Obama, GOP talk compromise, conflict

I could go on and on, but based on the rest of your post, you've done such a great job discrediting your own argument, I don't think I need to bother.

You right. My point about the woman working three jobs COMPLETELY discredited what I said. Why without the minimum wage, she would be working just one job at amazing wages. Never mind that corporate America is hiring illegals by the boatload and having visas that allow workers in from India to drive down wages.

Start comparing us minimum wage to the international wage and you might be going somewhere. Of course there are workers in developing countries working for $200 a month and happy. Can the us worker compete with that?

So, yeh, during the Dicksonian years of Britain and before the minimum wage was implemented, it was ALL roses! People were never on starvation wages. So, let me see if I got this right, if no minimum wage existed, companies would pay....what 200 yen an hour. But....what if they do not NEED more workers. There is only so much room. Only a need for so much output.

Wow, talk about oversimplification. There are a lot of factors you are leaving out. Unions, government intervention to promote fair play, and prevent monopolies, as well as collusion. Laws regarding how workers are treated etc. I could go on and on, but based on the rest of your post, you've done such a great job discrediting your own argument, I don't think I need to bother.

Without the minimum wage, more workers would be employed in these jobs. This would lead to the work pool shrinking. Companies would be forced to pay more, to keep these workers, else they would find jobs with companies that did. All that the minimum wage does, is force companies to pay unskilled workers a bit more, meaning they cannot hire as many people.

HAH, HAH, HAH, HAH. That was the best laugh I had for the entire year! LOL--Really. So, yeh, during the Dicksonian years of Britain and before the minimum wage was implemented, it was ALL roses! People were never on starvation wages. So, let me see if I got this right, if no minimum wage existed, companies would pay....what 200 yen an hour. But....what if they do not NEED more workers. There is only so much room. Only a need for so much output. And....there is always collusion. All companies agree to pay only 200 yen an hour. I DO remember a thing two years ago, in which the caregivers were complaining to McDonalds for them paying 10 yen MORE than they were giving to young caregivers for the elderly. Wow! But...your whole logic, rightwing loon, goes down in flames because if things were so great before the minimum wage law, why was it EVER enacted in the first place? Yep, I remember one elderly woman sitting next to Bush, and she told him that she worked THREE jobs to survive. His response was that this was SO AMERICAN. Do you get much sleep, he asks. No she said. And then everyone clapped as to how great of an American she is. Wow!

Wow, you really don't know much about economics do you. You're just a leftwing loon, without knowing why. Not sure how whether its worth the trouble to explain basic principles of economics to you.

Hmm, well in a nutshell, a minimum wage forces companies to hire less people. Sure they get paid a bit more, but its not like its really a living wage. In addition, its only the lowest level of employee that earns that minimum wage. People without any experience, entry level types. Without the minimum wage, more workers would be employed in these jobs. This would lead to the work pool shrinking. Companies would be forced to pay more, to keep these workers, else they would find jobs with companies that did. All that the minimum wage does, is force companies to pay unskilled workers a bit more, meaning they cannot hire as many people.

In point of fact, unless you are talking about minimum wage, which actually hurts workers, then you don't have a clue.

Why YES! If these workers had no minimum wage, then wages would go UP and UP and UP. It is the minimum wage that is keeping workers down. Or is it this myth that more jobs would be created. Probably. More worthless jobs that don't pay anything. So, people can work THREE jobs to just survive. I was working a night job and a day job (both professional) in the states. That is why I am here! BYE America! Not going back to the gulag!

Save with Chavez. In fact, at least he had the heart to send cheap heating oil to Americans during the winter last year. Didn't see no american corporation EVER doing that!!! EVER!!!!!

Hehe, and you could see Joe Stalin, going out and kissing babies. But then, the next village over, his thugs go round up everyone and murder them. Thats what these dictators are like. A little PR to keep everyone from realizing reality.

No has any republican done or written ANY bill to help any poverty program! EVER!!!

Umm, yes. Welfare reform, that saw a hell of a lot of people kicked off the welfare rolls. Naturally you would think this is a bad thing. However in fact the opposite was true. Welfare had become a lifestyle. A generational thing. Reforming it, pushed people out into the workforce, in some cases for the first time in their lives. Adding in, retraining, and additional support, enabled these people to quite literally turn their lives around. Some of the success stories from that, which was brought about by a Republican bill are amazing.

Actions matter, but now that you have the GOP back in "power" let me know how high your wages go UP. LOL!

In point of fact, unless you are talking about minimum wage, which actually hurts workers, then you don't have a clue.

Socialism is a scam, and yet here you are, preaching about the wonders of Hugo Chavez and his nationalizing takeover of Venezuela.

Well, Lulu of Brazil was a socialist and really still is. Made a lot of changes and is eliminating poverty by moving them into the middle class. Save with Chavez. In fact, at least he had the heart to send cheap heating oil to Americans during the winter last year. Didn't see no american corporation EVER doing that!!! EVER!!!!! No has any republican done or written ANY bill to help any poverty program! EVER!!! Actions matter, but now that you have the GOP back in "power" let me know how high your wages go UP. LOL!

From one poison to another. That is the choice.

Actually, its between lies, hate, hypocrisy, and condescension. That pretty much sums up the Dems.

WHEN was there EVER prosperity with the republicans

You mean when Republicans were in control? How about the 90s. Yeah, Clinton was in the White House, but Republicans had control of the congress. They forced cuts in spending, taxes etc, and what do you know, there was prosperity.

privatization is a scam.

This says pretty much everything we need to know about you. Socialism is a scam, and yet here you are, preaching about the wonders of Hugo Chavez and his nationalizing takeover of Venezuela. So, hows that working out for them?

That is of course why Americans threw out the Dems, and voted in conservatives.

From one poison to another. That is the choice. When, WHEN was there EVER prosperity with the republicans, except for the rich, that is! If you think, Molenir, that your flipping wages are going to go up under these clowns, then you are one flippin fool. As I said in my previous post, privatization is a scam. Under Thatcher, only 1% percent of the public spending went Down. And she did that by cutting the milk to children!!!! Same with Schwarzenegger who went after the mentally retarded when he took over. Under Reagan, who got the deficit went up. WAKE UP.

