logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> Election results are in!, What do they mean?
Hobbes
post Nov 3 2010, 04:30 PM
Post #1


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,332
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



The mid-term elections are over, and they finished about like most polls predicted they would. The Republicans made very large gains in the House, adding 60 (or more) seats. They picked up ground in the Senate, but not enough to gain control, with 46 seats currently and three still undecided. They also made large gains in governorships. Some of the Tea Party candidates won major races (Paul, Rubio); some lost convincingly (O'Donnell). Both these results, and early exit poll results indicate a dissatisfaction with the direction we were headed. Republicans swept into office with a renewed smaller government mantra, but they only control 1/3 of the government. Boehner, the likely new Speaker of the House, has a propensity for working across the aisle--but now has a supposed mandate behind him. Given all this, the following questions emerge:

1. What do these results mean? Was this vote a repudiation of the policies Obama has enacted? If so, what do you think he will do about it? If not, what do you think was the rationale for the change?

2. What do you think will likely happen in government the next 2 years? Will the Republicans in the House become active in trying to form policy through new legislation? Or will they simply work against whatever Obama/the Senate propose? Will there be any significant slowdown in government spending?

3. Were the House to propose any significant changes in Obama's Health Care, would the Senate go along with them or would they strongly oppose it? If any such bill were to come out of Congress, would Obama veto it?

4. Will Obama try to work with the Senate to continue his agenda, work with the Republicans to move forward on areas they can, or wait and see what comes out of Congress? Will he adopt a new policy of triangulation, like Clinton did? Or will he stick with his initial policies/philosophy?

5. Do these results validate the Tea Party as a legitimate entity politically? Will it grow, or wither on the vine?

This post has been edited by Hobbes: Nov 3 2010, 07:48 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Dontreadonme
post Nov 5 2010, 09:10 PM
Post #21


Group Icon

**********
I think, therefore I am an enemy of the State....and Fox News

Sponsor
October 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,452
Member No.: 359
Joined: December-25-02

From: Nestled in the Shenandoah
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Libertarian



QUOTE(Ted @ Nov 5 2010, 04:49 PM) *
Please refrain from putting words in my mouth. I never said Right = anything of the kind.

You asked what I thought far left was and I told you. If you consider the takeover of healthcare by the government to be centrist then we disagree. Same for cap and trade.


This is why I asked you the question in the first place....but if you consider that an answer, then you merely reinforce my assessment of your critical thinking skills. I don't mean for this to be any sort of personal attack, but the picture you paint leads me to believe that your opinions are reflexive, stock meme's. You then couch your submissions in personal terms towards other members, as if to tie a relationship between your position and what you want the others' position to be on a given subject.

I'm an adult on an adult debate forum...I'm less interested in pushing talking points and scripts for some political fantasy league than I am in trying to understand how people form conclusions about American politics, that I may find myself in initial disagreement with.

Do you think there is a far-right in American politics?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Nov 6 2010, 12:48 AM
Post #22


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,416
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Nov 5 2010, 05:10 PM) *
QUOTE(Ted @ Nov 5 2010, 04:49 PM) *
Please refrain from putting words in my mouth. I never said Right = anything of the kind.

You asked what I thought far left was and I told you. If you consider the takeover of healthcare by the government to be centrist then we disagree. Same for cap and trade.


This is why I asked you the question in the first place....but if you consider that an answer, then you merely reinforce my assessment of your critical thinking skills. I don't mean for this to be any sort of personal attack, but the picture you paint leads me to believe that your opinions are reflexive, stock meme's. You then couch your submissions in personal terms towards other members, as if to tie a relationship between your position and what you want the others' position to be on a given subject.

I'm an adult on an adult debate forum...I'm less interested in pushing talking points and scripts for some political fantasy league than I am in trying to understand how people form conclusions about American politics, that I may find myself in initial disagreement with.

Do you think there is a far-right in American politics?

Sure you do and as usual you don’t say much but go round and round debating words instead of substance. Do you doubt that the Democratic Party has a left wing? Let me give you a hint – it’s the people like Nancy and Harry that moderate Democrats have been running from for months.

Did you think that the “public option” was a moderate or conservative idea or did it come from the left wing of the Democrat party?

Obama claimed he would unite us and govern from the middle. Instead he turned the agenda over to the most liberal in the Congress and then fought hard to help pass their partisan Bills.

His stimulus was left of even JFK's r4esponse to recession and an unabashed gift to Labor and other liberal supporters. And a miserable failure as a result..

Now he on his way to India to “promote jobs” yet he cannot bring himself to sigh Free Trade agreements with Columbia and South Korea that have been under his nose for 2 years. Why is that DTOM?

This post has been edited by Ted: Nov 6 2010, 12:49 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
quarkhead
post Nov 6 2010, 12:50 AM
Post #23


Group Icon

********
Original Sufferhead

Sponsor
February 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 2,180
Member No.: 328
Joined: December-11-02

From: Spokane, WA
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Ted @ Nov 5 2010, 01:49 PM) *
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Nov 5 2010, 04:44 PM) *
QUOTE(Ted @ Nov 5 2010, 04:40 PM) *
Please stop babbling the idiotic Obama Pelosi crap.

Yes the far left you love failed because DEMOCRATS stopped them PE. whistling.gif


........and this is why I paused before asking you a pointed question. I had a gut feeling that this is what would come in response.

And yes, I know the above was directly in response to PE, but you failed to answer my question. For you: Right = Mainstream/patriotic/American/whatever......Left = Far left/Socialist/anti-American/whatever.

I'll keep my questions about how your opinions are formulated to myself from now on.

Please refrain from putting words in my mouth. I never said Right = anything of the kind.

You asked what I thought far left was and I told you. If you consider the takeover of healthcare by the government to be centrist then we disagree. Same for cap and trade.


I wonder where you get your information from. The government hasn't taken over health care. It's obvious there are many demons in your mind's eye; you'll do best by not confusing them for reality.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Nov 6 2010, 12:57 AM
Post #24


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,416
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(quarkhead @ Nov 5 2010, 08:50 PM) *
QUOTE(Ted @ Nov 5 2010, 01:49 PM) *
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Nov 5 2010, 04:44 PM) *
QUOTE(Ted @ Nov 5 2010, 04:40 PM) *
Please stop babbling the idiotic Obama Pelosi crap.

Yes the far left you love failed because DEMOCRATS stopped them PE. whistling.gif


........and this is why I paused before asking you a pointed question. I had a gut feeling that this is what would come in response.

And yes, I know the above was directly in response to PE, but you failed to answer my question. For you: Right = Mainstream/patriotic/American/whatever......Left = Far left/Socialist/anti-American/whatever.

I'll keep my questions about how your opinions are formulated to myself from now on.

Please refrain from putting words in my mouth. I never said Right = anything of the kind.

You asked what I thought far left was and I told you. If you consider the takeover of healthcare by the government to be centrist then we disagree. Same for cap and trade.


I wonder where you get your information from. The government hasn't taken over health care. It's obvious there are many demons in your mind's eye; you'll do best by not confusing them for reality.

The public option was a blatant attempt to take over the system. And as everyone knows it would have been child’s play. Even though the CBO said the public option would cost more than private coverage where was it written that the public option had to break even? Nowhere. So after setting up 50+ bureaucracies and hiring 10s of thousands of bureaucrats did you think the government was not going to set the price low to take business from private companies?

I live in Mass. quark and saw it happen here.

This post has been edited by Ted: Nov 6 2010, 12:57 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dontreadonme
post Nov 6 2010, 01:20 AM
Post #25


Group Icon

**********
I think, therefore I am an enemy of the State....and Fox News

Sponsor
October 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,452
Member No.: 359
Joined: December-25-02

From: Nestled in the Shenandoah
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Libertarian



Thanks again for giving me the opportunity to prove my assessments correct.

Just like your inability to answer specific questions.....your reflexive, meme driven distractions define you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paladin Elspeth
post Nov 6 2010, 01:29 AM
Post #26


*********
I want the 10th Doctor for President!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,987
Member No.: 721
Joined: May-10-03

From: Between 2 Great Lakes
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Nov 5 2010, 04:44 PM) *
QUOTE(Ted @ Nov 5 2010, 04:40 PM) *
Please stop babbling the idiotic Obama Pelosi crap.

Yes the far left you love failed because DEMOCRATS stopped them PE. whistling.gif


........and this is why I paused before asking you a pointed question. I had a gut feeling that this is what would come in response.

