Republicans Take Over House Ready to Spar With Obama

[Gerald]

As Rep. John Boehner is elected as Speaker, the Republicans of the 112th Congress will take over the House and square off with Obama on big government, spending and health care.

http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/01/05/hitchhikers-guide-opening-112th-congress


Note: January 05, 2011

[gimpy117]

yay Republicans!


oh wait...this means were really screwed now.

[Ducimus]

s.s.d.d.

[AVGWarhawk]

s.s.d.d.


I would hope not. 89 new freshmen with I hope new ideas. They asked to have the line to tow. Let's see how they tow it.

[gimpy117]

I would hope not. 89 new freshmen with I hope new ideas. They asked to have the line to tow. Let's see how they tow it.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-september-23-2010/postcards-from-the-pledge

I agree with Ducimis. SSDD

[Oberon]

This thread goes to hell in five...four...three...

[Takeda Shingen]

Overall, I thought that Boehner made a good speech; calm, subdued, free of grand standing and with the intent of returning power to the people. For him, the challenge comes after the speech. The gauntlet of 'healthcare reform repeal or failure' has been thrown down. Team R does not have the votes to do it, which means that they will likely have to deal with moderate Democtratic Party members if they are going to have any chance at accomplishing this. Dealing means compromise, which is completely at odds with the so-called Tea Party members and the philosophy of their constituents. So, as far as I can see, Boehner's problem, as the de-facto leader of the Republican Party, will be trying to walk the tight rope of political reality while trying to keep his fragile alliance together. This will be a major challenge, as Team R is not the monolithic block it once was. The interests of the neo-conservative leadership are now at odds with the so-called Tea Party; the movement that is largely responsible for the Republican resurgence.

Should make for good theatre, if nothing else.

EDIT: I resent that, Oberon. :O:

[gimpy117]

I personally am concerned with the whole new Tea Party Movement and heres why:

It started out as a legitimate Grass roots movement for sure, Mostly over spending etc. I respected that. Sure there was some underlying racism in the party...but mostly is was over spending. Contrary to popular belif in the GOP us dems are not spend crazy, I would welcome better more effective spending, something the original Tea Party advocated. The problem I see, is that the tea party is not the original tea party. Somewhere along the road the Noecons and GOP decided it was a good way to "re-brand" the republican party; a way of making it seem like its a new movement, rather than just having to state the fact that it's the same old party. Its a brilliant plan that worked, working so well that nobody batted an eye when the new spokesperson of the tea party movement was Palin, somebody who was and probably still is affiliated with the old breed who helped ruin this country. I have a feeling all these new "tea party" senators will act just the same as the old GOP members, people who voted for out of control spending for the war via privatization of the war effort itself, Or let the banks run wild causing the collapse. Although some may say the republican party didn't really cause the collapse, it happened under their watch and I think giving back the house to people that presided over all this mess, or at least people very similar is a dangerous game to play indeed.

What they say is true: american needs new innovative policies to solve our problems, But are these people really new an innovative? or are they just the same wolves dressed in sheep's clothing? Sadly for America and her allies, I think thats just what they are, the same old party.

[Platapus]

All these freshmen/women will soon learn a harsh political lesson.

It is far easier being the minority party where you can just complain. When you are the majority party you have to fix the problem. And that ain't so easy. :yep:

I wish them luck. I will unrealistically maintain the fantasy that some of the congress critters will place our nation before their party.

I fully expect to be disappointed..... again. :nope:

[August]

Although some may say the republican party didn't really cause the collapse, it happened under their watch...

Whose watch again? The Democratic party has been in total control of the US Congress since 2007 and Bush was a nearly powerless lame duck for the last 2 years of his presidency. Y'know unfairly trying to blame everything on the opposition is part of what got your hated Republicans back into power. Americans aren't as dumb as your side so often says they are.

Besides, your party still controls both the Senate and the White House. You have 2/3rds of the governments power and you still fear for America and her allies? Please. I couldn't think of a more telling admission of incompetance that you fear what a bunch of freshman Congressmen might be able to make you do.

The fact is the Democrats have spent the past few years merrily snubbing their noses at the Republicans and now they're going to have to learn to share the sandbox again. Learn to deal with it.

