...

[Zodiark1593]

LOL, Democrats.

I think the correction is politicians don't care about us, regardless of party, period. Arguing dems vs repubs is like arguing whether it's better to drown or burn to death.

 

[HomerJS]

I can't find a reliable source on their tax reform plan. Apparently they want to cut taxes across the board but I don't see how that's going to help.

It won't. However cutting taxes amongst groups who will spend it creates multipliers in the economy. Let's say 80K and down

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Obama should just vote No on the most rediculous ideas but not veto it. If it passes people can see what damage Republican plans do to the economy. If they themselves have to block Republican plans over and over again (as they were meant to force Obama to veto, rather than being actually doable) it shows weakness in the party.

 

[BoomerD]

Obama should just vote No on the most rediculous ideas but not veto it. If it passes people can see what damage Republican plans do to the economy. If they themselves have to block Republican plans over and over again (as they were meant to force Obama to veto, rather than being actually doable) it shows weakness in the party.

Obama doesn't get to "vote" on legislation...he either signs it or vetoes it.

 

[Matt1970]

It won't. However cutting taxes amongst groups who will spend it creates multipliers in the economy. Let's say 80K and down

Right, because we all know those who make over $80K just stuff it in mattresses.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

First order of business...vote to repeal Obamacare and let the Democrats filibuster it. Once that's out of the way, I think we'll see Republicans start passing bipartisan legislation at a fairly sharp clip.

If the Republicans are dumb enough to repeal Obamacare...and to thus take uncontested ownership of the nation's health care problems...then let them go ahead.

Then when someone dies as a result of lack of health care...they can take the blame. Then when a private insurance company's death panel revokes a cancer patient's insurance resulting in death...the Republicans can take the blame.

 

[FelixDeCat]

,,,

 

[fskimospy]

Not repeal it, just fix it.

They keep saying they will repeal and "fix" it. They have never once specified how they would do that. This is on purpose, and they likely never will.

 

[dank69]

Stupidest post I've read today.

Because Dems/liberals don't vote for min wage increases, reproductive rights, measures to keep money out of the election process, legalizing SSM, and on and on. The only policy Dems really have wrong is gun control.

 

[bshole]

If the market does crash in the next 2 years, it is 100% all on this election and it's disastrous results. I still believe that Obama can hold the ship on course for another two years. I am terrified of what will happen to my retirement accounts when the Republicans take the White House in the next election.

 

[RandomWords]

I'm pretty sure a majority of Texans voted republican across the board... maybe they were too tired to research all the candidates... because in half the cases the republican was not the best choice IMO. Personally - I liked Kathie Glass - even if a bit extreme - though Greg Abbott was just as good a choice... but Phil King, George Bush, Sid miller, Jeff Boyd, David Newell, Kevin Patrick Yeary, nathan Hecht, Glenn Hegar, Kay Granger, Patricia Hardy - all unacceptable with better choices (democrate or libertarian or Green party) available.

 

[HumblePie]

I'm pretty sure a majority of Texans voted republican across the board... maybe they were too tired to research all the candidates... because in half the cases the republican was not the best choice IMO. Personally - I liked Kathie Glass - even if a bit extreme - though Greg Abbott was just as good a choice... but Phil King, George Bush, Sid miller, Jeff Boyd, David Newell, Kevin Patrick Yeary, nathan Hecht, Glenn Hegar, Kay Granger, Patricia Hardy - all unacceptable with better choices (democrate or libertarian or Green party) available.

Yah the votes in Texas look like many people just hit the 1 button at the top to make all votes go towards the Republican candidate.

 

[norseamd]

Because Dems/liberals don't vote for min wage increases, reproductive rights, measures to keep money out of the election process, legalizing SSM, and on and on. The only policy Dems really have wrong is gun control.

And Democrats also are not very good on the military and defense.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

If the market does crash in the next 2 years, it is 100% all on this election and it's disastrous results. I still believe that Obama can hold the ship on course for another two years. I am terrified of what will happen to my retirement accounts when the Republicans take the White House in the next election.

You're incredibly irrational...just saying.

 

[bshole]

You're incredibly irrational...just saying.

Doc, I am not irrational.... my entire life savings is on the line. I have plenty of skin in the game. Do you?

 

[dank69]

And Democrats also are not very good on the military and defense.

What do you mean? You think we need to continue to spend more than everyone else combined?

 

[hal2kilo]

What do you mean? You think we need to continue to spend more than everyone else combined?

More Republican mythology. Which they have quite a lot of.

 

[zephyrprime]

If the market does crash in the next 2 years, it is 100% all on this election and it's disastrous results. I still believe that Obama can hold the ship on course for another two years. I am terrified of what will happen to my retirement accounts when the Republicans take the White House in the next election.

Don't be ridiculous. The build up to the next crash (which is inevitable) has been decades in the making. The fact that we have a debt based monetary system alone guarantees an implosion once debt levels have reached a saturation point. The policies of politicians are only small contributors to the problem in comparison. The biggest problem they create is the large amount of debt but like I said, that has been decades in the making. It is not a result of the recent congress.

 

[BoberFett]

Doc, I am not irrational.... my entire life savings is on the line. I have plenty of skin in the game. Do you?

I hope you lose every dime.

 

[bshole]

I hope you lose every dime.

Well in that case, I guess I would just to have rely on big government to take care of me. I take it you are a closet communist who abhores people making money on the market.

I hope that I don't lose every dime because I certainly do not want to be a drain on society. Furthermore I hope that you make millions on the market so that you are not a societal parasite. I want what is best for America even if it means the success of scumbags (not you of course, but the vast majority of the Tea Party) .

 

[fskimospy]

Doc, I am not irrational.... my entire life savings is on the line. I have plenty of skin in the game. Do you?

I thought you pulled all your money out of the markets?

 

[trenchfoot]

So now the Party of Obstruction has miraculously transformed itself into the Party of Compromise? I don't think so.

Besides taking control of the Senate, what exactly has changed such that the Repubs are now more willing to compromise with the Dems, or is it the view of the Repubs that they now somehow have the upper hand via "compromise" to force the Dems into giving them everything they've wanted since Obama took office?

I framed that comment that way because the Repubs have always taken the attitude that to "compromise" was, and IMO still is a mere play on words that was/is part and parcel of their stated goal to obstruct Obama into compliance with the Repub agenda. I really don't see how that has changed in any way shape or form.

It's interesting how the Repub policy of obstructionism has helped them gain election victories. Now that the Repubs hold the reins of power in Congress, logic dictates that if the Dems would do the same, they'd reap the same rewards. Yet, it really doesn't seem that way to me.

It was already known before the elections that the Repubs would do well in the mid-terms as they've always done in the past. So now I'm wondering just how many additional victories the Repubs have garnered past their projected gains that have now turned their victories into another "mandate".

It was already known that the Repubs had a really good chance of taking over the Senate and get some modest gains in the House. Does this now expected happenstance all of a sudden become a "mandate" for the Repubs to forever "change the world as we know it"? Do these expected gains for the Repubs now give them the added power to obstruct Obama and the Dems even further than they've been able to? Rush Limbaugh, the voice of the Repub base and Tea Party thinks so: "and it is very simple what that mandate is. It is to stop Barack Obama. It is to stop the Democrats. There is no other reason why Republicans were elected yesterday. Republicans were not elected to govern."

I can see where the onus is now on the Repubs to actually have things "move forward" (and what a play on phraseology that is, ins't it?) due to their having control of Congress and the need to appear to do what they claim the Dems couldn't do, never mind that the Repubs, until they got the Senate back, had firmly entrenched themselves into a blockade of the Dem agenda. Is this all that's been needed to compel the Repubs to abandon their stated goal of obstructionism and finally get going on the job they were elected to do?

Old habits die hard, and if past performance is any indicator, the Repubs will use this opportunity to appease its base with the 2016 elections in mind, rather than get all snuggly with the Dems and actually start producing meaningful legislation that benefits ALL Americans rather than the elite rich which the Repubs have always single-mindedly kowtowed to with reverence.

 

[nageov3t]

So now the Party of Obstruction has miraculously transformed itself into the Party of Compromise? I don't think so.

Besides taking control of the Senate, what exactly has changed such that the Repubs are now more willing to compromise with the Dems, or is it the view of the Repubs that they now somehow have the upper hand via "compromise" to force the Dems into giving them everything they've wanted since Obama took office?

without Harry Reid pocket vetoing everything the House passes before it can even come up for a vote in the Senate, at the very least we should start seeing Senators actually voting on more than what to order for lunch.

 

[bshole]

I thought you pulled all your money out of the markets?

I put it back in.... herp-a-derp. I have an itchy trigger finger right now. I was convinced there was going to be a global ebola epidemic and pulled out then. When that didn't pan out like I thought I got back in. No biggie, I lost some money obviously but not enough to worry about.

The market growth can't continue unabated, I don't want 2008 to happen all over again to me.

 

[BoberFett]

Well in that case, I guess I would just to have rely on big government to take care of me. I take it you are a closet communist who adhores people making money on the market.

I hope that I don't lose every dime because I certainly do not want to be a drain on society. Furthermore I hope that you make millions on the market so that you are not a societal parasite. I want what is best for America even if it means the success of scumbags (not you of course, but the vast majority of the Tea Party) .

Don't you have ebola yet?