View Full Version : 2010 US Midterm Elections: Cast Your Votes
PanzerJaeger
10-24-2010, 22:16
Alright gentlemen, the Midterms are less than 10 days away and both sides are going all out to get their supporters to the polls.
Two years ago the GOP endured a historic rout based on Obama's sharp campaign, the economic collapse, and negative voter perceptions of the Bush administration after Hurricane Katrina and the War in Iraq. Many analysts predicted that the Republicans would have to spend many years and several elections cycles in the weeds retooling their message before they returned to power.
Yet just two years later, despite still record negatives and some poor primary choices, Republicans appear to be riding a wave of widespread disappointment with the incompetence of the Obama administration and fear over massive government spending (http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20101014_America_s_humiliating_debt.html).
Some relevant numbers...
Gallup (http://www.gallup.com/Home.aspx) has Obama sitting at 41% approval and 50% disapproval.
Realclearpolitics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senate/2010_elections_senate_map.html) has 48 safe Democratic Senate seats, 44 safe Republicans, and 8 toss ups.
They (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/house/2010_elections_house_map.html) also have 177 safe Democratic House seats, 222 safe Republicans, and 36 toss ups.
Finally, Politico (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/44086.html) suggests that early voting looks good for Republicans but not entirely bad for Democrats either.
So what's your verdict? Will Obama's majorities hold or will this be 1994 all over again?
Note: Vote what you think will happen, not what you want to happen.
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/vote_cthulhu.jpg
-edit-
In fairness, to answer the poll and OP: I have no idea. But the best polling seems to indicate a GOP house and a Dem Senate.
a completely inoffensive name
10-24-2010, 23:58
I'm going by what fivethirtyeight says.
http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/forecasts/governor
http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/forecasts/senate
http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/forecasts/house
Strike For The South
10-25-2010, 16:50
I know 2 things
They will try to impeach Obama (for what I have no clue)
Social issues are about to come back with avengance.
Many of these tea people only pay lip service to Libertarian ideals and are nothing more than social conservatives rebranded.
Needless to say I'm excited to hear about prayer in school, absistinece, and outlawing abortion.
I know 2 things
They will try to impeach Obama (for what I have no clue)
Social issues are about to come back with avengance.
Many of these tea people only pay lip service to Libertarian ideals and are nothing more than social conservatives rebranded.
Needless to say I'm excited to hear about prayer in school, absistinece, and outlawing abortion.
If they impeach obama i will throw tea into boston harbor and continue to pay lip service to my libertarian ideals. More so, I will continue my personal crusade against Chritianity and its dilluting effect on commonsense of a large segment of the voter base.
Prediction: Republicans take the house, dems keep the senate, obama begins deficit reduction and the economy picks up to 2-4% growth for 2011.
Preference: all incumbents on the ballot are defeated and replaced with citizens who have no idea what they are doing.
Seamus Fermanagh
10-25-2010, 19:07
Egad, Strike, I hope not. Sadly, there probably are a few yahoos who would try it. The idea that Obama has done anything impeachable seems really silly to me. I may loathe many of his administration's policy efforts and more than one of his foreign policy themes, but I that's political opposition, not some sense of betrayal. How can he have betrayed me when he's doing more or less what he said he would do if he were elected and doing so through the legislative process? Far too many folks simply do not understand the idea of a "loyal opposition." We are the poorer for it.
Odin, I think you may have touched on something near and dear to my heart. I too strongly suspect that we would end up with better governance if we didn't elect people who sought the office, but rather SENTENCED people to the office who had no desire to be there. The difference in attitude would, I suspect, be salutory.
Odin, I think you may have touched on something near and dear to my heart. I too strongly suspect that we would end up with better governance if we didn't elect people who sought the office, but rather SENTENCED people to the office who had no desire to be there. The difference in attitude would, I suspect, be salutory.
In simple terms, putting people in office who have already been there is sentencing the country to more of the same. The older I get the more i realize there is no major difference between the 2 parties in applied policy. Granted the media makes a fair penny of expousing the differences but the direction we are heading in was a path started many decades ago.
The only alternative to continued stupidity is replacing incumbents with people who have no clue how washington actually works, but rather how it is supposed to work.
Louis VI the Fat
10-26-2010, 00:47
https://img521.imageshack.us/img521/2451/helpobama.png
https://img163.imageshack.us/img163/1462/helpusobamawonkanobiyou.jpg
Strike For The South
10-26-2010, 03:50
If they impeach obama i will throw tea into boston harbor and continue to pay lip service to my libertarian ideals. More so, I will continue my personal crusade against Chritianity and its dilluting effect on commonsense of a large segment of the voter base.
Prediction: Republicans take the house, dems keep the senate, obama begins deficit reduction and the economy picks up to 2-4% growth for 2011.
Preference: all incumbents on the ballot are defeated and replaced with citizens who have no idea what they are doing.
Egad, Strike, I hope not. Sadly, there probably are a few yahoos who would try it. The idea that Obama has done anything impeachable seems really silly to me. I may loathe many of his administration's policy efforts and more than one of his foreign policy themes, but I that's political opposition, not some sense of betrayal. How can he have betrayed me when he's doing more or less what he said he would do if he were elected and doing so through the legislative process? Far too many folks simply do not understand the idea of a "loyal opposition." We are the poorer for it.
Odin, I think you may have touched on something near and dear to my heart. I too strongly suspect that we would end up with better governance if we didn't elect people who sought the office, but rather SENTENCED people to the office who had no desire to be there. The difference in attitude would, I suspect, be salutory.
Just watch fellas.
Don Corleone
10-28-2010, 04:04
I don't think the Republicans will take the House, and I certainly don't think they'll take the Senate, though they will gain a filibuster-sustainable minority.
I've become pretty cynical these days. I believe that the elections, and all the money pouring into the campaigns, are the true stimulus. No way to get people to open their checkbooks if they don't either believe 1) their guys are in jeopardy or 2) their guys are actually in play.
If the House was really up for grabs, they'd be doing more than having Obama trade snarky comments belittling the American people with John Stewart on the Daily Show. And Soros would be shelling out a lot more.
It's a ruse. On the morning of Nov 3rd, status quo. And Lemur... I may have been a year late... and I still owe you a 6-pack of Guiness... but did you happen to notice the talk coming out of the white house this week about ending the mortgage & child tax credits? If Obama was worried about losing the House, why the :daisy: would he make a comment like that now?
PanzerJaeger
10-30-2010, 10:27
Democratic Closing Argument: Personal Attacks (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/vote-2010-elections-democratic-closing-argument-personal-attacks/story?id=11996410)
Democrats Attack Over Personal Issues, Republicans Over Policy
By JONATHAN KARL
Oct. 28, 2010
It's not just the Aqua Buddha and David Vitter's prostitute, Democratic candidates across the country are closing out the campaign with personal attacks on Republican candidates, sometimes digging up decades-old legal problems.
In one typical example, Democratic ads have transformed Kentucky Republican House candidate Andy Barr into "a convicted criminal" -- complete with images yellow police tape and fuzzy video of crime scenes. Not mentioned is his crime: As a college student 19 years ago, he was caught using a fake ID during spring break.
As you watch this year's ads -- and I've been watching all too many lately -- you'll notice a striking difference between Democratic and Republican attack ads: Democrats are attacking over personal issues, Republicans are attacking over policy.
There are, of course, many exceptions, but the overall trend is clear. Democrats are hitting their Republican opponents over past legal transgressions, shady business deals and even speeding tickets. Republicans are hammering Democrats over "Obamacare," Nancy Pelosi and the economy.
A recent study by the Wesleyan Media Project actually quantifies this. They looked at 900,000 airing of political ads this year and concluded: "Democrats are using personal attacks at much higher rates than Republicans and a much higher rate than Democrats in 2008."
Furunculus
10-30-2010, 13:13
daniel hannan's warning to america:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/it-can-happen-here_513320.html
tibilicus
10-30-2010, 15:12
daniel hannan's warning to america:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/it-can-happen-here_513320.html
More garbage from Hannan then. The guys anti-European sentiment is getting old, he shakes with fear like a small child being told about a monster under the bed whenever the word "Europe" comes up. Not only does he not appreciate European culture, he doesn't appreciate the relative worth of the European model of politics. As you know, I'm no fan of socialism. But to assert that Europe went down a "road to ruin" by adopting Democratic socialism in its most minor form after the war is completely laughable and again shows Hannan need to brush up on his European history.
He is aware this "socialism" means European societies are more fair and progressive than the US? Or is that bad? I don't have a problem with Hannan being anti-EU, I understand that completely. But the whole anti-European thing is just getting ridiculous now. If Hannan loves the US system of doing things so much, why doesn't he jump ship and move to the states? I lost all respect for this guy after his pathetic attack on the NHS, he doesn't understand to distinction between a welfare state and socialism.
Read and weep, 'cause this chick is spot-on (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/10/which-party-is-better-on-the-deficit/65439/) when it comes to fiscal responsibility:
I worry that if Republicans get in, we'll end up with a huge budget problem. And I also worry that if Democrats retain control, we'll end up with a huge budget problem. I see no evidence at this point that I should worry more about one than the other. We have a huge deficit problem. And I'm pretty sure that whatever batch of politicians we elect next Tuesday is going to make it worse, rather than better.
Despite this depressing and likely accurate assessment, Imma gonna vote anyway. Even if I'm choosing between the unserious idiots with a D and the unserious idiots with an R.
Crazed Rabbit
11-01-2010, 07:57
I think there's reason to believe the GOP and gridlock will lead to less spending for the next couple years.
CR
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
11-01-2010, 12:55
Does it really matter anymore?
Vote third party like I'll be doing tomorrow. :idea2:
Furunculus
11-01-2010, 15:16
interesting read:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/us-politics/8101622/Midterms-2010-Republicans-on-course-for-victory-final-polls-show.html
a completely inoffensive name
11-01-2010, 17:37
I think there's reason to believe the GOP and gridlock will lead to less spending for the next couple years.
CR
CR you should go into comedy. You have a knack for it.
Sasaki Kojiro
11-01-2010, 18:06
CR you should go into comedy. You have a knack for it.
~:confused:
I thought that was "common knowledge" for what that's worth. A quick google turns up this:
Here are the numbers: Between 1965 and 2009, the average growth rate of real per capita federal spending in the divided government years was 1.9%. For the years of united government, that average was 3.1%.
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/Examiner-Opinion-Zone/stephen-slivinski-Want-spending-discipline-Wish-for-gridlock-102973734.html#ixzz143Ex8gaW
Is that misleading?
a completely inoffensive name
11-01-2010, 21:03
~:confused:
I thought that was "common knowledge" for what that's worth. A quick google turns up this:
Is that misleading?
I should clarify. I thought it was funny how his underlining sentiment was that it would be great if Congress was completely stalled when it came to decision making and spending. It's not like we have an economic downturn we still need to motivate, or various immigration, financial and energy reforms that will require funds to be moved around or even increased (I don't see how we can shift off of foreign oil without spending a lot of money) but yeah, I have reason to believe that with the GOP in charge of one house, everything will be just fine as the hose to put out the fire is cut off.
A good thing to remind ourselves, as we wade through the final 24 hours of campaign hysteria. Apparently all of the quotes are legit. Is it wrong to wish for the days when political pamphlets waxed poetic about "children writhing on a pike"? Or candidates calling each other "hatchet-faced nutmeg dealers"?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_zTN4BXvYI
a completely inoffensive name
11-01-2010, 21:40
A good thing to remind ourselves, as we wade through the final 24 hours of campaign hysteria. Apparently all of the quotes are legit. Is it wrong to wish for the days when political pamphlets waxed poetic about "children writhing on a pike"? Or candidates calling each other "hatchet-faced nutmeg dealers"?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_zTN4BXvYI
I'm so glad how we haven't progressed beyond accusing the other side of rape in our nation's history. Also I am pleased to see how even when it is degrading behavior almost to an extreme, as long as the founders did it, then it is as American as apple pie and therefore we should tolerate it and promote it.
Don't vote for my opponent, he snorts cocaine off a hookers breast before shooting her in the face and having sex with her dead corpse, before moving on to do the same thing to your children. Oh look, I'm being a patriot now!