Like the Nazi's say, when you lie, lie BIG. Yeh, like the candidates in the Florida election, didn't spend the millions to win? Or Angle, who bragged about how much money she got from outside sources, outside of the state.

Or the Democrats, who promised openness, and that the health care bill would be deficit neutral, or that we would like what was in it. Or that the stimulus would make it so unemployment wouldn't go above 8%. Hey, yeah, big lies. That is of course why Americans threw out the Dems, and voted in conservatives.

For the umpteenth time - - Dems outspent the Repubs in this election. It is an easily verifiable fact. Why the resistance to facing it?/??

Like the Nazi's say, when you lie, lie BIG. Yeh, like the candidates in the Florida election, didn't spend the millions to win? Or Angle, who bragged about how much money she got from outside sources, outside of the state. Anyhow, I am stocking up on my beer to see how these Republicans balance the budget. I mean they HATE, HATE raising ANY revenue, so....what are they going to sell off? Harbors and Bridges again? How about the Statue of Liberty? The tories are cutting down Sherwood Forest and making it into a golf course. But, wasn't this ALL done before? Yes, when Thatcher was in office, public entities and infrastructure was sold off for pennies on the dollar, and money changed hands, the rich got richer, and when it all went south, (train accidents, bus companies not servicing the rural areas because they were not profitable) they were all sold back to the government at very high prices. Money changed hands. The rich got richer. There is a sucker born every minute! Privatization is a scam.

And they lost, huge. It is a riot to watch you guys 'analyze' the ODonnell loss and then try and tell the rest of us it is the Republican Party falling apart when over half of registered Dems want Obama OUT in 2012.

Is this the foolishness that passes for Republican analysis these days?

The Republicans had the Senate within their grasp. They blew it. Why? Awful, awful candidates in several key races. A blind person could see it. Even a dollar given to those candidates was wasted.

I've seen and known intelligent conservative women. O'Donnell, Angle, and Palin do not qualify. This is nothing new. As John Stuart Mill put it well over a century ago: "Not all conservatives are stupid, but most stupid people are conservative." (Mill was reknowned as one of the smartest people of his age.)

And a liberal, which says a lot about the man right there. In fact thats the prevailing attitude amongst liberals today, which partially explains why they think the know whats best for everyone else.

Unless Coons didn't have a pulse, or was under heavy sedation that day, that is very hard to believe.

Go back and watch the debates then if you don't believe me. O'Donnell was great, she made Coons look like an idiot. For that matter, watch the debates between Reid and Angle. Angle, is definitely not an idiot. Though she certainly made Dirty Harry look like one.

he's ok, despite his voting to run the country into the ditch?

It is important to note that many Democrats were also responsible for driving the country into the ditch. Bill Clinton's signing the Republican bill to remove Glass-Steagal regulations is a case in point.

There were voices back then warning about the consequences of failing to regulate derivatives, and the dangers of removing regulations that separated ordinary banks from investment houses. Those voices were all coming from the liberal side of the aisle.

Mike Castle was one of those evil Republicans you blamed for getting the US into this mess in the first place. So, when did he become decent?

He might have qualified as decent when Republicans put up candidates that made him so by contrast. Castle is decent because he could be counted on to occasionally cast votes that were good for the entire country.

Wait a sec, what am I thinking, she's a conservative woman, therefore she has an automatic presumption of stupidity.

I've seen and known intelligent conservative women. O'Donnell, Angle, and Palin do not qualify. This is nothing new. As John Stuart Mill put it well over a century ago: "Not all conservatives are stupid, but most stupid people are conservative." (Mill was reknowned as one of the smartest people of his age.)

The fact that in reality, she was smarter then Coons...

Unless Coons didn't have a pulse, or was under heavy sedation that day, that is very hard to believe.

The Republicans have to wonder about all that money that was wasted on very low-quality candidates, when they certainly had a clear shot of winning a majority in the Senate.

For the umpteenth time - - Dems outspent the Repubs in this election.

It is an easily verifiable fact. Why the resistance to facing it?/??

And they lost, huge. It is a riot to watch you guys 'analyze' the ODonnell loss and then try and tell the rest of us it is the Republican Party falling apart when over half of registered Dems want Obama OUT in 2012.

For example, in Delaware, they rejected a decent Republican who was a shoo-in to win for Christine O'Donnell who was, for lack of a better word, bizarre. One has to wonder what is going on in people's minds to behave that way. I certainly don't hate to the extent I'd cut off my nose to spite my face the way many "nose-less" hard-core conservatives do.

Republicans got rid of a decent candidate in favor of a witch. That is after all what your talking points are here right? Allow me to correct you here Yabits. Mike Castle was one of those evil Republicans you blamed for getting the US into this mess in the first place. So, when did he become decent? Because he was a big government Republican, he's ok, despite his voting to run the country into the ditch? Because he went along on so many spending bills, that makes him ok? O'Donnell opposed all that stuff you blamed Republicans for. So that makes her wrong, and based on your previous comments, stupid as well. Wait a sec, what am I thinking, she's a conservative woman, therefore she has an automatic presumption of stupidity. The fact that in reality, she was smarter then Coons, as was exemplified in the debates. Well, that doesn't matter doesn't really matter.

Ya know, if this was a Republican talking about a Democrat woman, you would be going off how sexist and hypocritical this is... But I digress. We all know libs are hypocrites. I mean hypocrisy and hate are the basis of their party.

Nah. He's too busy packing for his $2 billion vacation to this part of the world.

LOL!! This is the kind of stupidity and absurdity that passes for fact in the Republican world.

The Republicans have to wonder about all that money that was wasted on very low-quality candidates, when they certainly had a clear shot of winning a majority in the Senate.

