# The November 2nd Election Thread



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

So the elections are very close, and the media is saying the republicans are leading. Well, I say if the tea baggers (is that what they're called ) produce someone like Obama they will win, which is something to think about. I say let them have the elections, but I will say "I told you so" when they start seeing the consequences of electing a tea bagger, or Sarah Palin. I'm not saying the democrats are perfect, but they are (and still are) the lesser of two evils. Republicans, do you really think tea bagger majority in the congress would do this country any good? Other than that, what are your insights on the coming elections?


----------



## lovemeparis (May 20, 2006)

*My first time ever to vote!*

OK, I've sent in my vote-by-mail yesterday. :devil:


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

lovemeparis said:


> OK, I've sent in my vote-by-mail yesterday. :devil:


I never knew you could cast your vote by e-mail :icon_scratch:, are you serious?


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

Given that the health insurers just filed another petition with the insurance commissioner to increase health care premiums by another 14.9% to comply with Obamacare, after already getting a 14% increase approved over the summer for the first round of Obamacare requirements, it seems that the Republicans will have a clean sweep of elections. Close to 30% increase in premiums is pretty astounding and Congress seems to have just made the healthcare situation much worse.

It also doesn't help that the newspaper wrote a front page story this morning about employers having to increase withholding and decrease take home pay because of the tax increases that are about to take hold.

I think the Democrats are pretty much history at this point. Too bad, I had hoped Obama would try to bring back some sort of balance to this country, but that proved not to be true.

I have no idea how we will ever pay back the trillions in debt and wasted spending Congress has racked up in the last two years.

:icon_pale:


----------



## lovemeparis (May 20, 2006)

*Snail Mail...*



camorristi said:


> I never knew you could cast your vote by *e-mail* :icon_scratch:, are you serious?


I typed vote-by-mail not e-mail... duh:deadhorse-a:


----------



## lovemeparis (May 20, 2006)

*There is no hope*



Beresford said:


> I have no idea now *we will ever pay back the trillions in debt and wasted spending Congress has racked up in the last two years*. :icon_pale:


No wonder why.:devil:

Geeze... I've never knew that anyone can be a politician, even a farmer with no background in government. So, why go to Harvard or Law school for?


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

lovemeparis said:


> I typed vote-by-mail not e-mail... duh:deadhorse-a:


I have a bad habit of skimming..sorry


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

I'm inclined to say I will vote for anyone but the incumbent, based on the performance of those presently serving. However, I suspect the majority of my check marks will be for Republican candidates.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

And why is Mickey Mouse in this election?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

A Republican Congress will at least assure that the Legislative process will move slowly and deliberately as it was intended.

Without such balance, Legislation such as the recent "Healthcare Bill" get passed.



camorristi said:


> tea baggers (is that what they're called )


BTW~Using vulgar and pejorative terms such as this displays the immaturity the user.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Beresford said:


> Too bad, I had hoped Obama would try to bring back some sort of balance to this country, but that proved not to be true.


I didn't vote for him but I had hoped for the best. Now he stumps for his comrades and calls me his "enemy."

I am not amused.


----------



## ThomasK (Jul 7, 2010)

I don't vote for a party, I vote for a candidate. Of the candidates I voted for this year, it was a fairly even split: some are dems, some are reps.


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

I think everyone is the same, voting does not make a difference period. I vote for Mickey Mouse. Plus, I could not care less about politics, it's all about money these days, if you got plenty you'll be happy, if you don't you won't. Unfortunately, it all comes down to this. Sorry, but that's life.


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> I didn't vote for him but I had hoped for the best. Now he stumps for his comrades and calls me his "enemy."
> 
> I am not amused.


He calls you his enemy just like Sarah Palin says he wants to kill her baby?! If you really believe that, I feel very sorry for you.


----------



## harvey_birdman (Mar 10, 2008)

camorristi said:


> So the elections are very close, and the media is saying the republicans are leading. Well, I say if the tea baggers (is that what they're called )* produce someone like Obama *they will win, which is something to think about. I say let them have the elections, but I will say "I told you so" when they start seeing the consequences of electing a tea bagger, *or Sarah Palin.* I'm not saying the democrats are perfect, but they are (and still are) the lesser of two evils. Republicans, do you really think* tea bagger majority in the congress *would do this country any good? Other than that, what are your insights on the coming elections?


Do you have any idea what you're talking about? This is a mid-term election, not a Presidential election. Sarah Palin is not running for office. Even if every tea bag candidate wins they wouldn't have a majority in either house of Congress.

Have you considered abstaining?


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

harvey_birdman said:


> Do you have any idea what you're talking about? This is a mid-term election, not a Presidential election. Sarah Palin is not running for office. Even if every tea bag candidate wins they wouldn't have a majority in either house of Congress.
> 
> Have you considered abstaining?


I know exactly what I'm talking about, do you? I am referring to Sarah Palin as a symbol of irrationality and Republican fundamentalism. And yes, I have considered abstaining, I actually stopped drinking if that's what you're implying.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

camorristi said:


> I say if the *tea baggers* (is that what they're called...





WouldaShoulda said:


> BTW~Using vulgar and pejorative terms such as this *displays the immaturity the user*.


It does? Sheez, then I must be about 12. Tea baggers, Tea baggers, Tea baggers! Nah, Nah, nah, nah, naaaaah nah.


----------



## harvey_birdman (Mar 10, 2008)

camorristi said:


> And yes, I have considered abstaining, I actually stopped drinking if that's what you're implying.


All right, you win. Carry on.


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

If I thought it was a real possibility, I'd vote Libertarian as that is wear my core convictions are, but I'm not going to waste my vote and am going straight Republican. Yeah,while some of them tend to be a little too bible orientated for my taste, they are more Jeffersonian as a group.
Oh and there is that Second amendment thing.:icon_smile:


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

For those who can't read, here's a visual guide to the choices in this badly named poll:

The Democratic Party:










The Republican Party:










Other:

Not Voting:

Mickey Mouse:


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

Quay said:


> For those who can't read, here's a visual guide to the choices in this badly named poll:
> 
> The Democratic Party:
> 
> ...


Micky Mouse :icon_cheers:. But, voting for makes me sick. The Tea "Baggers" Party is openly attacking their opposition's faith, skin color, and sexual orientation, was this country really free at sometime?! Racism and prejudice based on gender, ethnicity, faith, and sexual orientation makes me sick.


----------



## jean-paul sartorial (Jul 28, 2010)

Beresford said:


> I have no idea how we will ever pay back the trillions in debt and wasted spending Congress has racked up in the last two years.


The problem is, Republicans don't either. Wait. That's not really true. Actually, both sides know what they have to do but no one will re-elect them if they slash Social Security, Medicare and Defense while raising taxes.

Republicans at least need to come up with a specific, cohesive plan they can sell to the gullible voters because right now they don't have a message other than "we hate everyone." While I believe the mood of the country is conservative right now, the Republicans are mostly riding a wave of anti-incumbent sentiment. The opinion polls seem to show that while voters dislike Democrats and their health care plan, they dislike the GOP nearly as much.

Next time around, or sometime soon, the GOP will be the incumbents and they will get swept out of office just like what happened the last two elections and is happening with the Democrats now unless they get some party cohesion and a specific fiscal platform.

I will likely be conscientiously abstaining from this election. The race in my district is not close and I don't particularly care for either the incumbent or the hopeless challenger.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

camorristi said:


> Racism and prejudice based on gender, ethnicity, faith, and sexual orientation makes me sick.


Yet when Obama uses divisive tactics you gave him a pass and countered with, "well, Sarah Palin did it!!"


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

camorristi said:


> I think everyone is the same, voting does not make a difference period. I vote for Mickey Mouse. Plus, I could not care less about politics,
> 
> ...it's all about money these days, if you got plenty you'll be happy, if you don't you won't. Unfortunately, it all comes down to this. Sorry, but that's life.


1) That statement appears disingenuous

2) So Micheal Jackson was happy and my Grandparents were miserable.

Showing our age again??


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

So who's voting for Linda McMahon?


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> 1) That statement appears disingenuous
> 
> 2) So Micheal Jackson was happy and my Grandparents were miserable.
> 
> Showing our age again??


I said rich enough, not filthy rich. Look at it this way, if you have $20,000,000 you'll be happy, if you have $200,000,000 you won't.


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Yet when Obama uses divisive tactics you gave him a pass and countered with, "well, Sarah Palin did it!!"


If you're so fond of Sarah Palin, join her mailing list. And yes, Obama gets a pass because he is an honest person who wanted every American to have health insurance but the republicans and the democrats too, did not let that happen. At least he tries to help you, plus he's not another arrogant capitol hill politician.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

camorristi said:


> Obama gets a pass because he is an honest person who wanted every American to have health insurance...


By force if he has to!!


----------



## jean-paul sartorial (Jul 28, 2010)

haha. Zing!

Although honestly, we are all already forced to pay FICA and taxes (which go to Medicare) so I'm not really sure what makes Obama's plan so much worse than what we have.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

camorristi said:


> I never knew you could cast your vote by e-mail :icon_scratch:, are you serious?


Sure. We Republicans encourage all Democrats to vote that way. It makes it so much easier to vote multiple times in keeping with their tradition.


----------



## Wildblue (Oct 11, 2009)

camorristi said:


> And yes, Obama gets a pass because he is an honest person who wanted every American to have health insurance but the republicans and the democrats too, did not let that happen. At least he tries to help you, plus he's not another arrogant capitol hill politician.


BAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!!!!


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

Unlike his predecessor President Obama prevented before it happens. If we had a republican president we would have gone to war with Yemen, Iran, and North Korea already. I'm not saying the democrats are angels, but the Tea Party agenda is based on hate and fear. They hate blacks, Jews, , and homosexuals. That's who you're voting for if you vote red. Don't take this personally and take a minute to think about what you're doing :smile:.


----------



## Wildblue (Oct 11, 2009)

camorristi said:


> Unlike his predecessor President Obama prevented before it happens. If we had a republican president we would have gone to war with Yemen, Iran, and North Korea already. I'm not saying the democrats are angels, but the Tea Party agenda is based on hate and fear. They hate blacks, Jews, , and homosexuals. That's who you're voting for if you vote red. Don't take this personally and take a minute to think about what you're doing.


BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!!!


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

*The Sky is Falling!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!HELP*

Everyday potentials bombs are found. This happens all the time. Today a couple of packages addressed to a Chicago synagogue wear discovered and they had bomb like components. They may or may not have a little explosive material. From what I can gather, if they worked they might be a very serious threat to a baby buggy. Not to the kid but the buggy might sustain a little damage. This afternoon, I was at the doctors and on the TV saw

On the way home I passed Chicago's major synagogue and noticed a number of new's trucks, so I assume they were the "target". This building is made of huge stone blocks. If the packages were delivered and detonated they might hurt the letter box. I think we're talking firecracker damage here.
If there wasn't an election Tuesday this might make page 35. Because of the election, it's a Obama moment , and he's milking it for all it's worth. The man is shamless.


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

camorristi said:


> Unlike his predecessor President Obama prevented before it happens. If we had a republican president we would have gone to war with Yemen, Iran, and North Korea already. I'm not saying the democrats are angels, but the Tea Party agenda is based on hate and fear. They hate blacks, Jews, , and homosexuals. That's who you're voting for if you vote red. Don't take this personally and take a minute to think about what you're doing :smile:.


Do you have one iota of real objective evidence of what you are saying is true? Surely, you don't take the Huffington Post seriously. It's just a left wing blog with little to no real journalistic credibility.


----------



## jean-paul sartorial (Jul 28, 2010)

beherethen said:


> If there wasn't an election Tuesday this might make page 35. Because of the election, it's a Obama moment , and he's milking it for all it's worth. The man is shamless.


That doesn't make sense. If anything, a terrorist threat benefits Republicans since liberals are typically seen as soft on crime.

I'm sure on the left wing messageboards everyone is speculating that this is some conservative plot to drum up anti-Muslim sentiment and national security concerns for the Tea Party.


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

*).Sunday*



jean-paul sartorial said:


> That doesn't make sense. If anything, a terrorist threat benefits Republicans since liberals are typically seen as soft on crime.
> 
> I'm sure on the left wing messageboards everyone is speculating that this is some conservative plot to drum up anti-Muslim sentiment and national security concerns for the Tea Party.


It's press.
Thursday night for the first time a sitting president appeared on the Daily Show (Comedy channel).
Friday he protects us from "bombs".
Maybe Saturday, he'll ride both half's of Belmont's daily double.
Sunday we should be looking for him to raise the dead and Monday's efforts should look like something from the Cirque du Soleil.
River City is indeed quite troubled.


----------



## Enron (Feb 16, 2010)

camorristi said:


> Unlike his predecessor President Obama prevented before it happens. If we had a republican president we would have gone to war with Yemen, Iran, and North Korea already. I'm not saying the democrats are angels, but the Tea Party agenda is based on hate and fear. They hate blacks, Jews, , and homosexuals. That's who you're voting for if you vote red. Don't take this personally and take a minute to think about what you're doing :smile:.


Obama didn't stop sh*t. The Saudis and Brits prevented this. Those 2 packages never made it to American shores, and Saudi intelligence has provided us with the tracking info for what they believe are the rest of the packages. Obama had near ZERO to do with this.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Sad state of affairs.

The Democrats are spineless cowards - afraid to stand up for what they believe in. And the Republicans are useless liars who have done nothing but obstruct for 18 months.

Give me Mickey Mouse.


----------



## jean-paul sartorial (Jul 28, 2010)

Both sides are doing exactly what their constituents want. We have only ourselves to blame. Just take a look at all the ridiculous attack ads both sides drag out every election. They wouldn't run them if they didn't work so effectively. We have the leaders we asked for and deserve.


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

jean-paul sartorial said:


> Both sides are doing exactly what their constituents want. We have only ourselves to blame. Just take a look at all the ridiculous attack ads both sides drag out every election. They wouldn't run them if they didn't work so effectively. We have the leaders we asked for and deserve.


That applies to many many things in life. Look at the ratings on these cheesy reality shows. People want bread and circuses.


