Democrats get spanked in mid-terms

**Danny** · November-04-10, 09:49 AM

The Elephants got the house and the Donkeys get the senate. We Donkeys will keep on kicking and keep on thumping. Now we must watch those Elephants from appealing The Heatlh Care Reform Bill of 2015. STOP THEM NOW!

lincoln8740 · November-04-10, 09:56 AM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

Uh, because some people don't base every aspect of their happiness on their tax rate?

People are concerned with keeping more of their own money??
How dare they--- Selfish bastards!!!

**ghettopalmetto** · November-04-10, 10:06 AM

Originally Posted by lincoln8740

People are concerned with keeping more of their own money??
How dare they--- Selfish bastards!!!

You want more money? Work harder!

Signed,

The GOP.

**johnsmith** · November-04-10, 10:41 AM

Originally Posted by Detroitej72

Yeah, real historic. Obviously you have no knowledge of history there, junior.

In 94, Clinton felt the wrath of a "historic public backlash" when Repubs took control of congress and then went on to win a second term. Going back even further in history, Reagan took a "historic backlash" when the Dems won congress, and, yes, he too won a second term.

So I'd hold the victory cigar and champaign corks for a couple more years before you anoint any historic titles on this years midterms.

Junior, nice, should I stay off of your grass too? Have a glass of prune juice and read on. This election isn't the 2012 presidential election, it's the 2010 mid-term election and it's a truly historic mid-term election no matter how much you play dumb about it. And B.O. himself is at least being a man about it admitting and that he's been a failure:

"It's clear that the voters sent a message..." Obama said. The president said he instructed his Cabinet to make a "sincere and consistent" effort to change how Washington works, something he acknowledges has been a failing of his administration so far.

From The Detroit News: http://www.detnews.com/article/20101...#ixzz14KJWkPf3

Wow, and that was only one of his MAJOR campaign pledges too, to "change" how Washington works.

Obama ruefully called the Republican victories "a shellacking" and acknowledged that his own connection with the public had frayed.

From The Detroit News: http://www.detnews.com/article/20101...#ixzz14KKBzXY2

Way to get a clue there prez. After thoroughly disregarding the voice of the people during the health insurance bill debate and passage, as well as the bailouts, he's finally [[at least pretending to) come to his senses, all it took was a shellacking [[his own words) in the mid-terms for him to get it. No, nothing historic there, derailing the Obama agenda. A massive turnover of the House isn't historic either, nope, just another routine election.

B.O.... I just realized that our president named his dog after himself. What ego!

**ghettopalmetto** · November-04-10, 11:23 AM

Uh, remind us why this election was so "historic"? Most mid-term elections result in losses of Congressional seats for the President's party.

**oladub** · November-04-10, 11:30 AM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

Uh, remind us why this election was so "historic"? Most mid-term elections result in losses of Congressional seats for the President's party.

In Wisconsin, our US Senator, Governor, 2 of our US House Representatives, and both houses of our state legislature went from blue to red. How did you fare in South Carolina GP?

**ghettopalmetto** · November-04-10, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by oladub

In Wisconsin, our US Senator, Governor, 2 of our US House Representatives, and both houses of our state legislature went from blue to red. How did you fare in South Carolina GP?

Well, in the gubernatorial election, we elected an idiot self-proclaimed accountant who can't pay her taxes on time. And the Senator from Jesus who doesn't think sexually-active single women should teach in public schools won re-election over an unemployed veteran who lives with his dad and never actively campaigned.

I'm not sure if that's an improvement or not, but I'm pretty sure we'll remain #49 in Everything [[God bless Mississippi).

**johnsmith** · November-04-10, 12:38 PM

From The Detroit News: http://www.detnews.com/article/20101...#ixzz14KoCwivL

At a White House news conference, the president said that when Congress returns, "my goal is to make sure we don't have a huge spike in taxes for middle class families."

Key word there: "huge"

Reading between the lines, no problem raising taxes, just no "huge" increases. Not a good strategy for 2012.

From The Detroit News: http://www.detnews.com/article/20101...#ixzz14KoW51Rl

He also virtually abandoned his legislation — hopelessly stalled in the Senate — featuring economic incentives to reduce carbon emissions from power plants, vehicles and other sources.

"I'm going to be looking for other means of addressing this problem," he said. "Cap and trade was just one way of skinning the cat," he said, strongly implying there will be others.

Nice, people don't want it, but he wants to "skin the cat" anyway. That will not go down well in 2012.

From The Detroit News: http://www.detnews.com/article/20101...#ixzz14KpH8PIr

"I think people started looking at all this, and it felt as if government was getting much more intrusive into people's lives than they were accustomed to," he conceded.

Ya think? Actually, he's not admitting it's a bad thing, just that people "aren't accustomed to it." Unbelievable! He's admitting that growth in the size, scope and power of the federal government into people's lives and privacy is his agenda., and that we just need to get accustomed to it. Scary.

From The Detroit News: http://www.detnews.com/article/20101...#ixzz14KpoU0Qi

"I want us to talk substantively about how we can move the American people's agenda forward," Obama told reporters, with Cabinet members at his side.

Clearly the only option to accomplish that is for him and his cabinet to abandon the Obama agenda that was CLEARLY slapped down on Tuesday, and, like he said, start actually pushing THE PEOPLE's agenda! He might actually have a slight clue with that statement.

From The Detroit News: http://www.detnews.com/article/20101...#ixzz14Kq39vR6

"It's clear that the voters sent a message, which is that they want us to focus on the economy and jobs,"

Um, no. It's more about not steering this country further into socialism.

Nice naming your dog after yourself B.O.

**rb336** · November-04-10, 01:14 PM

Originally Posted by johnsmith

"It's clear that the voters sent a message..." Obama said.

That message?

We are as stupid as dirt.

**Gistok** · November-04-10, 01:51 PM

You can always spot a Forum post spin job gone bad... when the rambling includes irrelavent insipid small talk about dog naming....

**firstandten** · November-04-10, 10:37 PM

I wouldn't read a whole lot into this This happen to Clinton, Reagan,Johnson, Truman. As a matter of fact here's a little story about Harry Truman's midterms...

"But Johnson had it easy compared with Harry Truman. Truman's Democrats went into the 1946 midterm election with a 57–38 majority in the Senate and a 243–190 majority in the House. They came out of them facing Republican majorities of 51–45 in the Senate and 246–188 in the House.
The analysis of the 1946 election was that Truman was doomed politically.
As it turned out he was reelected in 1948 and voters handed him a 54–42 Democratic majority in the Senate and a 263–171 majority in the House. With more Northern and Western Democrats elected in both chambers, Truman was actually better positioned to govern as a liberal.

If he is smart, Obama will borrow the a page from Truman's playbook. Faced with a reactionary Republican Congress, Truman pulled out his veto pen, took to the bully pulpit and gave 'em hell.
Truman also counseled against compromise, explaining that: "Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for a real Republican all the time."

The Republicans still haven't positioned anyone who can seriously challenge Obama in 2012. With Obama's recent public statements I think he will take a page out of the Harry Truman playbook.

**ghettopalmetto** · November-04-10, 11:07 PM

Originally Posted by firstandten

The Republicans still haven't positioned anyone who can seriously challenge Obama in 2012. With Obama's recent public statements I think he will take a page out of the Harry Truman playbook.

Well, Obama certainly needs to whip out his cajones once in a while, that's for sure. Pursuing the agenda he has, and then using the words of his Republican detractors as a defense, hasn't quite worked so well. Paul Krugman elaborates more in today's NY Times.

Frankly, I could give a shit less if Obama does the things that will get him re-elected. I want someone to do the RIGHT things, regardless of how politically unpopular they may be. And if he has any conviction at all that what he's doing are the right things, it's high time to untuck the tail from between the legs and start adopting a more Trumanesque stance.

**Zacha341** · November-05-10, 05:01 AM

LOL! So long as the government promises to 'regurgitate' goodies back to the working stiffs and others [[cents on a dollar mind you - bureaucratically sifted) some will be salved to complain less about their diminishing take-home dollars, and increasing life hours spent working [[sic) or 'waiting' for said government...

Meanwhile: the truly rich elite [[dem and repub) will always 'exempt' themselves from the confiscatory taxing and social policies so administered. That's the 'fix' as it is played out. Well, the IRS is hiring... might as well get ahead of the wave... can't beat 'em, join 'em!

Originally Posted by lincoln8740

People are concerned with keeping more of their own money??
How dare they--- Selfish bastards!!!

**Zacha341** · November-05-10, 06:01 AM

Who's the 'they' in this specifically? I have family/ friends that are dyed in the wool dems, who aren't too happy about loosing their SS, Medicare or private health care options either...?

Originally Posted by jcole

The outrage will be there if they don't get their tax cuts, anyone messes with SS or Medicare or their private health care, or they close a couple army bases. They want tax cuts and a balanced budget as long as it doesn't inconvenience them in any way shape or form. Cut welfare, Medicaid or any other 'social' program and they'll be just ducky.

**johnsmith** · November-05-10, 09:59 AM

Originally Posted by Zacha341

LOL! So long as the government promises to 'regurgitate' goodies back to the working stiffs and others [[cents on a dollar mind you - bureaucratically sifted) some will be salved to complain less about their diminishing take-home dollars, and increasing life hours spent working [[sic) or 'waiting' for said government...

I like that, "regurgitated bureaucratically sifted cents on a dollar return." Your tax dollars and federal debt at work!

**Zacha341** · November-05-10, 10:37 AM

That's right... a dollar sifted thru the government machine will always be copper pennies at the delivery end! The self appointments and 'anoint-ments' on the top taking/ raking their front-loaded portion via layers of red tape ...

...

Originally Posted by johnsmith

I like that, "regurgitated bureaucratically sifted cents on a dollar return." Your tax dollars and federal debt at work!

**jiminnm** · November-05-10, 10:43 AM

This column captures the continued tone deafness of the White House.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...110306806.html

**Papasito** · November-05-10, 12:21 PM

There are a TON of places to cut the size of Government without tearing into Medicare or SS. There are so many Government agencies and Czars that we don't need and can do just fine without.Government must be relative in size to taxes taken in.

If I run a lemonade stand that costs me $10.00 a day, and I only sell $5.00 of lemonade a day, I'd cut my lemonade production in half. Government should not be exempt to the rules of common sense in business practice.

**Zacha341** · November-05-10, 01:05 PM

Yep, a tone deafness that continue at a bi-partisan level......

Originally Posted by jiminnm

This column captures the continued tone deafness of the White House.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...110306806.html

Bearinabox · November-05-10, 02:25 PM

Originally Posted by Papasito

There are a TON of places to cut the size of Government without tearing into Medicare or SS. There are so many Government agencies and Czars that we don't need and can do just fine without.

Be specific, dude. All the candidates say that, and then someone asks them "so, what would you cut to fix the budget?" and they splutter and stammer like it's going out of style. I'm not saying government is 100% efficient, but I seriously doubt the sum total of the inefficiencies are a significant proportion of the deficit.

lincoln8740 · November-05-10, 04:18 PM

Originally Posted by Bearinabox

Be specific, dude. All the candidates say that, and then someone asks them "so, what would you cut to fix the budget?" and they splutter and stammer like it's going out of style. I'm not saying government is 100% efficient, but I seriously doubt the sum total of the inefficiencies are a significant proportion of the deficit.

Let's start with eliminating the Department of Education--56 billion
then eliminate the Department of Labor-- 146 billion

200 billion to start--not bad!!!

Bearinabox · November-05-10, 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by lincoln8740

Let's start with eliminating the Department of Education--56 billion
then eliminate the Department of Labor-- 146 billion

200 billion to start--not bad!!!

Except that it's kind of debatable whether those are things we "don't need and can do fine without." Papa made it sound like he just wanted to cut things that are indisputable, objectively-verifiable wastes of money, which practically every politician in the country has pledged to eliminate at one point or another because it plays really well with the voters, and whose impact is always vastly overestimated.

If you seriously want to cut the department of education, you can run for president on that platform and let the public decide. Actually, wait, you don't even have to. Ron Paul already did. How many votes did he get again?

**oladub** · November-05-10, 05:37 PM

Originally Posted by Bearinabox

If you seriously want to cut the department of education, you can run for president on that platform and let the public decide. Actually, wait, you don't even have to. Ron Paul already did. How many votes did he get again?

Over a million. Ron Paul did ok.

Who Won the 2010 Election? Ron Paul

"Yes, but among the presidential candidates. Who were the big winners? What personalities came out ahead?

Sarah Palin was a big winner. But in a sense this was really a moment for Ron Paul, the most unlikely candidate last time around. You can say, Ron Paul lost the election last time but won the revolution this time.
The Tea party really started as a Ron Paul fundraiser, although it was co-opted by Sarah Palin. [[And you have to give her credit for that.) And all that Ron Paul said about the economy, the dollar, our dependency on China, the bailouts, things that were laughed at two years ago, became the standard campaign language of last night’s winners. And remember, Paul turned his army loose after his big convention in Minneapolis. He charged them to go out and run for office themselves. And they did."

http://dougwead.wordpress.com/2010/1...tion-ron-paul/

Every state already has it's own DOE. The federal DOE is a costly redundancy. But the first matter of family business is introducing a bill to kill the Federal reserve which the Pauls plant to do the first day of the new Congress. It most likely will not pass because of entrenched interests. Ron Paul also now has the seniority to take over a monetary sub-committee which should be fun if other Republicans don't conspire with the banksters.

**ghettopalmetto** · November-05-10, 08:12 PM

Originally Posted by Papasito

There are a TON of places to cut the size of Government without tearing into Medicare or SS. There are so many Government agencies and Czars that we don't need and can do just fine without.Government must be relative in size to taxes taken in.

If I run a lemonade stand that costs me $10.00 a day, and I only sell $5.00 of lemonade a day, I'd cut my lemonade production in half. Government should not be exempt to the rules of common sense in business practice.

Yes, and we all know that NO "common sense" business would ever do silly things like borrowing money or carry debt during a period when revenues fall. You must cut cut cut as soon as your revenues drop.

**ghettopalmetto** · November-05-10, 08:13 PM

Originally Posted by oladub

Every state already has it's own DOE. The federal DOE is a costly redundancy. But the first matter of family business is introducing a bill to kill the Federal reserve which the Pauls plant to do the first day of the new Congress. It most likely will not pass because of entrenched interests. Ron Paul also now has the seniority to take over a monetary sub-committee which should be fun if other Republicans don't conspire with the banksters.
[/SIZE]

So which state DOE handles student loans for higher education? Which state DOE administers the No Child Left Behind Law that the Republicans love so much?