The Washington Times
  • Subscribe
  • Times News Services
  • RSS
  • Mobile Headlines
  • e-edition
  • E-MAIL ALERTS
  • REGISTER
  • LOG IN
  • E-MAIL ALERTS
  • WELCOME
  • Your Profile
  • Log Out
  • Front Page Image
  • Classifieds
  • Autos
  • Real Estate
  • Jobs
  • Special Sections
  • Customer Service
  • Home
  • News
  • Opinion
  • Sports
    • NFL
    • NBA/WNBA
    • MLB
    • NHL
    • Tennis
    • Golf
    • Motorsports
    • Soccer
    • NCAA
    • Olympics
    • Outdoors
    • Other
  • Culture
    • Home & Living
    • Family & Kids
    • Fashion
    • Food
    • Travel
    • Health
    • Washington Visitors
    • Books
    • Military History
    • Life
    • Auto
    • TV Listings
    • Movie Listings
    • Death Notices
    • Entertainment
  • Themes
  • Communities
  • Marketplace
    • Autos
    • Jobs
    • Real Estate
    • Classifieds
    • Shopping
    • Dining Out
    • Education
    • TWT Store
  • Videos
    • Two Guys
    • Birnbaum on Washington
    • Liz Glover
    • Amanda Carpenter
    • Morning Briefing
    • Documentaries
    • Joe Giganti
    • Video Game Minute
  • Podcasts
    • About Headlines
    • Audio and Radio
    • America's Morning News
  • Local

    Court refuses to halt sniper's execution

  • National

    DAVIS: Yankee hater finds love for team

  • National

    Gulf Coast preps as Ida weakens to tropical storm

  • Politics

    Abortion a main issue in health debate

  • Sports

    Redskins still going south

  • World

    Ex-Soviet Union struggles with democracy

  • Politics

    Health bill faces roadblocks in Senate

Home » Opinion

Friday, October 31, 2008

EDITORIAL: What if Democrats win it all?

Rate this story

Average 0.00
after 0 votes
Login or register to rate this story

  • Font Size -+
  • Print
  • Email
  • Comment
  • Tweet this!
  • Share
  • Article
  • Comments ()
  • Videos
Subscribe to this story's comments

daniel_nguyen

Barack Obama would be the 44th president, not the 47th.
Mark as offensive

soxconn

One thing missing from the article is that the government already has majority control of the private economy, which none of the other presidents had. Based on this the government can now control economic output with taxes as the input and legislation as the regulation, i.e. a regulated market economy. "In a regulated market, the government regulatory agency may legislate regulations that privilege special interests, known as regulatory capture." - Wikipedia If we hand it all over to the Obama, Reid and Pelosi, we will transition to a liberal elistist socialism and they will use regulatory capture to remain in office and expansion of taxes to indenture us to that socialism. There will be no swinging of the pendulum. Either you take the job the regulated market offers or lose your social benefits, its called indenturement but instead of debt bondage, it will be tax bondage.
Mark as offensive

joyousday

This is a poorly written article and one that's not grounded in reality. There will be resistance to liberal Democrat spending should Obama win. The first will be the conservative Blue Dog Democrats in Obama's own party. Most of these Dems skate on thin ice in their home districts and must show their fiscal conservative credentials every time they return. Should they break them, they will be ushered out at the next election. In addition, Obama has not campaigned from the far left. He's campaigned from the center. The GOP has, once again, campaigned from a theocratic perspective socially (particularly with Palin on the ticket), and the center fiscally. I've never been sure how anyone can call those 'small government' policies. The social policies are just as intrusive and controlling as having the government's fingers in my back pocket fishing for loose change.
Mark as offensive

JKIR

Thank you for saying things that needed to be said. I'm a Dem but this wouldn't even be a moderate Dem bunch running the show. No "appeasers," as we moderates have been called, in charge. John McCain does have an ability to work with Democrats. He would be able to keep the situation from getting out of hand and keep the country from going completely bankrupt.
Mark as offensive

RDH

I believe the Democrats will start looking at changing how 401Ks work. There are already proposals in academia and Liberal think tanks that outline what Liberals, I'm sorry, I mean "Progressives", think needs to be done wrt 401Ks. We already have had some Democrat House members starting to repeat the Liberal trope about government subsidies (if the government lets you keep some of what you earn it is a "subsidy") when it comes to 401Ks. For 401Ks the claim is that the government is unfairly subsidizing 401Ks by exempting contributions from the income tax and not taxing the employee for employer contributions. There is also talk that 401Ks should be expropriated by the government and the assets sold off. In exchange the owner of the 401K would be given a special private social security account that will pay out an additional benefit (like an annuity) when a person retires and starts getting social security. This is not the partial privitization Conservatives call for where essentially the extra SS taxes we pay that go into the general trust fund, or part of them, would instead be used to fund specific "personal" accounts. Instead the account is "funded" by selling the assets of one's 401K, the proceeds of which of course go into the general fund to pay for day-to-day operations of the government (an excellent way for Obama to spread the wealth around). In exchange, your personal SS account would get some amount of special government security placed in it or some form of an IOU that will determine what additional amount you will receive in retirement will be. For instance, one proposal was that a person would get up to $500 per month from the special account in addition to the normal SS check. The following link gives some details including names of one of the academics and liberal think tank (is that an oxymoron?): http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB122477680834462659.html
Mark as offensive

Forrest

This is how it works - you do a good job, you get re-elected. Republicans, as a group, have done a bad job - they're out!. And Democrats are in, until they do a bad job. Neither party consists of only timid lambs following their president, and this time more and more will be speaking their conscious (e.g., the bailout). That's the way it works.
Mark as offensive

goodhikers

I was taken aback by the second paragraph of your editorial comparing a democratically-elected, one-party majority to despicable totalitarian regimes like China, Cuba, Eritrea, Laos, Vietnam, Syria, Korea. To compare an Obama win--coupled with a Democratic Party majority--to these totalitarian regimes is, at best, ignorant and, at worst, a very partisan distortion of the facts. Maybe the author of this editorial should go back to civics class and review the way the majority of democracies on this planet rule their countries. I'm speaking about countries with parliamentary democracies like the United Kingdom, Japan, or Germany, although there are many, many more. The most important executive in these parliamentary democracies--the Prime Minister--is given nearly absolute power because he or she has a majority of votes in their legislatures. The Prime Minister then executes his or her executive plan with little restraint until either losing a vote of confidence or the legislature itself is voted out of power (or--in some cases--the majority party ditches the Prime Minister but remains in power). This is how most democracies in the world work, certainly not how totalitarian regimes rule. For the Washington Times to imply otherwise in an unbalanced, uneducated, and unfair editorial against Barack Obama is shameful.
Mark as offensive

soxconn

We are not a parlimentary democracy, we are a Republican form of democracy, majority democracy. Most parlimentary governments have proportional representation and no confidence votes for balance and dynamic change. The balance in our form of government supposed come from the separation of powers. Obama has already professed a desire to a living Constitution and circumventing the judicial constraints simply by supporting "economic justice" adjudication through judicial activism. If he suceeds, this will place all three branches under the control of a single political party, not very well balanced and highly susceptible to corruption. He has talked to Emanuel (a Clinton "attack dog") as chief of staff and right after that the McCain supporting newspapers were kicked off his plane. You combine that with the eight years of congressional blame politics and the animosity toward conservatives in the Congress, the possibility of establishing a ninth circuit Supreme Court, the economy with the government as a major stockholder, a mainstream news media that has become an Obama guard dog instead of a first amendment watchdog and a socialist agenda president who we know absolutely nothing about and there all the makings for a totalitarian government. No, the article isn't shameful, it is a look at the reality the mainstream media has been filtering for the past six month's.
Mark as offensive

Post a comment

There are comments on this article, submit your opinion!

Please login or register to post a comment

Top Stories

Most Read

  1. EXCLUSIVE: Rare virus poses new threat to troops
  2. KELLNER: New Apple mouse really is 'Magic'
  3. Parents buying homes for kids at college
  4. EDITORIAL: Too scared to recognize terrorism
  5. Inside the Beltway
More Top Stories »
  1. House OKs health reform bill
  2. Sniper's ex-wife speaks out on abuse
  3. Deer dies after leap into D.C. zoo lion exhibit
  4. Annandale man killed in hit-and-run
  5. Federal Reserve opposed as big bank savior by odd allies

Most Shared

  1. KELLNER: New Apple mouse really is 'Magic'
  2. Deer dies after leap into D.C. zoo lion exhibit
  3. EDITORIAL: Too scared to recognize terrorism
  4. EXCLUSIVE: Rare virus poses new threat to troops
  5. The enemy at home
More Top Stories »
  1. Federal Reserve opposed as big bank savior by odd allies
  2. EDITORIAL: President Obama causes more unemployment
  3. Patent case goes to Supreme Court
  4. Parents buying homes for kids at college
  5. After the Berlin Wall: German unity proves elusive

Most Commented

  1. House OKs health reform bill
  2. EDITORIAL: Too scared to recognize terrorism
  3. Army chief wary of backlash against Muslim soldiers
  4. Lieberman vows probe of Hood rampage
  5. Health bill faces roadblocks in Senate
More Top Stories »
  1. EDITORIAL: Mr. Obama, stay away from this wall
  2. Suspected Fort Hood shooter is awake, talking
  3. Obama: It's Senate's turn on health care
  4. Israelis unsure of U.S. support
  5. EDITORIAL: President Obama causes more unemployment

Listen to Washington Times Radio

  • America's Morning News

    with John McCaslin and Melanie Morgan

Question of the day

White House officials and Senate Democrats met in private three times last week to craft health care legislation. Do you think these discussions should be more public?

Blogs & Columns

  • POTUS Notes

    New Dem talking point on Obama approval doesn't wash

  • The Back Story

    12 arrested at Pelosi's office

  • Belief Blog

    New Vatican constitution released

  • Out of Context

    Foods that might kill libido

  • Technology

    Facebook wins round against phishing spammer

  • On the Fly

    United lifts some 'award' blocking

  • Redskins 360

    No interest in Johnson

  • Tara's Two Cents

    On their way to summer vacation..

  • SNOBlog

    Beyond 'Woody'

Videos

Advertising Links
TWT Store
  • e-edition
  • Print Edition
  • Weekly Washington Times
TWT Affiliates
  • Middle East Times
  • Golf
  • UPI
  • Arbor Ballroom
  • Washington Times Global
  • About TWT
  • Press Room
  • F.A.Q.
  • Work for TWT
  • Advertise
  • Sponsors
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Site Map

All site contents © Copyright 2009 The Washington Times, LLC.