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

jean-paul sartorial said:


> Both sides are doing exactly what their constituents want. We have only ourselves to blame. Just take a look at all the ridiculous attack ads both sides drag out every election. They wouldn't run them if they didn't work so effectively. * We have the leaders we asked for and deserve.*


Unfortunately, I must agree with you on that. Look how the French protested a couple of days back, and I'm pretty sure they will get what they want. During these midterm election the Republicans are selling "we hate everyone" and the democrats are, well I don't really know what they're selling at this point. My conclusion would be voting for Micky Mouse, because both sides are showing very ugly fundamentalism, extreme left and right. So what if the republicans win, they won't do anything for the next two years, then people will elect the democrats again who also won't do anything. This cycle has to break, but I don't know how.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

camorristi said:


> ... because both sides are showing very ugly fundamentalism, extreme left and right.


You Sir, were last seen dousing the election with gasoline and holding a match to it!!

It appears that you seek the very ugly fundamentalism you allege to disdain.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

LOL. My wife and I just returned from voting and, in the course of that effort, we may have just met our local "village idiot"! There were a number of candidate representatives positioned close to the entrance to the polling place and one of them, a mature looking lady said, "Thanks for coming out to vote. I'm (so and so) and my son is (so and so) and he is running for Township *******. I hope we can count on your vote." We proceeded on and voted and in the course of doing so, I couldn't help but notice that the son of the woman who had said she hoped they could count on our votes, was the only candidate for that office. It seems the outcome of that particular election was a forgone conclusion! Why the last ditch effort to solicit votes? Did we, perhaps, just meet our village idiot?


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

This will be the first time since I regesterd to vote (wow, starting to feel like a long time ago now...gettin old...whomp whomp) that I will skip voting...

Choosing between either candidate for guv'na in CA is like being asked if I'd rather be kicked in the groin or the face...ditto for our senate candidates...and since our votes on the propositions arent honored anymore (*see the fiasco that prop 8 has turned into), there's really no point on voting there either...so instead of queing (sp?) up and flipping a coin to determine the lesser of two evils, I'm just gonna go take a nap (I've been DRAGGING all day) and watch sons of anarchy (how appropos) over takeout...


----------



## Bandit44 (Oct 1, 2010)

I was voter #126 in my precinct at 5pm. Speaks more to voter apathy than to anger.


----------



## nick.mccann (May 3, 2009)

I just wrote OBAMA FOREVER on the ballot. 

Did do about 4 hours of sign waving today for a local candidate, that was fun.


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

I voted by party earlier two weeks ago, and I don't even know who exactly I voted for. TB. Rand Paul won something today, but no one can tell for sure if we'll have a rep or dem majority yet.


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

eagle2250 said:


> LOL. My wife and I just returned from voting and, in the course of that effort, we may have just met our local "village idiot"! There were a number of candidate representatives positioned close to the entrance to the polling place and one of them, a mature looking lady said, "Thanks for coming out to vote. I'm (so and so) and my son is (so and so) and he is running for Township *******. I hope we can count on your vote." We proceeded on and voted and in the course of doing so, I couldn't help but notice that the son of the woman who had said she hoped they could count on our votes, was the only candidate for that office. It seems the outcome of that particular election was a forgone conclusion! Why the last ditch effort to solicit votes? Did we, perhaps, just meet our village idiot?


LOL

I woulda told her something like "hey! I'm (so and so) and I'd like to do (so and so) to you and whack your son with (so and so) on the head" ic12337:

He must be an idiot since he brought mom to the polls for support. Other than a glass of Martell and a cohiba, real men don't need any support.

Did anyone notice that most people are voting because they're angry at someone or something, and they know they still won't get what they want no matter how many TBs get elected. I'm not saying what the French do when they want something is right or legal in anyway, but at least they get what they want. It's a shame, ain't it?!


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> You Sir, were last seen dousing the election with gasoline and holding a match to it!!
> 
> It appears that you seek the very ugly fundamentalism you allege to disdain.


I have multiple personalities I guess (some scary) :icon_smile_wink:.


----------



## jean-paul sartorial (Jul 28, 2010)

It's always amazing to me how remarkably gullible and just generally outright stupid the American public is.

I've worked with or in government and politics for years and you always think you've seen it all... and yet no matter how jaded I get, every election I'm still like "Wow... really?"


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

Just got home -turned on TV and learned the good guys had regained control of the House
_*Maybe there is a God:icon_smile:*_


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

jean-paul sartorial said:


> It's always amazing to me how remarkably gullible and just generally outright stupid the American public is.
> 
> I've worked with or in government and politics for years and you always think you've seen it all... and yet no matter how jaded I get, every election I'm still like "Wow... really?"


Obviously a lot of the people working in government and politics who thought how outright stupid the American public is are now out of work!


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

beherethen said:


> Just got home -turned on TV and learned the good guys had regained control of the House
> _*Maybe there is a God:icon_smile:*_


How are those "good guys" exactly going to make things better?



Saltydog said:


> Obviously a lot of the *people *working in government and politics who thought how outright stupid the American public is are now out of work!


Who are you referring to?


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

jean-paul sartorial said:


> It's always amazing to me how remarkably gullible and just generally outright stupid the American public is.


Cf. 2008.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

beherethen said:


> Just got home -turned on TV and learned the good guys had regained control of the House
> _*Maybe there is a God:icon_smile:*_


I just hope there's a *guard...*on the House Page's dorms. Who takes a wide stance on this issue?


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

So what if the house majority is republican now, the democrats still have the senate majority and some important house seats. I don't think either party is doing anything significant to move this country forward. I would like someone to answer this question that I've kept asking but got no answer, everyone seems to be voting because they hate the other side :icon_scratch::

What's the drastic change you're expecting republicans to bring to this country? 

(everyone can answer but Pentheos and his likes who seems like a republican fundamentalist and quite uneducated :crazy:, of course he can answer if he wants to, but it won't be taken seriously :icon_smile_wink


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

We won't see "drastic" or "change" with 500+ people voting. It just isn't possible. Drastic & Change happens in groups of smaller than 15. Anything bigger than that creates a huge gridlock on an issue, and too much verbiage within legislation to make it work.

If we really wanted change, we'd pass a few simple laws...

1: Laws would be in plain English. (not latin) If it required a lawyer to understand the law, the law is too complex, and it needs to be scrapped.
2: Laws would not be multi-topical. No more Appropriation laws tied to Non-Appropriation laws to get them pushed through.
3: If a law in unpopular enough to raise 30% of dissent, it can be struct down by either house. If a third of the elected representatives (and in theory populace) are opposed to a law, it should not go on the books. Right now 51% of the populace is telling the other 49% what they should being doing for 2 years at a pop.... something is wrong here.
4: All laws that do not involve the physical or financial harm of an INDIVIDUAL should have a time limit, before they have to be renewed. It's either good enough to keep or it's not.


----------



## jean-paul sartorial (Jul 28, 2010)

Saltydog said:


> Obviously a lot of the people working in government and politics who thought how outright stupid the American public is are now out of work!


Reid is an idiot.

But most of the rest of the people who lost in the election were Blue Dog Democrats, who really did nothing wrong. Pelosi and Reid hung them out to dry, and the same states that were so supposedly so tired of hardcore, non-compromising, party-line toeing Republicans in 2006 and 2008 just went and re-elected the exact same people. Only they somehow think it's different because they came up with a silly new name for themselves.

The Tea Party people claimed to be about the deficit, but not a single one of them has a viable plan or a halfway concrete stance on a fiscal issue. The only thing I can tell is they are adamantly for lowering taxes, and increasing defense, which will increase the deficit. So they were elected based on their social policies... as a reaction to Obama. Obama who is a huge CLASSICAL liberal, but actually fairly moderate socially.

The whole thing is hilarious. They threw out a bunch of Republicans in 2006 and 2008 for no discernable reason, elected a bunch of guys who did pretty much exactly what they promised, then tossed those guys out and go back to what we had.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

beherethen said:


> Just got home -turned on TV and learned the good guys had regained control of the House
> _*Maybe there is a God:icon_smile:*_


Perhaps, but with Reid still Senate Majority leader, it's like the Redskins making it to the playoffs, dispite having lost to the Cowboys... TWICE!!

You take it, but it doesn't feel as good as it should!!


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
LOL...and so very well put, WouldaShoulda!


----------



## jean-paul sartorial (Jul 28, 2010)

All the Republicans had to do was come up with a candidate who was not worse than Reid. You'd think this would be the simplest thing in the world. And yet, they failed.

I still hasn't hit conservatives that they could easily have taken all of Congress if they had been smarter and if anything, they kind of blew this election. Too busy blaming liberals for everything.


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

jean-paul sartorial said:


> Reid is an idiot.
> 
> But most of the rest of the people who lost in the election were Blue Dog Democrats, who really did nothing wrong. Pelosi and Reid hung them out to dry, and the same states that were so supposedly so tired of hardcore, non-compromising, party-line toeing Republicans in 2006 and 2008 just went and re-elected the exact same people. Only they somehow think it's different because they came up with a silly new name for themselves.
> 
> ...


I have to admit...you _do_ make some good points. Well, maybe now we'll have gridlock. Sometimes it's best when the government _can't_ get anything done.


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

*Benifits of Gridlock*

That _government_ is _best_ which _governs least

I can't really take credit for the above-it was said a few hundred years ago by a guy named Tommy Paine and it's as true now as it was then.:icon_smile:
_


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

beherethen said:


> That _government_ is _best_ which _governs least
> 
> I can't really take credit for the above-it was said a few hundred years ago by a guy named Tommy Paine and it's as true now as it was then.:icon_smile:
> _


 I agree. So does this usual smaller government Republican screed finally apply to women's uteruses and gay people's married lives? Didn't think so.

How about to our defense spending, which even the CATO Institute is claiming needs to be cut by HALF in order to keep America safe? Apparently not.

