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.

Comments

Should be good for the economy

[rwa2]

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

Re:Should be good for the economy

[Wonko the Sane]

Historically, the economy has always done well with a Republican congress and a Democrat president...

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.

Re:Should be good for the economy

[Pojut]

The real test will be what Boehner does now...will he obstruct, or will he work?

This can be applied to Obama as well.

Re:Should be good for the economy

[Kryptonian Jor-El]

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

Re:Should be good for the economy

[Pojut]

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.

Re:Should be good for the economy

[fishbowl]

>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.

Re:Should be good for the economy

[chris mazuc]

Sounds like the same old bullshit to me. Compromise to the Republicans is the Democrats doing what they tell them to do.

Re:Should be good for the economy

[nomadic]

It's a big challenge for Obama - he's more "ideologically pure" than Clinton was, so we'll see if he's willing to compromise at all to get anything done for his side. If he wants to be reelected, he'll have to run to the right.

Ideologically pure? The man has offered so many concessions while in office that it's become ridiculous. He really thinks he can win over the paranoid right with his charisma, but he's just not really that charismatic.

Re:Should be good for the economy

[Wonko the Sane]

The economy got fucked when Nancy Pelosi became Speaker of the House in 2006.

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.

Re:Should be good for the economy

[nomadic]

Boehner? Are you kidding me? Boehner distributed campaign distributions from tobacco lobbyists to his fellow congresspeople. On the House floor. Right before a tobacco vote. I mean, there are a lot of people in Congress who are basically corporate shills, but Boehner is easily one of the worst. He's basically a lobbyist in congressional clothing.

Re:Should be good for the economy

[Notquitecajun]

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).

Re:Should be good for the economy

[TheGratefulNet]

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!)

Re:Should be good for the economy

[Notquitecajun]

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.

Re:Should be good for the economy

[pixelpusher220]

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.

Re:Should be good for the economy

[Viewsonic]

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.

Re:Should be good for the economy

[Johnny5000]

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.

Re:Should be good for the economy

[truthsearch]

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.

Re:Should be good for the economy

[Colonel Korn]

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.

Re:Should be good for the economy

[viking099]

Don't forget that the right wing mouthpieces had their part in affecting the debates. The whole "death panel" debacle was completely distorted rhetoric on something very sensible and important: end of life planning and counseling. Which was proposed by a Republican and accepted until it became too much of an albatross to carry.

Re:Should be good for the economy

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Should be good for the economy

[localman]

It's a shame when people rewrite history so casually. The idea that you call the health care plan "Obamacare" when he didn't put it together and basically dropped the ball on it is completely absurd. Then, in an effort to work with Republicans the plan was whittled down to almost nothing, yet you still call it "Obamacare" and claim nobody talked to the Republicans.

Sorry, but I was paying attention, and I saw a perfectly reasonable and popular health care bill relentlessly torpedoed by the right, and that is the damaged bill we have now. Which, by the way, is still better than nothing and that will be obvious in 20 years as it is tweaked -- like every successful social policy of the past century. You know, the stuff that brought us to the top of the list of developed countries after WWII.

Your notion that this administration is the most partisan is merely a reflection of the fact that sometime since the early nineties when Newt shut down Congress, Republican leaders have simply decided "my way or the highway" on everything. Democrats under Bush were far more reasonable than the Republicans have been in decades now, which is why Bush was able to "work across the aisle".

It may be worth calling attention to the fact, which seems to slip your mind, that under Clinton's leadership we saw one of the greatest decades of growth this country has ever experienced. And under Bush we saw one of the worst. And under Obama we are slowly recovering. Doesn't any of those plain facts make you wonder about the Republican plan?

Re:Should be good for the economy

[Danse]

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.

Re:Should be good for the economy

[GodfatherofSoul]

Classic example. The Dems had 60% of the Senate (counting the Indies). The stimulus bill included about 40% of the tax cuts that Republicans wanted. They wanted a 50/50 solution with 40% of the vote and still voted it down. A stronger Senate leader would have stripped all of their provisions out when they indicated they weren't voting for ti anyway.

Re:Should be good for the economy

[GiveBenADollar]

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.

Re:Should be good for the economy

[GodfatherofSoul]

Does anyone remember history more than 3 months back anymore? The collapse started in 2007 and really blew up in 2008.

Re:Should be good for the economy

[countertrolling]

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.

Re:Should be good for the economy

[Thud457]

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.

Re:Should be good for the economy

[brit74]

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.

Re:Should be good for the economy

[gtbritishskull]

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?

Re:Should be good for the economy

[Hatta]

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.

Re:Should be good for the economy

[dkleinsc]

He's also on the record as being concerned that Newt Gingrich was too conciliatory back in the 1990's. Also, the Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is on the record as saying that the top priority of the Republican Senate delegation is to ensure that Obama doesn't get reelected. Something tells me the people's business isn't the top of their list.

Re:Should be good for the economy

[DavidTC]

It was laws such as the Community Reinvestment Act that encouraged banks to lend to low income consumers who were high credit risks to begin with.

You're a goddamn imbecile.

The CRA had nothing, period, at all to do with the collapse at all.

I love the idea that you can 'encourage' banks to make a bunch of failing loans, which were not made under the CRA, by forcing it to make other 'bad' loans. (Note: CRA loans generally outperform other loans, simply because banks pay more attention to who they give them out to.)

It's the same way that businesses are forced to collect sales tax, so they often collect even more money from customers and throw it out afterward. That's how businesses work, right?

The CRA 'covered' about 25% of all institutes making mortgages, and maybe 1-2% were actually 'required' under the CRA, a law which is essentially pointless at this point in history, because banks don't red-line anymore.

As has been pointed out repeated, the economy failure wasn't even caused by mortgages. It was caused by banksters suddenly realizing they'd built castles in the air on total nonsense and had no idea how to value any of it, so functionally had no money on their balance books.

That realization wasn't caused by mortgage failure, it was caused by failing home prices, which meant their assets went down. Even if the American people magically had enough money to keep paying the mortgage, the collapse still would have happened unless housing prices magically stayed absurdly high forever.

You have the bankers who were too short-sighted and optimistic about how those loans would play out in some cases, and openly deceitful in passing off packaged securities to investors while understating their risks in others.

By 'openly deceitful', of course,you mean 'committing fraud on a massive never-before-seen level'.

There is such a thing as personal responsibility. Americans shouldn't have tried so hard to get the best possible homes and realized when a something was simply more than they could afford. If there weren't any homes they could afford they should have stuck with renting.

Fuck. You.

Our real estate broker is legally our agent. It is criminal fraud for them to work against our best interest. They are not allowed to sell people property they can't afford, anymore than your investment banker could sell you an investment he knew was going to decrease in value.

It is also illegal for banks to make loans they know can't be paid off. It is illegal for them not to clearly explain the terms of any loans they are issuing.

But people were 'helped' through the process by people who, under law, were required to tell the truth, and under law were required not to give them loans they knew would fail, or even required to be on their side and instead told the people to lie or even just took blank applications, had the person sign it, and lied themselves.

Then there's all the people who made the situation worse by refusing to continue making mortgage payments they could easily afford simply because they owed more than the house was worth. I consider them every bit as greedy and immoral as most of the bankers we love to vilify.

Ah, the last Republican talking point. So, statically, the one out of ten thousand people who are doing this are important? Becuase no one's actually doing this.

And immoral? Corporations have no morality, I don't really see why anyone has any morality when dealing with them. Corporation kick people of their house all the time when moral people would not. When dealing with corporations, you do the terms of your agreement, nothing more.

Those people are agreeing with the terms of their loan agreement. Either they pay the money, or the bank gets the house. Those were the terms from the start. Perhaps I should quote you 'No matter how sleazy the salesman, you're at least partially to blame if you fall for a scam.'

Re:Should be good for the economy

[Bill_the_Engineer]

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.

Since you are correctly blaming congress for the mess our economy is in, let's look at the exact cause. It was the passing of the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 that law repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, opening up the market among banking companies, securities companies and insurance companies. The Glass-Steagall Act prohibited any one institution from acting as any combination of an investment bank, a commercial bank, and an insurance company.

When that bill passed the Republicans had both the house and senate, however only 7 out of 45 Democratic senators and 51 out of 206 Democratic house representatives voted against the bill. Leaving me with only one conclusion that BOTH PARTIES ARE TO BLAME.

This partisan blame game is counter-productive and is used to manipulate the populous into voting against "the other party". We need to keep an eye on our own elected representatives and make sure that their vote represents the views of their constituents. Quit drinking the party politics kool-aid and think for yourself. The other senators and representatives represents their voters not you! So regardless of your political leanings you need to encourage your senator to work together and create legislation that represents the best interest of the country and quit sabotaging the country in hopes of placing blame on the other party.

For example look at health care reform. The overwhelming majority of the nation feels that something needs to be done to improve accessibility to quality health care. The house democrats decided to allow themselves to be extorted into giving ridiculous concessions to fellow Democrats in order to win enough votes to overcome an expected Republican filibuster. Thanks to Nancy Pelosi's hubris we have a health care reform bill that may overwhelmingly be good for the nation, but the Republicans have no vested interested in it and will always use it as some political football.

