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!
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?
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.
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.
This DOES matter. It will directly impact laws and regulations that matter to nerds.
Living With a Nerd
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
All your 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 are belong to us
That /. gets its United States election results from CBC/Radio Canada?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
I am officially gone from
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.'
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
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.
"I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain