Can the Republican Agenda Fix Our Economy?

[loveisdead]

They've won the house. Are their ideas better than what the democrats have done for the past 2 years?

Republicans reject the notion that government spending can spur prosperity. Instead, they favor keeping tax rates steady by extending Bush-administration tax breaks that are set to expire this year and repealing President Obama's health overhaul. Republicans also want to restrain government regulators and are looking to require congressional approval for any new regulation that imposes costs on the private sector in excess of $100 million a year.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/05/AR2010110507092.html?hpid=topnews

[Love As Arson]

Nope. But, then again, the democrat's plan involved a good deal of tax breaks to businesses, timid regulation and relief for the banks. Nothing will change so long as the economy's health is associated with the well-being of the markets. The stock market is completely disconnected from the average worker's experience in the world.

[caveBEAR]

No.

[Tyler Vagyler]

the dems plan never had time to even pan out. can't fix the mess in 2 years.

[zachff]

the dems plan never had time to even pan out. can't fix the mess in 2 years.
Exactly. It took 8 years for Bush to run the economy into the ground then the Dems get 2 years to try and fix it?

Also, extending tax cuts is a fucking terrible idea. I don't understand how people can look at our budget and massive deficit and say yeah, let's cut taxes. We just keep digging ourselves into a hole.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

is the whole idea behind the upper class tax cuts because those who are in that income bracket (from small business owners to corporate CEOs) will be able to create more jobs since they are saving on taxes?

[caveBEAR]

is the whole idea behind the upper class tax cuts because those who are in that income bracket (from small business owners to corporate CEOs) will be able to create more jobs since they are saving on taxes?

Yup. Never mind the fact the hiring is almost solely dictated by supply/demand-type mechanics, let's just pretend that if we hand rich people more money they'll open up a new business instead of buying a new house or throwing it into some bullshit fund...
:rolleyes:

[drevans18]

the dems plan never had time to even pan out. can't fix the mess in 2 years.

Finally, thank you. Give it time. Too bad every person in this country is way too impatient for that.

Also, no.

[machiste77]

im moderate on politics but Im not stupid enough to try to do the same things over and over again, year after year, expecting a different result. thats insanity.

I think Obama did a great job considering he held office for two years in the middle of America's biggest economic crisis since the great depression. FDR's 100 days were merely structures set in place by the government that had to be built upon over time. Obama's policies are no different. If you want to complain that his plan isn't effective, you have to give it more time for the true powers of these policies to take effect. It baffles me how quickly republicans want to ditch this plan yet they stuck out the Operation Iraqi Freedom plan for ten years.

gotta do whats best for the country at this time and that is stimulating the economy with government aid, its been proven to work in the past.

[captivewear]

In a way I want to see Republicans take over everything for 4 years and let the country actually see just how bad it would be. What 98% of the people don't get is that the right "fiscal responsibility" means more benefits for the rich and at the expense of everyone else. Less regulations and bigger tax breaks for the upper class cause 15% is too much apparently while the rest of us pay 30%.
They call this "capitalism" by the way so the next time you hear the right say that word thats what they really mean.

[Junction183]

Exactly. It took 8 years for Bush to run the economy into the ground then the Dems get 2 years to try and fix it?

Also, extending tax cuts is a fucking terrible idea. I don't understand how people can look at our budget and massive deficit and say yeah, let's cut taxes. We just keep digging ourselves into a hole.
Don't agree at all. The problem in that we're not promoting a healthy environment for "private" businesses to grow. Higher taxes, health care premiums, restrictions and regulations have held businesses to the gun. Obama felt that an influx of temporary "public" sector jobs would save the economy. I don't know where this whole theory that it took 8 years for Bush to run the economy into the ground came from. Sure two wars and government corruption has added to the deficit but it's not the reason why we find ourselves in this position. In the mid 90's there was an initiative to increase home ownership in the country, well you know the rest, it only took 15 years to collapse. For the past 40 years our country has lost focus on vocational education which I also believe has doomed our generation, lets be honest that college isn't right for everyone. The democrats have had control of congress since 2006 so in reality they've had 4 years to "fix the problem." Democrats aren't willing to do the hard things to save our country such as reform social security, raise the retirement age, cut unneeded public sector jobs, and get out of bed with the labor unions that have hindered private sector growth. I could go on for hours.

Oh yeah, and what we're seeing now is not George Bush's republican party, it's transformed itself back to a Reagan republican party which i firmly believe will save the country.

[Juan Jose]

Don't agree at all. The problem in that we're not promoting a healthy environment for "private" businesses to grow. Higher taxes, health care premiums, restrictions and regulations have held businesses to the gun. Obama felt that an influx of temporary "public" sector jobs would save the economy. I don't know where this whole theory that it took 8 years for Bush to run the economy into the ground came from. Sure two wars and government corruption has added to the deficit but it's not the reason why we find ourselves in this position. In the mid 90's there was an initiative to increase home ownership in the country, well you know the rest, it only took 15 years to collapse. For the past 40 years our country has lost focus on vocational education which I also believe has doomed our generation, lets be honest that college isn't right for everyone. The democrats have had control of congress since 2006 so in reality they've had 4 years to "fix the problem." Democrats aren't willing to do the hard things to save our country such as reform social security, raise the retirement age, cut unneeded public sector jobs, and get out of bed with the labor unions that have hindered private sector growth. I could go on for hours.

Oh yeah, and what we're seeing now is not George Bush's republican party, it's transformed itself back to a Reagan republican party which i firmly believe will save the country.

Exactly, Bush was a social conservative Republican he never really practiced small government principles that most Republicans support. He expanded medicare benefits, got the federal government more involved in the public school system, and got us into two wars while simultaneously cutting taxes. It really makes no sense to up government spending while cutting the revenue

[PHI Flyers10]

Don't agree at all. The problem in that we're not promoting a healthy environment for "private" businesses to grow. Higher taxes, health care premiums, restrictions and regulations have held businesses to the gun. Obama felt that an influx of temporary "public" sector jobs would save the economy. I don't know where this whole theory that it took 8 years for Bush to run the economy into the ground came from. Sure two wars and government corruption has added to the deficit but it's not the reason why we find ourselves in this position. In the mid 90's there was an initiative to increase home ownership in the country, well you know the rest, it only took 15 years to collapse. For the past 40 years our country has lost focus on vocational education which I also believe has doomed our generation, lets be honest that college isn't right for everyone. The democrats have had control of congress since 2006 so in reality they've had 4 years to "fix the problem." Democrats aren't willing to do the hard things to save our country such as reform social security, raise the retirement age, cut unneeded public sector jobs, and get out of bed with the labor unions that have hindered private sector growth. I could go on for hours.

Oh yeah, and what we're seeing now is not George Bush's republican party, it's transformed itself back to a Reagan republican party which i firmly believe will save the country.
Smart man.

[Simulcast]

It worked for Indiana.

[kidinthebushes]

Don't agree at all. The problem in that we're not promoting a healthy environment for "private" businesses to grow. Higher taxes, health care premiums, restrictions and regulations have held businesses to the gun. Obama felt that an influx of temporary "public" sector jobs would save the economy. I don't know where this whole theory that it took 8 years for Bush to run the economy into the ground came from. Sure two wars and government corruption has added to the deficit but it's not the reason why we find ourselves in this position. In the mid 90's there was an initiative to increase home ownership in the country, well you know the rest, it only took 15 years to collapse. For the past 40 years our country has lost focus on vocational education which I also believe has doomed our generation, lets be honest that college isn't right for everyone. The democrats have had control of congress since 2006 so in reality they've had 4 years to "fix the problem." Democrats aren't willing to do the hard things to save our country such as reform social security, raise the retirement age, cut unneeded public sector jobs, and get out of bed with the labor unions that have hindered private sector growth. I could go on for hours.

Oh yeah, and what we're seeing now is not George Bush's republican party, it's transformed itself back to a Reagan republican party which i firmly believe will save the country.

Agree 100%. Less government. More business.

[kidinthebushes]

No.

Yep.

[Simulcast]

Don't agree at all. The problem in that we're not promoting a healthy environment for "private" businesses to grow. Higher taxes, health care premiums, restrictions and regulations have held businesses to the gun. Obama felt that an influx of temporary "public" sector jobs would save the economy. I don't know where this whole theory that it took 8 years for Bush to run the economy into the ground came from. Sure two wars and government corruption has added to the deficit but it's not the reason why we find ourselves in this position. In the mid 90's there was an initiative to increase home ownership in the country, well you know the rest, it only took 15 years to collapse. For the past 40 years our country has lost focus on vocational education which I also believe has doomed our generation, lets be honest that college isn't right for everyone. The democrats have had control of congress since 2006 so in reality they've had 4 years to "fix the problem." Democrats aren't willing to do the hard things to save our country such as reform social security, raise the retirement age, cut unneeded public sector jobs, and get out of bed with the labor unions that have hindered private sector growth. I could go on for hours.

Oh yeah, and what we're seeing now is not George Bush's republican party, it's transformed itself back to a Reagan republican party which i firmly believe will save the country.

Well put.

[captivewear]

Don't agree at all. The problem in that we're not promoting a healthy environment for "private" businesses to grow. Higher taxes, health care premiums, restrictions and regulations have held businesses to the gun. Obama felt that an influx of temporary "public" sector jobs would save the economy. I don't know where this whole theory that it took 8 years for Bush to run the economy into the ground came from. Sure two wars and government corruption has added to the deficit but it's not the reason why we find ourselves in this position. In the mid 90's there was an initiative to increase home ownership in the country, well you know the rest, it only took 15 years to collapse. For the past 40 years our country has lost focus on vocational education which I also believe has doomed our generation, lets be honest that college isn't right for everyone. The democrats have had control of congress since 2006 so in reality they've had 4 years to "fix the problem." Democrats aren't willing to do the hard things to save our country such as reform social security, raise the retirement age, cut unneeded public sector jobs, and get out of bed with the labor unions that have hindered private sector growth. I could go on for hours.

Oh yeah, and what we're seeing now is not George Bush's republican party, it's transformed itself back to a Reagan republican party which i firmly believe will save the country.
You scare me. Are you rich or have a rich daddy? Cause you sure sound like you are in the back pockets of big corporate money there bud. That is NOT reality! How can the raising of the retirement age for social security be good? Secondly social security is paid for for the next 20 years so thats not even an issue right now. Get out of the bed with labor unions? REALLY? REALLY? That just screams you are all about money money money. Unions are a good thing. Sure they get out of control but at least they are doing it for the middle class who RN this countries economy. I don't want an Elitist country like you do. I don't want to see this country turn into a country with no middle class because that is what the rich want. Get rid of the minimum wage and hire people for $4 an hour and work them 50 hours a week and the rich get richer and EVERYONE else gets poorer.
You want to sit here and tell me Reaganomics work? That the "trickle down effect" works? Cause it doesn't. Not even close to working. Basically Reagon started lower wages, more corporate tax loop holes, big business going overseas to hide their money so they pay less or zero taxes on those billions and made the American people think that corporate America is out for them when we know in reality they are only out for one thing. Lowering their bottom line and raising profits at ANY expense.

[jawstheme]

Economically the choice between democrat and republican doesn't seem to be much different. We need an acttual "left" in this country.

[serenab1221]

Exactly. It took 8 years for Bush to run the economy into the ground then the Dems get 2 years to try and fix it?

Also, extending tax cuts is a fucking terrible idea. I don't understand how people can look at our budget and massive deficit and say yeah, let's cut taxes. We just keep digging ourselves into a hole.

My thoughts exactly. We want to lower the deficit by cutting the amount of money the gov't gets from taxes in the first place? Flawed logic.

Although, the Republicans are claiming to do it to create more jobs.

[Simulcast]

Economically the choice between democrat and republican doesn't seem to be much different. We need an acttual "left" in this country.

...like in Greece?

[serenab1221]

Finally, thank you. Give it time. Too bad every person in this country is way too impatient for that.

Also, no.

All people care about is instant gratification. It's just unrealistic. No major problem that develops over a long period of time can be solved just like that.

[serenab1221]

Yup. Never mind the fact the hiring is almost solely dictated by supply/demand-type mechanics, let's just pretend that if we hand rich people more money they'll open up a new business instead of buying a new house or throwing it into some bullshit fund...
:rolleyes:

Also, don't a lot of the corporations, etc. not even pay their taxes in the first place? I can't see how taxes are related to employment numbers. I agree with you that it's almost all supply/demand.

[serenab1221]

im moderate on politics but Im not stupid enough to try to do the same things over and over again, year after year, expecting a different result. thats insanity.

I think Obama did a great job considering he held office for two years in the middle of America's biggest economic crisis since the great depression. FDR's 100 days were merely structures set in place by the government that had to be built upon over time. Obama's policies are no different. If you want to complain that his plan isn't effective, you have to give it more time for the true powers of these policies to take effect. It baffles me how quickly republicans want to ditch this plan yet they stuck out the Operation Iraqi Freedom plan for ten years.

gotta do whats best for the country at this time and that is stimulating the economy with government aid, its been proven to work in the past.

Solid point right there. Didn't even think of that.

Also, Repubs are in a tizzy ever since the Federal Reserve announced another $600 billion stimulus. Just a useless piece of info you probably already knew.

:-)

[jawstheme]

...like in Greece?

Yes, because Greece is the only outcome of a strong left. Ok, Mr. Beck.

[Simulcast]

Yes, because Greece is the only outcome of a strong left. Ok, Mr. Beck.

That might the worst insult I've ever received on this site. I never said that it was the only outcome. It's an outcome we can point to, though. Same with France, and England.

Edit: A positive view of a strong Left can be found in Norway.

[xcloud66x]

The republicans don't even have a fixed agenda.

[jawstheme]

That might the worst insult I've ever received on this site. I never said that it was the only outcome. It's an outcome we can point to, though. Same with France, and England.

Haha, sorry. That was a little strong. You could always point to Denmark or Sweden also though too.

Edit: Even those countries are pretty financially driven. I can't think of a place where socialism was fullly given a chance, but social nets that support individuals instead of corporations, I believe, is a good idea.

[captivewear]

That might the worst insult I've ever received on this site. I never said that it was the only outcome. It's an outcome we can point to, though. Same with France, and England.
Okay I can play this game too!
You want a "right" run country like Chile? Iran? etc.
Gotta hate those liberal countries that are all in the top 5 for happiness in the world...

[paper halo]

That might the worst insult I've ever received on this site. I never said that it was the only outcome. It's an outcome we can point to, though. Same with France, and England.

Edit: A positive view of a strong Left can be found in Norway.

England does not have a strong left.

[Simulcast]

Haha, sorry. That was a little strong. You could always point to Denmark or Sweden also though too.

Edit: Even those countries are pretty financially driven. I can't think of a place where socialism was fullly given a chance, but social nets that support individuals instead of corporations, I believe, is a good idea.


I was just going to point out that Sweden has gradually been moving away from socialism. I agree the safety nets should exist in some capacity, but if the nation's prosperity falters as a result of these practices (as seen in France) then everyone suffers.

[Simulcast]

England does not have a strong left.

The last administration was fairly left-leaning.

[Simulcast]

Okay I can play this game too!
You want a "right" run country like Chile? Iran? etc.
Gotta hate those liberal countries that are all in the top 5 for happiness in the world...

I was not aware that Iran specialized in a free market economy, and Chile is not doing that poorly.

Oh, I get it. You think I want the country to be run by fascists. That's cute.

[paper halo]

The last administration was fairly left-leaning.

