Democrats lose control of the House - see ya Pelosi

Sorry Derek, but "The People" as a collective are complete and total idiots. The main reason I tend to vote Democatic other than lack of choices is simple. Democrats in the last 50 years have spent far less tax payer money, created far more revenue, and created far more jobs than Republicans. Anyone with half a brain and is capable of using Google knows this. Apparently, I am in the minority. Here's some information that may be of interest....

Spending vs. Revenue (Dems/Rep)
http://cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/Revenue_v_Spending.png

National Debt by President
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...idential_terms

Job Creation by President
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_cr...idential_terms

Job creation under Democrats the last 50 years = 45.7 million. Jobs created under Republicans last 50 years = 31.1 million. Might as well call the Republicans the Party of Food Stamps



Lastly, consider that the Bush era tax cuts make up about 40% of our current deficit. If reinstated, they will add another $4 Billion to our current deficit over the next 10 years. If Republicans want to cut spending and reduce the deficit, it would seem to me that this would be a perfect place to start, right? Their claim is that these tax cuts will create jobs. BULLSHIT! Those tax cuts are being used by the top 2% earners in this country to fill their personal pockets, while sending our jobs overseas. How many jobs did those tax cuts create under Bush since they were implemented? None. In fact, 3 million jobs were lost since those tax cuts went in to effect.

Yes, the people have spoken. You know what they said?

"DUH".

The people have spoken. If Obama ran against any (R) today he would lose. Sorry you feel you are smarter than everyone else. Unless your on welfare, a baby momma check, a union worker (overpaid), on 2 year unemployment, African American ( for no damn good reason 90% vote D), an under 30 dumbass kid or basically want something more than you earn I don't know why you would vote D. You take away that voting block above and D's would get as much votes as the Green party. For me who happens to work his ass off and always has and make great money most vote R unless your a musician or a movie star. Originally Posted by derek303

Your a sore LOSER!

F-Sharp: 1
Derek: 0

Derek, next time you try to play with the big boys leave your name calling and lack of knowledge at home.

It's no surprise most people in Texas are complete idiots and have no idea about politics besides what the media hand feeds them. We are ranked 10th lowest in attainment college degree (bachelors). While I'm not about to argue that a degree indicates that you are smarter or more informed on an individual basis, on average it certainly does (give a big enough sample size, truth emerged; see The Law of Large Numbers.) Texas ranks in the bottom 1/5 of attainment of bachelor degrees. People vote for republicans because they "cut taxes" and "reduce spending" when in fact republicans cut taxes for the top 1-2% of the rich, and increase spending just like democrats. People generally don't have a solid understanding of how economy works, how fiat money is doomed to be forever inflationary or how this (nearly?-remains to be seen) depression nearly went super critical. Obama's spending was largely a necessity of the situation, and if you disagree you probably need to open a book instead of tuning into your favorite news outlet.. Lets not forget that Bush in September of 2008 asked congress for $700 billion in bailout to save our economy (A REPUBLICAN-GASP!!!!), yet no one talks about that. People are funny I suppose, in a depressing retarded sense..

Anytime someone boasts about what the majority has chosen, they are in fact an idiot. At one point the majority of Americans thought that African-Americans votes were worth 3/5s the vote of a white MANs vote (please note that women didn't have the right to vote at this juncture in history, again chalk it up to the majority) So for the slow and mathemically inept that means that the majority believed that an African-American's vote was worth 60% of a white MANs vote.

Good game flawed logic and embarrassing ignorance.

The people have spoken. If Obama ran against any (R) today he would lose. Sorry you feel you are smarter than everyone else. Unless your on welfare, a baby momma check, a union worker (overpaid), on 2 year unemployment, African American ( for no damn good reason 90% vote D), an under 30 dumbass kid or basically want something more than you earn I don't know why you would vote D. You take away that voting block above and D's would get as much votes as the Green party. For me who happens to work his ass off and always has and make great money most vote R unless your a musician or a movie star. Originally Posted by derek303

I fail to meet your criteria, so I suggest you refine your generalizations to something other than a cookie cutter partisan joke. OK? THANKS!

It comes down to the money. we are horrified to see them throwing around millions of dollars to this "bridge to nowhere" or that "turtle tunnel" when we need shoes for the baby.

Think about this:

simple math...that's all
I(not Dagny, got off the net) was curious in my own sort of curious way today...did a little figuring. According to an online source, the standard thickness of a dollar bill is 0.010922 cm. Assuming all denominations are of the same uniform thickness ( and perhaps this is a faulty conclusion) a stack of brand new, unwrinkled $100 bills, pressed down, tightly stacked one on top of the other one inch thick would amount to roughly $23,255.00. A million would be stacked 43 inches high.

In the news, when we hear of spending big bucks, terms like "millions, billions, and trillions", I think we tend to blur the lines without really thinking about the differences. The difference between a million dollars in fresh new $100s and a billion dollars in the same denomination is enormous. A billion dollars is 3,583 feet 4inches tall.

Quite a difference between a million and a billion. Now we get into the big money...trillions. A billion dollars is 3,583 feet tall. A trillion is 678.66 MILES high.

678.66 MILES of brand new, fresh, crisp, unwrinkled, tightly stacked $100 bills. Talk is that the debt could be near 12 trillion dollars. You get the picture. Almost 8,144 miles high.


I heard 2 old ladies talking at a Townhall meeting in 2009. "I have never come to a political meeting before, I will sit on my couch when they take my liberty but when they start taking my kids and GRANDkids freedom then I must come out and protest."

That is what this election was about. QUIT SPENDING!

It goes back to the best sign at the Clinton election.... IT'S THE ECONOMY, STUPID. It works every year.

Dagny, you're not even close. This election was about misguided fear and anger instigated by a corrupt news source with a political agenda. Nothing more. You doubt this then tell me why my original challenges have gone unaddressed?

If I were to ask any one of you today what's wrong with our economy, what would you say? Most people I know don't have a clue, and I bet you don't either.

Well, here's the problem. Jobs.

Now, where did these jobs go? Did they just get sucked up in to giant job pool in the sky? Hardly. Here's the facts. Since 2001, 3.5 million jobs have been sent overseas by large corporations looking to save a few bucks on labor costs. Partially due to NAFTA implemented by Clinton, but mostly due to some very bad trade policies implemented under Bush. If you're feeling particularly geeky today you can read all about this here:

http://www.uscc.gov/researchpapers/2...ass_report.pdf

Honestly, here's all you need to know:

"With no particular loyalty to country, industry, community or product…this global race to the bottom is driven by…the search for ever-cheaper production costs, accessibility to expanding global markets and the flexibility that comes from diverse supply chains in an ever more volatile economic and political climate."


Are these jobs ever coming back? No fucking way in hell. The only way they would ever come back is if we were willing to turn the United States in to a third world country. Well willing or not, it's already happening. We are now in a race to the bottom. The top 2% earners in this country are going to ensure that the rest of us will eventually be willing to work for the same wages that are paid in China, India, and Mexico. It's happening slowly, but most certainly. And with each Republican vote, you just speed up the process.

So I ask you. You still want to give corporations a 4.5% tax cut without some sort of legislation that ensures they create American jobs?

Now, since this means we are out of the widget making business completely at this point, hence why we don't really make anything here anymore. It's just not cost effective. So how does one solve this problem? The only tried and true way to solve this problem is stimulus money.

Still want to stop spending? Go for it. You're going to get a first hand look at what a 25% unemployment rate really looks like very soon.

You want to stop spending? Why not cut some of the $895 billion dollars we are spending on defense in 2011? You know what the country with the next highest defense budget spends? China at a mere $98 Billion. Barely a fraction of ours.

The first step is to force the gang in the federal government back within the limitations of the Constitution. No wage taxes. No entitlements. No case laws. No delegation of authority. No federal regulations. No federal reserve. No czars. No undeclared wars. Nothing not specifically authorized by the Constitution.

Then we can start limiting them even more by amending the Constitution.

It's not really the parties to fault when Clinton was in power not only did the nation have a good economy but we had a surplus. My family is well off and they have always said they got most of their wealth during the Clinton years and he helped make it possible. Yes they are all politicians but some actually know what they are doing

Presidents can't control the business cycle, and how many jobs the private economy "created" under one President or another is misleading.

The important issue today is which Presidents have contributed to the outsourcing of jobs. Free trade and the exporting of manufacturing jobs has been a goal pursued by all Presidents since Reagan. It happened because these Presidents are responsive to the corporate interests who lobby them for such, and there is no counterbalance to argue against. Labor unions have never argued against free trade, academics argue for it, and all the other countries and international organizations promote it, so what's any President to do? Yet is is a disaster.

I don't agree that the Presidents and their parties are well-meaning and simply disagree about the best things to do. Our recent Presidents have been very indifferent to what's really right or wrong. They have made their decisions based on self-interested motives and personal opinions often founded in resentment of their intellectual betters. Our recent Presidents have been genuine villains. They have behaved out of malice and indifference to the effects of their actions on ordinary people all over the world. They are as deserving of condemnation as much as any other international villain.

We now have a divided government in which bold initiatives are impossible, but everyone in Washington is now aware that the people are fed up with all their policies which have brought us to this point. That is new.

The House needs to do two things. Act to control the runaway Democrat controlled budget and graciously oppose but let pass crap that the Democrats want that will ruin the Democrats in 2012.

January 21, 2013. The end of an error.

Iplaypoker-I'm glad your the score keeper. LMAO!
SPANK- HOUSE= net 60 (+)
SPANK- Governorships=net 10
Slap-Senate = net 6 (+)
2010 here we come.....Obama , his staff, appointed czars, and many other left liberal tree huggin, government ruled, government dependant, needy non working, self deserving, know it alls....America has spoken!

OK, so you basically have nothing of substance to add. Cool, thanks for playing.

Challenge time.

Care to try and back this statement with any actual facts, or are you simply talking out of your ass? Please provide me one single piece of legislation since Obama took office that you feel is an example of "the runaway Democrat controlled budget". Cite your source and explain how you feel it supports your accusation.

Healthcare? Nope. It's deficit neutral and in its current state will actually cut the deficit by 8 Billion over ten years.

Stimulus? Nope. 40% of it was tax cuts, and the rest was an effort to ward off another depression left behind by the previous administration. I dare you to try and tell me McCain would not have implemented a stimulus bill had he been elected.

"McCain says he is not opposed to handing cash to people as this stimulus package would. "Do I think it's the best measure? No, but I think we all work on consensus and Democrats and Republicans working together so I wouldn't object to it."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-502443_1...50-502443.html

TARP? Nope. TARP was enacted three months before Obama took office. Ultimately, the money loaned was paid back with interest.

So what the fuck are you even talking about?

The House needs to do two things. Act to control the runaway Democrat controlled budget and graciously oppose but let pass crap that the Democrats want that will ruin the Democrats in 2012.

January 21, 2013. The end of an error. Originally Posted by austin_voy

It's not really the parties to fault when Clinton was in power not only did the nation have a good economy but we had a surplus. My family is well off and they have always said they got most of their wealth during the Clinton years and he helped make it possible. Yes they are all politicians but some actually know what they are doing Originally Posted by sexytxhunga

The national wealth of that period came from the huge dot com boom and the many companies and jobs created from that. The taxes those companies payed played a large part in the treasury surpluses. I would hardly give Clinton credit, Gore created the internet....

The dot.com bubble was an effect of the '90s prosperity, not a major contributor to it. When it went bust in 2000 there was little effect on the economy.

The '90s prosperity was founded on:

1. high tech manufacturing which has since been moved off-shore,

2. massive influx of immigrants both legal and illegal,

3. high aggregate demand from expansive commercial and consumer credit.
The consumer side fueled purchases of everything from new cars to diamond rings,
including of course housing.

The low interest rates on mortgages meant that two-income households were placed
into extremely high qualifications, which drove up the price and SCALE of housing.
It was this expansion in the housing market which drove a massive construction boom,
the bubble of which imploded when some of the mortgages were fraudulent.

Bush was definitely a big government Republican. The current leadership in the House may have tipped the balance in favor of small government Republicans. If that's true it will be the first time since Eisenhower [despite their unanimous rhetoric to the contrary].