Now that I have had a day to absorb the results and go through the seven steps of grief...
I think the voters have just become impatient and want immediate change. They gave the democrats two years and want to give someone else a chance. In 2006 the democrats took over the House of Representatives. In 2008 the democrats took over the White House and the Senate. In 2010 the voters chose to give the House to the republicans. Each time was a significant change. Maybe the voters just want change.
In the last 16 years the republicans have controlled the house for 12 of them. Winning it back wasn't the signal that they will keep it. I will bet now that they lose many of those seats back to the democrats in two years. The voters are impatient.
To my democrat friend (s?)...If you had to pick two of the three, holding the Presidency and the Senate would be the two you would want.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on November 03, 2010, 11:33:16 AM
Now that I have had a day to absorb the results and go through the seven steps of grief...
I think the voters have just become impatient and want immediate change. They gave the democrats two years and want to give someone else a chance. In 2006 the democrats took over the House of Representatives. In 2008 the democrats took over the White House and the Senate. In 2010 the voters chose to give the House to the republicans. Each time was a significant change. Maybe the voters just want change.
In the last 16 years the republicans have controlled the house for 12 of them. Winning it back wasn't the signal that they will keep it. I will bet now that they lose many of those seats back to the democrats in two years. The voters are impatient.
To my democrat friend (s?)...If you had to pick two of the three, holding the Presidency and the Senate would be the two you would want.
Agreed RM. Problem now is nothing at all will get done. The Repubs in the House will pass bills that the Dems will block. The President now has the veto power knowing that the 2/3 needed to overturn the veto doesn't exist.
I can't say I voted straight party line (I never do anyway), but it leaves me with the question about Coburn which always gnaws at me. Didn't he say he would only serve the one term and quit? Don't I remember that? Or was that for just the House?
I guess he only meant one term as a representative. How noble.
::)
Quote from: Hoss on November 03, 2010, 11:39:21 AM
Problem now is nothing at all will get done.
Maybe that is what American voters want to happen.
Here's my reflections as a life-long Republican son of a Democrat (oh the shame!). Oh hell, I just came up with a new epithet ;)
First off, Republicans need to remain humble.
I'm already seeing a failure of this with most candidates who won last night.
Second, Republicans need to realize they were not given a mandate last night.
This is precisely why there was such a huge power swing in the House. Democrats were mistaken they'd been given a mandate. They did not listen to individuals and small business owners who drive the economy in any of their agenda measures. Republicans should not go to Washington with the intent of the next two years being a complete repudiation of policies since President Obama has taken office. A complete repeal of Obamacare will be a mess and political disaster. They need to examine which parts of the bill are troublesome and costly and make modifications.
Third, Republicans need to resist partisan shenanigans like circle-jerk investigations.
Fourth, Republicans need to keep their word on reigning in spending and deficits and not fill every bill with earmarks.
If they are not careful they will be removed from their seats quicker than smile through a goose.
I did see a troubling trend last night, and those of you who are FB friends have seen it in my status update. Oklahoma lost a good labor commissioner and insurance commissioner last night. I'm assuming from straight party line voting. I consider party-line voting a tool for the uninformed and I think it's a completely lazy approach to voting. Obviously, national sentiment trickled into state office voting.
Seriously, what does being pro-life or an NRA member bring to regulating the insurance industry or supervising boiler and amusement ride inspectors? I also felt John Doak had serious integrity issues, at least from information in Kim Holland's ads. I believe he also over-stated how much an insurance commissioner can have in overturning a Federal measure like Obamacare. I felt Holland was doing a great job with a department which has been plagued with corruption for years. We will now have an insurance company executive running this department which is supposed to help protect consumers.
Mark Costello (our new labor commissioner) does not seem to have even a remote clue as to what the LC does. The labor commission is not given the duty of creating jobs in Oklahoma. They regulate and enforce workplace safety, wages, labor issues, and workers comp. It's not a job promotion job. From his insanely stupid ads all I can figure is party line voting resulted in this victory. I work in a field heavily regulated by the OKDOL and can say it's been well-run under Lloyd Fields.
I was pretty ambivalent about the AG post, I figured either candidate would do well, but voted for Priest on Guido's recommendation. As far as auditor, there's something about Gary Jones I didn't like, maybe I was worried about him being less than partisan since he used to be the GOP state chairman. I also thought his lawsuit against Jeff McMahan and Gene Stipe for "stealing an election" was childish.
Quote from: Hoss on November 03, 2010, 11:39:21 AM
Agreed RM. Problem now is nothing at all will get done. The Repubs in the House will pass bills that the Dems will block. The President now has the veto power knowing that the 2/3 needed to overturn the veto doesn't exist.
I can't say I voted straight party line (I never do anyway), but it leaves me with the question about Coburn which always gnaws at me. Didn't he say he would only serve the one term and quit? Don't I remember that? Or was that for just the House?
I guess he only meant one term as a representative. How noble.
::)
He honored the three term limit in the "contract" as a representative.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 03, 2010, 12:03:12 PM
Here's my reflections as a life-long Republican son of a Democrat (oh the shame!). Oh hell, I just came up with a new epithet ;)
First off, Republicans need to remain humble.
I'm already seeing a failure of this with most candidates who won last night.
Second, Republicans need to realize they were not given a mandate last night.
This is precisely why there was such a huge power swing in the House. Democrats were mistaken they'd been given a mandate. They did not listen to individuals and small business owners who drive the economy in any of their agenda measures. Republicans should not go to Washington with the intent of the next two years being a complete repudiation of policies since President Obama has taken office. A complete repeal of Obamacare will be a mess and political disaster. They need to examine which parts of the bill are troublesome and costly and make modifications.
Third, Republicans need to resist partisan shenanigans like circle-jerk investigations.
Fourth, Republicans need to keep their word on reigning in spending and deficits and not fill every bill with earmarks.
If they are not careful they will be removed from their seats quicker than smile through a goose.
I did see a troubling trend last night, and those of you who are FB friends have seen it in my status update. Oklahoma lost a good labor commissioner and insurance commissioner last night. I'm assuming from straight party line voting. I consider party-line voting a tool for the uninformed and I think it's a completely lazy approach to voting. Obviously, national sentiment trickled into state office voting.
Seriously, what does being pro-life or an NRA member bring to regulating the insurance industry or supervising boiler and amusement ride inspectors? I also felt John Doak had serious integrity issues, at least from information in Kim Holland's ads. I believe he also over-stated how much an insurance commissioner can have in overturning a Federal measure like Obamacare. I felt Holland was doing a great job with a department which has been plagued with corruption for years. We will now have an insurance company executive running this department which is supposed to help protect consumers.
Mark Costello (our new labor commissioner) does not seem to have even a remote clue as to what the LC does. The labor commission is not given the duty of creating jobs in Oklahoma. They regulate and enforce workplace safety, wages, labor issues, and workers comp. It's not a job promotion job. From his insanely stupid ads all I can figure is party line voting resulted in this victory. I work in a field heavily regulated by the OKDOL and can say it's been well-run under Lloyd Fields.
I was pretty ambivalent about the AG post, I figured either candidate would do well, but voted for Priest on Guido's recommendation. As far as auditor, there's something about Gary Jones I didn't like, maybe I was worried about him being less than partisan since he used to be the GOP state chairman. I also thought his lawsuit against Jeff McMahan and Gene Stipe for "stealing an election" was childish.
I'm pretty much in agreement with you here, shockingly. I've got no problem with Republicans who aren't complete nutcases. Unfortunately, I think Boener and others will be ignoring your advice at the national level, and we elected quite a few nutcases into state government last night.
For what it's worth, the health care bill gives a lot of power to state insurance regulators, so I would be surprised if Doak can't find a way to refuse to enforce the law. TBH, his win was one of the most disappointing results last night. Until 2013, his department is the only thing standing in the way of unjustified rate increases in Oklahoma. Oh well, at least my SO works for a company that'll pay whatever it takes to buy her good health care coverage. Hopefully they don't end up paying so much that her raises end up being crappy.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on November 03, 2010, 11:33:16 AM
In 2006 the democrats took over the House of Representatives. In 2008 the democrats took over the White House and the Senate. In 2010 the voters chose to give the House to the republicans. Each time was a significant change. Maybe the voters just want change.
I guess Hope & Change can work both ways.
They just want the economy to come back. People thought that the horrible economy would bounce back in 2 years. So they figured things weren't happening fast enough. So, when the Republican's don't do anything for a few years you will have a competitive 2012 election.
Boehner's promising to be the "voice of the American people".
Quote from: Trogdor on November 03, 2010, 12:59:49 PM
They just want the economy to come back. People thought that the horrible economy would bounce back in 2 years. So they figured things weren't happening fast enough. So, when the Republican's don't do anything for a few years you will have a competitive 2012 election.
Unless Palin decides to run. Then whomever the Democrat is (it may NOT be our current President and he may not decide to run for another term..wouldn't blame him) will likely win as long as they can form intelligent sentences.
I just don't want to see sane Republicans getting tuned out by the likes of Rubio, Paul and others. I have a feeling it's likely the TPers will tone down their rhetoric once the freshmen congressmen/women and senators see how the dynamic of politics in DC operate. Much to the chagrin of those who voted them in.
Quote from: Townsend on November 03, 2010, 01:02:58 PM
Boehner's promising to be the "voice of the American people".
Promise me free tanning spray!
Voting for republicans gives me a Boehner.
I smell burnt toast!
Quote from: RecycleMichael on November 03, 2010, 01:08:43 PM
Voting for republicans gives me a Boehner.
And it got a tad weepy last night in front of everybody.
Sounds like a few people who joyously repeated the slander of people opposing Obama as "teabaggers" don't like the feeling of getting "teabagged" last night.
And Conan, about being "humble", what do you want? Are the winners last night not permitted to celebrate their victories? Moreover, we saw Boehner's humility last night in his tears and he gets mocked in this thread.
