E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Madame Speaker, we hardly knew ye.
The gains that House Democrats made in the last two cycles -- winning the majority in 2006 that began Nancy Pelosi's historic tenure in the speaker's suite, then enhancing their margins in 2008 -- are likely to be swept away Tuesday in a tsunami that makes those two elections look like ripples on the Capitol Reflecting Pool.
If it happens, the effect on President Obama's agenda will be immediate and profound -- and the much maligned "broken" system of Washington politics and policy is likely to get more contentious and invidious before it gets better, if it is to get better at all.
The president's party would be in the minority. And as both Pelosi and her apparent successor, John Boehner, know from years of bitter experience, to be in the House minority is to be virtually powerless to influence and shape legislation. When you're talking about holding the majority in the House, you're talking about controlling everything -- from committee investigations and the recycling regimen in House offices, to which bills will even be considered for debate on the floor and what is served for lunch in the cafeteria.
There is no give and take, no horse trading with the minority over much of anything. Democrats would be utterly impotent, unable to advance the president's agenda.
"The best system is to have one party govern and the other party watch." That was the philosophy of running the House set forth by 19th Century Speaker Thomas Reed that is still adhered to today, much as it has been through most of the history of Congress, regardless of which party is running things.
What the minority can do
Virtually the only way for the minority to make an impact is to maintain party discipline, to present a united front and draw a party line on big votes. After all, within the parameters of conventional political practice, they have nothing to lose and everything to gain by doing so. The object is to trip up the opposition and regain power, because we are the good guys and they are the bad guys. No in-betweens.
The majority does not have that luxury, and is therefore forced to twist arms and break some china within its own camp in order to demonstrate that they can function. That forces compromise -- a dirty word to doctrinaire supporters -- and it results in internal fissures and factions.
In keeping with this, any individual piece of major legislation, regardless of its particular merits, must be opposed by the minority. Look at the infamous late-night, three-hour Medicare prescription-drug vote as an example. The bill, pushed by President Bush and Republican majority leadership, established an entire new (and also unpaid-for) benefit under Medicare. Let's be honest: The legislation was something that Democrats had long sought, and -- donut hole or no donut hole -- has turned out to be popular among seniors.
But for weeks, minority Democratic leaders worked tirelessly to keep their troops against it. When the vote finally came, one Democrat, Rep. David Wu of Oregon, spent almost two hours on the floor in what appeared to be a trance-like state, staring up at the tally board without slipping his voting card into the machine. At his side was a parade of Democratic colleagues beseeching him to vote "nay."
With so many Dems voting against the measure, and with the hardest of the hard-core conservative true-believers defying their president and leaders by refusing to support it, chaos ensued on the Republican side. In the end, only a 4:00 am phone call from the president himself resulted in the switch of two GOP votes from NAY TO YEA, and the unfunded entitlement passed as dawn broke. It was ugly and even scandalous, and to this day conservatives lament both the bill and the process that led to its adoption.
Last year, Boehner was making his way to the chamber as the House prepared to vote on the stimulus bill. Walking past a group of reporters, Boehner brought the tips of his forefinger and thumb together to form a zero, indicating with a measure of pride that not one Republican would cross party lines and vote "yea." Many of the Democrats who did, some vulnerable and under pressure from leadership and the White House, are now paying a political price.
Why rancor is the norm
So the incentive is toward partisanship. Party-line discipline is a viewed as a virtue in your U.S. House. Ask yourself: Why do you think they call the party vote-counters "whips"? Rancor is nothing new. Promises of procedural and systemic reform, put forward by Pelosi in 2006 and now by Boehner, have thus far have turned out to be unattainable at best and a canard at worst. And bipartisanship? A chimera that in the end only serves to raise expectations to unattainable levels and disappoint those who believed in the promise to begin with.
So what does any of this mean for 2011? The last time, when the House (and Senate) were infused with conservative firebrands and the White House occupied by a Democrat, was 1995. The immediate result was two government shutdowns, maneuvering and tantrums, a president compelled to remind the world that the Constitution made him relevant to the process, and to declare that the era of big government was over.
This time, a Republican-led House would try to significantly alter Obama's agenda on issues like immigration, energy, taxes, and education. Divided government could deepen partisan divisions over the next two years on those and other issues.
But some who have seen it before think that conditions might be ripe for compromise. "When you have Republicans in Congress and a Democrat in the White House running for reelection in two years, both of them have a need to show the public that they can get the job done. Not just in fighting and scoring political points," says Don Baer, who served as President Clinton's communication director at the height of the Republican Revolution.
Republicans took the blame for the shutdowns, especially after Newt Gingrich implied that it happened out of personal pique. He and other GOP leaders were asked to ride in the back of Air Force One as part of the American delegation to the funeral of Yitzhak Rabin, an arrangement Gingrich perceived as a presidential snub.
It can get better
But it did get better, eventually. With a seat at Gingrich's leadership table, Republicans take their share of credit for welfare reform -- a twice-vetoed measure that President Clinton eventually signed -- and a balanced budget. Both were the result of hard-fought compromise.
"I think the main thing that Republicans learned in 1995 is that governing is hard," says former GOP Rep. Bob Walker, a close Gingrich confidant. "It's one thing to stand on the outside and criticize; it's another thing to have to win every day in the Congress and to actually move legislation."
But actually moving legislation means compromise, and compromise is bound to anger the bases of each party. Liberal resentment toward Bill Clinton still lingers for his "triangulating" approach to governing -- casting Democrats as a hurdle to overcome, not an ally to fight alongside. For their part, conservatives are likely to fight any accommodation made with Obama.
And, of course, there's the Machiavellian notion, shared privately by many Hill Democrats, that the Obama White House wouldn't mind seeing them lose control of the House. Bill Clinton himself recently said that a GOP takeover would have a political upside for President Obama, giving him a foil going into 2012.
"I think it would increase his chances of being re-elected," Clinton said on CBS's "Face the Nation," adding, "Whether it would be good for the country or not, I don't know."
'Change' elections were always part of the Founders' plans
One last word: First Read counts more than 100 House seats in play, all about but 10 currently occupied by Democrats. That's a lot, historically speaking. But there are 435 seats in the House. Even if all 100-odd switch, it's still less than a quarter of the chamber.
"The House of Representatives is so constituted as to support in the members an habitual recollection of their dependence on the people," the framers wrote Federalist papers, in support of biennial elections to the House proposed in the newly written Constitution.
"Before the sentiments impressed on their minds by the mode of their elevation can be effaced by the exercise of power, they will be compelled to anticipate the moment when their power is to cease, when their exercise of it is to be reviewed, and when they must descend to the level from which they were raised."
Whether it is Democrats or Republicans surfing a wave, "change" elections were all part of the plan.
Leave a Comment:
Since Mike Viqueria wrote this I'm not going to bother to read it!
His contempt & disdain for President Obama is as glaring as those beady laser beam eyes of his!
I have YET to hear Mike call President Obama anything other than Mr. Obama!
His bias is showing as badly as his slip!!!
Voters better pay attention to everything Feisty
If the democrats do not steal the election through voter fraud Obama will continue his agenda despite any Congressional opposition through a continuation of his overreaching Executive Orders and the acts of the Federal Agency bureaus all under his control
Someone needs to QUESTION Obama's Executive Orders making it IMPOSSIBLE for non unionized businesses to get Federal contracts HOW is that helping small business create jobs?
Since Mike Viqueria wrote this I'm not going to bother to read it
I'll just comment on articles I haven't read. lol
Talk about bias.
I have YET to hear Mike call President Obama anything other than Mr. Obama
When everyone knows he should always be referred to as "Our Lord and Savior".
You're funny. In a scary kind of way.
Allegations of Voter Fraud = Voter Intimidation
"Although voter registration fraud has hit the headlines a lot in the last few years, actual cases of voter fraud are difficult to confirm. The Justice Department reported fewer than 20 cases of confirmed voter fraud between 2002 and 2005.
Voter intimidation and suppression, though, have a long history."
Read more: http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/chicago-muckrakers/2010/11/this-weekend-i-saw-a.html#ixzz143RbGyIq
The bottom line is there is going to be continued gridlock of massive proporations the next 2 years!
I don't need some wannbe Fox News reporter to put his right wing spin on it!
The bottom line is there is going to be continued gridlock of massive proporations the next 2 years
Not if the dems and Obama will stop with "sit in the back" rhetoric and intimating that Reps are the enemy of mankind and actually try to compromise instead of the "my way or the highway" approach they've had of late.
Obama does realize, doesn't he, that when he talks about Republicans in that way, he's talking about and alienating a substantial bloc of the American people? Many of whom actually voted for the man.
Whether He wants to admit it to himself or not, not everyone agrees with every single policy he wants.
Fiesty
We should have had more gridlock the past 2 years. I am convinced a massive recovery would be underway had Obama not passed 7,000 pages of anti-business, government bloat, and uncertainty. I am not against Democrats in general, but this administration has taken things way too far for my tastes.
Only in fantasy land are they the same. Moreover, there have been numerous cases of voter fraud. One huge one was in 2000 in St. Louis, MO by the Democrats.
He works for NBC dude. Do you have nightmares about Fox or something? You lefty whackos fixation with them is weird. That is all you people rant about. Get a grip!
AZChzhd
I'd say you pretty much hit the nail on the head.
No one party should have absolute rule over the process. As we've witnessed too many times in the past (and lately) the potential for corruption and power grabs is simply too tempting for these people to resist. Which is why the system is specifically designed to avoid, as much as possible, just such a scenario as we have now. You're supposed to have balance in order to keep each side's ambitions in check with reality and which forces compromise. In that way no one ideology can hold the government hostage and force unwanted agendas.
Sometimes gridlock can be a good thing.
Republicans are the thieves in elections, Madison from New York. Remember George Bush and his brother, Jeb of Fla. Votes were thrown out and not counted so they could win.... Democrats had better monitor every hole in every wall, otherwise the republicans will sneak and claim victory. This election will prove to be very destructive for all of us, no matter who wins, if they can not work together for the betterment of America we all lose. Some of the Healthcare bill is necessary, and we seniors know this, but the Repos are hell bent on destroying Obama, so they'll destroy America in the process. I'm a Senior and retired military, so I've fought for their rights and mines, all I can say it God help us "ALL."
Mary Robertson
Jeezz. Now we're gonna start hearing the "Republicans stole the elections" garbage.
I think it's past time for your meds.
You're supposed to take one every four hours.
Here I'll sum up the important part for you Feisty.
The bold parts are pretty much a good summary of what the left believes the representatives should do. They even claim it happens when they didn't need a single Republican vote.
For someone who is openly admitting they won't even read the viewpoint of the right, you sure do have alot of opinions about what they want. No wonder you're always wrong about it. I believe the correct term is 'brainwashed'. I, for one, as many of the other independants and right wing supporters, am not afraid to read both viewpoints and come up with my own conclusions. I refuse to be spoon-fed biased information and accept it as fact. Making statements like you just did is worse than any of the allegations that people only read "faux news" and are "told what to think".
Exactly what you said Slimsignet. With two parties fighting each other for control, neither will be able to take us to the cleaners and cause as much chaos as we have experienced over the past two years. This article was written in the most un-bias way. There was no comment about one party being better than the other. All it stated are the facts either party has to live with if they have control or not.
My personal hope is the Republicans take control of the House, and maybe even the Senate. But if in 2012, they have a chance to take over all 3 branches with a super majority, then I hope they loose out. No party should ever have that power. When they fight, we win.
I can't read the article because the advertisement is covering the text.
So, IF the Republican party takes over the House (one of the two bodies of congress), just exactly what will change? Things passed will be repealed (they hope) to be replaced by WHAT? I keep hearing that the Republican Party will "restore faith", will "create jobs" and "cut taxes". Just HOW do they plan to do that? What will be taken away from the American People in order to do these things?
I have not heard ANYTHING other than the "I promise to's" so far from either party (but especially the Republicans, simply because they say they want to change what is). When you cut taxes, what will lose funding? Education? Medicare/Medicade? I'd be willing to bet deregulation will again run rampid (so that business can make large profits, with the hope that corporate prosperity will "trickle down" to the rest of us -- you know, the 90% of the people that have 10% of the money in this country).
Just wondering....
You mean just like how EVERY OTHER MSN reporter is clearly and unprofessionally biased against all things conservative? God forbid we should have someone published who is not a shameless Obama wh*re. Please Redhead, you make me laugh.
I will concede that they are not always the same. But making claims of voter fraud can be an easy diguise for voter intimidation. I tried to find a source that would show which one of the two had a larger impact on elections and it seams impossible to find anything non-partisan.
While reading the morning paper, many pundits are talking about the GOP taking a more centrist position with the Obama administration. What makes these folks believe that the President Dude administration will lean to the center? President Dude has launched his presidency to the far left, and a leopard just doesn't change its spots. The dude-in-chief will continue to lean far left, using his veto powers to object to any GOP plans to move the country forward.
I also laugh at the high number of seats predicted to be for the GOP. anything less will be a spin to justify approval of this president. A joke. I find myself in agreement with the Fiesty Redhead where she states that gridlock will be in effect during the last two years of this administration. But the gridlock will be centered around Obama.
And I disagree with Navy Retired in that the GOP will create this or that which will hamper the movement forward of the country. Where do you get these statements from? No one can tell just what will happen at this state in the country - we are moving into the midterms.
There also appears to be considerable concern about the new breed of Republicans about to enter the House and Senate. Pundits, and liberal reporters are already talking about how the Establishment GOP leaders will tailor their thoughts to energize the establishment principals. Heck, they are just as concerned about the new breed as the Dems are. There is a new wave of thought about government, and the new breed will be the avenue to effect change. If they don't, another wave will occur during the next election. Americans have had it with the Obama prinicipals, and also with the establishment thoughts of both the Dems and Republicans. Change will happen, with or without the principals of the establishment.
Before you "dis" the newbies, just remember the President that created this change in the nation.
Richard
Post #1.12
Exactly my friend. I don't want EITHER party to have absolute rule over me. Nothing good ever comes of it.
And like you said, as long as they're fighting each other, maybe they'll forget about me and leave me alone.
The strategy that should be employed is the same as the Democrats employed - submit bill after bill as often as possible, with the priorities that the electorate have made clear. Let Obama veto one bill after another - and keep the bills simple and short. This way no one can complain legitimately about needing time to analyze the bill.
One issue per bill, 100 page limit. Lets see just how "for the people" Obama and the Democrats really are. Should they prove to not be the party of NO, then they will deserve a second look. Otherwise, this will just be a precursor to a conservative wave in 2012.
Nothing but a whole bunch of sour grapes WHINE from the righties now that liberals have a media outlet to counter the bullsh!t & propaganda that's peddled as supposed fair & balanced news from Uncle Rupert!
Funny thing is... Fox has been caught RED HANDED on multiple occasions of lying errr.... I mean stretching the truth and you all can't seem to get enough of it!
It's no replacement for good governance.
commonsense....
It's no replacement for good governance
You be sure and let me know when we have that. I, personally, haven't experienced it in a very long time.
I love banging feisty redheads!
Agreed, he is the biggest shill on the hill beat. Totaly worthless
If you had your fantasy, the big banks would have failed, so would their associated financial institutions. Unemployment would be more like 25-30% and NO ONE including small businesses would get a loan. So please dont be an idiot and suggest that had nothing been done we would be in better shape. The facts just dont support it.
Your GOPers and Tea Baggers are likely going to get a big win tomorrow. But guess what, that means you have to GOVERN. You gave BArack and the dems only a few months in office before you started screaming 'where are the jobs'. You will likely have even less poatience with the voters now....so best get busy workin on those policy solutions that you dont have yet...we will bw watching and asking you in 3 months 'Where are the jobs?.....tick....tick...tick
Pay no attention to anything the majority of Americans are saying? We've had that attitude from Democrats running Congress for 4 years so far and we don't want it anymore. Your 'opinion' means little or nothing because you do not wish to read or understand anything that you assume will disagree with your feelings. So, we will pay no attention to you!@
Now that the liberals have a media outlet? Put the pipe down ginger. Liberals have always had media outlets, the majority of the media is liberal which makes your statement completely as$ backwards. If this wasn't the case then why is Fox News always being singled out by the left? Could it be because the main stream media is and has always been undeniably liberal?
Feisty,
I hate to break it to you, but about 60% of Americans have contempt and disdain for Obama. When will you learn, ever?
sounds like my kind of guy. mr obama has not earned the resopect all you libs seem to think is due him. votes dont endow respect. actions do and not listening to the populace is not the action needed
That is true and I am one of them but most americans see the tea party as a danger as well. The fringe is the problem. The support for the tea party is in response to the dissatisfaction of the democrats in power, and with this economic downturn coupled with extreme polarization, truthfully, I do not see any party would fair well in there position.
America,
Just like any relationship you have, please don't respond in anger. Consider what has happened in the past (more than the last two years) and what changes have occurred or not.
Wait a minute. Republicians are in the minority but yet was effectively stalled the Senate by record breaking filibusters. It sure sounds like they are powerful and yet able to shape legislation even though they are still the minority.
Wow, it's only Monday and I guess Fiesty is getting a head start on the whining that will be in full force on Wednesday.
I dont think the "new breed" of Republicans are really all that new. I think the "new breed" of Republicans are returning the GOP to its roots. Fiscal conservatism is something of an antiquated notion with the establishment Republicans of the past 30 years or so. I, for one, am cheering on the "new breed." Bush and Reagan were RINOs. They may have been Republican but they certainly weren't conservative. Reagan used to be an old school Democrat. He said he didnt leave the Democrat Party, the party left him.
And this is why all republicans are retards!!!!! lol
Tim,
Of course we were screaming that. Obama spent the entire 2009 year going after everything BUT jobs. The Democrats just passed bills to hinder the job growth process. Even after Republicans in the bluest of blue states like Mass. and NJ were voted in, Obama still didnt listen to a damn thing. Sure, he said he "heard the people" and the "people have spoken" regarding abandoning his full-on attempt to hastily shove a bill that amounted to 1/6 of the entire economy, but did he really? Obviously not.
I'm sorry but I am positive that he calls President Obama just that in his article.
Ahhh! Just a little more than one day to wait till the a$$ kicking begins. Hey Obama, Nancy, and especially Harry, can you hear us now? Unleash the hounds!
Oh if I sound like I'm counting my chickens before they hatch, that's OK since any seats we pick up just make it that much harder for Obama to shove his socialist agenda crap down our throats.
After being a democrat from 1980 until 1993 I woke up and re-registered as a republican. My father was a third generation democrat from 1944 until 18 months before he died in 1997. He also re-registered as a republican. I hope to God people wake up and vote republican so we can get our country back! People use to take pride in working for what they have. Now too many people want to sit on their butts and have all of us taxpayers take care of them! I've had to work for everything I have and I don't live above my means! I want the government out of my life!
I call him osama-obama because he is almost in bed with the terrorists...he wants to bring this country down almost as bad as his buddy osama. He is doing a better job of it than osama is too. Step aside Jimmy Carter osama obama is taking over as the absolute worst prez in modern time. It's a shame too. The first black president has to be a complete imbicile. Condy Rice would have done a much better job. She is everything osamaobama is not. She's black, a woman, extremely smart, HUMBLE ( which is not in osamaobama's repertoire
You are right. This is yellow journalism at it's finest. Just reading the first paragraph was enough to make me laugh. Talk about dramatic writing - Tsunami's, Dems getting swept away...He forgets that Obama is still the president and no matter what happens to the GOP, they aren't going to have the power they think they are.
The worst thing about this is that the GOP isn't about democracy for the people anymore. It's about a bullying. That's about all they stand for. If this country is dumb enough to elect the slobs who put us into ruin the past 8 years then I have no faith in this nation and it's ability to reason anymore.
Tomorrow, America will speak. Anyone paying just a little attention understands that this is a referendum on the past two years.
I could go on, but I have to help someone who is less fortunate than me - and I'm unemployed because of this mess.
I know that politics is politics, but I think what is getting lost between the Democrats and the Republicans is what is best for the citizens of the United States. With all of the bickering between parties and the seperation of power, the true looser is the everyday American that is struggling just to survive.
I own and operate a small manufacturing company in Houston, and if the individuals that I have hired to assist me in building a company that will not only benefit the industries that we serve, but also my employees, were to work against each other just out of spite, then the company would fail. This is what is happening in our government. As an American citizen and small business owner, I am sick of it!
I already know I won't get an answer but what the hell...
Shannon hon... would you please tell me where your country WENT?
It's pretty simple, the matter of a preposition...stop doing things TO America and start doing thing FOR Americans, like get out of my business, get out of my doctor's office, and don't tell me how to spend my dime.
Fiesty, my country went deeply into debt implementing things that the majority of people didn't want by a Congress that didn't listen to "We the People..."
Thank you, Feisty, for your liberal (tolerant) viewpoint that you won't even read anything that disagrees with your extreme left-wing ideology. So much for both sides just "getting along."
Mary Robertson says: "This election will prove to be very destructive for all of us, no matter who wins, if they can not work together for the betterment of America we all lose."
Where were you when Obama was saying "I won," and chastising John McCain at the "summit" meeting over Obamacare by saying again, "I won?" Where was his attempt to work together, to listen to the majority who did not want his funky helathcare? Working together works both ways or it doesn't work.
You should have read it. The author did refer to the President as President Obama, at least one time. That being aside, it was not a bad article. I am truly trying to understand why we as Democrats, seem to think we have all the right answers and the Republicans have all the wrong answers. Of course this holds true for the Republicans who believe the same. Wake up people, if any one party had all the right answers, then we wouldn't be in this messed up state of affairs that we currently find ourselves in.
Yes, I voted for President Obama because I felt that he was a better option than his running mates Senator McCain/Governor Palin, and would not hesitate to do so again. However, I am not in 100% agreement with all that the President or the Democratic Party has espoused over the last couple of years. With that said, I think the President should be afforded every opportunity as his predecessor to serve out his four years and to make positive changes in the affairs affecting the US citizens.
If this means the Democrats lose the House and have to work more with the party across the aisle, then so be it. And truth be told, the Democrats cannot blame anyone but themselves if this happens. People are tired of being lied to by both the Republican and Democratic parties and it is about time that both parties took notice. And before the Republicans start to get too full of themselves and think they have nothing to worry about, remember you only have two years before you can get booted out as well. It's about time for the boys and girls on the Hill to stop acting like kindergartners and act like responsible men and women and remember who they really work for. And we the people need to stop being so darn lazy and apathetic and learn to think for ourselves. A little critical thinking never hurt anyone and it certainly helps when you can make informed decisions and hold people accountable (Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike). We have to learn that just because someone doesn't do things my way does not mean that their way is wrong, it just means that their way is different.
So, Feisty Redhead, use that intellect of yours to help inform and not always be so critical and quick to point out the fault of others. You can get your point across just a effectively. I'm just saying....
DB Akron...spkoen like a true wing nut! Get away from your FOX Noise for a while and learn something, genius!
When your tea baggin' candidates are asked what they'd cut when it comes to spending, the silence is deafening.
This is, and has ben from the start of his term all about Obama, and discrediting him as President. It's the same thing you pathetic no brainers tried to do to Clinton.
The Democrats rode a wave of displeasure with the Republicans to power and what did they accomplich of a truly liberal agend? Nada, nothing, zip has been the fruits of their rule. The polls showed that 66% of Americans wanted and desired single payer health care and what did they get? Nada, nothing, zip was their accomplishment for those that they "represent". I recall them in many debates on this issue even kow-towing to the Republican minority and asking just what the Republicans would allow. Now the Republicans are riding the same wave of displeasure with the Democratic Party to another conservative love fest. Do the American people really expect either of these two parties of plutocracy to represent their needs and interests? Barack Obama was the great hope of American democracy, but now he presides over the death of any hope of democracy. Change that we can believe in has metamorphised into change that we can forget about. The Tea Party does not represent change, but a reversion to the way things were. The Tea Party is but Republicans in Wolve's clothing and to unleash this wolf pack onto the world is the greatest mistake that the American electorate will ever make. Get out your brown shirts and jack boots for American democracy is demonstrating to the world the overt and unbridled sham that it is.
Thank you fiesty for verifying to us all where you keep your head. It surprises me how you can drive in that position or even see where you are walking. Don't you find it to be dark there?
Madison: Oh! You mean Obama will do exactly what Bush did!?
Yippee!!! So Mr. Viqueria referred to Obama as President Obama in this thread.
Boy oh boy now I'll be able to sleep tonight! lol
It's not too obvious that you all don't watch NBC/MSBNC because if you did you would be educated enough to know that he always calls him Mr Obama.
Sorry folks there's a pattern with him and saying it once doesn't change his spots!
Or Chuck Todd - David Gregory and Savannah Guthrie for that matter!
Like it or not he IS OUR President and deserves to be addressed by his proper title!
When was the last time Democrats stole an election through voter fraud? The registration processes make voter fraud is a virtual impossibility in this country.
Since becoming president, Barack Obama has issued 64 executive orders, or around three per month. Across the duration of his presidency, George Bush issued 290, again about three per month. The difference is that Bush typically used his to reinterpret legislation however he felt like it. Obama has yet to do that.
How is it this person can the former President Clinton "President"...but he can't call the present, president, "PRESIDENT OBAMA"!!!!!!!!
Vladimir, I'm going to ask for a link to prove your claim that 66% of American's want single payer. I think you read it standing on your head or something. 66% of LIBERALS might want single payer, but liberals are only 20% of the population. So you're ranting about something not passing that only 2/3's of 1/5 of the population wants. That's ... as it should be. Perhaps you'd be happier in China, where you don't have any freedom to vote or have opinions - but you get yourself some government health care!
And Feisty? You're making a fool out of yourself, getting caught up in the honorific (or lack thereof) and remaining completely unable or unwilling to even discuss the content of the article.
Did you still not read it? If not, why are you still posting?
"When you have Republicans in Congress and a Democrat in the White House running for reelection in two years, both of them have a need to show the public that they can get the job done. Not just in fighting and scoring political points,"
There's a lot of truth to that statement.
Feisty - Anything less than a full liberal slant on any topic would bother your sensibilities.
I hope you stocked up on booze for tomorrow night. I plan on drinking some fine wine in celebration.
Here is my prediction;
Senate - Republicans 49, Democrats 49, Independents 2
House - Republicans gain 63 seats
Governors - Republicans 32, Democrats 17, Independent 1 (R.I.)
Bad new Doug - I don't watch TV. I do here bits of fox news on the radio, but use MSN almost exclusively for my news throughout the day when I am not transporting kids, looking for work, what I do is research statistics and history to make intelligent, un-canned responses to people who clearly listen strictly to Democrats or Republicans.
From researching the elections Expect 70 - 100 seats of turnover in the house. My hard numbers say 71.
Expect 9 -12 seats to become Republican. Several of the last polls were partisan polls - but PPP appears to have made the election week adjustment to center (reality) in the last week.
He doesn't deserve to be call anything other than Mr. Obama!!!
What will change
_______________________________________________________________________________________
We won't have a bunch of progressive loons who never saw a dollar (or trillion) they didn't want to redistribute
Enlighten me...in two years of President Obama in the White House and a Democratic majority in Congress how much of Bill Gates' wealth was redestributed?
...Warren Buffett?
...Larry Ellison?
...Michael Bloomberg?
...the Walton family?
Same old rant and chant from Madison....
ahhhh...did dems extend the Bush tax cuts?? Did they ever plan to for the rich?? I'd say that's a pretty amazing tax increase on the people who provide all the jobs. You like being on unemployment?? Vote democRAT!!
Well let's see. A quick google shows Warren Buffet paid 17.7% of $46 million in 2006. That's $8,142,000 in just one year.
No I'm not going to look up the rest of your questions. Learn to google.
In 2007, Democrat controlled Congress & Senate voted to send it along with the rest of our $$ to corporate execs in businesses "too big to fail". Apparently their idea of "trickle down" was to take from the billionaires and millions of middle class "hundred-aires" and send it to the millionaire execs. That's why letting Uncle Sam decide where to distribute the $$ is a bad idea no matter who is in power.
Hobie81, you have been bamboozled by the Republicans. The rich do not provide jobs, it is businesses that provide jobs. And this is where you say, "But it's the rich that invest in those businesses and that provides the jobs." Which is exactly what the rich want you to think. The truth is that demand provides jobs and the only thing a tax break for the rich provides is bigger bank accounts for the rich.
When the rich get more tax breaks, they squirrel it away in off shore accounts. What creates more demand? 3 million taxpayers getting $1,000,000 each or 147 million taxpayers getting $1,000 each? Who is going to spend their extra money they did not have before the break on things like clothes, food, rent, gas, household items or maybe even a new TV?
Let's see . . . 6 years of total Republican control and 2 years of filibustering or a veto threat of any Democratic proposal resulted in . . . wait for it . . . the largest recession since the Great Depression. Yeah, those "democRAT[s]" (seriously, Hobie81, can't you get your point across without using childish name calling?) really did screw up the economy . . . oh, wait . . . no they didn't, it was the Republicans.
Danoid - your point is well-taken - and what are the "wages" that these people earn? Do you realize your hate-the-rich party actually love the rich, because they ARE the rich? Billionaires don't pay wage taxes - they don't need a salary.
Small business owners earn wages. This is the foundation of our economy, and this is who your idiots keep wanting to vilify.
Please forgive me Tyler for what I am about to do. :)
I just look at it this way, being one of those lazy dems you all seem to think are on welfare. Take it as you will, because I have no intelligence according to some on the right who post here.
If the repubs take the majority, I am going to mark my calendar, and when in less than two years, the utopia of perfection the right is "promising" us doesn't occur, I can go on Newsvine, and smear every single person who voted republican, whether moderate or far right, and even those who have an intelligent post, they will be morons right? Because life isn't perfect for me, and entire group of people, most of which may be very decent and wonderful Americans, are my new targets of hate and crap spewing out of my brain. Right? It works both ways right?
I can call people names, like moron, stupid, idiot, etc. I will be able to call others brainwashed, and tell them "for the love of God don't breed!" It will be completely acceptable right? It seems to be now.
That is how it has been for anyone who is a dem, because of course, every single one of us has 18 kids (I have one), no job (I have three..two of which are part time), we aren't raising our kids correctly, lay around all day and eat (I manage to run a household, two businesses, be the room mother to my daughter's class and keep my house clean, and have a happy loving 9 year old who isn't growing up narrow minded), and we are all stupid.
Yes, I would rather be a dem than a repub like my brother in law who is afraid to go out of the house because the likes of Beck and Limbaugh are telling him he is to be afraid every waking minute. He won't allow anyone to babysit his kids because every one of us will molest them. If you try and converse about your opinion, he tells you "I don't think we should talk about this again" even though his opinion is crammed down our throats.
It is going to be a short two years, so get started on Utopia on Wednesday folks!
What jobs? Giving money to rich people does not create jobs. If it did, we wouldn't have just suffered the worst recession since the 1930s.
Businesses, not rich folk, hire people. They do so based on an expectation of turning a profit. Employees are a unit of production, not a consumption item.
If you're so worried about welfare for rich people, why not just mail them your own paychecks directly, and leave the rest of us out of it. Transferring wealth to the rich hasn't worked.
The only thing that will change is who's pockets get lined.
The wealth needs to be redistributed to the people that spend it and make this country what it is.THE MIDDLE CLASS. I personally don't believe any politician want's that regardless of thier party affiliation it would cut into thier contributions and expense accounts.Tax the rich on a flat rate with no write offs and the budget gets balanced in a hurry.Stop believing these thieves from both sides of the aisle
Yes, I would rather be a dem than a repub like my brother in law who is afraid to go out of the house because the likes of Beck and Limbaugh are telling him he is to be afraid every waking minute
Know what you mean. I have a cousin and now a friend of mine who wont talk to me or include me in any of our normal activities together only because im...'a liberal'.
Glenn Beck and Hannity and the other purveyors of lies ,doom and paranoia have folks crouching in their basements...you know...clinging to their guns and bible and plotting anothey toy army 'revolution'.
Should be a new sitcom: '$%% My Tea Bag Uncle Says'
Glenn Beck and Hannity and the other purveyors of lies ,doom and paranoia have folks crouching in their basements...you know...clinging to their guns and bible and plotting anothey toy army 'revolution'
What's so ironic about you saying that is the only person I know that thinks that way, absolutely hates Beck and Hannity, owns a HUGE gun collection (and I mean HUGE), lives out on a 17 acre compound in the woods and is a hardcore far-left liberal.
Tim, don't you see whats happening to our country. You need to call Goldline, see what they can do for you.
Matt...sorry buddy, but did you see how well the porkulus package worked?? Where is that big 'demand side' job increase?? If you had any economics training at all you would realize the next big thing coming is inflation. I don't believe in trickle down supply side economics either. Both cause a bubble that will eventually work their way out of the system. Gov't actions only redistribute wealth...it doesn't create it. Gov't solutions is just a 0 sum game.
What does work is a strong economic engine. That requires confidence. obama's 7,000 pages of regulation and deficit spending (read future taxes) are killing initiative.
In our competitive environment, no one got rich unless they provided something someone wants. You get rich by providing value. On the other hand you sit an opine on the internet. Yet, you think 'rich' people owe you something. We'll sorry buddy but that's stealing and is wrong on so many fronts. Why don't you get of your (_*_) and provide value to society. There is plenty of room at the top. The only thing holding you back is the bitter resentment of not having anything to offer.
Oh and keep blaming Bush...you are reading too many lib talking points. The crash pure and simple was caused by Freddie and Fannie. They processed / insured 70% of the bad mortgages. Dems controlled F&F, protected them and got plenty of campaign contributions in return...including the anointed one. It's not Bush's fault the bubble popped on his watch. It's the liberals that created the monster!!
Guess again, Hobie81. I have a full time job as an engineer and post only when I get a chance. So calling me a thief only makes you look petty and spiteful. And if you're posting here, couldn't the same be said about yourself? What do you do that allows you to post during the work day?
Yes, Hobie81, I did see how well the stimulus worked. It stopped us from entering a depression that would have dwarfed the Great Depression and at the low end of the estimates, saved over 1.5 million jobs (you want to ask those 1.5 million people if the stimulus package didn't do any good?). And again with the childish names (porkulus) straight from Rush Limbaugh himself. It seems that it is you who needs to get off the talking points and widen your information sources.
Your comment that FM & FM caused the recession is so far off the mark it is funny. Where did you get that ". . . processed / insured 70% of the bad mortgages." statement? Prove it because I do not believe it. For one thing, FM & FM do not process mortgages. It was the 'originate and sell' mortgage companies and the banks that created CDOs, synthetic CDOs and CDSs and the rating companies (like Moody's) that rated the CDOs and synthetic CDOs as AAA (even though all of the mortgages that made them up were rated BBB or below) that caused the problem.
FM & FM did not even enter the CDO market until late in the game. They may have been a part of it, but they did not start it, were not major players nor could they cause it. Since they do not originate loans, there would have been nothing for them to purchaseuntil the originate and sell people (banks, etc.) and ratings companies (Moody's, S&P, etc.) did the dirty work creating these bad mortgages and even worse CDOs. Now, who is it that doesn't understand economics?
Let me recommend some reading that you might find interesting: "The Big Short" by Michael Lewis and "The Myth of a Rational Market" by Justin Fox. All of this started back in the Reagan years with deregulation.
It's funny that you right wingers keep saying we should stop blaming Bush and the Republicans when it can be and has been shown that their actions and policies are what caused these problems. No matter how many times you say, "Stop blaming Bush.", it still remains his and Reagan's fault (Reagan started it, GW Bush doubled down on it).
What is especially disengenuous is that you guys claim the mantle of personal responsibility, yet you want everyone to stop blaming the people who are at fault. Why is that?
commonsense
The fed began to pulled the carpet out from under the wealth seekers in 1928. I'm not going to tell you what they did, but the results was the stock market crash in 1929 money supply shrinking by 1/3 from 1928 to 1932. Even the crash didn't cause all the unemployment. It was all the "help" the government tried to do from 1930 to 1939. Protectionism, Regulation, Constant Changing of Policies, Constant Changing of Taxes
Look at the depression of 1920-1922. But start in 1916. Watch the government spend, then tax, spend more, tax more until all fell in in 1920. Republicans are correct cutting spending and cutting taxes, but they didn't know they did the right thing until after they were told we had a depression and were already recovering.
Hobie, "You like being on unemployment?? Vote democRAT!!"
You really have to be joking. The Rich got Richer by outsourcing all the jobs overseas and creating money based on an lottery system using your money to fund the pushing of paper that had no real value or tie to assets. Yep...that created a ton of jobs...
The Rich have decimated our economy by eliminating any creation of products and now they are doing the same thing in the services industry.
For all you mindless automatons on the Left- The Dems receive more money from Wall St than the Republicans. There are more wealthy Dems than there are Repubs. Goldman Sachs and Wall Street love the Dems because they know all thos BIG Government Programs will be run through Wall Street and they will make fortunes. Check out the amount of bunuses paid to Wall Street and bailed out companies/unions under Obama-Historical Highs!! You idiots on the Left that actually believe that The Dems are the party of "the working man" have been buying that lie for decades. Where do all the Secretarys of the Treasury and advisors to Obama come from and go back to-Goldman Sachs. The unions get bailed out by taxpayers and if Obama can have his way-your 401k will be taken by the governemnt (GRA) to bailout the public unions. Wake up you Loons on the Left-the empirical data is out there for anybody with a brain!!!! LOL
I would dare to say that it has already be redistributed...or have you not been keeping up with current events?
I believe that when the Republicans take over the house that their policys along with promotion of more tax cuts and supply side economic thinking will bring about the biggest positive change in job growth and tax revenue in modern times, I believe that Sarah Palin will be elected president in 2012 and be one of the greatest reformers and president in history. I also believe in both the tooth fairy AND Santa Claus......
i hope the Repubs don't freeze out the Dems like the Dems did during the Stimulus negotiations or with the healthcare debate. They were on the outside looking in from day 1, no matter what the Prez says. This election is a referendum on the far left's agenda. This country is center right, and when the far left took the 2008 election as a go ahead for their agenda instead of a referendum on Bush, they made a huge misstep. Sucks to be them...
For a minute I thought you were serious...I love satire...And that is not satire.
First thing that will change is Pelosi will be packing the Speaker's suite and moving to her new office in the basement next to the elevators. Second thing that will change is that she will no longer be the "most powerful woman" in the country, just another corrupt member of the swamp waiting to be cleaned out.
Matthew stated
A correlation does not imply cause and effect. Regards....
Loons? maybe, but yea, take from the rich and give to the poor. Loony or not. It is how it should be. Most of the rich never worked very hard for their wealth anyway.
The left seems to think it can do no wrong. It thinks that outsourcing jobs is a republican goal, but healthcare, cap and trade and outrageous ennvironmentalism will be their downfall.
By a Prious and wait until you achievs 50000 miles before you break even.
Embrace green jobs and send them all overseas for slave labor with no return on the $.
Ban more logging so real American jobs are lost - like has happened in Oregon.
The dot com bust was because of the previously mentioned notes. Dot com will enrich over seas while terminating jobs in America.
America will never be able to compete as long as the left is in charge.
Obama knows that and those that voted for him are too stupid to understand the truth.
FOrtunately, they will lose big come Wednesday.
The Repubnlicans will regain control of Congress - a very good thing for this Country. For tohse of you with a short or convenient memory the last time the Republicans were in control of Congress, it did not matter if the President was a Republican (Bush) or Democrat (Clinton), the Republican controlled Congress lead the Country to a period of unprecedented economic growth. When Democrats took control of the Congress (first 2 years of the Clinton Administration) the Country suffered economically, when Democrats assumed control of the Congress the last 2 years of the Bush administration the economy went into a tailspin we have yet to recover from. Four years of a democratic controlled Congress (last 2 years of the Bush Administration and first 2 years of the Obama) has been an unmitigated disaster for this Country. We have experienced a near collapse of the US banking system, wide-spread bankrupcy, collapse of the housing market and a near met down of the stock market. No matter how you cut it the worse economic downturn in this Country since the great depression took place with Democrats in control of Congress.
Redistribution of wealth has never been successful, we have many examples of the failed policies of income redistribution through taxation throughout Europe. Our own most recent attempt under the Obama administration using stimulous funding to provide a check to each lower or middle class American turned out ot be a huge waste of money if the intent was to provide a upswing in consumer spending. The money would have been better used to paydown debt. The argument about supply /demand creating jobs is somewhat accurate - the missing incredient is that the capital must be available for the small, medium or large business to expand capacity to increase production and increase job opportunities. Unrelenting taxes on the so-called wealthy impacts how much of this capital is available. The capital does not just magically appear. Democrats need to take some courses in Economics - certainly would open your eyes, might find it enlightening and educational. Beats your mantra of letting others make the sacrifices as you stand in line to accept your "freebies" at the working man's / woman's expense.
"We are not going to be any different than what we've been." - John Boehner, 9/23/2010
Considering they're the only ones who have been voting in line with the majority of constituents, that's a good thing.
You did take it out of context though. Straight from a liberal web site:
In other words (without the spin), they'll continue voting in the interest of the public majority. At no point did the pledge to America elude to returning to Bush-era policies - that was a deliberate negative spin. http://www.progressohio.org/blog/2010/09/boehner-were-not-going-to-be-any-different-than-what-weve-been.html
In other words, they'll do everything in their power to transfer wealth from our children and grandchildren to rich Americans and the communist dictatorship of China. The Bush era policies worked so well for so few and killed the retirement dreams of millions.
Bubble, bubble, what's the next bubble?
Don't forget they'll also trim government, cut taxes, create jobs, and they have 2 years to do it... and... GO!
They're getting voted in to slow down Obama and the dems.
Hopefully enough to actually read a bill they vote on.
It's 94 all over again. Contract with America is now Pledge to America. Same old crap. I'm actually glad if they win the House so all Americans can see how inept they truly are. In two years when nothing has changed or are worse, it will be a pleasure to see Boner sticking his foot (or something else) in his mouth. Unless they can pull a bunch of jobs out of their collective butts, they'll be voted out in 2012.
Well, a lot of our wealth already must be transferred to China since we have BORROWED so much from them to pay for all this "stimulus."
commonsense....
"In other words, they'll do everything in their power to transfer wealth from our children and grandchildren to rich Americans and the communist dictatorship of China. The Bush era policies worked so well for so few and killed the retirement dreams of millions."
Obama and company did that with the last 2 budgets, increasing the debt on your children and grandchildren more than any 6 presidents in history.
It is little wonder why you are stupid: You had the education department instituted under Carter to dumb you down.
Funny how all this debt is blamed on Obama. So who started two illegal wars and kept them off the books? If you want to fix the economy you need to have fair trade. Other countries manipulate thier markets and impose tarriffs on American goods. We have become a nation of consumers propped up by bubbles of debt. You need money to get ellected so neither party is willing do do anything to stop the incorporation of America.
Allen, think again about your spin on Boehner's comments. The "public majority" really does NOT want to return to Bush-era policies, at all.
Remember, this election will not produce either a "mandate" or a wholesale replacement of incumbents. The great majority of Representatives, in both parties, are incumbents. In the Senate, only one-third are up for election, and only about 8-10 are significant Tea Party candidates. That's a lot of incumbents in the Senate, and the size of the "message" from the Right is really miniscule.
When the President and the Democrats acted over the past two years, they WERE fulfilling the will of the majority that elected them. They WERE listening to their constitutents.
And count on it - nothing a gridlocked national legislature can do will roll back health inusrance reform, Wall Street reforms, or shut down half the government's operations. Don't let the door bang you on the butt on your way out.
The scary thing is that the stimulus actually worked it's just taking time to undo all that damage and the GOP will be seen as having done soemthing even though their policies are the ones that get us into the poor house anyway.
/sigh, who didn't see this coming, Hell Grover Norquist planned the damn thing.
Read: The Broken System Of Washington Only Becomes More Broken
...but that's what the Tea Partiers want, right?
Nope. We want checks & balances like the founding fathers intended. We don't want either party shoving through unpopular bills. Is that your idea of "fixed"? Will it still be "fixed" if Republicans gain supermajority in a couple or years or so and return the favor?
Was it the founding fathers who wanted corporations to own elections?
Allen-968499
Correct.
People like Da Noid have a strange idea of how Washington should work.
Apparently they think all bills should just be rubber-stamped through just because it came from Obama or the left.
No thanks.
Was it the founding fathers who wanted corporations to own elections?
No. And they also didn't want one party shoving through an agenda as quick as possible just because "they can."
No. And they also didn't want one party shoving through an agenda as quick as possible just because "they can."
As quick as possible? Two years to a Tea party puppet, must be like eight years is to a Democrat. lol Not sure how they suffered those 30 days after the Innaguration. Before they had to spring into action. Poor things...lol
was the tea party when bush was shoving through unpopular bills? slashing through the bill of rights? destroying our economy?
it seems a little disingenuous to me that you show up NOW so worried about government.
Byl
was the tea party when bush was shoving through unpopular bills? slashing through the bill of rights? destroying our economy?
I didn't have a Newsvine account back then.
boy, you guys sure have this "founding fathers" thing down to a tee. Ever think that the country was a wee bit different in the 1770's? For one thing, less than 1/4 of the country was settled, the population was 30 times less and we were definitely not a world power. Now add to that the fact that slavery was still legal and a very profitable trade, women had no rights under any laws and you could be shot or hung for a petty crime. Oh wait, that is what you all want. My bad.
An interesting exercise to try is to actually put in front of you the constitution and bill of rights and note how many references to "the common" there are in those documents--then take those references out of context and present them to a tea party proponent w/o referencing their source, and you will be called an exteme liberal/socialist commie etc---try it--It's FUN!!
llh1958 stated
There are two mentions of "the common defence" in the Constitution and one of "the common law" in the Bill of Rights. Sooo, your point was....?
Da Noid
Read: The Broken System Of Washington Only Becomes More Broken
...but that's what the Tea Partiers want, right?
The tea party is just tired of ignorance. Better be with them than a tea bag dumped into the bay.
There is no way in the world that the current system of Washington with Barhetoric Hussein Obull$hit, the Pathological-Liar-in-Chief and the super-majority, non-thinking socialists in congress could get any worse.
Best guesses for the changes that will take place:
1) More politicians (all political Parties) spending more time in their districts to say they truly understand the frustrations of the electorate
2) A quick thank-you to Pelosi and then a very insincere eulogy for her
3) Obama saying that this is a normal process of change and the Dems will be back in power in 2012
4) The new Speaker saying things have to change in DC
5) Both sides becoming more acrimonious
6) Increased voter dissatifaction after 6 months of listening to the sniping in DC
7) Extreme groups on both sides of the aisle getting more air & press time to vent
8) Lots of finger pointing
9) Blame for the prior administration (from the WH)
10) Blame for the prior House members (from the majority)
11) Increased campaigning starting immediately for 2012
12) Basically, nothing will change except the butts in the seats.
13) Yes, I am a cynic
John Boehner has already said his primary focus is to repeal all of Obama's legislation. Mitch McConnell has said his primary focus is to make the President a one term President.
No mention of taking care of the American people. Or running the Government. Or working for health care, or education or the environment or jobs or the deficit or mortgages, or anything else that really matters to the people.
This is what we are getting? How petty. How irresponsible. How sad.
A midterm change is exactly what Obama needs. Doubtful that the Republicans have some miracle up their sleeves to change the way the economy is heading. Tax cuts for the rich won't do it, neither will their trillion dollar missile defense system they want. If they take the house they will definately have to be accountable for the economy in 2012. My prediction is Obama will work with the Republicans, specifically John Boehner while Boehner struggles to contain the crazy from the tea party members. Not a lot will change in two years or get better and it will set the stage for an easy Obama victory in 2012. Now if the dems by some miracle keep the house, things will still not change much economically, but they will have to front 100% of the responsibility and Obama will be very vulnerable in 2012.
Oh, can someone tell me how to get rid of this stupid AARP ad? It makes reading the article very annoying as it's cutting into the article text.
I agree - governance has become a game to these people, and as we all know, games are to win! So, who REALLY wins if either party gets a majority and actually CAN pass something into law? Usually it's the politicians and the huge corporations that run this country - not small business, or even medium-sized businesses. No, it is obvious that politicians and big corporate America, with their lobbies courting every politican on The Hill...THEY are the ones who win every time.
All I can say is, in my 35 years of working steadily in this country, in a decent paying job for being a legal secretary, the most comfortable I and my family have ever been financially was during the Clinton years. Ever since then, my income has risen very slowly, if at all, at the cost of the things I need (necessities, not electronic toys, expensive cars, etc. etc. etc.) have gone steadily up in price. I have not had a raise in 3 years, nor any kind of bonus for 2. My 401k TANKED - it literally lost 1/2 of its value - in the last 5 years. So, tell me again...who REALLY benefits, no matter who is in power?
I like your thought process, It is so very true, If Obama plays this right, things can start to get better, Independents are the ones who decide elections and will leave things the way they are if things start to get better. Overall the American public likes balance in power. The only reason for such drastic change in the last two elections are a result of ongoing wars.......and an over-reaching governement making corrections. The general public always makes the corrections needed.
You may be a cynic, Bill, but in my opinion, your 'guesses' are not that far-fetched, and may be close to the mark. It's going to be a long 2 years, if Boehner isn't inclined to compromise. :-(
Damn you! You made me spew soda out my nose! That was funny though ;)
Obama has been drawing the lines in the sand, name calling, lying & countering his own lies about the Republicans repeatedly - everything he could to ensure it's abundantly clear he has no intentions of EVER working with (or for) the other half of the country or their representatives.
This is why I'm a firm believer in checks & balances. In a perfect world, there would NEVER be a supermajority again. When forced to work together, no radical measures would ever pass and only popular bills would go through. Bills containing no radical measures would easily get 60 votes if they are truly "good legislation".
I'd rather we change things up and send a Democrat & Republican from each state to Congress (100 seats - each side gets to vote for their rep). Something similar for Senate as well. The only "majority leader" should be the voters & polls accessible by all registered voters on every transparent issue.
Fielden -
You have a huge misperception in your post. A majority of the American people do not WANT to be taken care of by the government. They want the government to get the hell out of the way and stop passing massive pieces of expensive, destructive legislation that makes it harder and harder to take care of themselves.
Hey Prag,
Remember me. I was "The Colonel."
I'm baaack.
Some of these libs on First Read are so off-their-rockers paranoid about Republicans I just had to come back to make fun of them.
I believe you're right for most, but #7 & # 12. For #7 The Media has kept even the largest problems to a minimum while the Democrats ruled and if the Tea Party or Republicans take control, the Media will allow only Democrats more air time to vent and a running total of even the slightest of issues for days on their front pages. As for #12, It had better change or they'll be out too. This is not a theocracy where faith in only one party will eventually produce good results. We the People, need to keep those who are elected to Serve us, under close scrutiny. They work for US, not the other way around.
Hey, slimcolonel! Glad to see you back. :)
I am a retired Msgt and personally Colonel you are the one off your damned rocker. From the get go Repubs have sworn lockstep to see the Pres. fail. Who is paranoid? Rove for pouring 43 mil into Illinois to guarantee a Repub win in addition to all the hate a name calling being voiced by the right. Intimidation to scare the masses is what we have seen for the past 2 years.
That is classic deflection. Bush is out of office and Obama has had two years to at least start in the right direction. He will be our African American Jimmy Carter. On Tuesday he will hear the people say "let me be clear". He told all the house democrats to just vote with him and they would be fine. Now he is playing golf and laughing at them as they join the unemployed. After Tuesday Obama will have the stink of loser all over him. All the democrats act like they never voted for health care or cap and trade. It is too late for them. They bent over for Obama like they were told to and now will they will pay with thier jobs.
GOPs primary goal is and always will be to knee lock and vote NO against any Democrat sponsored legislation. They are just NOT interested in helping their constituents or fellow Americans. All they care about is power...Why anyone would want that or vote for that is beyond me.
Sorry Barbie Palin, but the GOP does NOT care about the little guy. Boner and McConnel admitted that their primary goal and strategy is to make Obama a 1 term POTUS. They admit that they could give a sh!t about the American people and yet people still vote for them???!! All we will have is gridlock for the next 2 yrs. So much for an economic recovery. We may be down on the deficit but how exactly does the GOP agenda help create jobs???!! They just keep saying tax cuts, tax cuts, and reduce spending but really, what jobs will this create?! And the 1st stimulus that GWB insisted that the entire congress vote yes on, only was a bailout for his wallstreet friends. At least Obama's stimulus has components in it to create jobs that the private sector isn't creating.
Nice Dan...
You tell me WHY Obama should have even tried to be bi-partisen it only slowed progress down. It was made VERY clear from the start that the REpublicans had zero intent on trying to work together. This was the real mistake that Obama and the WH took.
They WERE voted in on a platform that they tried to stay true to. Obamacare... not the will of the people .B.S. it was the will of the people until the LIE machine from the far right distorted it. I have yet to see Granny Fried or Death Panels...or WMDs they are the masters of scare tactics and bold face lies. I am just amazed how the gullible masses just eat it up.
Now Boehner and his Cronnies have stated yet again their focus is on regainng power not on solving issues. How can they solve the main issue of unemployment when they want to give all the breaks to the rich (who do not re-invest here in the U.S., but instead ship their monies to offshore and outsourcing)
I feel very saddened by what is about to happen to this country. The Republicans may get a small uptick because of the natural time it takes for the existing stimulus and economics to be fully effective. But trust me either party is simply trying to put a bandaide to an economy that needs to be truly re-invented.
This starts by stopping unfair trade practices by China, De-incentizing outsourcing, creating a better educational system, healing our failing heathcare system, stopping full scale wars (that were not paid for) and instead doing fucused attention and ellimination of terrorists threats.
Unlike the 99.999% of the people posting who seem to think they are the experts...and we all know if you can post on the internet..you must be... I only make the above comments based on my own casual observations with no pretense that I am an expert and know all the subtleties of the issues that you could only know if your were in each and every committee for these diciplines.
But I guess it is fun for every expert (on these forums) to pontificate.
Laurie your having a classic response to fear. Papa Obama can't take care of himself, let alone anyone else. You are a slave to the idea government has to take care of you. Itis a form of learned helplessness. The government does have the responsibility to take care of people that really need it. However, they should not beocme dependent on it. You can do more than you think if you break free from the delusion the democrats have been selling for years. Theh government has no money, only what they take from companies and employees. They have their hand in everyones pockets. Even Obama now sees himself for the joke he has become. When you watch him speak you can see even he does not think he is right.
Zip Zag, hit the nail on the head. The media has a lot to do with public perceptions. They seem to have so much control over some people's minds. It's really incredible, with the power of the Internet and all, that still people don't do their own homework, even in a time of so much controversy.
And Dan, the pot calling the kettle black, as they say. The Repubs have tried desperately to stop some of that maniac in the WH's destruction of our nation. If that adds up to them sabotaging your guy, what the heck ever! At least Colonel has a rocker still.
Striker... that was simply the epitome of non-sense. It is quite interesting how you can know what Obama is thinking...you must be the voice in his inner hear.
I am a very hard working democrat that is in the top 2-3% income and detest your generalizations. I do not believe in hand-outs for those unwilling or able to contribute to society. Your pompous attitude and over-generalizations show that you need to truly take a closer look to understand the platform of most Democrats.
It IS societies’ (and as a result government's) responsibility to insure the safety and well being of their citizens. I suppose you think that EVERYONE on welfare or getting Unemployment is MILKING the system. How about the disabled...surely they can fend for themselves. How about education...but of course everyone can get educated if they simply TRY hard enough.
Lazy workers could just get jobs...unless the unemployment rate is too high because any chance for a job that does not require advanced education has been shipped overseas.
My take is that we need to make sure everyone is treated equal AND has equal opportunity...you know kind of one of those constitutional rights that seems to be overlooked by the RIGHT. Education is the foundation to reducing societal needs.
Give college education to teachers who will commit to 4 years of teaching and based on performance retain and pay them competitive wages. Fire the ones that do not perform and do not arbitrarily give tenure.
Of course there is abuse with any social program and it should be mitigated as much as possible. The benefits to the longevity of society outweigh the small number of abuses.
Since the government, with their general fine quality of staff, can't seem to ever have a grip on the abuse of the social programs, then maybe they should be run privately run, you know, by donations. I think if you're in the upper 2-3% you should be donating an immense amount to make sure no one goes without! Us middle of the road folks, can't afford to take care of the poor, believe it or not. And, in case you never saw it this way, we don't get the rich people's write-offs to lower how much we little people are responsible for. If you were semi-intelligent, as I like to think you are with your wealth and all, you would surely realize the middle class just can't afford to provide luxuries to the poor!
fielden: You said:
"John Boehner has already said his primary focus is to repeal all of Obama's legislation. Mitch McConnell has said his primary focus is to make the President a one term President."
*******************
If just these two things can be accomplished, this could be one of the greatest congresses in history.
Independent Thinker has an IQ of about 8. When the Republican party abolishes the Minimum wage, workers in this country are really going to start huting. They have already shipped millions of jobs over seas at the expense of our tax payers. With so many people unemployed, the new jobs are going to be low pay and our nation will finish it's downward spiral.
Big Business will put the finishing touches with the help they have been getting from the Republican party. They will succeed in making the US a third world nation. Big Business in the US is owned by mostly foreign corporations. The Terrorists could not take our country down, but the wealthy sure will with the help of Republicans.
People keep saying our government is broken. The government isn't the problem, it is the voters. It is so blatantly obvious that the wealthy control Republicans, and their only concern is for the wealthy. If your worth isn't in the hundreds of millions, they couldn't care less about you. There has been no moral or family values in the Republican party in 30 years. Wake up before our nation is equivalant to Saudi Arabia. 300 million poor people supporting the ultra rich in their palaces.
IndependentThinker has proven ONE thing is certain.......he/she is anything BUT an independent thinker
If the GOPTP captures the House nothing will happen, except for more money to the industrial miltary complex, the oil companies, and other robber barons; maybe even WWIII.
Your tired lefty cliches need to be updated Bev. Stop living in the 60's and get with the times. Communism has been discredited you know....
Well, if that is all, we should give them both, House and Senate.
I thought you meant we had something to worry about. Glad to see it is nothing serious.
Here I was thinking you might be biased. (ps, I am a LIFE LONG DEMOCRAT)
People like you, making comments like that make us all look bad.
Kevin,
How do those comments make dems look bad? The republicans have already said they want another missile defense system. One that defends against missiles which only Russia has. Tell me how declaring Islam the enemy (many tp candidates have said this) isn't going to lead to WWIII? Tax cuts for the rich, the privitization of SS?
Chris,
By the way, the trickle down theory was also disproved. Tax cuts for the rich haven't worked. The only way to get out of a recession are aggressive Keynesian policies.
I'm sorry dem in Texas, the opposite is true. Lowering Tax Rates have generated MORE $$$ in the Governement coffers every time it has been tried. Lower the Taxes and Businesses spend more, hireing more people, re-investing. That is why we've had our current economy dive into oblivion because Democrats believe the Government NEEDS to take more and more from Business, driving down the ability to expand. Imagine you work for a company. I know you don't, but let's pretend you work like the rest of us. If that company is told to pay higher taxes, more unemployment tax, more Social Securtiy Tax, etc. They will lay you off and not hire newbees! Is that easier to understand when I put it like that for you?
