Republican victories

[dchistoryman]

So the GOP has Congress and came close to the Senate. I don't think this is as bad as it could have been. The reason; The GOP who during the campaign managed to avoid mentioning actual measures they would use to inprove tyhe lot of the USA now have to put up or shut up. If they start using their majority to block everything Obama they may well suffer come the genral election, truly a case of "be careful what you wish for"

Although I stayed up most of the night watching results I missed Harry Reids' speech, that would have been a laugh, I have never seen anyone so lacking in charisma than dear old Harry and I hope he really let go when he heard the result

[yaaarrrgg]

I agree with "be careful what you wish for." Bush getting elected turned out to be the single worst thing that's happened to the GOP in recent years.

[Raven]

I think America needs to very careful now. Especially with this 'tea party' crap. Do they realise that National Socialism is what Nazi Germany was all about?

[recovering conservative]

I think America is screwed! I'd hate to be so negative about it, since I live just across the U.S. border, and a U.S. freefall by an incapacitated government unable to deal with it's debt and internal problems (including aging demographics and racial unrest), is going to pull us down as well, but that's just the way it is! The U.S. Government is within reach of total collapse at a time when cheap, easy to access oil that it's economy depends on - is running out. The prospects of hyper-inflation and a declining supply of more expensive oil, means this is no "recession" that Obama or a future Republican government is going to fix.

The fixes that have been made since Reagan undid the structural reforms attempted by Jimmy Carter back in the 70's, have only been band-aid solutions; and the time is coming quick when the costs of servicing the debt are greater than tax revenues. The latest blathering last night from Republican hacks, like new House Leader John Boehner, are the same old promising spending cuts, while calling for more tax cuts! It's a situation nothing short of absurd...like they're trying to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic!

What I am most concerned about though, are the unmistakable underlying fascist themes of these new religious right Republicans. Once Jim DeMint -- a C Street Christian Reconstructionist with deep corporate ties - becomes the Senate Leader in two years...look out! One of these teabagger-type Republicans in a still collapsing Weimar Republic of Democrats, will be the great, charismatic leader that religious right and rightwing business leaders have been looking for! Then.....well, you know the rest of the story; it has played out several times over the last hundred years or so, everytime a shaky, insecure nation in economic collapse has found their messiah!

[chonsigirl]

Goodbye Pelosi as Speaker of the House. A welcome change indeed.

[ZAP]

chonsigirl;1342241 wrote: Goodbye Pelosi as Speaker of the House. A welcome change indeed.


Hear, Hear!

[Ahso!]

Is it only Nancy Polosi you two didn't like, or are you expressing joy at the fact republicans are now in the majority? If its Polosi specifically, what did you not like about her?

[ZAP]

Ahso!;1342252 wrote: Is it only Nancy Polosi you two didn't like, or are you expressing joy at the fact republicans are now in the majority? If its Polosi specifically, what did you not like about her?


For one thing her irresponsible comment:

“But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy. Furthermore, we believe that health care reform, again I said at the beginning of my remarks, that we sent the three pillars that the President’s economic stabilization and job creation initiatives were education and innovation—innovation begins in the classroom—clean energy and climate, addressing the climate issues in an innovative way to keep us number one and competitive in the world with the new technology, and the third, first among equals I may say, is health care, health insurance reform. Health insurance reform is about jobs. This legislation alone will create 4 million jobs, about 400,000 jobs very soon."

Taken from:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi | News Room | Press Releases

[Ahso!]

ZAP;1342258 wrote: For one thing her irresponsible comment:

“But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy. Furthermore, we believe that health care reform, again I said at the beginning of my remarks, that we sent the three pillars that the President’s economic stabilization and job creation initiatives were education and innovation—innovation begins in the classroom—clean energy and climate, addressing the climate issues in an innovative way to keep us number one and competitive in the world with the new technology, and the third, first among equals I may say, is health care, health insurance reform. Health insurance reform is about jobs. This legislation alone will create 4 million jobs, about 400,000 jobs very soon."

Taken from:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi | News Room | Press ReleasesTheres quite a bit contained in that quote, what exactly are the irresponsible parts?

[Saint_]

Raven;1342210 wrote: I think America needs to very careful now. Especially with this 'tea party' crap. Do they realise that National Socialism is what Nazi Germany was all about?


Yeah, raven's right. I've seen some VERY scary parallels with the tea party and the National Socialists.

1. Both use hysteria and fear for weapons.

2. Both are more concerning with shutting down government than changing it.

3. The political and economic climate is the same as the 1930s in Germany.

4. Sloganism and iconism is rampant.

5. The tea party uses scapegoats.

6. Both have a "my way or the highway" philosophy, especially when it comes to religion.

[Saint_]

recovering conservative;1342231 wrote: One of these teabagger-type Republicans in a still collapsing Weimar Republic of Democrats, will be the great, charismatic leader that religious right and rightwing business leaders have been looking for! Then.....well, you know the rest of the story; it has played out several times over the last hundred years or so, everytime a shaky, insecure nation in economic collapse has found their messiah!


Stop that...you're scaring me even more!:(

(Sarah Palin anyone? **SHIVER**)

[flopstock]

Ahso!;1342262 wrote: Theres quite a bit contained in that quote, what exactly are the irresponsible parts?


Oh please! Pretend christine o'donnell offered that drivel up.:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

[chonsigirl]

Ahso!;1342252 wrote: Is it only Nancy Polosi you two didn't like, or are you expressing joy at the fact republicans are now in the majority? If its Polosi specifically, what did you not like about her?


Oh, I am quite glad the Republicans are in the majority too.

[ZAP]

Ahso!;1342262 wrote: Theres quite a bit contained in that quote, what exactly are the irresponsible parts?