And yes, I know the above was directly in response to PE, but you failed to answer my question. For you: Right = Mainstream/patriotic/American/whatever......Left = Far left/Socialist/anti-American/whatever.

I'll keep my questions about how your opinions are formulated to myself from now on.

So either the Democratic party in the Congress was far left or it wasn't. Considering that the "far left I love" failed in your estimation because of the Democrats, Ted, that means it WAS NOT A FAR-LEFT CONGRESS. Just using your words to set your thinking a little clearer.

And "The Party of No" will continue to be called "The Party of No" until or unless the GOP demonstrates that it is capable of actually accomplishing something for the good of the American people, not just the upper 2% who have allegedly helped our nation SO MUCH because of their reduced taxes.* If you feel a "trickle down," it's not from corporate largesse or a desire on their part to share the wealth or even create jobs. It must be something else.

*Except I have never seen any documentation detailing how that "tax cut" applied by Bush helped produce jobs anywhere.

This post has been edited by Paladin Elspeth: Nov 6 2010, 01:35 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
moif
post Nov 6 2010, 01:59 AM
Post #27


*********
suspending disbelief

Sponsor
February 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,685
Member No.: 424
Joined: February-3-03

From: Aarhus, Denmark
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Curmudgeon @ Nov 5 2010, 07:22 PM) *
Yes Sarah Palin still has a chance to run for President; just as it is possible that the White Smoke that rises from the Vatican when the next Pope is elected will be from Marijuana.
I was thinking something similar, and frankly I was looking for confirmation. The more I see of Palin, the less I like and I can't quite see how she's still around after having participated in McCain's defeat. The thought that she might be the first female president of the USA was not a happy one, but seeing how poorly she seems to have done in this latest election, I'm hoping she will soon sink back into obscurity.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post Nov 7 2010, 07:04 AM
Post #28


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,332
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(moif @ Nov 5 2010, 08:59 PM) *
QUOTE(Curmudgeon @ Nov 5 2010, 07:22 PM) *
Yes Sarah Palin still has a chance to run for President; just as it is possible that the White Smoke that rises from the Vatican when the next Pope is elected will be from Marijuana.
I was thinking something similar, and frankly I was looking for confirmation. The more I see of Palin, the less I like and I can't quite see how she's still around after having participated in McCain's defeat. The thought that she might be the first female president of the USA was not a happy one, but seeing how poorly she seems to have done in this latest election, I'm hoping she will soon sink back into obscurity.


I wouldn't expect her to fade back into obscurity. One role she seems to do pretty well is to play attack dog, and I expect her to continue that for the next couple of years. Whether that translates into anything more is a completely different issue...but I wouldn't discount the power it has. Not that I'd want her in power...I'm just saying I wouldn't rule it out yet, either. Who else in the Republican Party has her name recognition right now?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
pheeler
post Nov 7 2010, 05:22 PM
Post #29


*******
Professional Chem Nerd

Sponsor
October 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 557
Member No.: 925
Joined: July-25-03

From: Fort Collins, CO
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Hobbes @ Nov 7 2010, 12:04 AM) *
QUOTE(moif @ Nov 5 2010, 08:59 PM) *
QUOTE(Curmudgeon @ Nov 5 2010, 07:22 PM) *
Yes Sarah Palin still has a chance to run for President; just as it is possible that the White Smoke that rises from the Vatican when the next Pope is elected will be from Marijuana.
I was thinking something similar, and frankly I was looking for confirmation. The more I see of Palin, the less I like and I can't quite see how she's still around after having participated in McCain's defeat. The thought that she might be the first female president of the USA was not a happy one, but seeing how poorly she seems to have done in this latest election, I'm hoping she will soon sink back into obscurity.


I wouldn't expect her to fade back into obscurity. One role she seems to do pretty well is to play attack dog, and I expect her to continue that for the next couple of years. Whether that translates into anything more is a completely different issue...but I wouldn't discount the power it has. Not that I'd want her in power...I'm just saying I wouldn't rule it out yet, either. Who else in the Republican Party has her name recognition right now?

Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, neither of whom should run for office either. She thinks she is a politician, but she is just another talking head with delusions that she can win a presidential election.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Belshazzar
post Nov 7 2010, 07:38 PM
Post #30


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 634
Member No.: 11,406
Joined: October-14-10

From: New Yawwwk
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



Previous posters have pretty much summed up my answers to the first four questions. Was this a repudiation of Obama? Yes and no. It was in the states that the GOP won on the back of the anti-Obama wave, but it wasn't a wholesale nationwide repudiation of Obama. Reps will probably try to repeal healthcare and get filibustered or vetoed. Whatever Obama will do, the GOP will do the opposite. Mitch McConnell's statement that their main goal is to "make Obama a one-term president" makes their motives pretty damn clear. They do not care about governing, but scoring points against the Democrats (as is often the case for either party). The silver lining in this is that we will have a House that might help put the brakes on the unbridled spending. I won't hold my breath, though, considering that guys like Rob Portman, Dubya's budget director, are heading back to DC. There might be some split between the GOP and the quasi-libertarian types like Rand Paul, but even he reneged on his promise not to take "Bailout Ball" money.

The bluster over the Tea Party will continue as long as people pay more attention to politicians' rhetoric instead of their voting records. Anyone paying attention will realize that these supposed Washington outsiders have and will continue to get in bed with the GOP establishment when it's politically expedient. Whatever grassroots were there were torn out and replaced with neocon astroturfing. The Tea Party-elect cannot stand on its own as it is not at odds with the GOP establishment, but indebted to it. Once the faux-patriotic iconography of the Tea Party is no longer useful (i.e., most likely when Obama is out of office), it will be dropped.

Matt Taibbi's none-too-flattering article puts it this way:
QUOTE
Of course, the fact that we're even sitting here two years after Bush talking about a GOP comeback is a profound testament to two things: One, the American voter's unmatched ability to forget what happened to him 10 seconds ago, and two, the Republican Party's incredible recuperative skill and bureaucratic ingenuity. This is a party that in 2008 was not just beaten but obliterated, with nearly every one of its recognizable leaders reduced to historical-footnote status and pinned with blame for some ghastly political catastrophe. There were literally no healthy bodies left on the bench, but the Republicans managed to get back in the game anyway by plucking an assortment of nativist freaks, village idiots and Internet Hitlers out of thin air and training them into a giant ball of incoherent resentment just in time for the 2010 midterms. They returned to prominence by outdoing Barack Obama at his own game: turning out masses of energized and disciplined supporters on the streets and overwhelming the ballot box with sheer enthusiasm.

The bad news is that the Tea Party's political outrage is being appropriated, with thanks, by the Goldmans and the BPs of the world. The good news, if you want to look at it that way, is that those interests mostly have us by the balls anyway, no matter who wins on Election Day. That's the reality; the rest of this is just noise. It's just that it's a lot of noise, and there's no telling when it's ever going to end.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/...?RS_show_page=0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Nov 8 2010, 02:29 AM
Post #31


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,416
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE
PE
So either the Democratic party in the Congress was far left or it wasn't. Considering that the "far left I love" failed in your estimation because of the Democrats, Ted, that means it WAS NOT A FAR-LEFT CONGRESS. Just using your words to set your thinking a little clearer.


Nancy Pelosi represents the left wing of the Party – right? Did she pass her agenda? You bet. And you are right the whole Party is not far left. And this is why the moderate Blue Dogs got hammered. Their moderate constituents were not happy Nancy got healthcare and other left agenda items through. In fact many of the losers ran away from their support of Obama, Pelosi’s agenda and the healthcare Bill like the plague – and still lost.

QUOTE
And "The Party of No" will continue to be called "The Party of No" until or unless the GOP demonstrates that it is capable of actually accomplishing something


Well PE it’s going to be amusing to see how Dems who shut out Republicans now react to Republican Bills. Will they become the Party o NO.? And let’s not get too excited over Republican power. They only have one House. The Dems hold the Senate and the WH so they clearly have the advantage.

QUOTE
If you feel a "trickle down," it's not from corporate largesse or a desire on their part to share the wealth or even create jobs. It must be something else.

*Except I have never seen any documentation detailing how that "tax cut" applied by Bush helped produce jobs anywhere.


Remember that all of you Dems called ALL the Bush tax cuts ”for the Rich” for 8 years. Now magically 80% of them are “for the middle class” and only 2% “for the Rich”. blink.gif Gee someone go congratulate Bush for all the middle class cuts and apologize for all the lies for 8 years.

So now what we are talking about is not cuts but a tax increase. You willing to give up your Bush tax reduction and take a tax hike? Would it help or hurt the recovery?

This post has been edited by Ted: Nov 8 2010, 02:29 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paladin Elspeth
post Nov 8 2010, 03:23 AM
Post #32


*********
I want the 10th Doctor for President!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,987
Member No.: 721
Joined: May-10-03

From: Between 2 Great Lakes
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Ted @ Nov 7 2010, 09:29 PM) *
QUOTE
PE
So either the Democratic party in the Congress was far left or it wasn't. Considering that the "far left I love" failed in your estimation because of the Democrats, Ted, that means it WAS NOT A FAR-LEFT CONGRESS. Just using your words to set your thinking a little clearer.


Nancy Pelosi represents the left wing of the Party – right? Did she pass her agenda? You bet. And you are right the whole Party is not far left. And this is why the moderate Blue Dogs got hammered. Their moderate constituents were not happy Nancy got healthcare and other left agenda items through. In fact many of the losers ran away from their support of Obama, Pelosi’s agenda and the healthcare Bill like the plague – and still lost.

QUOTE
And "The Party of No" will continue to be called "The Party of No" until or unless the GOP demonstrates that it is capable of actually accomplishing something


Well PE it’s going to be amusing to see how Dems who shut out Republicans now react to Republican Bills. Will they become the Party o NO.? And let’s not get too excited over Republican power. They only have one House. The Dems hold the Senate and the WH so they clearly have the advantage.

QUOTE
If you feel a "trickle down," it's not from corporate largesse or a desire on their part to share the wealth or even create jobs. It must be something else.

*Except I have never seen any documentation detailing how that "tax cut" applied by Bush helped produce jobs anywhere.


Remember that all of you Dems called ALL the Bush tax cuts ”for the Rich” for 8 years. Now magically 80% of them are “for the middle class” and only 2% “for the Rich”. blink.gif Gee someone go congratulate Bush for all the middle class cuts and apologize for all the lies for 8 years.

So now what we are talking about is not cuts but a tax increase. You willing to give up your Bush tax reduction and take a tax hike? Would it help or hurt the recovery?


Nancy Pelosi is no Blue Dog Democrat; that much is true. However, you are not taking into account that this liberal Democrat is good at compromise, something the Republicans would do well to learn if they are going to get any legislation through the Congress. You tend to paint people in a black/white, either/or fashion, but humans just don't come that way. There are dimensions to Nancy Pelosi, and I appreciate her even though she doesn't think the way I do about all the issues. She might not look like the Republican "Barbie Doll" female politicians, but she is also seventy years old and has higher priorities than Botox and facelifts. She dresses befitting her position as U.S. Representative, but I believe she cares less about getting a tan and other superficialities than she does about being an effective leader. But don't worry, Ted; with John Boehner assuming the mantle of Speaker of the House you'll have the tanned "pretty face" that you evidently prefer! Enter the "Ken Doll"... w00t.gif

Under Obama, more tax cuts have been instituted for the middle class than under Bush's administration. Noteworthy is the fact that George W. Bush did not intend for the tax cuts for the very wealthiest to last beyond 2010. Why don't you ask him why he figured it should only be until midway through another President's term?

It is a myth that Obama has raised income taxes.

The Dems did not call ALL the Bush tax cuts "for the rich," but the fact that the wealthiest got preference did not escape us.

Now you tell me, just how much help can be demonstrated as having come from the wealthiest for the tax cut they have been enjoying since the Bush administration? Doesn't look like "squat" to me.

Where are the jobs it was going to stimulate because the wealthiest were going to loosen their purse strings and create jobs? It is estimated that it will cost several billions of dollars to the rest of us and the deficit will be even greater if the tax cuts are continued, and people like Michigan's new governor-elect Rick Snyder shipped Gateway jobs to Asia and finally sold the company to China, eliminating American jobs.

Why shouldn't the most obscenely rich of Americans share the burden with the lower 98% of the country? Because "they can't afford it"? Where will the revenues come from if not from the wealthiest paying their share? From Medicare? Social Security? Education? Emergency services? The military/defense budget?

This post has been edited by Paladin Elspeth: Nov 8 2010, 03:56 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Curmudgeon
post Nov 8 2010, 04:37 AM
Post #33


********
I am an unpaid protester!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 1,197
Member No.: 729
Joined: May-14-03

From: Michigan
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Nov 7 2010, 11:23 PM) *
But don't worry, Ted; with John Boehner assuming the mantle of Speaker of the House you'll have the tanned "pretty face" that you evidently prefer! Enter the "Ken Doll"... w00t.gif

Paladin Elspeth! Let's give Ted something to worry about...

Tea Party Clout: How Will It Affect Congress, 2012? was an NPR story which just popped into my mailbox... According to the story, 60 of the 64 "new Republicans" elected to the House, as well as half a dozen of the new Senators were nominated by or supported by the various Tea Parties. They will be coming in pumped, excited, and ready to take over. As union members and legislators both say, "The longer you're in a seniority system, the more sense it makes." As per the article, John Boehner, the man who would be speaker, has promised a "mind meld" with the new Tea Party freshmen.

QUOTE(John Boehner)
I don't see any problems incorporating the members of the Tea Party along with our party, in the quest that's really the same.

If this were not the United States, a legislature which had elected representatives from three political parties might have to form a coalition government before a Prime Minister or its equivalent could be selected by a majority. What might happen if a Tea Party Caucus decides that a balanced budget is more important than a tax cut for the richest 2% of the nation, and the corporations that they control. Yes, we know that they danced with the funders that brought them; but if John Boehner wants to tell them that he is a Vulcan warrior,
perhaps this country's "Labour Party" should invite the "Tea Party" to a "beer summit." Now that the Tea Partiers have won a major victory, they will find that the Perks of being an elected politician may seem worth protecting, and running for re-election. I think it might be easier for them to go back to voters in 2012 and say, "We preserved tax cuts for the poorest 98% of the population, while convincing the Democrats to reduce spending and work toward reducing the deficit." than to say "We enjoyed the Merlot and Mind Meld and became Republicans who voted to extend the Bush tax cuts."

Politics...It's all about the money until Election Day, but then you have to get your base to come out and vote for you.

This post has been edited by Curmudgeon: Nov 8 2010, 05:14 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post Nov 8 2010, 02:58 PM
Post #34


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,332
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Nov 7 2010, 10:23 PM) *
Nancy Pelosi is no Blue Dog Democrat; that much is true. However, you are not taking into account that this liberal Democrat is good at compromise, something the Republicans would do well to learn if they are going to get any legislation through the Congress.


I assume you're referencing Pelosi here? If so, we'll see if she's good at compromise or not. Keep in mind that she was the one who drove legislation through the House with essentially no input allowed from Republicans. Now, she was in control then, and able to do so, and now she's in a different situation, so we'll see. But I wouldn't paint her as a master of compromise just yet.

QUOTE
... but I believe she cares less about getting a tan and other superficialities than she does about being an effective leader.


...as exemplified by her demands for a bigger plane? Not really the topic here, PE, but go back and look at her history from the very second she came into power, and was almost immediately engulfed in controversy over the pork projects she proposed. She feeds at the trough just like every other politician.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BoF
post Nov 8 2010, 03:09 PM
Post #35


**********
Giga-bite: "I catch mice & rats - 2 & 4 legs."

Sponsor
October 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,126
Member No.: 3,423
Joined: August-14-04

From: Texas
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Hobbes @ Nov 8 2010, 08:58 AM) *
...as exemplified by her demands for a bigger plane?

This is a cheap shot.

Wanna take bets about the "Orange Man" demanding a plane downgrade?

We'll see.

This post has been edited by BoF: Nov 8 2010, 03:45 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Nov 8 2010, 03:31 PM
Post #36


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,416
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE
Nancy Pelosi is no Blue Dog Democrat; that much is true. However, you are not taking into account that this liberal Democrat is good at compromise, something the Republicans would do well to learn if they are going to get any legislation through the Congress.


You have to be kidding. This clown locked out Republicans in the healthcare debate. The BILL was created behind closed doors and then you expect compromise – all in one direction for the most part?
QUOTE
You tend to paint people in a black/white, either/or fashion, but humans just don't come that way. There are dimensions to Nancy Pelosi, and I appreciate her even though she doesn't think the way I do about all the issues.


No I don’t but Nancy is a known partisan on the left who jammed through Obamacare even after getting the clear signal from my state’s election of Scott Brown that lots of people were not in favor of it.

QUOTE
Under Obama, more tax cuts have been instituted for the middle class than under Bush's administration. Noteworthy is the fact that George W. Bush did not intend for the tax cuts for the very wealthiest to last beyond 2010. Why don't you ask him why he figured it should only be until midway through another President's term?


Show me. Because I don’t believe you. And where did Bush say that any of his Tax cuts should expire. He wanted to make them all permanent.

Bush gave Americans a “fair” tax cut. And I believe we should wait until we are out of this mess before we shaft anyone with higher taxes….

“There is no economic model out there of whatever flavor — Keynesian or otherwise — that says that a tax increase is stimulative,’’ Poitras said. “In the long run, they have to do something about the deficit because the deficits they are running are totally unsustainable. The problem with the budget is more of spending (problem) than taxing. It will not be solved until they bring spending under control.’’

http://www.springfieldnewssun.com/news/nat...re--646402.html

QUOTE
The Dems did not call ALL the Bush tax cuts "for the rich," but the fact that the wealthiest got preference did not escape us.


Clearly you have no idea what you are saying here. The wealthiest did not get “preference” they got their fair share – the same % discount as all of us got. And in a fair tax reduction most people feel it is ok if the person who pays 5-10 times more taxes gets more back. Obviously some like you PE do not. As Howard Dean has said the key for this “rob the rich” philosophy is to keep shafting them until they show signs of giving up and then back off - a little.
QUOTE
Where are the jobs it was going to stimulate because the wealthiest were going to loosen their purse strings and create jobs? It is estimated that it will cost several billions of dollars to the rest of us and the deficit will be even greater if the tax cuts are continued, and people like Michigan's new governor-elect Rick Snyder shipped Gateway jobs to Asia and finally sold the company to China, eliminating American jobs.


The Jobs will come when we all know what our tax rates will be and start buying again. The stupidity of the “stimulus” was that it was directed more at Big business than small business. Small businessmen don’t hire until they need more people. It starting to happen but too slowly. Many of the owners are in the “top 2%” category and that is why most economists don’t think raising taxes on them now is a good idea. We can do that in a year or so.

QUOTE
CR
If this were not the United States, a legislature which had elected representatives from three political parties might have to form a coalition government before a Prime Minister or its equivalent could be selected by a majority. What might happen if a Tea Party Caucus decides that a balanced budget is more important than a tax cut for the richest 2% of the nation, and the corporations that they control?


Well in effect we do have effectively “different parties” that need to work together. As we saw in the last 2 years. Democrats who controlled everything could not pass their whole agenda because of disagreement in their own Party. And I don’t the Tea Party would want to raise taxes on anyone now but we will see.

And yes some of the 2% CONTROL “corporations” – i.e. small businesses we would like to see hiring – so let’s just take money out of their coffers – that will help…..
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post Nov 8 2010, 04:29 PM
Post #37


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Nov 7 2010, 10:23 PM) *
...
Why shouldn't the most obscenely rich of Americans share the burden with the lower 98% of the country? ...
...

1.
Ask the "obscenely" rich John Kerry. Or, the "obscenely" rich Google guys.

2.
There is nothing stopping those among the "obscenely" rich who advocate in favor of the "obscenely" rich paying whatever they think is their fair share (e.g. Kerry, the Google guys, Herb and Marion Sandler, Peter Lewis, Buffett, Soros, Huffington, Streisand, Oprah, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.) from putting their money where their mouth is. As GW Bush reminded them in his 2008 State of the Union address: ""Others have said they would personally be happy to pay higher taxes. I welcome their enthusiasm, and I am pleased to report that the IRS accepts both checks and money orders."

And, finally, ...

3. "Obscenely", eh? Your class envy and resentment is showing.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Raptavio
post Nov 8 2010, 05:06 PM
Post #38


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 3,515
Member No.: 10,458
Joined: April-27-09

From: Rosemount, MN
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(akaCG @ Nov 8 2010, 11:29 AM) *
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Nov 7 2010, 10:23 PM) *
...
Why shouldn't the most obscenely rich of Americans share the burden with the lower 98% of the country? ...
...