Labour has not leaned to the left since the early nineties, Blair actively took the party to the right, in order to appeal to so-called "middle England". While they are still a democratic socialist party by name, the majority of their policies do not reflect this in the slightest.

[Scrandon]

Don't agree at all. The problem in that we're not promoting a healthy environment for "private" businesses to grow. Higher taxes, health care premiums, restrictions and regulations have held businesses to the gun. Obama felt that an influx of temporary "public" sector jobs would save the economy. I don't know where this whole theory that it took 8 years for Bush to run the economy into the ground came from. Sure two wars and government corruption has added to the deficit but it's not the reason why we find ourselves in this position. In the mid 90's there was an initiative to increase home ownership in the country, well you know the rest, it only took 15 years to collapse. For the past 40 years our country has lost focus on vocational education which I also believe has doomed our generation, lets be honest that college isn't right for everyone. The democrats have had control of congress since 2006 so in reality they've had 4 years to "fix the problem." Democrats aren't willing to do the hard things to save our country such as reform social security, raise the retirement age, cut unneeded public sector jobs, and get out of bed with the labor unions that have hindered private sector growth. I could go on for hours.
The recession started in Sept. 2008. Nobody has had four years to fix this mess, chief.
Oh yeah, and what we're seeing now is not George Bush's republican party, it's transformed itself back to a Reagan republican party which i firmly believe will save the country.Reagan was fiscally conservative? Gave me a chuckle there buddy.

[captivewear]

I was not aware that Iran specialized in a free market economy, and Chile is not doing that poorly.

Oh, I get it. You think I want the country to be run by fascists. That's cute.
Chile is doing good? Are you freaking kidding me. They have a 35% unemployment rate. And a majority of the people employed working in the mines are getting paid crap because of American owners that came in when the unemployment rate was less then 10% 20 years ago.

[Scrandon]

Exactly, [Insert name of any Republican President since Hoover here] was a social conservative Republican he never really practiced small government principles that most Republicans support. He expanded medicare benefits, got the federal government more involved in the public school system, and got us into two wars while simultaneously cutting taxes. It really makes no sense to up government spending while cutting the revenue
Fixed.

[Simulcast]

Chile is doing good? Are you freaking kidding me. They have a 35% unemployment rate. And a majority of the people employed working in the mines are getting paid crap because of American owners that came in when the unemployment rate was less then 10% 20 years ago.

Not according to this. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Chile)

GDP $164.615 billion (2009)[1]
GDP growth -1.5% (2009), 1.0% (Q1 2010),[1] 6.5% (Q2 2010)[2]
GDP per capita $9,672 (2009)[1]
GDP by sector agriculture & mining: 22.5%, industry: 25.2%, services: 52.3% (2008)[3]
Inflation (CPI) 1.5% (2009, 12-month average), -1.4% (2009, dec./dec.)[4]
Population
below poverty line 15.1% (2009)[5]
Gini index 54 (2006)[6]
Labour force 7.30 million (2009)[7]
Labour force
by occupation agriculture & mining: 12.6%, industry: 21.8%, services: 65.6% (2009)[8]
Unemployment 9.7% (2009)[7]
Main industries copper, other minerals, foodstuffs, fish processing, iron and steel, wood and wood products, transport equipment, cement, textiles
Ease of Doing Business Rank 43rd[9]

[Scrandon]

Economically the choice between democrat and republican doesn't seem to be much different. We need an acttual "left" in this country.
Well, the way I see it, the amount of spending is largely the same, but the way they spend it is much different - and that's important.

[J.C.]

Don't agree at all. The problem in that we're not promoting a healthy environment for "private" businesses to grow. Higher taxes, health care premiums, restrictions and regulations have held businesses to the gun.

Right, because private businesses were booming in the years prior to 2009 when none of those things were factors.

Democrats aren't willing to do the hard things to save our country such as reform social security, raise the retirement age, cut unneeded public sector jobs...

I remember when the Republicans did all those things.

Oh yeah, and what we're seeing now is not George Bush's republican party, it's transformed itself back to a Reagan republican party which i firmly believe will save the country.

Is that the same Ronald Reagan who raised taxes over half a dozen times and ballooned federal spending by way of a bloated defense budget? The same Ronald Reagan who sold arms to the Iranians and championed a domestic war on the poor?

Long live the myth that was Ronald Reagan's Presidency.

[drevans18]

All people care about is instant gratification. It's just unrealistic. No major problem that develops over a long period of time can be solved just like that.

It's completely unrealistic. So many people hate Obama because they expected his promise of "change" to be instantaneous. I say they're retarded.

[apoemtothedead]

Here's how you fix the economy: Time.

[<*)))><]

Depends how you define "better"

[majinsharingan]

Don't you all know all it takes is for a white republican to step into the White House and everything is immediately fixed? Democrats, they're so weak. Unable to fix the economy of a nation overnight, how silly. The only thing that is going to help the economy is time. It isn't fixed overnight.

[jawstheme]

Here's how you fix the economy: Time.

Genius.

[Junction183]

You scare me. Are you rich or have a rich daddy? Cause you sure sound like you are in the back pockets of big corporate money there bud. That is NOT reality! How can the raising of the retirement age for social security be good? Secondly social security is paid for for the next 20 years so thats not even an issue right now. Get out of the bed with labor unions? REALLY? REALLY? That just screams you are all about money money money. Unions are a good thing. Sure they get out of control but at least they are doing it for the middle class who RN this countries economy. I don't want an Elitist country like you do. I don't want to see this country turn into a country with no middle class because that is what the rich want. Get rid of the minimum wage and hire people for $4 an hour and work them 50 hours a week and the rich get richer and EVERYONE else gets poorer.
You want to sit here and tell me Reaganomics work? That the "trickle down effect" works? Cause it doesn't. Not even close to working. Basically Reagon started lower wages, more corporate tax loop holes, big business going overseas to hide their money so they pay less or zero taxes on those billions and made the American people think that corporate America is out for them when we know in reality they are only out for one thing. Lowering their bottom line and raising profits at ANY expense.
There is a misconception that all Republicans HATE taxes. I personally have no problem paying taxes, higher taxes if I have to, as long as I feel there being appropriately used. I have a major problem with the welfare system as is and feel that it can be improved to better our country financially and socially. The trickle down theory work like this, taxs breaks and benefits to companies promote growth and ability to hire, promote, offer wage increases, bonuses, etc. What our tax dollars should be used for is making sure that CEO's are distributing profits fairly and equally, and prosecute those who don't. In my opinion people are generally good, and those who have the means will donate to charity and promote causes they believe in. I am not a rich kid, I've worked full time delivering pizzas while paying to attend a state college. We can debate all we want but liberals and conservatives must be able to find common ground here within the next ten years or our country is in real trouble.

[SomethingClever]

"True, Reagan ran for office as a conservative. “Government is not the solution. Government is the problem,” he insisted.
But once in office, he usually governed as a moderate, a pragmatist. And he was easily reelected.
Today, Reagan would be branded “just another liberal politician” by the likes of Meg Whitman and Steve Poizner.
Remember?
As governor, Reagan was the biggest California spender of the last half century. Under him, state spending leaped 177%. And as president, he spent like the proverbial drunken sailor to expand the Navy and the nuclear missile arsenal while winning the Cold War. He left Washington with a then-record national debt.
His first year as governor, Reagan raised taxes equal to 30% of the state general fund, still a modern record. And as president, he increased taxes several times, although conservatives pretend to remember only the one big tax cut.
As governor, Reagan protected the spectacular John Muir Trail in the Sierra from highway builders and Central Valley business interests. He blocked dam building on the Eel and Feather rivers. He and Republican Gov. Paul Laxalt of Nevada set aside their aversion to centralized, intrusive government and created a bi-state agency to control growth at Lake Tahoe.
Reagan signed legislation creating the California Air Resources Board, leading to the nation’s first tailpipe emissions standards.
Now Republicans Whitman and Poizner advocate postponing implementation of a law to control greenhouse gas emissions.
Today, Reagan would be tagged by his party as an environmental extremist.
The list goes on.
As governor, Reagan signed the nation’s then most liberal abortion rights bill. (He later called it a mistake.) He opposed a ballot initiative that would have permitted the firing of teachers for being gay.
President Reagan signed a bill granting amnesty to illegal immigrants."