The first line. For Pelosi to suggest that a bill should be passed, without an attempt to understand it and then, after the "fog of the controversy" has cleared, to find out what's in it, is, in my opinion very irresponsible. The rest of that paragraph is obtuse and confusing and I don't understand what she's trying to say.

[Accountable]

Raven;1342210 wrote: I think America needs to very careful now. Especially with this 'tea party' crap. Do they realise that National Socialism is what Nazi Germany was all about?:yh_rotfl So the Tea Party is socialist now??



Saint_;1342272 wrote: Yeah, raven's right. I've seen some VERY scary parallels with the tea party and the National Socialists.

1. Both use hysteria and fear for weapons. [As does Obama, Boehner, and nearly everybody else]

2. Both are more concerning with shutting down government than changing it.[Define shutting down, please. The only thing I've heard is reduction and curtailing spending]

3. The political and economic climate is the same as the 1930s in Germany.[I'll have to take your word on that, but I'd like to know how you come by this.]

4. Sloganism and iconism is rampant.[on all sides, yes, but no more than the usual.]

5. The tea party uses scapegoats.[You state this as if using scapegoats is a rarity in American politics. Hell, George Bush is going to be blamed for the next El Nino. What scapegoats do you claim the tea party is using?]

6. Both have a "my way or the highway" philosophy, especially when it comes to religion. [Religion?!? What are you talking about?]

[Saint_]

Accountable;1342307 wrote: :yh_rotfl So the Tea Party is socialist now??


Ummm....OK!



Saint_;1342272 wrote: Yeah, raven's right. I've seen some VERY scary parallels with the tea party and the National Socialists.

1. Both use hysteria and fear for weapons. [As does Obama, Boehner, and nearly everybody else]


True, true. But not to the same extent. Tea Partiers border on hysteria. For example I saw an ' IMPEACH THE MUSLIM!!" bumper sticker on a tea party pickup the other day.

2. Both are more concerning with shutting down government than changing it.[Define shutting down, please. The only thing I've heard is reduction and curtailing spending]


Well, my local TP'ers shout about "revolution" all the time.

3. The political and economic climate is the same as the 1930s in Germany.[I'll have to take your word on that, but I'd like to know how you come by this.]


Research. I study that time period occasionally. In general: economic times are bad, the government is divided and polarized, and fear is rampant.

4. Sloganism and iconism is rampant.[on all sides, yes, but no more than the usual.]


I agree. Like I said, it's REALLY good that a charismatic fear and hate-monger like Hitler hasn't risen yet. I thought Palin might be one, but she's an idiot, thank goodness. The German people were technologically proficient, modern, and steeped in religion... but they went straight to Hell anyway.

5. The tea party uses scapegoats.[You state this as if using scapegoats is a rarity in American politics. Hell, George Bush is going to be blamed for the next El Nino. What scapegoats do you claim the tea party is using?]


Well the dreaded LIBERALS! of course. Sind die Liberalen die natsche Juden?

6. Both have a "my way or the highway" philosophy, especially when it comes to religion. [Religion?!? What are you talking about?]


Their "America is Christian" and "put God back in the schools!" philosophies. They can't abide any other religion. To them, if you aren't Christian, you aren't American.

[Accountable]

It seems your list fits Obama as glove-perfect as it does the tea party.

BTW, wasn't the economic situation of 1930's Germany when people were carrying their money in wheel barrows?

[Ahso!]

flopstock;1342293 wrote: Oh please! Pretend christine o'donnell offered that drivel up.:yh_rotfl:yh_rotflThat's it?

ZAP;1342303 wrote: The first line. For Pelosi to suggest that a bill should be passed, without an attempt to understand it and then, after the "fog of the controversy" has cleared, to find out what's in it, is, in my opinion very irresponsible. The rest of that paragraph is obtuse and confusing and I don't understand what she's trying to say.She wasn't indicating she or other members of congress who were to vote on the bill hadn't read it, she was explaining that in order for the public to understand it properly, due to the controversy surrounding the bill from misinformation (unless people chose to read the legislation on their own), the bill had to be passed. I believe Nancy Pelosi also meant only the passage of the bill to bring about the benefits she spoke of for the future may be necessary to appreciate it in the long term. Perhaps reading the two prior paragraphs to the one you posted may provide a bit more insight as to what she was saying. It makes perfect sense to me.



I'm pretty sure I recall the bill was posted for public inspection prior to the vote. Did you read the bill? Correct me if I'm mistaking but didn't LarsMac invite anyone on FG to examine the legislation along with him before the vote? Did any of you take him up on the offer?ZAP;1342303 wrote: The rest of that paragraph is obtuse and confusing and I don't understand what she's trying to say.Fair enough. Lets take a look at it then.

“But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy. Furthermore, we believe that health care reform, again I said at the beginning of my remarks, that we sent the three pillars that the President’s economic stabilization and job creation initiatives were education and innovation—innovation begins in the classroom—clean energy and climate, addressing the climate issues in an innovative way to keep us number one and competitive in the world with the new technology, and the third, first among equals I may say, is health care, health insurance reform. Health insurance reform is about jobs. This legislation alone will create 4 million jobs, about 400,000 jobs very soon. The three pillars Pelosi is referring to is: 1) health care; 2) education; 3)innovation. She then goes on to explain how she is defining innovation and how that links to education, she then goes on to tie health care to the other two, then explains what she believed it all means economically.

Do you disagree with my interpretation? If so, please show me where you think I've erred.

chonsigirl;1342301 wrote: Oh, I am quite glad the Republicans are in the majority too. :)So I'll take that as a yes to both. Are you willing to go beyond what you've offered thus far in explaining your displeasure with Nancy Pelosi (which to this point, with all due respect, has been nothing)? Considering we're posting in a discussion forum, I don't see why you wouldn't want to.

[flopstock]

So, health-care reform wasn't about health-care, it was about creating jobs, clean air, classrooms and new technology. Interesting

To get back to the Republican victories as opposed to what defeated the Democrats... the Republicans need to look at who voted for them and why. They need to not make the mistake of thinking that it was all just anti-obama and anti-democrat. Some of us voted for them in order to give them the opportunity to succeed now that the nut-bars have shifted over into the tea party movement. They need to focus on being fiscally conservative while leaving social issues alone. They'll lose me the minute they turn a sharp right again. I figure about a week or two:D

In any case, I like the congressional divide. Maybe if these idiots are distracted fighting among-st themselves for the upper hand, we the people will have the opportunity to rescue ourselves from some of our problems.

[Ahso!]

flopstock;1342368 wrote: So, health-care reform wasn't about health-care, it was about creating jobs, clean air, classrooms and new technology. InterestingThe quoted text Zap referenced was part of a talk Pelosi was giving on the economy and jobs and so she explained health care in that context.

flopstock;1342368 wrote: To get back to the Republican victories as opposed to what defeated the Democrats... the Republicans need to look at who voted for them and why. They need to not make the mistake of thinking that it was all just anti-obama and anti-democrat. Some of us voted for them in order to give them the opportunity to succeed now that the nut-bars have shifted over into the tea party movement. They need to focus on being fiscally conservative while leaving social issues alone. They'll lose me the minute they turn a sharp right again. I figure about a week or two:D

In any case, I like the congressional divide. Maybe if these idiots are distracted fighting among-st themselves for the upper hand, we the people will have the opportunity to rescue ourselves from some of our problems.Could you explain then why the majority of both republicans in the primaries and democrats in the general election who were defeated were centrists?

You may like the divide now, but just about every expert I've been reading and hearing is predicting this will result in gridlock. Take a listen to the following short segment from yesterday's The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer. It's quite revealing.

Fed Announces $600 Billion Economic Stimulus | PBS NewsHour | Nov. 3, 2010 | PBS

[recovering conservative]

chonsigirl;1342241 wrote: Goodbye Pelosi as Speaker of the House. A welcome change indeed.


You gotta be kidding! You really think that drunk with the orange glow is going to be an improvement?

Let's step into the wayback machine and see who's side John Boehner is on (hint: they better provide lots of money!)

Boehner: Government--i.e. Taxpayers--Should Help Pay For Oil Spill

"I think the people responsible in the oil spill--BP and the federal government--should take full responsibility for what's happening there," Boehner said at his weekly press conference this morning.

Of course Democrats were quick to seize upon this gaffe, which was widely reported by the media........................didn't happen? No it did not! The vast majority of Democrats are too busy triangulating -- trying to figure out how they can get first in line again for those corporate donations and consulting job paybacks after leaving office. And the U.S. media (including PBS & NPR) is owned by six media conglomerates who cook up slight variations of the same formula, and make sure they bury the stories they really don't want covered, i.e. corporate globalization, and the current mess being exposed by Wikileaks.

On Election Night, just like clockwork -- the theme was "Obama needs to move to the right and make deals with the new Republicans." On the so-called "liberal media" MSNBC has former Whitehouse operative - Lawrence O'Donnell blaming the left and liberals for Obama's problems and the Congressional losses on Tuesday night. The next day, the so-called 'liberal' New York Times features retiring Democratic moderate bagman -- Evan Bayh, demanding massive entitlement cuts for the poor and freezes on the pay for government workers, while also blaming the Democratic losses on moving to far to the left!

The money that has been flowing into U.S. elections has now turned into a flood, since the Citizens United case allowed corporations to donate to campaigns covertly. There is no voice for campaign finance reform left, now that John McCain has repudiated the bill he co-authored; and the other signer of McCain-Feingold -- Russ Feingold, went down to defeat in Wisconsin Tuesday night. For me, this is what really paints a gloomy picture for U.S. politics! Feingold was the only Democrat who opposed both wars, opposed every legislation attacking personal rights and freedoms in the name of security...such as the Patriot Act; and now he's gone. And that lesson won't be lost on remaining Democrats who may secretly hold many or most of Feingold's views also!

So, Russ Feingold being taken out by big helpings of corporate cash shows us that the corporate class does not have to reach to far to impose their authority on the political system -- politicians have to go to them to finance expensive campaigns, and the rest of the pack (Republican or Democrat) know that the threat of being buried under corporate cash if they support campaign finance reform, real health care reform, or any serious action to stop increases in greenhouse gases, is out there, if they dare cross the super-rich who have now completely bought the political system.



And that's why Americans who do not earn over $250,000 per year are the ones who need a real tea party! The rightwing clowns who have marched and donated money to conservative tea party groups are carrying water for the people who will drown them while advancing their own interests!

[Accountable]

Dang, RC! You & I may have more common ground than I first thought. We definitely don't agree on what ought to be, but we line up pretty closely on what is.

[yaaarrrgg]

The interesting thing is Obama actually started in the center (where Clinton left off). His so called radical socialist healthcare plan was essentially the compromise the GOP offered to Clinton. I suppose politics isn't as much as a position (center,left,right) but a direction. It wouldn't matter if he started out on the right, the extreme right would have fought to push him even further right, taking every compromise as the starting point for further advance.

IMO where the Democrats screwed up, is they took a much too conciliatory tone from the beginning, accepting half-measures and bending to the demands of the GOP. They acted like the minority party, and now at least they have the official title to hide behind. Where was DADT repeal? Simple issues like that should have been done day one. Obama can't repeal the law, but he's head of the military and can stop enforcement. Then let the next president decide if they want to start up enforcement again and risk the fallout. If the military has a problem with it, it's not their job to have an opinion... they are supposed to do what they are told.

