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.
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!
Of course it does - gridlock means that less laws get passed.
The primary purpose of laws is to either to expand the public sector or else to advantage one group in the private sector at the expense of another group so less laws is automatically better for the economy.
A divided congress is probably a good thing for people who don't like random horseshit one-sided laws.
The real test will be what Boehner does now...will he obstruct, or will he work?
This can be applied to Obama as well.
Living With a Nerd
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.
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.
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
That's the thing that pisses me off about Boehner...when he speaks in an "unofficial" capacity (i.e. not at a press conference), you can tell that the guy has a real solid head on his shoulders. I think he'll make a great Speaker, and I think he's a good person to have "leading" the Republicans.
The only problem is that any time he is talking in an "official" capacity, his entire vocabulary consists solely of talking points. I know this is part of his role, but still...he nearly literally speaks only in talking points when speaking to the press.
If he is true to his word and extends an olive branch to Obama, I think great things can happen. I'm just worried that he'll try to coat that branch in poison before trying to gift it.
Living With a Nerd
Where else would you go to find fair and balanced reporting?
>Of course it does - gridlock means that less laws get passed.
Gridlock means that less *federal* laws get passed. It also means that the states have more power.
Also in this case, the House controls plenty of things related to spending that don't have to go through both chambers.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Sounds like the same old bullshit to me. Compromise to the Republicans is the Democrats doing what they tell them to do.
E pluribus unum
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?
The economy was fucked when the banksters initiated the largest embezzlement scam in human history in the form of the housing bubble. They just managed to cover up the theft until about 2006.
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.
The Republicans will continue this policy, so the economy will continue to suck.
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.
Even if it's "all congress" -- the Democrats can still claim responsibility for upswing. They already do: more jobs added in the last two years than during Bush's entire reign
Really? The unemployment rate in November of 2008 was 6.9%. Today, it's at 9.6%. So are you telling me that -2.7% is ADDING jobs? Were you a math major?
Oh, and like I've said... Bush had very little to do with the economy. Obama has little to do with the economy. It's congress. From 1995 to 2007, Republicans held the House. In that time, unemployment went from 5.6% to 4.6% with a low of 3.8% and a high of 6.3% (unemployment climbed form 9-11-2001 to June 2003 before dropping off again). The party that held the WH had little effect. It wasn't Bush's fault and it's not Obama's.
Numbers don't lie. Source:
http://www.miseryindex.us/urbymonth.asp
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
You can claim credit for the economy growing like crazy under the GOP from 1995-2007 only if you also take the blame for the complete collapse of the economy in 2008-2009. You don't get the upside without also taking the downside.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
Not from this side of the aisle.
While not giving the left everything they were after, he rapidly increased federal spending with little transparent oversight, pushed the federal government to buy stock in private entities, enacted "Obamacare" in a nearly completely partisan vote with little to no real input from the right, and has not compromised on any bill placed in front of him to sign.
From the perspective of a conservative, his is THE most left-leaning and partisan Presidency to date. GWB had a record of reaching across the aisle even with a majority (NCLB is the big one there, written by Ted Kennedy).
Maybe you missed the memo - the majority of the country opposes the healthcare reform that got passed. Many of them are the people who just did they annual enrollment and discovered how much more their premiums went up because of it.
You should re-read the memo a bit more closely.
1) When looking at individual parts of HCR, most people approved of them.
2) Many who oppose the current version of HCR wanted single payer. Do I oppose it? Yes, but not because it went too far.
My premiums went up, but actually at a smaller rate than previously.
Actually, the public likes the healthcare reform.
They like each part of it. But for some reason when you group them together and call it Obamacare, talk about death panels, scream "socialism" every chance you get, and mention big govt waste over and over and over, people didn't end up liking it.
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
mod parent up!
almost any law these days is an unnecessary law! bought and paid for by special interests.
modern (recent) laws have done nothign to 'help people live better or safer'. they are ENTIRELY 100% bought and paid for by PACs.
so yes, I'd agree! stalemate is good. it stops the bastards from lining their pockets with even more stupid corporate-backed laws.
