Looking at the election results my thoughts....

[Flopper]

I agree, the reason why Americans are suffering is because of a civil war in the Senate and the House between two parties focused more on themselves and petty agendas and not the masses of people and its truly amazing how people flip flop between two parties who have been highly ineffective overall.

what's so petty about the agendas which separate the left and right extremes with respect to how to handle the same situation? i think the vicissitude is overboard, and if it were up to me neither extremes of 08 nor tuesday would not have happened, but simplifying the process of turning millions of opinions into US policy is naive. what 500 people have you ever seen act in unison? were they determining policy in the greatest nation on the planet?

i think americans are suffering because there was a really bad recession.

On the issue of the economy, the administration had to take action. The Republicans objected to everything the administration did without every offering any constructive measures. If John McCain had been president, I think his administration would have supported the financial bailout, a stimulus bill and the GM bailout. No administration would have sat on the sidelines and watched the economy crash and burn in order to bring down the deficit. The Democrats approach to the problem was pragmatic. The Republican approach was idealogical.

I think Obama had a pretty good idea that the Democrats were going to be facing an impossible situation at the midterms regardless what legislation he supported. Had he not taken the action he took, he probably would have been impeached so he took the lesser of two evils.

 

[antagon]

I will have to agree with you on one point
both partys do not care for the poor but the democrats care just enough to give things for votes Republicans care just enough to try to keep the economy going so people wil be self supporting. The rest is up to the poor to work and earn money.

republicans have put more people on welfare through their policies for as long is i've been alive. what fantasy land are you talking about?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I will have to agree with you on one point
both partys do not care for the poor but the democrats care just enough to give things for votes Republicans care just enough to try to keep the economy going so people wil be self supporting. The rest is up to the poor to work and earn money.

republicans have put more people on welfare through their policies for as long is i've been alive. what fantasy land are you talking about?

Democrats want to keep people on wlefare

 

[antagon]

I will have to agree with you on one point
both partys do not care for the poor but the democrats care just enough to give things for votes Republicans care just enough to try to keep the economy going so people wil be self supporting. The rest is up to the poor to work and earn money.

republicans have put more people on welfare through their policies for as long is i've been alive. what fantasy land are you talking about?

Democrats want to keep people on wlefare

i honestly dont think any party wants that, reb. i feel there's notable nuance between providing welfare and wanting to keep people on it. your hypothesis does not fit with the clinton-era welfare reforms. before you disassociate him with the legislation, i'd remind you that he ran for the office on the basis that he'd bring it about. i dont think reagan hoped to toss unprecedented hordes of americans on benefits or in prison, but these were the externalities of his policies. supply-side policy has a knack for that, and republicans stick by it. hearing the most contemporary republican rhetoric, it does not seem like it has even been redressed for those negative proceeds.

i'm not impressed by that like you seem to be.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

republicans have put more people on welfare through their policies for as long is i've been alive. what fantasy land are you talking about?

Democrats want to keep people on wlefare

i honestly dont think any party wants that, reb. i feel there's notable nuance between providing welfare and wanting to keep people on it. your hypothesis does not fit with the clinton-era welfare reforms. before you disassociate him with the legislation, i'd remind you that he ran for the office on the basis that he'd bring it about. i dont think reagan hoped to toss unprecedented hordes of americans on benefits or in prison, but these were the externalities of his policies. supply-side policy has a knack for that, and republicans stick by it. hearing the most contemporary republican rhetoric, it does not seem like it has even been redressed for those negative proceeds.

i'm not impressed by that like you seem to be.

antagon, I have nothing against welfare programs they are good for people who are on hard times. But I do not think it should be used as a life style where people think they will be on welfare forever. Americas welfare system is a trap that will not allow most people out of it. If the democrats wanted people off welfare they would have fixed so that it would have pushed them off the tit.

 

[hipeter924]

Democrats want to keep people on wlefare

i honestly dont think any party wants that, reb. i feel there's notable nuance between providing welfare and wanting to keep people on it. your hypothesis does not fit with the clinton-era welfare reforms. before you disassociate him with the legislation, i'd remind you that he ran for the office on the basis that he'd bring it about. i dont think reagan hoped to toss unprecedented hordes of americans on benefits or in prison, but these were the externalities of his policies. supply-side policy has a knack for that, and republicans stick by it. hearing the most contemporary republican rhetoric, it does not seem like it has even been redressed for those negative proceeds.

i'm not impressed by that like you seem to be.

antagon, I have nothing against welfare programs they are good for people who are on hard times. But I do not think it should be used as a life style where people think they will be on welfare forever. Americas welfare system is a trap that will not allow most people out of it. If the democrats wanted people off welfare they would have fixed so that it would have pushed them off the tit.

It's the modern welfare state fantasy. If the poor weren't slaves to the state, had employment, and a wage that allowed them to generate a surplus income then the welfare state would collapse and its functions would be totally replaced by non-for-profit charities. Of course no self-serving government would ever try to fully eliminate poverty and unemployment, as they would be committing political suicide.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

i honestly dont think any party wants that, reb. i feel there's notable nuance between providing welfare and wanting to keep people on it. your hypothesis does not fit with the clinton-era welfare reforms. before you disassociate him with the legislation, i'd remind you that he ran for the office on the basis that he'd bring it about. i dont think reagan hoped to toss unprecedented hordes of americans on benefits or in prison, but these were the externalities of his policies. supply-side policy has a knack for that, and republicans stick by it. hearing the most contemporary republican rhetoric, it does not seem like it has even been redressed for those negative proceeds.

i'm not impressed by that like you seem to be.

antagon, I have nothing against welfare programs they are good for people who are on hard times. But I do not think it should be used as a life style where people think they will be on welfare forever. Americas welfare system is a trap that will not allow most people out of it. If the democrats wanted people off welfare they would have fixed so that it would have pushed them off the tit.

It's the modern welfare state fantasy. If the poor weren't slaves to the state, had employment, and a wage that allowed them to generate a surplus income then the welfare state would collapse and its functions would be totally replaced by non-for-profit charities. Of course no self-serving government would ever try to fully eliminate poverty and unemployment, as they would be committing political suicide.

hipeter Exactly the point I was trying to make Thank you

 

[Stephanie]

Ya gotta love a lefties logic.

When the Obama and the Democrats won, they told us, that meant the People elected him to IMPOSE all his Socialist VISIONS on us.

But when the Republicans win in HISTORIC fashion Tuesday, they tell us, IT'S NOT the people saying we want their policies.

 

[Annie]

The real meaning of Tuesday's results:

Devastation: GOP Picks Up 680 State Leg. Seats - Hotline On Call

Devastation: GOP Picks Up 680 State Leg. Seats
By Jeremy P. Jacobs
November 4, 2010 | 11:30 AM
Share Share

While the Republican gains in the House and Senate are grabbing the most headlines, the most significant results on Tuesday came in state legislatures where Republicans wiped the floor with Democrats.

Republicans picked up 680 seats in state legislatures, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures -- the most in the modern era. To put that number in perspective: In the 1994 GOP wave, Republicans picked up 472 seats. The previous record was in the post-Watergate election of 1974, when Democrats picked up 628 seats.

The GOP gained majorities in at least 14 state house chambers. They now have unified control -- meaning both chambers -- of 26 state legislatures.

That control is a particularly bad sign for Democrats as they go into the redistricting process. If the GOP is effective in gerrymandering districts in many of these states, it could eventually lead to the GOP actually expanding its majority in 2012.

Republicans now hold the redistricting "trifecta" -- both chambers of the state legislature and the governorship -- in 15 states. They also control the Nebraska governorship and the unicameral legislature, taking the number up to 16. And in North Carolina -- probably the state most gerrymandered to benefit Democrats -- Republicans hold both chambers of the state legislature and the Democratic governor does not have veto power over redistricting proposals...

 

[Vanquish]

Ya gotta love a lefties logic.

When the Obama and the Democrats won, they told us, that meant the People elected him to IMPOSE all his Socialist VISIONS on us.

But when the Republicans win in HISTORIC fashion Tuesday, they tell us, IT'S NOT the people saying we want their policies.

This is why you fail.

Let me step back. I think the use of leftie and neo-con and republitard and such terms does more harm than good to the political debate. Sure, we're on an internet forum board. Sure, other people do it. Ok point taken. But here's the thing.

You just proved your own self wrong with that post. All the shit that people might be saying about a Republican mandate/tidal wave/message to Congress/America...

that's the shit your enemies were saying 2 years ago.

You denied it then...now you make fun of people who deny it now. See how you're utterly retarded? I mean to the point of I don't know how you put your shirt on by yourself at the beginning of the day. To the point where I think you might need a guide dog to help you cross the street even though you're not blind. Actually you are blind...if you can't see how stupid your post is.

that's all.

 

[blastoff]

I don't think the GOP are stupid enough to see this as an overwhelming victory.... because it is not. It should send a message to both parties.... Neither has the full backing of the American people. We do not want to go left. We do not want to go right.

Unfortunately, re-electing some of the most corrupt bastards in Congress - such as Franks and Boxer - also sends a message that we don't require our politicians to be honest. That is disappointing to me.

There's Teabaggers that got elected who are determined not to work together to help the country, stop the partisan bickering.

To a Tea Party folks calling them teabaggers is like referring to African Americans as *******.

 

[antagon]

Democrats want to keep people on wlefare

i honestly dont think any party wants that, reb. i feel there's notable nuance between providing welfare and wanting to keep people on it. your hypothesis does not fit with the clinton-era welfare reforms. before you disassociate him with the legislation, i'd remind you that he ran for the office on the basis that he'd bring it about. i dont think reagan hoped to toss unprecedented hordes of americans on benefits or in prison, but these were the externalities of his policies. supply-side policy has a knack for that, and republicans stick by it. hearing the most contemporary republican rhetoric, it does not seem like it has even been redressed for those negative proceeds.

i'm not impressed by that like you seem to be.

antagon, I have nothing against welfare programs they are good for people who are on hard times. But I do not think it should be used as a life style where people think they will be on welfare forever. Americas welfare system is a trap that will not allow most people out of it. If the democrats wanted people off welfare they would have fixed so that it would have pushed them off the tit.

as i had stated prior, democrats (bill clinton with bipartisan support) were the leaders in pushing people off of welfare during my lifetime. through ignoring the implications of their policy republicans have effectively pumped up welfare and prison rolls.

i dont see things in the same partisan light as you seem to. i only point out the above to show that for the last thirty years, your beliefs aren't supported by history which i'm able to account for.

the way i see situations like this is that policy needs to 'do entitlements right' rather than merely hoping to chase people off of them. the trap as i see it is laid by policies which are addicted to the economic proceeds of welfare without addressing the other ways which those proceeds can be obtained outside of welfare.

that is a concise way of getting at my point, but as a perspective, it affords me insight to more innovative approaches to welfare reform than i have seen or heard from our government or partisan pundits who support or are impressed by their jaded approaches.

 

[Vanquish]

I don't think the GOP are stupid enough to see this as an overwhelming victory.... because it is not. It should send a message to both parties.... Neither has the full backing of the American people. We do not want to go left. We do not want to go right.

Unfortunately, re-electing some of the most corrupt bastards in Congress - such as Franks and Boxer - also sends a message that we don't require our politicians to be honest. That is disappointing to me.

There's Teabaggers that got elected who are determined not to work together to help the country, stop the partisan bickering.

To a Tea Party folks calling them teabaggers is like referring to African Americans as n@#$@s.

Wow. You really think you got away with something there, didn't you? "Oh I'm not calling anyone that word, just saying it's like this other one"

Pathetic attempt really.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The real meaning of Tuesday's results:

Devastation: GOP Picks Up 680 State Leg. Seats - Hotline On Call

Devastation: GOP Picks Up 680 State Leg. Seats
By Jeremy P. Jacobs
November 4, 2010 | 11:30 AM
Share Share

While the Republican gains in the House and Senate are grabbing the most headlines, the most significant results on Tuesday came in state legislatures where Republicans wiped the floor with Democrats.

Republicans picked up 680 seats in state legislatures, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures -- the most in the modern era. To put that number in perspective: In the 1994 GOP wave, Republicans picked up 472 seats. The previous record was in the post-Watergate election of 1974, when Democrats picked up 628 seats.

The GOP gained majorities in at least 14 state house chambers. They now have unified control -- meaning both chambers -- of 26 state legislatures.

That control is a particularly bad sign for Democrats as they go into the redistricting process. If the GOP is effective in gerrymandering districts in many of these states, it could eventually lead to the GOP actually expanding its majority in 2012.

Republicans now hold the redistricting "trifecta" -- both chambers of the state legislature and the governorship -- in 15 states. They also control the Nebraska governorship and the unicameral legislature, taking the number up to 16. And in North Carolina -- probably the state most gerrymandered to benefit Democrats -- Republicans hold both chambers of the state legislature and the Democratic governor does not have veto power over redistricting proposals...

North Carolina made history this election it's been over 100 years since Republicans have controlled the general assembly.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

i honestly dont think any party wants that, reb. i feel there's notable nuance between providing welfare and wanting to keep people on it. your hypothesis does not fit with the clinton-era welfare reforms. before you disassociate him with the legislation, i'd remind you that he ran for the office on the basis that he'd bring it about. i dont think reagan hoped to toss unprecedented hordes of americans on benefits or in prison, but these were the externalities of his policies. supply-side policy has a knack for that, and republicans stick by it. hearing the most contemporary republican rhetoric, it does not seem like it has even been redressed for those negative proceeds.

i'm not impressed by that like you seem to be.

antagon, I have nothing against welfare programs they are good for people who are on hard times. But I do not think it should be used as a life style where people think they will be on welfare forever. Americas welfare system is a trap that will not allow most people out of it. If the democrats wanted people off welfare they would have fixed so that it would have pushed them off the tit.

as i had stated prior, democrats (bill clinton with bipartisan support) were the leaders in pushing people off of welfare during my lifetime. through ignoring the implications of their policy republicans have effectively pumped up welfare and prison rolls.

i dont see things in the same partisan light as you seem to. i only point out the above to show that for the last thirty years, your beliefs aren't supported by history which i'm able to account for.

the way i see situations like this is that policy needs to 'do entitlements right' rather than merely hoping to chase people off of them. the trap as i see it is laid by policies which are addicted to the economic proceeds of welfare without addressing the other ways which those proceeds can be obtained outside of welfare.

that is a concise way of getting at my point, but as a perspective, it affords me insight to more innovative approaches to welfare reform than i have seen or heard from our government or partisan pundits who support or are impressed by their jaded approaches.

antagon, It's not the place for the federal government to mandate any form of welfare. That is a state issue. The states are in a position to know who needs help and who doesn't.

 

[Stephanie]

Ya gotta love a lefties logic.

When the Obama and the Democrats won, they told us, that meant the People elected him to IMPOSE all his Socialist VISIONS on us.

But when the Republicans win in HISTORIC fashion Tuesday, they tell us, IT'S NOT the people saying we want their policies.

This is why you fail.

Let me step back. I think the use of leftie and neo-con and republitard and such terms does more harm than good to the political debate. Sure, we're on an internet forum board. Sure, other people do it. Ok point taken. But here's the thing.

You just proved your own self wrong with that post. All the shit that people might be saying about a Republican mandate/tidal wave/message to Congress/America...

that's the shit your enemies were saying 2 years ago.

You denied it then...now you make fun of people who deny it now. See how you're utterly retarded? I mean to the point of I don't know how you put your shirt on by yourself at the beginning of the day. To the point where I think you might need a guide dog to help you cross the street even though you're not blind. Actually you are blind...if you can't see how stupid your post is.

that's all.

hahahaha, so many words and not a damn thing of importance said. sheeesh

 

[Vanquish]

Ya gotta love a lefties logic.

When the Obama and the Democrats won, they told us, that meant the People elected him to IMPOSE all his Socialist VISIONS on us.

But when the Republicans win in HISTORIC fashion Tuesday, they tell us, IT'S NOT the people saying we want their policies.

This is why you fail.

Let me step back. I think the use of leftie and neo-con and republitard and such terms does more harm than good to the political debate. Sure, we're on an internet forum board. Sure, other people do it. Ok point taken. But here's the thing.

You just proved your own self wrong with that post. All the shit that people might be saying about a Republican mandate/tidal wave/message to Congress/America...

that's the shit your enemies were saying 2 years ago.

You denied it then...now you make fun of people who deny it now. See how you're utterly retarded? I mean to the point of I don't know how you put your shirt on by yourself at the beginning of the day. To the point where I think you might need a guide dog to help you cross the street even though you're not blind. Actually you are blind...if you can't see how stupid your post is.

that's all.

hahahaha, so many words and not a damn thing of importance said. sheeesh

Care to actually debate something, disprove something, or agree with something?

Otherwise, you're not really adding anything worthwhile to the conversation.

 

[Stephanie]

This is why you fail.

Let me step back. I think the use of leftie and neo-con and republitard and such terms does more harm than good to the political debate. Sure, we're on an internet forum board. Sure, other people do it. Ok point taken. But here's the thing.

You just proved your own self wrong with that post. All the shit that people might be saying about a Republican mandate/tidal wave/message to Congress/America...

that's the shit your enemies were saying 2 years ago.

You denied it then...now you make fun of people who deny it now. See how you're utterly retarded? I mean to the point of I don't know how you put your shirt on by yourself at the beginning of the day. To the point where I think you might need a guide dog to help you cross the street even though you're not blind. Actually you are blind...if you can't see how stupid your post is.

that's all.

hahahaha, so many words and not a damn thing of importance said. sheeesh

Care to actually debate something, disprove something, or agree with something?

Otherwise, you're not really adding anything worthwhile to the conversation.

not to all that crap you posted. NOT a damn thing to debate, disprove or agree with.. but it was quite a rant on your part.

 

[antagon]

antagon, It's not the place for the federal government to mandate any form of welfare. That is a state issue. The states are in a position to know who needs help and who doesn't.

i feel it is potentially the place of the federal government and that the republican process of the US government has made it so. how do you feel there's a mandate for welfare? you dont have to take recourse to entitlements. states administer welfare and bring the privilege of their intimate knowledge to bear in that process. not rocket science is it?

 

[nraforlife]

I seriously ..............................

The American electorate seriously does not give a damn for the political opinions of the typical negro. Take it back to kenya where somebody cares.