Slashdot Mirror
2010 Election Results Are In
The election results are in, and there are one trillion web pages now up helping you find out what happened. The short story is that the Republicans cleaned up, although the Democrats maintain a one-seat majority in the Senate. The GOP now has 239 seats in the house, giving them a huge lead over the Dems' 183.
Historically, the economy has always done well with a Republican congress and a Democrat president...
http://beforeitsnews.com/story/245/982/Divided_we_make_money:_Why_the_stock_market_wants_a_Republican_victory.html
A more data-based representation:
http://cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm
At least during my lifetime every time that a single political party has gained the presidency and a majority in congress it crashes and burns.
This was the most expensive midterm election cycle ever, even adjusting for inflation. And you can bet grandma wasn't the one forking over the dough. The corporate paymasters are going to be expecting(and almost certainly will get) a huge ROI for their investments.
Monstar L
According to many polls, the number one concern this election was the economy. Somehow in the minds of many, the economy is the fault of the Democrats, in spite of the fact that the 2008 candidates left the campaign trail to focus on the rapidly failing economy.
The Republicans couldn't have timed it better. Pillage the economy, let it fail just before the Democrats take office, and two years later when the Dems have halted and begun reversal of the worst economic disaster of all time, the Republicans come in, blaming the Democrats.
Somehow people buy that rhetoric. I guess angry shouting will beat out reasonable discourse nearly every time.
Slay a dragon... over lunch!
Cue the House not working with the Senate to get bills passed, then the fingerpointing at the executive who can't sign things that aren't sent his way. *sigh*
Theoretically, it shouldn't matter what party is in power. Each representative should vote in a manner that is consistent with the best interests of their constituents. Right? Right?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Democrats maintain a one seat majority in the Senate
Really? So you know the results from Washington and Colorado, even though those 2 states are dead even with a significant portion of the votes (35% and 12%) not yet reporting? It's a MINIMUM 1 seat majority, and possibly 3
I guess the article claiming that the pollsters were wrong because they used "antiquated" polling techniques that didn't count the young hip democrats was just plain phooey. So, will the author create a youtube video of him eating either his hat or some crow?
A divided congress is probably a good thing for people who don't like random horseshit one-sided laws.
After all, the Republicans have gained the House of Representatives... let's just not remember that the Senate and Presidency is still Democratic.
HUGE mandate.... of course knowing some Repubs, they're probably actually hoping for a "man date".
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
As a pro-choice, pro-gay rights atheist, I voted almost entirely GOP, knowing that gridlock is the only thing preventing either party from further spending away our long-term future on futile attempts to reinflate economic bubbles (e.g. housing) and prop up Ponzi schemes (e.g. Social Security). We can only hope that they do not attempt compromise and bipartisanship.
If the democrats had some guts, they would just quit. Hand the country over the tea-party. Then when it has all collapsed come back and demand the first son/daugher (according to sexual preference) of every republican family.
The tea baggers will cause one hell of a mess. Normal republicans are merely inept and corrupt. Most are not completly batshit insane.
But this is the ultimate failure of democracy. When people think they punish the PRESIDENT by voting for some nutters.... yeah, because Obama is NOW going to take the hint and FIX the economy after all that was ruined by the republicans because without a majority that makes that job a lot easier...
When voters start basing their vote to punish a leader for not doing fast enough what they want and then vote for people that are totally against what they want... just call it quits and get me a benign dictator (translation, any dictator whose deathlist I am not on).
Punish Obama for not pushing heathcare reform by voting for a tea bagger... maybe voting should require an IQ test. If you eat the piece of paper, you fail it.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
in spite of the fact that the 2008 candidates left the campaign trail to focus on the rapidly failing economy
Focusing by sending a ton of money to banks? Or was it the focus later where they decided the best way to "improve" the economy was to scare businesses with massive changes to health care and insure business spending would pucker faster than a North Dakotan chewing on a raw lemon?
They had a laser like focus on the economy for sure. It shows in that the economy is now blind, staggering and badly burnt.
Doing what you wanted to do anyway and claiming it was to help the economy, is not ACTUALLY helping the economy. And it turns out the average voter is smart enough to see that (well, anywhere except for California).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Kiss Net Neutrality goodbye. The champion of it in the Senate is Al Franken, and he's a one term Senator for sure.
Dang! One seat short. The best scenario we could have is senate tied, house in control by party A, and the white house controlled by party B. That way there is a stalemate and the government gets nothing done at all, which is the best for everyone.
This DOES matter. It will directly impact laws and regulations that matter to nerds.
Living With a Nerd
I think many people are putting too much emphasis on the Republican takeover of the House. Yes it will mean that it will be difficult for Obama to get his agenda through for the next two years, but it's not like Republicans will be able to do much either. The democrats still have control of the Senate and veto power. However, since every House member goes up for election every two years, it could easily sweep back the other way then.
As much as people like to focus on national elections, it's the governor and state legislature elections that I think are the bigger deal. Republicans had very strong showings there as well. The reason this is critical is that we just had the once every ten years census. That means states are going to be up for redistricting. With the large gains republicans made, they'll have a huge advantage in gerrymandering. This could make a very significant difference in the 2012 election and for that matter every election for the next decade. It will be much harder to undo that than it will be for Democrats to recapture the House.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Yes, finally we have some balance where people have to work together instead of claiming to work with the other guy and then doing what you wanted to anyway.
That goes for both Democrats and Republicans...
This is actually really a great benefit for Obama as he will now seem much more moderate merely from him not being able to get many things passed that he would like.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The House take over, while expected, is not the big news. The major push Republicans made at the state level shows the strength of the move. Actually by not winning the Senate the Republicans may have preserved the ability to take the White House in 2012. Given that there are more Democratic Senators up for election in 12 than Republicans they have a near majority on many issues.
God, Gays, and Subpoena's, are about the best way for Republicans to knock themselves out of the House control in 12, as in, lean into any of those areas too far and the voters will show them the door.
Do I expect budget miracles, nope. I expect a whole lot of gridlock, preventing new large government programs from being implemented. That will do us nicely. The government has been on a binge of spending in the last four years and needs to be reigned in. Too much of the government spending is untouchable but if the line can be held, by gridlock or vote, to where spending does not go up by more than 2% per year the economy can grow us out of the deficit spending.
However, like I read elsewhere, the good news is the Democrats lost the House, the bad news is the Republicans won it. Like Rove and a few others mention, Washington doesn't care what the country thinks and the Senate is the worst of the lot. As in, Tea Party candidates, candidates of "change", or whatnot, are in for one rude surprise. The nice thing about the Senate however is that regardless of seniority or committee assignment anyone can submit new legislation
Was is a slap in the face of Democrats. Sure it was, just like 08 was us telling Republicans, no more of this crap; let alone don't expect us to vote for rights killers like McCain. Obama and Pelosi got told, there are no Kings and Queens in America, so quit acting like one.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
I didn't like the bank bailout either, but at least most of it has been repaid to the government (with interest).
Liberal? Conservative? Compare perspectives at Left-Right
What little of the campaigns and activity I saw, there was a lot of FUD and a lot of astro-turfing. For the masses, it's about hype and fear. Substance and reason are worthless. We truly live in an idiocracy. I blame the gradual deterioration of our minds on pop culture and TV advertisers... and advertisers in general.
There was always some politics here... I can remember the late 90s with the DMCA, UCITA, Columbine (who could forget Jon Katz?), global warming (sorry, it's as much, if not more, politics as it is science) and whatnot.
That said, Slashdot expanded beyond nerd political issues when they created the dedicated politics section and hired kdawson.
Stop Koolaid Politics
At least you didn't say "the people have spoken" or "the American people made their voices heard" or some such bullshit. Many of last night's races were incredibly close, like Toomey/Sestak in Pennsylvania, where the Republican got 51% of the vote and the Democract got 49%. But to hear Boehner and others, votes like than are "the voice of the people" supporting Republicans. Hardly. It's just democracy in action: winner takes all, for a time.
Liberal? Conservative? Compare perspectives at Left-Right
This site turned political after 9/11 and still is.
That is so true. But I think the whole world did, to a degree... lots of people ignore politics more before then, and after 9/11 people from all political bents realized you couldn't realistically not pay attention - from things like the patriot act being passed and seeming to be a step down a slippery slope to loss of freedom, to a nation with one of the most powerful military forces on earth struggling to figure out how you respond to attacks from a small and widely dispersed enemy.
We are all still trying to figure this out, but in the end everyone is political as long as the federal government has so much power to wield - and that's true even in technical matters with issues like patent law and copyright enforcement.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
That /. gets its United States election results from CBC/Radio Canada?
Is that the birth date of Stallman?
Does anyone really believe that things will change now that the GOP holds the majority in the house? Seriously.
It seems to escape everyone's attention that the Democrats still control the White House and Senate, and the Republicans only control the House. The Democrats still have most of the power.
Of course, they proved inept at using far more overwhelming power for two years, letting the GOP define every issue and define the Democrats themselves. I expect the Democrats to be the Republican's b*tches for the next two years.
Boehner ... is more than willing to work with President Obama ... on ... what he and the Republicans want
The Republicans, especially the Tea Party wing, want the United States government to spend less money. President Obama wants to end what some analysts have called an unwinnable war in Afghanistan. But are Speaker-elect Boehner and his Republicans willing to cut defense spending?
We're simply swapping from ineffective democrats that want to take my guns away and give all my money to the lobbyist interests to ineffective republicans that want to take my aborted fetuses away and give all my money to the lobbyist interests. Progress is zero sum.
you've got two years to fix everything starting... now.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
1. A possible return to the 2008 budget - which means freezing any unspent "stimulus."
2. A freeze on federal hiring (EVERY department could probably use a little attrition, and there's been a bit too many people getting on the federal dole/payroll as of late).
3. Extension of tax cuts, namely on estates and dividends.
4. Barney Frank not in charge of the House Financial Services committee (the main proponent/protector of Freddie and Fannie).
5. Crazy conservative ideas coming out of the house that Boehner can't control and the Senate will have to deal with.
6. Cleaning up the "Obamacare" deal (won't be repealed, but the mandate is probably gone).
So... Is Obama still president, or is it someone else now? Usually there's a lot of news coverage on TV about elections, but I just got back from being overseas, and I haven't watched a lot of TV since returning. Besides, isn't it a little early for elections? I thought he was elected in 2008. Isn't being elected president a four year sentenc... I mean term of office.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
A couple of relevant quotes from last night's losers, of either party:
"The voters have spoken, and if that's what they want - the hell with them." - Ted Baxter
"The people have spoken, the bastards." - Dick Tuck
Dark Reflection
This. Rick Boucher lost his seat in Congress. It seems like whenever I saw an article where a US politician really seemed to understand the issues that seem to matter to Slashdot readers like technology, telecoms and copyrights, Rick was in there somewhere. Even some prominent pro-Republican commentators have been saying that this is a loss.
Bets on any of the newcomers taking up the fight?
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
Andy Revkin, former NYT science reporter, sees a threat to science in the election results. http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/03/the-real-threat-to-science-in-the-new-political-climate/
:
Someone should make a poster like the "Everything I needed to know in life I learned in kidergarten" but change it to Counter-Strike.
-Malakai
A Dragon Lives in my Garage
Of course the real losers in all of this are us: the idiots who keep voting for Democrats and Republicans while believing the platitudes pounded into our heads: This is democracy! The people have spoken! Let freedom ring! And other rubbish.
It isn't even a secret that the politicians work for the lobbyists and not for us: the "campaign contributions" are made one day, and the very next day the vote just so happens to go the way of the contributor. What a shock!
Reform from the inside seems hopeless, because the people charged with making that reform are the very people benefitting from keeping it the way it is. The few honest politicians who get into office get twisted and corrupted so quickly that they become indistinguishable from the most self-serving of the bunch.
If we want to ever break out of this complete rape of our selves by our lords and masters, there is only one option. No it is not revolution. That too is unrealistic both motivationally and militarily. Our only hope is to create an alternative, open-source-style government and make the current system obsolete.
It is a long shot, and you can find a lot of problems with it. But do you have a better idea?
I'm a bit dubious about that after GM took government money from one source to pay off their other debt to the government, and claimed they had paid off their bailout, and also ignored the funds that weren't a loan in the first place.
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
Too bad they were all for a full single payer system until there was a gigantic media blitz by Republicans and their healthcare overlords.
Then you'd have no problem repealing a plan that is neither single payer NOR does it go the otherwise to try and reduce private sector healthcare costs and thus charges.
If the plan sucks for both sides, and is so large no-one can understand the effects of it, why are people in the left, right, center, middle and underground not begging to see it repealed? In fact they are, as voters punished heavily both Democrats AND Republicans who voted for the thing, and would be more than happy to see it die so we can work on something real.
The country could use a real discussion on if we should go single payer, or really try to make the private sector approach work without overhead. But we have to pick a direction that is not a 200 page document that does nothing except impose overhead on what we already have.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Mid term elections... Obama is still President, but the Republicans now control the House, and the Dem's control the Senate by 1 seat.
Can anyone tell me why 99% of
It is just impossible for anyone to understand all the issues and make an educated decision. The media, theoretically, is supposed to boil that stuff down. Instead they go for the ratings and the fear you talk about - Fox News is the champ.
To understand all the issues is a few full-time jobs in itself. How can the average working man keep up? They can't. I can't and I don't think even the most die hard Political gadfly can.
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
What little of the campaigns and activity I saw, there was a lot of FUD and a lot of astro-turfing.
Indeed, and yet Democrats still lost a lot of seats.
It goes to show that alternative media at this point, heavily negates astro-turfing and FUD because they are quickly found out.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It's just a shell game.
The bipartisan bailouts where brought to you by your corporate master made possible by a lack of government oversight.
But you keep thinking government's the problem. And when you are old you can tell the Fed to keep their hands off your medicare.
Turns out they are just worried about climate change legislation, which by now as we all know has nothing to do with science and instead with lining the pockets of companies that build alternative energy equipment.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The second great depression started a few years ago. Running up debt is covering it up for the moment but eventually the credit card will run out and they won't be able to hide it any more.
It's really really simple: IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID!
So when the economy is down, the party in charge gets blamed.
I expect a swing back the other way in 2 years.
What did she say about something not being a God-given right anymore? It's close, but so far it looks like Boxer has it.
I guess she can go back to cheerleading for H1-b's or something.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Fuck. :-(
The manipulations of the economy, the debt bubble, inflation, unemployment, etc., etc. has a lot to do with the Federal Reserve. Both successes and failures.
We can't really vote them in or out directly so maybe we like to think Congress and the President have more of an affect than they do.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Don't forget the unions. Especially the public sector ones.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
A lot of people were voting against ObamaCare this time around. But considering it took 60 votes in the Senate to get it passed, you would need 60 votes in the Senate to end it, plus getting past an Obama veto. Any propaganda you read about Republicans working to repeal ObamaCare is all hype. It can't be done unless they gain 12 seats in the Senate and take over the presidency in 2012. Until then, enjoy your premium increases.
Boehner has been quoted that he is more than willing to work with President Obama, as long as what they're working on is what he and the Republicans want
Sounds like EXACTLY what Obama's attitude was with his "the republicans are welcome to work with us". Just basically means "we'll let you vote for our stuff if you want, otherwise buzz off".
Only now that the democrats got crushed in the midterms do they even mention compromise. To which the response is, predictably, "shove it": http://michellemalkin.com/2010/11/03/take-your-olive-branch-and-shove-it-democrats/
Payback is a bitch, but don't pretend the other side is white as driven snow on compromise. Their agenda in the last two years was "fuck you republicans, we'll pass whatever we want whether you (or the electorate) want it". Polls a the time indicated the electorate didn't want it, and this election just confirms that.
Great - Which country? The summary and title fail to disclose this pertinent information..............how exciting
1. Great idea during a recession when the government is the only thing spending money keeping the economy running, while corporations sit on trillions of dollars in profits.
2. So Obama won't get the rest of his appointments that the Republicans have been blocking. Nice.
3. Which add $2 Trillion dollars to the deficit and not create one single job! Don't take my word for it, Alan Green Span and Reagan's budget director and 10 years of Bush's tax cuts have all demonstrated that tax cuts DO NOT CREATE JOBS.
FYI Regan taxed ALL income the same.
4. George W Bush pushed Fannie and Freddie to take on more risky mortgages. Republicans pushed for more lose regulations on lending.
5. Conservatives have ideas? Wasn't their healthcare paper they presented to the press, empty....lacked any specifics.
6. The insurance mandate in the HEALTH CARE REFORM ACT was put there by the HEALTH INSURANCE INDUSTRY. The HEALTH INSURANCE INDUSTRY complained to Obama that they could not insure sick people, it would cost them too much money, so they needed to have healthy people be forced to buy health insurance to offset their cost of insuring sick people.
You want to rail against the insurance mandate, complain to the HEALTH INSURANCE INDUSTRY.
I was glad to see this time around that the Diebold machines did a great job of allowing me to quadruple-check my vote, AND created a paper trail right before my eyes.
Looks like they finally got it right, at least in my precinct.
We re-elected a governor who, in the 1980s and early 90s, managed to drive our state and especially our educational system straight into the ground, and has already stated plans to cut spending on education already. We kept such old-school dips such as Grassley and Latham, elected King, and gave the Secretary of State job to a guy who isn't sure what that position actually does. We ousted 3 Supreme Court judges for a single decision they handed down, declaring the ban on gay marriage to be unconstitutional, thus introducing partisan politics into the judicial system (which will give us years of benefits, I don't doubt)...BUT! We managed to pass a constitutional amendment, no less, to permanently fund wildlife areas so hunters have more things to kill.
In recap:
Blog,Twitter
And the Founding Fathers decided on "both/and" rather than "either/or". The House of Representatives was intended to be filled with people who "closely represent your views", with elections every two years to ensure they monitor the pulse of the people; the Senate to be filled with "wise, virtuous people" --well, if not "virtuous", then at least more "deliberative" compared to their counterparts in the House-- with elections every six years for the sake of stability. Unfortunately, the two-party system seems to have changed the dynamic in both chambers, with members voting more often as members of a red or blue block than as true representatives or independent thinkers.
People are getting stupider because they can get away with being stupider.
Most people don't like thinking or being smart. It is laborious to them. So they go to school only enough to become barely as smart as they need to be to survive, and then spend the rest of their lives avoiding every opportunity to learn something new.
The advertisers are simply catering to that demographic because it is the biggest.
You have a multi-trillion dollar deficit. You have huge unemployment numbers, especially among the lower-middle class. You have a falling median wage. In short, you have no revenue. And yet the Tea Party and, by extension, the Republicans don't want to cut the three big programs (Social Security, Defense, Medicare) because that's what the old folks consider sacred.
You are going to have to raise taxes, especially on the "rich". Cutting anything else is peanuts, so unless you're planning to back-stab the old white folks that voted in this congress you are going to have to raise taxes.
--srj/mmv
That'll fix that deficit spending, just like the last time the GOP ran the government.
A one seat majority is not a majority so long as there's a filibuster rule. There are still presidential appointees awaiting confirmation because of Republican filibusters. At best, the Senate is more gridlocked than before. Unless, that is, the politicians start crossing the aisle and working with each other (why start now?)
Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
That's a weird second great depression you are citing there... You would think that if we were in a great depression we would be losing 800k jobs a year like when Democrats took control of the government.
It almost seems like you have no idea what you are talking about... It seems like you are an ignorant moron, trying to change the subject to debt (doubled thanks to bush's tax cuts and wars) in some sort of feeble attempt to hide your ignorance and poor critical thinking skills.
Wait - you voted Republican, didn't you.
I don't see what the big deal is about. EVERY house seat was up for grabs and in the end the R's have 56% of them now. Whoopeee. 64 seats may seem like a big deal, but it doesn't even give them a filibuster-proof majority.
Political party affiliations are too much like religion. Democrats think they are 100% right and the saviors of the nation and everything good that has ever happened to the country is because of Democrat lead Congress.br> On the flip side Republicans think they are 100% right and the saviors of the nation and everything good that has ever happened to the country is because of Republican lead congress.
So no matter who endes up with a majority or has the best ideas and makes progress it will eventually be destroyed and reversed by a group that thinks they are smarter and better than the other side. Not to mention I doubt even 50% of the population of any county or state could name both candidates in the election or name a single piece of legislation supported by or submitted by same. They just see red or blue and vote red or blue.
This is why I have gotten to the point where I don't care who the president is or who controls the house and senate. In the long run it doesn't matter, your vote is simply a choice between getting screwed now or screwed later.
and that's something you generally want to keep an eye one.
Wrong, troll.
The new Republican power base in the House will get to test their new-found fiscal responsibility by not raising the debt ceiling some time next Spring or Summer. Rand Paul explicitly as well as other Republicans have run on staunchly refusing to add more to the debt. How they reconcile this with a $3 trillion tax cut is besides the point. I'll be interested to see if they stand up for their principles and do it, or figure out how hard things are in the adult world and raise the ceiling to stop us from defaulting on our loans for the first time in US history.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Political parties are a crutch for those who can't think for themselves.
Gone!
Now all we have to do is watch the new politicians get lobbied into oblivion and try to strip away our rights while very, very few things besides that actually change!
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
I don't like the talk about the Democrats being given a message that they need to lean more to the Right. I voted them out because they have no BALLS. Instead of following in Bush's wake with Democratic policy domination to offset the Rebublican domination (that got us into war and economic disaster), the Dems tried to compromise and got caught up pandering and losing the merit of the legislation.
Democrats had no balls and didn't force through the change we put them into office to make. Now everything will stop, and in 2 years we'll vote the Republicans out again for saying NO to everything positive for the country. Hope it goes by fast.
Want to hear something interesting, try to get someone against ObamaCare to tell you specifically what they don't like about the bill. You'll hear a lot about socialism and a "government takeover," but that's about it.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Or does 1 trillion seem like a lot?
I'll try anything once. Twice if it tastes good
Does this mean it's Bush's fault? Maybe it's the AstroTurf's fault? Racists? Idiots? Morons? Flyover country ogre's?
Vote for me you fucking degenerate racist morons! I want to euthanize your mother and kids. Useless idiots.
You American's are simply too stupid to understand that Communism is good for you!
Oh wait... we lost. Damn.
Dear God I hope you're not a US citizen. The US has elections[1] every two years. Members of The House of Representatives are elected for a two-year term. Members of the Senate are elected for a six-year term, but on a rolling programme so a third of them are up for reelection every two years. The President is elected for a four-year term, meaning that his election coincides with the congressional elections every other time. The elections when only members of congress are elected is often referred to as the mid-term election, because it happens in the middle of a presidential term and votes are often influenced by the president's popularity.
No, I'm not a US citizen, nor a US resident. Yes, you should be embarrassed if you are and don't know this stuff.
[1] Federal elections, anyway - individual states and cities are free to have an election every day if they want.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Yeah, and that's a HUGE problem for our side. Entitlement cuts that NEED to be made won't be.
Economic growth in private industry helps cure a lot of ills though, which the last bubble did (though I'm not promoting a bubble-to-burst economic model).
really, is this the place for a political debate? I thought slashdot was about technology.
Oh sure, wipe out everyone's bank accounts. That'll fix the problem. That is what you wanted right? Closing the banks? You can't get your money out of a closed bank, and they sure as hell didn't have enough assets to pay everyone. Yessiree, once everyone is dead broke, that'll avert the oncoming econopocalypse and will magically transform people's housing investments back into premium material and not usher in the next great depression.
Brilliant really.
And you're plus +4 insightful. Fantastic. Nothing like completely ignoring the consequences of your actions just to stoke the fire a little, eh?
So I guess the ancestor poster needs to append his list. It's fear, ignorance, and hate.
Rush D Holt, from New Jersey, is a former rocket scientist and generally a friend of geeks on issues like electronic voting.
I am officially gone from
No, I am not a US citizen either, and thanks for the explanation. I like the idea of a rolling membership. It seems like it would provide stability.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
1. Which is the inherent problem in Keynesian thinking - that the government needs to be spending money (which is either printed or comes from taxpayers). The model there is broken.
2. It's NOT about appointments, it's about the regular staffing-type jobs that have been going on as of late. Public employees make a significantly higher amount than private. Let them retire/quit and don't replace them.
3. How did the massive expansion of business in the 1980s happen then? How did companies afford to hire more employees and bring us from 10%+ unemployment on down? Look at the marginal tax rates during the era - 70%+ cut down into the 30s. More private industry kept more of their own money, and we had more millionaires created at that time than ever before - and inflation was LOW. Tax cuts were a HUGE part of that, and the tax rate has stayed at about the same level since.
4. GWB was wrong to do so, but to his and the Republican's credit, there was a push for reform of Fannie and Freddie at the time. Those two agencies are bleeding cash at astronomical levels, and have no business in what they're doing.
6. I'll go with you there - far too corporatist a bill. Doesn't mean that the mandate is Constitutional - or even right. Of course, seeing as there really wasn't a free market for health insurance either before or after...
Large retailers hedge commodity inputs, the most famous example I can think of is Southwest Airlines successfully hedging against the $100+/bbl oil we had recently. The price of oil was never reflected to that degree in their ticket prices.
In general, large retailers hedge, and in a competitive market they won't raise prices quickly in response to commodity inputs. The exception to this seems to be retail gasoline, which will rise at the drop of a hat, and then settle down slowly.
So. Commodity prices have to be high long enough for the hedges to run out. If the commodities merely spike, there will be no CPI impact.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Uh, we've been running up debt at a ludicrous rate since the 1980's. Well, it was also pretty bad during WWII, but that's a pretty good justification. Arguably, running up debt has been covering it up since then.
Dear bitter progressives: Please stop repeating your petty platitudinous insults towards everyone you don't agree with. If you seriously worry about measures the Republicans are going to take, I'd spend your energy on the phone with your congressman rather than trying to make yourself feel better by tearing down others.
Same as the old boss. Tea Parties, Rallies, HAH!
anyone else finds it odd the link is pointing to CBC a Canadian Crown (Canadian government owned) Corporation not a US news site?
I wasn't aware the Troll Party was on the ticket
Firstly... I can't moderate for some reason ( I have points but there is no "moderate" button right now).
Secondly.. I'm with you up to point 6.
6. The insurance mandate in the HEALTH CARE REFORM ACT was put there by the HEALTH INSURANCE INDUSTRY. The HEALTH INSURANCE INDUSTRY complained to Obama that they could not insure sick people, it would cost them too much money, so they needed to have healthy people be forced to buy health insurance to offset their cost of insuring sick people.
---
You understand the concept of "insurance" right?
100 people pay $1, the cost of a problem is $100, 1 person gets sick out of the 100 and is taken care of. If 2 people get sick then next year the premium is going to have to be $2.
Insurance is particularly susceptible to "adverse selection". Only sick people choose to pay for insurance.
If 100 sick people pay for insurance and 100 people get sick, then premiums have to be $100 to cover the cost (and probably $101 since the insurance plan becomes pure overhead at that point).
---
Where this went wrong is using insurance at all. The government should have just flat out taken away the first $5,000 worth of health care and made it free for everyone and paid for it out of income tax and property tax.
That would include basic shots, basic broken limbs, basic physical exams. "Basic".
Then if we want to handle more serious stuff (cancer can run $1 million-- for me it was $132,000 back in 1993), then we need to first decide
a) HOW MUCH ARE WE WILLING TO PAY IN. 10%? 12%? Whatever the amount is- that results in a fixed amount of money. Then we have to use the Kansas system. Once we are out of money, people start dying. next year do we increase the premium or are do we feel the death rate is fair? Because clearly we are not going to spend $1 trillion dollars to save one person. There must be a life time limit, a triage level where we say, "sorry but it's not going to happen.".
It should not go through insurance companies. And costs should be balanced against mean income and compared to other countries ( which by the way have MUCH lower costs for better coverage so having the government do things can be much more efficient than private companies).
The biggest problem we have is that we have huge corporations which have gotten undue influence and captured the government. This is where we are basically screwed. I don't think we can fix that problem. I have a very dark view of the future around that problem.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
It's terrible that Peter Schiff couldn't win the Republican primaries in Connecticut.
Linda McMahon lost by 10% to Blumenthal, what a disaster this is going to be for that state.
What a win it would have been for common sense and economy in general if Schiff had won.
Can't have it all.
At least Rand Paul made it.
The reason that there has been no recovery is because the Democrats were not willing to bite the hand that feeds them by allowing the insolvent institutions to fail and allowing criminal prosecutions of those responsible.
While I agree with you substantially about the facts -- letting the banks fail would be a disaster. Not unprecedented, it has happened before. If anything, the present debarcle has simply highlighted that there really is such a thing as "too big to fail." Greenspan was so wrong about removing regulations, in particular, he fought hard to stop fraud investigations, because it would interfere with the efficiency of the market. He really believed that (!).
There is no reason to destroy the whole country because of the criminal actions of a few. That is adding insult to injury -- with some added extra injury for good measure. If anything, we need strict regulations on the activities of any institution that becomes too big to fail, because if they do fail, then the tax payer will be bailing them out.
Perhaps we need some revision of the treason laws -- CEOs putting the whole country in danger.
On a side-note, the Tea-bagger movement amazes me, considering that Regan, Bush and Bush were the *worst* spenders in history. At least Reagan and Bush Senior had the good grace to raise taxes to cover their largess. GW Bush just spent money, and imagined that someone else would collect the bill.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
I think you'll find the 17th Amendment to be the key source of the change in the deliberative nature of the Senate. Instead of being wise STATESmen sent to Washington by the state legislatures, Senators became popularly elected and, thus, no more selectively wise than their counterparts in the House. In fact, they had to be even better bullshitters since they had to appeal to a majority of an entire state instead of just a gerrymandered district.
Stop Koolaid Politics
You mean the 2008-2009 where the Dems controlled Congress? That one? I'll be glad to blame the ones in charge at the time.
What do you know about our recent economic history? Reagan, Bush and Bush were the biggest spenders in history. At least Reagan and Bush Senior raised taxes to cover their largess. GW Bush just spent money and imagined that someone else would foot the bill. And he did this during economic growth -- which is a tragic mistake according to macroeconomic theory. You should pay off debt when times a good -- thus cooling the economy and easing the inevitable downturn -- and preparing yourself for the downturn when you can stimulate the economy with deficit spending.
Obama inherited an impossible job: the bank fraud (thanks to Greenspan and co.), massive economic downturn, and two expensive unwinnable wars that pissed off the whole world.
But sure, blame Obama. Monty Python was thinking of you when they wrote:
Pray that there is intelligent life somewhere out in space, because there's bugger-all down here on Earth.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
It amazes me that so many Americans are so thoroughly confused and ignorant as to the truth about politics, and politicians. They are confused and ignorant about issues, and completely willing to drink the kool aid spewed by either side of the proverbial "aisle".
The world is full of grayness. Each issue has a multitude of variables, each with significance. The electorate at large is comprised mostly of a bunch of clueless, mindless drones unable to reason and unable to see through the bullshit.
Here's a couple quick hints for all of you:
"Freedom" means I can do whatever I want and you should just leave me alone. Snake oil salesmen love freedom.
"Maintaining Principles" means that they know your arguments are morally right, but they do not give a damn, for accepting the change means bad things for them.
"Reaching across the aisle" means get on board with me.
You CANNOT have ANYTHING for free. You MUST pay for it. One way or another. This is NEVER in doubt. The ONLY questions are HOW and WHO.
There. Perhaps some of you damn unprincipled, so called "independents" can get a clue and buoy up some courage to stand for what is right. You just gave back the keys to the kingdom to a bunch of witch doctors and salesmen bent on squeezing every dime from you, until your existence mirrors that of all the other little serfs in this world. I can't believe people are STILL buying into trickle down...
Sorry for the rant.
I just cannot believe that at this point in history, with so many "enlightened" and "educated" people in this country that we're willing to:
- Force Grandma into the street because SS is not keeping up with inflation because these damn people raided the funds so many time throughout history!!
- Or refusing to pay for her heart meds, so an company's investors can make more cash. It should NOT EVEN BE AN ISSUE!
- Force lil Timmy to die, because some young healthy guy in TX doesn't want to pony up the dough to help his fellow human out.
That "Freedom" word is thrown about quite a bit. Usually by a selfish pariah seeking to capitalize on your ignorance. How about instead of "Freedom", we start talking about "Fellowship"?
Opinion:=TMyOpinion.Create(Me);
He continually boasted about the pork and earmarks he brought us. Things like a high rent industrial center in a county full of entrepreneurs that already had rent-free facilities (here, we call them barns, or old trailers) and where no one wanted to commute to (in the mountains, everywhere is a lot of effort to get to -- the nearest place where there are jobs to me is Blacksburg, over an hour drive on twisty roads).
I don't pay as much attention to the pork brought to other counties than the one I live in, but here and there heard similar stories.
I think we did Slashdotters a favor throwing this turkey out (not that the other guy is going to be better -- but he won't have the power to be as bad, either). The pork wasn't doing us any good, but costing everyone money. His actual stances on the tech stuff (as committee chair of such things) turned out, well -- see for yourself. Is any of that stuff things we like here?
As I said, a slick politico indeed. Getting you to believe he's on your side while doing what he gets paid by others to do anyway is a mark of that one -- he really *was* good at that part, then doing whatever the big corps wanted.
There's a longer list where he didn't back his constituents (oops, I mean the voters of the 9th district) on things like power lines we didn't want, and unsafe gas pipelines we didn't want, we had to do without his "help" on those.
Unless he's replaced by someone even worse for our rights....I see this as a win for us all. And I won't even bring up the Patriot act or Gitmo, or a lot of other things.
Why guess when you can know? Measure!
Out of curiousity, why couldn't they agree with a bill that was mostly built on Republican ideas in the first place?
Because they were not fiscally conservative ideas, and the movement of Republicans away from fiscal conservatism is what got the Republicans removed from power in the first place.
Then Democrats misread the tea leaves, insisted even less fiscal conservatism was called for... and faced the biggest booting in decades (along with some lingering Republicans who were not fiscal conservatives).
So now we'll see if the new crop of Republicans and Democrats, finally get the message the voters have been sending all along...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Wait... where's the EU delegation droning on about how we in the US are all right wing relative to the EU, and then usually something about joining the collective or the hive or the ubersack something.
I voted for Boucher.
It wasn't enough.
Griffin's platform consists of "Anti-Gay, Anti-Abortion, Cut taxes, Reduce deficit", with no specifics.
As someone employed in the tech industry, and in Rick Boucher's district, I am worried about what we just did. A lot. I am a through-and-through Democrat, and I would have voted for someone with Boucher's views on technology if they had been a Tea Partier, or a Silver Fox party member, or a Green, or a Socialist, or an anarchist.
sig?
yes and no
I think if you ask people questions like, do you favor a ban on lifetime caps, an overwhelming majority are in favor of obama care
part of the problem was the incredibly bad job by obama pelosi and reid in selling the bill; I downloaded many of hte pdfs from the hose and senated during the debate, and there was no index, no table of contents, no bookmarks - I couldn't even find the section that talked about lifetime caps untill, totaly by accident, i found a seprate dem caucus guide, which gave me the right section If you read that section, it was 3 pages of boiler plate (amend Section3(para3aii)... and about 100 words that were clear and concise.
I think pelosi did a really shitty job as speaker and deserved what she got - have you ever gone to eht house web site to try and find something ?
but back to the main point - I think if you asked people the right question, you would find that a majority are in favor of most of the provisions of obama care (at least in theory; my own idea is that just as we provide 4th rate legal care to the poor, to comply with gideon, obama care will result in 4th rate care to the poor, so limo liberals can say, look we did something....)
Even on Slashdot, not everyone thinks "net neutrality" is a good thing.
Even? Try especially, because experienced technical people have seen what regulation and government intervention does when it takes precedence over a technology.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Guy spends 200K on an election, it came from 5 people, who is he gonna listen to ?
Guy is beholden to someone
Guy gets elected and someone give his a hot prostitute to approve a chem waste site
u get the drift, or i gotta snow some more ? PS: if you still believe what u posted, an u ain't a troll, got a bridge in Brooklyn, sell it 2 u cheap
You want to rail against the insurance mandate, complain to the HEALTH INSURANCE INDUSTRY.
Shut up shut up shut up shut up, he'll catch on.
No, Notquitecajun, you go ahead and complain to congress, and demand they go ahead and remove that unconstitutional mandate they've been complaining about. Go right ahead.
(See, oh_my_080980980, this is where it gets funny. I urge all Democrats to hold the Republican's feet to the fire, to constantly remind everyone of what the Republicans promised to do.)
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Links to prove the 7:1 claim? In any given race for which I saw figures, Democrats outspent Republicans 4 to 1.
An overall figure shows the Democrats spending $856 million total, while Republicans spent $677 million.
Democrats get money from a lot more sources, including plenty of companies, hollywood moguls, and overseas people with an interest in seeing the US take a certain slant.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I get what your saying, but I think I have to disagree.
I want representatives that will represent my views as best they can. That's why we call them representatives. If the purpose of electing leaders was to elect wise ones to make our decisions for us, we would be better off not using an electoral process at all. We would be better served to create a caste of Philosopher Kings that are trained from birth to make the best decisions possible regardless of the people's expressed wishes. Let the cream rise to the top so to speak.
My understanding is that the founding fathers felt that the average citizen is qualified to weigh in on these political decisions. And that we have not only the right but the responsibility to do so. Politicians are expected to be wise and virtuous because they are drawn from the citizenry, who are also wise and virtuous.
The US was able to prosper after ww2 because our nation was NOT bombed to rubble, our infrastructure was intact, as was our manufacturing base, and we also paid zero attention to the environment/pollution and had virtually free energy and raw materials, compared to today. It had little to do with what I am guessing you are referring to, FDRs enslavement of the population to enrich wall street/bankers/big industrialists, the entities which caused the great depression and also funded the nazis (funded both sides, along with uncle joe stalin, leading ..."humanitarian" of that age).
It's the same puppet masters today calling the shots, with a later generation of R or D puppets. Ike warned us,(and I am old enough to remember watching that retirement speech live, BTW) those back then who were still too stupid to realize what was going on, but we ignored him, now we are owned outright by the globalists, who continue to own the politicians in the US and elsewhere around the developed world.
As to the growth under clinton...jeez man, it was the computer boom which would have happened anyway, no matter who was prez or in charge in the legislature, combined with greenspan's fed/inflation/credit monster bubble.
That's all the Fed does is create boom and bust cycles with printed up bullshit. That's all they *can* do. We don't have a stable currency/credit system based on proven productivity gains, we have a scam ponzi scheme economy based on improving and supporting the lot of the wall street gangsters, and they use the power of the Fed to stay in power, along with government,inc as a growth industry based on promising the moon sun and stars with a small dirty asteroid budget, ie, "lying to get votes".
At least the bones they throw us offer some hope in a few areas, for instance at least the second amendment is still safe for two more years and just maybe we can put a stake in that wall street sponsored carbon scare and their "cap and trade" congame they have been pushing. And maybe we can kill off that "no one likes it at all" healthcare insurance agency bailout, and maybe come up with something else..competition would be nice, instead of mandated ripoffs.
captcha - "tricks"
I havn't read but a fraction of the posts, but NOT 1 mentions the problem with healthcare costs.
Technology
Back in the '60s, Medicare etc were reasonable, cause healthcare didn't cost that much.
Now the reason technology driven costs have run amok is complex, but any discussion of cost has to start there.
It is true, the extra exspense of the free market (yes, not an oxymoron) adds 5 -15% to the cost (depending on who you listen to, that is the extra cost due to the inefficiency of having multiple companies that are not co ordinated) but that is not a whole lot compared to technology
As I understand the GOP position, it is to let poor people suffer, give the rich what they want, and punt.
As I understand the Dem position, it is to share the pain, and punt
So why do you lump so many disparate things together?
Medicare/Medicaid. Health of the population
Welfare. Deal with the unfortunate.
Social Security. Save for your retirement
Different things.
Another big difference: these programs are about saving lives or improving the living conditions of americans. Military spending is about killing foreigners.
I bet you're pro-life too, for extra irony.
What's that? Are you laughing at the proposition that politicians of any stripe are wise or virtuous? Well, the Founding Fathers believed that democracy could not function any other way...
Well, they were right: democracy—direct or representative—doesn't work. The larger and more diverse the group is, the more quickly it breaks down. It only really works when you have nearly unanimous support for the majority position, which rarely attains for long in real life.
Note that I'm not saying that any other system of government would work better under realistic conditions; they all ultimately suffer from the same flaw, in that they put some humans (regardless of how they're selected) in a position of aggressive political power over others, and bless that arrangement with a false stamp of legitimacy. The only real difference between systems of government lies not in how they govern, but in how much they govern. An absolute, hereditary dictatorship which makes very few demands on its populace, however arbitrary, can still be far superior to a egalitarian democratic republic which insists on interfering deeply in its citizens private lives.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Currently the Democrats have 51 confirmed seats, which is expected to reach as high as 53. 51 seats means a two-seat majority, while 53 would mean a six-seat majority. Basic math time, folks.
Ceci n'est pas un post
This Tea Party circus reminds me so much of the Taliban in its rabid extremism and lack of real ideas on how to save your country. I used to work for the USAF many years ago and met many Americans that I liked, but honestly, I don't see many signs of the American people being able to dig themselves out of this hole in the near future. What I do see is a people in abject terror because their traditional ways of doing things are not working anymore and they are grasping at straws instead of buckling down to go through the process of fixing all the things that are broken in the USA.
Some of those things are:
The national infrastructure in the USA is simply catastrophic. There is not enough money being invested to avert the negative effect that this has on your economy.
The American health system, even though it spends more per person than any other country, is a disaster. You have death rates that are on par with developing nations. You eat food that is so high in calories and so low in nutritional value that you are amongst the world's fattest people.
The education system is terrible and becoming worse. Your universities are the world's best but it seems that the majority of the students are from India or China in fields which produce graduates that then go out and produce economic growth instead of graduates that go out and work in the service industry.
You spend a fortune on wars that have nothing to do with you and which you haven't and will not win.
Your political parties, their agendas and their supporters have become empty vessels that spend more than any other political parties on earth on expensive campaigns that are nothing but circuses and theatre, that produce nothing but more hysteria and fear.
Your people are behaving like stereotypical uneducated 3rd world peasants who believe that so-called "moral values", like penalising abortion and the American version of Christianity will save your country.
Your industry produces almost nothing anymore. All the production capacity has been sent overseas to where it is cheaper, but which has a long term negative effect on your country. That a country like Germany which has vastly higher taxes and benefits can produce more should be a point worth thinking about. Instead your American politicians try to tell the Germans that they should consume more.
Your consumption of goods and services remained at levels from the days when American industry was still strong, and was sustained only by increasingly high levels of debt, all of which culminated in the catastrophic crash of 2008. One of the results of this is that property foreclosures are higher than they have ever been.
The level of abject poverty in your country is higher than almost any other developed nation.
This Republican victory will do no more to improve your country's economy than the Democratic one before it.
To make a real and lasting change you Americans would have to start using your brains and start thinking pragmatically, spending less on empty promises and consuming less and producing more.
Welcome to the rest of the world.
in his explanation of what republicans have to do last night, as he noted "everyone works for the rich", so we have to get to work.
7 to 1 in September [businessweek.com]
That was by independant groups NOT Republicans or Democrats! And it was a tiny, tiny percentage of the total I gave - $17 million by the independent group spending to promote Republicans, compared to the $600+ million spent in the end.
Your links are bullshit kabuki theater, to claim the poor, poor Democrats were terribly outspent when as the numbers I gave showed, in reality the Democrats spend hundreds of millions more.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
he has the naivete that 'bipartisanship' works. the other side has NO intention of meeting halfway, or embracing his side. but he is still trying to embrace them.
Read radical news here
That government is best which governs least.
Citation needed.
from when the other side controls it?
Really. Tell me. Democrats and Republicans are two sides of the same coin. The key to it all is that we the people don't control the coin.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Last week when I was traveling an acquaintance who owns and runs a farm handed me this quote from the book "Somebody's Gotta Say It" (page 92) and I have to say that it is interesting.
I am not going to say whether or not I agree with it, nor what stage I think America is in right now, because I just want you to ponder it. What I will say is when I vote, I follow JFK's lead and vote where my conscience leads, with this principle: "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." I didn't vote for how I could possibly line my pocket, or from a sense of entitlement, but based on what the government is chartered to do as our founding fathers intended.
Here is the quote:
Right or wrong, it's a great quote to ponder.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Public employees make a significantly higher amount than private. Let them retire/quit and don't replace them.
Um, what? I'd love to see a source on that. And I'm talking rank and file, not SESers and GS-15s.
With the first link, the chain is forged.
As a former resident who grew up in WI and has voted for Feingold in the past, I seriously have no clue WTF was going on there.
He has given back millions in tax payer money given to him to run his office and thousands in salary he didn't need/want. He was the ONLY Senator to vote against the PATRIOT Act and tried a few times to introduce legislation that neutered it (since there's no way it will really go away). He visited every county in the State of Wisconsin each year to hear what people had to say. He refused to run attack ads even though the (R) challenger Ron Johnson, a high school dropout (granted he is a college grad), CEO with rich buddies and millions he got from his rich wife. The guy even admitted he didn't think he was smart enough to run.
Feingold was incorruptible. I once heard him decline an offer to buy him a beer. He didn't want people to think they could buy him off. HE TURNED DOWN BEER TO REMAIN IMPARTIAL. I could never... (/s for the nitwits.).
It truly shows that the masses of this country are brain dead.
No sig for you!!
To me, this was one of the saddest shameful losses of this election. Feingold seemed to be one of the best people in Washington. Looking at his Wikipedia page, it seems like he had generally very sensible positions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russ_Feingold
Hearing what you said about his opponent makes this loss even more disheartening.
China is set to pass the US in virtually every measure within about 10-15 years. They are not on a war footing, yet their Navy, heavy with misslle launch cruisers, has grown 40% larger in the last 3 years alone, their army is over 3,000,000, they now have a network of killer satellites ready to take out our own, and perhaps has many as 500 nuclear warheads that can be delivered to every city in the US. Sad to say, but the truth is United States couldn't defeat North Vietnam, or totally stop the terrorists in Iraq or Afghanistan and is currently stretched to the breaking point and leaving tens of billions in equipment in Iraq that it can't afford to bring back as it leaves. To make matters worse, many high-tech weaponry components are manufactured in China or are controlled by business that would literally go out of business overnight if it weren't for their Chinese subsidiaries production capabilities. To make matters work, the only reason we can field a military this large, is because Chinese investors are providing the liquidity for our massive debts. They stop and we would have to start paying for those bombs and planes ourselves. It would be the height of insanity to try to pick a war with China. Get realistic.
As far as conserving our resources, fat chance. Republicans would never stand for that, they hate the environment anyway, and besides, China's influence on world markets is now so large that we would likely get squeezed out economically of places where we still have much of a presence, particularly now that a primary republican agenda is to reduce foreign aid, thereby assuring that our businesses will be second class citizens abroad, where as everywhere money talks. The US is rapidly loosing Africa to Chinese businesses, where most of the few remaining uncharted riches remain. Their investment in Africa is already on par with ours, or greatly exceeds it in some areas such as solar power production.
You must have been not paying attention, or perhaps listening too much to talk radio as part of your political indoctrination.
The real question is just how small do republicans want to shrink the US, with their smaller government is better mantra?
If the last 10 years are a guide, the US won't be in a position to take on China anytime soon, we are falling further behind in that effort every day, particularly as republicans target science and education spending and where republicans investing in tech primarily in consumer oriented technology and this is heavily dependent on Chinese manufacturing since their efforts primarily provide tax credits to companies that off source their work to China.
If you want to take on China, I suggest a crash course in how the world actually works, rather than what you hear on republican talk radio and Fox News (which also happens to be, surprise, surprise, heavily invested in and working closely with China (Ruppert Murdoch's wife is Chinese).
Citation needed. I can think of several countries with much bigger governments than America which seem to have much more stable and sustainable economies. Also lower crime, better infrastructure, better education and so on.
When the Democrats took control of Congress, it should be noted, unemployment stood at 4.6%. When they got booted out it was well over 9%. If it isn't somewhat lower than that two years from now, I would expect that the Republicans will get the same heave-ho. Especially if people see more bucks going to prop up Wall Street and the Banks while those same banks toss them out of their homes and the companies traded on Wall Street toss them out of their jobs. Anger drove this election, and if things don't get better it will drive the next one too.
I've often seen interesting angles on US national issues from the BBC, so it wasn't *too* surprising to see something from Canada here
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
is health care plans from out of state players. Otherwise, you will almost certainly get a Mississippi style plan, which is just another way of saying you pay premiums and then when you file a claim, insurers of any kind can pretty much tell you to take a hike and to make matters worse, your state legislators, insurance commissioners, or governor could do absolutely nothing about it (the real benefit of privatization).
Haley Barbour for President
He kept Mississippi on the Bottom and He Can Do the Same for You.
Good point. It's not a coincidence. He chairs the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet on Energy and Commece, the committee through which some 80% of house legislation passes. http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1570&catid=160&Itemid=61
Ed Markey will pick up some of the slack. But it gets bad. The next subcommittee chair could be Cliff Stearns. According to open secrets (http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00002782) , here are his top 5 contributors by company and issue area:
1. Comcast Corp
2. Honeywell International
3. National Cable & Telecommunications Assn
4. National Multi Housing Council
5. AT&T Inc
1. TV/Movies/Music
2. Real Estate
3. Telephone Utilities
4. Telecom Services & Equipment
5. Lawyers/Law Firms
Comcastic!
By nearly filibustering the thing to death at every step. The last congress saw more filibusters than virtually all the other sessions of the Senate put together and all were republican led. Republicans didn't get the moniker of the party of "No" for nothing.
The problem with most Americans is that they are so poorly informed as to how the system actually works. They seem to think that Fox News coverage tells them the story, which is about as laughable as it comes. New Corp almost always has an army of lobbyists on every issue working to coordinate coverage and messaging to leverage their political contributions and business agenda, which is total monopolistic control of world media.
Evidently, he was quite hung over this morning.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if Boehner doesn't get a stiff challenge right out of the box as the scrabble for positions 3 - 20 heat up. Bachmann is pushing to be No. 3, so the insane wing will be well represented.
Senate ties are broken by the VP, so 50-50 would still mean a Democrat lead, 51-50.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
Yeah, Libertarians sometimes want government's nose out of places where it *does* belong (as well as where it doesn't), but they often seemed more sane or principled than many social conservatives or foreign policy hawks.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm "Accountants, nurses, chemists, surveyors, cooks, clerks and janitors are among the wide range of jobs that get paid more on average in the federal government than in the private sector" There ya go. They're also harder to fire and typically don't have merit-based pay.
Nouriel Roubini, who predicted the crash nearly a year ahead of time, now predicts a massive "fiscal train wreck" is on the horizon next year, because forces determined to cut government spending are now in control of the budget process. He now predicts a double dip recession (technically we are currently out of recession, although thats little consolation to folks who have been wiped out and re now unemployed), probably of longer duration and of greater severity than the last one (read depression levels folks).
Republican representative Issa has already stated that he intends to spend his time investigating Obama, rather than the financial service industry, which at this point is a huge collection of zombie banks that are so insolvent that the only way they operate at all is by direct handouts by the federal reserve, who now gives the 0% loans (tanking the dollar) the exact same program as instituted by a long series of Japanese governments in the 1980's and 1990's and 2000's. Sadly, for us the Japanese actually owed the money to themselves, rather than to foreigners like we do (should anyone be surprised that Saudi money carried the day in Missouri and elsewhere?). So any sensible betting person familiar with the data will be betting for longterm stagnation of the US economy.
Note that foreclosuress are again rising dramatically and most of the stimulus money that has been propping up the economy to this point are or have already expired. Bankruptcy's are not, only because republicans made it virtually impossible to declare bankrupcy.
Fortunately, ignorance is bliss.
The title had my hopes up that the result of the Boughton-Under-Blean council by-election was in. With the LibDem promise to increase bin collections to once a week, there is a real risk of a shock result. However, the Labour incumbent promises to reinstate the Faversham flower show and he may well buy the election with this flagant abuse of tax-payers money. How soon voters forget the scandal of the last show, where Mrs Miggins was rumoured to have put steroids in her compost to produce her prize winning marrow.
And all I get is people yammering about "Republicans", which I presume is something to do with the Americans. They seem awfully excited about it, looking at the number of comments. Rum show.
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
but why is it that the republicans who love the argument "but its my money" when it comes to taxes, seem to be hell bent on ignoring their own reasoning when it comes to social security?
Republicans have been able to use PR to skate over this inconsistency for years, now it looks as if they own it and will have to face up to it. Its about time even though reasoning is never a primary motivation for republicans as fear and hate are.
It can't be done unless they gain 12 seats in the Senate and take over the presidency in 2012. Until then, enjoy your premium increases.
Yeah, because nobody ever saw their insurance premiums increase before now, right? Every premium increase, ever, in the history of our great awesome country of awesomeness, was caused by the health care bill!
After all, we all know that the great and most benevolent captains of industry who are in charge of the health insurance companies are the greatest and most benevolent leaders you could ever find, anywhere, and they would lead their companies only with your interests at heart!
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
I guess the alternative of standing in line at a soup kitchen appeals to you more than it does to me.
But get ready, as republicans start to cut a lot of spending in the economy will disappear along with jobs and income. Credit will become even harder to get and expect unemployment to exceed 15-20% (which is actually what a number of US counties are already experiencing, even ignoring the fact that the government statistics upon which these numbers are based don't even bother to count those who have given up looking for jobs that don't exist).
Just out of curiosity, how does the company that employs you make its money. Will it be making as much money should the single largest consumer in the economy the US government disappears?
The real questions is just how small do the republicans and teabaggers want to shrink America? You seem to think that no government at all is the best, so I take it you mean down to non-existence. I'm sure many in China will thank you for your position.
If your state just elected someone new, then you better let them know that you expect this of them.
Seriously.
No, not "somebody better let them know". You. You personally. Take responsibility and write a letter to your congressfolks.
republicans are gearing up a major new housing initiative, a substantial expansion of private prisons. Good to know you will have a roof over your head and a meal at least.
Only TARP has been repaid -- and if they had done it right, they would have made a far larger profit than they did.
Obama's Stimulus on the other hand is money lost. Permanently.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Gridlock, rather than being good will be very, very bad. Just because we aren't solving our problems and building our economy and our infrastructure doesn't mean that are competitors are not fixing and building theirs. Frankly, on a global level, the US is having its clock cleaned as Americans are hung up on political ideology.
Keep an eye on the dollar. A nation's currency is very much like its blood pressure, as it lets everyone know what people think of its value at any given point in time.
Just like nobody wanted it this time, yet Obama and the dems went clear against the desires of the country and passed it anyways.
Urge to beat Slashdot's liberal armchair politicians with my autographed Dubya baseball bat rising... RISING!!!
Can we just remove the politics section? It's like when your favorite actor gets on TV and says something political that you disagree with. You immediately hate them and try to comprehend why their heads are screwed on sideways. The OP is flame bait.
I'd love to get into how the real world functions and all but I've got a job to do
Comment removed based on user account deletion
What a quaint and obsolete idea that is. When was the last time anyone heard of that being a primary consideration of anything except for the PR department to worry about?
You would just like to think that your private information is not on sale to the highest bidder. It may make you feel more comfortable with yourself, but it really doesn't have much to do with the kind of corporate, government security state we live in now.
Most Americans are still living under the delusion that America is still a lot like the late 1700's and that 18th century ideas still predominate in the 21st century, mostly because Fox News shows them lots of pictures of folks wearing 3-cornered hats and beating drums. The reality is something that can no longer be discussed in public and hence our politics has come to mirror the mindset of our security state, where no one but a few players really know what deals have already been made and who the real players actually are. Most Americans are simply too busy eating up the PR they watch on Fox, which makes its money by buying and selling coverage to other corporate interests, who then actually feed on Fox's media consumers. Only a fool would wonder where the middle-class has gone.
N/T
the chances of Ralph Nader getting elected to any office, much less the presidency, is about as likely as being hit by lightening.
Change will come only when there is broad recognition and agreement on a suitable course of action. I doubt that will come until after the republicans finish off the American economy, labor, consumers and the environment once and for all.
Knowing republicans it won't take them long. They work fast. In just 30 years of Reagan, Bush I, Bush II, and goons like Gingrich, McCaine, McConnell, ... America is now just a shell of its former self. Hollowed out to satisfy whatever some greedy corporate tycoon wanted to put in his pocket in exchange for a political contribution kickback.
But they also have to deal with the public.
If that doesn't seem like a serious downside to you, or if you think the people that government workers have to deal with are pretty much the same people in business have to deal with, I urge you to seek out a government job.
Having worked briefly in that industry I wouldn't do it again without a much more serious pay increase than I would actually get for doing it. I'll stay in the private sector where the people I deal with are (for example) generally are house-trained, thank you very much.
simply won't happen until they become a force at the local, regional and state level. When you see more tea-partiers, libertarians, greens, constitutionalists, progressives, etc.at the local level, then the two party system will be ready for a change. There is simply too much money stacked against the average Joe or Jane regardless of their favorite political ideology to see any dramatic change at the national level. Indeed, perhaps that is how it should be, since these parties really have to prove themselves.
Ironically, Europe has been way ahead of the US in this regard for years. In Germany the Greens are poised to take over having clearly demonstrated what sensible support for solar and wind energy can do for their economy.
You would think that the extreme left and the extreme right would be smart enough to recognize that they both are being screwed by the corporatists, who in total control and can play one side off against the other. Sadly, money talks better than people can think, so get used to it. America is now privatized.
apparently you have a weird idea how the GD looked like.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_GDP_10-60.jpg
as you can see having growth is not enough to declare the end of recession. What about regaining the losses? Lowering unemployment to pre-depression levels? Economy is seriously weakened and it takes time to remove the toxic poisons from the system and rebuild.
If you lose 20% in 1 rapid downward move, 2% growth/year is not much of a consolation.
What Wonko says is that none of the fundamental problems were fixed, enormous deficits will cover that for a while but the problem is bound to return with double force in few years - and he is right (100% confirmed)
n/t
Except the American people aren't so much apathetic as they are misguided (largely by the Media), from the wrestling-like tag-team hype that inspires them to just get behind "their" party, right or wrong, and apparently think that will fix everything...
I'm honestly curious. I've never heard a cogent argument about why single-payer insurance would be worse than what we already have. And having lived in a few other countries, I find it notable that places that have single-payer insurance tend to have much more functional healthcare systems -- cheaper, with better service.
Anyway, it sounds from your post like you're of the view that single-payer insurance is not a good thing. If that is your view, why? What do you see as bad about a single-payer insurance system? I ask out of honest curiosity.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
All the analysis seems to omit one driving force in the US elections yesterday — the insistance that elected representatives actually be true to their oath of office to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. The talking heads in the past 24 or so hours have (at best) skirted this topic.
Yet the Constitution, with amendments, is the contract (or compact) between the elected and electorate. The legitimacy of the federal government only exists, where it is in compliance with that (strictly limiting) contract. Anything that exceeds those granted powers is an illigitmate usurpation of power. This is a largely unique aspect of the United States, and it offers its own legitimate method to adapt to change — which is not just ignore, nor re-interpretation.
Before the election, I kept hearing all this talk of anti-incumbency and people being mad at both parties for screwing up. And yet, 85% of incumbents that were running for re-election won. Thank you, Mr. Jerry Mander.
Yeah, they may have well posted an ask slashdot saying 'have an argument about politics.'
Is 1563649 a prime number?
To be fair, research papers and bibliographies are totally fucking useless for 99% of careers. I really don't understand the purpose of requiring them for anything other than a purely academic career.
I dunno, but knowing how to write and knowing how to vet sources both seem like important all-around skills to me... (Though, admittedly, simply writing research papers with bibliographies alone is not enough, as it requires decent teachers willing and able to go through the whole process and explain the importance of each step.)
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
You are going to have to raise taxes, especially on the "rich". Cutting anything else is peanuts, so unless you're planning to back-stab the old white folks that voted in this congress you are going to have to raise taxes.
You've got a strategy, but I think the opposing view is a better one. Let the "rich" have their tax cuts, and perhaps they'll hire a few more workers. Those will each pay taxes, "rich man"s business will pay taxes on each of them, sales taxes will be collected on groceries bought with dollars rather than stamps, and so on...
We NEED dollar devaluation. It will immensely help the economy.
However, it's not going to happen. There's not going to be a significant inflation, and even a little deflation might happen.
That's irrelevant. Any inflation reduces the 'real' amount of outstanding debts.
That might be bad if you have a stagflation, but right now we're in a liquidity trap and it'll only help us.
The US is not a democracy, it's a republic. You voted for a representative who will make policy decisions on your behalf. Sometimes these decisions will disappoint you. Get used to it and stop spreading the myth of democracy in the USA.
expired yesterday.
Now they must govern and fix things or their asses will be next.
It is pathetic to hear so many excuses for republicans. Now they don't have any worth a warm bucket of spit.
Its not a good sign to watch so many crowing on TV that they are about to start slashing spending, yet be unable to say one single program they want to cut. Its not as if the majority of government waste, fraud, and abuse isn't being handed out to republican's fat cat corporate friends.
Even the hypocrite Rand Paul was silent today as Bernacke imposed an inflation "tax" on US citizens without a vote. Looks like he is already learning how to lick the boots he was complaining about just yesterday.
until corporations and the uber-wealthy figured out which politicians would be their constituents.
Now we have a guy who actually passed out bribes in the form of tobacco corporate cash on the floor of the house in plain view of C-span during a vote as the next speaker of the house.
American democracy RIP.
whenever Democrats try to turn our health care over to the Department of Motor Vehicles.
God doesn't like Fiorina or O'Donnell.
his replacement knows how to serve tea. At least passing the tea-bags will become one of the new republican mandated internet protocols. At least its a step up from "tubes". They are slow learners.
to let everyone know deficits don't matter.
Meg Whitman spent $150 million, the most anyone has ever spent to get their ass kicked.
The only real recourse for average citizens is to ferret out just who provided the cash and boycott these corporations into devastating quarterly profit reports.
As far many Americans are concerned Social Security is their hard earned money not an entitlement for some repuke who wants to make himself look good by balancing their budget mistakes and by providing thier rich friends on Wall Street with more money to play in the market or yet another tax cut at their expense.
Repukes have a weird double game going on where taxes are their money but when Americans pay into the SSA somehow they are not entitled to get anything back. SSA is not a piggy bank for Wall Street. If you want to divest, divest of that idea. Its brain dead.
Party pollitics are the necessary reality of a society that must make choices by the collective action of its citizens. Its only natural that people are going to organize and associate with those who support their views. It would be political suicide not to. While I think third, fourth, and fifth ... parties would be an excellent cure for the dysfunction that corporate lobbyists have achieved for our system of government by getting citizens to turn against one another for their advantage, three or more parties are never going to happen unless they happen on the local level and progressively become more and more part of a fabric in all elections.
If we had far more parties, then people could vote their convictions rather than the lesser of evils, where the corporate fat cats call the shots given their out-sized advantage in spending. With multiple parties more real horse-trading could then go on in Congress and better ideas would float to the top (regardless of whether, we as individuals regarded them as "better" ideas).
By the time the average Joe can get around to voting himself a paycheck, some inside corporate insider has already run off with the whole stinking bank, treasury, and all.
If you think that the very first election onward in the US didn't have politicians "what can you do for me?" and "look what I am going to do for you", you have a very poor knowledge of history.
Politics is the art of ripping the other guy off with a straight face and getting him to agree with you that its a good idea for you to do so. It predates America by many thousands of years.
Unless those workers are being hired in China or India.
From Facebook
Mike Terreblanche VII darryl mellow out, go swallow a chhicken or something u slave, niggers are not americans and u know it, ur monkey ass is getting deported by the white TPP and so is this taliban terrorist arab yani. GO TPP, white power!
Good luck America you will need it!
That's an excellent point. Which party would be more likely to block outsourcing? It seems to me that the Blue team would call such measures 'racist'.
Who is going to implement your plan? The politicians who work for the lobbyists? Why would they do that? Any solution which requires politicians to implement something which limits their power/corruption is guaranteed fail. It would be like asking them to give themselves a pay cut. How often do you see them implement that?
Metagovernment has a chance because it is not reliant on the politicians for success.
Red team is all about "free" trade (although NAFTA was under Blue team control). Both parties are probably a fan of outsourcing, actually.
Side note: I've never heard anyone from either party claim that not outsourcing is racist. Citation?
With the first link, the chain is forged.
It isn't that I have any specific example, but it seems similar to claiming that immigration opposition is racist, so it seems congruent to me.
I believe the founding fathers set up the checks and balances specifically because they knew that power corrupts, and that no man could ever be "wise" or "virtuous" enough to prevent this.
In fact, I would claim that the Founding Fathers set up the democracy EXPECTING corrupt people would gain power from time to time.
I steal signatures. This one used to be yours.