Mid Term U.S. Election

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Weiser Wonder

And be replaced with six years of Sharron Angle? Or are you counting on her having to resign before then?

I'm going to respond to that in a way that I personally despise.....anyone is better than Harry Reid.

The guy has no business being in a Senatorial leadership position.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

My guess is the Dems will narrowly hang on to the Senate. The house is going to be a bloodbath. The biggest mid-term election loss for a sitting president is 71 seats; that record could fall tonight.

That president, for those interested? FDR. It's no fun presiding over a lousy economy.

Strange times - why would they put trust back in the party that caused a lot of the problems?

[HotHotHeat]

Christine lost. Maybe not all hope is lost for America.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

I'm going to respond to that in a way that I personally despise.....anyone is better than Harry Reid.

The guy has no business being in a Senatorial leadership position.

Hey man I agree on the Reid comment, but seriously, this chick is whacked out.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by Weiser Wonder

For all those who worry about the state of the United States based on this election, what's going on right now is in line with historical election trends. Bad economy and a Mid term election almost always means huge gains by the party not occupying the Presidency.

However, the tone of the campaign and the way money has been flowing is something to worry about.

I think the bigger worry is that the economic situation is likely to get worse with Republicans.

They pretend they can cut spending materially to impact the budget, but won't touch entitlements, the military, and they'll extend GWB's temporary tax cuts. What's going to happen is that they're going to try and cut a million here and a million there and actually negatively impact useful local social programs with their trite attempts. They've vowed not to touch the programs that compromise the large percentage of annual gov't spending.

My one prediction is that both parties are looking to cut into social security. The debt commission run by Obama is a covert way of proposing such cuts (ostensibly comprised of "independent experts" who have been exposed as being anything but), and I suspect that given such cover, the republicans will actually go along with it.

Once again, 95% of the US population will kinda get it in the shorts.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

I think the bigger worry is that the economic situation is likely to get worse with Republicans.

They pretend they can cut spending materially to impact the budget, but won't touch entitlements, the military, and they'll extend GWB's temporary tax cuts. What's going to happen is that they're going to try and cut a million here and a million there and actually negatively impact useful local social programs with their trite attempts. They've vowed not to touch the programs that compromise the large percentage of annual gov't spending.

My one prediction is that both parties are looking to cut into social security. The debt commission run by Obama is a covert way of proposing such cuts (ostensibly comprised of "independent experts" who have been exposed as being anything but), and I suspect that given such cover, the republicans will actually go along with it.

Once again, 95% of the US population will kinda get it in the shorts.

But there ain't no money tree, so something has to give either way. I think you are right about the Republicans though.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

I think Rand Paul will get in though.

This is a great example of why the Tea Party initiative is just a ruse and won't go anywhere.

Paul has already backed away from most of his initiatives and ideas, and has been covering behind Boehner for months now.

Nothing like the taste of power to scare the cr*p out of you and your principles.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by peter12

But there ain't no money tree, so something has to give either way.

Agreed. There hasn't been a money tree for years now.

I think that both parties will try to take credit for reduced deficits in the next two fiscal years due to a reduction in stimulus spending and an increase in tax receipts as the economy slowly improves.

Ultimately you can't get out of the US's fiscal mess without a combination of reduced military spending, reduced entitlement spending, and raised taxes. All the other programs are drops in the proverbial bucket and are simply mentioned to rile up specific constituencies (decrease foreign aid!).

[Rockin' Flames]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Hey man I agree on the Reid comment, but seriously, this chick is whacked out.

Really, why do you think she's "whacked out"?

[kipperfan]

That Marco Rubio seems like a pretty impressive guy, especially for a Republican! Any chance he could make a run for president in 2012, or would that be too soon?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by kipperfan

That Marco Rubio seems like a pretty impressive guy, especially for a Republican! Any chance he could make a run for president in 2012, or would that be too soon?

You never know. A lot of people thought 08 was too soon for Obama. Experience is way over-rated; it's all about momentum and message.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

This is a great example of why the Tea Party initiative is just a ruse and won't go anywhere.

Paul has already backed away from most of his initiatives and ideas, and has been covering behind Boehner for months now.

Nothing like the taste of power to scare the cr*p out of you and your principles.

Well I'm going to give him a chance. His old man has been in the game for a long time and I like that he wants to audit the Federal Reserve and expose them.

Hopefully he can do something good for Americans.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

I like that he wants to audit the Federal Reserve and expose them.

Sorry, but what is that going to do?

So you audit the Fed... then what?

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

Agreed. There hasn't been a money tree for years now.

I think that both parties will try to take credit for reduced deficits in the next two fiscal years due to a reduction in stimulus spending and an increase in tax receipts as the economy slowly improves.

Ultimately you can't get out of the US's fiscal mess without a combination of reduced military spending, reduced entitlement spending, and raised taxes. All the other programs are drops in the proverbial bucket and are simply mentioned to rile up specific constituencies (decrease foreign aid!).

If I'm reading this right I have two issues:

1) military spending isn't that bad, Think of it this way, the business center isn't located in Vietnam or India like Nike and Microsoft. So in affect keeping the money at home. It doesn't mean that you have to be at war, but being ready for action would be nice too. (thanks Clinton)

2) Raise taxes? really? haven't we learned enough from history about raising taxes? Romans did that and the rich took their money elsewhere. When the money and the rich are gone and your "tax profit" is down due to the people that did have money are now gone.

Mr. Obama and his 200 million/day trip to Mumbai are great for the deficit too....

[PIMking]

Delay in Nevada? Who would of thunk it?


With the allegations of voter intimidation against Reid, this might be good.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by troutman

Strange times - why would they put trust back in the party that caused a lot of the problems?

Just from my conversations with my neighbors and such, because the guy they hired to fix it...hasn't. And more than that people are REALLY not liking the amount of spending under Obama. This is quite clearly a revolt vote the way it is playing out.

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Just from my conversations with my neighbors and such, because the guy they hired to fix it...hasn't. And more than that people are REALLY not liking the amount of spending under Obama. This is quite clearly a revolt vote the way it is playing out.

well it was the CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE platform, the "bush is evil" type of people. They promised that taxes wouldn't budge and spending would go down. Those are two blatant lies and Americans are tired of it.

It's not a GOP or DEM deal anymore, It's a morality issue now. This country has gone into wicked spending spree, The two political parties can even seem to agree on who pees standing or sitting now. Nothing gets done anymore, Things need to change like: term limits, and pay. I know a guy personally that was running for house down here. But he was given the shaft.

The district that we are in were conveniently wrote up to where the district line goes just under the University, then they go and gather up the poorest of the poor areas in Birmingham, and after that they just so happen to miss any of the middle to upper class areas. Basically making it impossible for someone that isn't a DEM and pretty dang Liberal to win.

But hey, we have a lady that is a pretty strong Obama supporter and said she would follow his lead; but she wants to curb spending? we are screwed because it's politics as usual

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by PIMking

If I'm reading this right I have two issues:

1) military spending isn't that bad, Think of it this way, the business center isn't located in Vietnam or India like Nike and Microsoft. So in affect keeping the money at home. It doesn't mean that you have to be at war, but being ready for action would be nice too. (thanks Clinton)

2) Raise taxes? really? haven't we learned enough from history about raising taxes? Romans did that and the rich took their money elsewhere. When the money and the rich are gone and your "tax profit" is down due to the people that did have money are now gone.

Mr. Obama and his 200 million/day trip to Mumbai are great for the deficit too....

1) With regards to military spending, we're simply pointing out large expenditures in the budget. If you want to reduce your annual spending, it's reasonable to look where most of your money is going. And currently, military spending (domestic spending + two wars) is a large proportion.

2) The argument that the defense spending stays home is irrelevant. By that regard, the US should be spending most of its money on health care because that spending necessarily stays home. Therefore, that argument is no more applicable to defense than any other domestic initiative.

3) I realize the "raise taxes - lose the rich" is a mantra. For over 30 years between 1950 and 1986, the top marginal rate was greater than 50%. In fact, for all but 5 of those years, it was 69% or above. Am I to believe that the rich just couldn't find the opportunity during 30 years to flee the US and leave it as a cratered, wanna-be economic power that lost its rich business producers to other countries? The real world fact is that people are not that infinitely mobile that they're going to start swapping countries every time their marginal income tax is altered by 2-3%.

4) As far as businesses are concerned, it's all irrelevant because most of the large, profitable companies are paying effective tax rates below 10%. US companies aren't moving production to other countries because they're being squeezed by taxes, but rather because the inherent employment costs in a developed country like the US are higher than China / Taiwan / etc. There is practically nothing the government can do in this regard outside of directly subsidizing wages and/or advocating the impoverishment of its citizens.

5) Good point about Obama going to India. If he only stayed home the budget would be ok. I don't know where he got the idea that, as president, he should be taking diplomatic trips to other countries. He should at least fly coach like Bush, Clinton and Bush before him.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by PIMking

]1) military spending isn't that bad.

Not that bad? Defense spending has DOUBLED since 2000. There's almost 700 billion dollars spent on the military per year. Streamlining the military budget has got to be in the cards if the US wants want to curtails it's out of control debt.

[Clever_Iggy]

It's almost over!!! No matter the results, it's almost over!!!

By the way, Meg "I spent $150+M on this election" Whitman is behind in the polls.