Does it apply to our FBI, who were given nearly every surveillance power they ever wanted in the carefully orchestrated post-911 hysteria, complete with "PATRIOT Act" written by a Vietnamese "ex" Communist? Well, Russ Feingold was the lone voice crying in the wilderness against that particular abomination, and look what happened to him yesterday.

It's absolutely pathetic to see the American people thrashing from one corrupt party to the other, desperate for change and vainly hoping that either party represents something other than a different set of corporate interests. The Republicans turned our Congress into a literal corporate orgy for 12 years and now we're back with the exact same group of people in power. Astonishing to watch Boehner claim he's going to bring jobs back to Ohio, he was one of the people responsible for decimating those jobs in the first place. Watch what he actually does once he's installed as speaker.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

One other note on the elections, all the candidates seemed bombed drunk last night. Except for Marco Rubio (great speech imo, maybe a light at the end of the tunnel for the Republican Party).


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

FrankDC said:


> I agree. So does this usual smaller government Republican screed finally apply to women's uteruses and gay people's married lives? Didn't think so.


The Democrats have had the House-Senate and the White House for two years in total control without any mention of gay marriage. They had two years to put it into law and did nada. The Republican Log Cabin Republicans got DADT tossed in Federal Court and the Obama Justice Department elected to appeal the decision. So much for gay friendly Democrats.

As for the female uterus, women voted Republican in far greater numbers yesterday than in the previous election.

I suggest you sit down and smoke a joint..........oh I forgot-CA voted that option down.:icon_smile:


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

beherethen said:


> The Democrats have had the House-Senate and the White House for two years in total control without any mention of gay marriage. They had two years to put it into law and did nada. The Republican Log Cabin Republicans got DADT tossed in Federal Court and the Obama Justice Department elected to appeal the decision. So much for gay friendly Democrats.
> 
> As for the female uterus, women voted Republican in far greater numbers yesterday than in the previous election.


It was the biggest shift of power in the House since 1948, but believing this will equate to substantive change of direction is the scam we fall for every two years. I hope time proves me wrong.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

camorristi said:


> (everyone can answer but Pentheos and his likes who seems like a republican fundamentalist and quite uneducated :crazy:, of course he can answer if he wants to, but it won't be taken seriously :icon_smile_wink


You're right to exclude me from political discourse. It's not like we live in a democracy or anything.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

camorristi said:


> How are those "good guys" exactly going to make things better?


Maybe a better question is, "How can they make things worst?"

The Dem. have left this country in shambles.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

jean-paul sartorial said:


> raising taxes.


If raising taxes puts people out of jobs, like Jimmy Carter did, how will that raise revenues?


----------



## jean-paul sartorial (Jul 28, 2010)

How does not collecting taxes raise revenues? Clinton raised taxes, and the economy seemed to do okay. You know who else raised taxes? Ronald Reagan. And George Bush. Tax rates have been higher than they are right now at times in the past and it seems like nothing fell apart. And hey, Bush jr. lowered taxes. What happened to the economy and the deficit?

Set taxes too high and people won't be able to pay them or will stop working because it is no longer worth it. Set taxes too low, and it doesn't matter how much money people if you're only getting a few cents. There's some optimal amount. Are we too high? Maybe. But find a conservative who will produce an honest set of numbers showing why our rate is currently too high and what it should be. They won't. Whatever the tax rate is-- it's too high.

The other myth is that low taxes always create incentive to work. Just think about it. If you never had to pay any taxes, you'd save up a lot more money. If I had a lot more money saved up, you know what I'd do? Retire early. Now let's say the government took away an extra $500 a year from you via taxes so your ability to pay for your kids' college was in jeopardy. What would you do as a good parent? Probably find a way to make more money, or tell your kid to find a job and make some money. He might even take advantage of the GI BIll. Hello, strong national defense! 

Again, there's a curve at work here. You can use the carrot or the stick. Find a Republican who is willing to admit that a little kick in the pants might be just what the middle class needs to put a little more "ooomph" into their work and help us compete with other countries. You won't. According to Republicans, rich people always need the carrot, poor people always need the stick. Give a poor dude some cash, he just pockets it and gets even more lazy. Give a rich dude some cash and he just works way harder. Why the dichotomy? And anyway, you can't raise taxes on the poor for the simple reason they don't pay any. And you can't make them pay any because they have no money. Doesn't stop conservatives from advancing this blatantly stupid idea on a regular basis. Reduce benefits to the poor, yeah-- you can do that and possibly save some bucks. Raise their taxes? No.

I'm not necessarily in favor of raising taxes. I'm fiscally conservative and believe low taxes and smaller government is better for the long term health of the economy. Nonetheless, we seem to have gotten ourselves into a bit of pickle here. We have a huge debt, and are paying a ton of interest on it. And we're looking at a huge Social Security problem once the boomers hit retirement in full force. While high taxes may be bad in the long run, can we really take the idea of a short-term tax hike as a way of raising immediate revenue off the table? 

