2010 November Election past….

[Coronita]

[quote=UCGal][quote=flu]But the best part of this election?….Goodbye Pelosi!!!!! Good riddance!!!!!! La la la la. la la la la , hey hey hey, say goodbye. Now that’s “CHANGE”…..

Tomorrow is gonna be a great day….[/quote]

The GOP leadership in the house is not exactly known for fiscal conservatism.

Lets see how you feel about Boehner a year into his tenure as speaker. Orange man is a tool of the corrupt lobbying interests.

Jerry Lewis will probably be the leader of the ways and means committee… I’m sure he’ll cut spending. Snort. The guy has never met a lobbyist he didn’t want to be schmoozed by.

Just saying… change sometimes isn’t good – it’s just more of the same and sometimes worse.[/quote]

Sorry, but I’ll agree to disagree with you on this one. I doubt it could get any worse the direction things were headed because things were out of control. No checks, no balance, no pushback.. I do agree with you the GOP isn’t going to be any less corrupt/red taped than Demo…The “hope” is that isn’t no so much anyone is going to really going to save money and cut the budgets. The “hope” there’s going to be so much bickering and /gridlock/deadlock that no one can agree how to spend money they don’t have. Because we all know…welcome to the new government…same as the old government. All the rhetoric the GOP is about shrinking the government..hahahahaha, yeah right….Change that results in government gridlock at this point would be a good thing imho…Thank god (pun intended again) GOP did NOT grab the senate too. That would have been a nightmare…
.

For the record, I really hope Obama gets his act together. At this point, I wouldn’t want to see a GOP president 2 years from now….

[UCGal]

You assume things got through the senate in the last 2 years. But the GOP filibustered pretty much everything. Even defense appropriations bills.

That part is exactly the same.

The house used to pass Democratic stuff that couldn’t get through the Senate.

Now the house will pass GOP stuf – that won’t get through the senate.

Gridlock continues.

[UCGal]

You assume things got through the senate in the last 2 years. But the GOP filibustered pretty much everything. Even defense appropriations bills.

That part is exactly the same.

The house used to pass Democratic stuff that couldn’t get through the Senate.

Now the house will pass GOP stuf – that won’t get through the senate.

Gridlock continues.

[UCGal]

You assume things got through the senate in the last 2 years. But the GOP filibustered pretty much everything. Even defense appropriations bills.

That part is exactly the same.

The house used to pass Democratic stuff that couldn’t get through the Senate.

Now the house will pass GOP stuf – that won’t get through the senate.

Gridlock continues.

[UCGal]

You assume things got through the senate in the last 2 years. But the GOP filibustered pretty much everything. Even defense appropriations bills.

That part is exactly the same.

The house used to pass Democratic stuff that couldn’t get through the Senate.

Now the house will pass GOP stuf – that won’t get through the senate.

Gridlock continues.

[UCGal]

You assume things got through the senate in the last 2 years. But the GOP filibustered pretty much everything. Even defense appropriations bills.

That part is exactly the same.

The house used to pass Democratic stuff that couldn’t get through the Senate.

Now the house will pass GOP stuf – that won’t get through the senate.

Gridlock continues.

[afx114]

It’ll be interesting to see how Boehner reigns in his new Tea Party compatriots. They’re going to have an agenda that doesn’t exactly line up with the traditional Republican agenda. During the Bush years it was easy for the Repubs to vote straight down party lines. The Tea Party has thrown a little wrench into those gears. Does Boehner have the leadership skills to keep his party’s various interests in line?

Also now that he and his party has some power, they have to walk the fine line between appearing obstructionist and appearing like he’s caving in to Obama’s agenda. Do they work with the Dems to solve these very real problems? Or do they shut down government? Either way could bite them in the ass with voters. Boehner has his work cut out for him.

To me the story here is more about how the Republicans (and their Tea Party subset) are going to govern rather than any massive swing in the political landscape. It is easy to be an opposition party — much more difficult having to actually govern.

And now… Boehner jokes!

When the House of Representatives has a Boehner, every night is erection night.

I’ll be here all night.

[afx114]

It’ll be interesting to see how Boehner reigns in his new Tea Party compatriots. They’re going to have an agenda that doesn’t exactly line up with the traditional Republican agenda. During the Bush years it was easy for the Repubs to vote straight down party lines. The Tea Party has thrown a little wrench into those gears. Does Boehner have the leadership skills to keep his party’s various interests in line?

Also now that he and his party has some power, they have to walk the fine line between appearing obstructionist and appearing like he’s caving in to Obama’s agenda. Do they work with the Dems to solve these very real problems? Or do they shut down government? Either way could bite them in the ass with voters. Boehner has his work cut out for him.

To me the story here is more about how the Republicans (and their Tea Party subset) are going to govern rather than any massive swing in the political landscape. It is easy to be an opposition party — much more difficult having to actually govern.

And now… Boehner jokes!

When the House of Representatives has a Boehner, every night is erection night.

I’ll be here all night.

[afx114]

It’ll be interesting to see how Boehner reigns in his new Tea Party compatriots. They’re going to have an agenda that doesn’t exactly line up with the traditional Republican agenda. During the Bush years it was easy for the Repubs to vote straight down party lines. The Tea Party has thrown a little wrench into those gears. Does Boehner have the leadership skills to keep his party’s various interests in line?

Also now that he and his party has some power, they have to walk the fine line between appearing obstructionist and appearing like he’s caving in to Obama’s agenda. Do they work with the Dems to solve these very real problems? Or do they shut down government? Either way could bite them in the ass with voters. Boehner has his work cut out for him.

To me the story here is more about how the Republicans (and their Tea Party subset) are going to govern rather than any massive swing in the political landscape. It is easy to be an opposition party — much more difficult having to actually govern.

And now… Boehner jokes!

When the House of Representatives has a Boehner, every night is erection night.

I’ll be here all night.

[afx114]

It’ll be interesting to see how Boehner reigns in his new Tea Party compatriots. They’re going to have an agenda that doesn’t exactly line up with the traditional Republican agenda. During the Bush years it was easy for the Repubs to vote straight down party lines. The Tea Party has thrown a little wrench into those gears. Does Boehner have the leadership skills to keep his party’s various interests in line?

Also now that he and his party has some power, they have to walk the fine line between appearing obstructionist and appearing like he’s caving in to Obama’s agenda. Do they work with the Dems to solve these very real problems? Or do they shut down government? Either way could bite them in the ass with voters. Boehner has his work cut out for him.

To me the story here is more about how the Republicans (and their Tea Party subset) are going to govern rather than any massive swing in the political landscape. It is easy to be an opposition party — much more difficult having to actually govern.

And now… Boehner jokes!

When the House of Representatives has a Boehner, every night is erection night.

I’ll be here all night.

[afx114]

It’ll be interesting to see how Boehner reigns in his new Tea Party compatriots. They’re going to have an agenda that doesn’t exactly line up with the traditional Republican agenda. During the Bush years it was easy for the Repubs to vote straight down party lines. The Tea Party has thrown a little wrench into those gears. Does Boehner have the leadership skills to keep his party’s various interests in line?

Also now that he and his party has some power, they have to walk the fine line between appearing obstructionist and appearing like he’s caving in to Obama’s agenda. Do they work with the Dems to solve these very real problems? Or do they shut down government? Either way could bite them in the ass with voters. Boehner has his work cut out for him.

To me the story here is more about how the Republicans (and their Tea Party subset) are going to govern rather than any massive swing in the political landscape. It is easy to be an opposition party — much more difficult having to actually govern.

And now… Boehner jokes!

When the House of Representatives has a Boehner, every night is erection night.

I’ll be here all night.

[Djshakes]

[quote=BigGovernmentIsGood]paramount,

Question: Would you prefer to see massive tax cuts for the richest 2% of Americans leading to eventual bankruptcy of the government or wage increases for your fellow workers?

Those are basically your two choices. Republicans like to pay lip service to cutting spending, but no government ever has cut spending. It’s not going to happen. So a vote for Republicans is basically a vote for massive tax cuts for the rich which will lead to massive budget deficits and eventual bankrupting of the government.

On the other side, you have the Democrats who are in the back pocket of the unions. Unions are great for all workers. When union wages go up, that puts pressure on non-union employers to raise wages.

I prefer to vote for the corrupt party that is on the side of the working man as opposed to the corrupt party that only cares about the richest 2% of Americans.[/quote]

Among the many other catchwords that shut down thinking are “the rich” and “the poor.” When is somebody rich? When they have a lot of wealth. But, when politicians talk about taxing “the rich,” they are not even talking about people’s wealth, and what they are planning to tax are people’s incomes, not their wealth.

If we stop and think, instead of going with the flow of catchwords, it is clear than income and wealth are different things. A billionaire can have zero income. Bill Gates lost $18 billion dollars in 2008 and Warren Buffett lost $25 billion. Their income might have been negative, for all I know. But, no matter how low their income was, they were not poor.

By the same token, people who have worked their way up, to the point where they have a substantial income in their later years, are not rich. In most cases, they never earned high incomes in their younger years and they will not be earning high incomes when they retire. A middle-aged or elderly couple making $125,000 each are not rich, even though politicians will tax away what they have earned at the end of decades of working their way up.

Similarly, most of the people who are called “the poor” are not poor. Their low incomes are as transient as the higher incomes of “the rich.” Most of the people in the bottom 20 percent in income end up in the top half of the income distribution in later years. Far more of them reach the top 20 percent than remain in the bottom 20 percent over the years.

The grand fallacy in most discussions of income statistics is the assumption that the various income brackets represent enduring classes of people, rather than transients who start at the bottom in entry-level jobs and move up as they acquire more experience and skills.

But if we are going to base major government policies on confusions between medical care and health care, or on calling people “rich” and “poor” who are neither, then we have truly accepted words as the money of fools. – Thomas Sowell

[Djshakes]

[quote=BigGovernmentIsGood]paramount,

Question: Would you prefer to see massive tax cuts for the richest 2% of Americans leading to eventual bankruptcy of the government or wage increases for your fellow workers?

Those are basically your two choices. Republicans like to pay lip service to cutting spending, but no government ever has cut spending. It’s not going to happen. So a vote for Republicans is basically a vote for massive tax cuts for the rich which will lead to massive budget deficits and eventual bankrupting of the government.

On the other side, you have the Democrats who are in the back pocket of the unions. Unions are great for all workers. When union wages go up, that puts pressure on non-union employers to raise wages.

I prefer to vote for the corrupt party that is on the side of the working man as opposed to the corrupt party that only cares about the richest 2% of Americans.[/quote]

Among the many other catchwords that shut down thinking are “the rich” and “the poor.” When is somebody rich? When they have a lot of wealth. But, when politicians talk about taxing “the rich,” they are not even talking about people’s wealth, and what they are planning to tax are people’s incomes, not their wealth.

If we stop and think, instead of going with the flow of catchwords, it is clear than income and wealth are different things. A billionaire can have zero income. Bill Gates lost $18 billion dollars in 2008 and Warren Buffett lost $25 billion. Their income might have been negative, for all I know. But, no matter how low their income was, they were not poor.

By the same token, people who have worked their way up, to the point where they have a substantial income in their later years, are not rich. In most cases, they never earned high incomes in their younger years and they will not be earning high incomes when they retire. A middle-aged or elderly couple making $125,000 each are not rich, even though politicians will tax away what they have earned at the end of decades of working their way up.

Similarly, most of the people who are called “the poor” are not poor. Their low incomes are as transient as the higher incomes of “the rich.” Most of the people in the bottom 20 percent in income end up in the top half of the income distribution in later years. Far more of them reach the top 20 percent than remain in the bottom 20 percent over the years.

The grand fallacy in most discussions of income statistics is the assumption that the various income brackets represent enduring classes of people, rather than transients who start at the bottom in entry-level jobs and move up as they acquire more experience and skills.

But if we are going to base major government policies on confusions between medical care and health care, or on calling people “rich” and “poor” who are neither, then we have truly accepted words as the money of fools. – Thomas Sowell

[Djshakes]

[quote=BigGovernmentIsGood]paramount,

Question: Would you prefer to see massive tax cuts for the richest 2% of Americans leading to eventual bankruptcy of the government or wage increases for your fellow workers?

Those are basically your two choices. Republicans like to pay lip service to cutting spending, but no government ever has cut spending. It’s not going to happen. So a vote for Republicans is basically a vote for massive tax cuts for the rich which will lead to massive budget deficits and eventual bankrupting of the government.

On the other side, you have the Democrats who are in the back pocket of the unions. Unions are great for all workers. When union wages go up, that puts pressure on non-union employers to raise wages.

I prefer to vote for the corrupt party that is on the side of the working man as opposed to the corrupt party that only cares about the richest 2% of Americans.[/quote]

Among the many other catchwords that shut down thinking are “the rich” and “the poor.” When is somebody rich? When they have a lot of wealth. But, when politicians talk about taxing “the rich,” they are not even talking about people’s wealth, and what they are planning to tax are people’s incomes, not their wealth.

If we stop and think, instead of going with the flow of catchwords, it is clear than income and wealth are different things. A billionaire can have zero income. Bill Gates lost $18 billion dollars in 2008 and Warren Buffett lost $25 billion. Their income might have been negative, for all I know. But, no matter how low their income was, they were not poor.

By the same token, people who have worked their way up, to the point where they have a substantial income in their later years, are not rich. In most cases, they never earned high incomes in their younger years and they will not be earning high incomes when they retire. A middle-aged or elderly couple making $125,000 each are not rich, even though politicians will tax away what they have earned at the end of decades of working their way up.

Similarly, most of the people who are called “the poor” are not poor. Their low incomes are as transient as the higher incomes of “the rich.” Most of the people in the bottom 20 percent in income end up in the top half of the income distribution in later years. Far more of them reach the top 20 percent than remain in the bottom 20 percent over the years.

The grand fallacy in most discussions of income statistics is the assumption that the various income brackets represent enduring classes of people, rather than transients who start at the bottom in entry-level jobs and move up as they acquire more experience and skills.

But if we are going to base major government policies on confusions between medical care and health care, or on calling people “rich” and “poor” who are neither, then we have truly accepted words as the money of fools. – Thomas Sowell

[Djshakes]

[quote=BigGovernmentIsGood]paramount,

Question: Would you prefer to see massive tax cuts for the richest 2% of Americans leading to eventual bankruptcy of the government or wage increases for your fellow workers?

Those are basically your two choices. Republicans like to pay lip service to cutting spending, but no government ever has cut spending. It’s not going to happen. So a vote for Republicans is basically a vote for massive tax cuts for the rich which will lead to massive budget deficits and eventual bankrupting of the government.

On the other side, you have the Democrats who are in the back pocket of the unions. Unions are great for all workers. When union wages go up, that puts pressure on non-union employers to raise wages.

I prefer to vote for the corrupt party that is on the side of the working man as opposed to the corrupt party that only cares about the richest 2% of Americans.[/quote]

Among the many other catchwords that shut down thinking are “the rich” and “the poor.” When is somebody rich? When they have a lot of wealth. But, when politicians talk about taxing “the rich,” they are not even talking about people’s wealth, and what they are planning to tax are people’s incomes, not their wealth.

If we stop and think, instead of going with the flow of catchwords, it is clear than income and wealth are different things. A billionaire can have zero income. Bill Gates lost $18 billion dollars in 2008 and Warren Buffett lost $25 billion. Their income might have been negative, for all I know. But, no matter how low their income was, they were not poor.

By the same token, people who have worked their way up, to the point where they have a substantial income in their later years, are not rich. In most cases, they never earned high incomes in their younger years and they will not be earning high incomes when they retire. A middle-aged or elderly couple making $125,000 each are not rich, even though politicians will tax away what they have earned at the end of decades of working their way up.

Similarly, most of the people who are called “the poor” are not poor. Their low incomes are as transient as the higher incomes of “the rich.” Most of the people in the bottom 20 percent in income end up in the top half of the income distribution in later years. Far more of them reach the top 20 percent than remain in the bottom 20 percent over the years.

The grand fallacy in most discussions of income statistics is the assumption that the various income brackets represent enduring classes of people, rather than transients who start at the bottom in entry-level jobs and move up as they acquire more experience and skills.

But if we are going to base major government policies on confusions between medical care and health care, or on calling people “rich” and “poor” who are neither, then we have truly accepted words as the money of fools. – Thomas Sowell

[Author]

Posts