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?

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?

These elections did send the message that the American people are not happy with the results of Obama's policies. Whether that's the fault of the policies themselves is another question. Personally, I think it's too early to say whether many of the policies have worked, but either way, the public is dissatisfied. I can't say I'm surprised when the unemployment rate is still so high, and while the middle class is hurting worse than it has in many years, the banks have taken taxpayer money and turned a huge profit with it.

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?

I do think there will be a slowdown in spending, but it won't necessarily have anything to do with Republican control as much as it's a result of the recovery of the economy in general. What I'm worried about is that revenue will not be increased by letting the Bush tax cuts expire. I am eager to see what kind of legislation Republicans draft since Boehner's excuse for not cooperating has been that the stuff Democrats have brought to the table has been way too liberal. Will we see moderate proposals or extreme right ones?

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?

Obama campaigned on health care reform, and he followed through on his promise. I don't see him backing down and letting Republicans strike down any of the broader reforms he worked for. That said, I don't think he would necessarily veto any change to the new health care laws, provided Republicans can make the case for the change.

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?

Honestly, Clinton was one of the most effective presidents we've ever had, so I hope Obama will take some lessons from his presidency. I don't think I can speculate as to what he will do, though.

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

In a word, no. According to MSNBC, only 32% of Tea Party candidates won, and I would argue that those who did win were the ones who least broke the Republican mold. The Tea Party will wane, but the anger among the middle class will not. Hopefully, someone will give them a more productive message to rally behind than "throw the bums out."

The results mean:
-Voters are upset with the economic stagnation (unemployment is still > 8%)
-As a result, they're upset with government spending
-As a result, anything with a price tag (except defense, the wars and any entitlement that they are receiving) should be cut
-It means that the electorate has the short term memory of the average jellyfish
-It means that the electorate believes that the 'tea party' is not a re-iteration of the Contract with America era GOP

As for what the President will do about the repudiation of his policies, he'll take a few things off of his to-do list (Cap and Trade, if it wasn't already, any more stimuli, etc.). He'll also have to be prepared to veto any GOP attempts to repeal Obamacare. He's already backed down from most of the most leftward of his agenda items; he'll be scrapping the rest.

I'm sure they'll attempt to follow through on their 'repeal Obamacare' promise. I'm sure that they'll make some meaningless, feel-good cuts; one or two of the most psychotic of the 'tea partiers' may even propose scrapping Medicare of Social Security...but nothing major, policy-wise, will come out of this election on its own. A shutdown of certain 'tea party' talking point targets is a distinct possibility.


What pheeler said.

If he would like a second term, he'll triangulate.

It will assimilate into the establishment, just like in '94. Those that don't will be replaced when the economy is humming again.

CP

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?

The results mean while Obama and the Dems possibly overplayed their hand and overestimated their mandate from 2008, I'm not buying the "repudiation" line the GOP and media are pushing. I'm going to have to see what percentage of eligible voters turned up at the polls Tuesday, though I'm pretty sure it will be smaller than in 2008.

One analyst said the Democrats had two problems yesterday. One was Barack Obama who wasn't on the ballot but plenty of older, White voters showed up to oppose him. The other problem was Barack Obama wasn't on the ballot and didn't bring out the young, Black and Latino voters who turned out in droves for him in 2008.

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?

Nothing shocking is going to happen over the next two years. What did the GOP do when they last had control in both Houses of Congress? I'm sure the GOP will flex their muscles and slash the social safety net as much as possible to get their spending cuts, but since they have already taken defense spending off the table and don't have the stones to go after entitlements, there really aren't a lot of places for them go whacking away. They may posture and flex about curbing pork barrel spending through ending earmarks, but while that may what the Tea Party Republicans newbies are going to demand, the old school Republicans aren't going to want to be denied their chance to feed at the troth.

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?

I don't profess to having any special insights into the workings of the incoming elephants, but I'm sure there will be some legislation introduced to weaken, water down or flat out repeal healthcare reform, but Pelosi and Obama weren't so stupid as to make it easy for a Republican Congress to turn around the train after it left the station. Their best hope is probably that John Roberts and the posse on the Supreme Court finds parts or all of healthcare reform unconstitutional.