(OT: anyone else think the idea of 'keep passing more and more laws' is not scalable? shouldn't we CONDENSE laws and make things more general and not more and more specific? ever look at a lawyers bookshelf? how on earth can anyone think this is manageable! its not. we need to repeal laws and 'age them out' instead of just adding TO the pile of shit we call laws. I propose a 'reference count' and if a law has not earned its keep (after review) it should be gone!)
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Not really. The mandate was never on the table, and that was pretty much a deal killer for ANY conservative.
Most of the "seeking input" was done my Obama, true, but there was NEVER any done from the Dems in the Senate or House - remember all the "closed door" sessions after a particular promise from Pelosi to have everything on CSPAN and out in the open?
Didn't happen. There were a few bones thrown our way, but there was NO HSA expansion (actually contracted); VERY little in the way of high-deductible plans; NO ability to cross state lines to get a different health care service (which, admittedly, could be done at the state level). It was also comprehensive and ridiculously long, rather than dealing with one issue at a time.
When the GOP steers the ship towards a waterfall, just because someone else grabs the wheel right before it goes over doesn't absolve the GOP for their primary role in sending it over.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
The primary purpose of laws is to either to expand the public sector or else to advantage one group in the private sector at the expense of another group so less laws is automatically better for the economy.
Really? The laws that enforce the terms of contracts are automatically bad for the economy? The ones that establish the fed's ability to monitor the monetary supply in an attempt to mitigate fluctuations in valuation are automatically bad for the economy? The ones which establish fire departments, roadways, and the international negotiations which provide protections for domestic businesses doing business with international companies are bad for the economy?
You know what you have without laws? Anarchy. By Definition you have anarchy. Anarchy is a terrible state within which to attempt to conduct business.
The ______ Agenda
You realize that the health care that was enacted was totally different than what was originally on the tables BECAUSE it was a bipartisan attempt from Obama to reach across the aisle, right? People were 70% for it until it got demolished to basically something entirely different. Then everyone was 70% against it.
enacted "Obamacare" in a nearly completely partisan vote with little to no real input from the right
That's not quite the way it happened.
"We considered 287 amendments. 161 of those...accepted were Republican amendments. You can vote against the bill if you want, but don't suggest to me that this process denied people a chance to be heard, to be involved, and to be engaged. " - Chris Dodd
The fact that Republicans got 161 amendments added to the health care bill and they still didn't vote for it doesn't indicate to me that they're interested in engaging with Democrats in any meaningful way.
The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
I think your comment is the accepted convention wisdom, which will get play in every office and news outlet in America, but its pretty wrong.
First off, the appeal to the wisdom of crowds is faulty. If this was just a warning to Democrats then why was someone like Russ Feingold, a well-loved non-partisan who has been fighting the good fight for Wisconsin for a long time, ousted by a high-school drop-out who married into money and had no platform other than "Lets fix things with Tea Party principles." No plan to cut entitlement programs, no plan to cut military, and really no concrete plan at all. He's the epitome of the empty suit millionaire who will vote in anything to help his other millionaire friends.
The message you won't be hearing is about the Citizens United ruling which led to unrestrained campaign spending this year. The Dems were outspent 7 to 1. That's right, 7 to 1. This election was shamelessly bought. Oh, and Feingold was a big supporter of campaign finance reform which the CU ruling nullified and suddenly he's gone. Seems to me that he's gone because Wall Street wanted him gone. The negative ads that ran in Wisconsin were of a scale never seen before by groups like "Moms for American Business" and other groups that never have to reveal who they are or where their money comes from. Funny that.
Yes, jobs and economies are important, but Americans also know that when Obama took office the jobs we were losing were around 800k a month. Now we are gaining at least 60k in jobs a month. Americans know that Bush and his cronies brought us to this level, but they voted in R and Tea Party regardless - because they get their views and opinions from TV commercials and media outlets legitimizing the Tea Party. Suddenly they were told that economy isn't good for them, and death panels are coming, and Obama isn't a citizen, and Reid/Pelosi are liberals and fat cat Wall Street gangsters who want to give your home to a random Mexican family, etc.