And if you won't touch taxes, how about a concrete plan to reduce spending. If you won't touch defense, Medicare or Social Security, you've taken 55% of spending off the table. You aren't going to get very far slashing funding to the arts because that's chump change. Even the dreaded earmarks are not that much in the big picture. And while we're at it, let's not pretend that Republicans don't take their fair share of pork barrel earmarks. Are you going to cut Education? Roads? Financial Aid? Take a look at Boehner's platform-- he's a strong proponent of increasing Financial Aid; so that's not happening. 

I am perfectly okay with a policy of fiscal conservancy. I'd love it, in fact. What I'm opposed to is Republicans claiming to be fiscally responsible while steadfastly refusing to come up with a concrete plan for how they will balance the deficit. I understand that Obama and the Democrats have certainly not proven themselves to be winners in this area either but that's kind of the point. If you want fiscal responsibility, let's get responsible. Show me some figures. Don't trade one set of pretty lies for another and claim it's a victory for deficit reduction. Didn't we just boot out a bunch of Republicans for supposedly messing up the economy with a platform of heavy military spending, reduced taxes, and no real commitment to cutting programs? So why did we just turn around and elect a bunch of people who ran under the exact same platform?

Also, gridlock is not going to result in deficit reduction or smaller government. Gridlock means maintenance of the status quo. Which at this point means we've laid out a ton of cash for Obamacare, while not having committed to the flipside which is using Obamacare to replace Social Security and Medicare. It's too late and there aren't enough Republicans to reverse the spending on Obamacare, and not enough on either side of the aisle to commit to reducing entitlements. So now we have two massive social/healthcare programs going on at the same time. It's kind of the worst of all possible scenarios.

Look. I'm happy to call a truce here as I'm not really that opposed to conservatives. I mean, I vote Blue Dog Democrat. If you put me in New England, I'm Republican. You conservative guys just really bummed me out when you voted out Feingold. That was just wrong, man. Admit you made a huge-ass mistake and put him back in the Senate and make him majority leader. Having failed to take the Senate thanks to your own assinine move of nominating Angle when almost anyone else would have beaten Reid, it seems like the least you could do. In return, we will punt Reid right out of the Senate and good riddance. I mean come on, you're trading Reid for Feingold. It's a win for everyone!

Deal?


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

WA said:


> If raising taxes puts people out of jobs, like Jimmy Carter did, how will that raise revenues?


Taxes is NOT revenue (on a federal level)

The house prints the money. The house has the responsibility to *Create* Money.

Taxation is the "art" & "science" of controlling inflation/deflation, not of generating revenue.

If the American people have the ability to create X product, then Congress can cut a check for that amount. It's that simple. We need 3 battleships. We can produce 3 battleships in Y years. We can cut a check for 3 battleships every Y years.

Our ability to produce is constantly increasing. We become more efficient and effective every year, therefore our previous years product is devalued just as quickly. Taxes have to be "adjusted" constantly to keep things even keel.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

jean-paul sartorial said:


> How does not collecting taxes raise revenues? Clinton raised taxes, and the economy seemed to do okay. You know who else raised taxes? Ronald Reagan. And George Bush. Tax rates have been higher than they are right now at times in the past and it seems like nothing fell apart. And hey, Bush jr. lowered taxes. What happened to the economy and the deficit?
> 
> Set taxes too high and people won't be able to pay them or will stop working because it is no longer worth it. Set taxes too low, and it doesn't matter how much money people if you're only getting a few cents. There's some optimal amount. Are we too high? Maybe. But find a conservative who will produce an honest set of numbers showing why our rate is currently too high and what it should be. They won't. Whatever the tax rate is-- it's too high.
> 
> ...


Can't have a balanced budget (aka No Deficit) with World Aid. Period.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

jean-paul sartorial said:


> Give a poor dude some cash, he just pockets it and gets even more lazy. Give a rich dude some cash and he just works way harder.


This argument is false.

Persons earn cash. (Should earn) And money earned belongs to the earner.

That anyone views a tax refund or lower taxes as money being "given" to them is absurd. That was MY money to start with!!

Truely "giving people money" DOES create an atmosphere of dependency and entitlment. Just look how the Government feels entitled to the money we give them!!


----------



## jean-paul sartorial (Jul 28, 2010)

Apatheticviews said:


> Can't have a balanced budget (aka No Deficit) with World Aid. Period.


I think we spend something like $17 billion on world aid, which is less than 2% of the budget.



> That anyone views a tax refund or lower taxes as money being "given" to them is absurd. That was MY money to start with!!


Your decision to work is based primarily off the marginal utility you derive vs the marginal cost of an extra hour of work. Where the money comes from is not relevant.

If you need to save $100 to feed your wife and kids, and you only saved $50 this month, you're going to come up with a way to get an extra $50 so your family doesn't starve. It doesn't matter if the government raised your taxes, someone robbed you of $50, or you took a pay cut. $50 is $50, and you need it.

But supposing I accepted your flawed reasoning. Bush (and Obama) gave everyone a tax refund. I bet you felt absolutely no obligation to work any harder because of this. Because that was your money, right? You already earned it. Therefore you don't owe the government or your employer a thing for getting back what was already rightfully yours. So you got a tax rebate, but you didn't work harder.

It seems to me like Fox runs a story every other day about how someone retired during the Bush years, but then their stocks took a hit thanks to Obama's evil ways so now they are working as a greeter in Walmart or something. They lost money; they went to work. Clearly conservatives understand this principle, they simply ignore it when convenient.

And I'll point out again-- Bush reduced taxes AND had a nice booming economic market. You can credit Bush's policies for the bull market if you wish (though you'd then probably have to also assign him responsibility for the crash). But the point is, government revenue did not grow.

While we're at it, let's punch a hole in the idea that the government's job is to foster economic growth. Or that we need to care much about employment. It runs entirely counter to basic free market principles.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

jean-paul sartorial said:


> It doesn't matter if the government raised your taxes, someone robbed you of $50,...


On this we agree; confiscatory taxation policy is robbery!!


----------



## lovemeparis (May 20, 2006)

*Government, tax and jobs*



jean-paul sartorial said:


> It doesn't matter if the government raised your taxes, someone robbed you of $50, or you took a pay cut. *$50 is $50, and you need it*.


Especially me now!!!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

beherethen said:


> That _government_ is _best_ which _governs least
> 
> I can't really take credit for the above-it was said a few hundred years ago by a guy named Tommy Paine and it's as true now as it was then.:icon_smile:
> _


I'm not sure that what an Englishman, a corset maker from Thetford, thought and said in the 1770's is relevant now.....


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Chouan said:


> I'm not sure that what an Englishman, a corset maker from Thetford, thought and said in the 1770's is relevant now.....


 It's more relevant now than it's ever been.


----------



## jean-paul sartorial (Jul 28, 2010)

Chouan said:


> I'm not sure that what an Englishman, a corset maker from Thetford, thought and said in the 1770's is relevant now.....


I agree with this. I don't see why we should care.

But since Glen Beck apparently cares (seeing as how often he quotes Paine), it should be pointed out that if Paine were alive in the US today, he would almost certainly be extremely liberal.

He would be aghast at the influence of the Christian Right, he would be strongly in favor of social spending and most likely National healthcare, he felt that it was every citizen's duty to pay taxes, and to surrender their right to use force against others to the government.

"All accumulation, therefore, of personal property, beyond what a man's own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came."

Does that sound like an anti-tax conservative?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

jean-paul sartorial said:


> "All accumulation, therefore, of personal property, beyond what a man's own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, *a part of that accumulation* back again to society from whence the whole came."
> 
> Does that sound like an anti-tax conservative?


That depends entirely upon just how big a part we are talkin' here!!

And since there was no income tax at the time, I figure in context he must have meant charitable contributions.

Don't you agree??


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

I'm unsubscribing from this boring thread and going to the one about older women :teacha:, good luck everyone!


----------



## jean-paul sartorial (Jul 28, 2010)

No. If you read his books, he's pretty clear about this. 

His problem with taxation was its impact on the poor. And his major beef with governments was with the British and French monarchies. An elected government put in place to protect the interests of the poor, limit the power of the rich, and divvy up goods equitably was what he favored. 

He is sometimes credited with "inventing" Social Security. He wanted a progressive income tax system, strongly disliked inheritance because he everyone had to work for their money, favored a guaranteed minimum income for every citizen, he hated landlords and thought that land should be divvied up evenly among people (or that those with more/better land should be heavily taxed for it).

I'm not the world's foremost expert on Paine or anything, so I have no idea how big a tax would be considered too much for him. But it does seem pretty clear to me that by today's US standards, he would be considered a massive bleeding heart liberal. 

I will also add that he was pretty much a nut, so I'm not sure anyone should take him that seriously.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

jean-paul sartorial said:


> His problem with taxation was its impact on the poor....
> 
> He wanted a progressive income tax system....


As it existed in Europe or the emeriging US where there was no income tax??

He was a rascal!!



jean-paul sartorial said:


> ...it does seem pretty clear to me that by today's US standards, he would be considered a massive *bleeding heart liberal*.
> 
> I will also add that he was pretty much a *nut*,


The two seem to go hand in hand!!


----------



## jean-paul sartorial (Jul 28, 2010)

Wait 'til you hear what Adam Smith really thought!:icon_smile_wink:

btw, I hope none of you are taking my posts too personally. I work in government as do most of my friends so we argue politics all the time and have become quite used to ranting and raving at each other while ultimately laughing at all of our diatribes. However, I realize that it's generally impolite to discuss politics and for good reason. People feel strongly about it, and they are right to do so because policy issues strike at the heart of what people believe is moral. It's a fault of mine that I after so many years of doing this I sometimes no longer know where to draw the line. I apologize if anyone has been offended or found me too strident.


----------