Quote from: guido911 on November 03, 2010, 01:26:01 PM
Sounds like a few people who joyously repeated the slander of people opposing Obama as "teabaggers" don't like the feeling of getting "teabagged" last night.
And Conan, about being "humble", what do you want? Are the winners last night not permitted to celebrate their victories? Moreover, we saw Boehner's humility last night in his tears and he gets mocked in this thread.
Yeah, now let's see how that 'humility' plays out over the next two years.
Glenn Beck called, he wants his shtick back...
Quote from: guido911 on November 03, 2010, 01:26:01 PM
Sounds like a few people who joyously repeated the slander of people opposing Obama as "teabaggers" don't like the feeling of getting "teabagged" last night.
And Conan, about being "humble", what do you want? Are the winners last night not permitted to celebrate their victories? Moreover, we saw Boehner's humility last night in his tears and he gets mocked in this thread.
Shhh, you guys smell that?
Quote from: Townsend on November 03, 2010, 01:32:26 PM
Shhh, you guys smell that?
What, burnt toast? Or the smell of hypocrisy? I guess Gweed has never mocked Speaker Pelosi...
Quote from: Townsend on November 03, 2010, 01:32:26 PM
Shhh, you guys smell that?
"Smells like, Victory!" Lt. Col. Kilgore. Eh teabagg-ee
edited
Quote from: guido911 on November 03, 2010, 01:39:38 PM
"Smells like, Victory!" Eh teabagg-ee
Nah, victory would have been bicameral. Just unicameral, and not even the senior chamber...enjoy two years, because when NOTHING gets done, smells like the same but different. I actually hope I'm wrong, but I'm not holding my breath. Most of these new Republicans strike me like my 6 year old nephew. If they don't get their way, they'll start throwing tantrums and holding their breath...
I recall shortly after Obama was inaugurated and the stimulus debate was hot on the coals, Obama, in a moment of "humility", told a republican "I won".
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/01/23/obama-to-gop-i-won/
Quote from: guido911 on November 03, 2010, 01:45:26 PM
I recall shortly after Obama was inaugurated and the stimulus debate was hot on the coals, Obama, in a moment of "humility", told a republican "I won".
He did. That's why he's the president and Palin's grandpa isn't.
Quote from: Townsend on November 03, 2010, 01:56:23 PM
He did. That's why he's the president and Palin's grandpa isn't.
Got it. Screw humility.
http://www.thehopeforamerica.com/play.php?id=5763
Quote from: Hoss on November 03, 2010, 01:05:09 PM
Promise me free tanning spray!
He is going to be the first orange American as speaker of the house.
Quote from: Hoss on November 03, 2010, 01:04:34 PM
Unless Palin decides to run. Then whomever the Democrat is (it may NOT be our current President and he may not decide to run for another term..wouldn't blame him) will likely win as long as they can form intelligent sentences.
I just don't want to see sane Republicans getting tuned out by the likes of Rubio, Paul and others. I have a feeling it's likely the TPers will tone down their rhetoric once the freshmen congressmen/women and senators see how the dynamic of politics in DC operate. Much to the chagrin of those who voted them in.
There were will be many news articles ending in the term "hilarity ensues"
Quote from: guido911 on November 03, 2010, 02:02:50 PM
Got it. Screw humility.
http://www.thehopeforamerica.com/play.php?id=5763
Riiiight. Because the Republicans are just full of humility.
""If we're able to stop Obama on this it will be his Waterloo. It will break him"
Sen Jim Demint on the ACA.
They're definitely full of something.
Quote from: guido911 on November 03, 2010, 01:26:01 PM
Sounds like a few people who joyously repeated the slander of people opposing Obama as "teabaggers" don't like the feeling of getting "teabagged" last night.
Maybe you should look at the results again. The three biggest teabaggers of 'em all lost. "Second Amendment solution" Angle, anti-masturbation crusader O'Donnell, and "Don't ask me questions, I'm just trying to get elected" Miller all failed.
Of course "boot to the head" Paul did make it, but whatchagonnado?
Quote from: nathanm on November 03, 2010, 02:09:04 PM
Maybe you should look at the results again. The three biggest teabaggers of 'em all lost. "Second Amendment solution" Angle, anti-masturbation crusader O'Donnell, and "Don't ask me questions, I'm just trying to get elected" Miller all failed.
Of course "boot to the head" Paul did make it, but whatchagonnado?
THOSE were the biggest teabaggers? Gee, I thought Rand Paul and Marco Rubio were up there.
(http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p98/IronDioPriest/donkey.jpg)
Quote from: nathanm on November 03, 2010, 02:09:04 PM
Maybe you should look at the results again. The three biggest teabaggers of 'em all lost. "Second Amendment solution" Angle, anti-masturbation crusader O'Donnell, and "Don't ask me questions, I'm just trying to get elected" Miller all failed.
Of course "boot to the head" Paul did make it, but whatchagonnado?
Well, Paul is a little bit different than the other teabaggers, he has some libertarian tendancies. The rest are Sarah Palin teabagers after they got taken over by the GOP. Although I think Coburn was the original tea partier. He did it before it was cool.
We don't know if Miller failed yet or not.
Guido, watching the national channels last night, I saw a sampling of victory parties. Certainly someone should celebrate a victory, however, doing an end zone dance and proclaiming the end of Obama tyranny (a composite paraphrase from several) is not the kind of rhetoric to ease the partisan divide in this country. I'm hearing rhetoric today that voters gave Republicans a mandate to overturn the policies of the last two years. Let me be real clear: no one has a "mandate". People are desperate to get people in office who will cut spending and rein in an unsustainable, overly-intrusive government.
You cannot leave 1/2 the voters (or more) out of the discussion, otherwise we will be thrown into the chaos of overly left and overly right agendas every two years and a gridlock of trying to undo what the last Congress or Admin did. There's got to be a move to real bi-partisanship and moderate solutions. This is what I see as the real problem, maybe it's because I'm a moderate I see it this way.
Let's face it though, overly conservative or overly liberal agendas are doing nothing but creating a bigger divide.
Quote from: guido911 on November 03, 2010, 02:18:35 PM
THOSE were the biggest teabaggers? Gee, I thought Rand Paul and Marco Rubio were up there.
They'll be assimilated.
Quote from: guido911 on November 03, 2010, 02:18:35 PM
THOSE were the biggest teabaggers? Gee, I thought Rand Paul and Marco Rubio were up there.
(http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p98/IronDioPriest/donkey.jpg)
Now that's awesome!
Quote from: Hoss on November 03, 2010, 01:41:42 PM
If they don't get their way, they'll start throwing tantrums and holding their breath...
If a teapartier holds their breath until they turn blue, do they automatically become a democrat?
Quote from: Red Arrow on November 03, 2010, 02:22:33 PM
If a teapartier holds their breath until they turn blue, do they automatically become a democrat?
Ah, that would explain things that make you say: "Only a brain-dead person would think that way"
I think the Tea Party's actual results were pretty meager but they had an enormous effect on the tenor of the election. They really provided some focusing themes (anti-incumbency; anti-government spending) for a period that might otherwise consist of free-floating economic anxiety. This is why Palin -- despite the fact that her handpicked candidates mostly floundered -- still leaves this cycle a winner. Her people mostly lost but her ideas mostly won.
FWIW, I don't believe the old line GOP was particularly either anti-government spending or anti-incumbency in 2009. They had to roll towards where the energy was.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 03, 2010, 02:21:06 PM
We don't know if Miller failed yet or not.
Guido, watching the national channels last night, I saw a sampling of victory parties. Certainly someone should celebrate a victory, however, doing an end zone dance and proclaiming the end of Obama tyranny (a composite paraphrase from several) is not the kind of rhetoric to ease the partisan divide in this country. I'm hearing rhetoric today that voters gave Republicans a mandate to overturn the policies of the last two years. Let me be real clear: no one has a "mandate". People are desperate to get people in office who will cut spending and rein in an unsustainable, overly-intrusive government.
You cannot leave 1/2 the voters (or more) out of the discussion, otherwise we will be thrown into the chaos of overly left and overly right agendas every two years and a gridlock of trying to undo what the last Congress or Admin did. There's got to be a move to real bi-partisanship and moderate solutions. This is what I see as the real problem, maybe it's because I'm a moderate I see it this way.
Let's face it though, overly conservative or overly liberal agendas are doing nothing but creating a bigger divide.
I actually agree with the need for some humility, just not to the point where a victorious candidate cannot have at least 24 hours to take a deep breath and enjoy the fruits of all their campaigning. As for the mandate, I still do not know what that really means since each voter (I am guessing here) has their own particular issue they want addressed. In my case, it's no secret I am staunchly pro-life and I do not believe the election results necessarily mean that abortion on demand will end. That said, I do believe the overriding issue that doomed the dems and Obama is the economy, and in that regard, I believe the repubs were given the reins to that cart for now.
Quote from: we vs us on November 03, 2010, 02:31:39 PM
FWIW, I don't believe the old line GOP was particularly either anti-government spending or anti-incumbency in 2009. They had to roll towards where the energy was.
I'm really interested to see what they'll do once they have the opportunity to work. The next two years of just blocking everything they can won't really let them shine.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 03, 2010, 02:21:06 PM
We don't know if Miller failed yet or not.
Guido, watching the national channels last night, I saw a sampling of victory parties. Certainly someone should celebrate a victory, however, doing an end zone dance and proclaiming the end of Obama tyranny (a composite paraphrase from several) is not the kind of rhetoric to ease the partisan divide in this country. I'm hearing rhetoric today that voters gave Republicans a mandate to overturn the policies of the last two years. Let me be real clear: no one has a "mandate". People are desperate to get people in office who will cut spending and rein in an unsustainable, overly-intrusive government.
You cannot leave 1/2 the voters (or more) out of the discussion, otherwise we will be thrown into the chaos of overly left and overly right agendas every two years and a gridlock of trying to undo what the last Congress or Admin did. There's got to be a move to real bi-partisanship and moderate solutions. This is what I see as the real problem, maybe it's because I'm a moderate I see it this way.
Let's face it though, overly conservative or overly liberal agendas are doing nothing but creating a bigger divide.
Basically politics is turning into the same thing as over correcting a car. They swerve right, swerve left, swerve right again. The center/middle isn't covered by politics. Its either way over here or way over there.
Quote from: we vs us on November 03, 2010, 02:31:39 PM
I think the Tea Party's actual results were pretty meager but they had an enormous effect on the tenor of the election. They really provided some focusing themes (anti-incumbency; anti-government spending) for a period that might otherwise consist of free-floating economic anxiety. This is why Palin -- despite the fact that her handpicked candidates mostly floundered -- still leaves this cycle a winner. Her people mostly lost but her ideas mostly won.
FWIW, I don't believe the old line GOP was particularly either anti-government spending or anti-incumbency in 2009. They had to roll towards where the energy was.
Their impact was felt beyond the general election. Tea Party activists also ousted numerous "RINOs" in primaries which set up candidates such as O'Donnell, Rubio, Angle, and Miller.
Quote from: guido911 on November 03, 2010, 02:33:56 PM
I actually agree with the need for some humility, just not to the point where a victorious candidate cannot have at least 24 hours to take a deep breath and enjoy the fruits of all their campaigning. As for the mandate, I still do not know what that really means since each voter (I am guessing here) has their own particular issue they want addressed. In my case, it's no secret I am staunchly pro-life and I do not believe the election results necessarily mean that abortion on demand will end. That said, I do believe the overriding issue that doomed the dems and Obama is the economy, and in that regard, I believe the repubs were given the reins to that cart for now.
Or to further Obama's metaphor. They drove the car into the ditch, Obama stopped on the side of the road to try to help out while the Republican's enjoyed their slurpee. Then after he put the boards under the tires so the wheels quit spinning in the mud. The republicans decided they can take it from there. Hopefully they don't put us (and by us I mean the entire world economy) in a ditch again.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on November 03, 2010, 11:33:16 AM
Now that I have had a day to absorb the results and go through the seven steps of grief...
I think the voters have just become impatient and want immediate change. They gave the democrats two years and want to give someone else a chance.
2 years from now when we are reminded the other party can't walk on water, the pendulum will swing back.
In the greater scheme of things, yesterday's election probably re-elected Obama.
Quote from: Trogdor on November 03, 2010, 02:38:23 PM
Or to further Obama's metaphor. They drove the car into the ditch, Obama stopped on the side of the road to try to help out while the Republican's enjoyed their slurpee. Then after he put the boards under the tires so the wheels quit spinning in the mud. The republicans decided they can take it from there. Hopefully they don't put us (and by us I mean the entire world economy) in a ditch again.
Oh, Obama saved us and I guess the American people who turned out yesterday are just freakin ingrates. OR, could it be, that Obama blew up the car in the ditch. In any case, Obama's use of the word "slurpee" all the time really creeped me out.
edited due to lack of tact.
Quote from: guido911 on November 03, 2010, 02:47:36 PM
Oh, Obama saved us and I guess the American people who turned out yesterday are just freakin ingrates. OR, could it be, that Obama blew up the car in the ditch while getting a slurpee.
Guido, you belong on the tulsaworld forums.
Quote from: Trogdor on November 03, 2010, 02:35:59 PM
Basically politics is turning into the same thing as over correcting a car. They swerve right, swerve left, swerve right again. The center/middle isn't covered by politics. Its either way over here or way over there.
That's a very good way to put it.
Quote from: guido911 on November 03, 2010, 02:18:35 PM
THOSE were the biggest teabaggers? Gee, I thought Rand Paul and Marco Rubio were up there.
Teabaggers are not Libertarians. Paul claims to be a teabagger so he gets their support. He's a libertarian just like pops. That said, the voters did probably see him as a teabagger, so you are right that they did manage get a couple of their high profile candidates in. They just lost more than they won.
wevus is right, however, that they did manage to set the tone of the whole thing, with plenty of help from Koch's money, of course. I'm sure he considers it money well spent to have gotten another Paul elected and the dialogue moved even further to the right (well past Republicans historically) even if the rest of his slate didn't fare so well. It's amazing what one can do in two years with a whole lot of money in a down economy. You gotta respect the guy, even if you think he's ruining the country.
Koch's money didn't win the election, the sentiment of the voters did. Koch didn't pay people to vote.
To me the tea party started out as libertarian with Republican's that didn't know what it meant and thought they just invented it (and libertarians).
Quote from: nathanm on November 03, 2010, 03:18:14 PM
Teabaggers are not Libertarians. Paul claims to be a teabagger so he gets their support. He's a libertarian just like pops. That said, the voters did probably see him as a teabagger, so you are right that they did manage get a couple of their high profile candidates in. They just lost more than they won.
wevus is right, however, that they did manage to set the tone of the whole thing, with plenty of help from Koch's money, of course. I'm sure he considers it money well spent to have gotten another Paul elected and the dialogue moved even further to the right (well past Republicans historically) even if the rest of his slate didn't fare so well. It's amazing what one can do in two years with a whole lot of money in a down economy. You gotta respect the guy, even if you think he's ruining the country.
I think we need to come up with a new term for the right. There is the Rand/Ron Paul / Coburn right. Then there are the rest of the republicans. Who say they are for "individual rights" and "balancing the budget" but they don't back it up or actually do it. To me the right just means, spend and spend, don't balance the budget, start a few wars, etc etc. Bush got elected from when I started paying attention to politics from my 20's to 30's. (Of course this is the height of republican's to Guido)
Another election, another reason to consider moving to another state...
Quote from: PonderInc on November 03, 2010, 04:10:51 PM
Another election, another reason to consider moving to another state...
I hear an impaired state is beautiful this time of year.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 03, 2010, 03:26:05 PM
Koch's money didn't win the election, the sentiment of the voters did. Koch didn't pay people to vote.
Koch provided the funding that made it all possible. Without his money, there would have been few organized events. Without his money, there would have been zero cohesive message coming from this thing. It would have looked a lot more like Cindy Sheehan's antics rather than well organized rallies and millions of dollars of campaign ads grossly distorting the facts.
It takes activists to stir your average joes to get off the couch and actually go protest something. It takes TV ads to win elections. This isn't the 30s.
Tea Partiers are the ones saying "keep the government out of my medicare." Libertarians are the ones saying the civil rights act should be repealed, medicare should be abolished, and social security should be privatized. They are at least internally consistent, unlike the Tea Partiers. Unfortunately for the Tea Partiers, what they're going to get if their backers get their way is the latter, not the former. It really is a masterful manipulation.
Quote from: PonderInc on November 03, 2010, 04:10:51 PM
Another election, another reason to consider moving to another state...
Why would you move? You are free to speak only english here and will never have to worry about being smacked down by international or islamic law. Oklahoma is its own nation now.
Quote from: PonderInc on November 03, 2010, 04:10:51 PM
Another election, another reason to consider moving to another state...
There's a lot of out of the frying pan, into the fire about that statement. OK is super-red but no very rich or influential. Just think about moving to TX: a super-red state with an economy bigger than most countries in the world.
Quote from: nathanm on November 03, 2010, 04:16:46 PM
Koch provided the funding that made it all possible. Without his money, there would have been few organized events. Without his money, there would have been zero cohesive message coming from this thing. It would have looked a lot more like Cindy Sheehan's antics rather than well organized rallies and millions of dollars of campaign ads grossly distorting the facts.
It takes activists to stir your average joes to get off the couch and actually go protest something. It takes TV ads to win elections. This isn't the 30s.
Tea Partiers are the ones saying "keep the government out of my medicare." Libertarians are the ones saying the civil rights act should be repealed, medicare should be abolished, and social security should be privatized. They are at least internally consistent, unlike the Tea Partiers. Unfortunately for the Tea Partiers, what they're going to get if their backers get their way is the latter, not the former. It really is a masterful manipulation.
Oh I get it. Koch is the GOP's George Soros.
Now we can hear about all the crooked connections to oilies in the GOP and Tea Party and all their wealthy bretheren trying to influence government since that's never in play with the Democrats.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 03, 2010, 04:24:38 PM
Oh I get it. Koch is the GOP's George Soros.
Now we can hear about all the crooked connections to oilies in the GOP and Tea Party and all their wealthy bretheren trying to influence government since that's never in play with the Democrats.
So does that nullify the criticism?
So there're big money guys behind the major movements. Newsflash! I'm of the opinion that major movements require big benefactors to be successful, so I'm not as outraged by Koch just as much as I'm not outraged by Soros. That's how our system's always worked.
What gets me is the level of accountability and opacity involved here, and on that score Soros and Koch are nowhere in the same league. Koch is very much behind the scenes and doing some serious string-pullage. Soros' activities were and are fairly above board.
It does go to one other thing, though . . . and that's credibility. The central Tea Party myth is that it's a product of the grass roots and not beholden to entrenched interests. The Koch bros make that demonstrably untrue.
EDIT: and so does Dick Armey.
Here is an article from Drudge re: Soros and the Koch bros.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/you-know-who-was-a-big-loser-in-this-election-george-soros-106640398.html
Quote from: Conan71 on November 03, 2010, 12:04:13 PM
He honored the three term limit in the "contract" as a representative.
And I heard on the radio today (KRMG), that this will be his last term as Senator. Which will be his 3rd.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 03, 2010, 04:24:38 PM
Oh I get it. Koch is the GOP's George Soros.
Now we can hear about all the crooked connections to oilies in the GOP and Tea Party and all their wealthy bretheren trying to influence government since that's never in play with the Democrats.