Barring that, what I would expect is the Republicans to defund as much of healthcare as they can. They do control the power of the purse and they would be silly not to use it. If a few poor bastards die because they can't get the treatment they would under Obamacare, well, you can't make an omlette without breaking some eggs, right?

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?

Both the president and the Congress will say all the usual things about "working together," "common ground" and the dreaded "B" word--bipartisan solutions.

Don't believe any of it no matter who says it.

The 2012 election season starts next summer. NOTHING WILL BE DONE. The Republicans have no interest in doing Obama any favors that might get him reelected. Obama should know by now, the Republicans don't want to make nice and his base is sick of him trying to work with Republicans.

The "X" Factor here is Obama. All the liberal pundits are saying he should pull a Clinton and move to the Right (or "the Center"). But that ignores the fact that 2010 is not 1996, Boehner is not as ideological as Gingrich, with Rahm Emanuel gone there is no Dick Morris type whispering in the president's ear to "triangulate" and the GOP are not going to allow themselves to be used again as the springboard to Obama's second term.

I got two words for you: GRID/LOCK.

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

You won't hear this from Sarah Palin or Fox "We Distort, You Can't Decide" News, but only 32 percent won. While they made a conservative Republican party even more conservative, they weren't as formidable nationally. But give 'em time, that's not too shabby for a movement that's only a year or two old.

At least we've put to rest the laughable suggestion the Tea Party was a bipartisan movement. It's just the usual right-wing dogma, only on steroids.

Some truth to this. Essentially Republicans were running against Obama, but since Obama wasn't running, he didn't really have the platform to defend himself. He could have done it more from his bully pulpit, though.



I agree. I think there will be a fair amount of lip-service early on to placate their support, but that will die quickly, and business as usual will resume.



All probably true. I have seen a couple of pieces comparing 1996 to 2010, and pointing out the differences, not the similarities. I also agree with you about Boehner. I think an opportunity exists there not so much for triangulation but working on the things they agree on, while postponing the others.




I think that is likely the end result, but how it comes about might be interesting. It will either be very quietly getting not much done, or huge amounts of sound and fury from both sides...with not much getting done.



That's a completely fair assessment--not as strong as some might suggest, but not too bad for a young movement. I think where it goes from here will depend on what happens in the next couple of years. If the unrest over their issues continues, they will grow. If not, we might not hear a word about them in the next election.


I would argue that it's the right-wing dogma (fiscal conservative) that stopped being the usual, but given that, yes, it was always right wing.

Dare I ask, and at the risk of being slightly OT in that I'm not addressing the actual questions, but does this result spell doom for Sarah Palin as a possible Republican candidate in the next presidential election?

No worries...this was intended to be a free flowing conversation about what might happen after the election.

I would say no to your question. Some of the candidates she supported won, some lost...so probably no lasting effect on her impact either way. Most importantly, you don't hear much from the Republicans or talking heads talking about her demise.

Au contraire:

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uui...BBAE700DEB533EF

Playing with volatile substances. I mean both Palin AND her detractors.

As they say, politics (and ESPECIALLY Presidential politics) is a "contact sport".

Better have a 2 year supply of popcorn on hand, everyone. It's gonna be a reeeeeally bumpy ride.

Then she will have handed Obama 2 elections! MUAHAHAHAHAHA!

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?

Only if every other midterm election where the minority gained one or both houses of Congress has been a repudiation of the majority.

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?

It's hard to say what will happen, as I don't have faith in either party to ever do what's right by the populace. The House controls the budget, so the GOP should strike while the iron is hot and conduct slash and burn operations; eliminate the NEA and NEH and other revenue drains, and drastically slash foreign aid and the DoD budget. Obama will likely veto those moves, but at least then, the GOP can state confidently that they are true to their principles and are the party of limited, accountable government.

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?

....Veto.

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?

I believe that Obama will reach across the aisle; the GOP strategy will likely be to obstruct any measure of success for Obama that could provide foundation for a second term success. That's the game in D.C. No matter what is best for Americans...it's what's best for the party. Obama will attempt to showcase that obstruction and his alleged willingness to compromise.