Zipzag, the democrats are fearful and that is expressed as anger. They look to the government to take care of them-papa obama. The democrats want people to feel dependnet on them and keep giving them money like a drug dealer passes out drugs. The democrats followed obama over teh cliff, but he gets to keep his job for two more years while they get voted out. I am sure they feel like fools while obama plays golf and laughs at them. Obama and his lisping buddy Barney Frank just have no idea what to do.
Our Senators get way too much monetarily to follow him like a bunch of darn sheep! They get what they deserve. Not one of them stood up against his crazy crap and said, "No"! You're right, they probably aren't feeling too good now, knowing he used their hides and doesn't give a darn if they are kicked to the curb. So long as it's not the curb in front of his place, you know.
Beverly, your nuts.
I think zipzag is stoned.
By 2012, the voters won't know which bums to throw out...
we know now..ans: ALL of THEM
but we can't ....just the ones up for re-election
The Republicans will do nothing helpful, the economy will continue to pick up steam on its own, and Boner will take all the credit.
It always cracks me up how dems are always against big companys . So why did there beloved president bail out G.M. also who do you think employs millions of people .
I'll answer that Kevin, GM is Union. Bail out of AIG is because that's were the Senate and House's retirement fund is at. I think the last comment is worth extra credit.
Democrats are not against big companies. We are against big companies controlling politicians and the government.
If all those large companies had all gone under at one time, where would America be???? Europe was going under too, so their was no life line coming to us from them. No President, would have set by and watch this country go Belly-Up; Obama is not a fool, and that would have been the mark of a Damn Fool. Imagine all our main industry, banks, housing, auto industry, business companies, all going broke together; that would call for mass suicide, hystery and killings of epict portions. Some of you should read about the banks crashing in the thirties; the man had to help out to prevent America from going no the tube and we damn sure thank him, Don't we!!!!!! Oh yes we scream about the taxes which are out of sight, but Bush cut taxes and entered us in two wars, where was the money coming from? You can't arm, and army without money, and now we cry about the deficit. The Republicans will give taxes cuts but we have no money and we are still fight two wars. Our overseas jobs will not come back, but more will leave, because big business is a Republican thing and politicans get richer from the rich, not from the middleclass, and definitely not the poor. We are in for a rough ride, but hopefully by 2012 we will all be wiser or we will cease to care.
Better get over it. Guess what? MONEY IS POWER!
Kevin, it was GWB, the twit, who bailed out GM. No doubt Obama would have done likewise, but it was done late in 2008 at Bush's prodding.
One big part of the answer to your question Kevin is that GM and the other big car manufacturers are the only companies that can go from peace time manufacturing to manufacturing war materials in a short amount of time. These companies can retool their plants in less than a week.
All the doom and gloom will be over in 29 hours. All the talk of 5% unemployment not returning until 2015 is garbage. As the article said, the recession has been over for some time, but the Obama administration has been the one thing holding recovery back by being the enemy of business, getting in the way of any attempt to rehire and expand. The new look Congress is exactly what the economy needs.
that is completely absurd.
this recession is not caused by a lack of supply (which is what we'd have if employers wanted to expand but couldn't). this recession is due to lack of demand; people aren't buying because they're unemployed or are worried about becoming unemployed which means employers have no reason to hire.
and nothing the President's done has caused demand to slip. in fact, the stimulus he's presided over has increased demand by putting more cash in people's pockets.
That's what the liberals were saying in the 1994 recession. But the minute the Republicans took over Congress, companies began to hire in anticipation of better days ahead. Companies I deal with have been waiting for over a year to hire and build, but they had no way to plan ahead because of all the uncertainty delt by this administration, i.e. taxes, regulations, healthcare, energy, CO2, etc. In order to plan ahead, you have to know what the indirect costs are going to be. Up to now, nobody knows.
Hahahaha
Beck will sell you food insurance now too
Beck will sell you food insurance now too
and I'm sure Obama will waste no time passing a mandate to require you to buy it.
sleepy bear
Laugh all you want, but I know what the companies I deal with have been telling me. They cannot plan ahead (hiring) if they have no way of knowing whether they will make money or lose money. How much will energy and healthcare cost them with ObamaCare and cap & trade? What are the tax laws for 2011? Will the Bush tax cuts stay or go away? Nobody knows, not even the people who wrote the law. At least now, they know cap and trade is dead in the water, or should I say dead in the CO2.
absolutely untrue.
the recovery actually started in 92 and accelerated through 93 and 94.
http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=4A41B2167082CF0D502BBF1841EFE5DF.inst3_1b?docId=5000282077
i don't believe you. this is wingnut talking point #287 and there is no more uncertainty now than any other time. laws are always susceptible to change, at any time, by any administration.
And what are the Republicans offering? So far we have heard nothing except repeal, restrict, and obstruct.
Cleek: Businesses and Republicans have been harping about this uncertainty for some time, and I think there is some added uncertainty right now. However, demand is what matters, and no amount of worries about supposed increases in taxes will change that. It is definitely a talking point in that regard, even if some members of the business community sincerely believe it.
You'll see stocks increase on Nov. 3, but not because of implications of better future performance. It'll be because investors believe profits will increase, not demand. The economy will stay on the slow-and-steady for some time.
cleek
Just like the recovery started in 2009, but at a snails pace. Nobody is taking any chances. It will change in 28 hours.
And the source of your information? I deal with dozens of major companies and uncertainty is definitely the major impedance factor. Just to name a few, Fluor Corporation, Lurgi Inc., CH2M Hill, Smith Glaxo Kline, Eli Lilly, Olin Corporation, Bechtel Corporation, Jacobs Engineering & Cosntruction. Within the last two months, I have heard whispers of hiring in anticipation of a Republican Congress.
Road Warrior -
As I said, I think many businesspeople sincerely believe that uncertainty of future taxes is hindering growth. I just don't think it will translate to meaningful upticks in economic activity.
I think people place too much emphasis on taxes' ability to manipulate the economy, both from either the demand or supply sides. Especially considering the myriad of (completely legal) tax manipulation techniques available.
yes, that's how recoveries start: slowly. it's much harder to create jobs than it is to destroy them. it takes time to rebuild confidence.
anecdotes are not data.
cleek,
It took Ronald Reagan's policies to translate into millions of jobs after two years of slow recovery. How many more years does Obama want? Will he continue to blame Bush in 2012.
Anon Monster!
Taxes is but one factor. Most industries are very energy intensive. Not knowing how much electricity, gas and oil will cost a year from now is a huge stumbling block. Heathcare cost is another one. Why do you supposed Obama gave McDonald's the break two weeks ago?
RW -
I meant taxes as a general term for government levies (not hip to the conservative lingo? It's called cap and tax! =). My point still stands: taxes and new costs affect the margin of benefit received from each new worker, and not the total benefit. If demand existed to hire that new worker, companies would, regardless of the decreased benefit margin.
The impending change in power to our legislative branch won't provide the juice for companies to hire, it will only provide increased benefit for those workers they already employ.
As for the waivers Obama issued to MCD and 29 other companies, I can't say. I didn't like the move, especially for the fast food companies, which are thriving in our current economic environment. MCD is doing particularly well.
Hurray for McDonalds! The shining example of the American hamburger as economic way forward (eyes rolling) and the future of jobs in a future 100% service economy...the darling of the Chamber of Commerce
The coming catch phrase of workers in America..."Do you want fries with that?"
get ready for Hooverville... if the republicans' win that's it.....gloom and doom
the same seniors who complain about the deficit.
the same seniors who complain about the deficit
Wait till the Repubes privatise their social security...lol...you'll see some Tea party puppets, and Republicans running for cover. Bottom line, the next two years will be complete gridlock, and a great reminder to america, why we threw the Republicans out on their ear to begin with. Gonna be almost as fun to watch as it was when our last Republican President had a shoe flung at his head. lol
The nation no longer wants nor needs MSNBC's IDEA of what we require, or will transpire. For 3 years this liberal"piece" has touted and pushed Obama and his minions Socialist views, actions and agenda. Your opinion was skewed then and wrong now. Your "news shows" are going the way of the libs and Dems in this election. MSNBC loses to FOX in a...........................landslide!
yet another teabagger who thinks he speaks for the rest of America.
get over yourselves.
cleek- So, American voters aren't calling for a change? Oh, thats right your a lib................. you don't understand! Well you will see............. come Nov three!
The tea baggers not only think they speak for us... now they're telling us how we feel!
Sheesh!
Feisty,
I know how the liberals will feel in 29 hours. Oh, so depressed. LOL
Fiesty, why do you continually degrade the Tea Party? Because they differ from your thoughts of big government, union bailouts, and the will to reform government as you know it today?
You voted for change with the election of President Dude, and apparently enjoy the progress you believe he is making in the country. Others differ in their views and would like to see change again. A reason to use schoolhouse theatrics to demean the opposition? That goodness we have a forum to voice our disagreements with a single progressive thought.
The Tea Party is not a political group as the Dems and Republicans, they are only a group of people from both political parties who disagree with the direction of the country. If you are afraid of the TP, you only have your president to blame for this change in people.
Another teabagger who has no clue what socialism is.
um, no. they are Republicans. they support all the same things Republicans have always supported - poll after poll confirms this. they chant the same slogans Republicans have always chanted. they will all vote for Republicans tomorrow.
you're not fooling anybody but the fools in the media.
You people referring to "tea baggers", I believe is a Freudian slip.
Simple because they are bat sh!t crazy... just look at the nuts they're currently running!
Next question?
And you're right... people that don't have an IQ over 60 running for public office usually do scare the hell out of me!
cleek, You sure make alot of generalizations. I don't care if you believe me or not, but I haven't voted Republican in over twenty years, not since the famous Read My Lips speech by Bush in 1989. I voted last week straight ticket Republican.
yet another teabagger who thinks he speaks for the rest of America
Of course, didn't you know, its "their" America. They fully intend to make the United states number one in the world once again. With them in power were gonna be well on our way to be the number one most powerful third world country on earth. Till they finish shipping all our jobs to china. Then i suppose I'll have to learn our new national language, Chinese. Gonna be a hell of a commute though. LOL. But, on the bright side, they will eliminate the immigration problem. Who wants to live in a third world country?
Road Warrior-1005773
This is one of the first times I have voted 'Straight Ticket' also. Usually I'll cross party lines a few times on my ballot because I think the person will do a good job.
I felt like Obama and the dems gave me no choice but to vote straight Republican this time just to get some control back in D.C.
slimsignet
Right on. However, if the new Republican Congress turns out to be no better than George Bush, then I will seek another party. But you are right. Something has to be done right now to stop the Obama train and bring back some fiscal sanity.
Feisty- Thank you from all Tea Party followers. You and your minions attitudes and actions are one of the reasons(political ignorance), the party was formed. We will reap the benefits, starting tomorrow. Again, Thank you
Road Warrior-1005773
You got it. The libs on here think everyone is just toeing the party line because that's what most of the ones on here always do.
If the new Repubs don't get it right then they're out next time too. This isn't some kind of contest. This about getting some semblance of logic and control back into the process. Two things that always seem to disappear when one party gets control.
@ Fiesty,
The Tea Party has no candidates, only the Dems and the Repubs. The TP only has people who are not happy with the policies of President Dude and his administration. Who are the nuts - anyone with a believe system that differs from yours?
Next question?
What a schoolyard categorization Fiesty. is the true feeling you have is that people can determine the direction President Dude and the Dem Party want to take the nation? Is that what freightens you? I don't believe those running have an IQ that is of a liberal bent.
Silly... We are all well aware that you can't fix stupid!
So other than taunting & gloating... your point again is WHAT????
I'm secretly hoping that at least a couple of these nut jobs DO win! It will only escalate your extinction! ;0)
safecracker-1205811
... people that don't have an IQ over 60
I started to respond to Feisty on that also, but it's so dumb I thought "what's the point?"
I'm secretly hoping that at least a couple of these nut jobs DO win! It will only escalate your extinction! ;0)
LOL. Let me tell you something sweetheart. Neither the Democrats or the Republicans are going anywhere. They've both been around since the beginning and they'll still be here long after you and I are gone. Get used to it.
NOW that's FUNNY!
I'll take Tea Baggers for $1000 please Alex!
Answer: Tea Party Candidates
Question: Who are Sharon Engle - Christine O'Donnell - Rand Paul - Ken Buck - Marco Rubio and the rest of the whack jobs!
One's nuttier than the next!
In case you have already forgot... THEY ALL RAN AS TEA BAGGER CANDIDATES!
There is NO amount of spin you can put on this to change the cold hard FACTS! lmfao!
Feisty, You have been one of the worst ones on these forums for calling names and telling people what they should think.
Umm...another Tea BAgger fantasy....nope. We will be watching you floundering to create jobs because you have no plans for it.
Good luck..Oh...and 'Where are the jobs?"
Got policy?
Why is it that if one side wont listen or even try to understand the other they resort to name calling and out and out disrespect. If the only intelligent thing you can come up with is teabagger, hippy, leftwing nutjob, redneck conservative, or any other sort of deriding comment then maybe you should take a good luck at your self because your probably what is currently wrong with this country. No one listens to each other anymore. Even if you disagree with some one you should have the respect to hear them out, then form a thoughtful rebuttal so that we can meet some where in the middle. Your not going to get your way, I am not going to get mine but at least maybe we can meet in the middle and do what is best for the both of us.
I am tired of the back and forth name calling and the uneducated accusations from supposidly educated people.
and fiesty just so you know the original article does have the president listed properly as president obama in bold so feel free to actually read an article before posting an opinon.
People we have freedom of speech, we also have a responsibility to allow others to excersise thiers.
The interesting thing is, Tim, they don't really need much policy to get the economy moving again.
The lack of policy (meddling, punishing success, rewarding failure) is what will free the trillions sitting on the sidelines, once the mystery of the tax situation is resolved.
With POTUSs agenda effectively stopped, and the health care bill potentially failing two constitutionality challenges - which will result in the whole bill falling since there is no severability clause, the Republicans really don't have to do anything.
They probably better do something, and I would suggest starting with a budget which the spineless Dems didn't have the courage to do - one that takes spending levels back to '08 - about 25% LOWER than they are now.
Here's POTUSs budgets, from March, extending 10 years. Projected '11 outlays, $3.8 trillion, with a $1.3 trillion deficit.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/tables.pdf
That represents about a $700 BILLION increase from Bush's projected budgets for '11, and in increase of nearly $1 trillion from '08 spending. What the hell is that extra trillion buying, anyway? Entitlements.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy08/pdf/budget/tables.pdf
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2008/pdf/hist.pdf
If ALL they do is reign that in? Good for them.
Preach it! Entitlements which have escalated by leaps and bounds under Dem rule truly need to stop, like the Obama phone policy. I have worked at least two jobs all my life, retired due to health and live on less that $400 a month. What is it with young high school teen girls with sculpted nail, talking on Obama phones and hauling two or three children of theirs and pregnant again to receive even more welfare money. And all their treatment, immunizations and medications are free to them while I pay over $600 a month for medication which I earned by working full-time and putting myself through college without any help or grants. What is wrong with this picture?
Hey Feisty thanks for slamming the article. I had to go back and read the whole thing! No wonder you don't like it - Though the guy gives one of the clearest illustrations on how the minority party and majority party function in the house.
I have two embellishments though. The house is built on short terms so business people and farmers could go to Washington and serve with a minimal disruption. The senate really was geared toward representing the state governments AND provide stability so that the change of direction would be slowed down a bit.
The other embellishment. No matter how you analyse the 1995 shut-down, Gingerich was going to lose. The President has no authority to spend money unless granted by Congress. Gingerich not providing even a stop gap spenidng bill makes him the one shutting the government down, not Clinton.
For those who think he would make a good President - NOT ! ! ! ! We don't need cute power plays. Obama's next two years of defying the desire of the American people - WHO HIRED HIM, will be bad enough.
If the establishment Republicans don't follow the advice in this article, the Democrats will return to power in 2012. Early polling on the 2012 senate races show that Republicans could achieve easily 60 seats in the Senate if Obama resists. I, and many Americans say "Resist Obama, resist!"
Well, "Pragmatic" apparently means something other than what any common dictionary normally would describe. I thought it meant dealing with actual facts and occurrences, with a penchant for practicality. Apparently not.
I thank ye for your links to outdated fiscal year budgetary data and also would like to give a thumbs up for your 'crack' understanding of how to read charts and data. If you would have gotten the most recent available data (Fiscal Year 2009, 2010 isn't up yet), and looked through pages, oh, any of them, you would have seen the true spending numbers for fiscal year 2006, 2007 and 2008 by the GBO and saw they were to the tune of $248 billion (2006 DEFICIT), $170 billion (2007 DEFICIT), $410 billion (2008 DEFICIT). Any dates that haven't already occurred are what we call 'estimates' of future budgetary decisions and should be taken with a grain of salt.
I find it interesting that the fiscally conservative activists who want to curtail government spending didn't mention a single thing about the explosive growth of the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security during the Bush years. Together, they accounted for $498 Billion dollars in 2007 (56.6% of government spending) and $549.6 Billion dollars in 2008 (58.4% of government spending) and had an additional $108 Billion earmarked for 'Emergency Funds'. All this, mind, came BEFORE that "Stalinist/Nazi/ Socialist/Secret Muslim" Obama EVER stepped foot in office. "
Defense funding for 2009 rose by 8.3%, when compared against the paltry .3% rise in Non-Defense funding for the same time. Curious that the 'handout program' you argue so vociferously against, during the beginning of the collapse of the financial market when unemployment was rising extremely quickly, rose by a minuscule .3%? Interesting. According to that logic, we should stop giving money to those places where most of the money goes. Get the most bang for your buck and all. That being said, by your logic, we should stop giving so many 'handouts' to the people who defend this country and keep America safe. Tell me, why do you hate America and want her to be attacked again, by weakening the National Defense? Veteran Affairs benefits rose in that period too. Again, tell me, why do people who have served this country and come back wounded not get off their lazy bums and make themselves useful? No free handouts, remember? Why do you not support our troops?
Then you talk about 'fiscal irresponsibility' on the part of Obama. Yet follow that up with pointing to 'graphs and figures' that you clearly never read. for example, pages 13-30 on the fiscal year 2009 CBO report show that during Obama's first year, government programs were cut by a little over $18 BILLION dollars. Funny how in 2008, the CBO offers no numbers on curtailing government spending. Mind, this is when the House, Senate and Presidency were all in Republican hands. I thought the rallying call for all fiscal conservatives was 'smaller government', yet Obama has done more to shrink the funding of the domestic side of governing than Bush and the Republican party ever did in their 8 YEARS IN OFFICE. Don't worry, it's probably a liberal conspiracy perpetrated by the non-partisan CBO. It's always a conspiracy when facts don't align with your 'beliefs', isn't it? Seriously, Go Palin, 2012!
I would call into question any of the rationale that continuing to give tax cuts to the top 1% of American earners 'somehow' solves the nation's economic problems. That being the case, the Bush tax cuts that occurred BEFORE the recession occurred should have prompted businesses and the wealthy to expand and invest in new businesses, instead of laying off and firing 10 million people. I don't remember the ensuing Golden Age, I've been too busy with the Recession caused by Progressives and Obama BEFORE they took office.
Fact is: the wealthy don't drive the American economy. The middle class and small businesses do that. How many small businesses are operated by billionaires? Didn't think so. You call it 'taxing success', I call it making the wealthy invest in the country. How many billionaires are made by buying companies, cutting jobs, chopping up divisions and selling what's left to outside investors? Warren Buffet for one. Stop defending the ridiculously wealthy as 'models of success' when they sacrifice the financial well being of those who work FOR them to get there.
If you're going to say the financial crisis is Obama's fault, I would say, yep! You got it, HE was the one who helped to relax financial regulation (something that can only be done with a law written by and passed by Congress) that allowed mortgage brokers and derivative investors access to the means that would ultimately boot millions of people out of their homes. That occurred, oh wait, that actually occurred BEFORE he stepped foot in office, once again. Silly me, the facts aren't fitting your beliefs again, again a liberal conspiracy perpetrated by the Fact Fascists.
You talk about the expansion of government, yet who authorized the Warrantless Wiretap Program? Oh, that was Bush. I didn't hear any 'calls to action' then. Where was the Tea Party then? You talk about the overexpansion of the government into the Private Sector violating the free market and overstepping its bounds in the Constitution, yet the government is allowed to regulate commerce thanks to the Commerce Clause as it appears in the U.S. Constitution. You want a return to the Constitution, yet you're arguing against its implementation. How does that work? Crap, another liberal conspiracy.
You also talk of projected budget deficits in the near future. "Bush's estimates were $1 trillion dollars less than Obama's estimates". That's another blatantly ignorant statement. Bush left before the recession started getting underway and he has no idea how things are going to turn out in three years down the road. That's like asking someone in March of 1910 what the temperature will be during September 2020. Will they give an estimate of 'likely' temperatures? Probably, but its based on trends that exist AT THAT TIME. Did Bush expect a economic recession of this magnitude? He wouldn't admit it if he did, because it means he saw it coming and did nothing about it. The closer we get to a particular date, the better our estimates will be. That's why the weather man never makes DEFINITE predictions of weather. There are too many variables that we can't foresee to make them accurately. Maybe Obama's numbers estimate the worst case scenario. His numbers are still an estimate that could be thrown off by anything, even such events as bizarre as a sudden Space Alien Invasion who need American construction subcontractors and are willing to employ anyone who can walk at ridiculously high salaries. Bush is GOING to paint a good picture of the future budget expenditures because he wants people to believe he did a good job and that anything that comes after him was a result of poor politics AFTER him or pure chance.
I was not overjoyed to have my tax dollars go to bailout Wall Street without strict financial regulation and oversight, I was not overjoyed to have my tax dollars go to bailout the Auto Industry thanks to their poor business decisions and lack of foresight. 'Let 'em fail' is what I thought. Then I started looking and found that the Auto Industry employs a huge amount of people through specialized part manufacturers, steel mills, dealerships, windshield makers, etc. What would be the impact of putting 20 million people out of work immediately? Besides, America invented the car. We used to be the World Leaders of Innovation and Technology. Now the most fuel efficient vehicles are created in Japan? Germany and China create better quality goods than we do? There should be no reason we allow American Ingenuity and Quality to be snuffed out by American Pigheadedness, Greed, Arrogance and Fear of Change.
Times have been tough the past 3 years. Our country had a monumentally challenging financial crises put in front of us. Yet who rose to the challenge and attempted (albeit in a less than perfect fashion) to save the economy and country? Tax cuts in the last two years of the Bush presidency (the faint beginnings of the Financial collapse) didn't stop the Recession, what else was the federal government to do? Every State Government had a budget deficit and many were in danger of failing (I see you California, great job). Who was supposed to have the answers? What would YOU have done that would have gotten EVERYONE a job who wanted one, cut domestic programs by $18 billion, took a crack at health care and financial reform, stopped the biggest financial recession since the Great One, and made EVERYONE happy while doing it? Tax cuts again? I'd rather have a job that pays me enough money to live comfortably and pay some taxes on it, than have no job and lower taxes. Idiots these days want the benefits without any sacrifices. It doesn't work that way, ever. Get real.
The fact is, on every single issue that was brought up in Congress, the Republican Party adamantly refused to recognize Reason or Compromise to get this country out of this mess. You wanted tax cuts for small businesses, Republicans? You got it. You didn't want a public option, Republicans? You got it. Many of you have forgotten the discussion between Obama and the Republican members of the House of Representatives. Google it and see how the 'True Americans' stuck it to that Nazi Dictator. What part of Reason and Compromise has the Republican Party offered? They got many of the things they wanted in almost all recent legislation and yet resolutely refused to vote for that same legislation. Its called Compromise and Republicans never used it and yet, now we're supposed to expect them and potential incoming Tea Partiers to do that now?
It's good to say, 'we want smaller government, lower taxes and a balanced budget', but there hasn't been a Tea Party or Republican candidate who has offered a realistic means to go about actually making that happen. Look at the facts. What policies would be enacted other than lower taxes and less government oversight? Its good to have ideas, but if you have no means to actually make them work, you're just some Big Mouth, shouting or crying from your gilded tower or syndicated Talk Show. What are you actually going to DO to bring your vision to life? Sacrifice the environment? You do that, you sacrifice the health and livelihood of people and children today AND tomorrow to insure you make a couple bucks today. That doesn't make sense to me.
This discussion boils down to this: for too long this country has refused to look at the unavoidable Facts, Truth and History that we already have. Then used reason to mold those statements together to solve the country's problems. Instead we prefer to look at 'emotions' and 'beliefs' in the hopes that 'somehow it'll all work out'. That's patently stupid. Be realistic.
If you don't like the president because his policies are logically, fiscally or otherwise unsound, that's fine. If you don't like him or his policies simply because he's not white, a lot smarter than you, or simply because he isn't a member of 'your' political party then that becomes a problem. Remember though, HE doesn't write legislation. All HE does is sign bills into law and prompt discussion on legislation. He knows sometimes you have to sign bills into law that may not be perfect in a time of crises, DO YOU? Look to your congressman/woman and ask them questions instead. "Why didn't you participate in the health care discussion, why didn't you enforce government accountability, what have you offered to the table to create long term job growth to our area?" These are the questions that should be asked. Don't be a tool, for anyone or any 'News' Organization, be they Fox, MSNBC or the Wiccan Network. Look at the views espoused by pundits and 'policy analysts' and DO the research. If you just take anyone's words and follow them without actually looking at them critically, you will wind up in trouble. Look at the TRUE Nazi movement in Germany. They believed propaganda and never questioned their leaders and look what happened. Look at the facts and consequences of past actions and formulate your opinions honestly.
Incidentally, I enjoy me fiery, spirited redheaded womens. At least you know there will never be a dull moment in your life. ;)
Do you have a condensed version of that diatribe, skipping the parts that are claiming to disprove a point I WASN'T actually making?
Nevermind. I know the trees prevent the left from actually seeing the forest.
But GOOD FOR YOU for thinking you know what pragmatic means!!!! cookie for the boy!
Points you and your fellow cronies made:
Democrats are to blame for the explosion in federal spending:
Patently absurd. The first year that the ‘spineless’ Democrats had ‘control’ of both houses of Congress and the Presidency, there were cuts in government budgets (the day to day operation of the federal government) totaling $18 billion dollars. Look, smaller, more efficient government!
During the years where Republicans controlled both Houses and the Presidency, military spending ALONE increased by $61.6 billion from 2007 to 2008. Your own sources showed this.
Tax cuts that benefit the wealthiest would have saved America from the recession.
Again, patently absurd. The Bush era tax cuts went into force in 2001 and 2003 and according to the logic provided (the wealthy will invest their personal money back into the business world, spurring economic growth); lower taxes should have stopped the recession in its tracks. It didn’t. The super wealthy don’t invest in America, they put their money in offshore tax shelters and move jobs overseas. Small business owners invest in life HERE. They account for over half the employment opportunities in America. Look it up.
Obama and the Democrats are taxing everyone to death, which is causing the economy to fail.
If you would have read anything about the small business tax cuts that were ACTUALLY IN the Small Business Jobs Bill that was passed in 2010 by “evil, hate-all-businesses and America Democrats and Obama”, you would have realized that. But fact checking, reason and the premise of a logically sound, fact-based rebuttal of any of the points I made cannot be done by someone such as yourself.
Decreased regulation is good for America.
Again, bad idea. Decreased regulation allowed the bundling of mortgages and the insurance policies that backed them to fail catastrophically, causing the housing market to collapse. This resulted in Banks that were overinvested in the market to fail and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (who insured those packaged mortgages) to ‘require’ bailing out. Over regulation chokes growth, but not enough causes collapse.
I could go on and on about nearly every one of your points. But you want something short and concise, so here it is: nearly every stance you spout from your ignorant mouth can be refuted with non-partisan data. Do some fact checking for once, instead of simply opening your mouth and crying about stuff you know nothing about. And it wasn’t a diatribe; it was a point-by-point refutation of every one of you and your Fascist compatriots’ complaints about the state of the world. So keep hiding behind the ‘skipping the parts that are claiming to disprove the points you were actually making’ line, it won’t change the facts. Your points were: Obama is to blame for the poor state of the economy, Democrats do nothing but increase government and deficits, taxes are evil and hurt America, blah blah blah. I addressed those ‘claims’, went after the numbers and facts to support my stances and did some critical thinking and analysis of the data that was available. I know that it’s probably ‘not fair’ to expect someone with the limited intellectual capacity of one such as yourself to actually DO fact checking, but life isn’t fair. I’ll generalize like you: I know the spouted opinions by Faux News and similar self-absorbed blowhards prevent the right from seeing the Unavoidable Truth and Facts of the World. Again, they look at all the little gaffes of the Obama administration and can’t see the big picture: the economy is starting to grow, jobs are being regained, the money that was used to bail out companies is being repaid and America is surging back. You're the one who can't see the forest for the trees, Hypocrite.
Also, there is no ‘thinking’ on my part about knowing what pragmatic means. I KNOW what it means instead of simply ‘claiming to’ as you do. How do I know what it means? It’s called a dictionary. You know; a book with all the commonly used words that are clearly defined? The book that lists the internationally agreed upon standard definition of words in the English language?
MY method of ‘knowing and researching stuff’ doesn’t work well for those who like to 'think' that they are somehow uniquely qualified to have an opinion on the world because, somehow, they ‘think’ they’re more ‘special’ than others and shouldn’t have to. You’re not, I’m not, no one is. Having an ignorant opinion doesn’t make it fact or worthy of being believed in. Hopefully you’ll learn that someday, little guy. Maybe when you grow up, you’ll get to the point where you realize that essential truth and become a True Man instead of living your life as a perpetual teenager.
What will change? It will be Boehner calling the Democrats obstructionists instead of Pelosi calling Republicans obstructionists. That's about it.
yup, this argument between two factions in this country has always been going on, its just that the volume has been turned up so loud in the new media age.
Madison fromNY:
You should go to Hollywood. You produced the funniest political commentary I have heard in years and I am quite old. Your comment about President Obama having made overreaching executive orders was hilarious especially inlight of what his predecessor did. Why G.W. would sign a bill and in his executive comments while signing it say he wasn't going to enforce it.
So please seek out Hollywood so that the rest of nations can laugh as hard as I did. We need it especially after two years of Congressional NOs.
LL
"What will change and what will not"?
"Because, shut up- that's why"- GOP Chair, M. Steele.
Nothing will change. Both parties are the same. They work for the bankers to pillage and plunder middle class' wealth.
And THAT, Mark, is why we need gridlock.
Lets just keep voting for the other guy every 2 years, because even though they screwed up before, they will get it right this time right? If you thought Obama was going to fix Washington you were a fool. If you think the Tea Party (aka the Republican Base) will do it you are a fool. When are we going to stop believing that more of the same will give us different results?
Gridlock is good! Whenever either party has total control, there is total overreach and government intrusion. That's why one party rarely has total power (presidency, beyond 60 in the Senate and a majority in the House) for very long.
Will you share some of what you're smoking?
Seriously... we send our representatives to DC to work not sit on the sidelines because their pissed they're not the party in power!!!
At least that's the assumption I've been under all these years! *insert snark*
Eh... whatever KJ!
Seriously... we send our representatives to DC to work not sit on the sidelines because their pissed they're not the party in power!!!
and also not to bully through every piece of unwanted legislation and pork because they're delirious they ARE the party in power!!!
You make an excellent point.
As to "Feisty", you can discount anything "she" says... because she is so biased she refused to read the article we are commenting upon. She reminds me of a child giving a book report on a book she never read. That usually ended poorly for the one giving the report.
Feisty: The founding fathers set government up this way to PREVENT what Alexis de Toqueville would call the "Tyranny of the Majority." When their is a super majority (which the dems had most of the last two years), then a large plurality IS PO'ed when they overreach. Only those who view government as their nanny are smoking anything. Looks like you're "one toke over the line.." GRIDLOCK is GOOD!
Gridlock is good because because they usually find a way to screw us. The less they can do, the better.
Vote for Gridlock in 2011!
How long is it going to take you people to realize the obvious. This is no longer a country. It is nothing more than a corporation with a military. The United States of America, Inc. The only thing either party gives a rat's A about is the lobbyists and the money (which is controlled by bankers, Wall Street, big business etc). So you can vote them in and out to your heart's content and nothing is going to change. The economy will still be in the toilet while the little "kids" argue back and forth and accomplish nothing. Because THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT the country or the citizens. All of the senators or reps that you vote out will merely get jobs as high paid lobbyists themselves - laughing all the way to the bank. In short, the only thing that will save the country is an armed revolution so that we can start over. But that won't happen because we are all weenies...... Good thing our forefathers weren't as spineless as we are or we would all be drinking tea and singing "God Save the Queen".
Diane, no argument from me about the country being a bunch of weenies. Weenie-dom came about with the entitlement process - the more government handouts, the more we have government control. Once we moved off the farms, we forgot how to be self sufficient. Cradle to Grave protection by the FedGov to further the Plantation Mentality of the US. Armed Revolution????!!! Hell, I would bet that better than 60% of the US populace has never fired a gun. Besides, these same individuals who have never fired a weapon would probably have to go to the government to get a permit - that ain't gonna happen unless they go with their hands-out for something 'free'. Spineless? No they have spines as long as someone else is paying for the bone infusion. I think the missing parts are lower and dangle. The US has become emasculated, y'know, 'Metro-Man', the politically correct thing to do! Thank Gawd I am old!
Free hand-outs - please! I have been laid off 6 times in the last 10 years due to big business and their ideas of outsourcing everything overseas and all for what? To make major shareholders and the banking industry even richer! I have worked for 20+ years, am NOT on food stamps, am NOT collecting welfare but am collecting unemployment and yes, it is my right! I have paid into it for 20+ years and am out of work due to big business! Oh yeah, did I mention that I've been laid off 6 times!!!
I am currently getting retrained through the federal trade assistence act and am very thankful for this "government" hand-out as you put it!
While I don't agree with everything that the current administration has done, I am deeply concerned that the Republicans will undemine the good things like credit card regulation, denying healthcare due to pre-existing conditions and more importantly, my retraining program.
Laid off 6 times in the past 10 years????
I suggest a bit of due diligence on your part. Somewhere in your career path you have taken wrong turns. Look for companies that have good future growth; if you know or suspect that a job may be going overseas, why would you take the job then complain when it leaves the country? I have worked for going on (50) FIFTY years and when I was laid off, I researched potential employment to reduce the probability of lay-offs. Personal responsibility NOT the blame game and "WOE IS ME".
Good points, Bill, to which I will add the following directed at pm in Idaho:
Why, exactly, did those companies offshore? Is it because of favorable tax treatment for doing so, or excessive regulation, or massive domestic taxation, or trade agreements passed in a liberal fit of guilt for how well the US has done for so long - effectively putting a stop to that for good and turning us into a service economy?
SOMETHING has to explain, beyond just the cost of labor, why a company would pick up and move halfway around the world, where they had to build a factory to replace the one they'd already built and then abandoned, to make products that they then ship back to the US for sale - and it's STILL more profitable.
And where did all of the policies come from? The government, starting over 40 years ago when the liberal elite first decided that blue-collar factory work should be replaced by white-collar college work. THOSE are the missing link jobs - the well paying, semi-skilled manufacturing and labor jobs that GOVERNMENT forced out of this country that are not going to come back.
Which party has the spine and package to deal with that issue? Neither. The dems have had complete control of Congress for almost four years and did nothing. And I'm not holding my breath for that to change under Republicans.
well said....but, let's add the Unions to the Lobbyist.
SOMETHING has to explain, beyond just the cost of labor, why a company would pick up and move halfway around the world,
Because they can skirt product safety, child labor, environmental and other 'pesky' regulations that giove us safe product for kids. But in the end it IS cheap labor.
Im in IT...1.6 MILLION IT jobs have left the country since 2004. And now they are even importing Indian and Chinese labor into the US on H1B Visas (illegally extending their time in the US) and getting away with paying them 1/2 as much. Some here talk about, tough luck, find another industry.
That argument may work for outsourcing a person screwing on a bolt on an assemblly line...but now? Now we are outsourcing IT, Green Energy components, logistics, and technology. I even got a sales call from an Outsourcer they other day touting how you can now outsource HR and Employee Morale...really?
So imagine an engineering or environmental science or computer programming student where all he hears is 'go into tech, its the future'..and then you pick up an article or watch on TV as those jobs are taken outourced or imported as foreign workers by cost-cutting corporations while simultaneously telling you we arent graduating enough engineers from our schools to stop the outsourcing...really....
Cor[porations are abdicating Technology , Green energy technology and manufacting for the low dollar labor. And now you are seeing R&D moving offshore also. Now You tell me , what industry is left in America that will give America a future if we keep outsourcing them?
Yes we need to end the handouts.... the handouts to military contractors who produce sh!^ we don't need but pay 3 to 4 times what they are worth. The republicans are proposing an anti-ICB Missile defense system. The problem is the only other country with ICB missiles is Russia. Any idea how much this is going to cost? Any idea who is getting that contract? Great idea, more handouts with our money, except military contractors are the last ones in this country that need it.
Tim, I've read your anti-Republican name-calling and rhetoric, so responding to you is like a minefield. I just have one question, keeping in mind you disdain anyone that's NOT liberal progressive:
What EXACTLY have the Democrats done over the past four years, during which they had FULL control of Congress, to address those visa issues?
Nothing. Why? They want our country flooded with cheaper labor and immigrants, becuase they see them as future voting blocks - admit it.
The regulations in this country are so over the top, so nanny-state, it's no wonder we're loosing industry. What ARE you prepared to give up, because something has to give. You can't have every tree unscathed, every employee working in perfect climate control with an ergonomic desk, every employee given a cradle to grave entitlement package, and STILL compete with countries that don't have that?
What are YOU prepared to give up, so we can level OUR global playing field? Are you prepared to live on $33 a week - as long as the government provides your home, your health care and a stipend for food - but you're NOT allowed to come on blogs like this and call your fellow countrymen vile, degrading names under penatly of death? Hyperbole, yes. But the question remains - what are YOU prepared to give up?
Nothing. You want MORE. And it's illogical, unaffordable and unsustainable.
As usual, more Gagomatic oral fecal matter shot straight from his right wing rhetoric filled Hannity model pez dispenser, so bad that you can smell it coming through your screen before it even hits his keyboard!
Hey everybody, Gagomatic claims the democrats "want our country flooded with cheaper labor and immigrants, becuase they see them as future voting blocks - admit it."
Also "are you prepared to live on $33 a week"
Heya Gago... tell me... ummmm which party came up with, and is currently touting the idea of eliminating the minimum wage... huh? Oh and yes I know the Dems have a double standard on this as well. I'm just here to make sure everyone can see through your right wing BS, I can do that because I don't support either party and only seek to show the facts, not the Fox!
Quoted editorial food for thought:
Republicans balk at the thought of “raising” taxes on the wealthy. They justify their position by explaining raising taxes will hurt us all. Companies won’t hire because they will have to pay more of those evil taxes even though they don't pay them anyway due to loopholes. Therefore, the unemployment rate will stay high, blah blah blah. These same Republicans are against any raise in minimum wage. Some Republicans, in fact, have started the debate on lowering minimum wage. No, I am not kidding. Really? Is that going to help the economy at all? Is giving tax breaks to rich people going to help? Please, someone explain this to me.
Linda McMahon, the Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Connecticut, suggested that the U.S. ought to take a second look at the federal minimum wage. She had no idea how much the current minimum wage is and, yes, this is the same Linda McMahon that is a multi-millionaire. Same goes for RNC Chairman Michael Steele. He seemed rather unsure of the minimum wage when he was on MSNBC on Oct. 5. Even worse, is Alaska Senate Candidate Joe Miller. Joe Miller believes that a federal minimum wage is unconstitutional and should be left up to the each state individually. John Raese, who is running for the Senate in West Virginia, has voiced his opposition to minimum wage. In the state of Washington, Republican Dino Rossi is not a big supporter of minimum wage either. So, are we going back to slave labor days? Upton Sinclair anyone?
Republicans are on the wrong side of this issue. I realize that they have to keep their donors happy, but they have to keep their base happy too. And when 67% of Americans feel that minimum wage is too low, why in the world would Republicans talk about lowering or abolishing the minimum wage?
The argument for why minimum wage should not be raised is essentially the same as the tax break argument. It is the belief that we, the consumers, will end up paying for the hike. That is the story at least. And it may be true. The CEOs of these companies will still make huge profits and don’t need to pass on any of the additional cost to consumers. They could live with $45 million a year instead of $50 million. But then they probably WILL hit us with the cost. Or at least some will. God bless capitalism, right? But just because some corporate schmucks are greedy does not mean that we should keep people underemployed with no chance to ever get ahead while making $15,000 a year.
Prices are going to increase no matter what. When we don’t increase workers wages, all we are doing is creating more and more people dependent on the government and others for assistance. Which isn’t what the Republicans propose to want. We need to pay people enough so they can live. Just cutting taxes isn’t enough. If you don’t make much, then the tax break is pretty negligible.
owned by California Sen. Dianne Feinstein's husband, landed an Army contract ... Just like last time, when Diane steered military contracts to companies run by her husband.
wizbangblog.com/content/2009/04/21/wash-times-democrat-sen-feinstein-helped-her-husbands-firm-to-the-tune-of-25b.php
What will change? Hmmmmmm.
Political correctness ends, financial responsibility starts, stock markets go up, housing market improves. People will actually have to work for a paycheck, no more favors for Unions that destroy America, we will be allowed to call a Muslim Terrorist a terrorist, Unemployment rate drops monthly...I am out of ink
OK, we'll hold you to that.....and if it doesn't happen instantly, then you'll all be out in 2012....fickle aren't we???
TEA partiers will also hold the GOP to that, and they will be booted too if that was to happen.
It will be real change you can believe in, not "Change what we believe in"
"It will be real change you can believe in, not "Change what we believe in"
Huh? That doesn't make sense. I know your a little blurry from too much Fox news but come on.
no they won't. they'll do what all good Republicans do and defend the GOP's every action.
Besides, Fox News, some of those things you mentioned are already taking place. The Stock market has gone up (just look at a chart), people are actually working for a paycheck (this has been going on as long as I can remember), define "destroy" when you talking Unions (not a fan of them myself), and we've been calling Muslim Terrorist, "Terrorists" when the shoe fits. If these are the benefits of the "change" then nothings changed. You guys are so smart.
Steve 60: Think about it, why do you think the stock market is going up? Answer, because of polls showing that the GOP is going to get a landslide victory - and that is good for the American economy, and national security.
You ever heard Obama say Muslim terrorists? Yet, he calls 70% of this country that disagrees with his policies, enemies of America.
That quasi-muslim one-term lame-duck campainer-in-chief won't even call Iran an enemy
I have to laugh at how everyone right of center is now a wacky "tea bagger"
all you dems out there should really concentrate on this idea, so the Republican Party can win the Senate as well.
And the fairy god republican will drop manna from heaven. (he'll charge us for it though) and if you can't pay. Too bad. Your on your own. Guess you'll have to use second amendmant remedies to get it.
FoxNews, That's because the President thinks before he speaks. The Stock Market has gone up since Obama took office. (see a chart) and that was before this midterm stuff, so that point you make is falsified. So Obama does not say "Muslim Terrorist" so what? What kind of dumb point is that? Is that an exact figuire? 70% can you show me your research? And not from Fox news.
The President won't call Iran the enemy? Why should he?
The Republicans taking at least one house of congress is already built into the current levels at which the stock market is trading, and have been since mid-summer when it started to become fairly obvious that was going to happen.
The only jigger left in the ear of the market is the Bush tax cuts. If the Democrats in all their lame duck, class warfare paroxysms of death of power, decide to increase the capital gains rate, look for the market to bottom out in mid December - then come roaring back with the rest of the economy after 1/1/11.
The uncertainty will be gone for what other damage POTUS and his goons can do, and the health care bill will be defunded at the very least. Spending starts in the House, and all eyes will be on them.
Maybe we'll actually get a BUDGET which the Democrats in all their cowardice and avarice for yet ANOTHER term with which to "transform" this country into something the majority does NOT want, did not have the spine to do.
Iran might not be THE enemy, but are they friends? Who is the enemy, Steve? Can you even say it?
Glad the people with your mentality aren't in charge, we'd be in a third war in Iran.
Steve 60- Give it up. You are a "dying breed". We have seen what your parties "type" of (facts?) and logic produced............nothing! No matter what your argument those ideals and actions are out, starting on the third. Fox News, nice job!
The enemy is our own ignorance. Why ask me who the enemy is? That's not my point. Let me ask you, then, who is the enemy or does it matter?
Yup, there it is. No counter discussion, no facts.
Just a thinly veiled personal attack. Liberal prog nozzle 101.
I don't think Steve actually has opinions that aren't emailed to him by thinkprogress or some such.
Foxnewstruth is right. So everyone go out and throw any money you have into Goldline. If you watch Faux that seems to be the only sensible thing to do.
Never will I "give it up" not sure what I need to "give up". What is your point? Not sure what ideas your talking about, but if your ideas worked in the first place, then there would have never been the ideas your associating with me with, what ever those are.
Prag
Iran might not be THE enemy, but are they friends? Who is the enemy, Steve? Can you even say it?
I can tell you how all the liberals on here would answer that:
It starts with an "R" and ends with an "S" and has an "EPUBLICAN" in the middle.
Pragmatic to get a counter discussing you must present one first, And as far personal attacks, look at you calling people Libtards, please stop being a hypoctate I never used any personal attack.
Fox, I never heard of 'thinkprogressive", but I have heard of the GOP talking point channel, Fox News, your namesake, which can only mean that you associate yourself with a right wing propaganda machine and you accuse me of getting my opinions from a questionable source? Are you under medication?
Yup there it is... nothing, no facts. Sorry Prag, your opinions from Fox are not the same as Facts.
tell us, oh Oracle, who's going to win the Super Bowl ? !
Besides, there were no points from any of these righties to counter.
Okay, steviewevie, I'll make it easy for you.
Am I wrong in saying that Iran is no friend to us?
You say they're not the enemy. Who IS the enemy?
Has the stock market been going up since mid-summer, or not?
Are the Democrats looking to increase the capital gains rate, or not?
What happens when capital gains rates go up on 1/1/11? Can you guess?
Simpler question: Do you ever watch CNBC? You might learn something.
Oh and by the way, I've never - ever - called anyone a "libtard". That's ridiculous and insulting to retarded people everywhere.
Okay, steviewevie, I'll make it easy for you.
First I doubt your big enough to call me that in person.
Am I wrong in saying that Iran is no friend to us?
Your not wrong, but what's the point?
You say they're not the enemy. Who IS the enemy?
Why do we have to name one?
Has the stock market been going up since mid-summer, or not?
Again the Stock market has been going up since Obama took over in 2008, just look at the charts.
Are the Democrats looking to increase the capital gains rate, or not?
Yet to be determined
What happens when capital gains rates go up on 1/1/11? Can you guess?
Market could go up down or sideways
Simpler question: Do you ever watch CNBC? You might learn something.
I Watch it daily, and I know as much as you.
Oh and by the way, I've never - ever - called anyone a "libtard". That's ridiculous and insulting to retarded people everywhere.
Some people would call you a liar, but not me I just think you stiring the pot, or trying to, cause your points aren't really points.
FoxNewsTruth
Hey Libtards: Here are the latest polls for the GOP win tomorrow. I am posting this because your lefty news MSNBC gives you bogus poll numbers on a daily basis.
Your a real piece of work Mr. Hannity
M Thompson-1401432---- dying breed? Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black
I love how the Dems are already trying to take credit for anything positive that may come in the next couple years, and at the same time still blaming Bush! I wonder what the average IQ is now a days?
Paul....you see moron....Obama has done alot in only two years and Bush is laughable....so everyone knows Bush did nothing but manuever a fake war along with Cheney. that is criminal. ........and you have a problem with Obama? No memory makes you intelligent? HAHAHAHA
With a chance to respond to some of the previous truly heinous examples of ignorance never before imagined from Mr. Pragmatic (again, I would suggest something more appropriate. You are NOT pragmatic, you're just a self serving crybaby):
Am I wrong in saying that Iran is no friend to us?
Yes, actually you are. Iran is so far away from America that the possibility of any kind of concerted attack on America is ridiculous. If you would pay attention to foreign affairs, something that requires you to research both history and current events, you would understand that Iran's complaint with America is that we continue to support the nation of Israel. If we chose to stop patting Israel on the back and saying, 'oh, its ok little guy, dry that eye' every time they commit war crimes and bite out more land that hasn't been theirs in over 1,000 years and isn't recognized internationally, Iran's attitude towards America would probably change. Just because someone isn't our 'friend' does NOT mean we immediately have to go to war with them. China isn't our 'friend' judging by their currency manipulations, trade restrictions, human rights and other assorted failures to provide the basic tenets of Democracy (freedom of speech and press, etc) yet I don't hear you rallying the banner to fight the communist country. Why is that? Oh, because they have the largest military force in the world, have nuclear weapons and could be a threat to the U.S.'s military might. A war with China would be devastating. Now picking on Iran is easier to justify when they DON'T have a powerful military, DON'T have nuclear weapons and aren't the same kind of caliber of fighting force we are. It's not hard for a bully to pick on someone who can't defend themselves.
You say they're not the enemy. Who IS the enemy?
Who says we need ANOTHER enemy? We already have a perpetual War on Terror, a War on Drugs (one that is escalating in its violence with no foreseeable end in sight; a familiar scene by now), a continuing War in Afghanistan and the remnants of a war in Iraq. How much more money do we pour into the military machine before we start realizing that diplomacy and dialogue is a lot less expensive than shelling, fighting, occupying, and building a stable government in a country that has little to no relevance on the world stage?
Has the stock market been going up since mid-summer, or not?
I would hate to point out, but the stock market is a measure of consumer confidence. Surely someone with your 'high caliber intelligence' should understand that the market (consumer confidence) is a fickle creature. Obama came into office riding a huge wave of voter confidence and high expectations. Since that time the stock market has gone up. Has it taken a bailout of numerous industries to keep the market from crashing? Yes it has. It has also taken serious maneuvering to let the markets know that the nation isn't bailing on its future. Yet you denigrate Obama for raising deficits in the short term in such a manner as to insure the market stays afloat, yet claim that he had nothing to do with the current uptick in the market? How can he get crucified for intruding into the market, yet by intruding, can't take credit for the consequences of that same intrusion?
Are the Democrats looking to increase the capital gains rate, or not?
Irrelevant to the greater issues at hand. Here's why: If the capital gains rate gets raised, what will those poor unfortunate souls who earn in the top 2-3% bracket going to do? Move to Europe where the high end of income doesn't clear 6 figures and taxes are 10 times the 3% rate increase that's proposed here? Pretty unlikely. Move to China where their assets could be seized by the government at any time and where they don't enjoy the same freedoms we have here? Equally unlikely. You can complain about 'redistributing the wealth' all you want, but did you honestly think that the United States should just GIVE you a free pass for the freedoms and quality of life you enjoy? Market economy is awesome. You pay for what you get. In this case, if it means the top 2-3% have to pay 3% more on taxes to insure that the nation rights itself, I would consider that a small price to pay. The alternatives are far more disturbing:
The U.S. has to search for more bonds backed by foreign governments, notably China, Japan and probably Germany. Unfortunately, private bond holders call in their notes as they feel that increasing trade disputes with China are going to cause China to call in their huge amounts of Treasury notes. A run on banks ensues causing the collapse of the financial markets, a la Great Depression Era, the U.S. Government is forced to default on its Treasury notes, causing the dollar to plummet. Food prices are driven sky high through runaway inflation. People who can't afford to eat, attempt to TAKE what they need to survive. Anarchy takes over in the streets as those who DON'T have the means to survive attack those who DO. Even if you DO own a gun, what is to say that you'll be able to stop everyone who comes to attack you and yours? After all, the first thing that a terrified populace does is stock up on ammo and food. After it's all said and done, which would you prefer, a 3-5% raise in taxes on income over $250,000 and still enjoy the financial fruits of your labor in a country that prides itself on having the highest quality of living in the world or the potential to have all that wiped away in the TRUE version of down-and-dirty class warfare? Sounds like someone needs his diaper changed, crybabies.
What happens when capital gains rates go up on 1/1/11? Can you guess?
Oooo! Me! I'll tell you what happens, government receipts go up, lowering the reliance on foreign backers of treasury notes, stabilizes the market, which makes for more solid trading, increased investment and growth, and the newfound realization that trying so desperately to hold on to a relatively small amount of income is really the lesser of two evils when confronted with the potential for total anarchy and the knowledge that by sacrificing just a teensy bit from everyone, America will recover from this economic downturn.
Oh, and as a parting shot, the Republicans, once again, never balanced the budget in the 8 years they held both Houses of Congress and the Presidency. They also sponsored the legislation to create Medicare Part D that was implemented under Republican watch and was never paid for. How does that work with Republican policies of 'fiscal responsibility'? Somehow, the program isn't allowed to negotiate with drug manufacturers to get the lowest price for medicine? And the program is expected to cost the government over $700 billion dollars from 2009 to 2018? With current expenditures of $49.3 billion circa 2008? There you go. Way to show all those liberal handout hopefuls what it is to REALLY keep government honest.
Then you blather on about 'what are other people going to sacrifice to insure American superiority in the manufacturing sector'. You make the claim that its all because liberal 'elites' have been giving manufacturing jobs a spanking and those jobs ran away to other countries. What other than the costs of production would cause manufacturing to move overseas? I'll tell you, ooo, me! Cost of production, what else could it be? That is the sole concern of business; how much will it cost to make my product? Unfortunately, you equate cost as being solely monetary in nature here, when this is clearly not the case and you know it. We've put a cost on the level of pollutants and destruction to the natural environment that are associated with manufacturing and poor process planning. Guess what? Other countries are starting to do the same. Those jobs that move overseas, end up making ridiculous amounts of money, work their employees under brutal enough environmental and working conditions to cause them to organize to gain better pay and working conditions, governments can no longer turn a blind eye to ridiculous levels of pollutants and epidemics running rampant through the population caused by those companies, so they enact tougher regulations. China's doing it as we speak. As is India. As are all the places that these countries ditch America for. Sooner or later, the cost to adhere to these environmental regulations and labor conditions become too high for the companies to justify staying in that country. They move on to somewhere else that allows them to try and make a product at the expense of the health and well being of the population. Here's a question, why is it WAY TOO MUCH for companies to treat the communities they operate in with the simple respect and genuine concern that is required to ensure that there WILL actually be a future for the area? Why is it so difficult to pick up after you make a mess? I clean up my mess after I'm done playing, why can't a company do the same? Would you be willing to work in an environment that offers you the ridiculously high likelihood that you won't survive past age 30 if it insured that you'd have a low paying job because pricks like you in the real world want to reap the financial benefits of cutting corners and not paying you fairly or providing safe working conditions? Oh, that's right, you've never been in that position, so it isn't your problem. So how is it you're justified in trying to shout down those who DO have to work in those conditions and want a better life? You don't. Plain and simple. If you don't know what life is like for other people, you aren't qualified to make decisions that will immediately affect those same people without facing the consequences of those actions. How is financial responsibility not equated with environmental responsibility? Because it's too hard? So you're just another sissy who complains about the world being too difficult to survive in? Are you any different than any other welfare individual who wants a handout? Nope.
"Please government, it's way too tough for me to do my job in a responsible manner, give me a handout of relaxed environmental conditions so I can make my money and leave my mess behind! Don't make me be responsible like other people, it's not fair!" You're a bad punchline that goes nowhere and feeds on its own hypocrisy. You aren't even a worthy adversary. Run along now, let the big boys who can handle responsibility and can act with integrity and honor to figure out how to run the world. Go back to your little toys and coloring books.
KJ
Gridlock is good? Then why do we have continual problems with SS, deficit, and other major piece of legislation? Gridlock does nothing to solve problems in our modern world. Gridlock may have been good for the latter eighteenth and early nineteenth century Americans but all it has gotten us twenty-first century Americans is deeper in debt.
LL
Hey Libtards: Here are the latest polls for the GOP win tomorrow. I am posting this because your lefty news MSNBC gives you bogus poll numbers on a daily basis.
House: GOP 244 seats, DEMS 191
Senate: GOP 51 seats, DEMS 49
Funniest line of the day: "If the GOP captures the house". hahahaha"
"but not the Senate, ho,ho,ho,"
If the Republicans capture both House and Senate... so what? Democrats still have the ultimate vote, The President.
It is only when one party controls all three: House, Senate and Presidency... that we get the real screw ups.
If they do get both House and Senate, as soon as America sees they can get nothing done, come 2012, we'll go back to Democrats.
Congress will defund all of Obama's socialist vote-buying programs, nice try.
...and after that Reps...its how voting works
..now we need term limits and maximum years served so all the career politicians get the idea to enact laws that the people want
there's no trying Fox, that's the way it is. Look at history, we go from Republican to Democrat and back again. The beat goes on. Come 2012, we will see the ineffectiveness and vote out the incumbants again.
Foxnewstruth,
Socialist? Clearly you have no clue what socialism is. Are you going to tell me you are for un-regulated capitalism?
Foxnewstruth,
You're an idiot.
Fox, I hope the poll numbers you listed turn into reality tomorrow. Boehner for Speaker!
And for all the liberals posting, you should research John Boehner. He is a fine man and an honest politictian. You may not share his beliefs, but he is honest.
Raleigh Dolly...not knowing Boehner personally I cannot attest to his honesty or otherwise, so I will take your word on that. However, honest does not always equal competence and to me that is just as important in a leader.
Honest about what raleigh dolly??? All the "tan man" Boehner cares about is giving his corporate pals bigger tax breaks, and turning the screws on what's left of the middle class. Give me a break!! If you think the past 2 years have been difficult with Obama trying real hard to clean up the gargantuan mess left by President Moron (Bush), just wait til you see the havoc Boehner and his corporate buddies wreak on the middle class the next 2 years. How do you like footing the tab for Boehner's tanning sessions and all of his golf outings? Be careful what you wish for, genius!!!
"Hell no " he's not.
Fox News Truth, isn't that a false arguement?
I guess you're glad that Obama slipped that tanning tax into his 2000 + page healthcare spending bill, huh?
Diane - well put.
Unions destroy America? Every union contract I ever saw was signed by two parties, one party union and one party management. Management only signed contracts that were in their best interest.
LL
Or deal with its consequences until a better alternative is found, like moving south or overseas. It's like giving a professional athlete a contract which he is not happy with. The minute is up for free agency, he is gone.
What bothers me is that every union guy I know votes Republican, yet its that party that is most anti-union. It just goes to show just how dumb the American voter is and just how often they vote against their better interest because of the fear mongering perpetuated by the Republicans. Just like when the swift boat veterans butchered Kerry's reputation and forgot about Georges preferential treatment with the NG and Chaney's 5 student deferments.
Why not dig up Jimmy Hoffa and ask him-Unions are destroying this country!
Steve,
Right on, my uncle is a staunch conservative. Yet he's a mailman and belongs to the union. He even admits he would make half his salary without the union, yet complains that "Unions are destroying America." Oh, and he's a fan of Faux news.
Very well stated, Steve C! It's the ill-informed (most of whom get their mis-information from the talking heads at FOX Noise) who are about to go to the polls and vote our nation into oblivion.
There is a solution, neither Demo or Repub it is comming and you can't stop it or change it.
Have a nice day!
So enlighten us. Why the big secret? If you know the future, share it with us. Are you suggesting we'll get more Christine O'Donnells? More Alaskian career politicians who quit to make a fast buck? Is that your answer?