A Republican-Pandemic; Selective-Deafness!!

[sangha]

In 20 months, Obama has spent more than all other presidential admins combined.
Now, with breakneck speed, the Dollar is headed downhill. We may end up with hyperinflation and double digit interest rates very soon. He has tripled the deficit. Spent over 3 trillion dollars we do not have.
One thing is certain, if the bleeding caused by Obama is not stopped, this recession is going to destroy our economy.. Have you noticed the price of gas lately? Yeah up some 15-to 20 cents per gallon. Not due to demand. Due to inflation. The dollar is being slammed by the federal reserve. There has been no real uptick in buying of oil futures contracts. The price of oil is based on the Dollar. As the dollar falls in value, the price of oil rises.
Obama and his people are deliberately scuttling the dollar to make the NYSE Dow Jones Average look better. Stocks are way overpriced right now.
This is going to be a very shitty holiday season.....All Obama's doing.

Wrong, the spending in the first year of Obama's term (FY2009) was passed under bush*'s watch, and both the FY2009 and FY2010 budgets were saddled with record setting spending requirements from bush*'s TARP program. bush* saddled us with spending.

NIce try..Won't wash. This is Obama's watch and he is responsible. Period done end of story....
21 months...Sorry, you Obamatons cannot blame Bush anymore....Bush did not approve $1 trilllion in "stimulus"...Bush did not have the fed print money to give to Wall Street.
Obama did this. His watch. His policies.
BTW most if not all TARP money has been paid back in full.
You're all wet here. out of gas.

1) Even the rightwing Heritage Foundation agrees that Obama's budgets don't start until FY2010

Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

. Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for the FY 2009 budget deficit that overlaps their administrations, before President Obama assumes full budgetary responsibility beginning in FY 2010.

2) Not $1 trillion....it was $787billion, and most of it was tax cuts, not spending. And neither bush* nor Obama controls the Fed. And the current payback of the TARP funds do not affect the past budgets; they affect the current (FY2010) budget. The govts books use a cash accrual basis

IOW, you got EVERY. SINGLE. THING. WRONG

Good work!!

 

[thereisnospoon]

obama is doing great for US...since the day he has become President ...we become the stronger in finacial conditions....we are growing at faster rate....

When do you begin your twelve step program?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Wrong, the spending in the first year of Obama's term (FY2009) was passed under bush*'s watch, and both the FY2009 and FY2010 budgets were saddled with record setting spending requirements from bush*'s TARP program. bush* saddled us with spending.

NIce try..Won't wash. This is Obama's watch and he is responsible. Period done end of story....
21 months...Sorry, you Obamatons cannot blame Bush anymore....Bush did not approve $1 trilllion in "stimulus"...Bush did not have the fed print money to give to Wall Street.
Obama did this. His watch. His policies.
BTW most if not all TARP money has been paid back in full.
You're all wet here. out of gas.

1) Even the rightwing Heritage Foundation agrees that Obama's budgets don't start until FY2010

Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

. Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for the FY 2009 budget deficit that overlaps their administrations, before President Obama assumes full budgetary responsibility beginning in FY 2010.

2) Not $1 trillion....it was $787billion, and most of it was tax cuts, not spending. And neither bush* nor Obama controls the Fed. And the current payback of the TARP funds do not affect the past budgets; they affect the current (FY2010) budget. The govts books use a cash accrual basis

IOW, you got EVERY. SINGLE. THING. WRONG

Good work!!

Stick your chin out just a little farther, genius....The 787 billion is just ONE stim payout....There are several more. Such as the $1.8 billion in stim money for the dept of justice.....
Home Page...
Lets look here....Government Stimulus - Stimulus Money - Government Money Club
Tons of pork spending and new entitlements. This is NOT stimulus..These are gifts to freeloading taxpayer tit sucking lazy fucks who think they are owed something.
Obama told us the stim programs were for job creation....Shovel ready? Obama admits there are no Shovel Ready projects.
The deficit was 300 billion dollars the day Obama took office. Which translates to 2.5% of GDP. Within ten days of his admin, he ordered up almost $800 billlion in stim money. That raised the deficit 11% of GDP...A 500% increase in deficit.....Had the stim money been used to create jobs which would have brought down the then staggering 8% unemployment, we most likely would be looking at continued democrat majorities in the House and Senate...Unemployment in govt figures is 9.6%....Real unemployment is twice that.
You can spin and pontificate all you like. The facts are real and clear.
Oh something else for your edification....Stimulus New Programs up to over $1.3 trillion....
Part of that to see how Japanese Quails try to get laid after being fed a couple of 8-balls

 

[thereisnospoon]

Wrong, the spending in the first year of Obama's term (FY2009) was passed under bush*'s watch, and both the FY2009 and FY2010 budgets were saddled with record setting spending requirements from bush*'s TARP program. bush* saddled us with spending.

NIce try..Won't wash. This is Obama's watch and he is responsible. Period done end of story....
21 months...Sorry, you Obamatons cannot blame Bush anymore....Bush did not approve $1 trilllion in "stimulus"...Bush did not have the fed print money to give to Wall Street.
Obama did this. His watch. His policies.
BTW most if not all TARP money has been paid back in full.
You're all wet here. out of gas.

1) Even the rightwing Heritage Foundation agrees that Obama's budgets don't start until FY2010

Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

. Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for the FY 2009 budget deficit that overlaps their administrations, before President Obama assumes full budgetary responsibility beginning in FY 2010.

2) Not $1 trillion....it was $787billion, and most of it was tax cuts, not spending. And neither bush* nor Obama controls the Fed. And the current payback of the TARP funds do not affect the past budgets; they affect the current (FY2010) budget. The govts books use a cash accrual basis

IOW, you got EVERY. SINGLE. THING. WRONG

Good work!!

The president does not control the Fed Reserve...Directly? No...However if you think the Fed operates in complete autonomy, you're in la la land.
Stop with the excuses and spin. This is Obama's and the democrat's watch..
For once, take some friggin responsibility.

 

[sangha]

NIce try..Won't wash. This is Obama's watch and he is responsible. Period done end of story....
21 months...Sorry, you Obamatons cannot blame Bush anymore....Bush did not approve $1 trilllion in "stimulus"...Bush did not have the fed print money to give to Wall Street.
Obama did this. His watch. His policies.
BTW most if not all TARP money has been paid back in full.
You're all wet here. out of gas.

1) Even the rightwing Heritage Foundation agrees that Obama's budgets don't start until FY2010

Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

. Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for the FY 2009 budget deficit that overlaps their administrations, before President Obama assumes full budgetary responsibility beginning in FY 2010.

2) Not $1 trillion....it was $787billion, and most of it was tax cuts, not spending. And neither bush* nor Obama controls the Fed. And the current payback of the TARP funds do not affect the past budgets; they affect the current (FY2010) budget. The govts books use a cash accrual basis

IOW, you got EVERY. SINGLE. THING. WRONG

Good work!!

Stick your chin out just a little farther, genius....The 787 billion is just ONE stim payout....There are several more. Such as the $1.8 billion in stim money for the dept of justice.....
Home Page...
Lets look here....Government Stimulus - Stimulus Money - Government Money Club
Tons of pork spending and new entitlements. This is NOT stimulus..These are gifts to freeloading taxpayer tit sucking lazy fucks who think they are owed something.
Obama told us the stim programs were for job creation....Shovel ready? Obama admits there are no Shovel Ready projects.
The deficit was 300 billion dollars the day Obama took office. Which translates to 2.5% of GDP. Within ten days of his admin, he ordered up almost $800 billlion in stim money. That raised the deficit 11% of GDP...A 500% increase in deficit.....Had the stim money been used to create jobs which would have brought down the then staggering 8% unemployment, we most likely would be looking at continued democrat majorities in the House and Senate...Unemployment in govt figures is 9.6%....Real unemployment is twice that.
You can spin and pontificate all you like. The facts are real and clear.
Oh something else for your edification....Stimulus New Programs up to over $1.3 trillion....
Part of that to see how Japanese Quails try to get laid after being fed a couple of 8-balls

More wingnut nonsense. No wonder you're so deluded. All you do is read freeper websites. I'm sure you have links that prove Obama was born in Kenya

 

[sangha]

NIce try..Won't wash. This is Obama's watch and he is responsible. Period done end of story....
21 months...Sorry, you Obamatons cannot blame Bush anymore....Bush did not approve $1 trilllion in "stimulus"...Bush did not have the fed print money to give to Wall Street.
Obama did this. His watch. His policies.
BTW most if not all TARP money has been paid back in full.
You're all wet here. out of gas.

1) Even the rightwing Heritage Foundation agrees that Obama's budgets don't start until FY2010

Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

. Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for the FY 2009 budget deficit that overlaps their administrations, before President Obama assumes full budgetary responsibility beginning in FY 2010.

2) Not $1 trillion....it was $787billion, and most of it was tax cuts, not spending. And neither bush* nor Obama controls the Fed. And the current payback of the TARP funds do not affect the past budgets; they affect the current (FY2010) budget. The govts books use a cash accrual basis

IOW, you got EVERY. SINGLE. THING. WRONG

Good work!!

The president does not control the Fed Reserve...Directly? No...However if you think the Fed operates in complete autonomy, you're in la la land.
Stop with the excuses and spin. This is Obama's and the democrat's watch..
For once, take some friggin responsibility.

The president doesn't control the Fed? Then why did you say

.Bush did not have the fed print money to give to Wall Street.
Obama did this.

And even you fellow wingnuts at the Heritage Foundation think you're wacked.

Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

. Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for the FY 2009 budget deficit that overlaps their administrations, before President Obama assumes full budgetary responsibility beginning in FY 2010.

 

[thereisnospoon]

1) Even the rightwing Heritage Foundation agrees that Obama's budgets don't start until FY2010

Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.


2) Not $1 trillion....it was $787billion, and most of it was tax cuts, not spending. And neither bush* nor Obama controls the Fed. And the current payback of the TARP funds do not affect the past budgets; they affect the current (FY2010) budget. The govts books use a cash accrual basis

IOW, you got EVERY. SINGLE. THING. WRONG

Good work!!

Stick your chin out just a little farther, genius....The 787 billion is just ONE stim payout....There are several more. Such as the $1.8 billion in stim money for the dept of justice.....
Home Page...
Lets look here....Government Stimulus - Stimulus Money - Government Money Club
Tons of pork spending and new entitlements. This is NOT stimulus..These are gifts to freeloading taxpayer tit sucking lazy fucks who think they are owed something.
Obama told us the stim programs were for job creation....Shovel ready? Obama admits there are no Shovel Ready projects.
The deficit was 300 billion dollars the day Obama took office. Which translates to 2.5% of GDP. Within ten days of his admin, he ordered up almost $800 billlion in stim money. That raised the deficit 11% of GDP...A 500% increase in deficit.....Had the stim money been used to create jobs which would have brought down the then staggering 8% unemployment, we most likely would be looking at continued democrat majorities in the House and Senate...Unemployment in govt figures is 9.6%....Real unemployment is twice that.
You can spin and pontificate all you like. The facts are real and clear.
Oh something else for your edification....Stimulus New Programs up to over $1.3 trillion....
Part of that to see how Japanese Quails try to get laid after being fed a couple of 8-balls

More wingnut nonsense. No wonder you're so deluded. All you do is read freeper websites. I'm sure you have links that prove Obama was born in Kenya

Ah ha....The old " I don't like the facts, so I will dismiss them out of hand" bullshit...
A federal government website is a ....what did you call it?..A freeper?...WTF is a freeper..
Never mind ...................You need a link to find your house.. Moron.
Stop the birther shit. Obama is a US Citizen...

 

[sangha]

Stick your chin out just a little farther, genius....The 787 billion is just ONE stim payout....There are several more. Such as the $1.8 billion in stim money for the dept of justice.....
Home Page...
Lets look here....Government Stimulus - Stimulus Money - Government Money Club
Tons of pork spending and new entitlements. This is NOT stimulus..These are gifts to freeloading taxpayer tit sucking lazy fucks who think they are owed something.
Obama told us the stim programs were for job creation....Shovel ready? Obama admits there are no Shovel Ready projects.
The deficit was 300 billion dollars the day Obama took office. Which translates to 2.5% of GDP. Within ten days of his admin, he ordered up almost $800 billlion in stim money. That raised the deficit 11% of GDP...A 500% increase in deficit.....Had the stim money been used to create jobs which would have brought down the then staggering 8% unemployment, we most likely would be looking at continued democrat majorities in the House and Senate...Unemployment in govt figures is 9.6%....Real unemployment is twice that.
You can spin and pontificate all you like. The facts are real and clear.
Oh something else for your edification....Stimulus New Programs up to over $1.3 trillion....
Part of that to see how Japanese Quails try to get laid after being fed a couple of 8-balls

More wingnut nonsense. No wonder you're so deluded. All you do is read freeper websites. I'm sure you have links that prove Obama was born in Kenya

Ah ha....The old " I don't like the facts, so I will dismiss them out of hand" bullshit...
A federal government website is a ....what did you call it?..A freeper?...WTF is a freeper..
Never mind ...................You need a link to find your house.. Moron.
Stop the birther shit. Obama is a US Citizen...

You're the one who has dismissed, out of hand, the conservative Heritage Foundations' statement that FY2010 is Obama's first budget. This proves you're impervious to fact.

That's why you're avoiding my post with the link to the Heritage website. Instead, you want focus on the post that says nothing about the HF, and hope we forget about your lie
It's why you're avoiding the post asking why you said that Obama had the Fed print money when you know the president doesn't have that authority.

 

[Saikron]

PolitiFact | Axelrod claims Bush saddled Obama with a big deficit

I can see many of you guys still haven't read this. The deficit ballooned mostly under Bush, it's not debatable as has been explained to you several times in a few different ways.

Also, arguing about how big the deficit is is missing the HUGE POINT staring you right in the face: we had a recession and are still having an ongoing financial crisis. If the deficit doesn't grow you are doing it wrong.

If it lightens the blow any for you, think of it this way. Since Obama raised deficit spending less than Bush did, Bush was actually "doing more" to fix the crisis. (As a disclaimer I'd like to point out that TARP went to the wrong group of people, but that's another story.)

By not deficit spending enough, Obama's administration is actually to blame for economic growth so slow that we are barely keeping pace with the jobs we are losing.

Both sides are getting screwed, and neither side is actually focusing on the real problem for whatever reason.

 

[thereisnospoon]

More wingnut nonsense. No wonder you're so deluded. All you do is read freeper websites. I'm sure you have links that prove Obama was born in Kenya

Ah ha....The old " I don't like the facts, so I will dismiss them out of hand" bullshit...
A federal government website is a ....what did you call it?..A freeper?...WTF is a freeper..
Never mind ...................You need a link to find your house.. Moron.
Stop the birther shit. Obama is a US Citizen...

You're the one who has dismissed, out of hand, the conservative Heritage Foundations' statement that FY2010 is Obama's first budget. This proves you're impervious to fact.

That's why you're avoiding my post with the link to the Heritage website. Instead, you want focus on the post that says nothing about the HF, and hope we forget about your lie
It's why you're avoiding the post asking why you said that Obama had the Fed print money when you know the president doesn't have that authority.

Try again to get past the federal government's own data.
Jeez.
I never said the office of POTUS has "the authority"...I stated very clearly that the Fed does not function with autonomy.
Your interpretation is the Federal Reserve can, without oversight, make any decision it wants within the law.
Well technically that is true., but it is not accurate.
The mere fact that Obama has spent so incredibly high amounts of money, the federal reserve has been printing fake dollars for nearly all of Obama's admin.
You have a problem with facts that do not fit the liberal template.
I really think it is disingenuous to defend this admin because is is wrecking the country.
Bottom line. Read carefully.....The dollar is in an incredible slide. Prices for commodities and precious metals are skyrocketing because traders are hedging against the crumbling dollar. This President is solely responsible for the fall of the dollar. These are the facts. They are not in dispute.

 

[sangha]

Ah ha....The old " I don't like the facts, so I will dismiss them out of hand" bullshit...
A federal government website is a ....what did you call it?..A freeper?...WTF is a freeper..
Never mind ...................You need a link to find your house.. Moron.
Stop the birther shit. Obama is a US Citizen...

You're the one who has dismissed, out of hand, the conservative Heritage Foundations' statement that FY2010 is Obama's first budget. This proves you're impervious to fact.

That's why you're avoiding my post with the link to the Heritage website. Instead, you want focus on the post that says nothing about the HF, and hope we forget about your lie
It's why you're avoiding the post asking why you said that Obama had the Fed print money when you know the president doesn't have that authority.

Try again to get past the federal government's own data.
Jeez.
I never said the office of POTUS has "the authority"...I stated very clearly that the Fed does not function with autonomy.
Your interpretation is the Federal Reserve can, without oversight, make any decision it wants within the law.
Well technically that is true., but it is not accurate.
The mere fact that Obama has spent so incredibly high amounts of money, the federal reserve has been printing fake dollars for nearly all of Obama's admin.
You have a problem with facts that do not fit the liberal template.
I really think it is disingenuous to defend this admin because is is wrecking the country.
Bottom line. Read carefully.....The dollar is in an incredible slide. Prices for commodities and precious metals are skyrocketing because traders are hedging against the crumbling dollar. This President is solely responsible for the fall of the dollar. These are the facts. They are not in dispute.

1) You havent posted any data
2) You said Obama had the Fed print money. Now, you're backing away from it. You didn't say anything about "autonomy" until after I pwned you
3) It is true. Period. End of sentence. Only a liar like you would be unwilling to admit the obvious truth:

You lied

4) Govt spending does not affect the Feds' decision to print money
5) You have not posted facts
6) The dollars slide was mostly while bush* was president
7) Wingnuts claim their lies are not in dispute. The baseless claims are obvious lies, which is why even other wingnuts, like the far-right Heritage Foundation, disagrees with you

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Shaman is right, as usual, Obama and the Dems made the debt too big. We can't cut anything without bringing about a new Ice Age.

Ah, yes......'cause we can't afford to rescind the perpetual-"pass" for The Bush Legacy.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Over half of the deficit we have now was there before Obama was inaugurated.

The programs the republicans want to cut? Privatize $ocial $ecurity or anything but defense.

So... Obama, in two fucking years doubled the national debt incurred since George Washington???????

AWESOME!!!!

Why do you wannabe-"conservatives" always insist on bringing-up The Argument you consistently lose; economic-transition, from-one-President-to-the-next?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Just TEST one-of-them!!!​

"Ask any Republican in the House and Senate (exactly) which government programs they plan to cut in order to cut the $1.3-trillion deficit?"

​

Lame.

How long have they been in session? Did you want a full blown plan by the GOP yesterday?

We tried passing bills w/o reading them already, that hasn't worked out so well. So how about we give it 2 weeks, after they are in session, to come out with a well thought out plan.

Ah, yes, because.....much like those tax-cuts (that were supposed to create an avalanche of jobs, by WHEN?), to-date.....Republicans have only had two-years to come-up with specifics, regarding cuts.

Spending two years....shouting "NO!!"....must have been fairly time-consuming.

​

 

[skookerasbil]

The numbers below do NOT reflect the actual National Debt. Instead, they reflect the amount of the INCREASE in the National Debt during each presidential term.

> Ronald Reagan’s First Term – $656 billion increase

> Ronald Reagan’s Second Term – $1.036 trillion increase

> George H.W. Bush’s Term – $1.587 trillion increase

> Bill Clinton’s First Term – $1.122 trillion increase

> Bill Clinton’s Second Term – $418 billion increase

> George W. Bush’s First Term – $1.885 trillion increase

> George W. Bush’s Second Term – $3.014 trillion increase

> Barack Obama’s First “Year” – $1.573 trillion increase

To summarize, the National Debt increased by huge amounts under each of these presidents. The largest increase for a complete term occured during George W. Bush’s second term. The largest increse during a single year occurred during Barack Obama’s first year.

Current Obama administration projections indicate that the National Debt will increase by approximately $6.5 trillion during President Obama’s first term. If that happens, then he will obviously overtake President Bush’s record increase in the National Debt.

It is clear that the National Debt has been growing uncontrollably in recent years, regardless of which political party has been in power. To reverse this trend, we need to hold our elected officials accountable and demand that they balance the budget and reduce the National Debt.

The National Debt by President The National Debt Crisis

" The largest increse during a single year occurred during Barack Obama’s first year."

That would be the FY2009 budget, passed in 2008 when bush* was in office

Obama 1st budget is FY2010, which has a deficit lower than FY2009

Instead of playing games with #'s (and lying about who is responsible for the FY2009 budget), the following graph makes clear who is responsible for the national debt

Hers the problem s0n..........its 2010. This is a political forum..........everybody and their brother knows who's jacked the debt through the roof.

Proof?

Head on over to the RealClear homepage and check the election results

 

[mdn2000]

I see nothing but idiotic posts, every single one.

Nobody has the right to take my money and spend it, we should be on auto pilot, the budget should be 99% automatic. Congress and the president should control 1% at best.

Politicians should not be able to raise and lower taxes, they should not be allowed to collect any fees.

One tax, one, no state tax, no local tax, no property tax.

It does not matter who is doing what, you bickering like fools while the politicians enjoy a fat rich life, even when they lose.

Take the power away from all politicians, does anybody hear one politician stating this, no.

10% only when you spend money. A sales tax.

That will give the people the power, protect our jobs and economy, protect our future.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Simple answer: All of them.

Yeah....."conservatives" can ALWAYS be relied-upon for those (famed) simple/easy answers.

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Just TEST one-of-them!!!​

"Ask any Republican in the House and Senate (exactly) which government programs they plan to cut in order to cut the $1.3-trillion deficit?"

​

How about all of them.

....Quoth a(nother) Reagan-fan..... ​

And while they are at it, they can shit can about 25% of all federal workers. We don't need 2 million non-military federal workers.

So....be specific....which "federal-workers"? ​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The numbers below do NOT reflect the actual National Debt. Instead, they reflect the amount of the INCREASE in the National Debt during each presidential term.

> Ronald Reagan’s First Term – $656 billion increase

> Ronald Reagan’s Second Term – $1.036 trillion increase

> George H.W. Bush’s Term – $1.587 trillion increase

> Bill Clinton’s First Term – $1.122 trillion increase

> Bill Clinton’s Second Term – $418 billion increase

> George W. Bush’s First Term – $1.885 trillion increase

> George W. Bush’s Second Term – $3.014 trillion increase

> Barack Obama’s First “Year” – $1.573 trillion increase

To summarize, the National Debt increased by huge amounts under each of these presidents. The largest increase for a complete term occured during George W. Bush’s second term. The largest increse during a single year occurred during Barack Obama’s first year.

Current Obama administration projections indicate that the National Debt will increase by approximately $6.5 trillion during President Obama’s first term. If that happens, then he will obviously overtake President Bush’s record increase in the National Debt.

It is clear that the National Debt has been growing uncontrollably in recent years, regardless of which political party has been in power. To reverse this trend, we need to hold our elected officials accountable and demand that they balance the budget and reduce the National Debt.

The National Debt by President The National Debt Crisis

Instead of playing games with #'s (and lying about who is responsible for the FY2009 budget), the following graph makes clear who is responsible for the national debt

....As-if that's any kind of revelation, to those-of-us who're all-too-familiar with The Idiot Son's track-record.....while the History-challenged 'Baggers insist "GIVE US MORE!!!!!" ​

 

[skookerasbil]

Just TEST one-of-them!!!​

Lame.

How long have they been in session? Did you want a full blown plan by the GOP yesterday?

We tried passing bills w/o reading them already, that hasn't worked out so well. So how about we give it 2 weeks, after they are in session, to come out with a well thought out plan.

Ah, yes, because.....much like those tax-cuts (that were supposed to create an avalanche of jobs, by WHEN?), to-date.....Republicans have only had two-years to come-up with specifics, regarding cuts.

Spending two years....shouting "NO!!"....must have been fairly time-consuming.

​

How fascinating is this mindset?? At the moment, Im failing to come up with an appropriate analogy!

But here it is in a nutshell...................

The liberal k00ks on this board have the political intelligence of a marine battery terminal. Americans have clearly heard the message they've wanted to hear as the Dums agenda emerged the last two years. They fully support "No!". Its not even debatable. Politically......all they have to do is send bills in support of "No" and let the rest of the government............controlled by Dums......shoot themselves in the face with a shotgun. Republicans control 1/2 of one of the three government bodies. One half......of one of three. They basically have just to show up and play ball....thats it......not to mention the fact that the political tide that came in last Tuseday makes it virtually impossible for the House to go back to the DUMS before 2020. ( 90% of the k00ks on this forum have no clue what thats about).

Heres the political reality poop.........no spin here..........just the reality...........


Democrats' Losses Could Grow in 2012It doesn't take a crystal ball to understand that the short-term trends look dismal for Dems.
By Josh Kraushaar

Wednesday, November 10, 2010 | 6:00 a.m.

It’s something of a professional hazard to make predictions this far out before the next election. Witness Karl Rove’s anticipation early in the Bush years of a permanent Republican majority, or James Carville’s boast in early 2009 that Democrats would dominate the political landscape for the next 40 years – a prediction off by 38 years.

But there are some telltale signs of what 2012 is going to look like, and it doesn’t take a crystal ball to understand that the short-term trends look dismal for congressional Democrats. Even if Democrats turn their political fortunes around, they’re still likely to lose seats in the Senate and will be hard-pressed to make inroads in the House, thanks to factors entirely out of their control.

The numbers tell the story in the Senate: The president’s party will be playing defense, with 23 Democratic-held seats up for grabs. By comparison, only 10 Republican Senate seats will be in play, most in solidly Republican states. It’s the most lopsided disparity for any party since 1980, when Democrats lost 12 Senate seats.

And the map where all the top races are being contested is awfully daunting for Democrats. Of the 23 seats Democrats will be defending, eight are in Republican-friendly or battleground states: Nebraska, Virginia, Missouri, Montana, West Virginia, North Dakota, Ohio, and Florida.

Other Democratic senators, like Bob Casey (Pa.), Debbie Stabenow (Mich.), and Amy Klobuchar (Minn.) also could face competitive races if the environment doesn’t improve significantly for their party.

The only two states where Democrats look to have a fighting chance of picking up Republican Senate seats are Massachusetts (Scott Brown) and Nevada (scandal-plagued John Ensign). Even a Democratic landslide in 2012 would be unlikely to yield gains, given that most GOP senators up for reelection represent safely Republican states like Utah, Mississippi, and Texas.

There are already signs of strain among Democrats up for reelection in 2012. Sen.-elect Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., won his seat by trumpeting his differences with President Obama on such key issues as health care and cap-and-trade, and with a race for a full term just two years away, there’s no reason to believe Manchin is going to change his maverick tune any time soon. Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) hasn’t committed to running for a second term; if he retires, there isn’t much of a Democratic bench left in the Old Dominion, while former Sen. George Allen looks poised to run again for his old seat. (Paging Tim Kaine!)

Put simply, holding a Democratic majority at 53 seats would take a herculean effort, and even holding a bare majority would be an accomplishment. There’s a good reason why Majority Leader Harry Reid has been hard-pressed to find any one of his colleagues willing to chair the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in 2012.

In the House, the Republican wave couldn’t have come at a better time for the ascendant party. The GOP now has unilateral control of redistricting in key battleground states for the upcoming election cycle. That will allow the GOP to protect many of their newfound majority-makers and redistrict other Democrats out of existence. And that’s on top of reapportionment. The states slated to gain House seats – Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and Washington -- as a whole tilt in favor of Republicans. The ones projected to lose representation are predominantly Democratic: Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio.

The GOP’s massive gains in state legislatures mean they enter 2012 with as big an advantage in drawing districts as they’ve ever had. Many vulnerable Republicans will find themselves running in more favorable districts, while the party can expect to benefit from newly-created districts designed to their advantage.
Republicans fully control redistricting in 15 states, including the battlegrounds of Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. They control the mapmaking for 193 House districts, compared to 44 for the Democrats.

The implications are significant for 2012. Take North Carolina, for example. It was a rare bright spot for House Democrats, who hung on to three of four contested seats despite the wipeout against the party in the South. Democrats still hold a 7-6 majority in the congressional delegation, thanks to a gerrymandered map drawn by state Democrats for generations.

That’s likely to change with Republicans winning control of the legislature for the first time in history. Reps. Mike McIntyre and Larry Kissell could easily find their careers in peril, if the new lines exclude African-American constituencies from their districts that have been crucial to their political successes.

Republicans have the ability to expand their congressional majorities in other battleground states. In Pennsylvania, unfettered control of redistricting will allow the GOP to draw a Democrat out of office. In Ohio, which will likely lose two House seats, Republicans will be able to better protect its five incoming freshmen, and probably will be able to force two Democrats (from the Cleveland area) to square off against each other.

Republican State Legislative Committee Executive Director Chris Jankowski estimated the GOP will gain between 25 and 30 additional House seats from the reapportionment and redistricting process alone, a number that makes it all the more difficult for Democrats to win back the seats necessary to retake the majority. Republicans already are slated to hold between 241 and 244 seats in the new Congress, their largest majority since 1946.

Adding insult to injury, Republicans effectively picked off nearly two dozen Blue Dog Democrats, many of whom had been entrenched in their seats. Of the 48 Democratic-held districts won by John McCain in the 2008 election, Republicans picked off 36 of them. In the past, Democrats' ability to consistently hold deeply conservative districts provided a crucial bulwark for the party's majorities.

Democrats aren’t likely to contest many of those seats again. Good luck electing a Democrat in the seats that Reps. Gene Taylor (D-Miss.), Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), or John Spratt (D-S.C.) currently hold, to name a few, especially if Nancy Pelosi remains the face of the House Democrats.

Pelosi’s decision to stick around as minority leader is another factor that bodes well for House Republicans protecting their majorities in 2012. Moderate Democrats, the kind necessary to take back a majority, are already fretting that her continued presence for the next two years will depress Democratic recruiting in swing districts, prevent Democrats from turning the page on a disastrous year, and fuel Republican fundraising (even as she’s a very effective fundraiser herself).

The Democrats empowering her return to leadership are the ones who hail from safe districts and don’t have to worry about getting reelected. Many defeated Democrats would like to make a comeback, but their paths will be tougher with Pelosi in charge. One Democratic campaign manager whose boss lost in a northeastern swing district says her disapproval rating was near 60 percent in the district, with her approval rating in the teens.

“Obama wasn’t the reason we lost. It was because of Pelosi,” the strategist said. “She was a turnout machine – for the other side.”

Two years is an eternity in politics. President Obama’s popularity is poised to rebound, and Republicans could certainly overreach now that they’re in charge of the House. But fundamentals also matter. And the structural changes to the House race map and the defensive posture of Senate Democrats portend a very difficult cycle for Democrats.NationalJournal.com - Democrats' Losses Could Grow in 2012 - Wednesday, November 10, 2010










So clearly..........k00k assholes like Shaman et.al. will continue to post up all the flowery distraction drivel they can muster, however, the political analogy is like this: picture a professional football team offensive line getting into a three point stance against a defensive line made up of Pop Warner football players. Guess which line is akin to being the GOP right now???