1.
Ask the "obscenely" rich John Kerry. Or, the "obscenely" rich Google guys.

2.
There is nothing stopping those among the "obscenely" rich who advocate in favor of the "obscenely" rich paying whatever they think is their fair share (e.g. Kerry, the Google guys, Herb and Marion Sandler, Peter Lewis, Buffett, Soros, Huffington, Streisand, Oprah, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.) from putting their money where their mouth is. As GW Bush reminded them in his 2008 State of the Union address: ""Others have said they would personally be happy to pay higher taxes. I welcome their enthusiasm, and I am pleased to report that the IRS accepts both checks and money orders."

And, finally, ...

3. "Obscenely", eh? Your class envy and resentment is showing.



1. and 2. That is an argument that has to be among the most ridiculous you've made. Yes, anyone can pay extra taxes if they choose. But if only a few people do it (you might get Oprah to do it, but not the Koch Brothers), it's not going to resolve any deficit issues, and thus the few who would be willing to aren't going to be motivated to as it won't change a thing. You know this; the argument is specious on its face.

3. Knock off the armchair psychoanalysis. It belittles you more than Paladin Elspeth.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
pheeler
post Nov 8 2010, 05:10 PM
Post #39


*******
Professional Chem Nerd

Sponsor
October 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 557
Member No.: 925
Joined: July-25-03

From: Fort Collins, CO
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(akaCG @ Nov 8 2010, 09:29 AM) *
3. "Obscenely", eh? Your class envy and resentment is showing.

Your belief that no amount of wealth is obscene can be construed as another deadly sin, akCG.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paladin Elspeth
post Nov 8 2010, 06:04 PM
Post #40


*********
I want the 10th Doctor for President!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,987
Member No.: 721
Joined: May-10-03

From: Between 2 Great Lakes
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Ted)
Show me. Because I don’t believe you. And where did Bush say that any of his Tax cuts should expire. He wanted to make them all permanent.

Here you are, Ted, since you don't believe me (Shame on you! rolleyes.gif ):

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/us/polit...no_interstitial
QUOTE(New York Times)
In a troubling sign for Democrats as they head into the midterm elections, their signature tax cut of the past two years, which decreased income taxes by up to $400 a year for individuals and $800 for married couples, has gone largely unnoticed.

In a New York Times/CBS News Poll last month, fewer than one in 10 respondents knew that the Obama administration had lowered taxes for most Americans. Half of those polled said they thought that their taxes had stayed the same, a third thought that their taxes had gone up, and about a tenth said they did not know. As Thom Tillis, a Republican state representative, put it as the dinner wound down here, “This was the tax cut that fell in the woods — nobody heard it.”

Actually, the tax cut was, by design, hard to notice. Faced with evidence that people were more likely to save than spend the tax rebate checks they received during the Bush administration, the Obama administration decided to take a different tack: it arranged for less tax money to be withheld from people’s paychecks. [bolding mine]


QUOTE(Ted)
You have to be kidding. This clown locked out Republicans in the healthcare debate.


Then she was a pretty powerful "clown", I'd say. Just why do you think the Republicans would ever be shut out of the process? Because they were (and you know it as well as I do) proven to be obstructionist OUTSIDE the doors on the floor of the Congress and the Democrats wanted to get something done for the American people? But now that you mention it, didn't V.P. Dick Cheney REFUSE to let the American public know who he included in his Energy Task Force? Yet you don't talk about him the way you constantly condemn Pelosi.

And didn't Obama very publicly invite the Republicans into a forum on health care reform while the cameras were rolling? And boy, did the Republicans gripe about that! What's the matter--did they not want America seeing their tactics?

QUOTE(Ted)
And where did Bush say that any of his Tax cuts should expire.


When he signed a bill with an expiration date.
QUOTE(Hobbes)
...as exemplified by her [Nancy Pelosi's] demands for a bigger plane? Not really the topic here, PE, but go back and look at her history from the very second she came into power, and was almost immediately engulfed in controversy over the pork projects she proposed. She feeds at the trough just like every other politician.


Nancy Pelosi being a politician isn't the issue here. I never denied that she was. As far as the bigger plane, it was probably so she could include more family members or aides when she traveled. Meh. It probably had to do with the fact that she lives clear over on the other coast in California. Even Curmudgeon and I upgraded from a very small car to a Camry for more room for our trip to Washington, D.C.

Edited to remove redundant material from a previous editing.

This post has been edited by Paladin Elspeth: Nov 8 2010, 06:33 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: December 16th, 2018 - 12:28 PM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.