The Republicans are just as bad. They are willing to let this country go down the tubes in order to win the next election. They acted like a 5 year throwing a tantrum and obstructed every bill that came up for vote. Imagine what the health care bill would be like if the Democrats didn't need to overcome an expected filibuster. Too bad the Republicans will never vote for a bill that made the other party look good. Even bills that they themselves used to push when they had control of the house.

The only good thing that came from the election is that the Republicans control the House and the Democrats control the Senate, so now they have to actually make compromises in order to pass anything. Also Republicans are in the driver's seat in the House and can be held just as accountable as the Democrats for anything that happens from this point on.

I also won't be surprised that the economy will miraculously improve now that the Republicans have no reason to talk down the economy. Thanks to the corporations, we have a consumer based economy and as soon as people feel good about using their credit cards the faster the economy will "improve".

We need more national political parties. The picking the lessor of two evils is not working.

To recap: Both parties to blame. Two-party system sucks. The election ended yesterday so STFU and get back to tech news.

Re:Should be good for the economy

[nbauman]

Actually, Ralph Nader said that, apart from foreign policy, the Democratic part is farther right than Richard Nixon.

I think he's right. Nixon's Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare was Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who was non-partisan but promoted a lot of ideas that we would consider liberal.

One Nixon/Moynihan proposal was the guaranteed annual income. We would fold the welfare system into the income tax system. If you earned over a certain amount, you would pay taxes. If you earned under a certain amount, you would get "negative taxes." It was a good idea, but to avoid negative incentives, it would have been expensive.

If the guaranteed annual income had gone through, we would have eliminated poverty. We would have had the economic distribution of Finland.

Re:Should be good for the economy

[Danse]

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.

Re:Should be good for the economy

[zerocool^]

That's not true; the mandate PROTECTS insurance companies.

If insurance companies can't deny coverage based on pre-existing problems, AND there's no mandate to have insurance, what's to stop people from waiting until they're sick to have insurance?

The entire idea of insurance is that you continually pay into it, and the risk is shared over many people, sick and well. Without the shared risk, only the sick will pay into it, and it quickly goes bankrupt.

Put down the partisan talking points for a second and think about it.

Re:Should be good for the economy

[Bemopolis]

It happened. All you need for proof is the fact that Boehner apologized for doing it, years after the fact Unless you think Bloomberg is too lefty a news site for you.

Re:Should be good for the economy

[LordKronos]

The Dems had 60% of the Senate (counting the Indies).

Only from July 7,2009 when Al Franken was sworn in, up until August 25, 2009, when Ted Kennedy died. And the month long senate recess began on August 7.

Re:Should be good for the economy

[Mongoose Disciple]

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.

The real winners

[antifoidulus]

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.

Fear & Ignorance

[nahdude812]

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.

Re:Fear & Ignorance

[Andraax]

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.

Err, the Democrats took over *4* years ago, not 2. They had complete control of the legislature (and hence the budget process) in 2006, only adding the executive in 2008.

Re:Fear & Ignorance

[MozeeToby]

Imagine you run a business and the shit hits the fan; revenue is down 50%, your customers aren't buying because they don't have any money, and you can't afford to pay the bills, let alone the payroll. What are you going to do if you want to keep your business running? Fire a lot of staff? Negotiate a short term loan with the bank? Negotiate a payment plan with the people you owe money to?

Now imagine it's 3 years later and revenues are back up, not to what they were before but they're getting close and trending upward. So now what are you going to do? You'll hire some staff back, doubtless, but during the past three years you've been forced to find ways to make your business works with less staff so it won't be as many as you needed before the bad years. Not to mention you're still paying off all those high interest debts and payment plans, even with revenue up you can't afford to take the risk of hiring someone you don't 100% need.

This is pretty much exactly the position my wife's work found themselves in; revenues are up, workload is up but what should be discretionary cash is going toward paying off their old debts. Meanwhile they can't hire those two new staff persons (increasing from 4) they really need to support that revenue because the money isn't there. It'll be a at least 6 months, maybe a year before the debt is paid down and they can start hiring again, despite that fact that they have more customers than ever.

Re:Fear & Ignorance

[Wonko the Sane]

The only they could do was keep it from getting even worse with the stimulus money.

That's absolute bullshit. They could have closed the bankrupt TBTF institutions and prosecuted every single responsible individual under RICO, releasing non-violent pot heads to make room in the prisons for all the white collar thugs.

Instead the rest of the economy is being bled dry to prop them up and cover for their theft.

Re:Fear & Ignorance

[bouldin]

What the Dems did accomplish was to prevent a panic, which may be the best anybody can really expect of government in this kind of crisis. Republicans probably would have focused on lowering taxes, so big business could take that money and use it for overseas jobs.

Maybe we all need to consider that American politicians just are not able to fix this problem.

Re:Fear & Ignorance

[jemenake]

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

What disheartens me is the number of people who seem to think that the largest economy in the world should handle like a sports car and not like a super-tanker. According to what you hear from countless economists, we narrowly avoided another great depression, and the last one took a decade to recover from. And now we've got voter revolt happening over: 1) shock over the price tag of the stimulus (ie, Dems are spending too much trying to revive the economy) and 2) the slow recovery (ie, the Dems aren't doing enough to try to revive the economy). Well, which is it?

During the 2008 campaign, I was actually a little worried that Obama wasn't making clear that it was going to take years to recover from this mess. It seems that every economist I was reading at the time was saying it. Granted, Obama wasn't saying that we'd recover quickly, but he also wasn't doing anything to disabuse the public of this notion that the recovery was going to be speedy. It struck me, at the time, that he could be setting himself up for this very kind of thing that we saw on Tuesday. Alas... perhaps his analysts, during the campaign, concluded that to utter things like "multi-year recovery" would lose him the election. It probably would have, but he should have, at least, started getting that message out very early on after his win.

As someone who stands to make out like a bandit from 0% tax on an inheritance (that I did nothing to earn) and on capital gains (that I make even while I'm sleeping or golfing), I'm getting pretty tired of voting against my personal financial self-interest for the benefit of other, less-fortunate folk who can't be persuaded to vote for their own interest.

Re:Fear & Ignorance

[Hatta]

As a day trader you know shit about the real economy. The economy will be improving when people start making money doing real work, instead of just shuffling money around.

Re:Fear & Ignorance

[Wonko the Sane]

There is no solution to be found in either major political party, unfortunately.

The answer is to restore the rule of law and prosecute the banksters.

It's not a competition!

[Lord Byron II]

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?

Gridlock FTW

[brian0918]

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.

One result that affects Slashdot...

[GPLDAN]

Kiss Net Neutrality goodbye. The champion of it in the Senate is Al Franken, and he's a one term Senator for sure.

Re:New for nerds. Stuff that matters

[Pojut]

This DOES matter. It will directly impact laws and regulations that matter to nerds.

Take over at state level is more important

[Shivetya]

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.

Re:Take over at state level is more important

[gad_zuki!]

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.

Did anyone notice..

[MooMooFarm]

That /. gets its United States election results from CBC/Radio Canada?

Re:Did anyone notice..

[Minwee]

Where else would you go to find fair and balanced reporting?

Cut spending on Vietghanistan

[tepples]

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?

Re:Cut spending on Vietghanistan

[Anonymous Coward]

Woah, woah, woah. Boehner, and the Republicans in general, want to cut taxes. When have they ever cared about cutting spending? What's that even got to do with it?

Re:Cut spending on Vietghanistan

[tverbeek]

"But are Speaker-elect Boehner and his Republicans willing to cut defense spending?"

Not as long as their are military-industrial jobs programs in their districts. Which is why the Democrats aren't willing to do it either.

Re:Cut spending on Vietghanistan

[NeverVotedBush]

And the sad thing is that while this country drowns in debt, taxes are at their lowest in decades. Somehow the right has convinced everyone that low taxes are actually high and need to be cut even more - in an era of multi-million dollar salaries for execs. Sure can't burden those poor folk with any taxes. How could they afford that next Gulfstream jet or vacation home?

But will the working class get a break? Nope. As the Fed cuts various programs, states will be forced to raise taxes and guess who will pay them.

Re:Cut spending on Vietghanistan

[Duradin]

The working class works, that's what they're there for, someone needs to produce something of value for the rich, err sorry, the "middle class" to exploit.

The rich get richer and the poor get children. It's not just a line from a book but a way of life that must be maintained (whether the poor like it or not).

Re:Cut spending on Vietghanistan

[jackbird]

Israel got $3 billion in total aid last year, and there is an agreement in place dating from 2007 to reduce that figure over 10 years. (In fact, the $3 billion is an uptick due to a pecial request for funds to help move military bases OUT of Gaza). NASA's budget, at 6 times that amount, is commonly cited here as a very low-cost line item, and I have to question your reasoning.

Unless you're suggesting that Israel ordered the US to invade Iraq and subsequently bolster of Iran in the region, and are attributing the cost of Iraq to Israel, in which case you might want to check your lips for crack pipe burns.

OK Republicans,

[sootman]

you've got two years to fix everything starting... now.

Re:New for nerds. Stuff that matters

[Zocalo]

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?

The real losers

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Obama should just call for elections

[Enry]

Punish Obama for not pushing heathcare reform

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.

Re:Obama should just call for elections

[SoupGuru]

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.