I have never claimed that Democrats are pure innocent souls who never took a dime from a special interest. That would be lunacy. As wevus said before I got back, a lot of people claim the tea party phenomenon is entirely or mostly grass roots, when that is not in fact the case. They are as backed by special interest money as anybody.
Quote from: nathanm on November 03, 2010, 07:41:13 PM
I have never claimed that Democrats are pure innocent souls who never took a dime from a special interest. That would be lunacy. As wevus said before I got back, a lot of people claim the tea party phenomenon is entirely or mostly grass roots, when that is not in fact the case. They are as backed by special interest money as anybody.
I never knew I was backed by special interest money when I attended a couple of "tea parties." In fact, I demand to know where my check from the Koch brothers is.
MY EYES!!!! (thanks Drudge)
(http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20101103/capt.8360f2afba2f4db884d0c3eadd70c012-8360f2afba2f4db884d0c3eadd70c012-0.jpg?x=400&y=328&q=85&sig=0E_Io.3njeQwk6IBdnQaZQ--)
Quote from: guido911 on November 03, 2010, 07:53:18 PM
I never knew I was backed by special interest money when I attended a couple of "tea parties." In fact, I demand to know where my check from the Koch brothers is.
Where's my check from Soros or the DNC? ::)
Quote from: guido911 on November 03, 2010, 08:03:18 PM
MY EYES!!!! (thanks Drudge)
(http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20101103/capt.8360f2afba2f4db884d0c3eadd70c012-8360f2afba2f4db884d0c3eadd70c012-0.jpg?x=400&y=328&q=85&sig=0E_Io.3njeQwk6IBdnQaZQ--)
Gweed, knock it off Halloween is over!
Quote from: nathanm on November 03, 2010, 08:52:47 PM
Where's my check from Soros or the DNC? ::)
Let's file a complaint with someone that will listen.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 03, 2010, 09:13:02 PM
Gweed, knock it off Halloween is over!
Sorry. Is this better?
(http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20101023/capt.f204a695bd5b4b3c86f13cfd25213ebb-f204a695bd5b4b3c86f13cfd25213ebb-0.jpg?x=275&y=345&q=85&sig=XI4_ljMi2mhkKN0eRl6q2Q--)
Really thanks Drudge
Quote from: guido911 on November 03, 2010, 09:25:46 PM
Sorry. Is this better?
(http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20101023/capt.f204a695bd5b4b3c86f13cfd25213ebb-f204a695bd5b4b3c86f13cfd25213ebb-0.jpg?x=275&y=345&q=85&sig=XI4_ljMi2mhkKN0eRl6q2Q--)
Really thanks Drudge
Makes me want to go beat an O'Donnell protestor.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 03, 2010, 09:29:04 PM
Makes me want to go beat an O'Donnell protestor.
Here's some video:
http://www.kdlt.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5905&Itemid=57#video
Fun watching the libs get owned in this thread...Jump in your toy yoda's and move on down the pike.... ;D
Quote from: Breadburner on November 03, 2010, 11:46:05 PM
Fun watching the libs get owned in this thread...Jump in your toy yoda's and move on down the pike.... ;D
Actually, the only people getting 'owned' are the citizens, because, yet again, it will be gridlock, like it has for the last two years. But hey, if you'd rather get a Boehner watching the libs get 'owned', more power to ya!
Quote from: Hoss on November 04, 2010, 12:20:22 AM
Actually, the only people getting 'owned' are the citizens, because, yet again, it will be gridlock, like it has for the last two years. But hey, if you'd rather get a Boehner watching the libs get 'owned', more power to ya!
Let's not think so pessimistically, it's a bad pygmalian ;)
I'm gleaning from POTUS' comments, he's still not clued in that the American people are afraid of an over-reaching government. He seems to think he still knows what is best for the average American even though he's not one of them. While the election results are not a "mandate" they are most definitely a referendom on citizens being very unhappy with our elected official's actions over the last two years.
I think President Obama came off as ill-informed, inflexible, and incredibly detached yesterday.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101103/ap_on_go_co/us_tea_party (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101103/ap_on_go_co/us_tea_party)
Tea Party comin' atcha like a spider monkey.
I'm curious how long it'll take for reality to hit.
I see "That's not how we do things 'round here." in their future.
I was wondering if the "Pledge For America" had vanished like a fart in the wind due to many of us still wanting to sue for breach of contract on the 1994 marketing gimmick. Turns out it's still kicking around, now it's the "Pledge To America"
http://pledge.gop.gov/
America is more than a country.
America is an idea – an idea that free people can govern themselves, that government's powers are derived from the consent of the governed, that each of us is endowed by their Creator with the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. America is the belief that any man or woman can – given economic, political, and religious liberty – advance themselves, their families, and the common good.
America is an inspiration to those who yearn to be free and have the ability and the dignity to determine their own destiny.
Whenever the agenda of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to institute a new governing agenda and set a different course.
These first principles were proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, enshrined in the Constitution, and have endured through hard sacrifice and commitment by generations of Americans.
In a self-governing society, the only bulwark against the power of the state is the consent of the governed, and regarding the policies of the current government, the governed do not consent.
An unchecked executive, a compliant legislature, and an overreaching judiciary have combined to thwart the will of the people and overturn their votes and their values, striking down longstanding laws and institutions and scorning the deepest beliefs of the American people.
An arrogant and out-of-touch government of self-appointed elites makes decisions, issues mandates, and enacts laws without accepting or requesting the input of the many.
Rising joblessness, crushing debt, and a polarizing political environment are fraying the bonds among our people and blurring our sense of national purpose.
Like free peoples of the past, our citizens refuse to accommodate a government that believes it can replace the will of the people with its own. The American people are speaking out, demanding that we realign our country's compass with its founding principles and apply those principles to solve our common problems for the common good.
The need for urgent action to repair our economy and reclaim our government for the people cannot be overstated.
With this document, we pledge to dedicate ourselves to the task of reconnecting our highest aspirations to the permanent truths of our founding by keeping faith with the values our nation was founded on, the principles we stand for, and the priorities of our people. This is our Pledge to America.
We pledge to honor the Constitution as constructed by its framers and honor the original intent of those precepts that have been consistently ignored – particularly the Tenth Amendment, which grants that all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
We pledge to advance policies that promote greater liberty, wider opportunity, a robust defense, and national economic prosperity.
We pledge to honor families, traditional marriage, life, and the private and faith-based organizations that form the core of our American values.
We pledge to make government more transparent in its actions, careful in its stewardship, and honest in its dealings.
We pledge to uphold the purpose and promise of a better America, knowing that to whom much is given, much is expected and that the blessings of our liberty buoy the hopes of mankind.
We make this pledge bearing true faith and allegiance to the people we represent, and we invite fellow citizens and patriots to join us in forming a new governing agenda for America.
Boehner and O'Connell both have come out in the past day or two embracing the Tea Party and essentially declaring a frontal assault on anything Obama's going to try to accomplish, not to mention an attempt to to roll back HCR by any means necessary. Obama, for his part, has mentioned bipartisanship several times and set up several mixed meetings with both Ds and Rs present.
So Obama's taking the hint. Boehner and O'Connell, not so much.
Quote from: we vs us on November 04, 2010, 09:40:35 PM
Boehner and O'Connell both have come out in the past day or two embracing the Tea Party and essentially declaring a frontal assault on anything Obama's going to try to accomplish, not to mention an attempt to to roll back HCR by any means necessary. Obama, for his part, has mentioned bipartisanship several times and set up several mixed meetings with both Ds and Rs present.
So Obama's taking the hint. Boehner and O'Connell, not so much.
Be a little difficult to repeal when there is no veto override power for them. Like I said, it's 1994 all over again...
Quote from: we vs us on November 04, 2010, 09:40:35 PM
Boehner and O'Connell both have come out in the past day or two embracing the Tea Party and essentially declaring a frontal assault on anything Obama's going to try to accomplish, not to mention an attempt to to roll back HCR by any means necessary. Obama, for his part, has mentioned bipartisanship several times and set up several mixed meetings with both Ds and Rs present.
So Obama's taking the hint. Boehner and O'Connell, not so much.
So the President has called a meeting with leaders of both houses, just like every other President before him. *yawn*
Part of bi-partisanship will involve the President and the majority leader of the Senate actually listening to the opposition and being willing to alter their agenda. There's a huge back-lash over healthcare and that was part of the anger that mobilized voters on Tuesday in addition to huge deficits and the economy. You simply can't cram a massive program like HCR down the throats of people who didn't want it in the first place and who really don't want it now that they know what the bill contains. As I said yesterday, I don't know that the bill needs to be gutted and I don't think the GOP should waste a bunch of time repealing the whole measure. But the President needs to be open to making changes to it which will make it more agreeable to individuals and employers.
Honestly, I heard very little out of him yesterday which indicates he really intends to become more flexible. I don't think we are going to see a repeat of 1994. President Clinton and Congress actually managed to provide six years of relatively good governance in spite of the personal politics which played out during that time. The President and Senate Democrats need to moderate. Senator McConnel and Rep. Boehner will need to approach from the middle, not the far right. The majority of Americans don't want deeply liberal or deeply conservative ideology right now.
The irony of all that is that if you listen to the left, they've been complaining that Obama and the Senate have been governing and legislating from the center, not the left, while the Republicans have stated quite clearly that they're not interested in moving toward the center in the least.
I think if people still hate HCR in 2015, it should probably be modified. Until then, it hasn't had a chance to work, and any opposition is based on either ideology, speculation, or outright lies, rather than any actual problem with the legislation itself. Nobody wants a health care policy that ends up costing a fortune and does nothing to abate the growth in overall health care spending. Given that it is premised on unpredictable future behavior, it ought to be given a chance to have its premises proven or disproven.