[gimpy117]

Funny august. Because I remember bush vetoing some of the bills that were aimed at curtailing the war spending.

So no. The congress tried to stop a war that was costing us TRILLIONS and bush just said no

[Takeda Shingen]

The fact is the Democrats have spent the past few years merrily snubbing their noses at the Republicans and now they're going to have to learn to share the sandbox again. Learn to deal with it.

Yes, but that also cuts both ways. For the past few years, the Republicans have been able to sit back and let the Democrats take the heat during this mess. Now they're going to have a hand in it, and won't be able to sit back and say 'not my fault' anymore.

[Castout]

Pls select more ethical people with the right moral compass who don't need to resort to black campaigning to become popular and controversial lest China becomes unstoppable because USA no longer stands for democracy and civil rights and degraded into petty domestic fighting among themselves.

And people in South Asia depend on USA to bring counterbalance to the growing Chinese influence in the region. The Chinese couldn't care less about democracy or human rights so if they have big influence in South Asia you can bet democracy and civil and human rights will go the way of the dodo birds. . . fast.

I'm not saying that USA is the true champion of democracy and civil and human rights but at least it is still the better of the two evil.

Stop the bickering and get your act together! or the world will see a complete Chinese South Asia in 5 years. And to think that I happen to be living in South Asia :damn:.

[Ducimus]

For some reason, this comic came to mind earlier:

http://www.cagle.com/news/GOPPledge/images/beeler.jpg


In the end, nothing will change, SSDD. i'd bet my bottom dollar on that.

[August]

Funny august. Because I remember bush vetoing some of the bills that were aimed at curtailing the war spending.

Don't be blaming the President when your party can't get enough votes to override his veto in spite of controlling the Congress.

AFAIK Bush only veto'd two bills related to defense spending during his term of office, neither of which were aimed at curtailing war spending nor vetoed on those grounds. Both bills were soon modified by Congress and subsequently signed by Bush into law. So yeah it's real funny Gimpy.

So no. The congress tried to stop a war that was costing us TRILLIONS and bush just said no

Oh no, that overly simplistic blame game just won't fly anymore. Although Congress has been controlled by your party for almost 4 straight years, the last two with a liberal Democratic president even, they still haven't stopped anything, so that pretty much blows your statement right out of the water.

[August]

Yes, but that also cuts both ways. For the past few years, the Republicans have been able to sit back and let the Democrats take the heat during this mess. Now they're going to have a hand in it, and won't be able to sit back and say 'not my fault' anymore.

I agree but we'll have to see how many HoR bills make it through the Senate before we can assign blame for failure or success.

[the_tyrant]

Pls select more ethical people with the right moral compass who don't need to resort to black campaigning to become popular and controversial lest China becomes unstoppable because USA no longer stands for democracy and civil rights and degraded into petty domestic fighting among themselves.

And people in South Asia depend on USA to bring counterbalance to the growing Chinese influence in the region. The Chinese couldn't care less about democracy or human rights so if they have big influence in South Asia you can bet democracy and civil and human rights will go the way of the dodo birds. . . fast.

I'm not saying that USA is the true champion of democracy and civil and human rights but at least it is still the better of the two evil.

Stop the bickering and get your act together! or the world will see a complete Chinese South Asia in 5 years. And to think that I happen to be living in South Asia :damn:.

The US really has no chance at curbing Chinese expansion (assuming that direct military expansion is out of the picture)

Appeasement is the only logical way to go for the american government, since the economical ties between china and america are just too deep.

I would rather bet on internal problems curbing Chinese expansion, than the US

[Castout]

The US really has no chance at curbing Chinese expansion (assuming that direct military expansion is out of the picture)

Appeasement is the only logical way to go for the american government, since the economical ties between china and america are just too deep.

I would rather bet on internal problems curbing Chinese expansion, than the US

Thanks for the insight when I check on the media appeasement has yet to become US official policy. Maybe being more accommodating but appeasement is not just yet. It just hasn't reached that low point yet. If it did the US would cease being superpower.