Long term, I think this puts the Democrats in a better position though. They were handed a giant crap sandwich, and anything that went wrong they would be blamed for. Now the GOP has to step up and actually govern, rather than sit back and throw a giant tantrum because they lost the last election (for good reason). After two years of pain and gridlock, and possibly endless war, people will likely remember why they fired the GOP in the first place.

The only shocking thing for me was seeing Russ Feingold lose. He was one of the few guys (along with Ron Paul) with enough sense not to give Bush a blank check for war. I wouldn't mind to see anyone that authorized this to be fired. They say they couldn't have predicted it would be a disaster, but it seemed like lunacy at the time to me.

Oddly haven't heard a peep from the new GOP about the recently announced 600 billlion stimulus. I suppose they reserve their outrage for when it's given to the unwashed masses.

[Ahso!]

Democratic voters stayed home. I've read while republican turnout was down about 20%, democrat turnout was down a whopping 60%. Some of that is young voters but much of it is liberals voicing their disappointment with the number of compromises their representatives made. Liberal representation is as good as dead in the American government since moderate republicans now make up the majority of the democratic party. Within another couple of election cycles the republican party will be far right and the democratic party will be the centrist party, but I wouldn't be surprised if most of the people who voted republican tuesday will continue to do so and make the same lame excuses as to why they did.

The thing about the 600 billion bailout for the rich that the fed is about to do is exactly what republicans have wanted to do all along but couldn't find the cover for it, now they can sit back and accept thanks from wall street for forcing the feds hand. And the banking industry can wait out the next two years in order to repeal all the good regulations protecting people from predatory lending practices, unless they can lobby enough of the republicans who ran as democrats to override Obama's veto.

What I think congress should do in the next month and a half before they leave is open up the health care legislation again to add the public option and speed up the implementation of the rest of the provisions to protect it from major changes. That would probably insure a better outcome in 2012. They should also pass the line item veto for Obama as well as repeal DADT and the Bush tax cuts.

[Accountable]

Your selective memory & spin is amusing. :wah:yaaarrrgg;1342506 wrote: Long term, I think this puts the Democrats in a better position though. They were handed a giant crap sandwich, and anything that went wrong they would be blamed for. They were handed a giant crap sandwich by George Bush and a Dem-controlled congress.

yaaarrrgg wrote: The only shocking thing for me was seeing Russ Feingold lose. He was one of the few guys (along with Ron Paul) with enough sense not to give Bush a blank check for war. I wouldn't mind to see anyone that authorized this to be fired. They say they couldn't have predicted it would be a disaster, but it seemed like lunacy at the time to me.

Oddly haven't heard a peep from the new GOP about the recently announced 600 billlion stimulus. I suppose they reserve their outrage for when it's given to the unwashed masses. :)I'm glad you're acknowledging that there's no difference between the parties ...... at least getting closer to it.

[yaaarrrgg]

Accountable;1342554 wrote: Your selective memory & spin is amusing. :wah:They were handed a giant crap sandwich by George Bush and a Dem-controlled congress.

I'm glad you're acknowledging that there's no difference between the parties ...... at least getting closer to it.


The current crap sandwich has been in the works for 30 years (for example the glass-steagall repeal).

I agree there's not a huge difference between the parties anymore. Though, I suspect in the middle of a recession this deep, had McCain/Palin gotten elected we'd be looking at a "stimulus" that involved attacking another country. This group likes to point to WWII as the "cure" to the great depression (IIRC 30 trillion in today's dollars). Cheney was chomping at the bit for war with Iran, but Bush amazingly had the sense to hold off. McCain and Palin were both ramping up militaristic rhetoric about the treat that Iran posed, and implying the picture they were trying to build a nuke to destroy us and Israel.

[recovering conservative]

Accountable;1342494 wrote: Dang, RC! You & I may have more common ground than I first thought. We definitely don't agree on what ought to be, but we line up pretty closely on what is.


I used to agree with most of the arguments for smaller government, until it became too obvious that weakening government was going to leave us more vulnerable to the demands of the rich and powerful. A real democratic government is not unduly influenced by corporate lobbyists, and does not acquiesce to all of their demands.

And when it comes to dealing with climate change, weak governments that are totally dependent on corporate patronage, are not able to deal with the aggressive lobbying and disinformation campaigns of oil, gas and coal companies.

[recovering conservative]

Ahso!;1342517 wrote: Democratic voters stayed home. I've read while republican turnout was down about 20%, democrat turnout was down a whopping 60%.
I don't know how accurate it is, but I heard one pundit yesterday claim that the best estimate of national results indicate a 42% voter turnout nationally. If it's true that turnout was way below 50%, that would reinforce that picture of Democrats staying home in droves!

Some of that is young voters but much of it is liberals voicing their disappointment with the number of compromises their representatives made. Liberal representation is as good as dead in the American government since moderate republicans now make up the majority of the democratic party. Within another couple of election cycles the republican party will be far right and the democratic party will be the centrist party, but I wouldn't be surprised if most of the people who voted republican tuesday will continue to do so and make the same lame excuses as to why they did.
I've heard a number of times over the last two days that half of the so called "Blue Dog" Democrats in the House, went down to defeat. Much has been made of losing Russ Feingold and Alan Grayson, but liberal Democrats did much better than moderates or conservative Democrats.

Most people will cut some slack to politicians who have strong convictions, even if they don't agree with them; and it stands to reason that many who are going to vote for a Democrat, want to vote for a real Democrat, rather than one who's got his hand out for corporate cash, and uses it as an excuse to brand himself as a moderate! Likewise, what were these Bluedogs expecting? If it's a conservative district, and voters have two Republicans to choose from -- they are more likely to vote for the real Republican, so the local Democrats should be working at advocating for their causes and trying to influence people, than going with some Republican Lite candidate, on the faint hope of winning a useless seat in Congress!

I heard a brief interview with Arizona Congressman - Raul Grijalva, who retained his seat in a narrow victory, blame the Bluedogs for the lack of real progress in the last two years. For example, the Whitehouse told the Progressive Caucus that they had to scrap the Public Option to get a healthcare bill passed, because it threatened the survival of the Bluedogs. Grijalva seemed to put the most blame on the weak show of support from Democrats on that futile strategy of saving the Bluedogs.......and now that they're gone, the surviving Democrats are far less likely to compromise for the sake of passing weak legislation.

[recovering conservative]

Accountable;1342554 wrote:

I'm glad you're acknowledging that there's no difference between the parties ...... at least getting closer to it.


There is a difference! And it could be seen in the big piles of cash that were dumped on Republican candidates, and funding attack ads against Democrats. The Republican Party is the first choice of the wealthy overlords, because they don't mask their slavish devotion to them! They rubberstamp every request that their corporate donors make, and even make ideological arguments justifying trickle-down economics and reducing taxes on the superrich. The Democrats have to betray their ideology to sell themselves out to the corporate lobbyists, and have at least keep a facade of being concerned for the poor......so that makes the Democrates the corporate B plan.

[Accountable]

yaaarrrgg;1342566 wrote: The current crap sandwich has been in the works for 30 years (for example the glass-steagall repeal).

I agree there's not a huge difference between the parties anymore. Though, I suspect in the middle of a recession this deep, had McCain/Palin gotten elected we'd be looking at a "stimulus" that involved attacking another country. This group likes to point to WWII as the "cure" to the great depression (IIRC 30 trillion in today's dollars). Cheney was chomping at the bit for war with Iran, but Bush amazingly had the sense to hold off. McCain and Palin were both ramping up militaristic rhetoric about the treat that Iran posed, and implying the picture they were trying to build a nuke to destroy us and Israel.I would've missed the link if I hadn't quoted your post. It's dated last month, just a bit after the campaign, and I don't believe McCain would ever authorize military action, except maybe of the Clinton variety. He's been too close to war. More likely he would have been more focused on ending the current crap-fest than Obama's been.

I always shake my head at those who point at war as an answer to economic woes. The Great Depression ended because FDR died.

[Accountable]

recovering conservative;1342571 wrote: I used to agree with most of the arguments for smaller government, until it became too obvious that weakening government was going to leave us more vulnerable to the demands of the rich and powerful. A real democratic government is not unduly influenced by corporate lobbyists, and does not acquiesce to all of their demands.
I no more believe that you used to agree with my views than that the moon is cheese.

Smaller government doesn't equate to weaker government. A fat man losing weight doesn't equate to a less healthy man. Smaller equals weaker is the argument for keeping our global military empire.

Larger also doesn't equal more democratic. The whole reason the government is as bloated as it has become is because of undue influence by corporate lobbyists and demicans acquiescing to all of their demands.

Real democratic government doesn't exist, and can't exist in a nation of hundreds of millions of voters.

[Accountable]

recovering conservative;1342575 wrote: There is a difference! And it could be seen in the big piles of cash that were dumped on Republican candidates, and funding attack ads against Democrats. The Republican Party is the first choice of the wealthy overlords, because they don't mask their slavish devotion to them! They rubberstamp every request that their corporate donors make, and even make ideological arguments justifying trickle-down economics and reducing taxes on the superrich. The Democrats have to betray their ideology to sell themselves out to the corporate lobbyists, and have at least keep a facade of being concerned for the poor......so that makes the Democrates the corporate B plan.So the difference is that repubs are more honest about being slaves to corporations?? That's not exactly a ringing endorsement.

[Accountable]

Ahso!;1342517 wrote: Democratic voters stayed home. I've read while republican turnout was down about 20%, democrat turnout was down a whopping 60%. Some of that is young voters but much of it is liberals voicing their disappointment with the number of compromises their representatives made.Isn't that down from '08? I know in Texas that the voting this year was up from the previous off-year election.

Ahso! wrote: The thing about the 600 billion bailout for the rich that the fed is about to do is exactly what republicans have wanted to do all along but couldn't find the cover for it, now they can sit back and accept thanks from wall street for forcing the feds hand. And the banking industry can wait out the next two years in order to repeal all the good regulations protecting people from predatory lending practices, unless they can lobby enough of the republicans who ran as democrats to override Obama's veto.So now we have Dinos? Democrats in name only? It's a religion with you partisans. You can't see what's in front of your face and make up reasons why your "side" don't line up in lockstep with the rhetoric. Yet time and again you give them your vote based on the promise and are surprised when the behavior doesn't change.

Ahso! wrote: What I think congress should do in the next month and a half before they leave is open up the health care legislation again to add the public option and speed up the implementation of the rest of the provisions to protect it from major changes. That would probably insure a better outcome in 2012. They should also pass the line item veto for Obama as well as repeal DADT and the Bush tax cuts.Pass line item veto for Obama then repeal it for the next republican president? Laws are permanent. They shouldn't be passed unless they can be trusted in the hands of "the other side". Instead of wasting time on DADT, why not call to repeal the Patriot Act, for cryin' out loud? If you're really interested in making a difference, why not call for them to stop funding for foreign military bases and use that money to pay for your precious healthcare takeover?

[Ahso!]

Accountable;1342584 wrote: Isn't that down from '08? I know in Texas that the voting this year was up from the previous off-year election.Yes - 2008.

Accountable;1342584 wrote: So now we have Dinos? Democrats in name only? It's a religion with you partisans. You can't see what's in front of your face and make up reasons why your "side" don't line up in lockstep with the rhetoric. Yet time and again you give them your vote based on the promise and are surprised when the behavior doesn't change.I'm not surprised at all. I mostly expected what had happened. Blue dog democrats are essentially moderate republicans.

Accountable;1342584 wrote: Pass line item veto for Obama then repeal it for the next republican president? Laws are permanent. They shouldn't be passed unless they can be trusted in the hands of "the other side". Instead of wasting time on DADT, why not call to repeal the Patriot Act, for cryin' out loud? If you're really interested in making a difference, why not call for them to stop funding for foreign military bases and use that money to pay for your precious healthcare takeover?I'm well aware that the line item veto I suggested would continue past Obama.

Do me a favor will you, explain to me in detail how this new health care legislation is a government takeover? You can begin a new thread or point me to an older one if you like.

[Accountable]

Ahso!;1342586 wrote: Yes - 2008.Everybody expects the turnout to be lower during off-year elections, but this one was still relatively high, as I understand (I've only heard radio news on it).

Ahso! wrote: I'm not surprised at all. I mostly expected what had happened. Blue dog democrats are essentially moderate republicans.And moderate republicans are RINOs, dems disguised as republicans.



Ahso! wrote: I'm well aware that the line item veto I suggested would continue past Obama.Seems that most on your side wanted Clinton to have it, but were against Bush getting too much power. Personally, I think it gives too much power to the president. I'c rather see laws passed one at a time, without earmarks, riders, or omnibus packages. Then the Pres can veto the ones he doesn't like & pass the ones he does. It'll never happen, of course. Every law has to have something good in it (so politicians can show how good they are) and something bad (so they can claim the opposition hates America). Alternatively, the can vote against this horrid legislation while simultaneously pointing at the other side (with the same vote) and say they're against this wonderful helpful idea.

Ahso! wrote: Do me a favor will you, explain to me in detail how this new health care legislation is a government takeover? You can begin a new thread or point me to an older one if you like.Really? That's what you decide to take from that? So you're okay with the Patriot Act staying in place?

[Ahso!]

No, I don't like the patriot act either, but there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of repealing it, so I'd prefer just DADT as a sort of apology from the dems to the left and an "now I get it".

I'll wait for your explanation on the health care legislation as a 'takeover'.

[Accountable]

Ahso!;1342595 wrote: I'll wait for your explanation on the health care legislation as a 'takeover'.Nah, I'm not in the mood to read you saying that a single step is not a race or a single blow is not an entire war. The camel's nose is under the tent, which is what Obama et al were going for, and the repubs have vowed to carry the baton by repeating - oops, repealing - and reforming that which shouldn't be addressed federally at all.

Ahso!;1342595 wrote: No, I don't like the patriot act either, but there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of repealing it, so I'd prefer just DADT as a sort of apology from the dems to the left and an "now I get it".I'm surprised you're rolling over on this one. I thought we at least agreed on republican abuses. I guess I was wrong.

[recovering conservative]

Accountable;1342582 wrote: I no more believe that you used to agree with my views than that the moon is cheese.

Smaller government doesn't equate to weaker government. A fat man losing weight doesn't equate to a less healthy man. Smaller equals weaker is the argument for keeping our global military empire.
I'm not talking about 'smaller' in the sense of less government employees; I mean smaller in the sense that the right wants a smaller role for government. In general, the Republicans have made no efforts to shrink the size of the domestic bureaucracy any more than they've tried to shrink the military bureaucracy! But, they have no respect for the role that government agencies perform, and see them as opportunities for rewarding political hacks. Remember "Brownie"....the equestrian judge that George Bush put in charge of FEMA? During normal times, a director who didn't have a clue would have gone unnoticed. But, after Hurricane Katrina, the inability of FEMA to handle natural disasters turned the spotlight on this and other agencies that have been stacked with Republican hacks. And the same thing was happening at lower levels of these agencies.....jobs being filled as political payoffs.

And the Republican vision of smaller government meant a government that performs almost no regulatory role. When Reagan and the minor conservative spokesmen were introducing the public to the New Conservatism, deregulation was mentioned in every statement, every sound-bite, that included cutting taxes, and shrinking the size of government! Deregulation introduced the hands-off approach of Friedman acolytes - that the market is always right, and market forces would put all of the necessary constraints on business.........the evidence from banking and finance; oil disasters; unsafe food and drugs; and dumping of toxic wastes, shows otherwise!

Larger also doesn't equal more democratic. The whole reason the government is as bloated as it has become is because of undue influence by corporate lobbyists and demicans acquiescing to all of their demands.
The exponential growth of corporate lobbyists in Washington over the last 30 years, begs the question - what went wrong? It's pretty obvious that rule changes have made politics more vulnerable to big money, not less!

Real democratic government doesn't exist, and can't exist in a nation of hundreds of millions of voters.


If you're talking about Athenian direct democracy, then ofcourse that can't exist. But since you love your Constitution, my understanding of it is that the Founding Fathers were trying to design a government where the representatives depended solely on the people for support, not the money of big business, and not favourable propaganda from media that is concentrated and owned by a few multinational corporations.

[recovering conservative]

Accountable;1342583 wrote: So the difference is that repubs are more honest about being slaves to corporations?? That's not exactly a ringing endorsement.


No, it isn't! But we have to be honest about how badly the system has been compromised by undemocratic forces. In America today, there is no real ideological opposition to the conservatism and libertarianism of the right.

What's called "liberal" today, are people who are trying to position themselves as more moderate versions of their rightwing counterparts. They may believe in having more controls on corporations, but they say nothing about the fundamental merits of globalization policies and free trade agreements. Case in point would be that sadsack rally that John Stewart and Stephen Colbert hosted in Washington last week! It made no point, other than to poke fun at tea party activists and whine about racism. It only addressed the issues of concern to liberal entertainers and liberal academics, which also include the lack of civility. Stewart's rally was as much an attack on the concerns of the poor, as it was on corporations and rightwing activists. He is a wealthy comfortable liberal, so he is more concerned that everyone play nice, than get tough with the forces of the right.

Much was made of the lack of diversity in the crowd at Glenn Beck's rally, but the Sanity Rally looked just as all-white as Beck's rally....only difference is the crowd looked a little younger. Stewart's rally showed that what's calling itself "liberal" these days does not inspire a vast multitude of Americans, who are losing their jobs, and losing their homes. And if that rally was intended to inspire minorities and younger voters to show up to vote -- that didn't work either! A multitude who worked for "change you can believe in" two years ago, don't believe it anymore, and the liberal leaders aren't speaking to their concerns. It seems Chris Hedges is right about "the death of liberalism!"

Speaking of Hedges: on a recent episode of the CBC radio show - The Current where he presents a case that there are five pillars of the liberal establishment — the press, liberal religious institutions, labor unions, universities and the Democratic Party — and that all of these institutions have become more concerned with status and privilege, and sold out their constituents. And this has made the shrinking liberal class irrelevant to society at large, and something that has not gone unnoticed by the corporate elite, who are no longer interested in keeping the middle class happy.

[Accountable]

recovering conservative;1342610 wrote: I'm not talking about 'smaller' in the sense of less government employees; I mean smaller in the sense that the right wants a smaller role for government.IMO, "right" in this sentence means "correct". It certainly can't logically refer to politically right, which your very next sentence declares.

recovering conservative;1342610 wrote: In general, the Republicans have made no efforts to shrink the size of the domestic bureaucracy any more than they've tried to shrink the military bureaucracy! But, they have no respect for the role that government agencies perform, and see them as opportunities for rewarding political hacks. Remember "Brownie"....the equestrian judge that George Bush put in charge of FEMA? During normal times, a director who didn't have a clue would have gone unnoticed. But, after Hurricane Katrina, the inability of FEMA to handle natural disasters turned the spotlight on this and other agencies that have been stacked with Republican hacks. And the same thing was happening at lower levels of these agencies.....jobs being filled as political payoffs.How are the Dems any different?? Look at the tax cheats managing the tax system and the guys with no car experience running the new Government Motors!



recovering conservative;1342610 wrote: And the Republican vision of smaller government meant a government that performs almost no regulatory role. When Reagan and the minor conservative spokesmen were introducing the public to the New Conservatism, deregulation was mentioned in every statement, every sound-bite, that included cutting taxes, and shrinking the size of government! Deregulation introduced the hands-off approach of Friedman acolytes - that the market is always right, and market forces would put all of the necessary constraints on business.........the evidence from banking and finance; oil disasters; unsafe food and drugs; and dumping of toxic wastes, shows otherwise!If we trim all the extra-constitutional bureaucracies, then the federal government would be better able to perform the regulatory roles they are not doing now.

recovering conservative;1342610 wrote: The exponential growth of corporate lobbyists in Washington over the last 30 years, begs the question - what went wrong? It's pretty obvious that rule changes have made politics more vulnerable to big money, not less!Doesn't this contradict your earlier statements about big government?

recovering conservative;1342610 wrote: If you're talking about Athenian direct democracy, then ofcourse that can't exist. But since you love your Constitution, my understanding of it is that the Founding Fathers were trying to design a government where the representatives depended solely on the people for support, not the money of big business, and not favourable propaganda from media that is concentrated and owned by a few multinational corporations.Careful! You're getting dangerously close to agreeing with me. :yh_wink

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/gener ... ost1342197

[recovering conservative]

Accountable;1342614 wrote: IMO, "right" in this sentence means "correct". It certainly can't logically refer to politically right, which your very next sentence declares.
You know what it means! It takes too many keystrokes to type out conservative/libertarian every time. And they are not only advocating shrinking the number of people working in government, they also want to shrink the regulatory roles, and the services provided to address issues such as poverty and unfair hiring practices. We are learning now that a civil society is a lot less "civil" when the wealth gaps increase. The marketplace left to itself, will allow the rich to get richer, and the poor to get poorer. And all arguments about who's at fault, do not address the fact that, for whatever the reasons, an increasingly stratified society is more volatile.

How are the Dems any different?? Look at the tax cheats managing the tax system and the guys with no car experience running the new Government Motors!


Like I said before -- at least Democrats do not have the voice of Ayn Rand in their heads, telling them that greed is good, and they should grab whatever they can. And what hasn't been mentioned about the saving of GM, is that GM is being saved by drastic wage cuts to make them more competitive with third world autoworkers. Once again, the basic economic philosophy of free trade, which has allowed capital to move freely across borders to flow in the direction of the cheapest labor -- goes unchallenged!

If we trim all the extra-constitutional bureaucracies, then the federal government would be better able to perform the regulatory roles they are not doing now.


During the runup to the Election, I couldn't believe these fundamentalist Republicans yacking about the Constitution during the campaign, it sounded like they make no distinction between it and the Bible! They think both are divine revelations or something. The framers of the Constitution were trying to cobble together something that would hold a collection of rebellious colonies together, and survive as a small, isolated nation that began under precarious circumstances. This idea that nothing can be added to what the FF's wrote down is pure lunacy! They couldn't foresee what the demands on the new nation would be a 100 or 200 years in the future, and were just trying to put together a system that would preserve republican government. A lot of teabaggers say that Social Security and Medicare have to be abolished because they are unconstitutional. Maybe idiots like Rand Paul, should get a chance to test this theory and abolish these programs! Then they might learn the limits of treating the Constitution like its the Bible!

Doesn't this contradict your earlier statements about big government?


No! Because laws and rules have been changed to give lobbyists more access. Attempts to restrict lobbyists have been attacked as "unconstitutional" denials of freedom of speech.

Careful! You're getting dangerously close to agreeing with me. :yh_wink

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/gener ... ost1342197
I'll check it out later.

[Ahso!]

Accountable;1342609 wrote: Nah, I'm not in the mood to read you saying that a single step is not a race or a single blow is not an entire war. The camel's nose is under the tent, which is what Obama et al were going for, and the repubs have vowed to carry the baton by repeating - oops, repealing - and reforming that which shouldn't be addressed federally at all.Wuss! You acknowledge its not a 'takeover' then, but you're afraid it will become one eventually. I hope you're right about that, but one thing is probably certain, and that is that it will not occur in our lifetime.

A question: How is it I'm partisan when in your words there is no difference between the two parties?

[yaaarrrgg]

Accountable;1342580 wrote: I would've missed the link if I hadn't quoted your post. It's dated last month, just a bit after the campaign, and I don't believe McCain would ever authorize military action, except maybe of the Clinton variety. He's been too close to war. More likely he would have been more focused on ending the current crap-fest than Obama's been.

I always shake my head at those who point at war as an answer to economic woes. The Great Depression ended because FDR died.


What's disturbing is if you look back at her statements, she's been consistently on the same message for two years now. Very much like Bush on WMD. I started noticing it during the campaign. McCain may have had a cooler head, but he was unelectable. Only the hardcore extremists can win in the GOP nowadays.

[Ahso!]

yaaarrrgg;1342841 wrote: What's disturbing is if you look back at her statements, she's been consistently on the same message for two years now. Very much like Bush on WMD. I started noticing it during the campaign. McCain may have had a cooler head, but he was unelectable. Only the hardcore extremists can win in the GOP nowadays.We're not going to war with Iran next, if we invade another country it will be Yemen IMO, and we'd already be there if McCain had been elected. Yemen is where Al Queda is now hiding according to the media. Whether or not thats true matters little. We need to continue to use up all that stuff we pay defense contractors for, otherwise the public would want to cut defense more, and they ain't gonna let that happen. We are in a perpetual state of war from here on out IMV. Its about the only thing we can point to thats helping the economy. It isn't much but its all we have, unfortunately.

[yaaarrrgg]

Ahso!;1342926 wrote: We're not going to war with Iran next, if we invade another country it will be Yemen IMO, and we'd already be there if McCain had been elected. Yemen is where Al Queda is now hiding according to the media. Whether or not thats true matters little. We need to continue to use up all that stuff we pay defense contractors for, otherwise the public would want to cut defense more, and they ain't gonna let that happen. We are in a perpetual state of war from here on out IMV. Its about the only thing we can point to thats helping the economy. It isn't much but its all we have, unfortunately.


That's a good point. They probably wouldn't want to attack a country that could fight back (due to the last two).

[Bryn Mawr]

Ahso!;1342926 wrote: We're not going to war with Iran next, if we invade another country it will be Yemen IMO, and we'd already be there if McCain had been elected. Yemen is where Al Queda is now hiding according to the media. Whether or not thats true matters little. We need to continue to use up all that stuff we pay defense contractors for, otherwise the public would want to cut defense more, and they ain't gonna let that happen. We are in a perpetual state of war from here on out IMV. Its about the only thing we can point to thats helping the economy. It isn't much but its all we have, unfortunately.


Sadly that was proven in 1990 after Congress tried to cut the defense budget after the fall of the Berlin Wall.

[yaaarrrgg]

recovering conservative;1342618 wrote: They couldn't foresee what the demands on the new nation would be a 100 or 200 years in the future, and were just trying to put together a system that would preserve republican government. A lot of teabaggers say that Social Security and Medicare have to be abolished because they are unconstitutional. Maybe idiots like Rand Paul, should get a chance to test this theory and abolish these programs! Then they might learn the limits of treating the Constitution like its the Bible!


I read the Constitution and social programs are clearly supported. If some service is beneficial to more than one person, we can consider providing them as part of the general welfare. And good social/economic policy also constitutes defense, since it's already known that social disorder occurs when extreme poverty is left unchecked. If our country were smarter, it would take an equal interest in stabilizing developing countries through humanitarian work, as it does towards destroying the ones that have grown up not to our liking. Hard to be painted as an enemy by a lunatic or dictator, when we've already made friends around the world with the majority of populations.

[yaaarrrgg]

Bryn Mawr;1342963 wrote: Sadly that was proven in 1990 after Congress tried to cut the defense budget after the fall of the Berlin Wall.


Kinda makes you wonder what these guys have planned, when the defense budget is as much as the rest of the world's combined.

[Bryn Mawr]

yaaarrrgg;1342968 wrote: Kinda makes you wonder what these guys have planned, when the defense budget is as much as the rest of the world's combined.


When you own the government and you own the media then there is little you cannot do

[Saint_]

recovering conservative;1342618 wrote: We are learning now that a civil society is a lot less "civil" when the wealth gaps increase. The marketplace left to itself, will allow the rich to get richer, and the poor to get poorer. And all arguments about who's at fault, do not address the fact that, for whatever the reasons, an increasingly stratified society is more volatile. .


I've been saying this for years. When you get too big a gap between the rich and the poor...heads will roll. (See: The French Revolution.)