[vincentgrippi]

Don't agree at all. The problem in that we're not promoting a healthy environment for "private" businesses to grow. Higher taxes, health care premiums, restrictions and regulations have held businesses to the gun. Obama felt that an influx of temporary "public" sector jobs would save the economy. I don't know where this whole theory that it took 8 years for Bush to run the economy into the ground came from. Sure two wars and government corruption has added to the deficit but it's not the reason why we find ourselves in this position. In the mid 90's there was an initiative to increase home ownership in the country, well you know the rest, it only took 15 years to collapse. For the past 40 years our country has lost focus on vocational education which I also believe has doomed our generation, lets be honest that college isn't right for everyone. The democrats have had control of congress since 2006 so in reality they've had 4 years to "fix the problem." Democrats aren't willing to do the hard things to save our country such as reform social security, raise the retirement age, cut unneeded public sector jobs, and get out of bed with the labor unions that have hindered private sector growth. I could go on for hours.

Oh yeah, and what we're seeing now is not George Bush's republican party, it's transformed itself back to a Reagan republican party which i firmly believe will save the country.

Good man.

[Junction183]

Don't you all know all it takes is for a white republican to step into the White House and everything is immediately fixed? Democrats, they're so weak. Unable to fix the economy of a nation overnight, how silly. The only thing that is going to help the economy is time. It isn't fixed overnight.
This has nothing to do with race and as a republican I really resent that people throw that out there regularly. Obama and the Democrats in congress didn't suffer this defeat because of their inability to fix the economy overnight. They were rejected because of a poor Health Care Bill that was passed before drawn out based on a short time frame for the Democratic majority to do so. They were rejected because of there stance on illegal immigration. They were rejected because they passed a 2 trillion dollar stimulus bill that was supposed to stabilize the economy and jobs, while unemployment raised and taxpayers began to hear about the waste. They were rejected because republicans offered common sense alternative. Obama ran a campaign on ending corruption in Washington yet it takes the grassroots Tea Party endorsed candidates to go to Washington and offer an elimination of earmarks.

[saysmydoctor]

It worked for Indiana.
10.1% unemployment. Yeah.....
...like in Greece?
If you're just going to cherrypick, I mean, seriously.
The last administration was fairly left-leaning.
Yes, Labour is very much a left-leaning party. :rolleyes:

[ellie117]

There is a misconception that all Republicans HATE taxes. I personally have no problem paying taxes, higher taxes if I have to, as long as I feel there being appropriately used. I have a major problem with the welfare system as is and feel that it can be improved to better our country financially and socially. The trickle down theory work like this, taxs breaks and benefits to companies promote growth and ability to hire, promote, offer wage increases, bonuses, etc. What our tax dollars should be used for is making sure that CEO's are distributing profits fairly and equally, and prosecute those who don't. In my opinion people are generally good, and those who have the means will donate to charity and promote causes they believe in. I am not a rich kid, I've worked full time delivering pizzas while paying to attend a state college. We can debate all we want but liberals and conservatives must be able to find common ground here within the next ten years or our country is in real trouble.

Aw, how cute. And the world is forever filled with rainbows and butterflies and prancing unicorns. "Should" is the key word here. Never has that and never will that be the norm. Nice try though.


I enjoyed reading this thread. I'm with those who said the voters are "stupid" for kicking the Dems out after a few short years. Seriously. Stupid, ignorant, impatient, retarded - makes me face-palm every time I think about it. D'oh. I think Obama's got his head on straight and if given the proper amount of, as others have said, time (and maybe some wiggle-room from the damn Reps who won't give anything Obama proposes a chance just 'cause he's a lefty) his policies will [and already have] succeed.

[Scrandon]

This has nothing to do with race and as a republican I really resent that people throw that out there regularly. Obama and the Democrats in congress didn't suffer this defeat because of their inability to fix the economy overnight. They were rejected because of a poor Health Care Bill that was passed before drawn out based on a short time frame for the Democratic majority to do so. They were rejected because of there stance on illegal immigration. They were rejected because they passed a 2 trillion dollar stimulus bill that was supposed to stabilize the economy and jobs, while unemployment raised and taxpayers began to hear about the waste. They were rejected because republicans offered common sense alternative. Obama ran a campaign on ending corruption in Washington yet it takes the grassroots Tea Party endorsed candidates to go to Washington and offer an elimination of earmarks.
Yea, most of this is straight garbage. The stimulus was $787 billion, but I guess you could just make up a number to your fancy.

[Junction183]

I enjoyed reading this thread. I'm with those who said the voters are "stupid" for kicking the Dems out after a few short years. Seriously. Stupid, ignorant, impatient, retarded - makes me face-palm every time I think about it. D'oh. I think Obama's got his head on straight and if given the proper amount of, as others have said, time (and maybe some wiggle-room from the damn Reps who won't give anything Obama proposes a chance just 'cause he's a lefty) his policies will [and already have] succeed.
read my last post any you might get the frustration. the majority of Americans as proved on Tuesday disagree with the democrats based on the Health Care Bill, Stance on Illegal Immigration, and inability to make Washington more accountable and transparent like Obama promised during his campaign. Americans aren't stupid, we know how bad things are and what it's going to take to fix it. Unfortunately I don't think anything will get done in the next two years to improve the situation based on politics and that's sad. Democracy works beautifully in this country because it allows people to organize and make an impact in deciding their leaders as show by the success of Tea Party endorsed candidates last Tuesday.

[Junction183]

Yea, most of this is straight garbage. The stimulus was $787 billion, but I guess you could just make up a number to your fancy.
so you think that my claim that most americans disagree with Obama's policies is garbage? Where were you on Tuesday?

[jawstheme]

so you think that my claim that most americans disagree with Obama's policies is garbage? Where were you on Tuesday?

I don't think most americans even have an understanding of Obama's policies.

[ellie117]

read my last post any you might get the frustration. the majority of Americans as proved on Tuesday disagree with the democrats based on the Health Care Bill, Stance on Illegal Immigration, and inability to make Washington more accountable and transparent like Obama promised during his campaign. Americans aren't stupid, we know how bad things are and what it's going to take to fix it. Unfortunately I don't think anything will get done in the next two years to improve the situation based on politics and that's sad. Democracy works beautifully in this country because it allows people to organize and make an impact in deciding their leaders as show by the success of Tea Party endorsed candidates last Tuesday.

I respect what you've said in this whole thread (apart from CEO's being do-gooders) so I don't want you to take it as I think you're wrong, I just respectfully disagree. I see Tuesday's results as proof that Americans want everything immediately, and since Obama has been in office for 2 years and everything isn't 100% okay, they are dissatisfied and therefore gave up on who they voted for in the first place after a relatively short period of time. 10-20 years from now, Obama will be looked back on as a good choice, whether he gets reelected or not. Sure the Health Care Bill isn't perfect, but it's a step in the right direction. And with the amount of varying problems this country is facing right now, little steps is all you can logically count on. So people expecting everything to be radically changed 2 years in is illogical, thus, stupid.

[MelissaMDaniels]

so many of the Republicans who just won boast initiatives about cutting costs for small businesses so they can create jobs, that whole nine yards -- and maybe it could help, I believe that it could if done the right way, but fixing the economy is only going to happen when there's some new industry or development introduced on a long-term basis.

They didn't get out of the Great Depression by putting band-aids on what already existed, and these days since defense spending is so insane a war won't help shit economically (or otherwise, if you ask me). Green technology advancements ASAP please!!

[Scrandon]

so you think that my claim that most americans disagree with Obama's policies is garbage? Where were you on Tuesday?
If Americans perceived the Health Care Bill to be rushed / overreaching / ineffective / whatever, it doesn't mean it's true.
If Americans believe the Republicans when they baselessly say the stimulus failed, it doesn't mean it's true.

[Junction183]

I don't think most americans even have an understanding of Obama's policies.
I don't think many americans care, which is disappointing.

[J.C.]

Obama and the Democrats in congress didn't suffer this defeat because of their inability to fix the economy overnight.

No, that's exactly it. Just like if the economy gets turned around by 2012, Obama and the Democrats will win on that basis. Americans react to what the results are, not the process.

They were rejected because of a poor Health Care Bill that was passed before drawn out based on a short time frame for the Democratic majority to do so.

That's what you do when the public elects you to control the Presidency and both houses; you enact what it is you ran on. Most of the dissent to the bill was carved out well before it even got voted on. You had Republicans going around the country and telling people that Obama wanted government death panels to decide when it was ok to pull the plug on granny. They lost the PR war on that early and it wasn't going to be reversible in the short-term. Like most of the social reforms this country has passed which were initially viewed unfavorably, the bill will become more popular over time once people start seeing its effects. You can champion common sense all you'd like, but a number of things addressed in the bill were common sense measures.

They were rejected because of there stance on illegal immigration.

Probably the stupidest thing you've said so far in this thread. Illegal immigration was not an issue contested nationally. In places where it was relevant to the debate(Nevada, Colorado), you had just as many toss-up races that went in favor of Democrats. Angle and Tancredo losing come to mind immediately, and they made it as much of an issue as any candidate running a statewide race.

They were rejected because they passed a 2 trillion dollar stimulus bill that was supposed to stabilize the economy and jobs, while unemployment raised and taxpayers began to hear about the waste.

It did stabilize the economy given where it would've gone otherwise. Government can't control the unemployment rate, it can only incentivize the environment. The problem is that a bad unemployment rate begets a bad unemployment rate, making time the best remedy. As long as things appear bad, businesses aren't going to want to do more than they're doing now. The converse to that is that government shouldn't have to bend over backwards and submit to every wish of business. That kind of thinking is what helped initiate the mess in the first place, through deregulation and a flawed corporate tax structure(which was easily manipulated/circumvented anyway).

They were rejected because republicans offered common sense alternative.

The Republicans ran on no actual specifics and campaigned with the same platitudes they do every election cycle.

Obama ran a campaign on ending corruption in Washington yet it takes the grassroots Tea Party endorsed candidates to go to Washington and offer an elimination of earmarks.

A. Grassroots my flat ass.

B. Earmarks are not the root of our economic morass.

[sammyboy516]

well of course on this site everyones gonna say no.

[tkamB]

read my last post any you might get the frustration. the majority of Americans as proved on Tuesday disagree with the democrats based on the Health Care Bill, Stance on Illegal Immigration, and inability to make Washington more accountable and transparent like Obama promised during his campaign. Americans aren't stupid, we know how bad things are and what it's going to take to fix it. Unfortunately I don't think anything will get done in the next two years to improve the situation based on politics and that's sad. Democracy works beautifully in this country because it allows people to organize and make an impact in deciding their leaders as show by the success of Tea Party endorsed candidates last Tuesday.

Made my day.

[Junction183]

Probably the stupidest thing you've said so far in this thread. Illegal immigration was not an issue contested nationally. In places where it was relevant to the debate(Nevada, Colorado), you had just as many toss-up races that went in favor of Democrats. Angle and Tancredo losing come to mind immediately, and they made it as much of an issue as any candidate running a statewide race.
I live in Massachusetts and Illegal Immigration is an issue based on our universal healthcare system, so demographics may not have much to do with the issue. Jan Brewer won her re-election in Arizona decidedly and she is the political face of this debate. I put myself out there so I'm not concerned with you carving up my talking points to show the other side. Attacking me on claims of stupidity is just an example of arrogance and does not effectively help your argument.

[J.C.]

I live in Massachusetts and Illegal Immigration is an issue based on our universal healthcare system, so demographics may not have much to do with the issue.

AND DEMOCRATS WON IN MASSACHUSETTS

Jan Brewer won her re-election in Arizona decidedly and she is the political face of this debate.

In a blood red state where playing to the most extreme position on illegal immigration is politically favorable.

I put myself out there so I'm not concerned with you carving up my talking points to show the other side. Attacking me on claims of stupidity is just an example of arrogance and does not effectively help your argument.

In fairness to me, you've said some stupid things. You pretty much ignored my first response after you claimed the Republican party was going back to the days of Reagan. You also ignored the other 4/5ths of my last post, so I'm not sure how concerned you are with an actual debate.

[saysmydoctor]

Grassroots and astroturfing are different, mmkay.

[trindaddy]

well of course on this site everyones gonna say no.
Well of course somebody would say this without actually reading the thread. While most people on here are liberal, there is a fair number of conservative posters, as noted by the previous pages in the thread. Try making your two cents worthwhile instead of stating generalizations.

I don't think republicans in the house is necessarily a bad thing. It's not going to do anything to help totally stabilize the the country's economy over the next two years, but it should at least force accountability for both parties. They'll have to meet in the middle to get things done, and everybody will be unhappy with the results they make. That's in good spirit of compromising, and probably what we need most at the time. The conservative way has been tried, as has the liberal. At the very least, more "minor" things can be done such as education reform.

[Scrandon]

well of course on this site everyones gonna say no.
Well of course you're not going to read the thread.

[Scrandon]

I put myself out there so I'm not concerned with you carving up my talking points to show the other side.
Weirdest concession ever.

[jawstheme]

Meeting in the middle is not what this country needs, in my opinion.

[sammyboy516]

Well of course somebody would say this without actually reading the thread. While most people on here are liberal, there is a fair number of conservative posters, as noted by the previous pages in the thread. Try making your two cents worthwhile instead of stating generalizations.

I don't think republicans in the house is necessarily a bad thing. It's not going to do anything to help totally stabilize the the country's economy over the next two years, but it should at least force accountability for both parties. They'll have to meet in the middle to get things done, and everybody will be unhappy with the results they make. That's in good spirit of compromising, and probably what we need most at the time. The conservative way has been tried, as has the liberal. At the very least, more "minor" things can be done such as education reform.

Haha relax man. I was just make a generalization...it was supposed to be exaggerated. I know there's plenty of conservative posters, I'm one of them and I've talked to them.

[sammyboy516]

Well of course you're not going to read the thread.

I said it to the other guy, but I was being sarcastic...relax.

[caveBEAR]

There is a misconception that all Republicans HATE taxes. I personally have no problem paying taxes, higher taxes if I have to, as long as I feel there being appropriately used. I have a major problem with the welfare system as is and feel that it can be improved to better our country financially and socially. The trickle down theory work like this, taxs breaks and benefits to companies promote growth and ability to hire, promote, offer wage increases, bonuses, etc. What our tax dollars should be used for is making sure that CEO's are distributing profits fairly and equally, and prosecute those who don't. In my opinion people are generally good, and those who have the means will donate to charity and promote causes they believe in. I am not a rich kid, I've worked full time delivering pizzas while paying to attend a state college. We can debate all we want but liberals and conservatives must be able to find common ground here within the next ten years or our country is in real trouble.

This has nothing to do with race and as a republican I really resent that people throw that out there regularly. Obama and the Democrats in congress didn't suffer this defeat because of their inability to fix the economy overnight. They were rejected because of a poor Health Care Bill that was passed before drawn out based on a short time frame for the Democratic majority to do so. They were rejected because of there stance on illegal immigration. They were rejected because they passed a 2 trillion dollar stimulus bill that was supposed to stabilize the economy and jobs, while unemployment raised and taxpayers began to hear about the waste. They were rejected because republicans offered common sense alternative. Obama ran a campaign on ending corruption in Washington yet it takes the grassroots Tea Party endorsed candidates to go to Washington and offer an elimination of earmarks.

read my last post any you might get the frustration. the majority of Americans as proved on Tuesday disagree with the democrats based on the Health Care Bill, Stance on Illegal Immigration, and inability to make Washington more accountable and transparent like Obama promised during his campaign. Americans aren't stupid, we know how bad things are and what it's going to take to fix it. Unfortunately I don't think anything will get done in the next two years to improve the situation based on politics and that's sad. Democracy works beautifully in this country because it allows people to organize and make an impact in deciding their leaders as show by the success of Tea Party endorsed candidates last Tuesday.

:lolatpost:

Oh man, I needed that tonight.

[newfoundmichael]

"I think that the Republicans and the Democrats are actually good friends who just take turns making us sad" - Kyle Cease

[GuitarR0cker1]

Their plan is not a plan. What they're proposing is called doing nothing.

[GuitarR0cker1]

England does not have a strong left.
Ed Miliband > Tony Blair or Gordon Brown

Labour looks like it's moving slightly further to the left.

[Theseventhson]

No.

Thread should've ended here.

[PTVsnewO]

It's too bad the Republican Party will be torn apart in the years to come. The Tea Party Movement is gaining momentum quickly. You'd better get your act together if you plan on having any hope in the 2012 election.

[samsara]

My thoughts exactly. We want to lower the deficit by cutting the amount of money the gov't gets from taxes in the first place? Flawed logic.

Although, the Republicans are claiming to do it to create more jobs.

I would try to comprehend what you are saying but you couldnt spell out government. So I stopped trying.

[Scrandon]

It's too bad the Republican Party will be torn apart in the years to come. The Tea Party Movement is gaining momentum quickly. You'd better get your act together if you plan on having any hope in the 2012 election.
Sounds very prophetic.

[J.C.]

The Tea Party Movement is gaining momentum quickly.

As evidenced by the number of losses they took on Tuesday night in statewide races that would have traditionally been cakewalks. Not only is the Tea Party not gaining momentum, it's directly responsible for the Republicans not capturing control of the Senate. The seats in Delaware, Nevada, and Colorado flip with sane Republican challengers.

[jawstheme]

I would try to comprehend what you are saying but you couldnt spell out government. So I stopped trying.


I was going to call you out on your lack of commas, but that is the first time I've ever seen government abbreviated, so, you are completely on base.

[paper halo]

Ed Miliband > Tony Blair or Gordon Brown

Labour looks like it's moving slightly further to the left.

I think it's a likely move in order to distance themselves from the Blair/Brown years, and provide an obvious alternative to the Tory government.

[Broken Parachute]

It's too bad the Republican Party will be torn apart in the years to come. The Tea Party Movement is gaining momentum quickly. You'd better get your act together if you plan on having any hope in the 2012 election.There is no momentum for a movement that claims to be aligned with Republicans and yet is directly responsible for losing them a chance at the Senate. I am a registered Republican and though I don't technically always buy the Conservative mantra, frankly the Tea Party made me kind of want to switch parties altogether and reshape my views.

[serenab1221]

I would try to comprehend what you are saying but you couldnt spell out government. So I stopped trying.

Well sorry my typing is too lazy for you? :shrug:

Either way, you know what I meant, despite the fact that I didn't type it out all the way.

[serenab1221]

I was going to call you out on your lack of commas, but that is the first time I've ever seen government abbreviated, so, you are completely on base.

Haha well posting on these forums a lot in the past week or so has made my typing lazy. You've never used that abbreviation taking notes in a history class or something? It's very convenient.

I figured it was pretty understandable. Don't know what the big deal is.

[serenab1221]

As evidenced by the number of losses they took on Tuesday night in statewide races that would have traditionally been cakewalks. Not only is the Tea Party not gaining momentum, it's directly responsible for the Republicans not capturing control of the Senate. The seats in Delaware, Nevada, and Colorado flip with sane Republican challengers.

Very true. If Christine O'Donnell hadn't ousted Mike Castle in the Republican primaries here in DE, Coons would have never had a chance. Castle would have blown him out of the water.

[GeeBee]

Don't agree at all. The problem in that we're not promoting a healthy environment for "private" businesses to grow.
We promoted a healthy, free-range for business to grow. We deregulated for two decades. And they fucked us. They lose. Two years of a little more scrutiny and they're bitching? Gimme a break.
Higher taxes, health care premiums, restrictions and regulations have held businesses to the gun. They've had lower taxes and LESS regulation since 2001. Let's see...how did that work out?
Obama felt that an influx of temporary "public" sector jobs would save the economy. If by "save", you mean "stabilize", then yes, he did, and yes, it did.
I don't know where this whole theory that it took 8 years for Bush to run the economy into the ground came from. From the 8 years of lousy job creation, lower taxes, huge spending on two wars and medicare that was unpaid for. That's where that whole "theory" came from. Are your really this dense?
Sure two wars and government corruption has added to the deficit but it's not the reason why we find ourselves in this position. Yeah, it's not THE reason, but it's a HUGE reason. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/03/AR2010090302200.html
The democrats have had control of congress since 2006 so in reality they've had 4 years to "fix the problem." Let's keep pretending like "control of congress"= "rubber stamp for any agenda".
Democrats aren't willing to do the hard things to save our country such as reform social security, raise the retirement age, cut unneeded public sector jobs, and get out of bed with the labor unions that have hindered private sector growth. I could go on for hours. :rolleyes: Are you just copying and pasting soundbytes from John Boehner's latest stump speeches, or what?

Oh yeah, and what we're seeing now is not George Bush's republican party, it's transformed itself back to a Reagan republican party which i firmly believe will save the country. In that case, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you...
There is a misconception that all Republicans HATE taxes.
Please post some evidence that proves that it's a "misconception".
I personally have no problem paying taxes, higher taxes if I have to, as long as I feel there being appropriately used. Well, aren't you just a patriot. Most people feel this way, buddy.
The trickle down theory work like this No, it doesn't. I'll take Alan Greenspan's admission that it doesn't work over your specious claims that it does.
taxs breaks and benefits to companies promote growth 2001-2008 pretty much fly in the face of this statement.
and ability to hire, promote, offer wage increases, bonuses, etc. The Bush tax cuts are STILL in effect...no hiring going on, but huge bonuses being doled out. So you tell me...how's that working?
What our tax dollars should be used for is making sure that CEO's are distributing profits fairly and equally, and prosecute those who don't. Wait...what? Tax dollars should go to policing CEOs' distribution of profits? You call yourself a Republican? I don't think you know what you're talking about.
In my opinion people are generally good Your first mistake.
and those who have the means will donate to charity and promote causes they believe in Ah yes. The whole "dismantle government and make it all "private charity" argument. Gimme a break.
I am not a rich kid, I've worked full time delivering pizzas while paying to attend a state college. We can debate all we want but liberals and conservatives must be able to find common ground here within the next ten years or our country is in real trouble. It's hard to find common ground if sound science, sound tax policy, and consistent social policy are nowhere to be found on one side.
This has nothing to do with race and as a republican I really resent that people throw that out there regularly.
Pretending like race has NOTHING AT ALL to do with the right's schizophrenia is disingenuous.
They were rejected because of a poor Health Care Bill that was passed before drawn out based on a short time frame for the Democratic majority to do so. They were rejected because of there stance on illegal immigration. No.
They were rejected because they passed a 2 trillion dollar stimulus bill that was supposed to stabilize the economy and jobs The one initiated by Bush before he left office, which ultimately DID stabilize the economy and save jobs? Right.
They were rejected because republicans offered common sense alternative. Bitching about the deficit while wanting to cut taxes for the rich that will add 700 Billion to it? Roughly the same size of the stimulus they also bitch about? Calling any Republican alternative "common sense" is malarkey. Again...are you seriously this dense?
Obama ran a campaign on ending corruption in Washington yet it takes the grassroots Tea Party Grass roots? Engineered by billionaires and NewsCorp? http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer
endorsed candidates to go to Washington and offer an elimination of earmarks. You mean the earmarks ban that Boehner won't endorse? http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201011050002
read my last post any you might get the frustration. the majority of Americans as proved on Tuesday disagree with the democrats based on the Health Care Bill, Stance on Illegal Immigration, and inability to make Washington more accountable and transparent like Obama promised during his campaign.
And the majority of Americans in 2008 roundly provided Obama an opening to set his agenda in motion. Please let's not pretend like "Americans" is a monolith.
Americans aren't stupid Yes they fucking are. Have you ever read statistics on what Americans believe? And stop talking about Americans like it's a monolith. That's SUCH a right-wing rah-rah tactic, and it's transparent as hell.
we know how bad things are and what it's going to take to fix it. No, "we" don't.
Democracy works beautifully in this country No, it doesn't. The most outrageous moron vs. the most moneyed interest were largely your choices in the last election, and a schizophrenic, uninformed electorate pushed the button.
because it allows people to organize and make an impact in deciding their leaders as show by the success of Tea Party endorsed candidates last Tuesday. Sorry, the "Majority of Americans" oppose the Tea Party, since 2 out of 3 Tea Party candidates LOST.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/11/03/5403120-just-32-of-tea-party-candidates-win

You really ought to do more reading and less listening to talking heads if you want to have a half-way coherent stance on these issues, rather than parroting talking points and farting into your keyboard.

I find it odd that some of the same assholes who railed on Democrats for thinking Obama was the "messiah" have to be reminded that the Tea Party isn't the "savior", either.

[GeeBee]

Also...

More candidates lost that voted AGAINST health-care than those who voted FOR it...

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll165.xml

[The Personist]

John Boehner gave a speech and pronounced "hyperbole" as "hyperbowl." That is all I need to know about the Republicans.

[GeeBee]

John Boehner gave a speech and pronounced "hyperbole" as "hyperbowl." That is all I need to know about the Republicans.
You elitist, Nor-Eastern intellectual, always snubbing your nose at the simple folk of the heartland - REAL Amuricins.

[The Personist]

You elitist, Nor-Eastern intellectual, always snubbing your nose at the simple folk of the heartland - REAL Amuricins.

I feel like I gave up my "real American" card when I learned to read in kindergarten. It's been a slippery slope since then; now I have opinions and shit.

[GeeBee]

I feel like I gave up my "real American" card when I learned to read in kindergarten. It's been a slippery slope since then; now I have opinions and shit.
:lol:

[captivewear]

Also...

More candidates lost that voted AGAINST health-care than those who voted FOR it...

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll165.xml

Thank you for answer all of that guys "facts" so I didn't have to cause you answered them almost word by word what I would have and it saved me a lot of typing and time! So thanks again haha. Living in Orange County its hard cause I deal with those people everyday that just blame Obama for everything when hes one ob the best presidents we have ever had.

[The Personist]

Thank you for answer all of that guys "facts" so I didn't have to cause you answered them almost word by word what I would have and it saved me a lot of typing and time! So thanks again haha. Living in Orange County its hard cause I deal with those people everyday that just blame Obama for everything when hes one ob the best presidents we have ever had.

I wouldn't say that at all. But he's a damn sight better than any alternatives we may be presented with.

[GeeBee]

Thank you for answer all of that guys "facts" so I didn't have to cause you answered them almost word by word what I would have and it saved me a lot of typing and time! So thanks again haha. Living in Orange County its hard cause I deal with those people everyday that just blame Obama for everything when hes one ob the best presidents we have ever had.
You had me until the last line. Obama's greatest downfall was allowing his opposition to control the narrative, which liberals are wont to do. Screaming irrationality will always carry more attention than reasoned, calm approaches.

[loveisdead]

You had me until the last line. Obama's greatest downfall was allowing his opposition to control the narrative, which liberals are wont to do. Screaming irrationality will always carry more attention than reasoned, calm approaches.
This.

[The Personist]

You had me until the last line. Obama's greatest downfall was allowing his opposition to control the narrative, which liberals are wont to do. Screaming irrationality will always carry more attention than reasoned, calm approaches.

This is exactly the reason why the crazy bible-thumping conservative Christians are the ones on TV. They're a minority, but they're insane and scream about it so everyone pays attention to it, while the intelligent ones, who are generally articulate, thoughtful, and, well, not batshit insane...they pretty much don't exist as far as most people are concerned when it comes to their perception of Christianity.

/vaguely off topic

[caveBEAR]

John Boehner gave a speech and pronounced "hyperbole" as "hyperbowl." That is all I need to know about the Republicans.

:lol: :lolatpost: :crackup:


Oh man, fuck us all...

[saysmydoctor]

You had me until the last line. Obama's greatest downfall was allowing his opposition to control the narrative, which liberals are wont to do. Screaming irrationality will always carry more attention than reasoned, calm approaches.
Yglesias (http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/11/the-misinformation-that-matters/):

But I think that progressives have tended to focus too much on “crazy person misinformation” (Obama is a secret Muslim, Obama spent nine trillion dollars on a trip to India, Obama is from Kenya) and not enough on “common sense misinformation” of the sort Bayh is expressing. The widespread nature of common sense misinformation about the nature of recessions—not just among low-information voters but even among political professionals and policy elites (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/06/bernanke-and-the-shibboleths/?src=twt&twt=NytimesKrugman)—has been a huge drag on macroeconomic performance and that in turn has dragged down the entire progressive agenda.

[x togepi x]

i really think bipartisanship kinda shot obama in the foot here.

[saysmydoctor]

Yup. So of course, he's going to go with...more bipartisanship.

If I were him, I'd pull out my veto pens.

[GeeBee]

If I were him, I'd pull out my veto pens.
The Penis Mightier.

[caveBEAR]

The Penis Mightier.

:lol:

Is that a band name or something? It should be.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

:lol:

Is that a band name or something? It should be.

It's a reference to the Celebrity Jeopardy sketches on SNL

[x togepi x]

Yup. So of course, he's going to go with...more bipartisanship.

If I were him, I'd pull out my veto pens.

yeah, i don't really have a problem with bipartisanship it's just that by saying "we're going to be bipartisan", you kill any narrative the voters have to look at, which only makes the Tea Party look stronger.

[caveBEAR]

It's a reference to the Celebrity Jeopardy sketches on SNL

Aaaaah, should have known, ha ha ha. Time to look up Celebrity Jeopardy sketches again!

[GuitarR0cker1]

Republicans are going to help get our economy back to work, guys! (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/08/us/politics/08govs.html?hp)

By getting rid of important welfare programs, regulatory bodies, and possibly phasing out important health care systems!

[loveisdead]

Republicans are going to help get our economy back to work, guys! (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/08/us/politics/08govs.html?hp)

By getting rid of important welfare programs, regulatory bodies, and possibly phasing out important health care systems!

From what I understand of health care, they're just going to try and defund it. Maybe I'm wrong I haven't read much.

[GuitarR0cker1]

From what I understand of health care, they're just going to try and defund it. Maybe I'm wrong I haven't read much.
I was talking about on the state level they're trying to get rid of lots of important state health care services. In Texas Republicans are trying to withdraw from Medicaid/SCHIP. These are real low fuckers, I wouldn't trust them with anything.

[ghostyouare]

I was talking about on the state level they're trying to get rid of lots of important state health care services. In Texas Republicans are trying to withdraw from Medicaid/SCHIP. These are real low fuckers, I wouldn't trust them with anything.
I think they were looking to withdraw from medicad to do something on a state wide level. I haven't heard shit about the plan but to just say they want to withdraw from medicaid and leave it at that is misleading.

[aolsux]

The republicans don't even have a fixed agenda.
This. I am not saying the Democrats ever had a fixed agenda but saying "hey, let's extend tax breaks that sunk our economy into the recession is not an agenda." I actually hope they fuck it up more, so in two years of a GOP House, voters can see the damage they've done once again.

[x togepi x]

The republicans totally have a fixed agenda. do whatever they can to help the wealthy.

[GuitarR0cker1]

I think they were looking to withdraw from medicad to do something on a state wide level. I haven't heard shit about the plan but to just say they want to withdraw from medicaid and leave it at that is misleading.
Not according to this (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/us/politics/07ttmedicaid.html?_r=2).

The Republicans picked up lots of seats in the Texas legislature, so they can do whatever they want. Teabaggers are actively pushing for it, mainstreamers are looking at it seriously.

[ghostyouare]

Not according to this (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/us/politics/07ttmedicaid.html?_r=2).

The Republicans picked up lots of seats in the Texas legislature, so they can do whatever they want. Teabaggers are actively pushing for it, mainstreamers are looking at it seriously.
Really because:

“I want to know whether our current Medicaid enrollees, and there certainly could be millions more by 2014, could be served more cost efficiently and see better outcomes in a state run program,” she said.

seems like they would into state specific options.

[TJ Wells]

Does anyone get the feeling we probably won't have a two-term president again for a long time? I feel like the majority of this country is too impatient for anyone to ever last that long again.

[Theseventhson]

I think Obama will get a second term.

[GuitarR0cker1]

Really because:

“I want to know whether our current Medicaid enrollees, and there certainly could be millions more by 2014, could be served more cost efficiently and see better outcomes in a state run program,” she said.

seems like they would into state specific options.
Cost efficiency=worse coverage, less coverage and little to no funding. If I can't see any specific proposals, of course that's what I'm going to assume. Warren Chisum, the man who made that statement, is notorious for being a wingnut. Read up on the guy's statements and don't take anything he says at face value. He's against teaching evolution in schools, he said this about most legislation:"The only thing the law ever does is, it either takes away your money or your freedom, so there's 100 times that we didn't take away your money or your freedom." He tried to increase the waiting time for finalizing divorces. He supporting dumping nuclear waste in his own state...

Why would they go out in the open and say "we're getting rid of all health insurance coverage for the poor because we believe in social darwinism!!" Naturally they're going to have some have assed explanation about how their state plan is better than Medicaid because it saves costs while gutting coverage for the weakest in society and there's a good chance they could get away with it.

[saysmydoctor]

I think Obama will get a second term.
Save something incredible, he'll be reelected.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Does anyone get the feeling we probably won't have a two-term president again for a long time? I feel like the majority of this country is too impatient for anyone to ever last that long again.

While the Republicans made major gains in congress, they still don't have a leader that has expressed interest in a 2012 nomination.

[The Personist]

Save something incredible, he'll be reelected.

Absolutely. There is not a single solid candidate that a majority of the Republican base can get behind. I wouldn't be surprised if the Tea Party put up a candidate outside the Repubs to function as a Ralph Nader type figure.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Speaking of GOP politicians, at least Jeb Bush won't be running (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/08/bush-says-brother-jeb-isnt-running-for-prez/).

[majinsharingan]

A republican agenda could probably fix the economy but it would certainly result in the further deterioration of other important areas, such as education.

[Lueda Alia]

What agenda...?

[loveisdead]

What agenda...?

Health care seems to be the big one.

[Lueda Alia]

Health care seems to be the big one.
Oh, they'll make sure that y'all are covered from now on? Awesome.

[saysmydoctor]

GOOD ONE, EDA.

x

[Zeran]

Economically the choice between democrat and republican doesn't seem to be much different. We need an acttual "left" in this country.
i agree wholeheartedly.
This has nothing to do with race and as a republican I really resent that people throw that out there regularly. Obama and the Democrats in congress didn't suffer this defeat because of their inability to fix the economy overnight. They were rejected because of a poor Health Care Bill that was passed before drawn out based on a short time frame for the Democratic majority to do so. They were rejected because of there stance on illegal immigration. They were rejected because they passed a 2 trillion dollar stimulus bill that was supposed to stabilize the economy and jobs, while unemployment raised and taxpayers began to hear about the waste. They were rejected because republicans offered common sense alternative. Obama ran a campaign on ending corruption in Washington yet it takes the grassroots Tea Party endorsed candidates to go to Washington and offer an elimination of earmarks.
exit polls taken immediately after the midterms shows the following things:

turnout among eligible voters was low.
the voters who did turn out were mostly conservatives and tea partiers.
the young and minorities didn't vote.
the biggest reason given for voting by far was the economy.

so, essentially conservatives voted for conservatives to try and fix the economy. most of the other reaons you give weren't a big factor for most people.
Ed Miliband > Tony Blair or Gordon Brown

Labour looks like it's moving slightly further to the left.
i welcome this move.
You had me until the last line. Obama's greatest downfall was allowing his opposition to control the narrative, which liberals are wont to do. Screaming irrationality will always carry more attention than reasoned, calm approaches.
the "left" needs to be equally as outrageous as the right, apparently. there's no one who's as loud as rush limbaugh or as obnoxious as glenn beck on the left.
i really think bipartisanship kinda shot obama in the foot here.

Yup. So of course, he's going to go with...more bipartisanship.

If I were him, I'd pull out my veto pens.
i agree. it hasn't worked out, so he should fucking stop being bipartisan.
Health care seems to be the big one.

what exactly about the healthcare bill don't they like?

from what i can see, most people like that you can't be denied for pre-existing conditions, kids can stay on their parents' insurance until 26. what's wrong with that? if universal healthcare is good enough for the military and the elderly, why can't we just extend that to everyone else?

if they want to repeal it or dislike it so much, they surely realize that the system itself needs to be reformed, so what would their plan be to reform it?

[loveisdead]

what exactly about the healthcare bill don't they like?

from what i can see, most people like that you can't be denied for pre-existing conditions, kids can stay on their parents' insurance until 26. what's wrong with that? if universal healthcare is good enough for the military and the elderly, why can't we just extend that to everyone else?

if they want to repeal it or dislike it so much, they surely realize that the system itself needs to be reformed, so what would their plan be to reform it?

This is an answer my best friend (and Harvard grad) gave me to that question.
Yea it drives more premiums their way, but it also increases their expenses. The people who are now getting insurance that previously weren't getting it, are presumably the people that were previously otherwise uninsurable for any number of reasons, and were determined to cost more than they would pay for insurance. The insurance business model in essentially collect enough money from enough people of varying risk levels, that premium revenue outweighs medical expenditures. The health care that Obama pushes through does not actually benefit private enterprise. If anything, it will decrease their profits. So that is why I think people call it a socialist policy. How it is done, fine isn't socialist, but the end result may be construed as such. Especially since it is government mandated, to the detriment of private industry and benefit of those who otherwise would not have gotten insurance. (This is in no way saying that everyone does not deserve health care. We discussed the other night how I think it is a right, not a privilege. But these are some thoughts on why I think that way it was done was wrong, and why others might call it socialist. I would call it a liberal policy, since it is direct government intervention in private industry.)

[Jason Tate]

Eh, most of the time the most needed changes are the ones that don't benefit "private industry."

[Zeran]

what way could healthcare reform take place such that private industry benefits and it would not be done in a "socialist" way? i just don't see any.

[caveBEAR]

Eh, most of the time the most needed changes are the ones that don't benefit "private industry."

They never do. 9 times out of 10, private industry created the scenario that required change.

[captivewear]

Why must we need anything for the private industry? What have they ever done for us? Rip us off for insurance and don't give the people what we need for a reasonable cost.
Screw the health insurance companies.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

It's nice to see Americans value insurance executives' profits over the well-being of their fellow countrymen.

[jawstheme]

It's nice to see Americans value insurance executives' profits over the well-being of their fellow countrymen.

Yep, that's why the poor are dumb and the rich are rich.