And here's a fascinating gem from the exit polling, further bolstering my contention it was more about the economy and the apparent Congressional deadlock than anything else:
Quote
By 52% to 42%, more voters expressed an unfavorable opinion than a favorable opinion of the GOP. Indeed, views of Republican Party are no more positive than those of the Democratic Party (53% unfavorable vs. 43% favorable), which was roundly defeated.
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1789/2010-midterm-elections-exit-poll-analysis
We all need to read and digest that page. People are rightly pissed about the economy, and they're going to vote out incumbents en masse until it gets fixed. The only mandate this election provided (at least as manifest in this particular exit poll) was for not extending the tax cuts on people earning more than $250,000 a year or not extending them at all. On every other issue support was surprisingly evenly divided.
Quote from: nathanm on November 04, 2010, 11:23:43 PM
The irony of all that is that if you listen to the left, they've been complaining that Obama and the Senate have been governing and legislating from the center, not the left, while the Republicans have stated quite clearly that they're not interested in moving toward the center in the least.
I think if people still hate HCR in 2015, it should probably be modified. Until then, it hasn't had a chance to work, and any opposition is based on either ideology, speculation, or outright lies, rather than any actual problem with the legislation itself. Nobody wants a health care policy that ends up costing a fortune and does nothing to abate the growth in overall health care spending. Given that it is premised on unpredictable future behavior, it ought to be given a chance to have its premises proven or disproven.
It's an expensive experiment. If we gutted the program as a failure in 2015, what becomes of all the people hired by the feds to man the program? That's one thing about government: once a bureaucracy is in motion it's damn near impossible to dismantle it. In fact it takes an act of Congress ;)
I'd hate to see the agenda items passed if the left was placated right now. Fiscal conservatism will work, but the GOP needs to abandon the idea of governing from the pulpit. Leave the social issues alone like gay marriage and abortion and tackle the economy. Extend the Bush tax cuts for two more years, then once the economy is showing a better recovery, get busy paying down the debt and we all need to share in the pain of higher tax rates to pay it down. We simply cannot rack up debt forever.
I heard or read somewhere that individuals and corporations are sitting on about $9 trillion in cash right now. If tax cuts are what business owners are claiming will help them hire, fine give them the tax cuts for a couple of years. If nothing changes, take them away. If business owners say Obamacare is a disincentive to hire, give them a better opportunity to opt out without it amounting to a penalty.
The biggest priority with upwards of 15 mm people out of work is to create an environment which will inspire enough confidence for people to start spending money and small business to start hiring again. Confidence matters far more than economic theory right now. This is where we are at: you can be from the Keynes school, the Friedman school, a Marxist, capitalist, etc. The answer to what is going on with the economy now can more likely be found in schools of thought in sociology and psychology.
Quote from: nathanm on November 04, 2010, 11:23:43 PM
And here's a fascinating gem from the exit polling, further bolstering my contention it was more about the economy and the apparent Congressional deadlock than anything else:
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1789/2010-midterm-elections-exit-poll-analysis
We all need to read and digest that page. People are rightly pissed about the economy, and they're going to vote out incumbents en masse until it gets fixed. The only mandate this election provided (at least as manifest in this particular exit poll) was for not extending the tax cuts on people earning more than $250,000 a year or not extending them at all. On every other issue support was surprisingly evenly divided.
There's an interesting metric I read in that:
Voters who called themselves moderate in '08 voted heavily Democrat. In 2010, they voted heavily GOP. Pretty much the same thing happened with those identified as independents.
I'm curious where the broad swing came from. Is it that moderates can be easily swayed enough to abandon one party for another or aren't committed enough to one ideology or another to consistently vote for a party? Or were they thinking that those who called the Obama agenda radical were smoking crack?
I always vote for and support the best candidate in a given race. I've likely voted for as many Democrats as Republicans over the years or pretty close. It's not that I'm a chameleon, I simply don't care for deep partisanship. I'm pretty socially liberal and don't believe we should be trying to legislate morality but I'm a staunch fiscal conservative and I don't tend to waffle on my beliefs.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 05, 2010, 12:14:56 AM
There's an interesting metric I read in that:
Voters who called themselves moderate in '08 voted heavily Democrat. In 2010, they voted heavily GOP. Pretty much the same thing happened with those identified as independents.
I'm curious where the broad swing came from. Is it that moderates can be easily swayed enough to abandon one party for another or aren't committed enough to one ideology or another to consistently vote for a party? Or were they thinking that those who called the Obama agenda radical were smoking crack?
I always vote for and support the best candidate in a given race. I've likely voted for as many Democrats as Republicans over the years or pretty close. It's not that I'm a chameleon, I simply don't care for deep partisanship. I'm pretty socially liberal and don't believe we should be trying to legislate morality but I'm a staunch fiscal conservative and I don't tend to waffle on my beliefs.
Whig Party! New Whigs!
Quote from: Conan71 on November 05, 2010, 12:01:23 AM
It's an expensive experiment. If we gutted the program as a failure in 2015, what becomes of all the people hired by the feds to man the program? That's one thing about government: once a bureaucracy is in motion it's damn near impossible to dismantle it. In fact it takes an act of Congress ;)
I'd hate to see the agenda items passed if the left was placated right now. Fiscal conservatism will work, but the GOP needs to abandon the idea of governing from the pulpit. Leave the social issues alone like gay marriage and abortion and tackle the economy. Extend the Bush tax cuts for two more years, then once the economy is showing a better recovery, get busy paying down the debt and we all need to share in the pain of higher tax rates to pay it down. We simply cannot rack up debt forever.
I heard or read somewhere that individuals and corporations are sitting on about $9 trillion in cash right now. If tax cuts are what business owners are claiming will help them hire, fine give them the tax cuts for a couple of years. If nothing changes, take them away. If business owners say Obamacare is a disincentive to hire, give them a better opportunity to opt out without it amounting to a penalty.
The biggest priority with upwards of 15 mm people out of work is to create an environment which will inspire enough confidence for people to start spending money and small business to start hiring again. Confidence matters far more than economic theory right now. This is where we are at: you can be from the Keynes school, the Friedman school, a Marxist, capitalist, etc. The answer to what is going on with the economy now can more likely be found in schools of thought in sociology and psychology.
So the best thing for America is to inspire confidence. Even though Obama lowered taxes what was the best for America was to inspire more confidence. Fox news whole goal was to spread fear and not inspire confidence. So that must make them bad for America.
Quote from: Trogdor on November 05, 2010, 09:33:10 AM
Fox news whole goal was to spread fear and not inspire confidence. So that must make them bad for America.
Wouldn't be so bad if people understood it's mostly fabricated with a few news articles thrown in.
Quote from: Trogdor on November 05, 2010, 09:33:10 AM
So the best thing for America is to inspire confidence. Even though Obama lowered taxes what was the best for America was to inspire more confidence. Fox news whole goal was to spread fear and not inspire confidence. So that must make them bad for America.
And MSNBC will do their best to scare immigrants they will be deported, senior citizens will have to eat Alpo, and children will be running around in the street shoe-less with Republican control. All things which will make people hang on to money as well.
Everyone needs to spend less time listening to talking heads like Hannity, Limpbaugh, Olbermann, and Madcow, and pay attention to the facts. Unfortunately too many Americans have been duped into believing blatant editorializing is stone-cold fact. That's why I usually will do my own research when I happen to catch something on the radio or television before I will bring it up on here or elsewhere as being Gospel.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 05, 2010, 10:45:04 AM
Everyone needs to spend less time listening to talking heads like Hannity, Limpbaugh, Olbermann, and Madcow, and pay attention to the facts. Unfortunately too many Americans have been duped into believing blatant editorializing is stone-cold fact.
+1
I swear these people make a commission on dumbing down America.
I really tried to listen to Rush and Hannity while driving during the day and then dilute the rhetoric with watching Olberman and Madow at night. I finally realized they were all lying.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on November 05, 2010, 12:10:22 PM
+1
I swear these people make a commission on dumbing down America.
I really tried to listen to Rush and Hannity while driving during the day and then dilute the rhetoric with watching Olberman and Madow at night. I finally realized they were all lying.
I'm convinced that whole lot is on the RNC and DNC payrolls. I may pick up on an issue off one of them or Neil Boortz, but again, then I go into research mode to see how far their comment has strayed from fact.
You were channelled by Joe Kelley this morning by the way. They were trying to figure out something about composting pumpkins and he said it was a good question for Recyclemichael.
Conan said;
I heard or read somewhere that individuals and corporations are sitting on about $9 trillion in cash right now. If tax cuts are what business owners are claiming will help them hire, fine give them the tax cuts for a couple of years. If nothing changes, take them away. If business owners say Obamacare is a disincentive to hire, give them a better opportunity to opt out without it amounting to a penalty.
I agree. And they have HAD 9 years to do exactly that - and have NOT. So, as directed by George Bush and the Republican controlled Congress, and agreed to by the Democrats, it is PAST time to take them away. Nothing wrong with making a rich person pay his "fair share" of 18 or 19% (instead of 16%) compared to the 40% the rest of us have to pay!
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 05, 2010, 01:46:18 PM
I agree. And they have HAD 9 years to do exactly that - and have NOT. So, as directed by George Bush and the Republican controlled Congress, and agreed to by the Democrats, it is PAST time to take them away.
I was doing OK until about mid 2006.
Interestingly, Conan, more of the electorate falls on the "don't extend the tax cuts for people making over $250,000 a year" side than don't, again according to the exit polling data. The "keep the tax cuts for everyone" bloc is slightly larger than the "keep the tax cuts for the middle class only" bloc, but there's also a sizable minority who think none of the Bush tax cuts should be extended. I hope for the Democrats' sake they don't cave to the Republicans on this, lest they once again be in a position of pissing off most of the electorate to placate a vocal minority.
The moderates appear to want bipartisanship and deficit cutting, weren't seeing that (or a convincing argument as to why that desire is wrong), so picked the only other option out there, even though they hate 'em as much or more than the Democrats. So in one way, the "party of no" policy worked pretty well. However, I think if the moderates see that continue, it's only going to help Obama and the Democrats in 2012. They want bipartisan solutions and aren't getting them.
