- This topic has 315 replies, 25 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 1 month ago by
briansd1.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 3, 2010 at 8:36 AM #626895November 3, 2010 at 8:44 AM #625850
UCGal
ParticipantYou 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.
November 3, 2010 at 8:44 AM #625929ParticipantYou 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.
November 3, 2010 at 8:44 AM #626478ParticipantYou 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.
November 3, 2010 at 8:44 AM #626602ParticipantYou 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.
November 3, 2010 at 8:44 AM #626910ParticipantYou 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.
November 3, 2010 at 9:03 AM #625861afx114
ParticipantIt’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.
November 3, 2010 at 9:03 AM #625939ParticipantIt’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.
November 3, 2010 at 9:03 AM #626488ParticipantIt’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.
November 3, 2010 at 9:03 AM #626612ParticipantIt’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.
November 3, 2010 at 9:03 AM #626920ParticipantIt’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.
November 3, 2010 at 3:32 PM #626054Djshakes
Participant[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
November 3, 2010 at 3:32 PM #626132Participant[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
November 3, 2010 at 3:32 PM #626682Participant[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
November 3, 2010 at 3:32 PM #626809Participant[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
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.