Sasaki Kojiro
11-01-2010, 21:53
Yes I agree...it bugs me when people respond* to disgusting political adds with "well that's politics" or my favorite "it's about time the democrats gave the republicans a taste of their own medicine!". It amazes me that people identify themselves as members of a party given what's out there sponsored by the parties. Just say you're a liberal who votes democrat.
*mind you lemur was just posting a funny video
Devastatin Dave
11-01-2010, 23:03
I think its safe to say,
We're buggered either way...
[A]s long as the founders did it, then it is as American as apple pie and therefore we should tolerate it and promote it.
Actually, my takeaway from that video was that the founders did groundless personal attacks with a hell of a lot more style than we're seeing now. C'mon, "hatchet-faced nutmeg dealer"? I would kill to see some politico call another that today. At least they used to have a vocabulary.
PanzerJaeger
11-02-2010, 00:27
Holy crap. Palin is looking even better than ever.
Oh and... uhh... she's talking about the midterms or something...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nYczJm0kcU&feature=related
Louis VI the Fat
11-02-2010, 01:06
Holy crap. Palin is looking even better than ever.
Oh and... uhh... she's talking about the midterms or something...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nYczJm0kcU&feature=relatedThat's not an interview, that's a polical activist network providing a political platform. It remains stunning to watch the charade. The more they are instruments of deception, the more they feel the need to call themselves 'the truth' ('pravda'), or 'fair and balanced'. But let's not digress.
Palin: 'We gave you the two years, Obama, to fulfill your promise. Instead, you blew it'.
That pretty much sums it up. Obama lost the narrative. Somewhat helped by his own rhetoric, expectations have been blown way out of proportion. Anything short of Obama finding a cure for cancer and walking on water, and the story was going to be 'You Blew It!'. (This, in fact, has been the GOP narrative strategy since january 2009)
I, for one, think Obama has been excellent, much better than I had expected. He sat about to do as he had promised, and has shown himself a phenomenal statesman: calm, composed, contemplative. Decisive when need be too. He took the decisions that needed to be made regarding the economic recovery, Iraq, and healthcare.
All of this despite the GOP obstructing a normal political functioning well above and beyond what can be expected of an opposition party in a mature democracy. After all of that, me I'd vote out the Republicans.
Seamus Fermanagh
11-02-2010, 01:20
That's not an interview, that's a polical activist network providing a political platform. It remains stunning to watch the charade. The more they are instruments of deception, the more they feel the need to call themselves 'the truth' ('pravda'), or 'fair and balanced'. But let's not digress.
Oh let's!
Their other motto, along with "fair and balanced," is "we report, you decide." Actually, given their demographic, it's more accurately rendered as -- You decided, we report what you wanted to hear since that will get us more advert dollars.
Nate Silver, whom I think we can all agree is cleverer than the average poll-smoker, gives his final odds (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/01/house-forecast-g-o-p-plus-54-55-seats-significantly-larger-or-smaller-gains-possible/):
Our forecasting model, which is based on a consensus of indicators including generic ballot polling, polling of local districts, expert forecasts, and fund-raising data, now predicts an average Republican gain of 54 seats (up one from 53 seats in last night’s forecast), and a median Republican gain of 55 seats. These figures would exceed the 52 seats that Republicans won from Democrats in the 1994 midterms.
Moreover, given the exceptionally large number of seats in play, the Republicans’ gains could be significantly higher; they have better than a one-in-three chance of winning at least 60 seats, a one-in-six chance of winning at least 70 seats, and have some realistic chance of a gain exceeding 80 seats, according to the model.
Obama lost the narrative. Somewhat helped by his own rhetoric, expectations have been blown way out of proportion. Anything short of Obama finding a cure for cancer and walking on water, and the story was going to be 'You Blew It!'. (This, in fact, has been the GOP narrative strategy since january 2009)
Well yes Louis you are correct, it is that simple he lost the narrative. Sadly when you run on hope and change and make promises that arent really applicable to the political reality of washington you own the expectations. The republicans played on it effectively, rinse repeat american politics at its core summarized nicely, bravo.
Im still voting libertarian and if there isnt one on the ballot in 12 I'll write your name in. I like the straight talk , oh wait wasnt that mccain?
:toilet:
I think the Dems lose the House and retain the Senate. Which is really the ideal situation. Pelosi loses her Speaker role (and hopefully gets dumped as Minority Leader as well, preventing Speaker Pelosi v2.0), we get some gridlock, and maybe everyone will get a little more civil to each other. If Reid loses his Senate seat, even better. :2thumbsup:
I just showed my elected leaders who's boss. I walked into the voting station, and the Walworth County Water Commissioner was like, "IM IN UR COMISHUN MAKIN WATER" and I was like "O HAI I VOTE YOU GO WAY." Hah hah! Take that, minor elected official.
Louis VI the Fat
11-02-2010, 20:48
You show 'em, Lemmy! They thought they could push you around in 1776, and they think so now. Let 'em know who's boss.
Team Angle alleges voter intimidation (http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20101102/pl_yblog_upshot/team-angle-alleges-voter-intimidation-by-reid-campaign).
Big deal right? It wouldn't be an election without someone saying someone else cheated. But in this case, they have email evidence (http://www.nationalreview.com/battle10/251906/collusion-harrahs-bosses-put-squeeze-employees-vote-reid-elizabeth-crum).
For those not in the know, Angle is the Republican challenger to Harry Reid in Nevada.....
Just give the South back to the French. They know how to deal with stuff like that.
Crazed Rabbit
11-03-2010, 02:49
I should clarify. I thought it was funny how his underlining sentiment was that it would be great if Congress was completely stalled when it came to decision making and spending. It's not like we have an economic downturn we still need to motivate, or various immigration, financial and energy reforms that will require funds to be moved around or even increased (I don't see how we can shift off of foreign oil without spending a lot of money) but yeah, I have reason to believe that with the GOP in charge of one house, everything will be just fine as the hose to put out the fire is cut off.
It'd be better than what's happening now, namely legislation that increases my health care costs and decreases my choices, along with stimulus bills that are wastes of money. Congress is such a collective stupidity that them doing nothing is usually the best option. If something is really important then the two groups of idiots in congress can work together.
EDIT: Also, what I hope is voted in in Washington state more than even Dino Rossi being elected is the privatization of liquor sales referendum. Since prohibition we've had an array of state run stores that are the only ones who can sell hard alcohol, and add a 52% markup (http://www.examiner.com/drinks-in-national/washington-state-hikes-liquor-markup), limited hours and state dictated distribution for all alcohol to any store. And this year is the closest we've come since 1972 to getting rid of those *$&^@$^#&@%$* laws.
CR
woad&fangs
11-03-2010, 03:23
Really CR? I knew that Sweden did that with alcohol but I didn't realize any state did that. Hope you can repeal that.
Bleh, it is looking more and more like Ron Johnson is going to beat Feingold. I can't believe we're ousting the only senator to oppose the patriot act in favor of a man who has no political or international experience at any level. At least it looks like Kind is going to beat Kapanke for the Wisconsin Third seat and Paul Ryan is winning in a landslide. It is good to know the southeast corner of the state realizes how good of a representative they have got.
Crazed Rabbit
11-03-2010, 04:49
Yeah, really. And - SON OF A *(@^$! - it's losing 51-49% right now.
At least the state income tax is going down in flames, 64-36% rejected.
CR
I'm thrilled that Pat Toomey looks to have wrapped up the Senate race in PA, beating the sleestak. We need more politicians like this guy in office. :yes:
PanzerJaeger
11-03-2010, 06:26
Finally a rebuke that even a president as arrogant as the current one cannot ignore. America has rejected his overwhelming incompetence. Two more years and hopefully he'll be packing his bags along with all of these Democrats. It's shaping up to be a historic victory for the GOP. :grin:
It's too bad about Nevada. The Tea Party really screwed us there. It may be better to have Reid continue on as the majority leader, as he's not exactly a great representative for the party.
a completely inoffensive name
11-03-2010, 07:14
Sigh, ignorant people cheering as they burn down the crop fields to stop the pest problem.
@CR The health care bill was created in large part by Republicans when they were in power back oh...4 to 16 years ago (wow, compared to the decade plus we gave Republicans before then I find it funny that Repubs love talking about how the Dems had the "opportunity" to turn things around while they filibustered everything.) Obama and the Dems proposed it for bipartisanship which the Repubs rejected because like always they are putting party over country. If liberals and progressives really made the health care bill, it would have been a single payer system. Your ignorance is amusing on almost every subject. The stimulus bills have been shown to have stopped the downturn but not be enough to jump start it again, again Republicans are putting party above country again and blocked all measures at jump starting the economy so they can look good being "fiscally responsible" against the debt they created with Reagan and Bush Jr. and have Obama take the fall when the economy doesn't move as fast as people want it to. Purposeful suffering at the public expense for political points. Your words show how disconnected from reality you are, " If something is really important then the two groups of idiots in congress can work together." You mean like health care reform and financial reform? Those seem to be important to the public, yet the Repubs said no to any reform whatsoever.
@PJ You are the epitome of party before country. You smile at the GOP having a historic victory and Obama and the Dems having a set back, not one word on my sort of political ideology or personal philosophy in your ecstatic words. The health of the country does not matter to you, as long as the Dems lose you are happy. Quite honestly, that attitude makes you more of an enemy to the country then any sort of Communist, Socialist or Fascist because the lives of everyone in America are of no bother to you, you do not want an ideology to win you want a logo to win. But you probably know this already.
Health care reform that reduced the deficit, financial reform to make sure this crash doesn't happen again, credit card reform to make sure you are protected from unfair fees and overwhelming percentage hikes, none of this matters to Republicans because it is a game. They know the way to win the game is marginalize everything their opponents do, when progress is marginalized the country stops progressing and it stagnates and dies.
PanzerJaeger
11-03-2010, 07:46
@PJ You are the epitome of party before country. You smile at the GOP having a historic victory and Obama and the Dems having a set back, not one word on my sort of political ideology or personal philosophy in your ecstatic words. The health of the country does not matter to you, as long as the Dems lose you are happy. Quite honestly, that attitude makes you more of an enemy to the country then any sort of Communist, Socialist or Fascist because the lives of everyone in America are of no bother to you, you do not want an ideology to win you want a logo to win. But you probably know this already.
Umm.. apart from gay issues, I've been arguing for conservative positions for nearly six years on this board. This particular thread is specifically about the results of tonight's election, so I don't think I need to write a thesis on Rightist ideology. I mean, why do you think I like the GOP, because elephants are cooler than donkeys?
I'll let the new Senator from Florida make the case..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBrO7VmB5fM
In other news, Obama lost his own seat in Illinois. What a humiliation! The country thinks you suck O! Good times tonight! :laugh3:
a completely inoffensive name
11-03-2010, 08:41
Umm.. apart from gay issues, I've been arguing for conservative positions for nearly six years on this board. This particular thread is specifically about the results of tonight's election, so I don't think I need to write a thesis on Rightist ideology. I mean, why do you think I like the GOP, because elephants are cooler than donkeys?
I'll let the new Senator from Florida make the case..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBrO7VmB5fM
In other news, Obama lost his own seat in Illinois. What a humiliation! The country thinks you suck O! Good times tonight! :laugh3:
In the two years I have been in this backroom, I don't think I have heard your "conservative positions" be anything more then talking points and childish quibbles with Lemur. I could be wrong, but I can;t help but always recall how your thread about Obama's nuclear summit was a case of copy-pasta a Fox News op-ed piece.
Louis VI the Fat
11-03-2010, 12:07
Congratulations to my Republican friends! :grin3:
....and may you soon discover this is just 1994 all over again
Strike For The South
11-03-2010, 14:44
Did anyone else see John Boehner cry?
@ ACIN: Calm down, srsly your blood pressure must be through the roof
Dear Republicans: Please use your return to power to fix the financial situation. Please resist the urge to try and influence what various people can do with their various genitalia. :bow:
Yeah, ACIN, no need to ever get upset on my behalf; I'm a big lemur. And PJ, I would consider dialing back the chest-thumping a little. Graciousness in victory is classy and charming.
I think this whole election is going to be a net positive. By controlling one of the houses, the Repubs might find their intransigent "No to everything" position untenable. Besides which, CR is correct in the broad outline; divided governments tend to spend less.
gaelic cowboy
11-03-2010, 15:18
Hmm are the Republicans not worried that the Tea Party candidates will emerge out of them like the chest burster out of John Hurt in Alien.
I can't help feeling that the supposed strength they have now is really due to there inherent weakness that allowed the Tea Party to set the agenda.
My guess is once they do gridlock the whole spending thing and everyone has to work together as a result then the family rows in the republican side will erupt again due to social issues coming to the fore.
I should clarify. I thought it was funny how his underlining sentiment was that it would be great if Congress was completely stalled when it came to decision making and spending. It's not like we have an economic downturn we still need to motivate, or various immigration, financial and energy reforms that will require funds to be moved around or even increased (I don't see how we can shift off of foreign oil without spending a lot of money) but yeah, I have reason to believe that with the GOP in charge of one house, everything will be just fine as the hose to put out the fire is cut off.
That is going to happen, because of the Republics throwing toys out of the pram, in their vendetta against Obama.
I find it funny that Repubs love talking about how the Dems had the "opportunity" to turn things around while they filibustered everything.
Me too, but the irony is lost on those who cannot grasp it.
[Infact, that whole @CR bit is accurate.]
Louis VI the Fat
11-03-2010, 15:22
Hmm are the Republicans not worried that the Tea Party candidates will emerge out of them like the chest burster out of John Hurt in Alien.
I can't help feeling that the supposed strength they have now is really due to there inherent weakness that allowed the Tea Party to set the agenda.
My guess is once they do gridlock the whole spending thing and everyone has to work as a result then the family rows in the republican side will erupt again due to social issues coming to the fore.The Tea Party has mobilised Republican support, and it has estranged middle America. I am not sure the end result is a net positive for the GOP.
Nevada too was lost for the GOP because of Tea Party extremity.
My guess is still that this election result is a temporary GOP surge. The Democrats enjoy more structural support are less unpopular than the Republicans.
Furunculus
11-03-2010, 15:44
with any luck the tea-party success will allow the GOP to ditch social conservatism in favour of fiscal conservatism.
You get to keep some change you can throw in it seems. Gonna be fun mocking the progressives here in the Neds who just knew it was that time and went all Obamanic, nooo the Messias has not come you sillies
nooo the Messias has not come you sillies
"We're living in harsh times, not end times". It's good the messiah has not come.
"We're living in harsh times, not end times". It's good the messiah has not come.
I write it wrong on purpose you grammar-authist drool that way please
ok ok Messiah :shame:
I write it wrong on purpose you grammar-authist drool that way please
Oh but great Fragony, lefties others with less intelligence might not understand the terrific way you poke fun at our idiocy. Of course, we dhimmis, bowing our heads towards Mecca all the time makes us lose brain cells at an extraordinary speed.
EDIT: Lefties and less both start with "le". Coincidence? You decide...
Oh but great Fragony, lefties others with less intelligence might not understand the terrific way you poke fun at our idiocy. Of course, we dhimmis, bowing our heads towards Mecca all the time makes us lose brain cells at an extraordinary speed.
EDIT: Lefties and less both start with "le". Coincidence? You decide...
Didn't mean to be nasty, sorry if it looked that way. Was just messing around.
with any luck the tea-party success will allow the GOP to ditch social conservatism in favour of fiscal conservatism.
From what I have read, the Tea Party is essentially a movement funded by wealthy fiscal conservatives but populated by religious social conservatives.
gaelic cowboy
11-03-2010, 18:34
From what I have read, the Tea Party is essentially a movement funded by wealthy fiscal conservatives but populated by religious social conservatives.
This has been my suspision for a while now.
Remember when G.W. Bush went the first time the whole narrative from people on the right was about pulling back from some kind of brink of retrenchment and isolationism.
I remember reading articles at the time about how NATO leaders in Europe were worried USA was gonna pull back from it's global commitments.
Seems to me these people who voted for that type of thing are back and this time in a Facebook 24hr infotainment world they can reach far beyond there physical base. I suspect the rich conservatives funding this may get a shock soon, people who are taught to organise and agitate are hard put back in the box after.
The Democrats are badly wounded but at least they do not have an stranger in the house along with them who plans on redecorating.
Strike For The South
11-03-2010, 18:38
You mean there's life outside the box?
My God.
Furunculus
11-03-2010, 18:41
From what I have read, the Tea Party is essentially a movement funded by wealthy fiscal conservatives but populated by religious social conservatives.
there is evidence otherwise:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/wapo-few-signs-at-tea-party-rally-expressed-racially-charged-anti-obama-themes-104954294.html
"Taxed Enough Already" should be a clue.
gaelic cowboy
11-03-2010, 18:47
there is evidence otherwise:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/wapo-few-signs-at-tea-party-rally-expressed-racially-charged-anti-obama-themes-104954294.html
"Taxed Enough Already" should be a clue.
That article does not prove they are not socially conservative it only contends they are not overtly racist as some people said they were.
gaelic cowboy
11-03-2010, 18:57
You mean there's life outside the box?
My God.
Are you mad there is no life outside the bubble of Washington why do you think it is generally called a political process.
Process or processing typically describes the act of taking something through an established and usually routine set of procedures to convert it from one form to another, as a manufacturing or administrative procedure, such as processing milk into cheese, or processing paperwork to grant a mortgage loan, or converting computer data from one form to another.
The Tea Party plan on stopping that so I expect a massive family row soon.
Furunculus
11-03-2010, 18:59
That article does not prove they are not socially conservative it only contends they are not overtly racist as some people said they were.
more than half directly related to TEA.
gaelic cowboy
11-03-2010, 19:05
more than half directly related to TEA.
So big deal thats like saying every person who votes green hates nuclear power, your trying to say they are not socially conservative because they are holding a sign for fiscal conservatism.
When push comes to shove the social conservatism will emerge from these people due to the fact they have made there fiscal point now so it is time for the next battle.
ICantSpellDawg
11-03-2010, 22:06
Hey, remember when some of our esteemed board members were reveling in the "inevitable death" of the GOP unless we all became liberals? Yea, it's hard to believe that was just 21 months ago...
I don't believe in the "mandate" propoganda and I do think that we should re-invent ourselves on some issues, but it was funny to hear board members read out of a crystal ball.
gaelic cowboy
11-03-2010, 22:13
Hey, remember when some of our esteemed board members were reveling in the "inevitable death" of the GOP unless we all became liberals? Yea, it's hard to believe that was just 21 months ago...
I don't believe in the "mandate" propoganda and I do think that we should re-invent ourselves on some issues, but it was funny to hear board members read out of a crystal ball.
The GOP is dead the narrative is driven by Tea Partiers and infotainment stars like Glenn Beck an Sarah Palin now.
I watched yer man Rubio from Florida last night talking he several times said the words "both parties" they are not gonna play by GOP rules.
The GOP is in for an awful civil war in my view I would not get too comfortable in the kings chair if I was running the GOP.
The GOP is dead the narrative is driven by Tea Partiers and infotainment stars like Glenn Beck an Sarah Palin now.
I'm not convinced by that anymore. I would have agreed a few days ago, but the final results in Alaska, Delaware, Colorado, and Nevada seem to me to have been a rejection of the more radical aspects of the Tea Party and given a boost to traditional Republicans. Rand Paul will be interesting to watch, he'll be a good test case as to whether the Tea Party platform can make the transition from the campaign trail to Washington.
gaelic cowboy
11-03-2010, 22:26
I'm not convinced by that anymore. I would have agreed a few days ago, but the final results in Alaska, Delaware, Colorado, and Nevada seem to me to have been a rejection of the more radical aspects of the Tea Party and given a boost to traditional Republicans. Rand Paul will be interesting to watch, he'll be a good test case as to whether the Tea Party platform can make the transition from the campaign trail to Washington.
They set the agenda and tone for the election the traditional republicans had to reinvent themselves quietly into fiscal as well as social conservatives.
Also when push came to shove in marginals where there was no chance of a Tea Party beating either side I imagine Democratic Tea Partiers probably were not able to overcome there distaste for the GOP.
I think the problems will only get worse or maybe that should read differences between GOP and Tea Party.
They have some very simple demands and the GOP has held onto there coat tails so to speak but I cant see the GOP getting rid of a lifetime of political power and capital to satisfy them.
Asking Reid to lose his seat was probably too much to ask for, but still a nice overall result.
818 votes separate Connolly over Fimian in my district (Virginia 11), 226384 votes cast overall. I foresee a recount!
Asking Reid to lose his seat was probably too much to ask for, but still a nice overall result.
818 votes separate Connolly over Fimian in my district (Virginia 11), 226384 votes cast overall. I foresee a recount!
Heh, one of those 818 is mine. :laugh4:
They set the agenda and tone for the election the traditional republicans had to reinvent themselves quietly into fiscal as well as social conservatives.
Also when push came to shove in marginals where there was no chance of a Tea Party beating either side I imagine Democratic Tea Partiers probably were not able to overcome there distaste for the GOP.
I think the problems will only get worse or maybe that should read differences between GOP and Tea Party.
They have some very simple demands and the GOP has held onto there coat tails so to speak but I cant see the GOP getting rid of a lifetime of political power and capital to satisfy them.
The crazy thing is that the Tea Party would sweep the entire country if it would just purge itself of the social conservatives. The American public is currently very, very receptive to major financial reform and would approve of massive cuts in government spending along with corresponding reductions in government size. The only reason the Tea Party hasn't totally annihilated both the Dems and the Reps is that their candidates and public spokespersons are vocal social conservatives. Remove that barrier, and large segments of the Democratic base would join the Tea Party.
The crazy thing is that the Tea Party would sweep the entire country if it would just purge itself of the social conservatives.I don't think that statement has much basis in reality. Almost everyone says they are all for reduced spending, living within your means, ect, ect. but when it comes to actually picking programs to cut many "fiscal conservatives" slink away.
The fact remains that a significant portion of the population (mainly hardcore Democrats) still believe that more government is the solution, not less. Whether or not there are social conservatives on the right won't do anything to change this.
That article does not prove they are not socially conservative it only contends they are not overtly racist as some people said they were.Many may be socially conservative, but social conservatism does not define the movement. I lean conservative socially, but am hard right economically. The beauty of it is that there is virtually no conflict between the two viewpoints. Fiscal responsibility and living within your means is something that plays very well with social conservatives as well as, obviously, with fiscal ones.
Hey, remember when some of our esteemed board members were reveling in the "inevitable death" of the GOP unless we all became liberals? Yea, it's hard to believe that was just 21 months ago...
I don't believe in the "mandate" propoganda and I do think that we should re-invent ourselves on some issues, but it was funny to hear board members read out of a crystal ball.
But it is actually correct, the old GOP has died. It is getting replaced by the "Tea party", and there is a power-struggle between the two sides. However, they have a common enemy, and that is "Obama", so they while they are fighting eachother, they both want to oust Obama.
Tea Party hit its pre-public height with the Ron Paul campaign, and since there, grew and expanded (With some wealthy donations and corporate + republican party manipulation), into the political force it has grown into today.
By all accounts, the Tea Party are effectively a separate political party working in coalition with the GoP. There are more differences in the Tea Party and GOP, than the Conservatives and Lib Dems in our ruling Coalition in the UK.
Many may be socially conservative, but social conservatism does not define the movement. I lean conservative socially, but am hard right economically. The beauty of it is that there is virtually no conflict between the two viewpoints. Fiscal responsibility and living within your means is something that plays very well with social conservatives as well as, obviously, with fiscal ones.
Not entirely true, lets take the issue of "drugs".
Some one who is very free market comments that drugs should be legal and controlled by the free-market. If people want to buy them, they can buy them. I believe Crazed Rabbit is one such example of some one who wants to decriminalize the use and selling of drugs. (Feel free to correct me CR if I am incorrect)
On the other hand, a Social Conservative would want to outright ban drugs for being bad and against "social principles".
A combination of the two lies some where within China. "Authoritarian Capitalism"
Crazed Rabbit
11-04-2010, 03:09
You are correct. I think Portugal is the way to go.
Though it could be said that being a very free market person doesn't necessarily mean thinking all things (as long as they do no harm to others) should be sold, as a libertarian might believe.
I think the Tea Party may be less socially conservative than the GOP and more representative of 'just don't have the government bother anyone', at least in terms of drug prohibition. I haven't listened to a lot of the candidates though.
DeMint said something about banning earmarks; whether they do so may be a sign of how serious about small government the GOP is going to be.
Sadly, I won't be getting my privatized booze - because of rural, conservative counties! Curse you teetotalers!
And Dino Rossi is slightly behind - which means another likely loss.
@CR The health care bill was created in large part by Republicans when they were in power back oh...4 to 16 years ago (wow, compared to the decade plus we gave Republicans before then I find it funny that Repubs love talking about how the Dems had the "opportunity" to turn things around while they filibustered everything.) Obama and the Dems proposed it for bipartisanship which the Repubs rejected because like always they are putting party over country. If liberals and progressives really made the health care bill, it would have been a single payer system. Your ignorance is amusing on almost every subject. The stimulus bills have been shown to have stopped the downturn but not be enough to jump start it again, again Republicans are putting party above country again and blocked all measures at jump starting the economy so they can look good being "fiscally responsible" against the debt they created with Reagan and Bush Jr. and have Obama take the fall when the economy doesn't move as fast as people want it to. Purposeful suffering at the public expense for political points. Your words show how disconnected from reality you are, " If something is really important then the two groups of idiots in congress can work together." You mean like health care reform and financial reform? Those seem to be important to the public, yet the Repubs said no to any reform whatsoever.
Several points; the public was against the healthcare as it was passed, which is why the dems rushed it through and limited debate. Second, the dems have held Congress - all of Congress - since before Obama was elected. Thirdly, the stimulus didn't work. Even the wildly exaggerated claims of 3 million jobs created for the last stimulus bill mean $200k+ per job. That is not money well spent, and the debt is still with us. Keynesian economics doesn't work.
Finally, and most important - how does any of your screed invalidate what I wrote? My healthcare costs are going up and my options are being limited.
CR
Several points; the public was against the healthcare as it was passed, which is why the dems rushed it through and limited debate. Second, the dems have held Congress - all of Congress - since before Obama was elected. Thirdly, the stimulus didn't work. Even the wildly exaggerated claims of 3 million jobs created for the last stimulus bill mean $200k+ per job. That is not money well spent, and the debt is still with us. Keynesian economics doesn't work.
It gets worse for you, they just invested another 600 billion as a stimulus package.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11678022
Not entirely true, lets take the issue of "drugs".
Some one who is very free market comments that drugs should be legal and controlled by the free-market. If people want to buy them, they can buy them. I believe Crazed Rabbit is one such example of some one who wants to decriminalize the use and selling of drugs. (Feel free to correct me CR if I am incorrect)
On the other hand, a Social Conservative would want to outright ban drugs for being bad and against "social principles".
A combination of the two lies some where within China. "Authoritarian Capitalism"
As with all things, it's not that black and white. Legalizing hard drugs is a common theme among hardcore libertarians, but for the majority of all Americans of every stripe, it's not seriously considered. Take Prop19 in California if you need evidence- marijuana is comparatively tame and even a left leaning state such as California voted against legalization. Clearly the issue isn't soley the domain of them much maligned social conservatives.
a completely inoffensive name
11-04-2010, 07:59
@ ACIN: Calm down, srsly your blood pressure must be through the roof
High blood pressure runs in my family, nothing I can do about that.
I don't think that statement has much basis in reality. Almost everyone says they are all for reduced spending, living within your means, ect, ect. but when it comes to actually picking programs to cut many "fiscal conservatives" slink away.
The fact remains that a significant portion of the population (mainly hardcore Democrats) still believe that more government is the solution, not less. Whether or not there are social conservatives on the right won't do anything to change this.
Many may be socially conservative, but social conservatism does not define the movement. I lean conservative socially, but am hard right economically. The beauty of it is that there is virtually no conflict between the two viewpoints. Fiscal responsibility and living within your means is something that plays very well with social conservatives as well as, obviously, with fiscal ones.
I fixed your second statement there. Most Americans are not tied to an idea of more or less they simply know that government is the solution to a certain extent for the majority of issues we face. This ties back into your first statement of fiscal conservatives slinking away, it's because people actually do want government in their lives in that they want the elderly to have medicare so grandma doesn't struggle and they want to make sure the military is the best in the world so they feel safe but unfortunately these two constitute the majority of the spending of the federal budget already. People just want government to work and if it means making it bigger to handle a large problem (like health care) then they are receptive to it or if it actually does need to shrink to let other factors take into affect then they would also be equally receptive to that. Back in the 1960s and 1970s the narrative that was dominant was what is the government actually doing for us? So people were happy to have government embark on Johnson's Great Society and Civil Rights Acts in an attempt to see if the lives of the public would improve, and it did. Now the narrative is the exact opposite so people are voting according in that they feel that perhaps shrinking government by voting in the GOP would perhaps be best at maximizing the ability of government to operate successfully.
Several points; the public was against the healthcare as it was passed, which is why the dems rushed it through and limited debate. Second, the dems have held Congress - all of Congress - since before Obama was elected. Thirdly, the stimulus didn't work. Even the wildly exaggerated claims of 3 million jobs created for the last stimulus bill mean $200k+ per job. That is not money well spent, and the debt is still with us. Keynesian economics doesn't work.
Finally, and most important - how does any of your screed invalidate what I wrote? My healthcare costs are going up and my options are being limited.
CR
Several counter points: The public was against the healthcare as it passed because they either felt it did not go far enough or because they were being bombarded by Republican rhetoric of "death panels", you cannot deny the fear mongering that took place surrounding the bill and if there is one tool that is very useful on controlling large groups of people, its fear mongering. The expression that the dems "rushed" through it, is a very inadequate statement since it does't really reflect the reality of how the American system works. The act of filibustering isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution and is in fact an independent invention created to stall bills and promote the Senate as how the Founders envisioned it "the death place of bills", a check on the masses asking for everything they want through the house of reps. All the Dems did was recognize that the Republicans were abusing the Filibuster because again (not saying that the Dems havent done that before mind you), they were putting party before country and so they managed to unite 60 count that, 60 Senators out of 100 far more then a simple majority to bypass the Filibuster and pass the bill. The Dems had 60 people precisely because the public wanted them to do things (change) in the first place. So your sentiment on how the health care bill passed is completely misplaced. They had the votes and the Repubs were not acting responsibly.
Second, like I said 2 years is not enough to implement the types of change they were campaigning on. Besides that we had the Republicans hold all of Congress for 6 years for the first 6 years of Bush Jr. and nothing happened except immigration reform that went no where because Repubs didn't want to work with Dems and an expensive addition to Medicare (Part D) that added billions to the debt because it was unfunded. Can you at least give Obama the same opportunity Bush Jr. had and give him 6 years with a Democratic Congress and see where we are after then. I don't think that is unreasonable. In the larger scope of what constitutes a long period of time, 2 years is very short. The UK elects its PM's every 5 years, longer then a Presidential term and as far I know, the Party in control essentially has the entire 5 years to attempt their policies which gives a good period of time to see if they actually have any meat to them.
Thirdly, the stimulus did work because Citi is still alive, Chase is still alive, Fanny Mae is still alive, Freddy Mac is still alive. All of them would have collapsed if it wasn't for the government stimulus. Ironically again, the stimulus was originally passed by Repub. Bush Jr. and the reason it was not as effective as should have been was because he precisely didn't adhere to Keynesian economics closely enough. In fact a large portion of the stimulus if not the majority of it was in the form of emergency tax breaks for the public which is absolutely useless when the public is in panic mode and is hording money, not buying anything. The less then half of it that was Keynesian in nature in the form of government buying up bad debt stopped the world banks from collapsing which most economists agree would have happened in less then a month if we had done nothing. Keynesian economics has been proven to work with the Great Depression. It's actually quite simple in how it works, private sector cannot produce so government makes jobs producing nothing. These wages for people to produce nothing make their way to the public who if calmed down, will put their money in the bank and spend it on the private sector. Banks then become willing to put out loans again and higher consumption promotes private sector expansion, private sector then starts hiring again and takes the place of government jobs as the government start dialing down the number of gov jobs producing nothing. Economy is fixed. Where did we go wrong in this set up, well the Repubs made it their purpose to categorize that any sort of government program to get people to produce nothing in order to get wages to them (instead of having them be unemployed) as socialist. So what did the Dems do, they tried to use the social net to bring direct wages to the unemployed public since they couldnt hire them, so what did the Repubs do, they attempted to cut off the social net and deny unemployment benefits! This economy would have been back on track if we had adhered to Keynesian economics more instead of being stringent when the economy needed the money supply to flow more then ever.
Finally, your health care costs are going up simply because the company wants to maintain its level of profit that it enjoyed before it was forced to actually cover sick people. You will have to elaborate on what exactly you mean by "my options are being limited" because as far as I know, no major insurance company has gone under since the health care bill was passed. This prompts my philosophical question, of why would you support a structure that puts profit above your health in the first place? Under any government run system, the goal isn;t for massive profit its to cover everyone, any rate hike would be to make the system self sustaining. Cigna apparently has an operating income of $1.8 billion, now if only the purpose was to break even not to have profit, I wonder how much your rates would have actually increased.
rory_20_uk
11-04-2010, 10:05
Better than producing nothing is to build infrastructure which is almost always going to be useful in the future and beats hiring an army of office workers to shuffle paper.
~:smoking:
Hosakawa Tito
11-04-2010, 10:45
The crazy thing is that the Tea Party would sweep the entire country if it would just purge itself of the social conservatives. The American public is currently very, very receptive to major financial reform and would approve of massive cuts in government spending along with corresponding reductions in government size. The only reason the Tea Party hasn't totally annihilated both the Dems and the Reps is that their candidates and public spokespersons are vocal social conservatives. Remove that barrier, and large segments of the Democratic base would join the Tea Party.
Heh, compare the change over of election results in the other states and the lack of change in California & New York, we're stuck on stupid. There is no hope for either.:shame: However, their loss is Texas's gain.
ICantSpellDawg
11-04-2010, 14:46
But it is actually correct, the old GOP has died. It is getting replaced by the "Tea party", and there is a power-struggle between the two sides. However, they have a common enemy, and that is "Obama", so they while they are fighting eachother, they both want to oust Obama.
Tea Party hit its pre-public height with the Ron Paul campaign, and since there, grew and expanded (With some wealthy donations and corporate + republican party manipulation), into the political force it has grown into today.
By all accounts, the Tea Party are effectively a separate political party working in coalition with the GoP. There are more differences in the Tea Party and GOP, than the Conservatives and Lib Dems in our ruling Coalition in the UK.
Tell that to local Republican parties. It is essentially the same thing. The Tea Party is just a clever way for local Republicans and Conservatives to distinguish themselves from the entrenched Republicans and Conservatives. I was surprised at how exactly the same the campaigns were looking back 2 and 4 years ago.
Your first statement reminds me of the time when troll dolls were popular. An analogous statement at that time would have been "dolls are dead, only troll dolls remain." Troll dolls, a subset of dolls, were a fad and dolls remain.
If the Tea party actually distinguished itself in any way, as the libertarians have, then you would have a point. The only distinguishing characteristic that they have is the origin of their candidates, and only barely at that.
The tea party started out as a libertarian movement with popular appeal and has been co-opted by the GOP. It doesn't strike you that the campaign issues are exactly the same? I've never considered myself within the Tea Party and have only recently registered as a Republican.
Strike For The South
11-04-2010, 16:20
Heh, compare the change over of election results in the other states and the lack of change in California & New York, we're stuck on stupid. There is no hope for either.:shame: However, their loss is Texas's gain.