Personally, I think bipartisanship is a stupid ideal. Sometimes one side is correct and the other is incorrect. That said, it's plainly obvious that most voters disagree with that idea, or at least claim to.
Quote from: nathanm on November 05, 2010, 01:57:03 PM
Sometimes one side is correct and the other is incorrect. That said, it's plainly obvious that most voters disagree with that idea, or at least claim to.
Probably most voters agree that one side or the other is correct but they also recongize that nothing would get done. Sometimes that's good compared to what we get.
Quote from: nathanm on November 05, 2010, 01:57:03 PM
Interestingly, Conan, more of the electorate falls on the "don't extend the tax cuts for people making over $250,000 a year" side than don't, again according to the exit polling data. The "keep the tax cuts for everyone" bloc is slightly larger than the "keep the tax cuts for the middle class only" bloc, but there's also a sizable minority who think none of the Bush tax cuts should be extended. I hope for the Democrats' sake they don't cave to the Republicans on this, lest they once again be in a position of pissing off most of the electorate to placate a vocal minority.
The moderates appear to want bipartisanship and deficit cutting, weren't seeing that (or a convincing argument as to why that desire is wrong), so picked the only other option out there, even though they hate 'em as much or more than the Democrats. So in one way, the "party of no" policy worked pretty well. However, I think if the moderates see that continue, it's only going to help Obama and the Democrats in 2012. They want bipartisan solutions and aren't getting them.
Personally, I think bipartisanship is a stupid ideal. Sometimes one side is correct and the other is incorrect. That said, it's plainly obvious that most voters disagree with that idea, or at least claim to.
Of course most of the electorate falls on the "don't extend tax cuts for those making more than $250K per year" because the majority of the electorate doesn't fall into that income bracket. That's hardly scientific. Everyone is for a tax increase until they are the one being hit. It's easy to look at those making under $250K looking at those over that threshold and thinking they make more than enough so they should shoulder more of the burden.
Look, I'm not commenting on the true economic merits one way or the other of taking away a 3% tax break that's being afforded right now. I'm simply saying we should call their bluff and see what happens or see what the next excuse is for hoarding cash. It's much like your notion of giving Obamacare until 2015 so we can really see what happens with most all provisions operating in the
scheme er plan. Human behavior has far more to do with what is going on than economic theory.
Conversely, we could let them all expire and see what happens. ;)
Quote from: nathanm on November 05, 2010, 02:13:47 PM
Conversely, we could let them all expire and see what happens. ;)
Oh God don't do that, the earth will fall off it's axis and the sun might go dark!
Quote from: RecycleMichael on November 05, 2010, 12:10:22 PM
+1
I swear these people make a commission on dumbing down America.
I really tried to listen to Rush and Hannity while driving during the day and then dilute the rhetoric with watching Olberman and Madow at night. I finally realized they were all lying.
Olbermann suspended indefinitely from MSNBC:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/05/olbermann-donated-to-three-dems-in-apparent-violation-of-nbc-policy/
I thought that was a gag at first. I really don't see the issue with this so much since Olbermann is obviously a liberal commentator, not a political journalist. I was rather staggered by this statement though which would indicate he doesn't seem to understand his own bias or at least that of the network he works for:
In a subsequent show, Olbermann also pressed House Majority Whip James Clyburn if there was a "legislative "response" to a networks that "starts to shill for partisan causes.""
I think most people with a pulse realize MSNBC is Faux for libs.
So suspended indefinitely, does that mean he's fired?
MSNBC tends to be somewhat more fact-based than Fox, but it's still a hotbed of screaming liberals. And sometimes I've seen them not let facts get in the way of good spin. Morning Joe is probably the best show on the network. I agree with Scarborough on a lot of things.
Edited to add: Interestingly, Hannity apparently donated $5,000 to Michelle Bachmann's campaign. And apparently that's OK over at Fox.
Quote from: nathanm on November 05, 2010, 02:59:34 PM
MSNBC tends to be somewhat more fact-based than Fox, but it's still a hotbed of screaming liberals. And sometimes I've seen them not let facts get in the way of good spin. Morning Joe is probably the best show on the network. I agree with Scarborough on a lot of things.
Edited to add: Interestingly, Hannity apparently donated $5,000 to Michelle Bachmann's campaign. And apparently that's OK over at Fox.
Of course it's okay. Newscorp gave $1mm to the Republican Governor's Association (or convention or whatever the caucus is called) earlier this year.
On the actual news programs, I find both channels seem to report facts with little bias. You might get selective editing of what stories make it on the air, but when you can compare the same story, the facts seem to come out the same. I did feel the election coverage on CBS was decidedly biased based on comments Katie Couric was making about Sarah Palin on election night and people she had backed.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 05, 2010, 03:08:25 PM
Of course it's okay. Newscorp gave $1mm to the Republican Governor's Association (or convention or whatever the caucus is called) earlier this year.
On the actual news programs, I find both channels seem to report facts with little bias. You might get selective editing of what stories make it on the air, but when you can compare the same story, the facts seem to come out the same. I did feel the election coverage on CBS was decidedly biased based on comments Katie Couric was making about Sarah Palin on election night and people she had backed.
If she was merely observing that Palin-backed candidates didn't do so well, that's not biased. It's the truth. (I wouldn't know, I didn't watch TV news Tuesday..I prefer my head not to explode) ;)
I noticed a lot of selective reporting on the "news" shows on Fox during the BP gusher incident, and I've noticed that they fairly regularly run with stories other news organizations choose to pass on for lack of verification, but it is true they don't usually get directly shouty from a conservative point of view for the few hours a day they run news rather than opinion.
I'm not really sure what I think about MSNBC as a whole. I feel like they're not quite as blatantly biased as Fox (they do have Pat Buchanan, after all), but I haven't really watched enough to know. I see more stuff of theirs in the form of web clips than anything else, aside from the aforementioned Morning Joe habit I sometimes nurse.
I really ought to watch more CNN. From what I have seen, they still don't usually push a blatant political agenda most of the day as MSNBC and FNC do. In some ways that's worse, though. There's always some bias; at least with MSNBC and FNC you know ahead of time what that bias is going to be.
Russ Feingold getting his head handed to him by a Tea Party candidate who never ran for office before is the most shocking result of last Tuesday to me.
Quote from: HazMatCFO on November 06, 2010, 06:59:08 AM
Russ Feingold getting his head handed to him by a Tea Party candidate who never ran for office before is the most shocking result of last Tuesday to me.
A couple other high profile progressive D's got tossed, too, but the biggest casualties were the conservative Blue Dogs, who lost something like 50% of their caucus. Despite Feingold going away (which I admit shocked me, too), the more liberal D's were re-elected by about 95% (I'm looking for a cite for these numbers; I know I read them somewhere out there in the last day or two but can't remember where off the top of my head).
This seems to be mirroring one pattern of the D successes of 2006 and 2008: the broad middle (conservative Ds and moderate Rs and sundry Independents) don't really know where to turn. They keep swinging between the GOP and the Democrats looking for representation, while the extremes of each party are safely re-elected (most probably because of stable and/or gerrymandered districts).
I keep hearing that we're ripe for a 3rd party (and Mike Bloomberg, mayor of NYC always gets mentioned first), but I'm still wary about a 3rd party's prospect of actually being victorious. I'm not sure the broad middle actually exists as a bloc (in enough of a meaningful sense to give it to a 3rd party candidate). I have the sense that the middle is much more splintered, fickle, and one or two issue oriented, rather than a homogeneous group responsive to singular party or a singular brand identity.
Obviously if someone could pull the center together into a unified political force then our politics would change fundamentally, but I suspect that it's an impossibility, mostly because it's never been done despite the better efforts of generations of politicians.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 05, 2010, 01:46:18 PM
Conan said;
I heard or read somewhere that individuals and corporations are sitting on about $9 trillion in cash right now. If tax cuts are what business owners are claiming will help them hire, fine give them the tax cuts for a couple of years. If nothing changes, take them away. If business owners say Obamacare is a disincentive to hire, give them a better opportunity to opt out without it amounting to a penalty.
I've been trying to determine just how providing corporations with more $$ (through tax cuts) will encourage them to hire, and I can't understand how. If $9T in aggregate isn't enough to make corporations invest, why would an extra $500 billion in tax cuts suddenly do the trick? Or however much? Money's cheap right now. There's no reason to believe that shoveling more cheap money on the cheap money pile will incentivize different behavior.
Plus, I thought bailouts were badbadbad?
Quote from: HazMatCFO on November 06, 2010, 06:59:08 AM
Russ Feingold getting his head handed to him by a Tea Party candidate who never ran for office before is the most shocking result of last Tuesday to me.
Yeah, that surprised me a lot, given how he's one of the people most willing to reach across the aisle and how voters by and large claimed to want exactly that in the exit polling data.
That's pretty much the whole point. The richest have the privilege of paying only 15 to 16% taxes, while we pay 40+. And they have gotten this special dispensation for 9 years. And since 4th quarter 2007 until Jan 2010, we were losing jobs while they sit on the cash we put up for them to play with.
Interesting the Murdochian/Rove lie machine doesn't mention that the economy has added just over 1 million new private sector jobs this year (as well as the ongoing losses). Just a very tiny little point of light in the darkness. Now if we could just do that another 15 million times!
Another tidbit; unemployment for college educated is 4.4%, up 1 % since the start of the recession. Blue collar jobs - like the ones we have shipped to China must then account for well over 10% just due to the averaging to get back down to 9.6% - probably 11 or 12% or more. Need some numbers of how many college educated workers there are in the country and could do the algebra! Just another case showing how much we have thrown away.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 07, 2010, 10:37:42 PM
Another tidbit; unemployment for college educated is 4.4%, up 1 % since the start of the recession. Blue collar jobs - like the ones we have shipped to China must then account for well over 10% just due to the averaging to get back down to 9.6% - probably 11 or 12% or more. Need some numbers of how many college educated workers there are in the country and could do the algebra! Just another case showing how much we have thrown away.
Non-degreed folks had an unemployment rate of 16 or 17% last I looked. Under 25s were at 25% or so. College educated people with established careers have not been hit nearly as hard by the recession and glacial growth as other segments of the population.
If you're just starting out, it doesn't really matter whether you have a degree or not. There are some bright spots, though. Professional firms have recently picked up in hiring of recent grads after hiring few to no candidates over the last couple of years. Not that that really helps the lawyers and accountants who graduated in the lost years, though.
We have hired thousands in the last year. And still a few thousand short of the peak. Just not fast enough - still behind in many areas.
At this point, I would just be thrilled to death if the rich got to pay even 20% average!! That would take care of the deficit and the debt! Like we were before the 3% Bush cuts....
We don't pay 40%. They still have to pay state taxes too. Though you are right, the richest pay around 17% effective tax rate (Federal). Same as me.
Quote from: we vs us on November 06, 2010, 01:41:36 PM
I've been trying to determine just how providing corporations with more $$ (through tax cuts) will encourage them to hire, and I can't understand how. If $9T in aggregate isn't enough to make corporations invest, why would an extra $500 billion in tax cuts suddenly do the trick? Or however much? Money's cheap right now. There's no reason to believe that shoveling more cheap money on the cheap money pile will incentivize different behavior.
Plus, I thought bailouts were badbadbad?
Like I said, economic theory is moot when it comes to tax cuts. Economic theory doesn't create jobs, people quite literally do. Indulge human behavior, extend the cuts and see what happens. If CEO's say that's what it takes, hold them to their word.
tax cuts for corporations...haven't the last few years of using them and still rising unemployment rates each year proven they don't create jobs?
Quote from: Conan71 on November 08, 2010, 09:42:51 AM
Like I said, economic theory is moot when it comes to tax cuts. Economic theory doesn't create jobs, people quite literally do. Indulge human behavior, extend the cuts and see what happens. If CEO's say that's what it takes, hold them to their word.
I'm not really sure what to say about that. That kinda goes in the face of everything about good governance I know. It's literally like opening the government coffers and handing bags of money to business owners
because they told us to. And if tax cuts defy scholarship -- can't be accounted for by theory -- on what basis should I believe they actually work? Just because Reagan said so? I can look back at the Bush tax cuts of 2003 and pretty clearly see that they did jack squat to either prime the pump or provide lasting job gains. Or, in the end to trickle down in the least. Salaries are flat over the last decade, and the employment rate speaks for itself.
"Just one more chance...."
They had 9 years. Plus, especially the last 3.
No 'economic theory' at all to it. It is economic fact; anyone who had actually studied history would know that it is not a tax cut that stimulates new jobs or economic activity. That is the biggest part of the Republican lie. If in some alternate universe world where the sky is purple, that happened to be true, then this economy should still be skyrocketing! We had all the big tax cuts for the rich in 2001 and 2003, then all the tax cuts for the middle class in 2009 (biggest cuts in the history of the world). So where are the jobs??
Trog, you only pay 17%?? You mean there is no SS taken out (7 + 7). Plus medicare/medicaid? State is too dependent on geography, so I never count that.
What you are not getting is the special treatment of 95% of your income to count it as "long term capital gains" at a max tax rate of 15%. That is where the difference comes in. (Sorry to hear you only make enough to pay 17%! Hope things get better!) Personally, I would love for my income tax bill to double every year for the rest of my life. That would mean just that much more income every year for the rest of my life!
You are right, I wasn't including FICA which isn't included over $123,000. People from $85 to $123k a year pay the higest taxes of anybody.
If we give you another tax cut, how will we pay for our roads? ;)
Quote from: nathanm on November 08, 2010, 05:28:07 PM
If we give you another tax cut, how will we pay for our roads? ;)
Do the river first...
This cannot be true:
QuoteA staffer for a congressional Democrat who came up short on Tuesday reports that a team of about five people stopped by their offices this morning to talk about payroll, benefits, writing a résumé, and so forth, with staffers who are now job hunting.
But one of the staffers was described as a "counselor" to help with the emotional aspect of the loss — and a section in the packet each staffer was given dealt with the stages of grief (for instance, Stage One being anger, and so on).
"It was like it was about death," the staffer said. "It was bizarre." The staffer did say the portions about the benefits and résumé writing were instructive.
[
Emphasis mine]
http://www.politico.com/blogs/maggiehaberman/1110/Grief_counseling_after_the_wipeout.html
I take it you've never seen Up in the Air?
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 08, 2010, 01:07:51 PM
Personally, I would love for my income tax bill to double every year for the rest of my life. That would mean just that much more income every year for the rest of my life!
We could probably raise your tax rates enough to keep you from enjoying any increase in income. ;D
Red,
But that's the whole point, ain't it? We have done nothing but cut taxes for a decade. If my taxes doubled every year that would very soon mean I was also up in that rarified atmosphere of the rich, so if they doubled, it would mean a quadrupling of income! I'm ALL about that....
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 09, 2010, 03:00:02 PM
Red,
But that's the whole point, ain't it? We have done nothing but cut taxes for a decade. If my taxes doubled every year that would very soon mean I was also up in that rarified atmosphere of the rich, so if they doubled, it would mean a quadrupling of income! I'm ALL about that....
For starters, your taxes will double well before your income quadruples thanks to the progressive income tax. (Unless your income is already in the stratosphere and most of it is subject to the highest bracket.)
You also missed my point that in order to soak the rich, we can raise your marginal rates to keep you from keeping any more than you get to keep now. Historically the marginal rates have been pretty high.
Not the way it is now. If it doubles and doubles and doubles again, pretty soon I can take advantage of all the tools of the trade and I will reside in 16%ville, too. I would avoid the SS tax. I would avoid medicare/medicaid. And I would use the long term capital gains methods to avoid all but 15% of income tax. There IS no such thing as "progressive" tax rates at those income levels - it is the "flat tax" there is so much talk about - and it is 15%.
Yeah, I would take the hit on the first 100,000 or so, but beyond that, it is cheap tax city.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 10, 2010, 12:24:32 PM
Not the way it is now.
That's what I am saying, CHANGE the taxes so you can pay more tax without taking home more money.
So, you are making the case that the richest should continue to get the 16% solution while the rest of us get to pay 40%.
Guess we know where you dwell on the spectrum. Hope to be up there with you soon!
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 10, 2010, 09:42:45 PM
So, you are making the case that the richest should continue to get the 16% solution while the rest of us get to pay 40%.
Guess we know where you dwell on the spectrum. Hope to be up there with you soon!
Where I actually dwell is a flat income tax with deductions for a basic no frills cost of living. Then, after a certain threshold due to the mentioned deduction, if you make twice as much you pay twice as much.
Other issues may or may not have their own merit. Unless SS benefits continue to climb with contributions, I have no problem with not charging SS tax above a certain income. Maximum benefits should correlate with a maximum cost. I will be really unhappy if my SS benefits are reduced because I have been stupid enough to try to save (401K etc) for a better retirement.
The idea of a Capital Gains rate is to support businesses that support our economy. I guess you don't want to support businesses.
For most of us, myself included, our taxes will double before our income does.
We supported business for the last 9 years. And they supported us, but supported their executives disproportionately much better. Why continue to reward bad behavior??
SS does keep going up with higher contributions. If you make $50k a year, your retirement will be less than if $100k. Always been that way. Which brings us to the fallacy of the SS trust fund - financial isolation of moneys - well, that fantasy is so lame; should just get rid of it and let's quit lying about it.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 10, 2010, 10:30:58 PM
We supported business for the last 9 years. And they supported us, but supported their executives disproportionately much better. Why continue to reward bad behavior??
SS does keep going up with higher contributions. If you make $50k a year, your retirement will be less than if $100k. Always been that way. Which brings us to the fallacy of the SS trust fund - financial isolation of moneys - well, that fantasy is so lame; should just get rid of it and let's quit lying about it.
So we should trash business and replace it with what? Government defined salaries? Hugo Chavez style nationalization of businesses that tick off the government? I agree some executives should have been
executed severely punished, especially those that ran their companies into the ground and then left with platinum parachutes leaving stock holders and regular employees holding the bag.
My impression of the talk about removing the upper limit of salary to pay SS on did not include benefits to follow. SS fund isolation, agreed. The treasury has been raiding it for years, both Republicans and Democrats. Also the first recipients did not fund their benefits. That was long ago enough that that could have been made up by now. Obviously it hasn't. I still want something for paying into the system for the last 30+ years.
Quote from: Red Arrow on November 10, 2010, 10:59:57 PM
So we should trash business and replace it with what?
There's a place between giving executives free reign to do whatever they like, consequences be damned, and regulating the snot out of them and/or nationalizing their businesses.
Quote from: nathanm on November 11, 2010, 12:27:35 PM
There's a place between giving executives free reign to do whatever they like, consequences be damned, and regulating the snot out of them and/or nationalizing their businesses.
One of them involves having a Board of Directors (or whoever hires these jerks) with the guts to tie CEO salary to performance and killing the parachute for lack of performance.
Who said anything about trashing business??? Typical Murdochian knee jerk insanity response.
I HAVE been saying all along that these people who are reaping (raping) so much from the work of regular people should AT LEAST pay their fair share. And if my fair share is determined by the tax code to be 40%, then they should be paying a cumulative total of that much...or at least half of it, anyway!!
But I guess I can't expect the RWRE to think in any terms that deviate from the script. Might cause a brain fart that would blow those brains out.
Geez....
I literally saw somebody on fox news use the argument. That they shouldn't increase the top tax rate because they will just find a way to not pay the taxes. How does that logic work?
Quote from: Red Arrow on November 10, 2010, 10:25:40 PM
Where I actually dwell is a flat income tax with deductions for a basic no frills cost of living. Then, after a certain threshold due to the mentioned deduction, if you make twice as much you pay twice as much.
Other issues may or may not have their own merit. Unless SS benefits continue to climb with contributions, I have no problem with not charging SS tax above a certain income. Maximum benefits should correlate with a maximum cost. I will be really unhappy if my SS benefits are reduced because I have been stupid enough to try to save (401K etc) for a better retirement.
The idea of a Capital Gains rate is to support businesses that support our economy. I guess you don't want to support businesses.
For most of us, myself included, our taxes will double before our income does.
Except it is said that small business is the heart of the US economy. So unless your small business is publicly traded the capital gains tax isn't going to help your business.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 11, 2010, 12:48:09 PM
Typical Murdochian knee jerk insanity response.
Typical Heironymouspasparagusian response.
Absolutely!!! There must be a voice of reason and logic amongst all the RWRE swill!!
Quote from: Trogdor on November 11, 2010, 12:55:35 PM
I literally saw somebody on fox news use the argument. That they shouldn't increase the top tax rate because they will just find a way to not pay the taxes. How does that logic work?
If it costs less to pay an accountant to figure out how to not pay taxes than it would cost to just pay the tax, guess where the money will go.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 11, 2010, 01:03:10 PM
Absolutely!!! There must be a voice of reason and logic amongst all the RWRE swill!!
We obviously have a difference of opinion regarding the reason and logic of your responses.
Quote from: Red Arrow on November 11, 2010, 01:04:24 PM
If it costs less to pay an accountant to figure out how to not pay taxes than it would cost to just pay the tax, guess where the money will go.
So by that logic we should increase the tax rate even more to compensate.
Quote from: Trogdor on November 11, 2010, 12:59:59 PM
Except it is said that small business is the heart of the US economy. So unless your small business is publicly traded the capital gains tax isn't going to help your business.
Maybe there should be a way to allow small businesses to take advantage of the Capital Gains rates.
Quote from: Trogdor on November 11, 2010, 01:06:10 PM
So by that logic we should increase the tax rate even more to compensate.
No, then it would be even more attractive to hire an accountant to find a way to pay less tax than just paying the tax.
Quote from: Trogdor on November 11, 2010, 12:59:59 PM
Except it is said that small business is the heart of the US economy. So unless your small business is publicly traded the capital gains tax isn't going to help your business.
What exactly are you thinking being publicly traded has to do with cap gains? Owners buying and selling stock? Help me out here.
If you are in the business of buying and selling assets to make money or your business owns real estate or other appreciable assets, cap gains affects you.
Higher tax rates always force people to find ways to lower their overall burden and the tax codes are written with enough outs to exploit this. Instead of taking income, your business buys you a company car or purchases real estate which can be sold at a later date which will hopefully have a lower cap gains rate when the real estate is sold at a profit.
While the burden on small businesses paying a lower percentage on long term capital gains. Larger companies gain more of an advantage from the individual capital gains tax for investment in stocks. It all depends on if your business is based largely on selling items that will fall under the effect it will have. I am for having business pay a lower tax rate but not the individual on capital gains.
*Edit: Although it really sucks if you sell an asset , pay the tax, then pay the tax on the profit when you get paid for it*
A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day.
And here is another thing to do that makes more sense than any Glen Beck rally;
Hearse Con, be there or accept your role as a bitter failure at life.
http://www.hearseclub.com/hearsecon/hearsecon.htm
Geez..... again.
Capital gains;
Corporation, either C or S can use ISO's (Incentive Stock Options). Use the tools! Grant and ISO, vesting in one year. At the end of the year, sell the stock back to the corp using the money you reserved the previous year. Instant 15% tax.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 11, 2010, 01:19:29 PM
A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day.
And here is another thing to do that makes more sense than any Glen Beck rally;
Hearse Con, be there or accept your role as a bitter failure at life.
http://www.hearseclub.com/hearsecon/hearsecon.htm
Geez..... again.
You make a great case for a poll tax.
how did this thread evolve into a tax discussion?
Quote from: RecycleMichael on November 11, 2010, 01:44:09 PM
how did this thread evolve into a tax discussion?
Isn't it always?
Quote from: Conan71 on November 11, 2010, 01:39:01 PM
You make a great case for a poll tax.
A friend of mine had a BD party last Saturday and I paid a poll...oh, you mean poll as in 'voter' tax.
Not surprising.
;D
Quote from: RecycleMichael on November 11, 2010, 01:44:09 PM
how did this thread evolve into a tax discussion?
Shhhh, it's part of my plan to eventually steer the conversation to Marshall's.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 11, 2010, 01:59:21 PM
Shhhh, it's part of my plan to eventually steer the conversation to Marshall's.
Is everyone voting for Marshalls in the Thirsty Beagle?
http://blog.newsok.com/thirstybeagle/2010/11/11/bcs-last-four-spots-in-sweet-16-up-for-grabs/ (http://blog.newsok.com/thirstybeagle/2010/11/11/bcs-last-four-spots-in-sweet-16-up-for-grabs/)
Done and done.
Thank you of reminding me of my civic duty Townsend.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 11, 2010, 02:35:34 PM
Thank you of reminding me of my civic duty Townsend.
A candidate I can truly get behind and support.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on November 11, 2010, 01:44:09 PM
how did this thread evolve into a tax discussion?
I believe it was:
heironymouspasparagus
Philanthropist
Offline
Posts: 838
Re: reflections on the elections...
« Reply #100 on: November 07, 2010, 10:37:42 pm » Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's pretty much the whole point. The richest have the privilege of paying only 15 to 16% taxes, while we pay 40+. And they have gotten this special dispensation for 9 years. And since 4th quarter 2007 until Jan 2010, we were losing jobs while they sit on the cash we put up for them to play with.
Ahhhh...the plaintive bleat of RWRE revisionist history! Would that I had so much power to completely derail the collective train of thought! I would use it for good - I promise!
But then again, at the very least, there were posts 74, 75, 78, and 98. With massive infusions of Tea Party tea-bagging, which definitely would imply a tax component to even the most casual observer.
And wasn't the thread about elections?? And weren't the vast majority of Oklahoma elections based one half on tax cuts and the other half on illegal immigration?? (Answer; yes.)
But I will accept that notion that I evolved the thread. I shall play the martyr for the nonce. (And no, not the sex offender version...)
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 12, 2010, 01:44:01 PM
Ahhhh...the plaintive bleat of RWRE revisionist history! Would that I had so much power to completely derail the collective train of thought! I would use it for good - I promise!
But then again, at the very least, there were posts 74, 75, 78, and 98. With massive infusions of Tea Party tea-bagging, which definitely would imply a tax component to even the most casual observer.
And wasn't the thread about elections?? And weren't the vast majority of Oklahoma elections based one half on tax cuts and the other half on illegal immigration?? (Answer; yes.)
But I will accept that notion that I evolved the thread. I shall play the martyr for the nonce. (And no, not the sex offender version...)
Still hosting the Bong Show in your spare time I see. Doesn't your employer require piss tests?
(http://www.bongshow.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/bong-show-logo-cropped.jpg)
Wouldn't that be an unwarranted intrusion into a person's private life?
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 14, 2010, 08:21:35 PM
Wouldn't that be an unwarranted intrusion into a person's private life?
Part of Civil Disobedience is the willingness to go to jail for your principals (see Mahatma Ghandi [sp?]). Got something to hide?
Absolutely - my private life - as is (allegedly) my right under the US Constitution! No rationalization, explanation or justification required. By definition.
Oh, wait - I forgot - that has been trampled, stomped, spindled and mutilated almost beyond recognition.
Quote from: guido911 on November 08, 2010, 05:38:05 PM
This cannot be true:
[Emphasis mine]
http://www.politico.com/blogs/maggiehaberman/1110/Grief_counseling_after_the_wipeout.html
And now the crying:
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/129327-dejected-dems-wipe-away-tears-as-gop-celebrates
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 15, 2010, 12:52:42 PM
Absolutely - my private life - as is (allegedly) my right under the US Constitution! No rationalization, explanation or justification required. By definition.
Oh, wait - I forgot - that has been trampled, stomped, spindled and mutilated almost beyond recognition.
And that's just the TSA for starters.
"Patriot Act" - another "1984" allusion. (Not illusion - well, maybe that too!)
Redefinition of terms to mean the exact opposite of what it really is. Doublespeak.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 16, 2010, 02:02:30 PM
And that's just the TSA for starters.
They are very rude when you try to tip them.
Do not, I repeat, do not expect them to pull out their thong for you to stick your dollars in. (You get taken to the "screening room" for a very unpleasant experience.)
Quote from: Townsend on November 16, 2010, 02:09:28 PM
They are very rude when you try to tip them.
Do not, I repeat, do not expect them to pull out their thong for you to stick your dollars in. (You get taken to the "screening room" for a very unpleasant experience.)
The problem is them trying to find the tip.
Quote from: Townsend on November 16, 2010, 02:09:28 PM
They are very rude when you try to tip them.
Do not, I repeat, do not expect them to pull out their thong for you to stick your dollars in. (You get taken to the "screening room" for a very unpleasant experience.)
Sorry, I couldn't help but visualize a traveler at one of the TSA checkpoints physically poking one of these agents to push them over (tipping).
Went through Tulsa airport a few weeks ago and they have that porn picture crap setup and running. I think I would almost prefer the sexual molestation if I could pick the one to grope me. But even that would be distasteful, since none of them is really attractive enough to make it acceptable.
Oh, wait...it ain't a sex crime if the government does it....sexpecially if it is in the name of 'security'!
Sounds a lot like "It isn't illegal if the President does it..." --Richard Nixon to David Frost.
Here's an interesting reflection on the election: