Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The Republicans take the House, they now block everything that Obama does.

So, as I understand it, they cannot themselves legislate. So nothing gets done?

The country remains in the economic mire, they did their heels in about making taxes like they were under Bush, the vast sums of the country's money used to prevent a full blown depression and the debts accrued to communist China under Bush continue to errode the ability of the nation to recover.

So, are they going to try and impeach Obama? Is that a serious question even?

Republicans, would you seriously... SERIOUSLY... vote for the Palin woman?

MeanGreenStompa wrote:The Republicans take the House, they now block everything that Obama does.

So, as I understand it, they cannot themselves legislate. So nothing gets done?

The country remains in the economic mire, they did their heels in about making taxes like they were under Bush, the vast sums of the country's money used to prevent a full blown depression and the debts accrued to communist China under Bush continue to errode the ability of the nation to recover.

So, are they going to try and impeach Obama? Is that a serious question even?

Republicans, would you seriously... SERIOUSLY... vote for the Palin woman?

From my (admittedly) limited experience of US politics, it isnt quite as cut and dried as this. Firstly, although the Democrats no longer conrol the house, Obama can continue to press through policy; it just means that he will have to negotiate and grant Republican concessions a lot more to get bills passed. And it also means that some his more 'radical' proposals might not see the light of day (the healthcare thing will probably be scuppered? Not sure if it has been passed or not).

He can't be impeached - he hasn't committed any crimes as far as I am aware.

Frazzled wrote:

I know this is the off topic section. But frazz that vid was way off topic

I couldn't find season one intro which would have been way cooler, but you do what you can with the tools you have.

This one is more appropriate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLhvFSmhGC0

MeanGreenStompa wrote:The Republicans take the House, they now block everything that Obama does.

So, as I understand it, they cannot themselves legislate. So nothing gets done?

The country remains in the economic mire, they did their heels in about making taxes like they were under Bush, the vast sums of the country's money used to prevent a full blown depression and the debts accrued to communist China under Bush continue to errode the ability of the nation to recover.

So, are they going to try and impeach Obama? Is that a serious question even?

Republicans, would you seriously... SERIOUSLY... vote for the Palin woman?

Here's what I'm expecting.

1.) The Republican house majority will create bills to repeal Health Care and Financial Reform knowing full well that they will die in the Democratically controlled Senate. They'll need to do this continuously to satisfy their rabid Tea Party base and Corporate donors.

2.) We'll see more than a few witch-hunts in various House committees. I'm really hoping that it doesn't get to the point that we saw in the Clinton years.

3.) The Tea Party will not hold the GOP leadership accountable when they start doing what they've always done. Spend money while lowering taxes.

4.) Speaking of Taxes, the House will make a great show of trying to lower taxes for all, while only really caring about the very rich. In all likelihood, this is the only thing I see that has a hope of getting all the way through Congress.

5.) I have no idea what actual legislation, other than repeal, lower taxes, and provide for Corporate welfare, the Republican House will try to pass. For all of their rhetoric over the past two years, what new ideas have they actually brought forth? What will they do to help 'stimulate' the economy and get more jobs created (while ignoring the fact that we have had 9 consecutive months of positive job growth)? They've already positioned themselves as being against every initiative the Democratic party brought forth. So one would think that whatever they did would have to be completely different.

-Yad

MeanGreenStompa wrote:The Republicans take the House, they now block everything that Obama does.

So, as I understand it, they cannot themselves legislate. So nothing gets done?

And that would be different from the last two years how?

To answer MGS's question: No. I would not. Mrs. Palin is far too right in a social sense for me, along with Miss. O'Donnell. Both of them frighten me slightly with their rhetoric. Moreover, Palin is just as inexperienced as Obama, if not more so. I can not think of any reason why I'd vote for Palin. I'd sooner vote for Rommney or Huckabee...

Additionally, they can't impeach Obama just because they don't like him. There would have to be a trial in front of the Senate that proves Obama had committed a major crime, and should be removed from office so he could be prosecuted for that crime. Moreover, with a Dem majority in the Senate, any impeachment trial would no doubt end in favor of Obama, unless he suddenly decides to reveal he's some kind of horrible horrible serial killer human being.

The House can legislate, but no far right bills will get through thanks to the Dems control of the Senate. So we don't need to worry about the Tea Party declaring evolution a heresy against creation and banning its teaching in schools....yet.

Yad: You have to understand that you really can't say that just since the Dems were in power during a period of time when the economy was growing they're responsible so their policies worked. That's like saying that Hoover was solely responsible for the Great Depression just since he was the one in power at the time of the crash. Additonally, you'll notice that almost every piece of political rhetoric in our government at this point IS rehash. The Dems have no more real new ideas than the GOP...it's just this time they managed to ride the wave of popularity in long enough to pass a health care bill through. Republican views on stimulating the economy will remain as they have had for a long time. Fiscal conservatism, lower taxes, more freedom to corporations and individuals will lead to the market slowly beginning to climb upward again.

Not to mention ALL politicians primarily care about their donors, who just happen to be very wealthy. It's not just the Republicans.

The House proposes and passes legislation. most importantly, the House is where the real stuff happens-budgets are proposed. He who controls the spice controls the universe!

But yes the important thing is that all sides will now have compromise to pass legislation. Historically this is the model the the US has had the last 100 years and help prevents radical legislation getting through. Welfare reform and Clinton's balanced budgets came through this method. Its when the US gets one part controlling the Legislative and the Executive that bad things happen...

The world would be a better place if people would just vote me in as the benevolant dictator once...

We're designed around a system of checks and balances. Our government is supposed to interfere with itself mercilessly. We designed it with the logic that a crippled system that reset every four years would never be able to assume total control.

If we're not getting anything done, then it is working as intended.

Catyrpelius wrote:The world would be a better place if people would just vote me in as the benevolant dictator once...

I for one would welcome our new squirrel overlords

Cream cheese and bagels for all would be change I could believe in and agree with.

OT, Palin will never be president, they could impeach Obama (over what?) but he would never be convicted (2/3 majority needed in the senate) so he would stay president and again nothing would happen in Washington.

GG

ChrisWWII wrote:Yad: You have to understand that you really can't say that just since the Dems were in power during a period of time when the economy was growing they're responsible so their policies worked. That's like saying that Hoover was solely responsible for the Great Depression just since he was the one in power at the time of the crash. Additonally, you'll notice that almost every piece of political rhetoric in our government at this point IS rehash. The Dems have no more real new ideas than the GOP...it's just this time they managed to ride the wave of popularity in long enough to pass a health care bill through. Republican views on stimulating the economy will remain as they have had for a long time. Fiscal conservatism, lower taxes, more freedom to corporations and individuals will lead to the market slowly beginning to climb upward again.

Not to mention ALL politicians primarily care about their donors, who just happen to be very wealthy. It's not just the Republicans.

Do you mean to suggest then that for the 8-10 years of Republican control that crash of 2008 and the subsequent housing burst was not shaped, in large part, by GOP policies and corporate malfeasance? And that the Stimulus plan, while admittedly much smaller than it should have been, did not help the economy and prevent another Great Depression? And that the economic growth, while not nearly as strong as it should be (see previous) was not shaped by Dem policies? I guess I just don't understand how you can look at the last 12 years and think that the GOP knows how to govern a global economy.

What's really striking about your statement is that the GOP will remain as they have with regards to Fiscal Conservatism. Really? Again, you can make that statement in light of what they did during the Bush administration? The 'market' is already slowly climbing upward, and I shudder to think of what you mean by 'more freedom' to corporations. That is a text book example of cognitive dissonance if I've ever read one.

And yes, all politicians care about their donors. But again you're either missing or ignoring the direct consequences we all experienced as a result of the Citizens United ruling. Karl Rove, Dick Armey, and the Chamber of Commerce basically bankrolled the entire GOP. If you think that there will be any kind of campaign finance reform in the next two years you can kiss that idea goodbye.

Personally, I think a lot of Dems deserved to lose. I won't shed a tear for any of the 23 or so Blue Dogs that lost. I'm especially happy that Blanche Lincoln got handed a pink slip.

-Yad

Too bad the repubs ran "i'm not a witch" o'donnel that psycho Angle. Otherwise they'd be in control of the senate.

olympia wrote:Too bad the repubs ran "i'm not a witch" o'donnel that psycho Angle. Otherwise they'd be in control of the senate.

Too bad? Then we would have missed out on their antics. No way Jose!

now admittedly we now have governor Moonbeam back in office, but we had no conviction that Californians would be thats stupid, er inciteful, and had to hedge our entertainment bets.

Yad wrote:
Do you mean to suggest then that for the 8-10 years of Republican control that crash of 2008 and the subsequent housing burst was not shaped, in large part, by GOP policies and corporate malfeasance? And that the Stimulus plan, while admittedly much smaller than it should have been, did not help the economy and prevent another Great Depression? And that the economic growth, while not nearly as strong as it should be (see previous) was not shaped by Dem policies? I guess I just don't understand how you can look at the last 12 years and think that the GOP knows how to govern a global economy.

I believe the crash of 2008 was a result of banks being complete and utter morons. Not the GOP. Banks were the ones who stupidly decided that it was a good idea to make a gamble that the housing market would keep growing at an unsustainable rate, and it was a good idea to try and give loans to people who had no possible way to pay back those loans. I don't think you can blame the GOP for that. You have to blame the heads of the banks for that. I also believe that the stimulus plan, especially the plan to save the banks, was a horrible horrible move. The FDIC exists so that people with money in banks know that if the banks fail their money doesn't go away.

The government stimulus plan is a show of what is wrong with capitalism in the world today. Instead of letting the banks fail, and let the market punish those idiots who made such a ridiculous gamble, the federal government decided to save the banks, thus preserving said idiots in charge. Yes, I know Bush was the one who signed that first stimulus package into law, but it's not like the Dems would have done any different.

More importantly, I don't need to believe that the GOP can run a global economy. I trust capitalism to run the world economy. The GOP (allegedly) supports capitalism. Thus, I support the GOP, even though I'm more a libertarian at heart.

What's really striking about your statement is that the GOP will remain as they have with regards to Fiscal Conservatism. Really? Again, you can make that statement in light of what they did during the Bush administration? The 'market' is already slowly climbing upward, and I shudder to think of what you mean by 'more freedom' to corporations. That is a text book example of cognitive dissonance if I've ever read one.

Yes, I'm aware Bush did many silly non-fiscal conservative things in his last few years in office. But would the Dems have done it any differently? The market has slowly begun its climb upward of its own incentives, not out of the money being poured into the country by the Obama Administration's stimulus packages. It took a World War, and 50 years of Cold War to get us out of the Great Depression....a few billion dollars isn't going to be the thing that pulls us out of this one.

I'm guessing we have run into a key difference here. Your response to me saying 'more freedom to corporations' leads me to believe your world view is an American liberal point of view. However, I am a firm believer in capitalism and classical liberalism. Capitalism, true free market capitalism, with no government interference other than to avoid monopoly, is, in my opinion, a force for good in the world that will only help in the end. I feel confident in saying you disagree with me on this, yes?

And yes, all politicians care about their donors. But again you're either missing or ignoring the direct consequences we all experienced as a result of the Citizens United ruling. Karl Rove, Dick Armey, and the Chamber of Commerce basically bankrolled the entire GOP. If you think that there will be any kind of campaign finance reform in the next two years you can kiss that idea goodbye.

I was actually pleased with that ruling. Freedom of speech for all! Why should corporations and executives be banned from expressing themselves just because they have more money than the average citizen? If we start taking away rights for being 'too wealthy' where could that path lead us? I shudder to think about that. I don't expect there to be any campaign finance reform in the next two years, and unless that reform is that each person gets $X for their political campaign, I don't want to see it.

As far as Karl ROve and the Chamber of Commerce, I say: a) I'm fairly sure your exaggerating. I'd think that the big corporations combined with the regular small donations make up most of the money the GOP uses, and even if I'm wrong I say: so? So what if the GOP gets all its money from a few people? Don't those people have a right to spend their money as they see fit?

Obama gave his Whipped dog speech not to long ago. Pleading to work and find common ground. The next speaker of the house said he will tear down anything Obama has done or stop anything he will try to do. I Wish along with hope and change, there was a brain and back bone.

ChrisWWII wrote:

Yad wrote:
Do you mean to suggest then that for the 8-10 years of Republican control that crash of 2008 and the subsequent housing burst was not shaped, in large part, by GOP policies and corporate malfeasance? And that the Stimulus plan, while admittedly much smaller than it should have been, did not help the economy and prevent another Great Depression? And that the economic growth, while not nearly as strong as it should be (see previous) was not shaped by Dem policies? I guess I just don't understand how you can look at the last 12 years and think that the GOP knows how to govern a global economy.

I believe the crash of 2008 was a result of banks being complete and utter morons. Not the GOP. Banks were the ones who stupidly decided that it was a good idea to make a gamble that the housing market would keep growing at an unsustainable rate, and it was a good idea to try and give loans to people who had no possible way to pay back those loans. I don't think you can blame the GOP for that. You have to blame the heads of the banks for that. I also believe that the stimulus plan, especially the plan to save the banks, was a horrible horrible move. The FDIC exists so that people with money in banks know that if the banks fail their money doesn't go away.

I did mention that it was a combination of GOP and corporate malfeasance... The GOP's stance of deregulation and as you correctly point out the Banks insanity for short term gain, combined together for a perfect storm. And I wouldn't necessary say that the banks believed that the housing market would keep growing. As we are now just realizing, many of these big banks were participants in what I would suggest is one of the largest frauds perpetrated on the American public ever.

ChrisWWII wrote:The government stimulus plan is a show of what is wrong with capitalism in the world today. Instead of letting the banks fail, and let the market punish those idiots who made such a ridiculous gamble, the federal government decided to save the banks, thus preserving said idiots in charge. Yes, I know Bush was the one who signed that first stimulus package into law, but it's not like the Dems would have done any different.

I don't think it's hyperbole to say that we were days away from our economy, and most likely the world economy, from imploding. I do believe that these banks did indeed become to big to fail, and that our regulatory institutions were not prepared or even aware of that. Letting them fail was out of the question. The stimulus was a necessary evil. What should have happened after was an executive purge of bank leadership. To date there has been little to no accountability of what these people did to us.

ChrisWWII wrote:More importantly, I don't need to believe that the GOP can run a global economy. I trust capitalism to run the world economy. The GOP (allegedly) supports capitalism. Thus, I support the GOP, even though I'm more a libertarian at heart.

I don't believe there is such a thing as a 'free market'. At least in its purest sense.

ChrisWWII wrote:

What's really striking about your statement is that the GOP will remain as they have with regards to Fiscal Conservatism. Really? Again, you can make that statement in light of what they did during the Bush administration? The 'market' is already slowly climbing upward, and I shudder to think of what you mean by 'more freedom' to corporations. That is a text book example of cognitive dissonance if I've ever read one.

Yes, I'm aware Bush did many silly non-fiscal conservative things in his last few years in office. But would the Dems have done it any differently? The market has slowly begun its climb upward of its own incentives, not out of the money being poured into the country by the Obama Administration's stimulus packages. It took a World War, and 50 years of Cold War to get us out of the Great Depression....a few billion dollars isn't going to be the thing that pulls us out of this one.

Perhaps, but I find it very difficult to argue that it didn't prevent a greater catastrophe. And saying that lowering taxes while starting two wars is a 'silly non-fiscal conservative thing' is a bit of an understatement Grossly negligent is more like it.

ChrisWWII wrote:I'm guessing we have run into a key difference here. Your response to me saying 'more freedom to corporations' leads me to believe your world view is an American liberal point of view. However, I am a firm believer in capitalism and classical liberalism. Capitalism, true free market capitalism, with no government interference other than to avoid monopoly, is, in my opinion, a force for good in the world that will only help in the end. I feel confident in saying you disagree with me on this, yes?

Yep, I'm certainly of the more liberal worldview. I do think that capitalism is a sound economic theory. But again, I don't believe that there is such a thing as a 'free market'. I've come to view corporate America as the scorpion from that old fable:

A scorpion, being a very bad swimmer, asked a turtle to carry him on its back across a river. "Are you mad?" exclaimed the turtle. "You'll sting me while I'm swimming and I'll drown." "My dear turtle," exalted the scorpion, "If I was to sting you, you would drown and I'd go down with you. Now where is the logic in that?" "You're right," said the turtle. "Hop on." The scorpion climbed aboard and halfway across the river gave the turtle a mighty sting. As they both sank to the bottom, the turtle asked, "Before I die, I must ask you something? You said there is no logic in your stinging me. Why did you do it?" "It has nothing to do with logic," the drowning scorpion replied. "It's just my nature."

Short term gain over long term stability. We need a stronger regulatory infrastructure to prevent this.

ChrisWWII wrote:

And yes, all politicians care about their donors. But again you're either missing or ignoring the direct consequences we all experienced as a result of the Citizens United ruling. Karl Rove, Dick Armey, and the Chamber of Commerce basically bankrolled the entire GOP. If you think that there will be any kind of campaign finance reform in the next two years you can kiss that idea goodbye.

I was actually pleased with that ruling. Freedom of speech for all! Why should corporations and executives be banned from expressing themselves just because they have more money than the average citizen? If we start taking away rights for being 'too wealthy' where could that path lead us? I shudder to think about that. I don't expect there to be any campaign finance reform in the next two years, and unless that reform is that each person gets $X for their political campaign, I don't want to see it.

Corporations are not people. Corporations often have access to vast more resources than the majority of living breathing citizens and can disproportionally affect elections. I don't understand what you mean by 'taking away rights'. Do you mean to suggest that a corporation should have the same rights that you and I enjoy?

ChrisWWII wrote:As far as Karl ROve and the Chamber of Commerce, I say: a) I'm fairly sure your exaggerating. I'd think that the big corporations combined with the regular small donations make up most of the money the GOP uses, and even if I'm wrong I say: so? So what if the GOP gets all its money from a few people? Don't those people have a right to spend their money as they see fit?

A.) Nope, not in the least. I'll do some digging and post some links that have a good breakdown of the Chamber's and Rove's Crossroads spending. Compared to the RNC it's no contest. Citizen's United also opened the door to foreign contributions to American elections. And yes, I wholeheartedly agree that people have a right to spend as they see fit. People, not corporations (at least with respect to electioneering activities).

-Yad


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sexiest_hero wrote:Obama gave his Whipped dog speech not to long ago. Pleading to work and find common ground. The next speaker of the house said he will tear down anything Obama has done or stop anything he will try to do. I Wish along with hope and change, there was a brain and back bone.

Yeah, it was just sad. Two years of NO and he still thinks that there will be some kind bipartisanship. That's one ship that sailed oh some 20 years or so ago.

-Yad

And having briefly dipped their toe into the sea of reason and elightenment, the country with no brain returns to frolic upon insanity beach.

Seriously...back to the dark ages or what?

Mr Mystery wrote:And having briefly dipped their toe into the sea of reason and elightenment, the country with no brain returns to frolic upon insanity beach.

Seriously...back to the dark ages or what?

Oh wow thats like trolling like you know like really like gag me with a spoon.

Why not try some of this, hearty reader types...

amusing yet profanity containing linkl

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Republicans, would you seriously... SERIOUSLY... vote for the Palin woman?

According to some the exit polls from last night Palin has electoral support from about 15% of people that voted Republican in the mid-term, and exit polls are notorious for over-reporting numbers.

This number is interesting for a couple reasons. First, the Republican turn-out was heavily bolstered by independents and conservative Democrats, so its likely that the proportion of traditionally Republican voters who would vote for Palin is much higher than 15%, maybe as much as double. This is critical because independents and people affiliated with the other party don't tend to vote in primary elections; meaning that Palin's chances in a GOP primary are much greater than 15% support might indicate. Of course, the flip-side is that relatively high partisan support frequently translates into poor general election performance, which is what the initial number of 15% tells us.

Now, Palin's general approval numbers are much high than 15%; even getting up into the 70's in certain areas. But approving of someone doesn't mean you'll vote for them, it simply means that you like what they do, and for many conservatives what Palin does is annoy liberals.

So, to summarize, lots of conservatives like Palin, but far fewer are willing to vote for her. The danger that many Republican strategists have spoken to is that Palin has a real shot at winning a Presidential primary due to high support among likely primary voters; support which is not mirrored by the overall voting population. As such, while she may win the primary, victory in the actual Presidential election is much less likely. Of course, 2 years is a long time for things to change, so she isn't out yet, though whether or not she will run is still up in the air. One thing we can be fairly certain of, though, is that she isn't going to sacrifice her own political clout in order to please the GOP apparatus; she's been pretty clear on that of late.

I'm in the camp that the split in power between the legislative and executive branches is a good position to be in. I don't like the Democrats being in total control any more than when the Republicans had it. Too many stupid things happen. It's like giving a bunch of drunks a loaded pistol.

Next two years will probably be mostly dust settling. Republicans are getting their feet under them and washing of the stink of the last decade...still. Dems are going to have to figure out what the heck they're trying to legislate and indicate they have a clue about what it's about.

Just to pick on some of the more usual topics:

Dead Issues -

Gun control is dead for the forseeable future. It's really probably been dead since 1994, but folks keep trying to scare voters away from the big bad gun-grabbing Dems. Predict gun regulation will remain stable if not loosen up a bit. I don't think Obama cares enough about it to expend the political capital it would take to get something limp through and I think it's a topic most Democrats can safely compromise on without angering their base (the moderate base, anyway). Only exception is we *might* see something in regards to the Mexican border, but I doubt it.

Abortion is dead until the courts do something about it. The funding will ping-pong through power changes as usual but nobody is going to want to mess with it unless there is some major ground gained for one side or another. Unless there's some fetus-eating cannibal cult the media gets wind of, that'll take action by the Supreme Court to become a hot-button topic.

Climate change is dead until people have jobs and the luxury to care about crap that isn't directly related to their immediate lifestyle.

Energy won't be dead, but I don't see any major decisions being made soon. Alternative energy will be explored and we'll continue to use oil like it was oxygen. Nuclear power might be explored. Only way I see something different happening is if there's some amazing scientific breakthrough on fusion or something, but I'm not holding my breath.

Warming Up -

Education is stagnant at the moment, but there's a big (and not yet widly talked about) storm brewing. No Child Left Behind requires schools to improve every year. Within the next 5 years, schools will be expected to be 80%, 90%, and then 100% proficient in all areas. That's obviously never, ever going to happen. Folks have stood by quietly while the inner-city schools have gotten chewed up and "reformed" because they're poor, full of those funny-speaking darker people, and obviously staffed by the dumbest teachers on Earth. When it start affecting Richy McWhiterson something will give. Oh yeah, and funding is borked. I think there is going to be a throwdown on state control vs federal control coming in that 5 years I mentioned. Obama can coast it out, but assuming he's a two-fer (And I bet better than even odds he will be - all he needs is the economy to show significant recovery in the next two years and he'll have it), the next president BETTER have education reform on his/her mind.

Campaign Finance - With the new...deregulation, for lack of a better term, we're going to see some UGLY stuff. It was just getting started this cycle. The presidential campaign will be ungodly horrendous and that vile taste will cause some sort of regulation to be put into place. Frankly, I'd like to see ALL campaign contributions severely curtailed (I think I'd almost like to see them take the public funding and work off a level playing field as a mandatory situation).

NAFTA - China is getting scary, and folks are realizing we've outsourced our "Arsenal of Democracy". What happens here is dependant on how China, India, and a few others want to play ball. This might be optimism on my part though, but I just have trouble seeing our economy having a healthy middle/working class without significant manufacturing.

Immigration - I don't see anything constructive being done until the Juarez violence and drug situation gets under control. I think the violence WILL keep it on the forefront of folks' minds though and we'll see something done after the presidential election in 2 years (I think immigration will be a fairly major platform that people will want addressed).

Movers -

Health Care Bill will probably get reformed/worked over within the next two years. It's one of the few areas I see actual movement on. I suspect a lot of it will be tuning up the crap nobody thought about when it passed. I doubt it will be repealed whole-hog though.

Iraq/Afghanistan I think will break one way or another. I strongly suspect Obama will wait until he nears the next election cycle in order to look decive. He'll either do one last big operation/push or gut the operation. That 10 year occupancy crap isn't going to fly with his constituents.

Nothing will change on health care. Or anything else, Republicans are starting the 2012 campaign as of today. 2 more years of nothing. Nafta's been dead. And China is a boogy mean just to scare voters. State run education is a joke, a bad bad joke. Never speak of it again.

Frazzled wrote:The House proposes and passes legislation. most importantly, the House is where the real stuff happens-budgets are proposed. He who controls the spice controls the universe!

That depends on who you ask. The Senate can, and has, proposed legislation dealing with the expenditure of federal funds. What they can't do is propose legislation that levies federal taxes, but they can, of course, amend or reject them. Seeing as any bill regarding taxation will have to go through the Senate, it still has to pass muster for Democrat approval. The GOP House therefore won't have the ability to unilaterally cut taxes, as the Democratic Senate will simply amend anything they feel is necessary.

I suppose the GOP House could make a show of passing tax legislation that they know the Senate will have to reject, but I doubt that will gain them much traction with the electorate.

I live in the most republican town ever. They all hate obama. I hate politics.

We need to resurrect the corpse of Ronald Reagan and put him on the presidential ticket along with Sarah Palin for 2012.

By then the Republicans will sweep into office and offer equal rights for zombies and dead people, and send all the pot smokers to Canada.

generalgrog wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ru-xQac_sWw
GG

I raise you this:



I figure people who voted Republican are going to have their spirits crushed by a stagnant Congress just like those that voted Dems did in the last two years. Maybe conservatives will do a better job spinning it as Democrat obstructionism and the Dems will be too pussy to call them hypocrites.

ChrisWWII wrote:Additionally, they can't impeach Obama just because they don't like him.

Sort of but not really in practice. There's no actual list of crimes that would allow for impeachment, and no real body of law to establish what they should be. Ultimately, impeachment can be for whatever crime that congress thinks is worthy of impeachment.

But yeah, there's not going to be any kind of impeachment with these numbers. You'd need one party or the other to have greater dominance of the two houses, and it's unlikely given that the public didn't respond well last time the GOP tried politically motivated impeachment.

Not to mention ALL politicians primarily care about their donors, who just happen to be very wealthy. It's not just the Republicans.

While it is equally problematic on both sides of US politics, it is not equally problematic for all politicians. While the issue can never be dismissed entirely, it can be reduced considerably through electoral reform.

Yad wrote:Do you mean to suggest then that for the 8-10 years of Republican control that crash of 2008 and the subsequent housing burst was not shaped, in large part, by GOP policies and corporate malfeasance? And that the Stimulus plan, while admittedly much smaller than it should have been, did not help the economy and prevent another Great Depression? And that the economic growth, while not nearly as strong as it should be (see previous) was not shaped by Dem policies? I guess I just don't understand how you can look at the last 12 years and think that the GOP knows how to govern a global economy.

The origins of the housing crisis lies in legislation crafted more than 12 years ago, nor are the mistakes of increasingly deregulated banking a particularly US thing. Lots of parties across the planet chased the dream of free money through deregulation all the way down that hole.

ChrisWWII wrote:I believe the crash of 2008 was a result of banks being complete and utter morons. Not the GOP. Banks were the ones who stupidly decided that it was a good idea to make a gamble that the housing market would keep growing at an unsustainable rate, and it was a good idea to try and give loans to people who had no possible way to pay back those loans. I don't think you can blame the GOP for that.

Sure, it would be a mistake to blame the GOP alone, because plenty of folks on both sides of politics played a part in deregulation. But the idea that a government should just let banks demonstrates little or no understanding of agency theory.

The government stimulus plan is a show of what is wrong with capitalism in the world today. Instead of letting the banks fail, and let the market punish those idiots who made such a ridiculous gamble, the federal government decided to save the banks, thus preserving said idiots in charge. Yes, I know Bush was the one who signed that first stimulus package into law, but it's not like the Dems would have done any different.

'Letting the banks fail' is the kind of thing that looks great on paper, but really, really doesn't work in practice. These banks are incredibly interconnected with other major elements of the economy, you wouldn't just see bankruptcy in other parts of the economy, you'd see whole industries grind to a halt as they couldn't get funding for expansion - or they'd collapse in turn as they couldn't access bridging capital.

More importantly, I don't need to believe that the GOP can run a global economy. I trust capitalism to run the world economy. The GOP (allegedly) supports capitalism. Thus, I support the GOP, even though I'm more a libertarian at heart.

Capitalism doesn't run the system, because it isn't a decision making entity. The system simply is capitalistic. And yes, while that's a preferred system to having heavy levels of government involvement, it is a big mistake to assume that system has arisen outside of government. The capitalist system you mention is the creation of our governments. Contract and property laws were written by our governments to create the capitalist system.

The market has slowly begun its climb upward of its own incentives, not out of the money being poured into the country by the Obama Administration's stimulus packages. It took a World War, and 50 years of Cold War to get us out of the Great Depression....a few billion dollars isn't going to be the thing that pulls us out of this one.

No, that's just not true at all. While the results of the New Deal were mixed, it was the first effort at Keynesian style stimulus spending, and we learnt a lot from it and the subsequent efforts. And we now know that direct government investment in infrastructure has a real, and considerable impact on aggregate demand.

And the Cold War really had nothing to do with it. What are reading that gave you that impression?

Capitalism, true free market capitalism, with no government interference other than to avoid monopoly, is, in my opinion, a force for good in the world that will only help in the end. I feel confident in saying you disagree with me on this, yes?

Most economists disagree with you on that one. Look up externalities.

I was actually pleased with that ruling. Freedom of speech for all! Why should corporations and executives be banned from expressing themselves just because they have more money than the average citizen?

Because what makes speach sacred is that it is just the exchange of ideas. On the other hand, giving someone money is an action, which is a wholly different thing to speach. That this is completely obvious to everyone on the planet is one of the great mysteries.

If we start taking away rights for being 'too wealthy' where could that path lead us? I shudder to think about that. I don't expect there to be any campaign finance reform in the next two years, and unless that reform is that each person gets $X for their political campaign, I don't want to see it.

They didn't lose rights because they were rich, it impacted all corporations whether they were billion dollar multi-nationals or not. It took away their ability to do something because they aren't people, and shouldn't be considered the same as people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Yad wrote:I don't believe there is such a thing as a 'free market'. At least in its purest sense.

There's no such thing as a free market in an economic sense either. The term is a political invention.

Economists talk about perfect competition being the desired state, and talk about the possible barriers to that state (imperfect substitution of goods, limited and often one-sided knowledge, barriers to entry, barriers to exit, transaction costs, costs of changing supplier and so on) and then talk about how to build markets where those barriers are reduced. Often the best methods of reducing these barriers are often government.

Typically, those in the industry with a vested interest in maintaining a less competitive market will protest government involvement in terms of free market rhetoric.