The real party of NO, the GOP, steps it up
 

The current GOP has no shame whatsoever. Why were you elected? Work on jobs? The economy? Pretend you believe in bipartisanship?

Nope - the GOP is just gonna do what Mitch McConnell promised, and what the GOP has been doing for the past two years: nothing at all

GOP, thanks for screwing the voters who elected you to fix joblessness and the economy. Thanks for putting partisan politics first, before your country.

GOP, thanks for making it crystal clear that you and the newly elected Tea Party senators are nothing more than political hacks pretending to be patriots that care about this country.

This is from Faux News (so Chuck and Dell can't discount it out of hand as being "from the evil liberal media" although it's a nationally released AP story :D )

Cry harder.

Yeah sure: GOP, meet the political wilderness you will spend the next election cycles within, surrounded by the unruly mobs of rural conservative red state members who have just lost their unemployment benefits and haven't a job on the horizon.

oh, quit with the one sided, biased attacks, riot.


WASHINGTON — The chairmen of President Obama’s debt-reduction commission have been unable to win support from any of the panel’s elected officials for their proposed spending cuts and tax increases, underscoring the reluctance of both parties to risk short-term political backlash in pursuit of the nation’s long-term fiscal health.


the morass we are in is from decades of stuff like what i highlighted above. neither party is willing to do what is necessary, fearing losing re-election or power far more than wanting to do what we elected them to do to begin with.


this bi partisan commission was supposed to come up with ways to fix the mess-but what elected officials are going to jump on board???

Hey the Party is over. Time to turn on the lights and start cleaning up. And NO there will be no more cake or drink given out.

As I was told 2 years ago, DEAL WITH IT!

I guess Riot never heard of lame duck sessions. Yeah the American people want the guys just voted out to make some more decisions before they are escorted from the building

I just find it amusing that she makes it out like politics is only a factor on one side of the aisle. I find it a little disturbing that she thinks politically she is in the center.

Hey she's charitable. Don't believe me? Just ask the smug b.itch.

Its not like the Democrats haven't played dirty pool for the past two years when they had the numbers. Payback is a bitch and every dog has its day. Enjoy the next two years of payback Democratic puppets.

I'll happily keep pointing out the unprecedented ridiculousness of the current GOP incarnation as long as their minority side is acting outrageously irresponsible compared to the other.

Have the Dems forced a record nearly 200 filibusters in 2 years? Cloture votes on everything? Blocked routine funding bills for weeks just because they didn't like the President? Naw.

Has the GOP? Absolutely.

Nascar, you say the Dems have done the same during the past two years. No, they haven't. And they didn't in the past with Bush, nor with Clinton. Either did the GOP.

No other minority Senate has been as obstructive. Voting records of the Senate are public and on the internet. Feel free to post it if you have it.

The minority GOP has obstructed and forced the Dems to get 60 in a cloture vote on every vote that the Constitution says needs 51.

And now the GOP is so brazen they are putting it in writing, that they are publicly throwing a temper tantrum, blocking everything - DADT, START, funding, etc - until they get tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans. They are willing to throw 98% of Americans under the bus. They are blowing it, just like Gingrich did.

Dell, you say payback is a bitch? Yes, it will be. The GOP only won seats in the House. They are still the minority party in the Senate after Jan. 1. Reid is still in charge.

The minority GOP is going to lose their filibuster capability the first moments the new Senate opens, when the Dems change the Senate rules on them.

This forum has been heavy on the anti-Obama Muslim-Communist-Socialist-Birther hate for nearly three years. Once he was elected it was constant. Turn about's fair play.

And you don't realize that the people didn't vote out the Democrats? That after January 1, the Senate is still a Democratically-controlled majority, with Reid in charge? And Dem President who holds veto power?

The only thing the GOP won was a majority in the House.

I find it disturbing you think you are a rather typical Republican. And are unawares of the election results.

Told you they aren't big on negotiating. They like power plays, and Obama isn't man enough to take the heat ( and let them ruin the country.) If they're willing, he should let them ruin the country. Call their bluff. You'll see that he will give in. That's why they have these power plays (he never calls their bluff.) The only way he gets elected again is if he's willing to let them do damage. He needs to let that tax cut extension run out. I don't care if nothing passes. That needs to run out. Then, have a vote on extending the tax cut for those under 250k. Get them on record voting against that. See, he needs to take responsibility for keeping the wealthy from getting their extended tax break, and he needs to make it clear who is voting against the middle class keeping their tax break. Show the country exactly who's responsible for what. Otherwise, they'll just blame him for everything. Make it crystal clear who is for what. He gives in so much that many voters don't know there's a difference.

After the 2008 election, the power of the Democrats was overstated. After the 2010 election, the loss of power is overstated. With the filibuster crap, it makes it easy to narrow one of the 3 sections of pipe. Nothing can become law without all 3 sections of the pipe flowing.

Obama has been bending over for the GOP in the name of "bipartisanship". He keeps getting up the ***, but still hasn't learned his lesson. Yesterday they have "the meeting", and less than 12 hours later the letter? They are laughing at him.

That is happening tomorrow. All the Bush tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 will be allowed to expire as scheduled, and tax levels revert back to what they were under Clinton (remember little national debt and solid economy?)

Tomorrow is the vote (Reid is much stronger than Obama now). The vote is on extending the tax cut (creating a new one) for the middle class. 98% of people will not see a change in their taxes. The top 2% of income earners will get a tax cut up to $250K, but not an extra cut for amounts over that.

The GOP is being welcomed by the Senate to vote it down.
** Edit just read that Reid won't do his tomorrow, it will just be Pelosi in the House.

I never said I was a typical Republician. As a matter of fact I never said that I was a Republican either. I have some social views that would be decidedly not typically Republican.

As for your assertion that the GOP "only" won the Senate, there seems to be an awful lot of handwringing from the left over that "small" victory. Didn't the GOP pick up some seats in the Senate as well? Yeah the President has a 44% approval rate, the Democrats just lost the House and lost seats in the Senate. That sounds like they did great!

Are Communists or Socialists in need of defense?

Yes because raising taxes on rich people solves everything...

You typo'd, I said House, not Senate.

Of course the Dems want to keep seats, just like the GOP wants to win them. The norm after a big presidential is to switch over the legislative branch.

So it's rather notable, that in spite of the past two years of fear mongering: death panel, horrible Communist, Muslim, Socialist, Hitler, ruining our country, take our country back, creation of the Tea Party by the Koch brothers, health care will destroy us meme, resulting in the most endangered Senate Majority leader in ages (Reid) - and the GOP couldn't beat Reid. Or win Delaware. Lost the Alaska seat to a write in.

First time in modern history the "switch" party took only the House back, but couldn't take the Senate.

The lowest amount of House seats won out of the past three "switch" elections.

The President's approval rating may be 44%, but that's higher than Clinton, Bush Two and Reagan at this point in their presidencies. And higher than the Dem party in general, and much higher than the GOP general approval rating.

Yeah, considering what could have been, the Dems lucked out.

Allowing some taxes on the income of those couples greater than $250K - which will affect only 2% of the population, and they get a tax break for income less than $250K - to go back to the normal Clinton-era levels, and additionally will cut $700 billion out of our deficit over the next 10 years - yeah, solves alot! :)

The election that took place two years into Bush's presidency (2002).. The republicans gained 8 seats.

In 2004, the Republicans gained 3 net seats (gained 8, lost 5)

in 2006, the dems gained 31 seats.

in 2008, the dems gained 21 seats

in 2010, the republicans gained 63 seats


to go farther back..

in 2000.. the dems gained 2 seats in the house

1998 - dems gained 5 seats

1996 - dems gained 9 seats

1994 - republicans gained 54 seats

in fact, the 63 seats taken by the GOP in 2010 was the largest gain in any house election since by a single party since 1948, when the dems picked up 75 seats.

They also gained more seats in one election than the Dems gained in the 2006 & 2008 elections combined... when Republican hating was at it's peak.

Therefore, and I'm not being mean to you anymore.. its my post historic election landslide victory promise... but you are so very very wrong about this not being a historic election for the GOP.



Also, they gained 6 out of 37 seats up for grabs in the Senate... a 16% gain.

of the 37 seats:

Republicans won 24

Dems won 13


Repubs would have most likely took Reid's seat and the Deleware one, if they had offered even semi-sane candidates.. but of course you know this, since you started about 74 threads about it prior to the election. But hey... blame goes on the GOP for those two seats.

if all 100 seats were up for grabs (which I of course know is never the case) Repubs easily have control of the senate and possibly a super majority.


so there it is, in plain english, comprised of nothing but facts (except the bottom two paragraphs, which are my opinion)... the historic skull fucl<ing the Dems took on Nov 2, 2010.

you realistically could add Scott Brown's historic win in MA to the Senate toll, eventhough it was a jan 2010 special election.

that would be 38 seats up for grab in 2010... gain of 7 by repubs, 18.4% gain.

Repubs: 25
Dems: 13

No it wont. The idea that the economic impact of raising taxes operates in a vaccum is wrong.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...p_mostpop_read

This could have been resolved months ago, except that the White House and Congressional Democrats insist that some taxes must be raised. Mr. Obama wants the lower rates to expire on incomes of $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples. Dozens of Democrats revolted against that in the campaign, so the latest gambit, courtesy of New York Senator Chuck Schumer, would raise that threshold to $1 million.

Republicans shouldn't be suckered into raising taxes on anyone, especially not on small business job creators. The U.S. corporate tax rate of 39% (a combination of state average and federal rates) is already about 15 percentage points above the international average, and for the first time in a generation the personal rate of 41% would rise above the average of our overseas rivals. That's all before the 3.8% surtax on investment income arrives in 2013, courtesy of ObamaCare

Because most nations tax their companies at a business rate lower than the personal rate, the Tax Foundation says the Obama plan would mean that many Subchapter S corporations in the U.S. would pay "virtually the highest tax rates in the world on their business income." In other words, the after-tax rate of return on investment in the U.S. would fall relative to investing in Europe or Asia. This is an invitation to outsource more jobs. The U.S. should be cutting tax rates to become more competitive, as President Obama's deficit reduction commission and tax reform advisory panel have recommended.

About half the income taxed above $250,000 is business income, so small businesses get hammered from the Obama plan. Mr. Schumer argues that if the income threshold for higher taxes is raised to $1 million, Republicans will no longer be able to claim that this plan taxes small business income.

Not so. The Small Business Administration classifies a small business as an entity with fewer than 500 employees. The Schumer plan shifts the tax onto larger, more profitable firms from relatively smaller ones. But this still puts jobs at risk. A business with $1 million or $10 million of net income has many times more employees and does a lot more hiring than a business with, say, $60,000 of net income or one that is losing money.

The Tax Foundation estimates that of tax filers reporting income of more than $1 million a year, about 80% have business income and that more than 60% of millionaire income is either business or investment income. So about two of every three dollars raised would come directly out of business coffers—i.e., from the capital that businesses need to expand their operations

Tax payments by millionaire households more than doubled to $273 billion in 2007 from $132 billion after the tax rates were cut in 2003. The number of tax returns with $1 million or more in annual reported income doubled over that period thanks to the strong economic rebound. Tax payments by millionaires also increased dramatically after the Reagan and Kennedy tax rate reductions.

A counter argument to..well most of what Riot has posted lately...

except this one actually makes sense.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...317359202.html

Im sure Obama will veto a Republican Bill that would good for this country. Yes I know the tool Reid kept his seat unfortunately. It doesnt hurt me you call me a typical Republican either.

oh, the two wrongs make a right line of thinking. gotcha. funny thing is, you probably think you're progressive in your thinking that reps are evil, dems are good. it's no different than someone who thinks the opposite. it's the same (faulty) logic.

the system is broken. it's not 'we the people' anymore. the parties rule, with the members of congress either toeing the party line, or getting replaced-note lieberman a few years back when the dems produced another candidate, and he had to run as an indy. as long as the two parties rule, with their vying to hold power, nothing will change in d.c. it doesn't matter who is the majority, or who is the minority. no one has the spine to do what's needed, as the party needs to keep them in their seats to retain the parties power. if you don't back your party's play, they'll find someone who will. the thought that all that's wrong right now is due only to republicans refusing to be bipartisan is laughable. the opposite occurs when the dems are in the minority because that's how the game is played. your contention that all the gridlock and problems are due only to stonewalling by one side is ridiculous. it's your agenda, it's what you think-but the dems aren't all truth and light and reps the evil monster, or vice versa. a bi partisan commission has produced some ideas. how much do you suppose happens or changes? i'd wager not much at all.

When the question is "should we spend more money, when we already owe $14,000,000,000,000?", "NO!" is the only correct (and sane) answer.

Good stats :-) Do you have the total number of seats the parties controlled before and after the elections?

Percentage of wins/losses is important, yes, but it's relative to the starting point. Certainly this election alot of House seats changed over, a huge percentage, but many had Dems sitting in them, rather than the usual GOP, to start with. Those Dems were oddities that were only there because of the Obama effect of 2008, many of those seats are historically GOP seats, and reverted right back to them.

The most notable thing I see post-election is what is being discussed in the southern states - locally and at a state level, Dems are becoming an endangered species. And changing over to be "GOP" (parties switch) so they can be involved in policy making. This goes directly to gerrymandering district configurations.

No. Not when our citizens are starving in the midst of recession. This is America. We feed them and house them and help them. We don't buy new weapons systems, but we feed our own and care for our own.

If the morals of the situation fail to impress, consider that especially when in the midst of a slow jobless recession recovery, that money goes directly to keeping the economy going. In their pockets and directly out into the economy. Each dollar of unemployment results in $1-$2 of economic stimulus.

If we take that infusion of money out of the economy now, we will fall back in a big way, and then our costs (Medicare, health, food stamps, etc) will skyrocket.

If you don't like reading my posts because you think they are one-sided, don't read them. Nascar and Dell make posts that tend to have one view, too, you can read those or not, too. You can make the moral judgment that what others write here is "wrong" but that doesn't mean anybody else has to agree.

I completely agree with you that the system is broken. But you say, "your contention that all the gridlock and problems are due only to stonewalling by one side is ridiculous."

I'm sorry, but looking at the Senate over the past 2-3 years, that factually simply is not true. Most Congresses average 45-50 filibusters in the Senate per session. The GOP in the past two-three years have already hit over twice as many, over one hundred plus, and are still increasing.

The GOP has been completely and legendarily obstructionist with misuse of the filibuster this session. They have had an automatic hold on every single item! That means bills are not even getting to the floor to be discussed and there isn't even debate. That's unprecedented!

The filibuster doesn't require Senators to hold the floor talking. If the majority brings a bill to the floor for discussion, the minority GOP has immediately filibustered it - it is a procedural move - then the minority go back to their offices. It is then left to the majority to come up with enough votes 60 to invoke cloture to simply get the bill introduced to the floor so it can be discussed. That usually takes at least a week.

It's not votes the GOP are filibustering in record levels - it's the bringing of routine bills (funding bills, etc) to the floor. The GOP has blocked the routine introduction of bills in the first place! There can't even be debate, let alone votes.

The GOP isn't blocking votes - they have been unprecedented, in blocking every item - a blanket hold - from even being brought up for discussion and debate.

No you can't :D When you are measuring facts, you don't add "what ifs" to your totals ;)

You didn't leave your source - what are the total seats that each party controlled in each house before and after each election?

I wouldn't call you that. I think you are in the far right wing of the GOP, a little right of Sarah Palin and way to the right of Pat Buchannan. But what I say doesn't matter You characterize yourself.

Yes, it will. That article is nice, but assumes much not in evidence.

Exactly. Oooooh, I like your Min Pin avatar! :tro:

my source is wikipedia.

you could be right about the Scott Brown one.. i dont know if Teddy's seat would have been up for re-election this november or not.

Scott Brown was a special, but I think he must be counted, as his election was simply early to 2010.

LOL....you believe that????

Ahem -- if it was REALLY stimulus, the unemployment rate would DROP.

Why not fire EVERY government employee and give them a million per month in unemployment. Even if we get $1.50 back per $1 spent 500K times 1.5 million we get 750 billion back in return. Do that a year and we're at 9 Trillion plus what we've saved in payroll. Somehow there's a trick or CON to this. LOL

It's not a matter of "belief", it's the truth. The only disagreement among economist is the amount of benefit you get per doller. Those funds DO keep the unemployment level lower. Unemployment money is immediately plowed right back into the economy - food, rent, gas, etc. That keeps those folks providing those services employed, keeps demand high there.

This isn't new or imaginary. There's plenty of economic history to show it's absolutely true.

If we were to kick out everyone off unemployment - millions of people - yes, the jobless rate will raise, and the economy will crash.

What doesn't work is, for example, continuing the tax cut for the top 2% of earners assuming they will spend it. They don't. They have enough money to purchase what they want in spite of the economy. That money tends to get saved. During the 10 years since that policy was first was initiated, we lost 800,000 jobs. Trickle down doesn't work. See Reagan, too.

None of these 'rich' people you speak of hides their money under the matress. They invest in new business ventures, speculate and start businesses. The rest usually goes into stocks, REIT's (yea real estate) and T-bills and bonds mostly to save in tax liabilities.

Just because Pelosi speaks doesn't make it so.

It doesn't solve everything. The facts are that the rich have gotten richer, and the Middle Class has gotten poorer. The divide between the two is increasing. If it was the other way around, then, you'd be making a lot more sense.