The new party of no?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Pelosi is correctly reading what her base has been saying for 8 years. For example, Nascar keeps pointing out people don't health care, but what he neglects to realize is that a good portion of those who "don't like it" wanted far more than the few reforms that were delivered (they wanted single payer)

Look at the election results. The election threw out blue dogs, leaving the Democratic party (especially in the House) and Senate far more progressively-oriented than prior to the election, and sending a clear message to the Dems from their base.

Pelosi has always been of that bent, and now she's determined to represent that base, and part of that is preventing the President from giving away more to the GOP.

That will indeed play extremely favorably among Democrats and a significant portion of independents.

The Dem governor association will also become more active (purposely), the main thrust will be to get single-payer health care established in several states (Oregon, Vermont first) before the next election.

The GOP has moved far to the right in the past 10 years, virtually eliminating their middle. Now the Dems have just moved more to the left, kicking out the blue dogs.

Yes, the GOP is very unhappy with the re-entrenchment of the Dems even more to the left, but the Dem base is thrilled. They want to make Obama stop cowtowing to the GOP, and Pelosi and Reid will both now take that stand.

I still think the GOP will end up with Romney as the GOP nominee.

The GOP will always be at a significant disadvantage in numbers in the future, as the white rural older vote (their base) is shrinking in numbers, while minority-young voters are increasing exponentially and will soon be "the majority" in this country. The GOP continues to move further and further from the largest growing voter blocks across the country. They have to recapture a significant number of "independents" to win the next election (their base is outnumbered by Dem base, but more predictably shows at elections) I doubt it will happen with the Tea Party dragging the GOP farther and farther to the right. We'll see.

And regarding your favorite girl Sarah, I do think it's Palin that is the "most unpopular" politician in the country. But hey, at least she supports the North Koreans. South Koreans. Whatever.

If you really believe that the election results were simply about throwing out Blue dogs I just dont have much else to say because you wont get it anyway. Pelosi maintaining leadership is a great thing for the GOP regardless of how you spin it. And for someone who has written a 100 threads about the GOP being the "party of no" because their supposed lack of compromise on issues, it is interesting that the Dems becoming exactly what you complained about seems to elude you as well.

[Riot]

If you really believe that the election results were simply about throwing out Blue dogs I just dont have much else to say because you wont get it anyway.

Sigh. Lissen up - I didn't say the election was about throwing out blue dogs. I said that ended up being the result, though.

The more progressive elements of the Dems are pretty happy that what is left for the Dems is the most progressive wing of the party.

Pelosi maintaining leadership is a great thing for the GOP regardless of how you spin it.

"Spin it"? You're the one that brought it up. Did you not want other posters to discuss it?

You said, "The most unpopular politician in America gets reelected to position of power by the party and vows to block compromise?"

First, Pelosi has measurably been one of the most effective Speakers of the House - ever. The GOP didn't want to put Obama's face in their ads (his personal popularity remained higher than the Dems or the GOP) so they made their campaign anti-Pelosi. Smart for the GOP, of course.

But the vast "unpopularity" you perceive of Pelosi is certainly one-sided as to what what the GOP thinks.

Proven by that she readily held on to her leadership position, in spite of losses in the House. She's well-respected, effective and popular within her own party.

Secondly, yes, my entire post was about Pelosi (and Reid) now being more willing to not compromise a bit with the GOP, in response to what their base has been screaming for, for the past two years.

And for someone who has written a 100 threads about the GOP being the "party of no" because their supposed lack of compromise on issues, it is interesting that the Dems becoming exactly what you complained about seems to elude you as well

"Elude" me? There can hardly be "elusion" when I just spent an entire post talking about it.

There is no "supposed" lack of compromise by the GOP on the issues during the last two years, that's simple measurable fact. They have fillibustered and blocked virtually everything in the Senate.

Over 400 bills passed from the House, and are waiting for the Senate to act. It has been one of the most unproductive two years in the Senate ever measured.

The GOP have been whining for two years that Obama was a dictator, while they have blocked everything themselves - has that hasn't seemed to get them anywhere in the public popularity polls.

The GOP couldn't win several Senate seats they should have, they couldn't even defeat Harry Reid!

The GOP has been infused with more polarizing social elements of their party at the novice level (evangelicals, Tea Bags, Libertarians, etc). That is already splitting the GOP caucus. They are working hard to iron that out and appear a cohesive group. It appears they already have gotten some of the newbies in line.

The Dems are left with the more progressive of their party in power, led by two very progressive, experienced leaders. The Dems are shifting left, away from the President, in response to what their base is saying about the 2008 election and what has happened since.

It will be an interesting two years. I predict the Dem base will emerge happier than the GOP base ** - but we'll see!

(**the GOP taking up social issues, if forced to by the newbies - trying to outlaw abortion, repeal stem cell research, creationism in schools, attack the President w/impeachment investigations, etc. - would be the death of the GOP in the next election. It's the economy, stupid. The GOP election game plan of trickle down economics: cutting taxes, freeze spending - simply doesn't work. We just lost 700,000 jobs with that the last months of Bush. They have to come up with more than just those platitudes. If Pelosi & Reid does stand tall against Obama and blocks tax cut extensions to the wealthy by allowing the Bush cuts to expire, but she gets a new middle-class only cut passed in the lame duck - that's huge win for the Dems)

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

And for someone who has written a 100 threads about the GOP being the "party of no" because their supposed lack of compromise on issues, it is interesting that the Dems becoming exactly what you complained about seems to elude you as well.

The DEMS want tax breaks for the Middle, and not for the Rich. The Republicans want tax breaks for everyone. So, they agree on something ( keeping the Bush tax cut in place for the Middle.) Why should they have to negotiate on something the Republicans are supposed to be for? If the Republicans were supposed to be against keeping the tax break for the middle, then this would make a lot more sense. I think forcing the Republicans to vote on this is a must. Get them on record (against keeping the tax break for the Middle.) If he wants to get elected again, he better expose the differences between the 2 choices. Start here. The only way to get Republicans to come towards the center is to threaten to expose their true beliefs. Threaten to make them take votes that expose the differences between them and independent voters.

[Riot]

The other thing the Dems are doing is gearing up a better PR machine. They are notoriously lousy at publicizing their successes.

Passed largest middle-class tax cut in history - Obama, Pelosi Reid

Passed largest budget-cut in history - over 1 billion to reduce the deficit in one year - Obama, Pelosi, Reid

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Passed largest budget-cut in history - over 1 billion to reduce the deficit in one year - Obama, Pelosi, Reid

When you spend 3 billion on a mis-guided cash for clunkers program a budget cut of 1 billion is an insult. How much will the Pelosi $250 per senior cost?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

When you spend 3 billion on a mis-guided cash for clunkers program a budget cut of 1 billion is an insult. How much will the Pelosi $250 per senior cost?

You don't keep up with current political news, do you? And yes, cutting 1 billion out of the deficit is a very good thing, even if you didn't personally like a line item in last year's budget. BTW, have you seen the success of the government bailout of the auto industry? The taxpayers are making back their money on that one, and look at the industry saved, and the numbers of jobs saved (No, Dems cannot message worth a darn)

And we can cut 700 billion more out of the budget over the next 10 years, if the GOP would stop insisting that their corporate donation friends, the top 2% of earners (millionaires and billionaires) in the US, get an extra tax cut over and above the tax cut on income $250K or less get. I thought the GOP was in favor of lowering the deficit and fiscal responsibility? No?

Here's 'the' Austan Goolsby explaining it: http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and...plains-tax-cut

BTW, Obama announced a 2-yr freeze on federal salaries today (except military) - that's 1.3 billion saved over 2 years.

It's beyond obvious what we have to get rid of, in order to cut our deficit in the future:

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

It's beyond obvious what we have to get rid of, in order to cut our deficit in the future:

If you believe in the producer of the graph who is unfortunately for you is tilted far left.

How about we use the Office of Managment and Budget's 2009 graph



Ten Bi-Partisan Ideas and or Cuts
1)We need to return to is Bush's last budget of $3.1 Trillion. Current 2011 Budget $3.8 Trillion Savings $700 Billion Since Dems were so appauled at W's spending surely they can function on the same. Suffer Rating 0/10

2)Moratorium on all bailouts Savings $150 billion minimum Suffer Rating 0/10 in fact a Good Feeling Rating of 2/10 for those who paid their mortgages and didn't fudge their loan apps.

3)50% Cut in Discretionary Spending Savings $218 Billion Suffer Rating 6/10 but most everyone suffering will be a bloated Gov. worker with a fat pension. Answer Privatize everything from the TSA to the past retirement marshalls guarding Fed Court Houses. Move Gov offices to low rent areas of cities and towns. Frees up more expensive locations for private businesses and thus property and business taxes while providing action and security as a by-product of moving to the hood. Thus Good Feeling Rating of 6/10 for the non-government employee.

4)2% Cut in Mandatory Spending Savings $12 Billion Government furlough days, reduction in pensions and benefits and privatizing all menial jobs easy. Suffer Rating 2/10 for Government Workers. However a 2/10 Good Feeling Rating by Non-Government employees

5)10% Cut in Medicare/Caid Savings $68 Billion There's allegedly 10% fraud going on right now. Find it and punish those responsible. Good Feeling Rating 10/10

6)2% Cut in Social Security Savings $13 Billion Find the dead people's relatives who are collecting checks and recoup the money from them. Good Feeling Rating 10/10

7)Defense should be and is the number one focus of the Government and remains the same. Some things are priceless.

8)Deport illegal immigrants Savings $50 Billion minimum in addition to providing legal Americans jobs reducing school class size, crime and drug trafficing not to mention gangs and possible homeland security threats. Good Feeling Rating AMERICAN 9/10.

9) DNA test every baby born to affirm parents are correct as listed on a birth certificate. This will prevent any law suits and thus time and money in the future. Parents will be required to provide proof of insurance and citizenship before being admitted to a hospital. Nearby day-nurse facilities and volunteer doctors will be available for those w/o ( Being bi-partisan).

10) Re-evaluate the National Guard and Army Reserve's activities. Instead of doing things like 7 hour caravans, take for granted these mostly young soilders can stay awake and remain seated in a Humvee, and have them clear and clean Public Housing buildings, and run their caravans thru inner cities providing a more realistic environment and providing a bit of security as a side beni. (Don't know many gang bangers that would do a driveby while the Army was in the hood)

There ya go. Ten virtualy painless moves that would save $1.2 trillion a year minus some DNA tests and have the National Debt paid off in no time with plenty of benefits along the way!

[Riot]

If you believe in the producer of the graph who is unfortunately for you is tilted far left

You are saying the Congressional Budget Office is passing on false information? Please, do give us your figures.

How about we use the Office of Managment and Budget's 2009 graph

Why do we want to compare a deficit graph to an annual budget allocation graph? They are two different things. Apples and oranges.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

BTW, Obama announced a 2-yr freeze on federal salaries today (except military) - that's 1.3 billion saved over 2 years.

]

BIG F'N DEAL and once again he gives the big middle finger to troops. The truth on Federal jobs.

"Federal employees earn higher average salaries than private-sector workers in more than eight out of 10 occupations, a USA TODAY analysis of federal data finds.

Overall, federal workers earned an average salary of $67,691 in 2008 for occupations that exist both in government and the private sector, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. The average pay for the same mix of jobs in the private sector was $60,046 in 2008, the most recent data available.

These salary figures do not include the value of health, pension and other benefits, which averaged $40,785 per federal employee in 2008 vs. $9,882 per private worker, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...eral-pay_N.htm

I think you made my point for privatization of most all things Federal. If the Average Fed worker is paid 20% more than the private sector employee we can save 20% percent off the Federal payroll and not lose a single job. Now the big savings comes when benefits and the crazy pensions are brought into the same hemisphere as the real world at a savings of $30,000 per employee. Currently there are 1.35 milion Federal employees, privatize half (we need Judges, Senators etc. I get that) and save just over 20 TRILLION dollars. Talk about a quick, easy fix!

[SCUDSBROTHER]

To summarize, ^^^ Attack the middle class , and cut tax on the rich. Same GOP stuff. You have many versions of the way to accomplish the same goal. Funny how you never want to lower the rates for Doctors, Vets, Dentists etc. People who continue to charge more, more, and more. No cutting them. Also, it's illegal to use someone else (to do what is usually the most routine work.) When someone is attacking people making less than 100k a year, there's a damn good chance it is a Republican. Their targets are rarely greedy people. They admire them.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

BIG F'N DEAL and once again he gives the big middle finger to troops. [/i]

Not including military troops in a wage freeze proposal is giving them the finger? You're nuts.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

BTW, Obama announced a 2-yr freeze on federal salaries today (except military) - that's 1.3 billion saved over 2 years.

BTW You got suckered once again.

"President Obama spoke of the need for sacrifice last week when he announced a two-year pay freeze for federal employees.

But feds won't be too terribly deprived in 2011 and 2012. Despite the freeze, some 1.1 million employees will receive more than $2.5 billion in raises during that period."

So once again we save $1.3 billion by freezing salaries but will give 11 of every 15 employess $2.5 billion in raises? How is this not called out as the utter bullshiat it is??? Somehow everytime this idiot tries to save us money it ends up costing us more money

http://www.federaltimes.com/article/.../12060301/1001

[Riot]

Do you just not read and understand the articles you post? The 1.3 billion saved is still saved. It's money not spent. The total budget will be 1.3 billion less than it would be if they don't do it (if Congress approves it, which I doubt the Dems will)

[Riot]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

The DEMS want tax breaks for the Middle, and not for the Rich. The Republicans want tax breaks for everyone. So, they agree on something ( keeping the Bush tax cut in place for the Middle.) Why should they have to negotiate on something the Republicans are supposed to be for? If the Republicans were supposed to be against keeping the tax break for the middle, then this would make a lot more sense. I think forcing the Republicans to vote on this is a must. Get them on record (against keeping the tax break for the Middle.) If he wants to get elected again, he better expose the differences between the 2 choices. Start here. The only way to get Republicans to come towards the center is to threaten to expose their true beliefs. Threaten to make them take votes that expose the differences between them and independent voters.

Don't forget that the Dems want the rich to keep their Bush tax break on up to $250,000.

What the Dems do not want, and the GOP does want, is an extra tax break on income over $250,000. The GOP wants to give millionaires and billionaires an extra tax break. The Dems do not.

Edit: and public opinion is overwhelmingly, via polls, with the Dem plan, and against the GOP plan.

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

Originally Posted by Riot

Don't forget that the Dems want the rich to keep their Bush tax break on up to $250,000.

What the Dems do not want, and the GOP does want, is an extra tax break on income over $250,000. The GOP wants to give millionaires and billionaires an extra tax break. The Dems do not.

Edit: and public opinion is overwhelmingly, via polls, with the Dem plan, and against the GOP plan.

sure prove it witha pole thats not dem sided..im mean a real one..

[Riot]

Prove it? Have you not paid any attention to the news for the past few months? I've never seen a poll say differently. Do you have one? Google poll and Bush tax cuts and you'll get pages and pages of polls over the past months, pre- and post-election:

http://www.pollingreport.com/budget.htm (Fox News)

http://www.politico.com/morningscore...gscore173.html (SEIU poll, Washington Post, Politico)

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/11/2...cans-want.html (McClatchy)

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-mone...or-the-wealthy (Gallup)

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...02-503544.html (CBS, NYT)

http://southcapitolstreet.com/2010/1...t-health-care/ (Opinion Research)

Here's a good synopsis of multiple polls via party, showing how even the GOP members want tax cuts eliminated in favor of fiscal conservatism
http://benjamindavidsteele.wordpress...-for-the-rich/

Here's what I think (hope) will happen: The Bush tax cuts cannot be partially arbitrarily extended (can't extend part, not extend part). So those bills will expire as scheduled - they will be gone January 1, 2011. However, the Dems in lame duck will pass a House bill providing new equivalent tax cuts for $250,000 and below, that will pass the House easily. In the lame duck Senate, the Dems will dare the GOP to vote down a Dem-sponsored bill for middle class tax cuts. They can't do it. It will pass. That will leave the new GOP, once they are in control in January, to try and pass a separate GOP tax cut bill for the top 2% of earners in the US, millionaires and billionaires only, a special tax cut for that income over $250,000/year. It's political suicide.

The above is why the new GOP Senators sent a letter to Harry Reid begging him not to address the tax cuts in lame duck (trying to control the agenda of a Senate they are not yet a part of)

[Cannon Shell]

I just want to know if you Dem's think that moving your party further left and allowing an extremely unpopular politician to remain the face of the party is going to workout in your favor?

I would also like an explanation on why the Dem's can now be the "party of no" (admittedly so seemingly at the expense of their former golden child) and why no one in the media (or Riot) is writing about it as being "anti-American" or "out of touch" like the GOP was characterized as?

And many of the Blue Dogs lost because the vast majority of them were running in relatively conservative districts where being a Dem (and being associated with Pelosi/Obama) hurt them, not because democrats wanted more liberal representation. That is a fairly ridiculous theory.

[Riot]

I just want to know if you Dem's think that moving your party further left and allowing an extremely unpopular politician to remain the face of the party is going to workout in your favor?

Apparently the Dems think it will work wonderfully for them. You disagree. So you should be happy about it. We'll see how it works out.

I would also like an explanation on why the Dem's can now be the "party of no" (admittedly so seemingly at the expense of their former golden child) and why no one in the media (or Riot) is writing about it as being "anti-American" or "out of touch" like the GOP was characterized as?

Have the Dems actually done any of that yet? No one can write about what hasn't happened.

I'm sure the first time the Dems obstruct passage of a normal-business bill (like allowing the military to continue getting paychecks) via filibuster, with a 100% vote for political reasons, requiring a 60-vote filibuster-break vote for a bill to pass, rather than the Constitutional majority of 51 votes, you'll let us know.

And many of the Blue Dogs lost because the vast majority of them were running in relatively conservative districts where being a Dem (and being associated with Pelosi/Obama) hurt them, not because democrats wanted more liberal representation. That is a fairly ridiculous theory.

Good think nobody here has proposed that theory then, right?

I agree with your assessment, above. I'll repeat again, I was not trying to say the election was about eliminating blue dogs. It wasn't. Only that it turns out, that indeed was the result - the in-office Dems left are now the most progressive of the lot. And they are banding behind Pelosi and Reid with that in mind.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

That will leave the new GOP, once they are in control in January, to try and pass a separate GOP tax cut bill for the top 2% of earners in the US, millionaires and billionaires only, a special tax cut for that income over $250,000/year. It's political suicide.

LOL

It is always funny when things like this are called "special", like it is somehow different than any other tax cut. It is available for anyone, all you have to do to qualify is be sucessful enough to qualify. Of course the Democrats in using class warfare to gain political favor among the lower income voters have succeeded in making sucessful people and "wall street" types public enemy number one, hence the poll numbers.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

LOL

It is always funny when things like this are called "special", like it is somehow different than any other tax cut. It is available for anyone, all you have to do to qualify is be sucessful enough to qualify. Of course the Democrats in using class warfare to gain political favor among the lower income voters have succeeded in making sucessful people and "wall street" types public enemy number one, hence the poll numbers.

I think the "Wall Street" types have put themselves into the public enemy number one position all by themselves

You bet the Dems are using "class warfare". About time they grew a pair. If there is a tax cut for only 2% of the population, only for income levels over $250K (the first $250K getting a tax cut), that will cost $700 trillion dollars over the next 10 years, of course the Dems want the GOP name on it - not Obama's.

Did you see a few weeks ago, where Gates and Buffett publicly came out and advised Obama to let that one tax cut expire for the wealthy?

The GOP won the election promising fiscal conservation. They will have to put their money where their mouths are, all by themselves, if the Dems do it right. Granted, that may not happen - the Dems have a habit of shooting themselves in the foot.