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

The tea party was irrelevant once the GOP starting using it as a rental vehicle. Tea party candidates who were victorious on Tuesday will quickly succumb to the Washington game, and be labeled a dreaded 'moderate', and find themselves on a hit list by the unelected true believers, ala Scott Brown.

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?

The biggest shift since 1948 tells us this was no ordinary midterm loss for the Dems. Add to this the losses of governorships and the drubbing Dems took at the state level and you have a rout of major proportions. Let’s hope someone gets the message.

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?

That depends on the Democrats. If they continue to insist on the far left agenda and continue calling Republicans the “party of no” then they will fill that description perfectly - and nothing will get done.
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?

Strongly oppose – and Obama would veto if it passed anyway. This historic change that was opposed by the majority of Americans will be defended by Democrats.

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?

I believe he and the left wing of the Party that just got their hats handed to them will dig in and resist moving to the center. They will continue to believe that silly stupid Americans just don’t know what’s good for them - LOL
5. Do these results validate the Tea Party as a legitimate entity politically? Will it grow, or wither on the vine?

Partially. They will not become a third Party imo but will continue to be a forum for discontent with government policy.

There's something I've been curious about for quite some time. You bandy about the term 'far left' nearly every time you speak about the Democratic Party, and do so in a way that makes you appear oblivious to a 'far right'.

Can you illustrate the difference between 'far left' and anything else left of center?

I've got news for you, Ted. The "far left" agenda was never implemented. If the "far left" agenda held sway we would be out of Iraq and Afghanistan, we would have in place environmental controls to cut way back the pollution that we as a country produce, "Don't Ask Don't Tell" would truly be a thing of the past, and there would be a single payer health care system that would not allow insurance companies to exclude anybody the way three for-profit health corporations just decided to stop coverage of children altogether lest they have a pre-existing condition!

I'm joining DTOM when he asks:


You haven't seen "far left" implemented--ever.

As far as Democrats and pundits calling the Republicans "the Party of No," what the hell else have they done these past two years besides kvetch and obstruct? They carried the use of the filibuster to an historic high. They insisted that Obama needed to work with them, and every time he tried they refused to do so, to the point of abandoning bills that they--the Republicans--proposed, just to deny Obama any credit whatsoever during his term.

Do I think that that is going to change? Probably not, even IF Democrats and pundits "make nice" by not calling the folks across the aisle the "Party of No."

I don't think it will make a bit of difference. The Republicans have learned that they can gain seats in the House just by sitting like bumps on logs, criticizing and blocking virtually every measure the Democrats come up with. The would-be "Management" has learned the value of a strike from the "Hourly Employees," and there is no one above them to make them get back to work.

So we'll see just what the Republican agenda is, whether it really is going to be much different from what they've been doing for the past two years. As far as positive change goes, I'm not holding my breath until some Reps grow a pair and decide to do something for the sake of our country rather than accruing power for their own sake.

Surely Ted wants to know what we on the "Far Left" fear from the nomination of Sarah Palin for President.

Five Myths about Sarah Palin is a "news story" that popped up on my home page yesterday. (I notice that it is actually a couple of weeks old.) The Washington Post outlined why she is a promising candidate. Okay, the machinery of the Party of Noh is still rehearsing and still seems to be planning for Sarah to be the lead in the play.

MSNBC is currently running clips from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh detailing how much money is being spent, and how many hotel rooms that Obama had booked at the Taj Mahal for his trip to India. To the best of my knowledge, the Taj Mahal is one of the world's most famous tombs, with room for only the two bodies that are entombed there. They are also claiming that he is using a third of the U. S. Navy to make the trip, but I am certain that I saw clips of Obama boarding Air Force 1. (I am reasonably certain which network I trust more, but since we have Concast cable, version Orwell.1984, I can't actually change channels to watch anything else.)

So, in two years, if I look at the primary ballot and I have a well prepared Democratic slate where I don't need to choose between candidates...and I have the opportunity on the Republican slate to nominate Sarah Palin rather than Mitch McConnell; it might be very tempting to vote in the Republican primary. My theory being, perhaps even someone like Ted would vote against a Sarah Palin/Glenn Beck slate in November 2012.

Then again, there is that final rational step the founders wrote into the Constitution. Republicans might decide to nominate Electors to the Electoral College who would clearly understand that, "When Sarah Palin is elected, in the best interests of the country," they must exercise their right to write in such names as Dick Cheney and Karl Rove in the privacy of the Electoral College voting process.

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.

You and the rest of the far right love to ignore that fact that many Americans opposed the bill because it didn't go far enough. There are a lot of people who stopped supporting it after the public option was dropped.

CNN poll just before the health bill passed.


That is a pretty whopping margin in opposition.


Oh wait, only 43% oppose it because it's too liberal, the other 52% either support it or believe it's not liberal enough!

I consider just about anything Nancy P pushed hard for to be far left – esp. the public option and cap and trade. The key here is that the far left could not pass much of their agenda even though Dems owned both branches of government and the WH. Why? Because moderate and more conservative Dems opposed them
.

Please stop babbling the idiotic Obama Pelosi crap. Republicans had positions and they were summarily shut out. Nancy put up here Bills and Republicans were not even allowed in the room for most of it including the back room Healthcare deals.

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

........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.

Classy, Ted. If you're interested in idiotic babbling, why don't you take that vitriol to Yahoo! or something?

I answer as I am addressed.

And as for healthcare the “public option” had support when many thought it would be cheaper.

Well we know the CBO said that was not going to be the case. And then there is the lies about Medicare “savings”

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/...?RS_show_page=0

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.



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.



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”. 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"...

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?

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.

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.



...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.

This is a cheap shot.

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

We'll see.

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?


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.



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



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.


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.



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…..

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.

Your belief that no amount of wealth is obscene can be construed as another deadly sin, akCG.

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

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/us/polit...no_interstitial




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?



When he signed a bill with an expiration date.

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.

Oh, its anything BUT cheap. I know this for sure. Heck for me just getting an upgrade to business class is expensive.

Orange man. Good one. I prefer this however to Skeletor.

I read it and see nothing that quoted Bush saying he planned to drop tax cuts for any specific individuals. Please show me the passage.

The Tax cut you quote below was the temporary payroll tax reduction done by Obama and NOT the Bush cuts we are discussing……



Because they didn’t buy the 500 Billion $ “savings” in Medicare lie or go for the Public Option just to name a couple of things. So the Dems wrote 2,000 PAGES alone with their lobbyists like Labor and then asked Republicans to vote on it with no changes allowed. Duh. Who the hell would sign that as a Republican? Remember when we were taxing the “Cadillac” Plans because those nasty corporate executives have them and of course Dems could care less for them? Then in come the Labor Bosses to remind the fools that their members Plans were essentially the same! So 91 Billion in cost coverage was gone the next day! Real clear nonsense.

Not the Bill creation PE. And did his listen to them? Hell no.


Bush had no choice the Congress would not pass the bill without the expiration date.

So you DID believe me when I talked about the Obama administration's tax cuts? Pardon me for misunderstanding you. So you DID believe that Obama's administration cut taxes for the middle class!



So the nasty corporate executives got less say than those "nasty" Labor Bosses for a change? Quel dommage!. It might do us well to remember that because collective bargaining got positive results for the rank and file, the bosses had to treat their salaried employees better, too...

The Democrats remind me of "The Little Red Hen" (http://www.enchantedlearning.com/stories/fairytale/littleredhen/story/) who wanted the help of their friends when they were crafting health care reform and didn't get any, even from the big Blue Dogs. Had the GOP and the "dogs" been willing to have a hand in it and not rejecting it outright, they quite possibly would have been included. Half the Blue Dogs are gone, and the Republicans didn't even try, Ted.

Congress and the administration wanted to guarantee that all Americans would be covered by insurance regardless of pre-existing conditions. So three of the healthcare insurance corporations are now not providing ANY children coverage, because they are more interested in their bottom lines than in the little brats that might come down sick and cost them money for their livetimes, even though that's why their parents would pay premiums in the event of something catastrophic...See, there's always a loophole for people who choose making money over doing the right thing! We're not going to cover you, because you might get SICK and live a while!


I'm glad you brought that up, Ted. I will concede that point if YOU will remember how many choices the current President has when he signs a bill, regardless of how he feels about it.

But here's an article that explains what extending the tax cuts to the wealthiest would and would not change:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/us/politics/11tax.html

ONLY if you believe the temporary cut is a real cut. I believe it was like the checks he had sent out. Temporary of for a very limited time. Unlike the Bush massive Tax cuts for the Middle Class we have enjoyed for 10 years……….



The point is that the hackers crafting the Bill were happy to shaft one group until they discovered some of their own supporters were part of it. Then they backed off fast. Is this the “new politics and change” Obama promised us free off special interests? Not even close….



Again PE when you are locked out and not even allowed to add amendments or discuss the Bill generally you don’t go for it. Lets just see how many Republican Bills get Nancy and crew to sign on?.



Come on PE show me more about what you are saying here. Insurance companies have been badgered into not raising prices yet some expect that all the additional coverage they will be required to do is free?? AARP just raised their rates – are they evil PE. Or is there a reality out there that says that if you want more it costs more……

/

Except you know that's false. Republican proposed amendments were included in the health care reform bill.

Yes some small concessions were made but nothing substantial. And being locked out does not anyone willing to just sing the damn 2,000 page Bill does it….

Anyone see real tort reform in the Bill

http://michellemalkin.com/2010/03/25/while...-strikes-again/

Regarding not writing policies for children any more:
http://www.californiahealthline.org/articl...s-coverage.aspx



That's what I was referring to in my previous post. Insurance companies are for-profit. Their altruism is trodden underfoot in their quest for bigger and bigger profits. Heaven forbid that they would actually have to pay out the amount of money to help keep their sicker policy holders alive.

Is it any wonder why some of us do not trust the "free market" to provide for those who need more protection and have fewer resources? If Republicans can demonstrate the compassion that a couple of their Presidents were fond of talking about, they might find cooperation on the left side of the aisle.

From your link



The problem is that low cost plans cannot have higher costs added without increasing the price of the policy making it unsellable. And as above insurers have to sell child only coverage. But the law allows parents to sign up when a child gets sick and cancel after treatment. Then everyone pays more. Is that what you think is the right way to do this PE?


PLEASE try to understand the issues. Healthcare Insurance companies make 3.5 to 6% profit. Less than most industries. They are middlemen who have to survive. Expecting them to lose money doing it is ridiculous.

It's a matter of proportions, Ted. Three point five to six percent profit in the health insurance industry is a much higher amount than 10% profit in some other industries. In addition, people need health insurance coverage, to the point that they will take and remain in lousy jobs if it means coverage for themselves and their families.

So they would rather cap the benefits of a sick person than voluntarily lessen somewhat the profits of their companies, even if it might mean the shortening of the individual's life. There needs to be some ethics involved, and if the corporations do not understand this and the public continues to be ill-served, then it comes within the purview of our government leaders to address injustice in the health care industry.

There's nothing ridiculous about putting your money where your mouth is. There's nothing ridiculous about leading, inspiring, motivating by example. Quite the opposite. It's the ethically right thing to do, not least because you would avoid categorization as a rank "everybody should do as I wish, not as I do" hypocrite.

Your statement that only a few of the aforementioned "obscenely" rich Lefties/Liberals/Democrats would actually do that is quite revealing. Of their hypocrisy, that is.

If all of the aforementioned, plus the rest of the Lefties/Liberals/Democrats who make from $250,000 and up would put their money where their mouth is, that would amount to much more than "change". Guesstimate: about half of that $300 billion that is being touted as the amount that would accrue toward lowering the deficit. And they might even manage to shame others to follow suit, making an even bigger dent. Not to mention that doing it that way (just voluntarily sending one's "obscenely" big check to the IRS) would also save the government a nice chunk of money in terms of monitoring, auditing, enforcement, and collection costs.

And, finally, ...

Spare me the "armchair psychoanalysis" tut-tutting. One's describing great wealth as "obscene" is a blindingly obvious indication of one's invidiousness toward it. If one were to describe the manner in which great wealth is gained and/or deployed/spent as "obscene", that would be one thing. But to describe the mere fact of it that way, ... well, that's just plain ole envy.

I'll finish with a recent quote from our President, expressing sentiments that betray similar attitudes: “I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money”.