As the Republicans got deeper into the nomination process the candidates who won got worse. I believe Delaware was the final state, and Nevada was one of the last states, to chose the Republican senate candidate, and both of course lost. Either some people got carried away with Tea Party enthusiasm or the these states were intentionally lost to avoid getting a majority, both to set up the party better for 2012 and to allow the Tea Party thing to continue for two more years. Those are the only two explanations.

Now GOP including TP (a psudo new party) got more seats than expected. Let's see how GOP can change as they claim. We will see. Show me the beef!

@wolfpack Barack-the socialist in chief himself?

I do not buy what the less of 10% of US riches have been labeling him as a socialist.

Maybe Barack is trying to be a ROBIN HOOD for the main street Americans. The gap between poor and rich is so great in US. I appreciate his moral value as I belong to another group of 90% who used to work in tears, sweat and dust. Maybe you belong to upper 10% rich group. I am sooo happy for you!

"Barack Obama has done a lot in a short time for Americans"

Change "for" to "to."

Their biggest brain fart in history was electing Barack Obama president.

WOW! No, that would have been electing that zombie McCain, as we would be in the middle of WWIII by now, having had him bomb the snot out of Iran and having that country unleash its armies and to have other Muslim countries join the fray and have just about every Muslim end up hating, hating, hating all things American. And keep in mind, that nice oil and gas would be shut off, from the MIddle East so gas prices would have gone through the cealing for everyone! Including us. Economy goes down, down, down, down! Get it! That zombie was nothing and is nothing but a war freak!

globalwatcher at 05:43 AM JST - 5th November. Barack Obama has done a lot in short time for Americans. For some reason, this guy does not get a credit as he is a black.

Unquestionably, a lot of Americans hate their national leader being black, and, worse yet, a black who is the smart. Then there

Barack Obama has done a lot in short time for Americans. For some reason, this guy does not get a credit as he is a black.

Do you remember, how close US was to go into the depression 2? The financial total collapse was in horizon within a matter of a few days. Who saved this country? Barack did. The TARF money was necessary.

The lost decade of US started 10 years ago actually when Bush became a President due to poor fiscal policies. We still cannot jump start the economy as it is so bad. Bush endorsed the Fed. Chiarman Greenspan over and over again while his monetary policy was a total failure.

Look at a mess of Medicare plan D supplement coverage the seniors have to pay now for drugs. Bush did not have guts to raise tax. Instead he intrduced this plan. Many seniors cannot afford this plan now. They have to cut medications into two, or are skipping it entirely. Do they deserve this? Hell, no.

Plus,Bush took us to Iraq war with a credit card, and we still do not know how to pay for it. We are borrowing money from China and Japan to pay for our social security. Shame.

Let's give this guy a credit as he deserves. He is trying to be a Robin Hood for the main street Americans. Most Amercans want a quick fix for all problems, let's be patient, Obama wants to fix it. Let's unite, so we will fix it. Together, yes, we can do this!

I can go more Bush's failed policies here, but I do not want to bore you. Thank you for lisening.

It's blind hate, imperiousness in the 'we know more than you; you're stupid' way they see themselves and the self-righteousness that their way is the only true and correct way.

While what you say has some validity, and I certainly can see why people react that way, it's not quite what I believe -- and I'm perfectly capable of being honest and up front with that.

A person who sees something as "the only true and correct way" will be totally unwilling to compromise even an inch. That does not describe most liberals, who, for example, would have liked to have seen a single-payer health care system but compromised to get something less.

Going back to the TP/conservatives, you'll find a lot of them who were qualified only because they would stick to certain positions without wavering -- no matter how disastrous policy made from those positions would be. For example, the conservatives who wanted to put social security funds into the stock and bond markets. Those who want tax cuts no matter how big the deficits they create.

I believe that the process that involves genuine compromise and give-and-take will produce the best outcomes.

Agree - I have no problems with her, and seems to be doing a fine job.

Actually I think the hatred towards Hillary was partly because she couldn't see that her hubbie was a cheating lout because her political ambition glasses...

An extremely bright woman -- along with ambitious and cunning -- but earning very high respect as a fine Secretary of State.

Wow, can you just feel the hate from these liberal loons? I've said it before, and without question I'll say it again. Dembs are after all, the party of hate.

Hate really has nothing to do with it. A grossly-unqualified candidate is just that. The Republicans have to wonder about all that money that was wasted on very low-quality candidates, when they certainly had a clear shot of winning a majority in the Senate.

For example, in Delaware, they rejected a decent Republican who was a shoo-in to win for Christine O'Donnell who was, for lack of a better word, bizarre. One has to wonder what is going on in people's minds to behave that way. I certainly don't hate to the extent I'd cut off my nose to spite my face the way many "nose-less" hard-core conservatives do.

More recently, just saying Sarah Palin's name, would send them into foaming fits.

I've not witnessed anyone on these boards going into a "foaming fit" over Palin. (Not nearly as much as I've read your hyperbolic exaggerations about them.) I can understand the trepidation of anyone who pictures Palin actually taking over the leadership of the entire nation. She's certainly proven to me she's not all that bright, and it mystifies me that there are those who think she is. Pity is the emotion I feel, not hatred.

As it becomes a pattern with folks like O'Donnell, Palin, Paladino, Iott, Angle, etc. -- you have to wonder about the mental level of those who genuinely believe these are worthy candidates.

Yabits you don't like to really read and comprehend before you reply, do you? You're talking political pundits, I was talking joe average that replies on here.

Not being privy to JT back in the Clinton days, I have no basis to say one way or the other. Human nature being what it is, however, I strongly suspect that many who commented here reflected what the Clinton-hating pundits were saying.

Regarding former-president Bush, I was certainly critical and foretold that he'd turn out to be a big disappointment even to Republicans. I was certainly right about that.

It's blind hate, imperiousness in the 'we know more than you; you're stupid' way they see themselves and the self-righteousness that their way is the only true and correct way. The erroneous belief they try to push that the only time America is ever successful is when a Democrat is in charge. And damn you to the nether regions if you don't agree whole-heartedly with them. They speak for the people. Well, guess what - I think you were just shown that in fact you do not speak for the people. Of course, you would - and have - labeled those people stupid for not believing exactly as you wish them to. Hmmm, doesn't sound very 'democratic' does it?

Concerned as in "just how dumb can Americans get." Thanks to the support for O'Donnell, Paladino, Angle, etc., there doesn't appear to be a downward limit.

Wow, can you just feel the hate from these liberal loons? I've said it before, and without question I'll say it again. Dembs are after all, the party of hate. If you don't agree with them, naturally you are an idiot.

How many years now, and how many times have all the lefties that post on JT spouted out the most vile, bordering on manic hatred of Bush? You mention the name and it sends them into furious fits of mouth frothing laments that make Chuck Manson's madness seem calm by comparison.

More recently, just saying Sarah Palin's name, would send them into foaming fits. It was rather fun to watch. I remember one time on this board, I just posted her name, and nothing else, and got a half dozen comments from loons expressing how stupid, and hateful she was. Thus demonstrating once again, that Dems really are the party of hate.

Yabits you don't like to really read and comprehend before you reply, do you? You're talking political pundits, I was talking joe average that replies on here. No sh*t - every President is loathed by some, and the target of the opposing party(s) but I'm talking rabid, frothing hatred, the likes I haven't seen until you liberal lot started going off about Bush and Cheney being the anti-Christ and his minion. If you're denying this then you truly don't read these posts, do you?

Actually I think the hatred towards Hillary was partly because she couldn't see that her hubbie was a cheating lout because her political ambition glasses wouldn't allow her to and that kind of clouded ambition was just ugly. But then again, she wasn't president was she? And I was talking presidents, again if you had just read...

I wonder if he's figured out that the majority of Americans don't agree with what he and his party have been doing.

Nah. He's too busy packing for his $2 billion vacation to this part of the world.

RR

Personally I'm old school enough to think that if a person is our President they should be respected as such - even if we display contempt of policy. But that went out the window with GB.

Oh, really? And there wasn't any hatred of GB's predecessor, eh?

Like Jesse Helms' veiled threat to him visiting NC. Or that "death list" of all the people that Clinton supposedly had killed off. Etc., etc. I recall Sean Hannity back when he had a radio talk show here in Atlanta referring to Chelsea as "the White House dog." Oh, and the hatred directed towards Hillary would fill a book.

Out the window with GB, my foot.

Klein2 - you can't seriously be asking that question can you? How many years now, and how many times have all the lefties that post on JT spouted out the most vile, bordering on manic hatred of Bush? You mention the name and it sends them into furious fits of mouth frothing laments that make Chuck Manson's madness seem calm by comparison. I've been on discussions that had absolutely nothing what-so-ever to do with a subject even slightly related to the former Prez, and someone will inevitably say 'well George Bush and the Republicans..blah blah'. He's been blamed for everything from the sun rising in the east to the ocean having salt. Without knowing the man other than hating his policies most of you deemed his administration nothing short of the horsemen of the Apocalypse riding down riding down Pennsylvania Avenue. Most believe him so evil that if he rode up in a limo with Hitler and Satan you would all say 'see, I told you so'. So you wonder at how a President can be 'hated'.

In actuality it should be the policies, not the man (for the most part). It can be both. To many (quite obviously by the recent election results) President Obama's policies and direction are not what the American people want. This angers folks. Personally I'm old school enough to think that if a person is our President they should be respected as such - even if we display contempt of policy. But that went out the window with GB. The left hates him with a furor that is undeniable, so should it be so unusual that those on the right might feel equal contempt for policy rammed down our throats that suits the liberal agenda, but no necessarily the American agenda? Loaded statement that will get you all going - but point made.

Sarge, is it really all about Barack Obama with you guys?

I don't get it, it is like code. When "people like you" seem to be unsure of what to say, you just say "Barack Obama" and then a few more people chime in. It is the one thing that you all agree upon without question. Viscerally, you just despise the man.

I know you can't answer honestly in front of everybody, but just one on one, I would love to know someday why people, and specifically you, just think he is the most evil person to walk the planet since 1945.

I have plenty of my own mental problems, I know, but I could never really see the Obama hate thing.

Even with the election over, the motivation of many people is just to "undo whatever Obama did". It does not seem like much of a plan, and I wonder why this makes sense to so many people.

Considering that Palin's crew is beaten AND bankrupt, the TP revolution is probably already over. People just don't realize it yet.

LOL!! And they think they won something.

Just like Newt and the boys throwing the "Contract on America" on them back in '94. Like any of that ever stood a chance of seeing the light of day. And again in 2000, when they selected a leader who most Republicans now think was about the only one who was untrue to conservative values.

Here is a bold statement to get your brain cells moving. Just assume for a second that Karl Rove can get anyone elected. Assume he has the magic power to do that.

Don't you think he pretty well got exactly what he wanted in this election? High profile Tea Party candidates, people he can't control, like McMahon, O'Donn, Fior, Angle, Buck, and Whit, lose. People who are on board with the plan, like Rand Paul and DeMint, win. Who is the big loser? Sarah freaking Palin. And who wins? Karl freaking Rove. If Karl was just going down a sheet picking the winners, he could not have done better for the old line GOP.

Could you imagine a Senate with those people? How do you manage Angle/McMahon/O'Donnell/Fior? Loose cannons.

Considering that Palin's crew is beaten AND bankrupt, the TP revolution is probably already over. People just don't realize it yet.

Politics has triumphed over ideology, and this time the hero is Karl Rove. He has saved "business as usual" in Washington. Amazing. Darth Vader saves the Republic.

Creosote. I tell you it would be sad to see all of those people duped by the Tea Party find out that they have been duped by the GOP. Just sad. Common voters put a lot of faith and effort into the TP. Some put their life savings into it.

If the TP bungles things, nobody can sue them for fraud. If the GOP just destroys the TP out of spite, I won't be laughing. Sure, they will have nobody to blame but themselves, but taking millions of people and just destroying their hopes and lives to give a few more tax cuts to the 5% of Americans who own 40 trillion dollars of the world's wealth is something that brings out the Jimmy Stewart in me.

You just watch. Just watch. The GOP has set this up. The TP shoved the GOP aside and ran on GOP ballots and lost. Remember that? Sarah Palin endorsed a lot of candidates who lost. I think there is some payback underway because now is the time for Rove and company to squash some cockroaches who sneaked in the door. That IS what they do.

Just for fun Creosote. What would YOU be doing right now if you were an elected TP congressman?

"Kind of like the way Reagan used the religious right and then blew them off on issues like abortion and school prayer."

Yep. And the GOP used hispanics in Florida, Texas and California. They used grassroots Prop. 13 movements around the country. They used, and I actually know this, John Birchers during that era too. Well Palin's hubby was a secessionist. The GOP doesn't care. When elections come they need votes. When the elections are finished, it's members only time.

With the religious right, Falwell and Co. just sat down and bided their time until a few years later when they formed the Christian Coalition. Since that time, moderate secular GOP were presidential candidates, and the VP was from the far right or Christian right. Quayle, then Voldemort, then Palin. McCain chose Palin because she was the lesser of six evils.

Anyway, the tea party is secular, so it has no permanent base as the Christian right does. Ripping off the tea party will be child's play for the GOP. Since the TP could not pick off Coons, Reid, Bennett, or anybody in California, they can already be called damaged goods or incompetents. McMahon could not turn 50 million of her own money into a Senate seat, Whitman bucked the system and spent 150 million of her own money and lost, so the GOP will just simply call them all "risky" and dismiss TP candidates.

For one reason or another the GOP will marginalize the TP. The GOP rank and file will pile on just to get rid of the loose cannons and get even for the RINO purge.

Their biggest brain fart in history

One suspects that in your mind it was a breath of fresh air.

After all, the condition was set up by the very people who voted Republican in 2000 and 2004.

"just how dumb can Americans get"

Their biggest brain fart in history was electing Barack Obama president.

For a supposedly fake movement that was supposed to be long dead anyways the 'Tea Party' sure has yabits and Klein2 concerned

Concerned as in "just how dumb can Americans get." Thanks to the support for O'Donnell, Paladino, Angle, etc., there doesn't appear to be a downward limit.

I had the same feelings when I voted for McCain.

Yeah, similar to the ones you had about the 80-seat House victory and reclaiming the Senate.

For a supposedly fake movement that was supposed to be long dead anyways the 'Tea Party' sure has yabits and Klein2 concerned.

Well how about all the volunteers and contributors who are locked out of GOP rank and file positions? Those TP candidates who won in the primaries and represented the GOP are done now.

Indeed, the GOP will have every right to say that the TBP cost them the Senate. O'Donnell, Angle, Buck, and now a very close call in Alaska. A Democrat who shouldn't even have showed in the Alaska race came close thanks to a TB candidate vetted by none other than the "smart" [sic] Sarah Palin.

In a way, this goes back to a previous topic on entrepreneurial vs. entrenched businesses. In this case, the GOP is the entrenched business which skillfully co-opts any and all "rogues." The rogues, of course, are instigated by the fact that the GOP seems to stray from stated principles whenever they attain power.

Hence my attitude that the TP is going to wake up any moment now and find out it was used. Like badly used. Like violated.

Kind of like the way Reagan used the religious right and then blew them off on issues like abortion and school prayer.

Yes, not since 2000 have I questioned myself like this. People told me that a vote for Al Gore would bring terrible disaster upon the US in the form of wars, terrorist attacks, natural calamities, and an economic meltdown.

Well, I voted for Gore and, sure enough, they were right.

I had the same feelings when I voted for McCain.

Bush got slammed during midterms and so does Obama now. Huge loss for Democrats in house. Also Republicans gain in governorships. If there is little compromise in new year, stalemate is the word. There is growing frustration with both parties in US and thats why incumbents are packing their bags.

"A chastened President Barack Obama"

I wonder if he's figured out that the majority of Americans don't agree with what he and his party have been doing.

Tim. Just wait and see. As I have said, if the TP can't see the storm coming, it is already finished. If they have no plan, they will never have time to make one.

I predicted it about two months ago, and now the press is picking up on it. Just start reading.

First of all, Molenir says TP is not GOP, but Rand Paul and the other winners ARE saying they are GOP and they ran as GOP. That shows me that there is a huge disconnect between what TP voters voted for and where the candidate loyalties lie. You disagree? OK.

Well Boehner has not thanked the TP and is assuming the TP mandate for the GOP. So Boehner will be telling TP people what to do. Even though many of these candidates were not supported or funded by GOP. You ok with that? OK.

Well how about all the volunteers and contributors who are locked out of GOP rank and file positions? Those TP candidates who won in the primaries and represented the GOP are done now. The GOP professionals are now getting ready for 2012 without letting in TP people. I know for a fact that this is happening in three states where the TP lost. Their whole machine is being shut down and moved out. That about guarantees that the TP is one and done. Still OK?

Well what about letting TP donors spend and spend and then having their candidates lose? O'Donnell is suing the GOP. McMahon, Fiorina??, Whitman, and O'Donnell people lost so big that they are drained. Does anyone in the TP think there will be anywhere near that much money for the next election? Nope. And no more will be coming from the GOP, either. You okay with that Tim?

And not last by a long shot, how about the fact that the Tea Party candidates are identified as GOP? NOT Tea Party? In the daily press, the tea party is just GOP. In six months, Fonzie will be better remembered. Karl Rove and crew will sweep them out of history like Chinese birth certificates for gymnasts. Boehner related his whole weepy 20 year history in the house, but he did not thank the Tea Party.

If you are Boehner and you know and probably support all of the above, are you going to give good committee positions to GOP or TP? Dumb question, right? Boehner is good at no brainers, so the TP people will be given the least influential and important committee positions, so none will come even close to being able to "earn their way" or "run on their record."

The TP will be right out there in front trying to do all the dirty work. Every program they cut will cut their votes. And when it is all done, teh GOP will distance themselves and blame it all on the TP crazy people. Then they wash their hands, and get ready for 2012. They will get the best donors and save the most money for their own candidates. They won't have to go way to theright to get votes. All they have to do is be a teensy bit less conservative than the TP candidate to capture the center. The TP is the fall guy.

Tim. You can't see all that, and I am not surprised. You are in love and you have stars in your eyes. Enjoy that honeymoon. But when you wake up next to Karl Rove, remember he has morning breath.

This might fit into the discussion. My feeling about the whole tea party/ midterm election is this: if the tea party is really sincere, they have got to see how far they can go with their ideals. If they just lied to everyone to get votes, they are the worst of the worst.

I am extremely pessimistic because I know what Rove and the GOP can do in Washington, and I know what the best of intentions can't do in Washington. Hence my attitude that the TP is going to wake up any moment now and find out it was used. Like badly used. Like violated.

Now I just saw an interesting little article in what is admittedly a goofy kind of liberal paper, but every Tea Party loyalist should give it a good read. Don't just skim it. Newsweek: How the Tea Party Plans to Put the Pressure on the GOP . The headline is kind of a lie. It is really about how DIFFICULT it will be to get any compromise in Washington to break their way because it is in NOBODY's interest to cut the budget and all the Tea Party people are raw frosh. But it rings true. Have a look.

Read the article and see what you think. There is tons of good food for thought in there. I will be the first to applaud the Tea Party if they can cut 100 billion from the budget, even though I think it is a bad idea, just because it will be about as likely an outcome as flying pigs. The health care bill battle was fought over quite a bit less, marginally speaking. Once it becomes clear how hard it is to cut this new and controversial program, how are tea partiers ever going to get to cutting the real pork?

I feel kind of sorry for the TP. Yesterday everybody was "on their side" and from today it will be in everyone's interest to keep the TP from taking their goodies. Indignance is not support, even if it wins elections. If the TP does not understand that, they are in more trouble now than they were 4 months ago.

Also on the web, much more partisan stuff about how Karl Rove's tactics win consistently. That is also a good read. The man is amazing.

And for what it is worth, I create jobs too. Full and part time. It is a hassle keeping track of all the paper work. You think libs are lazy? You think we don't pay taxes?

TheRat is right. Long before health care was the political football it seems to be, Cuban health systems were widely studied and generally admired. Their systems provide a good general level of care for pennies on the dollar compared to what people in the US pay. People will deny it and say that the observers are biased, but you know these are Swedes and Canadians and Americans saying this. People who are otherwise trusted in their fields, but who must be slandered by the GOP once they speak the truth.

I don't know who TheRat is, but he seems like a really common sense kind of person. More objective than most of us. Less likely to drink all the kool aid flowing so freely lately. Of course anybody with a decent memory is a genius these days. Anyone who remembers Reagan, Enron, Charles Keating, Joe McCarthy, and the Southern Strategy can pretty well chart out what the GOP is up to these days.

Badsey, plainly stated, liberals are not questioning themselves. Your perception of them is wrong.

Seems lots of Libs are upset and are questioning themselves...

Yes, not since 2000 have I questioned myself like this. People told me that a vote for Al Gore would bring terrible disaster upon the US in the form of wars, terrorist attacks, natural calamities, and an economic meltdown.

Well, I voted for Gore and, sure enough, they were right.

I do create jobs. How about you?

Seems lots of Libs are upset and are questioning themselves -and even looking inward for the first time in their lives. Be careful since you may not like what you truely see/are. Change is difficult for some it seems.

American voters have long ago ceased to understand the process of cause and effect. Deliver tax cuts while waging two wars, and you're surprised you've got a deficit? Likewise for the health care plan. The voting public thinks somehow either of the two parties it empowers will magically defy natural laws (like the law of gravity). Is this stupid, or what?

JunNama:

"I agree the private sector should create jobs... So when are they going to start doing that? Soon would be appreciated!!"

What keeps you from starting your own?

And wasn't there a huge debate about America being just behind or slightly ahead of Cuba in its overall health care? Why yes.

The so-called debate was initiated by the UN - whose criteria for "quality" was vaguely defined as "access". IOW - in this silly little charade if you were Cuban, said you were sick, and told by President-for-Life Castro's gov't there that the person they sent you to was a trained doctor, you had "access."

And wasn't there a huge debate about America being just behind or slightly ahead of Cuba in its overall health care? Why yes. A tropical island that has faced an embargo for 50 years, has better health care. And the whole debate centered on was it slightly ahead or behind Cuba! Not just how ludricous it was to be what...37th. But right-wingers HATE progress. No bullet trains needed---they are PORK. No nationalized healthcare. No clean water. It's unnecessary regulation. Wow!

Nationalized economies like North Korea, Cuba, the ex Soviet Union, Venezuela, etc etc would be roaring examples of success.

Wow, a bet a lot of unemployed Americans would like to be in Venezuela right now, or Brazil, which is also heavily nationalized. Or Germany which is even more so. Yeah, cool, pick your cherries, but the Soviet Union had America quacking in its boots with its military might. If the government had put more of its attention to its people instead of its military, it would have been hailed a success. But, Ok, you clowns, let's have companies solve the problems. It worked out SO WELL before!!! Remember the savings and loan fiasco in the early 90s. And then the Internet company implosion! And then Enron, Adelphi, and Worldom. And now, AIG, and Citibank and well....I could name 50 more. Yeh, businessmen are so savvy. Like those at um.... Merrill Lynch or Lehman Brothers. They will help raise this sinking ship. Wow! The naivete of you right-wingers is BREATH-TAKING!!!!

tokind2:

" I agree, let Government create jobs and spark the economy. "

If governments could "create jobs and spark the economy" by taxing and taking over, there would be no unsuccessful countries. Nationalized economies like North Korea, Cuba, the ex Soviet Union, Venezuela, etc etc would be roaring examples of success.

Because of course, nothing is easier for governments to do than taxing and spending.

The proof that this simply is not so is in the pudding, i.e. in the real world. Just look around. Successful economies have governments that set clear rules and then step aside.

I agree the private sector should create jobs... So when are they going to start doing that? Soon would be appreciated!!

skipbeat. Then you are I are close on a lot of this. I agree, let Government create jobs and spark the economy. Then I believe the private sector, responding to demand and new opportunities will follow. This makes sense.

Also let some areas remain private where the expertise and drive to be involved exist. I think we can agree that it has to be a mix.

Where I stand on government control are Three key areas. 1. Health Care should be public and not private. 2. Education should also be heavily supported by government. A smart, educated population will create opportunities and make us competive. 3. Infrastructure. Hospitals, roads, rail and public transport etc...

Private sector, with government incentives to address green technologies, energy and new sustainable technologies and business.

The Tea Party is neither riven by dissent nor defunct, but on the other hand it is and always has been diffuse and made up of a lot of different ideas, though unified by spirit. Likewise, it's proven a mix of good and bad for Republicans, raising enthusiasm but nominating some unelectable candidates for races Republicans should have won. The big question now will be how the establishment GOP congressmen deal with their new Tea Party colleagues. That's where the dissension is likely to be.

Well now it's time for someone to commit political suicide and tackle the budget issue head-on. Is the GOP ready for this? Someone go check with boehner.

I enjoy watching people like Klein2 try and talk themselves and others into the notion that the Tea Party was never really that big of a deal and is now riven by dissension etc. and all but defunct.

That is probably where you were last year at this time....

"There's a difference between compromise and doing what the republicans want."

Not if you are a Republican. I don't see a lot of compromise coming out of this. The GOP is just ornery. They would not compromise before because they were scared, now they won't because of hubris. There is no in-between with them, and if there were, the Tea Party would stomp it into the dust.

Nope. Many have been criticizing Obama for trying too hard to compromise, myself included, and that spirit of compromise that has prevailed will probably stop once everyone figures out that all the GOP wants to do is mess things up and take everyone's pensions and health care. They aren't serious about it anyway. I sure want to see some ideas from the GOP before anyone does any compromising, and that well is dry.

"has shown otherwise (Truman, Eisenhower, Clinton, who suffered similar mid term losses). They "

Those were cake walks compared to what FDR went through. His party got punished time after time until he wound up winning against Landon, who only got 8 electoral votes in 1936, I think. The GOP did not have much of a chance after that until after Truman.

I think history will show this election as a peak. Infighting with the Tea Party has already started, and the GOP had to give up the middle ground just to win where it did. They won't accomplish anything before 2012, and people will blame the GOP for a lack of progress.

When Fonzie jumped the shark, the Happy Days crew were certain that the show would go on and on, but that huge historical event marked the end of a legend and the end of the show. Now nobody can even remember who said "up your nose with a rubber hose." Its Tuesday 8 pm time slot was given to Temperatures Rising and Laverne and Shirley were the only poodle skirts left on the tube. In time, the comedy relief of the tea party will also fade and historians will forget who said, "there are mice with fully functioning human brains". And so it goes.

There's a difference between compromise and doing what the republicans want. No reversal of health care and maybe a compromise on tax cuts. Rich dudes are still going to see their taxes increase. < :-)

'Lame Duck' session.

The name means everything. LAME. Or nothing. Except that these new republicans are buying better wine than they did before.

I think Eric Cantor really said it, that Republicans have to deliver. Despite some conservatives giddy declarations that Obama is finished, history has shown otherwise (Truman, Eisenhower, Clinton, who suffered similar mid term losses). They need to remember that they gained control of one half of one branch of government. If they want to get anything done, it will have to be compromise (which goes for both parties obviously). Simply obstructing the Democrats won't do it.

Dems need first and foremost to show good faith and not try and ram any other unwanted legislation down John Q Public's throat. The country will be watching what they do during the upcoming 'Lame Duck' session.

tkoind2: Lawyers? They are everywhere? Get a phone book and knock yourself out finding as many as you need.

Just being sarcastic about the lawyers. Some Senators and House Representatives in Congress are lawyers too.

@tkoind2,

A big name tech company is planning to build a site which will bring jobs to the local economy.

At this time, USA tech companies in solar panel and green technology are already doing what you said.

Some call centers that went overseas are back already.

Here are some thoughts on government job creations.

Maybe Big Government should be building new hospitals that would provide jobs since Obama is in charge of the universal healthcare. Bring back all those public rehab centers to create jobs. Create jobs that include plumbers, painters, and electricians. A public railway service that goes all over the country would provide jobs and create future jobs.

Student loans aren't cheap. Tuition are on the rise and students are in colleges forever because there aren't enough classes to take to graduate. So, maybe the government should be funding the schools so that they can afford to hired professors to teach so students can graduate in 4 years.

There has to be a balanced between government role and the private sector role in creating jobs.

With both Republicans and Obama maybe things will work itself out.

skipbeat. Who is saying that you need big government to tell you how to live? I have not seen a single person suggest that. To think so is absurd, and you know it!

What happened to the Constitution? It has been surpassed by the power of money and undue influence over government by the wealthy minority and corporate interests. All empowered by apathy and a failure of the American people to take an active and informed interest in politics.

Lawyers? They are everywhere? Get a phone book and knock yourself out finding as many as you need.

What government can do, is implement a new deal to put people back to work!

@TheRat,

Seriously, are we living in the 18th century now. We have come along way don't you think. Do you need big government to tell you how you should live because she knows what is best for you? What happened to the Constitution? Lawyers anyone.

Skipbeat. I am sorry but this undying faith that the private sector will solve all your problems is simply misplaced hope.

The private sector wants to cut costs, expand profits and outdo their competition. If they can get Joe to do the work of two people, they will not hire a second person. Every single business trend suggests that business is not going to replace the legions of lost jobs. What they are doing is making Joe do the work of three people and finding ways to exempt Joe from overtime pay. That is reality.

The private sector cannot and will not solve America's unemployment problems, health care problems or other social issues. It is absurd to expect them to.

What the US really needs, and will not get from either party, is a New New Deal. One that puts people back to work soon and puts lots of them back to work. Infrastructure, education, new energy, green technologies and more projects should be initiated.

Unlike the old New Deal, the New New Deal would include labor, production, intellectual and technical opportunities. Those jobs create new demand and downstream create more production.

Yes it means spending now, but much of that will come back as the economy starts to move. More importantly it allows the US to work towards greater environmental and energy sustainability while developing industries that are strong tools for new exports of skills, products and technology.

Anything short of massive new employment will not work. And the private sector will never step up to create this level of job creation. Never.

We are all fooling ourselves thinking that any one party, by itself, is going to bring the US out of its problems.

No one is looking for a miracle. People want jobs. Obama's a BIG ANTI-BUSINESS which is the opposite of creating jobs. Dear skipthebrain, Obama's anti-business? What planet do you live on? Bailout for GM, which by the way, is working. Bailout for Citibank, which is working. Huge nice contract for insurance companies FORCING the sheep to join their rolls whether or not they like it or not. Wow. Can't be more of a corporatist. But, this is the playbook. When the pigs have their feet in the trough, they want all four feet in the trough. And then they will still want more and more and more and more. I was told by one Brit, that the Tories expect to spend 25 years TWENTY-FIVE years to dig their way out of the hole that they got themselves in. You expect things to change in a few years. Hey, I say go with it. Eliminate child labor laws, eliminate minimum wage, weekends, holidays, ALL environmental laws, ALL regulation, and let's see what that takes you--besides the 18th century.

Obama's exception is GM and the Union.

Well Germany would say that now wouldn't they :)

tkoind2: Wolfpack, it is unrealistic to expect either party to resolve the current problems in 1-2 years. The issues are just too big to instantly go away.

If the USA does not recover within the next 2 years she will be like Japan. People have learned their lesson by not borrowing what they don't have and can't pay off. Americans will be more frugal in the future. Doesn't this sounds like Japan whose economy have gone down hill since the bubble burst and only getting worse? If what you said is true than the USA will probably never recover to where they were 3 years ago.

No one is looking for a miracle. People want jobs. Obama's a BIG ANTI-BUSINESS which is the opposite of creating jobs.

jruastralia. Not that many Americans work for unions any more. Legions of people work with regular companies. So blaming unions just does not hold much water. Though clearly there are issues there.

The real problem is that NEITHER PARTY represent the people. BOTH represent special interests, corporations and first and foremost themeselves. With both parties fixated on 2012 and just trying to appease the masses, neither are looking at long term rock solid solutions to the current problems. So the election is nothing to celebrate. It is just one more swing of the pendulum between two self serving ends.

As for my "Caring First Policy". Don't try to pigeon hole me into either party. I don't care what the DEMs do to "castigate" unions. I think I have been pretty clear what I care about. This infighting BS helps noone.

But this is just one of many failings by both parties. The greatest failure is the inability of either party to care first about the working people of America.

Would the same 'failings' of the Dems to castigate the union-fatcats-- at the time when unemployment is up, and US businesses are unable to keep up with union recalcitrant-- part of your caring-first policy. Just wondering ;)

That same concern prompted the Federal Reserve to announce it intends to buy $600 billion in Treasury bonds through the middle of next year, on top of an estimated $250 billion to $300 billion already planned.

Alas-- in few m,onths time GEITHNER will either be vindicated (or NOT) with his skills as Washington's top fiscal czar.

From blog Economic Policy Journal, GEITHNER speaks about QE2:

(At) the G-20 meetings, German Economic Minister Rainer Bruederle said that the Federal Reserve’s push toward easier monetary policy is the “wrong way” to stimulate growth and may amount to a manipulation of the dollar,

“It’s the wrong way to try to prevent or solve problems by adding more liquidity,” Bruederle told reporters yesterday, saying that emerging-market officials were among the critics. “Excessive, permanent money creation in my opinion is an indirect manipulation of an exchange rate,” he said.

As for Geithner, he turned a cold shoulder to Germany's objections to QE2. When asked whether he expected Germany’s criticisms to gain steam, he replied: “I do not.” “We are going to continue to try to strengthen the recovery under way so we can dig out of this as quickly as we can,” Geithner said.

Wolfpack, it is unrealistic to expect either party to resolve the current problems in 1-2 years. The issues are just too big to instantly go away.

It is equally misguided to expect a deeply divided government to accomplish much, especially when both parties care more about the 2012 elections than the needs of the people.

You talk about the end of "socialism" in the US, a place that has never had anything resembling socialism despite the misrepresentations of the right. And in doing so you ignore the fact that 70+% of Americans want government involved in health care.

But this is just one of many failings by both parties. The greatest failure is the inability of either party to care first about the working people of America. As such we will continually see this swing from DEM to GOP and back again as people try to voice their anger at a system that does not represent them.

The two party system is failing and with it the American people are losing jobs, losing stability and falling behind the competition in education, health care, quality of life and stability.

How can we be happy about any outcome of such a failing political process, when what people really need is proper representation and real solutions?

Taken together, the fast-paced series of events confirmed the primacy of the economy as an issue in a country with 9.6% unemployment, record home foreclosures and disappointingly slow growth.

The open question is whether or not the Republicans would rather keep those numbers as bad as possible, rather than seeing them improve on the way to 2012 and risk having President Obama get some credit.

It was a "shellacking"! One member of the Obama Poliburo - Nancy Pelosi - has been deposed. That's change American's can believe in! In two years, the socialist in chief himself - President Obama - will be sent off to an early retirement. Hopefully, this marks the beginning of the end of America's experiment in European style socialism.

With divided government and a ever more ideologically narrow Democrat party, little will get done over the next two years. President Obama missed his chance to shove through cap and tax, card check, and other highly controversial legislation while he had a fillabuster proof majority in the Senate and a majority in the House. However, I just hope for the future of the country that they can agree to slash spending now before it's too late to save America's financial health.