In short, this was the first election with unrestricted spending in a long time - the results - corporatists with no concrete positions who are selling out their constituents as we speak. Turns out campaign finance reforms are important. The conservative majority in SCOTUS gave the GOP this election with its CU ruling. Any other analysis really takes backseat to how the CU ruling sold out this election.
enacted "Obamacare" in a nearly completely partisan vote with little to no real input from the right
You are aware, of course, that "the right" was invited to many meetings. They didn't show up and then told the press "the left" was unwilling to compromise. If the Republicans weren't willing to even enter the room, they were the ones who left themselves out of the conversation.
and has not compromised on any bill placed in front of him to sign
I guess you haven't read any bills. The health care bill, for example, was a huge compromise. Without the compromised it wouldn't have passed at all.
From the perspective of a conservative, his is THE most left-leaning and partisan Presidency to date.
Only a misinformed conservative. There are Republican presidents in recent history who were more "left-leaning". Obama didn't pass anything as big or as influential to our society as Social Security, Medicare, or the interstate highway system.
Developers: We can use your help.
Unfortunately, I fear whatever data we've collected since the early 90's pretty much needs to be thrown out.
The mid 90's saw an explosive growth in technologies that fundamentally changed the human condition and drove the economy to dizzying heights. By 2000, the associated huge stock bubble burst. But everyone had a taste of prosperity, and looked to the dream of Home ownership, like Japan in the late 80's. A second prosperity bubble formed around real estate in the 2000's, which burst in 2008 or so.
Al Gore aside, none of these things had anything to do with which party was in power. I'm not saying that who controls what is irrelevant, just that most of the data collected since Bush #1 probably needs to be thrown out as being unfairly prejudicial. And since the parties today are very different than the parties from the 70's and 80's, the relevance of "Dems are better for the economy!" or "Republicans are better for the economy!" when looking at this one point of data seems like a form of rooting for Baseball teams.
The ______ Agenda
From the perspective of a conservative, his is THE most left-leaning and partisan Presidency to date. GWB had a record of reaching across the aisle even with a majority (NCLB is the big one there, written by Ted Kennedy).
NCLB's first generation is arriving in college and they're shockingly unprepared. Never in recent history have entering college students been so inept at writing papers and discussing ideas. They still seem skilled at filling in bubbles, at least. The kids from wealthier or better schools haven't suffered much because their programs exceed the minimum requirements and still cover all the same material. The rural and urban kids, however, are being taught in such a way to ensure funding that's contingent on standardized tests. When a college student has never heard of a bibliography or encountered the idea of writing a paper based on research, I die a little inside. Then I stop whining and try to fill in the gaps.
NCLB was indeed a broad bipartisan effort and it should be a reminder that when the idiots on the left and the idiots on the right agree on something, it might just be due to its overwhelming idiocy.
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
The health care bill is obviously a huge compromise, seeing as we gave you the health care package that Bob Dole-- then Senate Majority Leader for the Republicans-- advocated in the 90s. Fast forward 12 years, and the same plan is now socialist. The US has taken a gigantic step to the right in the last decade.
A more data-based representation: http://cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm
What worries me about a lot of the graphs on that page is that they either use numbers which aren't even adjusted for inflation, or they adjust for inflation but don't compare them to GDP. He gets it right in a few places, but most of the graphs aren't useable. Looking at the un-adjusted debt principals, yes, the numbers will tend to climb.
What I'm much more concerned about is debt as it relates to GDP. After all, if you owe $10 in debt, that's a serious problem if you only make $1 per year, but it's inconsequential if you make $1,000 per year.
So, look at debt-as-a-percentage-of-GDP here: (http://zfacts.com/p/1195.html). You'll see that:
I do agree with the webpage about trickle-down not working and that, for a steady economy, we need to get back to the higher taxes on the rich, like the 70%-90% on the highest tax brackets which were helping us pay down the WW-II debt consistently over 35 years until Reagan took office.
Not really. The mandate was never on the table, and that was pretty much a deal killer for ANY conservative. Most of the "seeking input" was done my Obama, true, but there was NEVER any done from the Dems in the Senate or House - remember all the "closed door" sessions after a particular promise from Pelosi to have everything on CSPAN and out in the open? Didn't happen. There were a few bones thrown our way, but there was NO HSA expansion (actually contracted); VERY little in the way of high-deductible plans; NO ability to cross state lines to get a different health care service (which, admittedly, could be done at the state level). It was also comprehensive and ridiculously long, rather than dealing with one issue at a time.
And all we've heard from Republicans in recent weeks is how they're not going to compromise on their principles, yet Democrats are demonized for trying to stick to theirs. Nice.
Republican health care ideas might have lead to some savings in some areas, but they aren't going to fix the real problems.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
As is compromise to the Democrats. Also the Republicans can magically block all kinds of legislation while being the minority in the house and senate. Obama loves to blame the Republicans for not getting what he wanted, but in reality he could and did pass any bills the Democrats would approve. The fight he's had is not with the Republicans, but with his own party. The fight with the Republicans happens when the new congressmen get seated.
Does anyone remember history more than 3 months back anymore? The collapse started in 2007 and really blew up in 2008.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
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
Republican "opposition" to the bill was as phony as a three dollar bill. Everybody in both houses was already counting the money months before it passed.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
How? What mechanism will make incomes go up? A larger percentage of the population is out of work than at any time in the last 20 years. Companies have no margin with which to raise wages and commodity inflation is going to make this worse, not better. Average income except for Wall Street hasn't risen for the last 10 years, so how is inflation helped you?
The Republicans has twelve years to pass some sort of healthcare reform.
.
They did shit
All while insurance premiums continually increased, leading to either a) higher employee premiums, eating up any salary improvements, or b) more employers deciding not to provide health insurance. Any way you look at it, that's bad for the Public and bad for Business .
The Republicans were more interested in tax cuts for special interests and wasting time & money trying to impeach Billy boy for getting his wangdoodle slobbered on by an intern. They even prevented medicare/medicaid from acting as a group to negotiate drug prices with the pharmaceutical companies. (That's just not rational).
That's what the Republican priorities were.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
The health care mandate does not "bring in" money. It is simply a forced redistribution from the people to the insurance companies.
Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
pushed the federal government to buy stock in private entities
You mean the bailout of the auto-industry which was actually under George Bush? Yeah, a lot of conservatives automatically assume that was Obama.
enacted "Obamacare" in a nearly completely partisan vote with little to no real input from the right
What nonsense. The Republicans wanted to drag their feet over everything, and then complain that Obama wouldn't compromise so that they could simultaneously stopping anything from happening and blame the president. Remember the "public option"? Oh right, Obama compromised on that, but FOX News has somehow painted the picture in all the sheeple's minds that Obama wouldn't compromise.
and has not compromised on any bill placed in front of him to sign.
WTF are you talking about? Get your news from a real news outlet rather than the mouthpiece of the Republican propaganda machine.
From the perspective of a conservative, his is THE most left-leaning and partisan Presidency to date.
*EVERY* Democratic President is automatically labeled the "most left-leaning and partisan president" by the right. Just pay attention to the attack ads during every presidential election and you'll realize that this is the perpetual refrain of the Right.
How can a condition be "pre-existing" if everyone has to have healthcare. Pre-existing what? Or are you just trying to say you want the Health Insurers to be able to drop people when they get sick? Good idea. If the insurance companies never have to pay for any healthcare, then premiums will be very low and the companies will still make an enormous profit!!!
Everyone wins, right?
How, exactly, could the right torpedo the plan when the Democrats had a huge majority in the house and a super majority in the Senate? Sorry, but I was paying attention too, and the democrats own that mess lock, stock and barrel.
I want the health care system improved in this country as well, but being forced to buy over-priced insurance or have the IRS fine me $2000 is not what I or most people had in mind.
I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
So why did they take those Republican amendments? This is why voter turn out from young progressives was so poor. They realized they couldn't count on Obama to fight for anything.
Obama should have brought the public option to the table, pushed it through, and lost. THEN started to make compromises.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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.
Funny. Now maybe you can explain precisely what the Democrats managed to pass in those two years that caused a complete economic meltdown. Somehow I don't think you're going to find a real answer for that, because that's not what actually happened.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Eh...biased source? I'm not denying it could have happened, but when the majority of sources for this are extreme left leaning websites, I don't take it too seriously.
Except pre-existing condition clauses went away right away while mandated coverage is delayed a couple years. Additionally, the fine for not having insurance is ridiculously low so it is better financially (not morally) to wait for little Timmy to get Leukemia, then buy insurance and pay the tiny fine for not having it in the first place. Reality is the health care bill was written with the sole intent of driving health insurance companies out of business so that we would get to a defacto single payer without the Dems having to actually pass legislation that way.
This is essentially correct. There was a lot of talk about the Republican filibuster for various bills, but there was never actually any filibuster. If you don't take it to the floor to see if they can manage to filibuster you can't complain about the filibuster because it doesn't exist. The Dems couldn't muster enough internal support to bring some of these bills to the floor to begin with.
"NO ability to cross state lines to get a different health care service (which, admittedly, could be done at the state level)"
So wait, you are saying you want federal rights to supersede state rights? That's very democrat of you, I thought republicans were for smaller government.
HSA and High Deductible plans do not help anyone.
What about public health care, you guys thoroughly kicked that out of congress, it was a strong contender.
Increased budget, all he's really passed that would increase budget is the SECOND set of bailouts (after your great and powerful leader GWB passed the first), and Obamacare which the one passed is kinda shit on a stick because he was trying to appease your caucus. If you ask me he should have reigned control over the democrats and forced a vote through with a real bill instead of trying all of this bi-partisanship crap. Shit would have actually happened in the last two years.
Almost everything he has tried to do has been fought tooth and nail by the republicans even when they said "We will support this". This whole election has been like nails on chalk to me, the republicans blaming Obama for the fact that it's raining outside even though they said that raining would be good for the economy. I'm so sick of this, how can you really fall for it? I would also like to point out, because of GWB's action and continued action by Obama (supported by the republicans, remember STIMULUS fucking championed by the republican party till it didn't do so hot, then it was all democrats) that our unemployment numbers have leveled out and employment is on the rise. I'm just ready for something new and the republicans are still giving the new GOP cut taxes, up spending, increase debt; or well in this case they are saying pay down debt but cut taxes that is a logical fallacy since they aren't going to touch HHS or the military which makes up for 60% of our national projections, and interest makes up another 15%. That's 75% and the other 25% is fairly needed to, so you tell me how are we going to pay off our debt? (BTW, HHS + Medicaid is ~850billion while DoD is ~600billion, it's been awhile since I've looked at the numbers but memory seems to be serving me that those two are right, I do know HHS and Medicaid is much bigger then DoD)
I honestly don't give a fuck if I'm modded troll for this, I'm your a-typical conservative but I can't stand the incredible level of bullshit spewed by the republicans and the fucking pussy ass pandering the democrats did. I'm so tired of this, give me something real.
WTF Slashdot, why do I have to login 50 times to post?
How, exactly, could the right torpedo the plan when the Democrats had a huge majority in the house and a super majority in the Senate?
Supermajority? What supermajority would that be? You mean the 60 votes to required to overcome a filibuster and force cloture? Yeah, they had those 60 votes if you include 2 independents. They had them all the way from July 7,2009 when Al Franken was sworn in, up until August 25, 2009, when Ted Kennedy died. Yep, damn those democrats for not predicting Kennedy's death and rushing a health reform bill through in the 50 days during which they had complete, unobstructed control.
Wrong. Bush did a small temporary bailout to keep the car companies from going under. Then after they pissed away that money, Obama flat out used government money to BUY the damn companies.
As for Republicans dragging their feet? That's because, unlike many of the Democrats who got booted yesterday for voting for Obamacare, the Republicans were listening to their constituents. A large group of Americans (not just Republicans, but also plenty of Democrats) looked at their plan which would achieve two things for sure - higher taxes and more government control over your life - and said DO NOT WANT!!
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
Any conservative voices are modded as trolls.
Generally it's because they're actually trolling, or moderation ultimately sorts it out.
If you put up a reasoned post here and try to back up your arguments with fact, no matter your viewpoint, it probably won't end up modded down.
If you post one sentence that regurgitates someone else's logical fallacy of a talking point, yeah, that tends to get modded down.
So that means we can blame the democrats completely for everything we didn't like about the Bush administration, right? Because he passed everything that democrats hate without a filibuster proof majority. By your argument they were completely able to stop it and didn't