You don't know how true this is
We are literally becoming more powerful than you could ever imagine
In the las 5 years 79% of private sector job growth has been in Texas
BOW TO ME
BOW TO ME
Hmm, I'm going to have to replace my "Kneel Before Zod" t-shirt with a "Bow to Strike" model.
gaelic cowboy
11-04-2010, 17:12
Hmm, I'm going to have to replace my "Kneel Before Zod" t-shirt with a "Bow to Strike" model.
I see a bit of trouble when one of the House Lemur begins the assault on House Strike's world order to institute the First Galactic Empire.
Hosakawa Tito
11-04-2010, 23:04
You don't know how true this is
We are literally becoming more powerful than you could ever imagine
In the las 5 years 79% of private sector job growth has been in Texas
BOW TO ME
Oh yes I do or I wouldna said it. 10 Best States For Job Growth (http://www.chiefexecutive.net/ME2/Audiences/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=Publishing&mod=Publications::Article&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=59FD13C5177B40B0B2D3EBA9E4384572&AudID=F242408EE36A4B18AABCEB1289960A07).
When I get down there y'all be bowing to me. In fact, maybe we'll secede.:laugh4:
Louis VI the Fat
11-05-2010, 02:12
I, for one, refuse to bow to the Texas model. It is based on undercutting civilised states with tax measures, cheapo immigrant labour, and a government in the pocket of business interests. Maybe Texas can abolish the ban on child labour too, it could create even more jobs with sweatshops for nine-year old kids!
Meanwhile states with decent social regulation, environmental protection, and state coffers not used as a bottomless through for private interests suffer because of it. Texas is what would happen if Nicaragua would join the US. I'm pretty sure that banana republic too would win the 'most friendly to business' award. (Taxes? Proper regulation? Social standards? Que? No comprendo, señor!)
Hosakawa Tito
11-06-2010, 00:25
Louis, your business model is unsustainable. New York, California, and most of the Eurozone have proven that.
a completely inoffensive name
11-06-2010, 01:11
Louis, your business model is unsustainable. New York, California, and most of the Eurozone have proven that.
It's only unsustainable for a 19th and 20th century type of economy. If you want to have manufacturing and services be the basic components of your economy, then go ahead and race to the bottom in order to get those jobs. However, there are other methods of economy other then make cheap stuff to sell and talk to people over the phone. The goal for advanced nations is to provide needed technologies and expertise too advanced for sweatshop workers to produce to other countries. Change your economy, don't tell your public to start accepting the life of the average Chinese worker.
Louis VI the Fat
11-06-2010, 01:37
I, for one, proclaim Obama the saviour of capitalism, a martyr for freedom, and one of America's greatest presidents.
Sadly, by fixing structural flaws, the hidden faults in the foundation, Obama has made himself vulnerable to easy critisim focused on extreme short-term thinking.
How Obama Saved Capitalism and Lost the Midterms
If I were one of the big corporate donors who bankrolled the Republican tide that carried into office more than 50 new Republicans in the House, I would be wary of what you just bought.
For no matter your view of President Obama, he effectively saved capitalism. And for that, he paid a terrible political price.
[...]
All of the above is good for capitalism, and should end any serious-minded discussion about Obama the socialist. But more than anything, the fact that the president took on the structural flaws of a broken free enterprise system instead of focusing on things that the average voter could understand explains why his party was routed on Tuesday. Obama got on the wrong side of voter anxiety in a decade of diminished fortunes.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/02/how-obama-saved-capitalism-and-lost-the-midterms/?src=me&ref=general
The Economist apologised to Obama:
An apology is due to Barack Obama: his takeover of GM could have gone horribly wrong, but it has not
Lovers of free markets (including The Economist) feared that Mr Obama might use GM as a political tool: perhaps favouring the unions who donate to Democrats or forcing the firm to build smaller, greener cars than consumers want to buy. The label “Government Motors” quickly stuck, evoking images of clunky committee-built cars that burned banknotes instead of petrol—all run by what Sarah Palin might call the socialist-in-chief.
Yet the doomsayers were wrong.The Economist (http://www.economist.com/node/16846494/comments%20Health%20care%20holding%20down%20costs:%20http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10781/11-30-Premiums.pdf) knows too: Obama a socialist? Not at all. But then, the Economist is one of Britain's foremost economical papers, not American. Therefore, the Economist is more at liberty to simply say it was wrong when it opposed Obama's measures to save the American automobile industry.
Obama is a brave president who took great risk, who saved the system, and is now paying a high price for it. We free market lovers owe Obama an apology.
Crazed Rabbit
11-06-2010, 01:47
Several counter points: The public was against the healthcare as it passed because they either felt it did not go far enough or because they were being bombarded by Republican rhetoric of "death panels", you cannot deny the fear mongering that took place surrounding the bill and if there is one tool that is very useful on controlling large groups of people, its fear mongering.
So no people were against it because they understood it and didn't want it?
The expression that the dems "rushed" through it, ...[paragraph continues]
How long was the text of the bill posted online before being voted on? How many of the people voting on the bill actually read it?
And the dems managing to get 60 senate votes means nothing in terms of public support - it means only they convinced those 60 people to revamp the healthcare of 300 million people.
Can you at least give Obama the same opportunity Bush Jr. had and give him 6 years with a Democratic Congress and see where we are after then.
No way. We'd just have more government intrusion, more useless and hugely expensive stimulus bills, and more long term federal entitlement programs.
Thirdly, the stimulus did work because Citi is still alive, Chase is still alive, Fanny Mae is still alive, Freddy Mac is still alive.
Oh, I thought the stimulus was supposed to, you know - stimulate. Not merely keep afloat large banks which should have been left to sink. That could have been done for much cheaper.
Keynesian economics has been proven to work with the Great Depression.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
You are a laugh. The government, overall, made the great depression much worse. Keynesian economics failed then and failed in Japan in the 90s and is failing now because it's stupid. Fundamentally it relies on prices not adjusting quickly after a recession. So tell me, have the prices of goods changed to reflect the faltering economy?
Finally, your health care costs are going up simply because the company wants to maintain its level of profit that it enjoyed before it was forced to actually cover sick people.
My specific insurer at work is covering the same people. :inquisitive: Perhaps you can one day go beyond the talking points.
You will have to elaborate on what exactly you mean by "my options are being limited"
Flexible Spending Accounts are being limited; the money you can put in them is being halved in 2013.
This prompts my philosophical question, of why would you support a structure that puts profit above your health in the first place?
For the same reason I support people profiting by providing me food and shelter - because that provides the most options and quality.
Cigna apparently has an operating income of $1.8 billion, now if only the purpose was to break even not to have profit, I wonder how much your rates would have actually increased.
If their goal was to break even, they never would have grown to the size they are now.
CR
gaelic cowboy
11-06-2010, 02:03
The goal for advanced nations is to provide needed technologies and expertise too advanced for sweatshop workers to produce to other countries. Change your economy, don't tell your public to start accepting the life of the average Chinese worker.
The model of adding value that is beloved of all our Western politicians is going to fail, China and India can have high tech right beside low tech industry and they can have sufficient consumers to make money from tertiary industry too.
If someone starts telling you "oh my jobs safe" they ain't really thought too hard about it, even lawyers are losing work to Indian law firms, x-rays can be read and diagnosed from the end of a modem, we can design engines, clothes, art and houses from abroad.
gaelic cowboy
11-06-2010, 02:56
My specific insurer at work is covering the same people. :inquisitive: Perhaps you can one day go beyond the talking points.
Medical inflation has been in a drive to the moon for years I would hesitate to blame Obama for it, millions have stopped paying premiums worldwide and many of these companies are global I would say the insurers are loading more on you and me to maintain profits.
You are a laugh. The government, overall, made the great depression much worse. Keynesian economics failed then and failed in Japan in the 90s and is failing now because it's stupid. Fundamentally it relies on prices not adjusting quickly after a recession. So tell me, have the prices of goods changed to reflect the faltering economy?
Actually, there hardly was a depression in Japan. Why?
An dramatic increase of government spending, especially in the military department (which made sense for Japan). Due to this, halfway through the 1930's, there was no more recession in Japan.
gaelic cowboy
11-06-2010, 14:05
You are a laugh. The government, overall, made the great depression much worse. Keynesian economics failed then and failed in Japan in the 90s and is failing now because it's stupid. Fundamentally it relies on prices not adjusting quickly after a recession. So tell me, have the prices of goods changed to reflect the faltering economy?
Your forgetting that scarcity is probably being reflected in the price especially in foodstuffs and energy, just cos the economy has gone down does not mean mean energy goes down also.
Energy often has people invested in it for the profit of tomorrow and the tomorrow after that regardless of the level of use of today and agriculture suffers from a lack of investment generally also suffered some chronic shortages due to the OZ drought or the Russian fire. Prices are starting to reflect scarcity again case in point beef in Turkey is now at 8€ per kg despite import barriers for live cattle slashed by over 100% and for carcass it was by IIRC over 200%.
In order to ensure there production etc the big firms tend to hedge there supply but just cos you hedged grain is of no matter if the grain you hedged with went up in smoke or did not get planted.
Crazed Rabbit
11-06-2010, 16:14
Medical inflation has been in a drive to the moon for years I would hesitate to blame Obama for it, millions have stopped paying premiums worldwide and many of these companies are global I would say the insurers are loading more on you and me to maintain profits.
That's true. Obamacare can't be blamed for a lot of the increase.
Your forgetting that scarcity is probably being reflected in the price especially in foodstuffs and energy, just cos the economy has gone down does not mean mean energy goes down also.
Energy often has people invested in it for the profit of tomorrow and the tomorrow after that regardless of the level of use of today and agriculture suffers from a lack of investment generally also suffered some chronic shortages due to the OZ drought or the Russian fire. Prices are starting to reflect scarcity again case in point beef in Turkey is now at 8€ per kg despite import barriers for live cattle slashed by over 100% and for carcass it was by IIRC over 200%.
In order to ensure there production etc the big firms tend to hedge there supply but just cos you hedged grain is of no matter if the grain you hedged with went up in smoke or did not get planted.
If there's a profit to be made, then more firms will enter the market meaning more jobs and more competition. Unless market entry is to difficult - whether from government trade barriers or restrictive regulations or industry costs.
Actually, there hardly was a depression in Japan. Why?
You did see the bit were I said "Japan in the 90s" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Decade_(Japan)), right? Also, all the government spending in America failed to end the recession - though the failure of Keynesian economics was compounded by other moronic measures FDR's administration took.
CR
They should adopt Beskarian economic practises. Some big money areas might dislike them (some may even love them), but it is definitely the way forward.
gaelic cowboy
11-06-2010, 17:35
They should adopt Beskarian economic practises. Some big money areas might dislike them (some may even love them), but it is definitely the way forward.
"Control the coinage and the courts — let the rabble have the rest." Thus the Padishah Emperor advises you. And he tells you; "If you want profits, you must rule." There is truth in these words, but I ask myself; "Who are the rabble and who are the ruled?" Bi-la Kaifa
a completely inoffensive name
11-07-2010, 10:23
So no people were against it because they understood it and didn't want it?
Well:
1. That is not what I said or inferred.
2. That is far from the majority of people who opposed it. Among the opposition, only about 10% probably understood it and disagreed on philosophical or ideological basis. They are a negligible portion and you cannot apply those people to the sentiment or thoughts of the whole group, which was fueled by fear not by fact.
How long was the text of the bill posted online before being voted on? How many of the people voting on the bill actually read it?
And the dems managing to get 60 senate votes means nothing in terms of public support - it means only they convinced those 60 people to revamp the healthcare of 300 million people. lol, I have no idea what you are getting at here. I read the bill online and I remember the stupid Republican chain mail talking about on this page it says it will make a death panel etc... People were given a fair chance to read it and I distinctly recall an episode of The Daily Show where a Republican talking head came on with the entire text of the people and she and Jon Stewart literally went over the section on "death panels" she was talking about.
In regard to reading a bill, that's a hollow talking point if I ever heard one. Representatives rarely read all the bills they pass, especially ones involving a complexity such as the US health care system structure that has been haphazardly constructed over the years. All Senators and Congressman have legions of interns at their disposal to read, filter and extract the information and impacts of any bill which is the same as reading it for yourself. All Senators and Congressmen do this, including Republicans. Or are you telling me that the Republicans were opposing it because they were the only ones who actually read it, :laugh:
lol! Again, your stubbornness shows! Yeah, they convinced the 60 Senators (whose job is to do what they feel is right for their constituents) who were elected by a majority of the country that this was for the best. The people's own representatives thought the people could benefit from this at the expense of their own political security, such corruption!
No way. We'd just have more government intrusion, more useless and hugely expensive stimulus bills, and more long term federal entitlement programs.lol, well if we can conclude that Bush's era of little gov involvement, tax cuts and deregulation didn't work then according to you, we know the exact opposite policies can't work either because they conflict with my world view. I'm glad you are admitting you act like a stubborn, close minded hypocrite. That explains a lot about your flawed arguments.
Oh, I thought the stimulus was supposed to, you know - stimulate. Not merely keep afloat large banks which should have been left to sink. That could have been done for much cheaper.lol, good job quoting only the first sentence of my paragraph. Is that how far you read it? Let me copy pasta what I said: the reason it was not as effective as should have been was because he precisely didn't adhere to Keynesian economics closely enough. In fact a large portion of the stimulus if not the majority of it was in the form of emergency tax breaks for the public which is absolutely useless when the public is in panic mode and is hording money, not buying anything. The less then half of it that was Keynesian in nature in the form of government buying up bad debt stopped the world banks from collapsing which most economists agree would have happened in less then a month if we had done nothing.
The stimulus did stimulate the banks because they went from a negative slope on the graph to a zero or slightly positive slope. But if we wanted it to go up faster then we should have put more stimulus into effect because as I said the stimulus wasn't Keynesian enough it was a Republican plan of more tax cuts, so if you want to whine about the stimulus failing, blame the Republican doctrine that thinks tax cuts is a cure all for everything economic.
Also, don't bother talking about we should let banks fail. That's just embarrassing. I'm surprised how you got through economics class thinking that letting every single bank and all the savings people had (because that was at stake across the US and Europe) disappear instantly would have made things turn out better. I'm sure people would have been so rational in that situation and simply started better banks or support the few that survived the nuclear blast of no government action. They wouldn't have horded all their money and perishable goods like a hurricane was coming, no way.
You are a laugh. The government, overall, made the great depression much worse. Keynesian economics failed then and failed in Japan in the 90s and is failing now because it's stupid. Fundamentally it relies on prices not adjusting quickly after a recession. So tell me, have the prices of goods changed to reflect the faltering economy?Wow, you made a convincing argument. I mean, you said it was stupid. That is convincing. Obviously government doesn't have the ability to freeze prices so I mean, Keynesian policy is just completely flawed. I have no idea why professors put it in economic books and teach it to classes. They must have not gotten the memo.
To be fair, I will concede that Keynesian policy is not a cure all for every economic woe, no economic policy or philosophy is but it seems apparent that this particular crisis required a more Keynesian influence.
My specific insurer at work is covering the same people. :inquisitive: Perhaps you can one day go beyond the talking points.I guess they didn't like the provision that tells insurance companies that they must have 80-85 cents of every dollar to actually go towards medical care treatments for their customers. Now they need to raise prices to keep their profits at the same level like I said. What ever argument you have towards the health care plan, blame it on the Republicans of the 1990s because they pretty much made the bill:
"And indeed, this is exactly the case. Obama's plan closely mirrors three proposals that have attracted the support of Republicans who reside within their party's mainstream: The first is the 1993 Senate Republican health plan, which is compared with Obama's plan here, with the similarity endorsed by former Republican Senator Dave Durenberger here. The second is the Bipartisan Policy Center plan, endorsed by Bob Dole, Howard baker, George Mitchell and Tom Daschle, which is compared to Obama's plan here. And the third, of course, is Mitt Romney's Massachusetts plan, which was crafted by the same economist who helped create Obama's plan, and which is rhetorically indistinguishable from Obama's. (The main difference are that Obama's plan cuts Medicare and imposes numerous other cost-saving measures -- which is to say, attempting to craft a national version of Romney's plan would result in something substantially more liberal than Obama's proposal.)" (http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/obamas-moderate-health-care-plan)
Flexible Spending Accounts are being limited; the money you can put in them is being halved in 2013.I will be honest here, I can't really comment about this because I don't know anything about your health care plan or provider, so I have no context to go off of.
For the same reason I support people profiting by providing me food and shelter - because that provides the most options and quality.Wow, the cognitive dissonance is so apparent right here. Food (especially corn) is one of the most heavily subsidized industries, if not the most behind the military-industrial complex. CONGRATS! Your choices in the food market was brought about with tax payer dollars! (I will just briefly mention about how great food safety was before government got involved in private food companies *cough*The Jungle by Sinclair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle)*cough*) Oh and your shelter, I am assuming you purposely said "shelter" because you didn't want your argument to be so recognizably wrong if you said "houses", because the housing market when deregulated certainly provided us all with choices, and then the choice of either paying twice your months salary or getting foreclosed on. Tell everyone you know who lost their house how it is such a buyers market now.
If their goal was to break even, they never would have grown to the size they are now.
CRWell, if we had a single payer system automatically covering anyone, then you have already grown to the maximum size. Problem solved.
a completely inoffensive name
11-07-2010, 10:54
The model of adding value that is beloved of all our Western politicians is going to fail, China and India can have high tech right beside low tech industry and they can have sufficient consumers to make money from tertiary industry too.
If someone starts telling you "oh my jobs safe" they ain't really thought too hard about it, even lawyers are losing work to Indian law firms, x-rays can be read and diagnosed from the end of a modem, we can design engines, clothes, art and houses from abroad.
In order to do advanced high tech, you need more education and it usually comes along with higher wages, more education and a closer to middle class lifestyle breeds resentment towards companies and government and leads to things like unions. As they build up yes they can do whatever we can do, but the workers will begin to demand what we do as well, making it competitive for our own workers again.
Unless I have something about economics mixed up here.
Prince Cobra
11-07-2010, 14:57
The reason I voted "abstain" was that I am a non-US citizen. Unfortunately, I am not that deep into the Obama reforms to comment are they positive or negative. I am more interested how this would affect the foreign policy of the USA. The Bush foreign policy (that in fact only made the situation worse), his bombastic speech of "axis of evil" (which in fact became a tool in the hands of those regimes) came too much for me. The good thing in Obama is that he prefers to use diplomacy rather than brutal force whenever possible. The idea to reduce the nuclear arsenals of USA and Russia is a very sensible one, for example. I wonder if in the near future with the rise of the Republicans the USA won't play the role of "an elephant in a glass-store" (as the Bulgarian idiom for clumsiness say). I hope my suspicions areunfounded...
P.S. I understand that most of the US citizens vote (which is logical) for internal policy and care little for the foreign affairs. And yet...
CrossLOPER
11-07-2010, 16:15
In order to do advanced high tech, you need more education and it usually comes along with higher wages, more education and a closer to middle class lifestyle breeds resentment towards companies and government and leads to things like unions. As they build up yes they can do whatever we can do, but the workers will begin to demand what we do as well, making it competitive for our own workers again.
Unless I have something about economics mixed up here.
I don't see India or China being very union heavy in those sectors right now. I'd love to see that as that may very well stifle outsourcing, but it's probably going to take some time. Encouragement may help.
gaelic cowboy
11-07-2010, 17:01
In order to do advanced high tech, you need more education and it usually comes along with higher wages, more education and a closer to middle class lifestyle breeds resentment towards companies and government and leads to things like unions. As they build up yes they can do whatever we can do, but the workers will begin to demand what we do as well, making it competitive for our own workers again.
Unless I have something about economics mixed up here.
I afraid your making the classic mistake here about economics encouraging a greater degree of democracy and therefore it will raise the spending on social conditions.
Nazi Germany could not be described as a place that was hostile to capitalism and yet it was able to innovate in technology to a high degree despite state control of it's people private lives and thoughts. The Nazi state is gone only because they launched a futile war against the western democracies, China does not have to make the same mistake in launching any potential war.
The simple fact is as long as China concentrates on internal stability and moves to ensure they have a sufficiently large, healthy but POOR rural community they can dance on the fence for long enough that they will ruin your economy.
It will be little comfort to the unemployed in USA or Europe that China will potentially spend more on healthcare in 2050 than today. The skills and education needed to take advantage of a more mature China will have been let wither by then it will be impossible to reconstitute our "Advanced Economies".
I am a realist ok we cant stop this move but we cant just take it for granted that we can move up those rungs of the ladder that our politicians keep telling us we should. Eventually even service jobs and professional services become too expensive to warrant there use or location here and move too.
In 1950s an Irish person in west of Ireland could take most of a day to go and come back from Dublin for advanced dentistry, nowadays that same person can still take the better part of the day to get such care but he can fly out to Hungary or Poland to available of just as good a service.
A game changing technology ie jet aircraft allied with cheap fares pioneered in Europe by another Irishman through Ryanair puts the sword to your theory. It didn't matter how educated the Irishman was he lost out to the less expensive but crucially equally as good Eastern European dentist.
If we are to advance we need to be firm in our commitment to requiring proper environmental rules and conditions for workers in China etc. We need to be firm with the financiers who would close a factory which is making a profit just cos it makes sense on paper to move it, thats bloody :daisy: madness . The capital freed from those kinds of deals generally was invested in even more destructive (in hindsight) complex financial arrangements cos actually starting a business was not worth it.
This should be our price for giving up manufacturing jobs and reducing our barriers to trade only then would we actually have the tools to move up the value ladder.
Crazed Rabbit
11-07-2010, 18:13
Well:
1. That is not what I said or inferred.
This is what you said:
The public was against the healthcare as it passed because they either felt it did not go far enough or because they were being bombarded by Republican rhetoric of "death panels",
That gives two options for people being against it. So yes, that's what you said.
2. That is far from the majority of people who opposed it. Among the opposition, only about 10% probably understood it and disagreed on philosophical or ideological basis. They are a negligible portion and you cannot apply those people to the sentiment or thoughts of the whole group, which was fueled by fear not by fact.
Any evidence of that?
In regard to reading a bill, that's a hollow talking point if I ever heard one. Representatives rarely read all the bills they pass, especially ones involving a complexity such as the US health care system structure that has been haphazardly constructed over the years.
Oh, since those idiots in Congress do it all the time, that means it's alright and not a serious flaw in the system?
All Senators and Congressman have legions of interns at their disposal to read, filter and extract the information and impacts of any bill which is the same as reading it for yourself. All Senators and Congressmen do this, including Republicans. Or are you telling me that the Republicans were opposing it because they were the only ones who actually read it, :laugh:
Proof of this? Also, having someone else read it or you is not the same thing, unless they recite it back word for word. Every sentence can have far reaching consequences.
lol! Again, your stubbornness shows! Yeah, they convinced the 60 Senators (whose job is to do what they feel is right for their constituents) who were elected by a majority of the country that this was for the best. The people's own representatives thought the people could benefit from this at the expense of their own political security, such corruption!
And clearly the people didn't want it; this recent election is proof of that.
lol, well if we can conclude that Bush's era of little gov involvement, tax cuts and deregulation didn't work then according to you
What did Bush deregulate?
Also, don't bother talking about we should let banks fail. That's just embarrassing. I'm surprised how you got through economics class thinking that letting every single bank and all the savings people had (because that was at stake across the US and Europe) disappear instantly would have made things turn out better.
You're not familiar with the FDIC, are you?
Wow, you made a convincing argument. I mean, you said it was stupid. That is convincing. Obviously government doesn't have the ability to freeze prices so I mean, Keynesian policy is just completely flawed. I have no idea why professors put it in economic books and teach it to classes. They must have not gotten the memo.
Keynesian economics is supported because it lets the government 'do something' in response to the crisis, along the lines of that old government action mantra "Something must be done. This is something. Therefore, we must do it." You parrot the excuse keynesians always give - the stimulus wasn't big enough - even more wasteful government spending would have done the job.
Wow, the cognitive dissonance is so apparent right here. Food (especially corn) is one of the most heavily subsidized industries, if not the most behind the military-industrial complex. CONGRATS! Your choices in the food market was brought about with tax payer dollars! (I will just briefly mention about how great food safety was before government got involved in private food companies *cough*The Jungle by Sinclair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle)*cough*)
Way to dodge the point. You asked about profit and I answered. Profit is the motive for people to provide good services. The fact that it's subsidized, which I oppose, is of little consequence - prices would at most rise a little. Or, if we got rid of import restrictions, we could import food just as cheap.
Oh and your shelter, I am assuming you purposely said "shelter" because you didn't want your argument to be so recognizably wrong if you said "houses", because the housing market when deregulated certainly provided us all with choices, and then the choice of either paying twice your months salary or getting foreclosed on.
If they faced that choice, it's because they're idiots who bought houses too expensive for their salary. The rest of that makes little sense.
Tell everyone you know who lost their house how it is such a buyers market now.
Are you saying it's not a buyers market?
Honestly, I tire of this. You seem set on screeds seemingly copied from left wing blogs preaching to the choir. You seize on some tangentially related point in my response and ignore the main point again and again. So, whatever. College paper editorial level arguments aren't going to impress me, and I doubt you're open to actual consideration of anything outside your beliefs on this issue.
I shall simply leave you with a rap battle video that illustrates the failure of Keynes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk&feature=player_embedded
CR
a completely inoffensive name
11-07-2010, 22:11
After reading what I have been posting, I see how I have a trend of writing when I am frustrated or angry about something. I'm sorry, I'm being an ass in the way I have been posting. Let me try again better this time.
This is what you said:
That gives two options for people being against it. So yes, that's what you said.
I apologize, I used too vague wording in my statement then. I should have said, the general public or a majority of the public. I admit, that was my bad on my part.
Any evidence of that?
Look up videos of Tea Party rallies and their leaders such as Sarah Palin on Youtube?
Oh, since those idiots in Congress do it all the time, that means it's alright and not a serious flaw in the system?
No, it isn't right, to be honest, we actually probably agree that Congressmen should read every bill (albeit maybe for different reasons). I am just saying that to point out this flaw in the system for this particular bill seems a bit of reaching there considering that we can say this about every single bill from the good ones to the bad ones. It is how Washington operates and although it shouldn't operate like that I don't think it is fair to chastise a bill for something that can be applied to every other bill.
Proof of this? Also, having someone else read it or you is not the same thing, unless they recite it back word for word. Every sentence can have far reaching consequences.
I believe there is plenty incentive for the interns to accurately communicate in a non partisan and very factual, through way the ins and outs of a bill. The Congressman certainly does not want to be ignorant of any facts about the bill and how it works because he doesn't want to look like a fool and the intern certainly doesn't want to lose his job.
And clearly the people didn't want it; this recent election is proof of that.
To some extent yes, this is true. But then again, the GOP did not take the Senate, so I could argue that the public is currently very divided about their opinions on the matter. Perhaps we could give the health care bill a fair shot and give it full election cycle before we start dismantling it? Perhaps the public will have a more clear consensus about it by then and give one of the parties a clear mandate.
What did Bush deregulate?
Ok again, this is where I am going to own up to my mistake. Wasn't Bush, it was Democratic President Clinton with a Republican controlled Congress that instituted the financial deregulation regarding mortgages if I remember correctly. But substitute Bush with Clinton/GOP congress in my original statement.
You're not familiar with the FDIC, are you?
I admit I completely forgot about the FDIC. No banks nevertheless would mean absolutely no loans and no loans means no rebuilding. I still fail to see how having the banks fail would lead to better outcome. Perhaps you need to just go over it for me so I understand.
Keynesian economics is supported because it lets the government 'do something' in response to the crisis, along the lines of that old government action mantra "Something must be done. This is something. Therefore, we must do it." You parrot the excuse keynesians always give - the stimulus wasn't big enough - even more wasteful government spending would have done the job.
I don't look at it like that. I see that government can't always do something about a problem, but I also recognize that capitalism has self destructive tendencies regarding the state of the workers within the system or the support of the system itself. And that is where I think government has a legit role.
Way to dodge the point. You asked about profit and I answered. Profit is the motive for people to provide good services. The fact that it's subsidized, which I oppose, is of little consequence - prices would at most rise a little. Or, if we got rid of import restrictions, we could import food just as cheap.
I disagree about the prices I think they have more of an impact then most people realize. (I will come back later with an edit looking for sources to see how much the subsidies bring down prices, too busy right now.) Yeah profit is the motive for people to provide good services, but there is a set of services where the profitability factor begins to degrade the quality of the service itself. That's what I think is happening with health care, other countries spend less per GDP and seem to have very nice statistics (better then ours in most cases). The US health care system has been a patchwork of alterations and additions of various sorts to a private sector system over many decades, including medicare, HMOs etc... yet we still can't get things working. I just find the notion that the system itself is fine and we need to get rid of all these government intrusions and regulations to be a bit...disconnected from what history tells me.
Again actually, we could agree about ending subsidies and getting rid of import restriction (again, probably for different reasons), but my point is that the subsidies from what I have read are what supports the food industry to a very large extent because the US doesn't want the security risk of having to import cheaper food from other (maybe not so friendly) countries. I mean, what is to stop farm companies from simply shifting their farms to Mexico where they can get cheap labor and probably not have to deal with as many government regulations and such, it probably comes down to the subsidies, which would need to be very large.
If they faced that choice, it's because they're idiots who bought houses too expensive for their salary. The rest of that makes little sense.
To some extent I agree that shouldn't have bought the house. On the other hand, at the time when everyone was buying these houses, everyone was in a boom like fever and I'm sure many homeowners were talked into how they could afford it if they just did x, y and z. They wouldn't have ever figured that soon it would be impossible to do x, y or z because values dropped like a rock and etc (we know how it played out)...
Are you saying it's not a buyers market?
Honestly, I tire of this. You seem set on screeds seemingly copied from left wing blogs preaching to the choir. You seize on some tangentially related point in my response and ignore the main point again and again. So, whatever. College paper editorial level arguments aren't going to impress me, and I doubt you're open to actual consideration of anything outside your beliefs on this issue.
I shall simply leave you with a rap battle video that illustrates the failure of Keynes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk&feature=player_embedded
CR
I was just being a rude **** when I made the statement about a buyers market. I do know it is a buyers market, I was just being sarcastic because people who got foreclosed on don't even have the money to take advantage of the buyers market full of houses including the one they got kicked out of.
If I seems like I am copying from left wing blogs, then I must be doing something wrong because I'm not trying to be that way. I probably just sounded like left wing blogs because I typed out my arguments in an angry mood, probably like most left wing blog authors. I'm trying to discuss your main points this go around. I really am open to consideration of anything outside my beliefs, believe it or not about six months before the 2008 election I would have called myself a Ron Paul fan/libertarian. Looking back on my last post, I made a lot of silly economics errors. Need to study more.
Oh and that video was pretty awesome.
Louis VI the Fat
11-08-2010, 05:03
Now that the people's representatives have been voted out, and the Washington lobby firms representatives have been voted back in, how much of Obama's legislation will be reversed?
John Boehner (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/john-boehner), who is set to be the new Republican speaker of the House of Representatives, is one of the most lobby-friendly politicians in Washington, located at the centre of a web of corporate cash and influence.The heavily tanned, golf-playing Republican congressman from Ohio will become one of the most powerful politicians in Washington when he replaces the defeated liberal icon, Nancy Pelosi.
The Republicans (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/republicans)' huge victory in last week's midterm elections has effectively crowned him as the most senior Republican in office. He will spearhead the rightwing fight against Barack Obama and attempt to reverse many of the Democrats' legislative achievements of the past two years, including trying to repeal healthcare reform.
[...]
His reputation in Washington circlesis almost that of a Hollywood movie sterotype of the as a glad-handing politician with close ties to the capital's lobbyists akin to a Hollywood movie sterotype. Several nicknames seem to sum up his style. The first is GTL, standing for "golf, tan and lobbyists". The second is Boehnerland, a term used to describe the enormous network of powerful influence peddlers close to him who have donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to his campaigns and have taken him on dozens of corporate-funded private trips around the country. Boehner makes no secret of his lobbyist links.
[...]
Of course, every politician in Washington has links to lobbyists representing anything from banks to unions. But the scale and closeness of Boehner's links has raised many eyebrows. Critics point to an infamous incident in 1995 when Boehner handed out cheques from the tobacco industry to politicians on the floor of Congress. He later apologised.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/07/john-boehner-links-lobbyists-washington
Crazed Rabbit
11-08-2010, 05:54
Now that the people's representatives have been voted out, and the Washington lobby firms representatives have been voted back in, how much of Obama's legislation will be reversed?
Maybe the legislation supported by Walmart in order to help them quash their competition.
Oh and that video was pretty awesome.
:thumbsup: I need to go to go to bed soon, so I'll have to respond to the rest of your post later. :bow:
CR
Strike For The South
11-08-2010, 17:15
Now that the people's representatives have been voted out, and the Washington lobby firms representatives have been voted back in, how much of Obama's legislation will be reversed?
Serfdom
Serfdom
Hyperbole and sweet six-pack abs will get you a fine ladyfriend. Well, in fairness, you don't need the hyperbole.
Let's take it down a notch: Both Republicans and Democrats, on the whole, want America to be strong. Sure, there are greedy, venal and stupid players in both parties, but the overall aim is the same.
Neither party wants to turn America into a nation of serfs. Neither party wants to shred the constitution. Neither party wants to usher in the apocalypse. Neither party is fundamentally evil.
My prediction: The new Republican majority in congress will be utterly intransigent and belligerant for the next two years, hoping primarily to derail Obama for the 2012 election. When he wins that election, there will be a two-year window in which productive things might happen. The economy will finally be on the mend, unemployment will be down, and we will have a 24-month period in which both the executive and legislative branches might be in the mood to compromise and pass not-too-horrible legislation.
In the meantime? Expect a lot of political theater. Try to enjoy it for what it is, rather than waste your energy wishing it were something else.
Strike For The South
11-08-2010, 17:33
Get the logic out of here.
GAME OVER MAN GAME OVER
Louis VI the Fat
11-08-2010, 17:44
Hyperbole and sweet six-pack abs will get you a fine ladyfriend. Well, in fairness, you don't need the hyperbole.
Let's take it down a notch: Both Republicans and Democrats, on the whole, want America to be strong. Sure, there are greedy, venal and stupid players in both parties, but the overall aim is the same.
Neither party wants to turn America into a nation of serfs. Neither party wants to shred the constitution. Neither party wants to usher in the apocalypse. Neither party is fundamentally evil.
My prediction: The new Republican majority in congress will be utterly intransigent and belligerant for the next two years, hoping primarily to derail Obama for the 2012 election. When he wins that election, there will be a two-year window in which productive things might happen. The economy will finally be on the mend, unemployment will be down, and we will have a 24-month period in which both the executive and legislative branches might be in the mood to compromise and pass not-too-horrible legislation.
In the meantime? Expect a lot of political theater. Try to enjoy it for what it is, rather than waste your energy wishing it were something else.Beat it, spoilsport. :smash:
These are not hard times, these are end times.
Strike For The South
11-08-2010, 17:46
Beat it, spoilsport.
These are not hard times, these are end times.
Your understanding of American pop culture is most bemusing. I thought French people banned it, There are paintings you should be looking at
Let's take it down a notch: Both Republicans and Democrats, on the whole, want America to be strong. Sure, there are greedy, venal and stupid players in both parties, but the overall aim is the same.
Neither party wants to turn America into a nation of serfs. Neither party wants to shred the constitution. Neither party wants to usher in the apocalypse. Neither party is fundamentally evil.
Source?
gaelic cowboy
11-08-2010, 18:37
Get the logic out of here.
GAME OVER MAN GAME OVER
The quote is actually
Hudson: That's it! Game over, man! Game's over! What the :daisy: are we gonna do now? What are we gonna do?
Burke: Maybe we could build a fire and sing couple of songs, huh? Why don't we try that?!
Newt: We'd better get back because it'll be dark soon, and they mostly come at night. Mostly.
Classic movie one of my top ten and strangely applicable to the midterm's
a completely inoffensive name
11-08-2010, 18:39
Source?
I was about to question that same assumption. Neither party's direct goals are to undermine the country, but putting the interests of certain special interest groups above the well being of citizens and the economy is subversive to the nation although their goal isn't to do that as an end in itself. We can't ignore that at the present time, one party has more special interests groups working towards blocking helpful legislation then then the other party.
We can't ignore that at the present time, one party has more special interests groups working towards blocking helpful legislation then then the other party.
Both parties are equally in the pockets of special interests, neither is willing to legislate for the good of their constituents over the wishes of their corporate sponsors. Elections funds have to get filled somehow. :shrug:
a completely inoffensive name
11-08-2010, 20:13
Both parties are equally in the pockets of special interests, neither is willing to legislate for the good of their constituents over the wishes of their corporate sponsors. Elections funds have to get filled somehow. :shrug:
One party has implemented credit card reform, health care reform, financial reform among many other bills that have improved the average citizens life. It may not be the best reform possible, but it is a divergence from the status quo which is not what special interest groups want.
One party has said, no, no, no, no, no, no, no and...no. When asked for their compromises they say, "scrap the whole thing and start over." Then proceed to say no again. The two parties are not the same. They are not equivalent and there is a difference between what is going to happen under Republicans and Democrats. Not saying one is better but saying the whole thing is corrupt and they are all the same is a fallacious argument and hinders our ability to actually have things improve because like it or not, there will only be two major parties and we need at least one of two parties to be trying new things so we don't fall behind.
Sasaki Kojiro
11-08-2010, 20:59
I think the two problems here are "equally" which is too sweeping, and "in the pocket of special interests" which misses the point. If one party is receiving donations from "doctors for a healthier america" and the other from the tobacco industry, then it's a false equivalence. Donations from special interest doesn't necessarily mean that the politician is just a pawn, and sometimes those special interests are legitimate. In the end that talk doesn't lead us very far. The legislation should be the decider.
this is @drone I suppose, to be clear
Republican ties to the more "evil" special interests are more well publicized, but the Dems have been bought off on a fair number of issues as well. Unions and the MPAA/RIAA come to mind.
Both parties are equally in the pockets of special interests, neither is willing to legislate for the good of their constituents over the wishes of their corporate sponsors. Elections funds have to get filled somehow. :shrug:
You should appoint me as Magister Populi, I will rule for the benefit of the people. As for my credentials, I got the perfect good ending in Fable 3 as 'King' without using cheats.
You should appoint me as Magister Populi, I will rule for the benefit of the people.
We already have that. Over here, a "person" has a dubious legal definition. ~;)
Louis VI the Fat
11-09-2010, 01:11
Republican ties to the more "evil" special interests are more well publicized, but the Dems have been bought off on a fair number of issues as well. Unions and the MPAA/RIAA come to mind.Unions have little sway over congress. They are simply too poor to amount to a potent force. The past three decades union membership has been declining almost as fast as living-wage jobs for ordinary Americans. Even labour friendly democrats are nowadays firmly to the right of Nixon-era Republicans. Apparantly the Democrats, never mind Washngton, has not in the pocket of unions at all.
Rather, Democrats, and this is much more disturbing, like Republicans are in the pocket of more spendthrifty special interest groups. That is the real tragedy of Congress, the cause for US voter apathy. What good is your vote going to do against Washington and its 15000 lobbyists. The really influential lobby groups are smart enough to have both parties on the payroll. Science is bought, politicians are bought. Corporations and other organised intitutions (from hospitals to insurance firms) are strenghtened against individual Americans. And all these are left with, is the wish to have as little government as possible, because they've rightly learned that government will not protect them. So in the end, the means by which the people could protects their freedoms, a strong government, remains unused out of anger and mistrust over a government which tends to use its strenght against ordinary citizens.
What I don't get is how the US pays far more in money per person on Health, than the United Kingdom, while not even providing a basic standard of healthcare to its population. You can tell there are lots of people on the gravy train there.
rory_20_uk
11-09-2010, 12:50
What I don't get is how the US pays far more in money per person on Health, than the United Kingdom, while not even providing a basic standard of healthcare to its population. You can tell there are lots of people on the gravy train there.
Loads of reasons:
Standard of living of doctors is higher in the USA
No treatment of chronic diseases - things only addressed as emergencies, rather than prevention.
Incentive to do "everything" as more procedures = more money
Litigation - best be ultra-bulletproof safe so do every test just in case
Use of most expensive drugs: newest drug is 5% better but x2 the cost - if it's on insurance, why not?
Massive inefficiencies in the "back office"
~:smoking:
Crazed Rabbit
11-12-2010, 03:15
Look up videos of Tea Party rallies and their leaders such as Sarah Palin on Youtube?
Anecdotal data. Those most likely to appear in such videos are probably the most likely to get worked up over such things as 'death panels'.
No, it isn't right, to be honest, we actually probably agree that Congressmen should read every bill (albeit maybe for different reasons). I am just saying that to point out this flaw in the system for this particular bill seems a bit of reaching there considering that we can say this about every single bill from the good ones to the bad ones. It is how Washington operates and although it shouldn't operate like that I don't think it is fair to chastise a bill for something that can be applied to every other bill.
I don't think it's reaching. The bill has a huge affect and will likely be with us until we have some sort of successful revolution or an even worse bill with even more government control gets passed - and that bill will be shaped by this one. In short, this bill will shape our lives for decades to come and the nitwits couldn't be bothered to read it.
I believe there is plenty incentive for the interns to accurately communicate in a non partisan and very factual, through way the ins and outs of a bill. The Congressman certainly does not want to be ignorant of any facts about the bill and how it works because he doesn't want to look like a fool and the intern certainly doesn't want to lose his job.
I think there's simply too much info for any sort of summation to explain everything. And because tiny details can have huge consequences, everything needs to be examined.
To some extent yes, this is true. But then again, the GOP did not take the Senate, so I could argue that the public is currently very divided about their opinions on the matter. Perhaps we could give the health care bill a fair shot and give it full election cycle before we start dismantling it? Perhaps the public will have a more clear consensus about it by then and give one of the parties a clear mandate.
As said above, I view dismantling as highly unlikely in future years and decades.
Ok again, this is where I am going to own up to my mistake. Wasn't Bush, it was Democratic President Clinton with a Republican controlled Congress that instituted the financial deregulation regarding mortgages if I remember correctly. But substitute Bush with Clinton/GOP congress in my original statement.
I don't believe that happened. The government for decades has sought to encourage lending on subprime loans in order to increase home ownership. It wasn't deregulation, but greater government involvement that led to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buying so many subprime loans.
I admit I completely forgot about the FDIC. No banks nevertheless would mean absolutely no loans and no loans means no rebuilding. I still fail to see how having the banks fail would lead to better outcome. Perhaps you need to just go over it for me so I understand.
Not all the banks would fail. Those that survive would gobble up some of the collapsed ones, new ones would start.
I don't look at it like that. I see that government can't always do something about a problem, but I also recognize that capitalism has self destructive tendencies regarding the state of the workers within the system or the support of the system itself. And that is where I think government has a legit role.
What self destructive tendencies? I think that term is better applied to Keynesian economics - another part of which is inflating the monetary supply in order to spur the economy (see recent news of the Fed pumping billions into the economy), which causes a economic retraction eventually because all that spending was based not on 'real' savings, but on money the government created.
I disagree about the prices I think they have more of an impact then most people realize. (I will come back later with an edit looking for sources to see how much the subsidies bring down prices, too busy right now.) Yeah profit is the motive for people to provide good services, but there is a set of services where the profitability factor begins to degrade the quality of the service itself. That's what I think is happening with health care, other countries spend less per GDP and seem to have very nice statistics (better then ours in most cases). The US health care system has been a patchwork of alterations and additions of various sorts to a private sector system over many decades, including medicare, HMOs etc... yet we still can't get things working. I just find the notion that the system itself is fine and we need to get rid of all these government intrusions and regulations to be a bit...disconnected from what history tells me.
Certainly there is the temptation for companies to increase profits by cutting costs - which usually cuts quality. Normally, such as with food or goods like computers, consumers see this and buy something else. But because of the healthcare insurance model in the USA (Primarily employer provided) people are much more restricted. This, too, is the result of government meddling; first in WWII with wage caps (so companies offered benefits like insurance to get people to apply for jobs, as they could not offer higher wages), and later when employer healthcare payments became tax deductible and privately bought personal insurance payments were subject to taxes.
If people had more choices and it were easy for them to switch, companies would be punished for shoddy services.
Again actually, we could agree about ending subsidies and getting rid of import restriction (again, probably for different reasons), but my point is that the subsidies from what I have read are what supports the food industry to a very large extent because the US doesn't want the security risk of having to import cheaper food from other (maybe not so friendly) countries. I mean, what is to stop farm companies from simply shifting their farms to Mexico where they can get cheap labor and probably not have to deal with as many government regulations and such, it probably comes down to the subsidies, which would need to be very large.
I believe the subsidies are around because the farmer's lobby is strong, not because of any real security risk.
To some extent I agree that shouldn't have bought the house. On the other hand, at the time when everyone was buying these houses, everyone was in a boom like fever and I'm sure many homeowners were talked into how they could afford it if they just did x, y and z. They wouldn't have ever figured that soon it would be impossible to do x, y or z because values dropped like a rock and etc (we know how it played out)...
The banks were often in on it. I recall reading of Washington Mutual loan meetings were people just provided a picture of them shaking mariachis as proof they played in a band, and then they got the loan. The banks were the ones who offered the risky loans.
CR
Not all the banks would fail. Those that survive would gobble up some of the collapsed ones, new ones would start.
But wouldn't that cause more monopolies and control within smaller group of people?
Problem with many industries, is that you need money in order to make money. Since the crash causes less money, unless a couple of the billionaires or large corporations branch out, there would not be many banking ventures to replace the ones which disappear. Since the providers of the supply decrease, there is less competition, which means rates will raise (simply because they can force them too). So unless there is a socioeconomical revolution and fundamental shift of personal values, this higher credit will cause troubles in other areas, as businesses will collapse, leading to greater unemployment, which in turn causes greater rise in crime, increasing the costs to other businesses which in turn can not even get credit themselves since there is even less customers... (insert a large range of consequences and actions which will get employed). The economy on the grand-scale will now sink, which many companies buying their rivals and achieving monopoly status. There will very high unemployment and the wages will pummel. A lot of the high-end products will simply stop being stocked mainstream, as no one can afford it, and it would go to the 'essentials', or even large-scale backyard farming might take hold. There will be a high death and casualty rate, as the society will simply begin to break down, as there is no longer the support for vital services, and there might be even an implementation of martial law in some areas of the country (Effectively, imagine Greece situation in America, potentially being far worse.) Other economies in the world will replace America, and some countries will even fail themselves as the direct result, especially if America recalls all loans.
However, CR, there is a chance of something good happening, and that would be a socioeconomic revolution from the grassroots. Unfortunately, history has shown us that it never occurs as such, as those at the top will have the means to guarantee it will fail. Unless the situation comes so severe, then you are facing revolution either of an extreme fascist or communist style government which can then systematically deal with 'those at the top' with the use of force.
[This is the progressive destruction of the economy (and society) if no intervention ever occurs either through foreign debt. governmental debt, and any form of 'stimulus'.]
Yes, there is a need for change. I think both you and I agree on that point. However, the change we would want (even though it might differ) would not be best be served during an economical collapse.
However, what makes the situation even worse is only in periods of unrest, can real change occur, as during a high-time, everyone is too apathetic to care about any real change. (See: Lazy)
a completely inoffensive name
11-13-2010, 23:06
I'm busy studying for my midterms, so I will get back to you in a couple days CR. But thanks for the reply.
Looks like Murkowski pulled it off convincingly, 92,715 unchallenged votes (+ ~8K challenged ones) vs 90,468 for Miller. First time in over 50 years a write-in won a Senate race.
And Pelosi stays on as the House Minority Leader, holding on to whatever power she can in her cold, dead hands. She'll have to fly commercial again, wonder if she will choose the scanner over the pat-down. 50 bucks says they have to drag her out of the Speaker's office by her feet on January 3rd. ~D
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.