world

GOP wins the House, falls short of Senate

199 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2010 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

199 Comments
Login to comment

Two senate pickups early on for Republicans - Coates in Ohio and Paul in Kentucky.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Coates is from Indiana.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sorry... his last name is "Coats."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Correction - Coates pickup is in Indiana. Senator-elect Paul is replacing an Republican incumbent.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Thanks for the corrections yabits - getting ahead of myself.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It is pretty much a foregone conclusion that Republicans will take the House. The only suspense tonight will be how many Senate seats they pickup. Pennsylvania will be an early indication as to their chances of getting close to the 10 seats they need to take control. No Pennsylvania, no Senate majority. I'm guessing somewhere around 48 to 50.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sigh, I'm so tired of this political power struggle. In an ideal election it should be 50/50 or maybe an extremely difficult mix of independents, repubs, democrats, and w/e other parties are out there. Well aside from that my voting is done and I went for whoever leans closest to my opinions on various issues.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think the Republicans succeeded in making this a referendum on Obama, which at the margins has the result of more Republicans winning. Two years ago, the Democrats succeeded in making it a referendum on Bush, and likewise more Democrats won than would have otherwise. Both cases are OK with me, they work towards my goal of voting the ins out. The scary part of this story is Andrew Cuomo running obviously on his father's name, and Jerry Brown, who succeeded Reagan who succeeded Brown Sr. as governor way back when, running again. We have to get away from these "dynasties".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Now off to the New Sanno to watch the election returns on big screen televisions at the Fair Winds lounge there (they open at 9 this morning in honor of what's going on back in the States). Will be raising a glass to toast every conservative victory today.

Happy imploding, liberals; foreign and domestic.

RR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So it is true. The Tea Party and the GOP are the same thing, and nobody seems to be complaining. Sarah Palin has taken control of the GOP.

All the media I see are counting Tea Party victories in the GOP tally. Well. I guess that makes sense. Without GOP support, the Tea Party is just a tempest in a teapot. Good to see them joining the establishment.

"Will be raising a glass to toast every conservative victory today."

Is that you Charlie Sheen?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Jerry Brown, who succeeded Reagan who succeeded Brown Sr. as governor way back when, running again. We have to get away from these "dynasties"."

You're kidding right? Jerry Brown running again is not "succession". It is more like "resurrection". Governor moonbeam was last on the political scene when bellbottoms and skateboards were in vogue. Then he disappeared entirely before producing rock hits such as "Running on Empty" and "Doctor My Eyes". Then he disappeared again. And he shows up about six months ago to run for office.

If you want nepotism, Bush should be your poster child. Dad was a CIA director and President. Sons are all manner of larcenous louts. All have got their fingers in one pie or another, and only one is retired as far as I know.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If you want nepotism, Bush should be your poster child.

Nepotism is more when you appoint family or relatives.

Although you probably have a pet conspiracy to counter with, Bush Jr gained the presidency. He didn't get my vote , but I am tired of reading how this two-term Republican president or that two-term Republican president was in fact a loser, but Clinton - - the only post war Dem elected twice - - was the greatest thing that ever happened to us, and his wife (you want nepotism???) would make a great prez etc etc .

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WV goes dem. First surprise of the day :|

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WV goes dem. First surprise of the day :|

Yeah, and Manchin basically ran against Obama and ObamaCare.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Progressive heart throb Alan Grayson lost in Florida.I know Dems who wanted this guy to run for president.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

That's not going to help the GOP take the senate :0

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It is better that the Dems retain the Senate, the Tea Party and the rest of us stay hungry.

Then comes 2012.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WV goes dem. First surprise of the day :|

Not really much of a surprise. A bit of a disappointment, but considering the Governor basically took the Republican platform and claimed to support every single thing on it, and ran against nearly every single thing the Dems stand for. So basically, he's promised to be a Republican while in Washington. Whats even more amusing, is that its a 2 year term. So if he doesn't do precisely what he claims, if in fact he goes to Washington, and is just another little lapdog for Obama, then he'll be 2 and out.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Msnbc goes out on a limb and calls the GOP will win the house... Ya think??

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Senate is gonna stay BLUE. Yeah!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Senate is gonna stay BLUE. Yeah!

States are described (and only recently) as 'red' or 'blue', not the different legislative branches.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Senate is gonna stay BLUE. Yeah!

Not really a surprise, though a bit of a disappointment.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Will be raising a glass to toast every conservative victory today."

I most certainly will!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You're kidding right? Jerry Brown running again is not "succession". It is more like "resurrection".

I know you're joking, right? I was a teenager under Jerry Brown it was a nightmare. How can you say him being Gov. again is a resurrection?? More like a nightmare along the lines of Hellraiser that you just can't wake up. I don't understand California! Well, time to write it off for good now.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Klein2: I'm well aware of the Bush family, believe me. Thankfully none of them are on the ballot, at least this time. I hope that Jeb Bush or George P Bush or any others are ever on any ballots in my lifetime.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Progressive heart throb Alan Grayson lost in Florida.I know Dems who wanted this guy to run for president.

There is a God! This guy was big loudmouth and I have never seen a politician as obnoxious...well, Howard Dean, but other than that, there isn't a more divisive person than that loon! Good riddance!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Progressive heart throb Alan Grayson lost in Florida.

Good riddance.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ah election season where people actually pretend to really care about politics and talk about they know stuff. Then right after it's business as usual, Washington as usual, until the next election cycle. Democrats, republicans, independents, it's all the same.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If you want nepotism, Bush should be your poster child. Dad was a CIA director and President. Sons are all manner of larcenous louts. All have got their fingers in one pie or another, and only one is retired as far as I know.

@Klein2: Actually, the Kennedy's would be a better example. Dad was a Ambassador, sons were Senators and a President, and the President son appointed his own brother as AG.

The president gave a series of radio interviews pleading with Democratic supporters not to sit on the sidelines. “I know things are still tough out there, but we finally have job growth again,” he said in one. “It is all at risk if people don’t turn out and vote today.”

People get upset about the Tea Party, but looking back at 2008, Obama won with a majoirty of the popular vote. Even if those same people who voted GOP in that election still voted along party lines, the Dems would have still won tonight. But why people on the left get upset with the Tea Party is that those who did vote for Dems/Obama in 08 now have a change of their voting preference, because some of the items that the Dems ran on did not come to pass, and the more people began to really see their policies, they decided to change.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Congratulations to the new Democratic governor of the great state of Colorado.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Congratulations to new Democratic senator, Christopher Coons. Thanks to the T-BP for putting up such a joke of a candidate.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It is better that the Dems retain the Senate, the Tea Party and the rest of us stay hungry.

Hey, why else do you think O'Donnell was nominated? When I posted before that the Republicans intentionally were throwing the Delaware race for exactly that reason I was basically called an idiot on this site. Now I see that this result "is better". If they lose out by only one for the senate it will look even more suspicious than it already does.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hmm, results in from PA indicate it will stay Dem. That would be another shock....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"@Klein2: Actually, the Kennedy's would be a better example. Dad was a Ambassador, sons were Senators and a President, and the President son appointed his own brother as AG."

Haha. Dad was a lot more than an ambassador. And how could you forget Maria Shriver and Schwarzenegger in your laundry list? See, nepotism is rather expected from Italians and Irish and all that back east old country stuff. That it crops up with WASPS like the Bushes somehow surprises me.

And frankly no, the Kennedy's are NOT a better example. The Bushes have two Presidents, a long time governor, and then others who came too close to indictment to ever hold office, but who act as bagmen for the rest of them.

How does one Kennedy as President for a couple of years provide a better example of nepotism than 16 years of Bushes in the White House?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Congratulations to new Republican senator, Rand Paul. Thanks to the T-BP for putting up such a great candidate. And of course Thanks to the Dems, for being so pathetic and stupid as to pass the health care bill, the cap and tax, Porkulus Maximus, and all the other Dumb blunders. He couldn't have won without ya.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oh, yeah. Congratulations to the new Republican Senator, Ron Johnson. And again, thanks to the Tea Party for putting up such a great candidate. Of course it didn't hurt that Feingold proved to be so idiotic, voting for Obamas idiotic, anti-American agenda.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Congratulations to new Democratic senator, Christopher Coons. Thanks to the T-BP for putting up such a joke of a candidate."

She was a Republican. Let's be very clear about that. She won the Republican primary fair and square on the sweat of her supporters. She stated her principles and was supported 100% by the Tea Party.

And this is how the GOP treats the Tea Party.

You know, Molenir and others have been carping about how the GOP is not the Tea Party, but all the coverage I see puts them together and calls Tea Party victories "GOP gains". Can someone explain that to me? Has the Tea Party been co-opted already? How can Palin and the Tea Party support a GOP candidate like O'Donnell and then get no support from the GOP? And yet the GOP is taking credit for all of the TP heavy lifting?

The Tea Party is getting screwed. Suckers. The whole Tea Party dream will not last past the first glass of champagne downed at GOP HQ. The rich have bought and paid for votes and the Tea Party delivered.

And so the GOP (NOT Tea Party, remember?) has taken the house, so I am expecting great things. Go to it, party boys:

"House Republicans have promised to cut $100 billion from the federal budget in the first year, rolling back spending to 2008 levels."

The ball IS in the GOP court now. Once all the gloating ends, here is the promise I want to see.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I stand corrected PA is back in toss-up!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"I know you're joking, right? I was a teenager under Jerry Brown it was a nightmare. How can you say him being Gov. again is a resurrection??"

Uh. No. A time of unimaginable growth and a lifestyle that the whole nation strove for. Not really a nightmare. Did you grow up in Compton? And anyway, my point was that if the Brown family really controlled California politics in a nepotistic frenzy, then how can anyone explain Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon and all of Orange County?

And my other point was that Jerry Brown jr. has been gone for quite a long time. That he can come back and kick Jillionaire Whitman around while dressed as a mummy is entertaining to say the least, and it cannot be explained away as Daddy's coattails.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think the Tea Party should ask to have their results shown separately from those of the GOP. It might be very revealing. Are they not a real party?

Rand Paul is a Republican, not Tea Party, is that right? Well, then what does the Tea Party have to gloat about? He has already been co-opted. He is not independent. He is part of the machine. Politically branded and sold. His constituents are GOP, his party is GOP, and his win goes in the GOP column.

Molenir has been duped. There is no Tea Party.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And let's not forget a shockingly unintelligent Tea Party movement that stands for exactly nothing and fears exactly everything, all ghost-funded by a couple of creepy libertarian oil billionaires -- the leathery old Koch brothers -- who eat their young for a snack. Who could've predicted that gnarled political contraption would hold water? But hey, when Americans are angry and nervous, they do stupid things. Like vote Republican. It happens. Just did.

Source: Mark Morford. sfgate.com

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The democrats got the big thing that we wanted these past 2 years. There could have been more, but we got the biggest things. Financial Reform and Health Care Protection.

The republicans that come in aren't enough to take control of the congress so they can't reverse these changes.

And they aren't going to extend the bush tax cuts during the lame duck session.

Oh..oh.. remember the "Party of No?" If they want to do anything these next 2 years they have to come to the democrats and "COMPROMISE". heh..heh..heh. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Did you grow up in Compton?

And if I did, so what? Is that such a bad thing? Has nothing to do with anything! By the way, what do you know about Compton? My bad, of course, I keep forgetting liberals know everything about everything. And you guys wonder why you lost. Now here is a cold fact: The Obama agenda is dead, get over it and let's move on. Please minus playing the race card Klein2 doesn't serve you well. There is a reason why the Dems lost. This is a clear repudiation of Obama's ueber-liberal agenda. Let's hope the man will govern now from the center as a moderate.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

when Americans are angry and nervous, they do stupid things. Like vote Republican. It happens. Just did.

The same can be said about the Dems. Two years ago, they were more than just stupid when they voted for this President.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well, I was wrong about PA, went GOP. Reid has hung on in NV though....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"And if I did, so what? Is that such a bad thing? "

No, but it would explain why growing up in California was a nightmare for you and a dream for everyone else. The rest of your post is off topic. And Jerry Brown won. You lose.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sixty-five House seats lost.

Obama's former Senate seat taken by Repub Mark Kirk, to be seated immediately, in time for the lame duck session.

No president in US history has squandered his political capital as wantonly and recklessly as has Obama.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And Jerry Brown won. You lose.

California loses, and ultimately America loses.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There is no Tea Party?

Than why does Andrew Breitbart's site BigGovernment have as its number one story - -

"1. TEA TIME: REPUBLICANS LOCK UP HOUSE CONTROL"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

paying miles he drives in his delivery van. His miles have tripled to 9,000 a month. Crews said of the economy: “It’s moving. I know, because I’m moving it

The power of the increase of online shopping

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well, pretty well as I predicted. Looks like the Dems give back some of what they got a couple of years ago. The GOP has totally reamed and subverted the Tea Party's energy and idealism. The Dems have smacked down O'Donnell, Whitman, and that wrestler lady Sarge liked. Oh, and Angel in NV too. Not a bad day considering it was a bunch of loyal conscientious voters vs. tea party rabble backed by billionaires. Democracy wins.

The GOP will jump up and down at having back about what they had four years ago. Big. Whoop. They didn't do jack with all that RAW POWER then, and they won't now.

And now the GOP has about three months to cut 100 billion from the budget, as they promised. After all, they control the House now, so I am expecting great things. I am going to need some popcorn to watch this.

And Bass4funk, who said everyone in Compton is black? You did. Play your own racist card. Compton just happens to be the ONLY place I could think of in California that went straight downhill during Brown's watch. I mean the only one. Maybe Inglewood, too. Enlighten me. Find me a municipality in California with negative population growth or economic growth during all of Jerry Brown's governorship, then explain to me how California = nightmare.

Ladies and Gentlemen, this is the party of NO. Here is what every GOP voter all over the country is saying right now: "The Obama agenda is dead, get over it". I have heard zero talk from anyone, even Boehner, about what the GOP plans to do, other than take credit for what Tea Party volunteers did. As always, Obama is calling the shots for the GOP. They just do the opposite of what he wants and they call it good.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Are partisan Democrats ashamed that their party asked or forced 3 black candidates for the Senate to step down?

I sure would be.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No, but it would explain why growing up in California was a nightmare for you and a dream for everyone else. The rest of your post is off topic. And Jerry Brown won. You lose.

You have no idea how I grew up. Living in California was great, loved it. Just didn't love Jerry Brown or Grey Davis! And yes, Jerry Brown won and California as with Nevada retaining Reid the people are the ones that are the real losers. Given the economical climate in the two states, you would think that the people would realize as to how bad the liberals destroyed those states and now they are repeating history by voting in the same clowns which equates to as MisterCreosote said, ultimately America losing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is great. I can cut and paste contradictory posts by others to make a statement. I don't need to type it. I just let them talk to each other.

"Are partisan Democrats ashamed that their party asked or forced 3 black candidates for the Senate to step down?"

"Please minus playing the race card, MisterCreosote doesn't serve you well."

Mister Creosote: Like the whole world cares about Breitbart. In the real world, the GOP is taking all the credit. Even when TeaParty candidates are elected as independents, they become part of the GOP graph. Just look. CNN, FOX, USATODAY, etc. I have not seen one that breaks out the ToolParty candidates from the other GOP. Just look around. I find it astounding. Rand Paul is a Republican. Have you heard? Everyone is assuming that tea party candidates will do what Boehner wants, automatically, even though the GOP did not elect these people OR fund many of them. I knew they would give in, but I did not expect them to knuckle under on election day.

It also shows what many people have known all along. The tea party is not an independent movement. It is a GOP tool. Molenir insisted hours ago that it isn't, but just look at what is happening.

How are you going to feel when Boehner tells Rand Paul to compromise? He will, you know. The TeaParty has been used. You might like the result now, but prepare to get your dreams shattered. They already threw O'Donnell under the bus, and any tp member who does not toe the line is out. If they have accepted GOP funding, then they are already co-opted.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"a repudiation of Washington, a repudiation of big government and a repudiation of politicians who refuse to listen to the people." since when is people governing?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The tea party is not an independent movement. It is a GOP tool.

Pollster and author Michael Barone said it best - - the elitist Left cannot understand the tea party movement.Any such similar activity on the Left is 'astroturfed' so they naturally assume that is what the rest of us are up to. Furthermore, the last such spontaneous self-organizing movement was the peace movement, which dates from the very beginnings of the New Left Democrat Party we have today, and this too probably infuriates a lot of sentimental older "Liberals".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Now you gonna see the GOP play gridlock/****block for the next two years in the hope of people's gullibility in the message of "accentuating the negative" is a positive one.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"John Boehner, voice breaking with emotion, declared shortly before midnight Tuesday that the results were "a repudiation of Washington, a repudiation of big government and a repudiation of politicians who refuse to listen to the people."

AP is reporting that. Let's break it down. When TPers are voting against RINOs, they are saying that Republicans are politicians who refuse to listen, etc. But Boehner is now claiming that all TP votes were GOP votes. In effect, the GOP and TP are the same thing. He has not acknowledged or thanked the TP at all. Nobody is. People like Molenir and Creosote are still true believers, bless their hearts, but Boehner and the professional GOP will eat their lunch.

How does Boehner's statement jibe with the treatment of O'Donnell? She was ideologically pure and backed by Sarah Palin AND the Tea Party, but the GOP did not support her. Why? Because big government is alive and well in the GOP, and now the people who fought that, like O'Donnell, have been thrown under the bus.

The way the GOP wins in 2012 is by undermining the Tea Party and ripping off their patriotic dreams. I admire the GOP leadership for doing that because it is what they do best, but I know a lot of TPers put their lives on hold for this movement, and they got ripped off. They never believed the GOP would do this to them, and it has happened. They are locked out of the GOP machine and will not be at the convention. Their candidates will get picked off one by one by machinations in Washington. Ideology loses. GOP politics wins.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

elitist Left cannot understand the tea party movement.Any such similar activity on the Left is 'astroturfed' so they naturally assume that is what the rest of us are up to.

Good grief...the tea party a grass roots movement? Is your memory really that short?

It's not possible. I call Poe.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

They already threw O'Donnell under the bus, and any tp member who does not toe the line is out.

Just like the Dems now throwing Pelosi under the bus and we all know she never towed the line! Good riddance.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Now that the elections are over, they should make sure Christine O’Donnell does not charge any more onto her campaign finance account.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Meh, much ado about nothing, the two parties will continue not to get along, instead of behaving in a grown-up manner. The far left will blame the Republican Congress, the far Right will blame Obama, never addressing the real problems facing America (the government didn't make America what it is today, the people of America did) and the downwards spiral will continue.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

More deadlock than ever is approaching, and more proof that the system does not work. I used to believe in Democracy, and while this vote proves it works in terms of voting, it ultimately proves that it fails as a system of government. When was the last time anything of importance passed and wasn't side-lined by the next opposition government? NOTHING is happening to address all the problems, and the GOP certainly won't answer any questions... in fact, all the GOP has as a campaign is that they are not Democrats.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

One of the more interesting things, in terms of this site, is watching people who were saying that it would be a massacre now say things like, "It's not surprising, but disappointing", etc. If it's not surprising, why all the hub-bub before?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I guess the Democrats really disappointed their voter base in the last 2 years. I thought Obama was going to perform miracles by the way he was talked up and now look at what the public thinks of him and the Democrats. Better luck next time Mr. Obama.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Make that two votes for much ado about nothing. The real issue was never even addressed in this election campaign, just a lot of alternative reality ideas of what are the causes of the problems. But then a cynic would say that is what American politicians are paid the big money for, to make sure the real problem is not dealt with. In magic I think the word is "misdirection", where the magician directs your attention away from where the real action is happening.

Anyways, QE2 gets announced on Wednesday and the big boys can get back to their main business of running America into the ground, without having to deal with this pesky democracy business.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I can't believe Jerry Brown is Governor of Caifornia again.

John McClane would just shake his head and say "California..."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Living in California was great, loved it."

Oh. So why did you say it was a nightmare? Because Jerry Brown ruined it for you. I don't think you are making a whole lot of sense.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

President Obama isn't just Dracula, he isn't just Lazarus, he's our leader and our whole caucus is thrilled that he's unbreakable and unbeatable. Riding all the way to 2016.

How's that Tea PArty treatin' ya? LOL!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

An interesting race up there in Alaska. Lisa Murkowski could be the first write-in candidate to win a Senate seat since 1954. What's more intriguing is she's going to defeat Joe Miller, the candidate Sarah Palin endorsed and who defeated Murkowski in the Republican primary, leading Murkowski to the write-in path. Of course Alaska being Palin's home state, it's like a slap to her face from her own people. And what does that say about the Tea Party voters of normally-Republican Alaska, who won that primary for Miller, when the rest of Alaskan voters do not like their candidate? Lots of drama.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"towed the line"

You make me laugh.

I guarantee that you don't know what "throw under the bus" even means if you think that is what is happening to Pelosi.

lostrune: C. O'Donnell has already announced that she is suing the GOP for finance issues. That is how valuable the Tool Party was to the GOP. People have to be sued to get paid.

"It's not surprising, but disappointing", Boy, I'll say. I think Reid, Colorado, and all those defeated women candidates across the country are a huge disappointment for the GOP/TP. California was particularly a GOP debacle. They spent so much and got their hash handed to them by Jerry Brown the mummy. And Boxer. (Mummy and the Boxer... I am reminded of Muhammad Ali, strangely enough) And not by hippie voters either. Look at what happened to the marijuana ballot issue. People in New York and California apparently still have brains.

If I were a tool party member, I would be looking for some assurances and some answers right about now. The GOP is taking all the credit. More importantly, the GOP is going to start pointing fingers in Nevada and California and they will be putting the blame squarely on the tea party for mucking that up. They will lose in Colorado too, looks like. I want to see a breakdown of tea party and GOP candidates. I think it will show that tea party candidates generally did not do well, and messed up a few races for the GOP. They were disorganized, silly, poorly funded, and just angry. Rove and others in the GOP are already saying it. Or should we believe that the tea party and the GOP are the same entity?

Well. The TP "winners" that made it in will get in line behind Boehner and show that they were Tea Party in name only. TPINOs. Like Rand Paul.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

To answer the question: it says that even normally-Republican Alaskans --Sarah Palin's home state-- think that Palin-supported Joe Miller's Tea Party is too far to the right, even for them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How could Angle not beat Reid? That is hilarious. The forecaster from NPR apparently has a nearly perfect record. He picked Reid, and I thought for sure he was going to miss that pick, but he got it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

For middle-class America, it's heartening for them to see that some of the wealthiest spending candidates in the costliest midterm election in American history are also some of the hardest hit losers. They don't think that just because one can use hundreds of millions of one's own money that one would know the plight of an ordinary American.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

More deadlock than ever is approaching, and more proof that the system does not work.

Gridlock will be attempted, but these folks will learn to work together. Those who can't -- Republican or Democrat -- will be looking for new jobs after 2012.

President Obama is a masterful concensus-builder and he'll have a much more effective partner in John Boehner than in Nancy Pelosi.

P.S. I am absolutely delighted that Sharron Angle lost. She and Christine O'Donnell had no business being anywhere near the US Senate.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How could Angle not beat Reid? That is hilarious.

Reid spent 25 million dollars to defeat Angle.

'Liberals' still insist Repubs are the Big Money party. That is hilarious.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oh. So why did you say it was a nightmare? Because Jerry Brown ruined it for you. I don't think you are making a whole lot of sense.

The man tried to take credit for Prop 13 which I recall at the time, he so dastardly opposed! He also boasted in so called creating over 1.8 million jobs in California, by the time he left office with a high unemployment that wasn't surpassed 2008! Slow growther, anti-infrastructure, which to a large degree is and lacking and responsible for the heavy traffic congestion that LA is so famous for. Legalized public employee unions. Yep, sure do remember him! This is why, I am making my peace with California, it just went from bad to hopeless! There, hope that makes sense to you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm sorely disappointed for the Dems (NOT!), but Rand PAUL's-- Ron's son-- election victory is something even the left and the anti-war (remember them?) would find something to smile about. Not everyone in the TP are rotten-- and divisive-- and those bleeding hearts and liberals now lamenting this tsunami of electoral losses should now complement the Reps with their efforts to sound and look fiscally conservative.

Phase II of the Great Stimulus Package will be the political tintometer for most of these freshmen Republicans-- it'll be a gripping day to watch as some of them will ultimately struggle, and fall, living up to the hype...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

President Obama is a masterful concensus-builder and he'll have a much more effective partner in John Boehner than in Nancy Pelosi.

Too bad the person doing most of the dirty-work's gone... Too bad indeed :(

Well. The TP "winners" that made it in will get in line behind Boehner and show that they were Tea Party in name only. TPINOs. Like Rand Paul.

LoL Rand PAUL's one of the orig. till TP got hijacked by the more 'noisy' Republicans and refashioned Amen Crowds. (Like Dick Cheney's daughter LoL)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Tea Party got Col. Allen West and Tim Scott elected to the House, Marco Rubio to Senate, and Nikki Haley (born Nimrata Randhawato) governor of her state

two black representatives, a Cuban-American senator and an Indian-American female as governor.

That is what real change looks like.

Democrat Party bigwigs meanwhile, asked or forced 3 black candidates to drop out of their respective Senate campaigns.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Anyways, QE2 gets announced on Wednesday and the big boys can get back to their main business of running America into the ground, without having to deal with this pesky democracy business.

@GJDailleult, well someone reads Bloomberg LoL. Yes QE2 is undemocratic-- but anyone contemplating of blaming OBAMA for this, do remember that some Reps did voted for BERNANKE's (author of this monstrous-- $500 bil-- quantitative easing) reappointment too :( Watch this space...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I was watching MSNBarack Channel and I loved watching the opinion shows all day. Their faces and utter disbelief; priceless and the spin from Olbermann, Matthews, Schulz and the rest of the anchors from the other opinion shows was worth watching, talk about TV at its finest! lol

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Add to my previous comment - - New Mexico's new governor is Republican , and a Latina.

Obama's agenda is dead, and so is the cheap, craven slander that the Tea Party is racist.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Blog called Red State looks at the most under-reported story of the day:

"The whole of the Maine legislator has flipped to the GOP. Several people I have talked to said such a deep and thorough shift to any one party has not happened in one election in the past 100 years."

"Republican gains are massive. And when I say Republican gains are massive, I mean tsunami."

"But consider that as you wake up this morning the Republican Party has picked up more seats in the House of Representatives than at any time since 1948 — that is more than sixty seats. Ike Skelton, Class of 1976, is gone. Many, many other Democrats are gone."

"The real story is the underreported story of the night — the Republican pick ups at the state level."

"There will be 18 states subject to reapportionment. The Republicans will control a majority of those — at least ten and maybe a dozen or more. More significantly, a minimum of seventeen state legislative houses have flipped to the Republican Party.

"The North Carolina Legislature is Republican for the first time since 1870. Yes, that is Eighteen Seventy.

"The Alabama Legislature is Republican for the first time since 1876.

"The entire Wisconsin and New Hampshire legislatures have flipped to the GOP by wide margins.

"The State Houses in Indiana, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, Iowa, Montana, and Colorado flipped to the GOP.

"The Maine and Minnesota Senates flipped to the GOP.

"The Texas and Tennessee Houses went from virtually tied to massive Republican gains. The gains in Texas were so big that the Republicans no longer need the Democrats to get state constitutional amendments out of the state legislature."

"These gains go all the way down to the municipal level across the nation. That did not happen even in 1994."

"This was a tsunami."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Marco Rubio for President: The "Why Not" campaign. Heard it on JT first.

Change was needed and the American Patriots have spoken -will see the kicked out libs at the breadlines soon.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits: "Gridlock will be attempted, but these folks will learn to work together. Those who can't -- Republican or Democrat -- will be looking for new jobs after 2012."

By voting in whom? It'll be more of the same last 10 years for the next ten. I do agree that it's great Angle the idiot lost, and that she and O'Donnel (who is suing) had no business running for or being elected to the positions they were running for.

MisterCreosote: "Democrat Party bigwigs meanwhile, asked or forced 3 black candidates to drop out of their respective Senate campaigns."

You've said this three times already on this thread alone.... desperation? Most of the wins you projected, and your beloved tea-party candidates, were shot down. Playing up the few who won won't change that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Reid spent 25 million dollars to defeat Angle.

"We have beaten Harry Reid at his own game. We vastly outraised Reid's special-interest money...," said Angle Communications Director Jarrod Agen.

LOL! Joy Behar's having a good laugh today.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Marco Rubio for President: The "Why Not" campaign. Heard it on JT first. Change was needed and the American Patriots have spoken -will see the kicked out libs at the breadlines soon.

Breadlines for sure and don't forget they'll get 99 weeks of unemployment too! Can't wait to watch all the TV shows tomorrow, the day after! That should be worth a million bucks! Jeannine Garafalo eat your heat out!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Tea Party got Col. Allen West

The hard-right's equivalent to Grayson. An ignorant, abusive thug who will prove to be a one-termer.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I was watching MSNBarack Channel and I loved watching the opinion shows all day. Their faces and utter disbelief; priceless and the spin from Olbermann, Matthews, Schulz and the rest of the anchors from the other opinion shows was worth watching, talk about TV at its finest!

I watched MSNBC too. For news and commentary, I agree, there is no finer watching to be had.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@klein2: What's eally hilarious is you sniping at a race here and there and trying to make it look not so bad. You lost, dude, get over it. Reid kept his seat and will remain majority leader, but (and this is important), there are enough conservative democrat senators to make him virtually impotent. Pelosi will stick aroung long enough to hand over the reins and then retire, you can't perside over such a disaster and remain the party spoksperson. As for the GOP being the party of "no", that's why they got elected, to stop all the cram-it-down-your-throat spending bills.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

President Obama doesn't need this aggravation.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The people have spoken!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

techall: "As for the GOP being the party of "no", that's why they got elected, to stop all the cram-it-down-your-throat spending bills."

But they won't -- the Republicans took a surplus handed to them by Clinton and turned it into nearly the biggest deficit in US history, and sent the economy on a downward spiral that will take years to recover from, if ever. They're not going to stop the spending, my friend, they're going to suddenly say, "We would like to stop it, but it's necessary" or what have you. Look at how much the GOP and tea party pumped into their campaigns in the last month and STILL lost a lot of crucial areas, and couldn't regain the Senate.

They have a chance now with the House to prove something, but given that their only policy is 'we are not Democrats' I can't see how they will be anything but ineffective. Their entire one and only terms are going to be spent trying to reverse things that are only beginning to pay off, not coming up with ideas to help.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is a disaster, not only for the US but for every country that trades with it. The present crop of Republicans are mad, only in a deeply sick political system can they be successful. I say mad, because how else do you call people who believe that cutting taxes reduces the deficit? How else to call people who believe evolution is a scientific conspiracy against God? Who claim to want to respect the Constitution... while at the same time being the foremost proponents in wanting to scrap parts of it and who don't even know that the first amendment establishes the separation of Church and State? Who believe that every unemployed person WANTS to be unemployed to receive unemployment insurance, though there is 6 unemployed workers by job opening?

In a time where strong action has to be taken to bring back the economy from its recent crisis, the Republicans will block any such kind of action, worse they will push actions that will add deflationary pressures to the economy. Austerity will not lead to prosperity, cutting taxes do not help the economy much in the context of America as it is now (as Bush's large tax cuts proved, with their lackluster effects on the economy). Fortunately, the Senate and Obama can block their maddest proposals, but inaction right now is bad enough. The risk that the Republicans will shut down government while the economy still has trouble going back up shows how the Republicans are completely disconnected from reality.

Unfortunately, a lot of Americans now only listen to right-wing media that acts as a vile propaganda tool, leading them to believe things that are false, which explains why the Republicans can get in even while lying continually.

For instance:

-They believe Obama increased the deficit a lot, which is incorrect, when he got in, the 2009 deficit prediction was already above a trillion. Obama's policies added comparatively little to it, most of it was due to falling revenues, the Bush tax cuts and the cost of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

-They believe government spending has increased a lot, which is incorrect. The deficit is mostly due to falling revenues and, while the Federal government has increased its spending, State and local governments have cut back, resulting in stable government spending levels per GDP.

-They believe the stimulus increased spending a lot, which is not really correct, most of the stimulus package was in tax cuts and in transfers to States and cities so that they don't fire cops, firemen and teachers. You think unemployment is high? What do you think would have happened if hundreds of thousands of teachers and cops and firemen had been fired in the past year?

-They believe that "Obamacare" is a radical proposal... when it is actually similar to the Republicans' proposal in the 90s and is a mild reform that is far to the right of any health care plan presently in effect in the world.

-They believe Obama raised taxes, which is absolutely incorrect. He LOWERED them. He didn't even have the gut to force his party to cancel the tax cut to the richest Americans to go back to the 1990s' rate.

If I lived in a separate world or in a country without ties to the US, I'd just point and laugh at the stupidity that dominates there. As it is, I fear for the future.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bass, if Brown opposed Prop. 13, he is a hero. Does anyone in Cal still think Prop. 13 was a good thing? I don't know anybody.

Sorry about your bad California experience, but it sounds like you aren't talking about his term at all, you are talking about Schwarzenegger's. California's economy was the envy of the nation from about 1970 through, what? 2000 at least? It was so good that Reagan got vaulted from Governor to the presidency. I think you are just being sour. And although you don't want to accept my little challenge, I STILL can't think of any place that got worse during Jerry's tenure other than maybe Compton or Inglewood.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Not everyone in the TP are rotten-- and divisive-- and those bleeding hearts and liberals"

Yeah. I have heard that some TP candidates hired bodyguards who DIDN'T stomp on women's heads. I wish Ron Paul could have risen to that standard. Ron Paul took out a full page ad the next day telling everyone how much the 23 year old 100 pound woman deserved her beatdown from Andre the Giant.

Now he is a Senator, so he can stand on poor people's heads all he wants.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smithinjapan:

Most of the wins you projected, and your beloved tea-party candidates, were shot down.

Wrong, as usual. Cuban - American Rubio won in Florida. Kirk took your beloved Obama's former Senate seat in Illinois. Rand (as in Ayn Rand) Paul won Kentucky and with over 30 percent of the 'black' vote there. In Nevada, the leader of the US Senate, Harry Reid, had to spend 25 million dollars to beat a virtual nobody.

Likin' them apples?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Well. The TP "winners" that made it in will get in line behind Boehner and show that they were Tea Party in name only. TPINOs. Like Rand Paul.

LoL Rand PAUL's one of the orig. till TP got hijacked by the more 'noisy' Republicans and refashioned Amen Crowds. (Like Dick Cheney's daughter LoL)"

So, you are saying that Rand Paul, who accepted GOP money, ran on the GOP ticket, and has now won, is his own man? Is that it? I know a lot of people who were Rand Paul 'originals' who are fuming right now that RPaul is cuddling up to the very people he recently viewed as the greatest threat to America. Watch how important ideology is to him once someone whispers to him that teh GOP wants him more than Sarah Palin to run for Pres in 2012. He will fold like a house of cards. And he sure as heck won't be cutting any budgets, I can assure you. None of them will. Cutting taxes gets votes, not cutting spending. Ronald Reagan proved that.

The GOP is just reeling them in now. The Tea Party is already gone.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Under the radar - - at the state level (state legislatures) - - “Republicans haven’t enjoyed this much power in state capitals since the 1920s.” [National Review]

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Tea Party is already gone.

That is the kind of wishful thinking that lost you 60 plus seats today.

Give us more.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Klein2: Clinton did not hand anybody a surplus, he had defecits in both budgets in his first two years. When Newt and the republicans took over congress they would not approve his budgets and, guess what, they compremised and, presto, a budget surplus. Now here is the fundamental difference between consevatives and liberals, you think that the surplus is the government's money, conservatives believe it's the taxpayer's money. If there is a budget surplus, you taxed the people too much, so..........give it back. If you want to pay dowm the debt, make it a line item in the budget.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Harry Reid, had to spend 25 million dollars to beat a virtual nobody

Yes. Virtual nobodies on their way to becoming real nobodies on their way out in two years, when voters discover just how clueless and ineffective these folks are. If they didn't like the Democrats' frying pan, they'll like the fire the Republicans are proposing for them even less.

Fortunately, voters discovered how clueless and ineffective some of them were. Thank you, Delaware and Nevada.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"The Tea Party got Col. Allen West and Tim Scott elected to the House, Marco Rubio to Senate, and Nikki Haley (born Nimrata Randhawato) governor of her state - - - two black representatives, a Cuban-American senator and an Indian-American female as governor."

You can't say woman? You have to say female? What is she a dog?

And you are mistaken, the headlines and the whole world do not see any of those people elected from the tea party. They are all GOP, and the GOP is taking full credit. Creosote, people have been telling you for months and months that the tea party are a bunch of gullible stormtroopers being used by the GOP, and you never believed them. Open your eyes because here is the proof.

Every graphic shows GOP, not GOP/tea party. All of the TP volunteers are finished. The GOP rank and file want them to disappear as quickly as possible. Boehner has said that the GOP has won and has not mentioned or thanked a single tea party person. He has a lot of tears for himself, but not for the TP people who put the GOP over the top.

The GOP powers that be got poor Americans to vote against their interests again. Mission accomplished. This time, the tea party was the key to the scam, and they all fell for it.

Please. Don't believe me. Just watch. The GOP is driving your bus. The TP is not sitting in the back. Some of the TP candidates are under it. But all the TP volunteers are just watching the bus pull away, waving like idiots. The GOP is laughing at how they duped a bunch of gullible rubes... again.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Not since 1894 has there been a wave election of this magnitude. Not since the 1930s have there been this few Dems in Washington. This after the Republican Party is dead.

The idiot, Dirty Harry did manage to defeat Angle. He only needed to outspend her 10 to 1, in order to eke out a victory. A lot of other Dems lost. Including in Illinois, a very blue state. In West Virginia, the Dem there won by pretending to be a Republican, and promising to oppose everything Obama wants. Significantly, he has another election to face in 2 years, meaning, if he doesn't do precisely that, he will be having a tough time holding it then. Also note, that in 2012, and later in 2014, a lot more Senate Dems are up for re-election. Many of whom will lose. The Senate will tip back Republican in 2012, and turn even more Republican in 2014. This election featured a host of seats in strong Dem districts. That Republicans managed to pick up 6, and possibly more, is extremely significant.

All the people saying this is a disaster. Well, its a disaster for Dems, and their allies, however its a victory for America and the American people. Pushing back against the anti-America, anti-business agenda of the current President. Its a sad thing to say, but the truth is, if its bad for Dems, its good for America. I really hope the Democratic party can reinvent itself, and bring itself back from the brink. Move away from the socialism they've been pushing so hard for. We'll see though. It won't happen until 2014 at the earliest, and at that point, Republicans will have total control. The only question is, how big will the margin be?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Now here is the fundamental difference between consevatives and liberals, you think that the surplus is the government's money, conservatives believe it's the taxpayer's money.

LOL!!! When you've charged your credit card to the hilt and you get some extra money, you shouldn't pretend that all of that money belongs to your next consumer purchase. If you're wise, you'll realize that a lot of it needs to pay off the principle on all those loans.

The only way I'd believe that all of the surplus was the taxpayers' money is if the national debt stood at ZERO. But really foolish and unwise Republicans bought Bush's non-reasoning that all of the "overcharge" had to be returned -- with none of it paying off the debt.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Add to my previous comment - - New Mexico's new governor is Republican , and a Latina.

Obama's agenda is dead, and so is the cheap, craven slander that the Tea Party is racist."

So logically you are saying that the Republican governor is a Hispanic woman. Therefore, the Tea Party is not racist.

Well logically, that would only be true if the Tea Party is the Republican Party. Is that what you are saying? Because Molenir says that the TP is most decidely NOT the GOP. Or is it that the Tea Party wants to borrow GOP strong points when they feel like it, and Boehner wants to talk like he is a Washington newcomer even though he has been there 20 years? The GOP/TP wants it both ways. At least with the Dems, what you see is what you get.

I suspect there is a lot of lying and obfuscation going on with the GOP/TP. I am waiting to see that 100 billion get cut from the budget. Good luck on that. I suspect that is a lie too.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Can't help but notice that yabits had to modify my post, which reads :

"In Nevada, the leader of the US Senate",

Harry Reid, had to spend 25 million dollars to beat a virtual nobody.

I accept the compliment.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The idiot, Dirty Harry did manage to defeat Angle.

Sweet!

He only needed to outspend her 10 to 1

A lie. Angle's campaign manager claimed they outspent Reid. It certainly was not 10:1.

A lot of other Dems lost. Including in Illinois, a very blue state.

LOL! It is after they elect Republicans and suffer from the effects after a few years. Kind of like the US in 2000. The rest of your post was as funny as it was delusional.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

65 seats lost.

Quagmire.

Obama is lost.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

typical, your money is the government's money crap. Don't pass the legistration if you can't pay for it. If you want to pay down the debt, budget it. Get your government hand out of my pocket.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Don't pass the legistration if you can't pay for it. If you want to pay down the debt, budget it.

Yes, it's called a "surplus." You can't possibly pay down debt if you are deficit spending. You're only adding to it. (Is this why conservatives believe in so many economic fairy tales?)

Legistration?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Liberals" will know when the still majority Dem Senate extends the Bush tax cuts what the rest of us have been talking about here today.

Get your spin ready. You're gonna need it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"@klein2: What's eally hilarious is you sniping at a race here and there and trying to make it look not so bad. You lost, dude, get over it."

Oh yeah. You're right.

"As for the GOP being the party of "no", that's why they got elected, to stop all the cram-it-down-your-throat spending bills"

Of course. What was I thinking? The US is in good hands now because the grass roots volunteers of America have put everyone on the right track. Democracy wins and God Bless America! And there is no chance that the GOP will have just subverted that whole movement just for a few extra benjamins for their ultra rich clients. How silly of me. Thanks Techall, I guess I just needed someone to set me straight and you really do seem to be the answer man today!

I think I will go back to not caring and just say it again: the GOP will get one chance to cut Social Security and health spending before the 2012 elections, so it had better start cracking. And remember Obama has the veto. And who cares if the Tea Party gets reamed by the GOP? Not my problem. If Jerry Falwell and Jimmy Swaggart can do it to that demographic, then why not let Boehner, Steele, and Paul have their shot at them too? I think Beck told Boehner how much the crybaby act works. They share notes. I should enjoy it more and point it out a lot less.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The truth is that Democrats, since the Great Depression, have a better economic record than Republicans. The so-called "anti-business agenda" turns out to be good for the economy. The reason is simple, the "pro-business agenda" of the Republicans is short-sighted and concentrates wealth at the top. Some wealth concentration is necessary in a capitalist society, but too much of it is disastrous, because it means that the middle class doesn't share in the increase of wealth, which hurts the ability of consumers to increase their spending. This leads to either economic stagnation or, worse, increased consumer debt (fueled by easy credit from the wealthy) until an economic crisis.

It's not a coincidence that wealth distribution was extremely lopsided before the Great Depression and before the Great Recession. Highly unequal wealth distribution leads to Depressions.

Trying to push a "pro-business agenda" when things are already biased way too much in favor of these businesses will result in even more economic hardships. The idea that many hold that the mild Democratic Party is "socialist" or pushing towards it is just another example of how ignorant Americans are about their politics.

Frankly, I expect the Republicans will waste any good will they might have in the next 2 years, leading to a Democratic resurgence as economic recovery is slowed down by counter-productive Republican policies in Congress. Then again, I might have an unfounded optimism in the ability of the American voter to understand where to put the blame, they have certainly not demonstrated it in this election. Republicans in the Senate, with conservative Democrats, have sabotaged the efforts of the Democrats to help the country, and the American voters reward these greedy, ultrapartisan and power-hungry counter-productive strategies with a landslide. That's one big difference between Democrats and Republicans, Democrats care about the American people, so if they know that action is needed, they will do all they must do to act, even making huge concessions, Republicans... won't. They don't care, they'll let the country burn and not shed a single tear, just so they get it their way, or rather the way their lobbyist handlers want it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

'"Liberals" will know when the still majority Dem Senate extends the Bush tax cuts what the rest of us have been talking about here today.

Get your spin ready. You're gonna need it.'

Dude, you are going to need spin so much more to explain to people how you were elected to cut the deficit and instead you cut taxes and INCREASE the deficit.

A lot of tea partiers don't have incomes to tax. You are going to give them what amounts to nothing while you take away their social security, health care, municipal services, and so much more? If the best that the GOP can do with this mandate is reaffirm Bush policies, don't you think you should have told that to people BEFORE the election?

It is exactly what the Dems were warning people about, and they didn't listen, did they? GOP. Not the party of no. The party of bait-and-switch.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The truth is that Democrats, since the Great Depression, have a better economic record than Republicans.

lol, where have you been for the past 2 years?

The so-called "anti-business agenda" turns out to be good for the economy. The reason is simple, the "pro-business agenda" of the Republicans is short-sighted and concentrates wealth at the top. Some wealth concentration is necessary in a capitalist society, but too much of it is disastrous, because it means that the middle class doesn't share in the increase of wealth, which hurts the ability of consumers to increase their spending. This leads to either economic stagnation or, worse, increased consumer debt (fueled by easy credit from the wealthy) until an economic crisis.

Ah, so you're saying, class warfare, and soaking the rich is the way to go. Share the wealth and all that stupidity. I understand now. You're a European socialist. Hey, hows that economy working these days?

Trying to push a "pro-business agenda" when things are already biased way too much in favor of these businesses will result in even more economic hardships. The idea that many hold that the mild Democratic Party is "socialist" or pushing towards it is just another example of how ignorant Americans are about their politics.

The economy, is based on business. No business, no jobs. Bad for business, means bad for the economy, bad for jobs. Amazing how some people just don't get it. They think that if its too good for business, somehow that means its bad for the economy, and for the people. Its amazing that there are even people who think this. Its goes against simple common sense. But then, libs have always been good at keeping their heads in the sand, rather then dealing with reality. Thats what makes them good for ideas, but bad at governing. As we've seen over the past 2 years.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Only an absolute idiot would say something like the national debt being ZERO. Just shows you know nothing about the debt. Do yourself a favor and look up "public debt" and "private debt" and maybe you can make an intellegent post. Klein2: Glad I could "set you straight". Now spit out the sour grapes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The so-called "anti-business agenda" turns out to be good for the economy. The reason is simple, the "pro-business agenda" of the Republicans is short-sighted and concentrates wealth at the top.

As the owner/operator of a small-but-growing business, I completely agree with you!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I love it every 2 or so years, people going back and forth at each other like they actually care and if they actually believe the government will change. For Washington it will be "business as usual". Tea Partiers less then 50% of them won elections last night not a sweeping out, Democrats retrain the Senate, the House is Republican. Same ole s***t two years from now...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The economy, is based on business. No business, no jobs. Bad for business, means bad for the economy, bad for jobs. Amazing how some people just don't get it.

Yes, you really don't get it.

There are actually two types of businesses: entrenched and entrepreneurial. The latter thrives on competition -- until they become entrenched. The Dems have always been better for entrepreneurial businesses than the Republicans -- who get most of their donations from entrenched businesses. (ie: Those trying their utmost to stifle competition.)

It's why the health care issue was so vitally important. A great many would-be entrepreneurs are chained to their jobs in entrenched companies, often solely because they are afraid of losing their health care.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Only an absolute idiot would say something like the national debt being ZERO. Just shows you know nothing about the debt.

Actually, it says more about your reading comprehension.

A nation can manage the level of its debt by deciding to direct budget surpluses not to tax refunds but by paying off some of that debt. Alan Greenspan understood this, and he wasn't an absolute idiot.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Folks it's also important to take a step back and remember that no one is right or wrong, everyone has different ideas. At the end of the day Tuesday passed an no one is dead, nothing blew up, the sun rose. Dems screw up, Republicans screw up, it goes back and forth all the freaking time. The fact is most Americans are also angry at the Republicans to, but are angrier right now at the Democrats, they just keep voting in new people but keep getting the same ole results.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

To add to the above:

It's the entrepreneurial, innovative businesses that will do the most to create the booming economy of the next two decades.

The biggest threat comes not from taxes -- Hah! far from it -- but from the large, entrenched companies who are so terrified at the very thought of small, lean-mean, aggressive competitors nipping at their heels.

They'll often turn to their fat-cat Republican friends for help. How? (You know what it costs to defend a patent suit, no matter if it's completely baseless? Or what it costs to defend one if it's yours and you've been infringed upon?)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm seeing a lot of platitudes but not much substance in the debate - typical JT fare then. Oh well, carry on.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

At the end of the day Tuesday passed an no one is dead, nothing blew up, the sun rose.

The sun was rising every day that the housing bubble was being inflated. Worse, it was rising every day that the securities created from over-inflated mortgages were being carved up and rated AAA by non-regulated agencies, accountable only to the crooks who were paying them to inflate the ratings. And then there's the lack of regulation on the derivatives based on those securities....

I agree. The Democrats were only marginally better than the Republicans in that regard. But if you look more carefully, it was only among the Democrats that you heard some people warning about the dangerous course we were on.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So, does that mean you ae backing off from the ZERO? Again, it's not the government's money to do with as they please. And if the booming entrepreneur makes too much money, damn it, take it away from him so he doesn't reinvest it and get bigger.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So, does that mean you ae backing off from the ZERO?

As a matter of theoretical principle to illustrate the treatment of budget surpluses, of course not! A 12-year-old could understand that.

Again, it's not the government's money to do with as they please.

LOL! No. That's why we have a president and Congress to form a budget and direct it by law to its proper purposes. When that purpose includes a tax cut which increases deficits, it creates a situation like what my grandmother used to call "peeing in your soup."

And if the booming entrepreneur makes too much money, damn it, take it away from him so he doesn't reinvest it and get bigger.

Oh, by all means. IF he doesn't reinvest it, take a healthy percentage of it away and seed a hundred other enterpreneurs with it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

lol, where have you been for the past 2 years?

I have been watching and have seen an economy that was losing half a million jobs a month in late 2008 early 2009 start to grow again. The Democrats have managed to stop the bleeding, but they didn't have the guts to go far enough to start the healing seriously (the stimulus, that the non-partisan CBO estimates has saved or created up to 3 million jobs, was too small to do so).

This crisis is the result of a decade of Republican (and Republican-lite) policies of deregulation of big businesses and of the financial sector, with a policy that favored wealth concentration. Obama and the Democrats didn't have the guts to reverse those policies when they had their majority, so they will continue to hurt the American economy for years.

Ah, so you're saying, class warfare, and soaking the rich is the way to go. Share the wealth and all that stupidity. I understand now. You're a European socialist. Hey, hows that economy working these days?

Canadian actually, and better than America's, thank you. Regarding class warfare, let's listen to what Warren Buffett, one of the richest men in the world, said about it: "There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning.". The facts support what he says, the rich have become richer and richer, while the middle class stagnated and more and more joined the class of the working poor.

It's funny, listening to the Tea Partiers, it's only "wealth redistribution" if money flows to the bottom, if wealth is redistributed to the top, then that's OK, in fact, it's not even "wealth redistribution". It's only "class warfare" when the rich are asked to pay a bigger share, when it's the poor and the workers who are asked to pay the price increase, then it's OK. It's complete hypocrisy, a double standard that makes no sense.

What I'm saying is not "eat the rich", it's a call for a fairer distribution of wealth. There is no reason why CEOs who presided over the near-failure of their firms, ending with them being bailed out, get paid hundreds of times more than their company's workers, so tens of millions of dollars. In fact, I'd argue that this results in what right-wing economists like to call "moral hazard" (but only when it's about consumers and the middle class), since the CEOs are so rich, they don't need to worry about the real performance of their companies, at least not after they're gone. The time has come to introduce a bit more balance, a bit more fairness to the whole economy.

The economy, is based on business. No business, no jobs. Bad for business, means bad for the economy, bad for jobs. Amazing how some people just don't get it. They think that if its too good for business, somehow that means its bad for the economy, and for the people. Its amazing that there are even people who think this. Its goes against simple common sense. But then, libs have always been good at keeping their heads in the sand, rather then dealing with reality. Thats what makes them good for ideas, but bad at governing. As we've seen over the past 2 years.

That's an excessively simplistic vision of things. The economy is more than just businesses, it's also workers, consumers and, yes, even governments. As yabits said too, there are different kinds of businesses. There is little similarity between a corporation like Microsoft and a small computer store and repair center. The economy results from the interaction of all these actors and it's important to maintain a certain equilibrium between them so that everyone's interests are best served. By just being blindly "pro-business" and favoring big businesses all the time, you create an unbalance in the economy and go against the interests of many of its actors, which may in the end create economic crises.

And right now, by any objective criterion, the system is biased towards big businesses to an obscene degree. Balance has to be reestablished, but instead of that, the Tea Parties and the Republican Party just want to bias the system even more towards big business.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

kchoze, it is a real pleasure to read your posts! Thank you.

By just being blindly "pro-business" and favoring big businesses all the time, you create an unbalance in the economy and go against the interests of many of its actors, which may in the end create economic crises.

This is why, as a small business owner, I applaud the move to improve our system of health care delivery, and only wish that the Dems could have brought us a single-payer system. It will be interesting to see how the new Republicans will try to attack it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is a disaster, not only for the US but for every country that trades with it. The present crop of Republicans are mad, only in a deeply sick political system can they be successful. I say mad, because how else do you call people who believe that cutting taxes reduces the deficit? How else to call people who believe evolution is a scientific conspiracy against God? Who claim to want to respect the Constitution... while at the same time being the foremost proponents in wanting to scrap parts of it and who don't even know that the first amendment establishes the separation of Church and State? Who believe that every unemployed person WANTS to be unemployed to receive unemployment insurance, though there is 6 unemployed workers by job opening?

etc etc

kchoze, you nailed it! The US is proving its people are getting dumber as time passes, unfortuntely the US will drag other countries into its quagmire, the future sure isnt looking brighter

0 ( +0 / -0 )

My heart bleeds for the Democrats (Not really). And while I'm at it, it bleeds for my fellow Canadians that think their opinions count in US politics. What's with the inferiority complex that you have to come here and tell Americans what you think of their politics. Sit back and watch the show. And what a show when your hero Obama has been proven to not be the chosen one to bring peace to the world.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

kchoze: And right now, by any objective criterion, the system is biased towards big businesses to an obscene degree.

I really don't see it as big business vs. small business or whatever you want to call it. Aren't the vast majority of businesses in the US considered to be small businesses? I think the problem is the loss of fundamentals. We had credit given out to people who had no business getting credit, buying houses they had no business buying, then Wall Street inventing new investment vehicles with bad products because they were in it just for the transaction fees or a quick buck. Now we have currency and commodities markets going haywire, businesses that are too afraid to spend money, and speculators who have no real oversight and are able to influence markets by being able to pool larger and larger amounts of cash.

I'm all for increasing some regulation if there's evidence that it would work. I know they just passed credit card regulations to protect me from sharp jumps in interest rates which resulted in sharp jumps in my interest rate right before the bill became law. That's not really the type of legislation/regulation that I want.

The biggest hurdle at this point seems to be the polarization of both sides. The childish name calling and chest thumping is just a major distraction from problem-solving. Honestly I believe that some people would rather win the political war then actually fix anything of the things they say they want fixed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@mikehuntez: Ever heard the saying "when the United States sneeze, Canada gets a cold"? What happens south of the Canadian border affects Canada a lot, since Canada's and the USA's economies are integrated. I could sit back and enjoy the show if it was about a small country on the other side of the world living in autarchy. As it is, if the Tea Party scraps the American economy, we will all pay the price. As to Obama, honestly he was never a hero except in comparison with his predecessor. He spoke well, but there were more than a few signs that he was ultimately a moderate who would cave in to entrenched interests when push came to shove.

@SuperLib

There are a lot of small businesses, of course, but most of the economy is controlled by big businesses. I mean, a small business may be a plumbing company with 2 plumbers who earns 100 000$ a year repairing people's faucets. A big business may be like Microsoft or Apple with revenues in the tens of billions a year and 100 000 employees. If you have 1000 plumbing companies and one Microsoft, 99,9% of businesses are small businesses, but big businesses may represent nearly 99% of the economy.

About big business and the problem with credit, I think it's connected. The fact that credit was given to people who shouldn't have had it is linked to the increased bias in favor of big business and the resultant concentration of wealth.

Here is how it goes, from what I understand:

Workers' wages are stagnating, but the economy needs to grow, implying the need for increased spending. So the saving rate falls until it can't go down any further, but that's not enough, the economy still needs consumers to spend more, but they don't earn more, because they keep getting short-changed by policies that weakened their position in favor mostly of big business (outsourcing, weakening of unions, etc...). At the same time, the money has to go somewhere, and it goes to stockholders and the people one may call rich (independently wealthy investors and the like) and these people have a lot of money they want to invest. So consumers need money, and the investors seek investment opportunities... result, a scheme is created to lend money to the consumers by using the investors' idled money, this time with mortgages mostly. For a moment, everything seems well, consumers keep spending, investors have (seemingly) safe investment opportunities and their fortunes grow, everyone's happy, right?

The problem of course is that this cannot continue forever. You can't keep borrowing forever (unless your revenues increase faster than than your debts and its interest payments). So at one point, the system breaks down and all hell breaks loose.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm rather pleased with my vote for Governor. Hopefully Rick Snyder can start us on the path to recovery, though at this point it's hard for Michigan to go anywhere but up.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sit back and watch the show.

I'm somewhat inclined to agree. I'm thinking that if the GOP continues to gain power, they will shift away from green/energy efficent policies, causing the price and demand for oil to continue to climb. Which in turn means all the Canadian O&G shares and options I have will increase in value (with America Dollars leaving the US) and all I have to do is sit back and watch. Being in an oil rich province, republicans in power should prove to be quite profitable for where I live, on the other hand, eastern provinces will probably take a fairly big hit as Republicans will probably try to move manufactoring jobs back to the states(but that's the east so who cares).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

President Barack Obama and the Democrats went into the 2010 mid-term elections with three trenchant and inter-related handicaps: high unemployment, soaring health care costs and a stagnant, unresponsive economy. All three issues severely eroded public confidence and sparked much anger amongst voters who sought to punish a government which they believed had lost touch with the people who had so overwhelmingly elected it in 2008. Having rescued Wall Street bankers, President Obama was heavily criticized for apparently neglecting the troubles of the American middle class. The Republicans have ridden a wave of voter discontent, winning some 60 seats in the House of Representatives (giving the GOP a solid majority of at least 21 seats in the 435 seat Chamber) and winning at least six seats in the Senate (falling just short of an absolute majority in the 100 seat Upper House as well.) These outcomes comprise the largest shift in Congressional power for 62 years or more and may cripple the remaining two years of the President's badly mauled Administration. The question now would seem to be, what can the Republicans do that the Democrats have been unable to do? Simplistic GOP slogans such as cutting spending, reducing the size of government and granting tax cuts will not reverse years of economic decline. In foreign policy, Americans are sick of fighting wars they are unable to win, yet, are still fearful of global terrorism. Should the United States negotiate its way towards peace or should it continue sending thousands of soldiers into battle to do away with its enemies through armed force? The world still looks to the United States for democratic leadership and for international stability. This is largely due to the overwhelming nature of American firepower and heavy military spending. In 2008 alone, the United States spent US$696.3 billion on its military - a sum that was eight times more than that of China, 11 times more than that of Britain, 14 times more than that of Germany, 15 times more than that of Japan and nearly 73 times more than that of Iran. The US defence capacity outweighs that of the rest of the world - its Navy alone possesses 57 nuclear-powered attack and cruise missile submarines and 11 large nuclear-powered aircraft carriers - surpassing all other countries in terms of numbers and striking power. In short, the "Pax Americana" should continue for several decades yet, even allowing for rising powers such as China and India. The central issue, though, is how long will Americans be prepared to shoulder such onerous overseas commitments, given dire circumstances at home? New House-Speaker-In-Waiting Republican John Boehner has promised that his new majority " ... will be prepared to do things differently." One might wonder in what ways, to what extent and to what degree of effectiveness?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The childish name calling and chest thumping is just a major distraction from problem-solving

What is, shall we say, "less-mature," is the notion that problems in the political/economic world can be neatly "solved" as if they were some kind of math problem with one correct answer. The reality is that each measure taken to address a "problem" creates a new set of conditions that some party is going to perceive as problems in and of themselves.

Like your credit card interest rate example. You claim it is regulation you don't want because of a temporary spike in rates prior to the law taking effect. It is extremely likely that, when the economy is back to steady growth and expansion, credit card companies that want to attract more customers will use lower interest rates as the incentive -- spurring competition for lower rates among other card companies as well. That's when the regulation against sudden spikes is really really pay off.

I believe some very stern criticism is in order for those who will not, for example, accept the abundant scientific evidence of human activity in the heating up of the planet. Or at least accept the odds that a very large majority of scientists just might be calling it right. It is abundantly clear that it is on the Republican side that most of the denial of science on this issue will be found.

Yet it is among the leadership of the Republicans one will find the concept of the "one percent doctrine" when dealing with an infinitesimally smaller-scale threat that could trigger sending the nation to outright war. Hundreds upon hundreds of scientists stand a pretty good chance of being more than "one-percent" right on a much more grave threat to our future well being.

Where is the willingness of a party to sit down and try to work out a reasonable response for a problem they deny even exists? The key hurdle is definitely NOT polarization. The key hurdle is such a mass of Americans taking an ideological stance on so many positions that fly in the face of abundant scientific, statistical, or historical evidence to the contrary.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I cannot believe that some of these Republicans actually want to get rid of the health care plan......

50 million Americans are uninsured because America's current system is too expensive compared to other first world countries and reject applicants with pre-existing conditions.....

I swear, this is just stupidity.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@FruitBasketFan The United States cannot afford Obama's proposed health care plan that is why sensible people are against it. Stupidity is implementing something you cannot afford whether it be in your own personal life, business, or in government.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Republicans picked up over 60 (sixty) seats in the House.

That, my friends, is a thorough refudiation of Obama's vision for America.

Who will Obama demonize for such a "shellacking," as many news outlets are describing it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If a word is important enough to highlight in italics, you'd think it would be important enough to check the spelling.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

cleo,

I do believe that was a Palin reference.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@warallthetime

The CBO said that the health care bill reduced the deficit, not increased it, so the US CAN afford it. Plus, the health care problem isn't just a one-off problem, it is one that will continue on until it is solved. There is no "proper time" to do so, when one can do it, one should. That's what Obama did, he had an occasion to pass a bill to reform health care and he did, something basically every Administration promised for 40 years and never delivered.

Unfortunately, the bill is too weak, not far-ranging enough to curb exploding costs, a public option to add competition to the private insurances should have been in the bill.

In the end, the real problem is the opposite, with health care costs at a world high of 16% of GDP (and rising) for a mediocre at best system (when comparing outcome), America cannot afford to do nothing. Such high costs are burdening needlessly the economy. The so-called "Obamacare" may not have been perfect, but it was a step in the right direction.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I do believe that was a Palin reference.

Thanks for the heads-up, Triumvire. I thought it was yet another example of illiterate hickdom, but it seems I was wrong. It was a celebration of illiterate hickdom. Even harder to understand, but enlightening in its own way.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It was a celebration of illiterate hickdom. Even harder to understand, but enlightening in its own way.

Palin's sole literary effort outsold both of Obama's books.

What's hard for me to understand is why people who know nothing about Palin or America comment without reading up on the topic first.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Excellent posts, kchoze.

Sit back and watch the show

It will be interesting. It has already been quite the spectacle, the sequel will probably be fantastic. I want to be optimistic, however, just as I was when Obama was elected. If the GOP thinks it has the answers, well have at it. If they don't, and this was a win for the sake of winning (sure sounds like it, from all the ultra-conservatives tallying up seats in the house like points at a basketball game), don't be surprised if they are called out for their hypocrisy. Whatever they plan to do, I hope it's truly for the good of the American people.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The United States cannot afford Obama's proposed health care plan that is why sensible people are against it. Stupidity is implementing something you cannot afford whether it be in your own personal life, business, or in government.

US cud EASILY afford healthcare & a ton of other things if it simply didnt spend so much on its military & the war in created in Iraq & in afghanistan where the US was initially doing well, then let it slide & created a 2 messy unwinnable wars, the stress of 2 vietnams at the same time is putting the US in danger, I mean the US is OWNED by China & Japan, the US needs to get is stuff together unfortunately its just getting worse & worse, if the US implodes the fighting in the streets will make palestine look like a picnic area!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well pretty sure Obama will take this as a huge blow to his enormous ego and nothing will get passed for the next two years. Hopefully we dont see a huge fight on the healthcare bill...I should have never been passed in the first place. The healthcare INDUSTRY needs to be reform. Not give out free passes to a very fat and inefficient industry. Why does my physical in Japan cost only $150? Total, not me. Where as in the US it costs near $1000? The system in America allows GED level phone clerks determine what tests a Dr is allowed to perform. Then when something goes minimally wrong the Dr. gets sued. All of these costs are absorbed in the package that we call healthcare...Healthcare does not need to be handed out, it needs to be completely reformed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sorry guys, I've been busy today, haven't really had the time to jump in and argue politics like I normally would.

As the owner/operator of a small-but-growing business, I completely agree with you!

I honestly don't know what your situation is Yabits. I have a private business I run on the side. Things have been looking up for it over the past few months. I've had a relatively stable amount of business, and could afford to expand, but looking ahead to whats coming, I don't dare do so. The government has not been doing anything to help my business grow. In fact, the opposite of that is true. I have been considering rehiring one of the guys I had to lay off a year ago. Increasing taxes, and additional regulations imposed by Obama and the Dems mean I probably won't be able to afford it. Thats reality.

The CBO said that the health care bill reduced the deficit, not increased it, so the US CAN afford it.

Unfortunately, they also came out later and revised their numbers upwards, by a huge margin. More then a trillion dollars upward. Obamacare is not deficit neutral, despite what you may wish to believe. The US simply cannot afford it. And those revised numbers don't include the docfix either. Not only that, we can't afford the current level of spending we already have. Instead, we have to cut back significantly. Honestly though, I don't know whether Republicans can do it. The amount of discretionary spending is not significant enough to balance the budget. Which means, hard choices ahead. Painful cuts will have to be made. Along the order of the 20% cut in England. In the US it may well need to be even more significant then that if the budget is to be balanced.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Molenir, taxes went DOWN under Obama, not up. You seem to be making business decisions based on incorrect information, I advise you to revise them. There is a possible tax increase coming up, because Bush's tax cuts were so fiscally irresponsible that he had them expire after ten years to make them pass the Byrd rule, which says that acts passed by reconciliation cannot increase deficits beyond a 10-year horizon. In other words, it is Bush's tax increase, not Obama's, and Obama wished to make a lot of them permanent. Frankly, I'd recommend to extend them one or two years, until the economy comes back up, and then letting them expire. These were tax cuts that were fiscally irresponsible and were not paid for, they have ballooned the debt uselessly and have not shown themselves to have positive economic effects.

As to your take on the predictions for "Obamacare", you are completely wrong. There has been no "more than a trillion dollars" revision in costs. The "doc fix" is also NOT part of the reform, it's something that passed UNANIMOUSLY the Senate and the House (well 1 rep voted against it, a Democrat) because otherwise Medicare lowers pay rates for doctors subscribing to it. Similar bills have passed 10 times since 2002. It's because a law passed in the late 90s adopted a new payment formula that would have resulted in doctors being paid about 20% less, which wasn't intended. The law remains on the books, so every year they have to pass an exception to it. A permanent fix was planned to be included in the reform package, but it was removed because people (like you) would then misunderstand and spread disinformation about it being a result of "Obamacare".

In other words, it's not linked to Obamacare, it's a problem that arose from a badly-thought law of the late 90s and both parties keep voting unanimously to prevent the cut from taking effect. So whether or not Obamacare passed, those costs would happen nonetheless and so they are not a result of Obama's health care reform. This information was easily accessible by a few minutes of Googling, please do it yourself instead of saying incorrect stuff and then having others do the legwork to correct you.

As to future cuts, that's a debate. Cut social programs (Medicare, Social Security) and Defense or increase taxes, or do a combination of both. Yeah, I don't see why increasing taxes is supposed to be off the table, that's what they did earlier in the 20th and, yes, even in the 19th century when they expected or wanted spending to increase, and it never killed the economy. Considering the tax burden is actually pretty low by post-WWII standards, I don't see why they would be verboten.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Molenir, taxes went DOWN under Obama, not up. You seem to be making business decisions based on incorrect information, I advise you to revise them.

Your taxes may have gone down, mine did not. Additionally, the tax increase I'm talking about, is the one coming up in 2 months. Unless congress acts, I'll be seeing a tax increase. If you run a business, you have to plan for the future. That means taking into account things like that. Its not just taxes for the rich, either, I'll take a hit on capital gains taxes and in other areas as well. The additional regulations are hitting me already. My insurance rates have already gone up by 1200 dollars thanks to Obamacare. Also, trying to spin this as being Bush's fault, is further evidence of desperation. I don't think anyones buying that.

Your point regarding Obamacare and the docfix again is also off base. They deliberately did not include the cost of that in the original bill, because they wanted people to believe it would be deficit neutral. In point of fact it isn't, not by a longshot. Do a bit of research on the subject, and you'll see what I'm talking about. It will cost taxpayers over a trillion dollars, and again, thats not even including the doc fix which is costing hundreds of billions as well.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't care if you buy that it's Bush's fault or not, those are the facts. Bush had those tax cuts expire at this point in time, and barring any action to extend them, they will do so. As to health insurance rates, I'm sorry but blame the real responsible ones, the insurance companies who have been increasing their profit margins a lot for more than a decade. Insurance premiums have increased by 60% from 2000 to 2008, was it Obama's or Bush's doing then?

As to the docfix, I notice your stubborn refusal to correct errors you make. The docfix has been voted since the late 90s, it is NOT part of Obama's health reform and it never was. It is something that is supported by both Democrats and Republicans.

I'm sorry to point out that you are doing the same thing that is hurting America a lot recently: preferring myths you like to the facts.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As to health insurance rates, I'm sorry but blame the real responsible ones, the insurance companies who have been increasing their profit margins a lot for more than a decade. Insurance premiums have increased by 60% from 2000 to 2008, was it Obama's or Bush's doing then?

I'm trying not to refer to you in derogatory terms here, but honestly, what did you think would happen? When government adds all these additional burdens onto the insurance companies, who do you think is going to end up paying for them? This was a no-brainer. Only an idiot would think that they would reduce their profit margins. Particularly when you consider that most insurance companies have a relatively small profit margin. In addition, some years they are better then others. So the underwriters have to take that into account as well. No, if you are going to place the blame for this anywhere, it must go directly onto Dems, who passed this poorly thought out, poorly planned measure, without even bothering to read it.

As to the docfix, I notice your stubborn refusal to correct errors you make. The docfix has been voted since the late 90s, it is NOT part of Obama's health reform and it never was. It is something that is supported by both Democrats and Republicans.

I believe I said it was deliberately excluded from Obamacare. Thats because they couldn't afford to include it. Think about what we are talking about here. The healthcare bill was supposed to fundamentally address the problems facing the health care industry. It failed spectacularly in addressing many of the underlying problems. Things such as tort reform, and the docfix got pushed aside for another day, in the hope that by not dealing with them, people would be suckered into thinking they were getting a deal. This obviously worked with some people. (Mostly kool-aid drinkers) For the majority of Americans though, its not a good thing, and the blame for this rests solely on the shoulders of the Dems. Those are the facts, whether you like them or not.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't care if you buy that it's Bush's fault or not, those are the facts.

Lots of people, like me are not saying its not Bushs fault. We are saying fix it, but all we hear is whos fault it is. Obama isnt fixing anything and that is why you had the results of last night. Would have had 3 more senate seats too if those three werent backed by those nut job tea party folk. And obamacare is a freaking joke. It gives millions access to an already broken system that is the healthcare industry. Same as giving bailouts to the automotive companies. Fix the system, dont give out handouts. But thats what the super socialists like to do. They say it gives everyone a fair chance...every American citizen has that chance to go out there and earn what they want to take. Most famous Americans came from the ghettos with no opportunity or broken homes...my ancestors didnt have to cover them. They followed the American dream and became mega millionaires. We also had a great economy at that time. Because Americans worked and went after their dreams. We as Americans now a days expect everything to be handed to us and bitch and cry when we somebody with something more than us. We do we do? We try to give everybody everything and try to stick to those who have earned what they got. We actually have people that make their living on suing anyone and everything to their free pay day. Well what happens when you give lazy socialist handout wanters what they want? Probably the same as all the poor broke former millionaire pro athletes, rap stars and lottery winners. The American mentality needs to change, and Obama is not the American mentality that made us a superpower...neither is Palin.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So the American government has been increasing spending (including payments of interest on existing debt) at the rate of what $150 billion a year? And the Republicans have promised to CUT spending by $100 billion a year. So the US is going to reduce borrowing and printing of money by $250 billion plus cope with ever increasing cumulative interest payments? This next year is sure going to be interesting to watch

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Molenir said:

The idiot, Dirty Harry did manage to defeat Angle. He only needed to outspend her 10 to 1,

Why is it so hard for you to tell the truth?

techall said:

If there is a budget surplus, you taxed the people too much, so..........give it back. If you want to pay dowm [down] the debt, make it a line item in the budget.

This comment would be hilarious if it were not so sad. We had debt and we should have paid down the debt. Essentially techall's logic would be to say screw the national debt we refuse to pay it down. Because the ONLY way to pay it down is with budget surpluses.

What a sad and pathetic way to manipulate logic and truth.

The truth of the matter is that techall said even though we could pay down the debt because we have a budget surplus we should pass that debt along to other generations.

The Democrats were defeated by a terrible employment rate and various other scare tactics; right out of the Karl Rove playbook were they used terrorism to win elections. The problem is that many of the same scare tactics will not be available for the Republicans to use in 2012. The Tea Bag Party used fear. Taxation fears, socialism-big government fears and other fears. They and various Republicans try to dumb down the economic situation so they can claim to know the answers. The problem is complex. The solution is complex. Anyone rational would never call Obama anti-business. Just because people won't admit certain speech is hate speech doesn't make it so. The slurs against Obama on this thread are nothing short of hate speech. There are so many references as to Obama being unpatriotic it is pathetic. I do not post on JT very much anymore and one of the main reasons is the inability to quote references-sources. I can say that the huge majority of economists agree that the stimulus bill was successful in adverting a much worse recession, which is true, to the extent of almost being a consensus among them. However all a dishonest person has to do is say it is not true. Unless I can post credible sources it is to no avail. I have just posted two examples of easily defeated quotations from posters. One is utterly not true "He only needed to outspend her 10 to 1," and the other is totally ridiculous logic. The statements I have made will be allegedly refuted and the responses will become so convoluted that many will no longer be able to use clear common sense to see the truth.

Congratulations to the Tea Party and Republicans for their victories.

NOW GOVERN!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Seems like just yesterday when Obama was swept into office and prominent Lib strategists like James Carville were telling us that the country was entering a 40 - year era of straight Democrat rule.

Something to remember when writing off the Tea Party, or telling us you know what the GOP is going to do.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Alaska's Senate seat will not be decided for weeks or even months. Tea Partyer Joe Miller won't concede defeat to Republican Lisa Murkowski and even plan to challenge the results in court, ala Florida 2000. Sarah Palin's home state is in for a dirty fight.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Mr Donkeys explanation shows what a complete sham our country is in right now. Both parties have become extremeists to the far right and the far left. Every single argument in politics is the same. Left Presents there side, right presents theirs. Both say how stupid the other side is. Obama supporters call the non-supporters racists (which is a crock of crap...give it a rest) and the non-obama-supporters in turn call the liberals unpatriotic or terrorits (which is also a crock of crap...give it a rest). In this condition nothing is going to get better. The republicans arent thinking how to better the economy, they are thinking how they can take the presidency in in 2012. Obama and the socialists are thinking how they can keep the presidency and take the houses. Sad thing is it wont matter who is in office because it will just be campaigning. In all reality if Oblamea would have come into office and made creating jobs and pulling this country out of a recession instead of cramming free healthcare for all...pretty sure the dems would have kept power. Its common sense...keep your people happy. People are not happy if they dont have a job and are about to lose their home. If they are happy then you do something like introduce a bill for healthcare...which I still think should be industry reform, not give out free tickets to the broken amusement park we call the healthcare industry.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@genji17 Its not for governments to create jobs.That is what entrepeneurs do. American government has got so big that they do not even know how many people are on the payroll any more.

America could start by importing a whole lot less and doing a lot of skilling up. Cut the people employed by government in half. Turning off the TVs and closing the fast food restarants would cure the health problems.Withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq.Start working together instead of "campaigning" as you say would also be good

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I agree. What's taking these entrepreneurs so long. Hurry up and create some jobs already!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Being willing to work for about $2500 per year would help alot of people find work and compete with foreign workers too!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

seems like a lot of people here, at rock-bottom heart, can't deal with a black president. worse, he's articulate and smart. that's at the murky bottom of a lot of posters comments I feel. just sure of it in fact.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

nutsagain:

"seems like a lot of people here, at rock-bottom heart, can't deal with a black president. worse, he's articulate and smart. that's at the murky bottom of a lot of posters comments I feel. just sure of it in fact."

Seems you simply do not know the subject you are here to comment on. The GOP fielded 37 black candidates this year.

Obama is articulate? Why, after almost two years in office, does he still need a freakin teleprompter?

No, the real test of who is more tolerant will be the reception newly elected black Republicans (like Florida's Col. Allen West) get from the Black Congressional Congress.

Stick around.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Great now nothing will get done !!!!!!

I wonder can the GOP commit to their campaign pledges and promises ? New jobs for everone by the summer of 2011. Can they do it ???? They need Disney magic, 3D glasses for the unemployed and CG technology to complete this one !!!! Digitalized wool over their eyes !!!!!

Nothing will get done nothing will be looked at after until January 11th !!!! Great Christmas vacation

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The US stock market climbed to a 2-year high on the news of the Republican tsunami.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No @MisterCreosote I do not think so.The Dow rose because the Fed (for all intents and purposes a government department with a fancy name) just bought $600 billion of treasury bonds. Basically a hand out to keep mortgage rates low. None of the companies whose shares went up sold anything more or got more clever at making stuff

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Great now nothing will get done !!!!!

And what did the Dems do to lose so badly?? So what does that make most Americans that voted them back in, idiots. They had their chance and nothing to show for it and the people wanted to send a clear message to Washington. Did the Dems focus on job creation and made it their first priority, NO! They were too busy ramming Obamacare down everyone's throat and it came to bite him back in the rear. No one is saying the Republicans can perform miracles, but they can really put a damper on Obama's agenda.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@molenir

Insurance companies' profit margins is part of the problem of excessive health care costs in the USA. They cannot be justified, unlike other companies that may have profit margins by being more innovative and ameliorating the living standards. These insurance companies make their profits by charging more and then denying services by exploiting loopholes in their own contracts. They bring no innovation to the field, nor do they really make people's health better. The money of those profits would be better spent elsewhere. Frankly, they should be non-profit or public, unfortunately, Obama couldn't do that, I'm not even sure he would have wanted to do that had he the chance, being the moderate politician he is. It is nonetheless absurd to blame Obamacare for greedy insurance companies, place the blame where it deserves to be placed.

As to the docfix, you don't get it, do you? It's not part of the reform, it has absolutely zero to do with the plan to cover more people. Considering it as an added cost of "Obamacare" is absurd and stupid, because no matter if the bill passed, it would still be voted in every single year and those costs would happen nonetheless. You are putting the blame of those costs on the health care reform and it is absolutely 100% wrong.

The costs of reforms are tallied by checking out what changes they bring from the expected situation. The docfix isn't a change that "Obamacare" brings to the health care system and it is something that can be expected to happen nonetheless, therefore counting it as part of the reform package's costs is absurd and wrong.

@genji17

Calling Obama and the Democrats "socialist" just demonstrates that you do not know what socialists really are.

If they had been, you can bet that the health care reform would have been far simpler, one page, "single-payer, AKA extend Medicare to every legal citizen", there it goes (not to say single-payer is a radical proposal, unless you think Canada is a radical place!). It was complex because Democrats are not very left-wing as a whole, a few of them are, but most are moderates, and they wanted to avoid changing the private system in place much. If they were socialists, the stimulus bill would not have been mostly tax cuts and transfers to States, but a lot more spending instead. If they were socialists, they would talk about nationalizing banks and vital industries, instead of planning to sell stocks that the government acquired to save GM, Chrysler and others. If they were socialists, you can bet they would have intervened into the day-to-day functioning of those companies they had to buy stocks of to save them instead of letting them do as they please. If they were socialists, you can bet they would have passed a law to cancel the bonus of every CEO of every bailed-out company and possibly even replaced them.

Socialists wouldn't have bailed out companies, they would have used the opportunity to acquire stocks when they are cheap and used that influence to change the system from the inside. That is not what happened at all. In every bailed out company, the government has avoided doing anything to change how they are run, even when it could have been justified.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Calling Obama and the Democrats "socialist" just demonstrates that you do not know what socialists really are.

No, actually, it is you who do not understand what we mean when we call Obama a socialist. Socialism, like every other big idea that could come to America, would be fundamentally transformed in the crucible of the American experiment. I do not want it, but if socialism truly comes to the States it will not be a case of socialism changing America (which ppl like you hope for) so much as it would be America adopting socialism in order to remake it.

Either way though we would be the worse for it, and along with us the rest of the free world.

The only way to assess whether or not Obama and many of the New Left Dems are stealth socialists is to examine gov spending as percentage of GDP by this administration.

But most so-called progressives and Obama's young fans in particular don't "do economics."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And what did the Dems do to lose so badly??

Like the Democratic woman whoo told President Obama, "I'm tired of standing up for your administration," a great mass of enthusiastic supporters in 2008 -- especially the young -- failed to show up to the polls to vote on Tuesday.

The woman who said those words to Obama did not shift her allegiance to the GOP or TBP; she just tuned out and turned off.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Either way though we would be the worse for it, and along with us the rest of the free world.

LOL!! Yes, the "free world" which includes so many countries that provide public health care to their citizens.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

man it is truly sad to see how utterly daft such a large part of the US has become, while clearly Obama hasnt excelled on everything he wanted to it just amazes me that so many yanks cannot see that the dems saved the US economy from being much much worse, they saved the country from imploding for christs sake, for that they get no thanks & a large percentage turn on them because the economy hasnt rebounded so much that more have jobs & can start racking up personal debt again!

Earth to you yanks, wake up yr actually doing a hell of a lot better with the bailout than without DOH!!!! The fear mongering republicans probably have nothing to offer. Heck by the rate of change you yanks want you shud be able to decide by next summer whether the newly elected repubilcans shud be able to keep their jobs or not, shud be an interesting year ahead of us!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@MisterCreosote

If you accuse progressives of "not doing economics", you one-up them actually, as in you try to do economics and fail at it. Looking at government spending in percent of GDP to see how it grows has a big problem: an increase doesn't always mean that spending has increased a lot, it may mean that GDP has fallen instead, or grows slower.

Plus, most of the increased spending is actually increased social security spending, welfare spending (including unemployment benefits which boomed due to unemployment booming) and medicare spending, in other words, most of the spending increase is due to programs put in place years before Obama was elected. Meaning, it would have happened anyway, unless a Republican president had chosen to take the axe to Social Security, Medicare and unemployment benefits, which I find doubtful.

In other words, your argument makes no sense. You have taken one figure, ignored all alternate possible causes and supposed a cause of it (Obama is turning America socialist!) even though it has no backing. Your argument that, American "socialism" will be different from the rest of the world's "socialism" is a pure excuse for your over-the-top rhetoric. If socialism does take different forms, it also has constants, otherwise one could claim anything is socialism. And its constant is the desire to help workers take ownership of the means of production (AKA the economy). Obama has not done that, he has been careful whenever he intervened to make sure that the owners and decision-makers remained of the private sector. For example, to save GM, he was forced to have the government buy a controlling share of it, but he gave the order to let GM administrate itself without government interference. A socialist (American, Chinese, French, Swedish or whatever) would have used that occasion to have the government (as representative of workers) to influence GM's development and would wish to maintain this influence. Obama went the other way completely, with an hands-off approach and with the intent of selling the controlling share as quickly as possible.

Therefore, there is no way that Obama and Democrats can be called "socialists" without rendering the term meaningless to the point where it can be used to describe any politician.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Socialism, like every other big idea that could come to America

When Bush, Republicans and Democrats voted yes for TARP funding, Socialism came to America via the biggest welfare cheque ever written. Not to mention TARP socialized part of the Banking system(the hub of capitalism). Obama just took the ball and rolled with it, saying that Socialism could come to America, is a little bit of misnomer, it's already there with a big boost from TARP. It will be interesting to see how the new congress approaches international trade, I'm guessing protectionism/nationalism and not capitalism.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

TARP is socialism? Hasn't most of the TARP money been paid back? Are you sure that's the best example?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nothing will get done as long as people [and posters on forums like this]only continue to point fingers and try to lay blame and worsen the dem/repub divide instead of working together like sensible responsible adults trying to come to a smart compromise of resolution to issues. As long as it's "oh yah, that republican blah blah" and "that dumb democrat blah blah" nothing will get fixed indeed. We are One Nation Under God Indevisible with Liberty and Justice for All. No matter 'what side' anyone is on, this nation as a whole has a responsibility to uphold Liberty and Justice for ALL regardless of party or political leaning. So start working as a team, respect differences in oppinions and accomplish something great, putting aside all the stupid pride.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Insurance companies' profit margins is part of the problem of excessive health care costs in the USA. They cannot be justified, unlike other companies that may have profit margins by being more innovative and ameliorating the living standards. These insurance companies make their profits by charging more and then denying services by exploiting loopholes in their own contracts. They bring no innovation to the field, nor do they really make people's health better.

You think a companies profits must be justified? People and companies make money by providing goods and services needed. Insurance companies are no different. Yes they try to avoid paying money, if you haven't jumped through all the paperwork hoops. That is in their own best interest, if they wish to remain profitable. Now, ask yourself this. Why would the Dems not want people to be able to buy insurance across state lines? Why would they not want tort reform? Both things that would lower costs for everyone involved.

Next point. Precisely how big of a profit margin is acceptable for the insurance companies to maintain? Some years, they obviously have large profit margins, other years, they lose money. 2005 is a good example of that. On average though, most companies don't make huge percentages. Your socialist view, that the profits these companies make, should be given to someone else, would fit in much better in a place like China, or the former soviet union. Where everything is the property of the "people". Please, feel free to move there. Tell us how you like it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes, health care should be justified.

Europe does a fine job justifying their health care benefits because they see at as a citizen's necessity rather than a want (as in, to help preserve life).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@molenir

I think any economic system must justify itself in how it helps to serve the interests of everyone. The profit system of the capitalist economic system is meant to provide incentives to people to innovate and offer better products and services by exploiting their own self interest. In other words, to use people's greed to the advantage of society at large. That's the idea. The problem is when people find ways to get profits WITHOUT helping society, by screwing others instead of offering products and services that help the living standards of everyone.

That's the thing with insurance companies, they don't innovate, they don't offer better services or products, they get their profits by increasing premiums and reducing services. In other words, their profits emerge from screwing people over, not from helping them. If they had profits because they had somehow managed to reimburse more their clients and get them better services while not increasing their premiums, I wouldn't begrudge these profits. But that's not what's happening, their increased profits have happened while they have increased premiums and lowered reimbursements by the use of rescission. In other words, these profits do not reward innovation and the bettering of society's interests, on the other hand, they reward predatory actions that hurt others.

So yes, they have to justify why they get such profits. If profits are gained while hurting others, I call that a market failure and think there is the need to change the situation, possibly with government regulation.

As to your questions about the proposals not supported by Democrats:

-The Democrats have supported an insurance exchange that would allow buying plans across State lines, but the plans in that exchange must comply with minimum quality standards (that are quite low to be frank). The reason why simply dropping the State lines is a bad idea is that then there is no reason why insurance companies wouldn't simply migrate to the State with the most favorable regulation for them and then offer WORSE plans instead of better plans, since they would discontinue plans in States with better regulations for consumers. This is what happened when State lines were dropped for credit card companies, they just moved to South Dakota where the governor let them write the regulations in their favor, and everybody else was worse off.

-As to tort reform, that's a valid question, though experiences of tort reform have not demonstrated much positive effects in States that have tried it. The main benefit these States had was that doctors migrated to them from neighboring States. That may help a State, but if tort reform is applied in the whole of the United States, then there is no other State next door to cannibalize, so the real effect is small. Note however that Obama was ready to incorporate tort reform if the Republicans were ready to start discussing on what it would need for them to accept the reform. Republicans merely said "start over", which was absurd. So it failed not because the Democrats were really opposed to it, but because Republicans refused to negotiate their support to the reform package.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I happily pay taxes to support my Canadian health care. This is provincially paid for so think of it as state level control not federal. If the taxes go up then I also gladly pay it, as I don't have to pay for the real cost so that's always a bonus. Like splitting a very large bar bill.

The Obama public option was dropped though, so whatever the US has, it isn't what we have nor Europeans. Apparently the Republicans want to repeal whatever they have now. I guess they want their citizens to return to going bankrupt on a knee surgery or some such thing. How weird is that?

This is old news. No one in America cares for Americans anymore, just themselves.

I know with eyes wide awake that socialism has a cost which means I understand that we all accept those costs for the greater community mutual benefit. Healthcare is a prime example where humans are not a commodity to be traded.

Ah well. All I can do is shrug my shoulders and get on with my life. Nothing to see here.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

According to NBC, 113 of the 129 candidates for the House of Representatives who associated themselves with it [The Tea Party] won.

Source: The Atlantic.

I post this as an invitation to the many non-Americans here.

I sincerely wish you can one day achieve a level of participatory democracy like we have achieved with this movement.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I post this as an invitation to the many non-Americans here.

I sincerely wish you can one day achieve a level of participatory democracy like we have achieved with this movement.

@TimRussert Dude "Participatory Democracy" ?? Nearly all Republican supporters vote. If even only 75% of Americans bothered to vote the Democrats would have smothered the Republicans.If 100% voted can you imagine the results? Why don`t you make it so everyone has to vote like say Australia?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Republicans rode an anti-incumbency wave in the middle of a recession. Repulicans did not win because of their ideology; Democrats lost because of their inefficacy. Republicans now have licence to legislate; they do not have a mandate for obstruction. The Democrats still and will have the Senate and the Presidency.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Republicans rode an anti-incumbency wave in the middle of a recession. Repulicans did not win because of their ideology; Democrats lost because of their inefficacy. Republicans now have licence to legislate; they do not have a mandate for obstruction. "

Yang yong - - is that your opinion or something you copied from The Guardian's Comment is Free ?

I ask because the same quote appears on a site which links to The Guardian. It is called Media Freedom Foundation. Did you get there via Alternet?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Republicans rode an anti-incumbency wave in the middle of a recession. Repulicans did not win because of their ideology; Democrats lost because of their inefficacy. Republicans now have licence to legislate; they do not have a mandate for obstruction. The Democrats still and will have the Senate and the Presidency. Have another wafer thin mint buddy!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How can this result be? Sushisake3 assured us otherwise

"I am going to say it again. I think the Dems are going to do better than they think they will." I second that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What a wonderful week it has been. The Democrats got the thrashing they deserved, along with the "Anointed One." It was the Peoples Judgement on the Obama regime - and while he told them 2 short years ago "Yes, we can!" this week, they delivered a resounding "No, we cant!" message to the regime. Lets hope the Marxists now retreat and take the judgement of the people seriously. America is the worlds greatest democracy. There is no room for Obamas marxism.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ohio Rep John Boehner, the House speaker-in-waiting,

Geez, he's gonna be a speaker of the house? This guy is disgusting.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

YongYang: Republicans rode an anti-incumbency wave in the middle of a recession. Repulicans did not win because of their ideology; Democrats lost because of their inefficacy. Republicans now have licence to legislate; they do not have a mandate for obstruction. The Democrats still and will have the Senate and the Presidency. Have another wafer thin mint buddy!

The Democrats better trend carefully, or they will be shown the door in the next election. Voters have taken a stand, and they won't be ignored. Obama only interest is his own agenda not those of people. People who voted for him are wiser today then 2 years ago. Obama have not done what he promised to do. He can't keep blaming Bush and Republicans.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The wipeout at the state legislature level is what is really going to hurt the Dems in 2012. If politics were pro baseball the Dems just lost nearly their entire farm league. Brutal. I almost feel sorry for em.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Democrats' loss is more due to the enthusiasm gap than a real disaffection by people. Democrats and Independents that Obama had convinced in 2008 stayed home for the most part, they didn't become teabaggers. Polls also show that the Republicans are disliked as much if not more so than the Democrats, so until the situation stabilizes, there will likely be a lot of incumbents losing their jobs, one way or the other.

Ultimately, I think one could say that Obama lost because he wasn't left-wing enough. Sure, the right-wing hated his guts, but they would have hated his guts no matter what he did. The GOP and their media arm did all they could to start fires, to fan the flames of hatred of the right-wingers. Meanwhile, the Democrats tried to play the moderates, the bipartisan crowd and tried to avoid alienating anyone by abandoning the reforms they wanted.

In the Great Depression, when asked about the bankers' hostility towards him, FDR famously answered in a speech "I welcome their hatred", which was a politically savvy move, since the bankers were hated by the people who were paying for their excesses. On the other hand, Obama made sure never to blame them and to try to keep the country united, even when it hurt him politically.

Just a few examples, in the health care reform package, Obama removed the Public Option, something supported by 60 to 80% of Americans, because the insurance industry revolted at the idea of this competition that would have kept them honest. He could have used reconciliation to adopt the public option, he refused to do so (many even speak of a backroom deal with the insurance industry so that they would tone down their opposition). He could have charged ahead and energized his followers and independents who voted for him. It would have energized the right-wing opposition, but as we observed, their opposition to the reform had very little to do with facts and reality (death panels for instance, the use of empty slogans like "government takeover"). If the bastards are going to hate you whatever you do, at least give them some good reasons to.

The disaster in the Gulf is another missed occasion, he should have come out faster and harder against BP, because the Republicans were moving to defend BP at the time, something that wasn't politically liked at all. The Democrats should have drawn attention to it and showed to everyone that Democrats were those who protected people from big business' predation by forcing them to take responsibility, and Republicans were those who protected big business from people's righteous anger.

The 250,000$ and more tax cut is another issue the Democrats should have pressed forward on. Most Americans were behind them on this, and still are. They should have forced Republicans to stand up and explain to the American people why they would prefer all Americans' taxes to rise instead of accepting a compromise where taxes for the middle class were kept low while taxes for the rich were raised.

The stimulus is another early example of Democrats' willingness to compromise. Left-wing economists said it then, the stimulus was too small, it would help but not restart job creation as it should have. But Democrats did it this small in order to get a few Republicans to sign on, and the stimulus had more tax breaks and transfers to States than outright spending. What followed proved the economists right, by most accounts, the stimulus created up to 3 million jobs and helped the economy sensibly, but not enough to make it grow quick enough to start recovering the jobs lost due to the recession. This allowed the Republicans to say that it wasn't working (while it was, it just wasn't big enough) and the Democrats couldn't point out that it wasn't as big as it should have been because the Republicans prevented it, because they compromised before they ever got to the negotiation table.

Also the financial reform, which was toned down much too much and the debates about it were hushed. Americans wanted Wall Street to be forced to share in the pain it caused, and the Democrats cowered away from that. They could have done something with it, doing the right thing for the country and its economy by punishing those who would bring it down to make money, and they could have used it as a wedge issue. Let the GOP be the party of Wall Street, and the Dems be the party of Main Street, and see with whom the American people would prefer to stand. They didn't do so.

Sure, the hard right-wingers would have hated him more, but so what? They still have just one vote per voter. At least this way, the left would have come out in strength, and the apolitical Americans also would have come out, in favor of Obama who would have delivered on his promise of change.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

'In the Great Depression [1936], when asked about the bankers' hostility towards him, FDR famously answered in a speech "I welcome their hatred", which was a politically savvy move, since the bankers were hated by the people who were paying for their excesses.'

Having confiscated all privately held gold [1933] and outlawed purchase or sale of same FDR could pretty much say and do as he pleased - - which is probably why so many "progressives" want to see Obama become just as powerful.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@TimRussert

Don't be obsessed about gold, it doesn't make the economy go round, he who has all the gold doesn't have all the power.

FDR's order compensated everyone for the gold that the Federal government confiscated, so it's not like he stole it. The goal was to prevent people from hoarding the main precious material and thus force them to get money moving into the economy by investing or spending. It also served to help protect the currency.

That being said, it's not about power, it's about what is done with it. FDR used his power to reform the United States and to help it on the way of recovery. If Obama had used his power with his supermajority to do the same (which is questionable he could have given the DINOs in his party), the US would be much better off than it is now. Here's the thing, liberals don't like government particularly, they just see it as a tool that can be used positively or negatively. When they see a problem that the government is best placed to solve, they don't see why a problematic situation should be let to decay even more when it could be corrected by measured government intervention.

Once upon a time, conservatives also understood that, and though they may have had more faith in the Market to do the right thing and less in government, they didn't react in an irrational, hysterical manner about it as they do now.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Don't be obsessed about gold, it doesn't make the economy go round, he who has all the gold doesn't have all the power.

It was a different story in 1933.Like most "liberals" though you probably "don't do economics".

But Obama and his ilk understand gold. Why else would they too be targeting people who rightly so do not trust the Fed and are buying gold? Why did the Dems insert into health care legislation an amendment which will bring much greater scrutiny to gold sales, and to even the activities of gold coin dealers ???

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Economics is my favorite subject actually, and I'd even say I "do" them better than the conservatives who only use slogans and dogmas in their economic analysis. I can tell that what you mean was probably the gold standard, in which the government backed its currency by a pre-determined amount of gold. If the government's reserves of gold came to be depleted, then confidence in its currency would have crumbled on the markets. That's why I meant that FDR's idea was also to protect the currency. In the end, the gold standard was de facto abolished for a while, until reinstituted in a way by the Bretton-Woods accord. It ultimately died in the 70s under the Nixon Administration. It is not missed (there is no logical reason why gold should be treated differently from any other commodity).

The reason why gold was historically used to represent total wealth is because it is rare (all the gold mined in history is about 160 000 metric tons), and it has the characteristic reacting with hardly anything, thus preserving it. That's why it was used historically as a sure value. When things go bad, a lot of people go to gold as a safe investment (which isn't always true, the value of gold has sometimes fallen quickly and may fall quickly in the future if the economy picks up) and a refuge against inflation and currency devaluation. The problem with that is that, the more people seek refuge into gold, the more money is taken out of the economic cycle of spending and investments, so governments who care about their country's economy have an interest in preventing too many people from buying gold as an investment.

Ironically, the purchase of gold may be a self-fulfilling prophecy, tell rich investors to leave the stock market and buy gold because the economy is about to crash or the currency is going to devalue a lot, and if they do so, then they take money out of the economy and create a huge demand for a rare material, which respectively slow down the economy and devalue the currency.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Biggest Repub gains in the House since 1938. A bloodbath. Even with the 3 major networks cheerleading for them the Dems got slaughtered. It is hard to believe that come January Obama and the party bigwigs are going to greet the Dem faithful and the American people with news that Reid and Pelosi are still leading the fight in Congress. Insane.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Politico :

"Grief Counselors" Visit The Offices Of Emotionally Distraught Congressional Democrats

Joe Weisenthal | Nov. 8, 2010, 4:42 PM

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites