and now it has all come together and I know I'm ready to make the shift. www.unbrandamerica.org , my new haven.

Will Bush give his "one finger victory salute?"





See the video here


Our Next President?

In less than a 24 hours, we will know who the next president of the United States of America will be. Recent polls are find that the percentage point differences are either non-existent or negligable. The Cook Electoral Rating is showing 146 solid electoral votes for Kerry, 144 for Bush, 61 likely or leaning towards Kerry, 78 likely or leaning towards Bush, and 103 up for grabs.

Pollsters are underestimating the numbers of voters who have become enraged with the Bush Admninistration. Mickey Huff of Retro Poll duly notes that younger voters and African American voters are the most likely groups not to respond to a poll, therefore they are underrepresented. "We hear that youth are apathetic," said Huff, "but we don’t know, because they have placed themselves outside of polling’s reach," states a News Standard article. I believe that the level of youth apathy is much less than predicted. Young people who would not have otherwise voted have been mobilized by their disdain for George W. Bush. I predict a higher youth voter turnout than the 2000 election, and that is the factor that will swing the votes for Kerry.

Polls close in 22 hours (at least the majority of them, Alaska's polls close at 1 A.M. EST).

The Bush Administration Economy

Before the 2000 election I was having a discussion with my uncle about the state of the economy in the United States. He claimed that you never really see what the affects are of political action until a few years down the road, and many times in the successors administration. This, he claimed, gave many presidents a bad name on economic issues. While this claim isn't totally unsubstantiated it has become ever so clear to me that under the Bush Administration the economic steps taken to heal the recession of 2001 have not worked, and that the Administrations policies are driving this country into a level of debt that 10 years ago was unthinkable.

My uncle claims now that the recession was a fault of the Clinton Administration. While this maybe true in some fanciful conservative paradise, the fact remains that the Bush Administration failed to accept its responsibility to heal the failing economy.

Probably the most egregious policy enacted was the tax cuts that were supposedly more beneficial to the middle class. The claim that the middle class made out better than the rich in the Bush tax cuts is totally bogus. While the middle class did receive 8.9% of the tax cuts, the top 1% of income earners received 24.2%, and the millionaires of the U.S. received 15.3%. This translates into $647 worth of cuts for the middle class, which raises their after tax incomes about 2.3%. The top 1% received $34,992, a raise of 5.3% in after tax incomes, and the millionaires received $123,592 tax cut. That's 191 times the tax break that the middle class received. The numbers clearly speak for themselves.

The Bush Administration's reasoning for these tax cuts? They were supposed to give more money to the rich who would in turn invest their savings into new plants and equipment, thus supplying more jobs to the unemployed. The Administration claimed that because of their trickle down economics tax cuts 5.5 million jobs would be created between January 2003 and December 2004. Data from March of 2004 showed that only 689,000 jobs had been created. It is now a little unrealistic to believe that the goal of 5.5 million jobs will be met.

Strangely this has not come up very often in the campaign of John Kerry. Not once during the debates did John Kerry try to hold George Bush responsible for the still weak economy. No one has held the Administration accountable for their lack of economic stimulation. This is mind boggling. I thought that this was a democracy where elected officials were held liable for their actions? Evidently I have a lot to learn.

All statistical data used is available at http://www.cbpp.org/4-14-04tax-pr.htm

Politricks

It's that time of the year again. Well, it has been for quite some time, but this blog hasn't been around. As we reach the last week of presidential election campaigning, I think it is due to look back at twisted quotes, skewed facts, and outright lies by both of the main candidates. Let's take a recent example of bending the truth: In a recent Kerry ad, he claims, "Now Bush has a plan to cut social security benefits by 30 to 45 %. The real Bush agenda? Cutting social security." According to FactCheck.org, the plan that Kerry refers to is only one of three possible plans, none of which the president has endorsed. Bush has no clear plan on social security, and neither does Kerry.


Of course, the incumbent also does not tell the whole truth in his political attacks. One ad criticizing Kerry's health plan says in short, choppy, non-sentences, "Washington bureaucrats in control. A government-run healthcare plan. 1.5 trillion dollar price tag. Big government in charge. Not you. Not your doctor." First of all, the Bush campaign is guilty of the same crime as Kerry. According to another Fact Check article, three estimates were proposed by three different groups: $653 billion, $1.25 trillion, and $1.5 trillion. The Bush campaign simply chose the highest number, which happened to come from the most conservative group of the three (American Enterprise Institute). Also, nowhere did they mention that the estimate is the cost over a ten year period.

Secondly, I would like to discuss the statement, "Big government in charge. Not you. Not your doctor." The statement is an outright lie. Kerry's plan will enforce regulations "chiefly on employers and insurance providers rather than doctors or patients," states the article.

Simply put, politicians on both sides distort reality.

The Beginning

This is the the beginning of not only this blog, but hopefully something bigger. I am becoming increasingly disenfranchised with the state of politics in America. I am compelled to at least attempt to initiate change, and at the very least educate and also learn from, other people. Let the learning begin.