What worried me is seeing the degradation of US politics in general that more and more dirty tactics being employed and that US is divided politically into the two political parties that launched themselves into a political feud and war. It used to be for the country's best interest and everybody knows their place and their responsibility but now people are vying and fighting for their personal or party political gain with patriots being replaced by opportunists. Dishonesty is everywhere.

[the_tyrant]

Thanks for the insight when I check on the media appeasement has yet to become US official policy. Maybe being more accommodating but appeasement is not just yet. It just hasn't reached that low point yet. If it did the US would cease being superpower.

What worried me is seeing the degradation of US politics in general that more and more dirty tactics being employed and that US is divided politically into the two political parties that launched themselves into a political feud and war. It used to be for the country's best interest and everybody knows their place and their responsibility but now people are vying and fighting for their personal or party political gain with patriots being replaced by opportunists. Dishonesty is everywhere.

that is so true
personal gains are put above the interests of the people:nope:

[gimpy117]

Don't be blaming the President when your party can't get enough votes to override his veto in spite of controlling the Congress.

AFAIK Bush only veto'd two bills related to defense spending during his term of office, neither of which were aimed at curtailing war spending nor vetoed on those grounds. Both bills were soon modified by Congress and subsequently signed by Bush into law. So yeah it's real funny Gimpy.


Oh no, that overly simplistic blame game just won't fly anymore. Although Congress has been controlled by your party for almost 4 straight years, the last two with a liberal Democratic president even, they still haven't stopped anything, so that pretty much blows your statement right out of the water.

I remember bush vetoing Bills that were budget bills that cut a lot of money to Iraq, they were designed to de-escalate the war by basically saying: "we'll give you X amount of money but you have a date to withdraw troops". Bush vetoed these. Those bills would have saved us huge sums of money being sent to that pointless war.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9946792

Also, the collapse...it isn't necessarily congresses job to keep the pulse on the market. There government agencies that are supposed to keep track of these things...Like the FTC. Who had chairmen who were appointed during the bush administration. where was that oversight by the republican party? Last time I checked congress wasn't the FTC.

you're statement over the "where were the votes" is also unrealistic. Especially when you're dealing with the republican party...who consistently votes partisan...and just about every one of them does so. I'd say you'd be hard pressed to say that for any other party minor or major. So you blaming the democrats for not having 2/3 or whatever it is to override is a farce. Back In those days, they had enough votes to propose a bill...but not get over a veto.

[mookiemookie]

Also, the collapse...it isn't necessarily congresses job to keep the pulse on the market. There government agencies that are supposed to keep track of these things...Like the FTC. Who had chairmen who were appointed during the bush administration. where was that oversight by the republican party?

It was the idea of radical de-regulation and the insane idea that corporations could self regulate themselves that helped cause the collapse.


Investment banks lobbied the SEC to get rid of leverage rules. The government agreed. Many levered themselves out of business.

The Fed did not do it's duty in enforcing underwriting rules for banks. They let the industry self regulate itself. The industry self-regulated itself over a cliff.

Glass Steagall was repealed, allowing for Wall Street and Main Street banks to become one. They self regulated themselves into becoming too big to fail.


And now Republican senator Darrell Issa of California has sent letters to more than 150 companies, trade groups and research organizations asking them to identify federal regulations that they wanted to see repealed or rewritten.

They just don't learn.

[gimpy117]

And now Republican senator Darrell Issa of California has sent letters to more than 150 companies, trade groups and research organizations asking them to identify federal regulations that they wanted to see repealed or rewritten.

They just don't learn.

:o here we go again. Maybe this time we can deregulate ourselves into the great depression 2, to heck with this wimpy recession!

oh and ps. Thanks for the backup Mookie. Nothing like some good cold facts to add on.

[August]

It was the idea of radical de-regulation and the insane idea that corporations could self regulate themselves that helped cause the collapse.


Investment banks lobbied the SEC to get rid of leverage rules. The government agreed. Many levered themselves out of business.
The Fed did not do it's duty in enforcing underwriting rules for banks. They let the industry self regulate itself. The industry self-regulated itself over a cliff.
Glass Steagall was repealed, allowing for Wall Street and Main Street banks to become one. They self regulated themselves into becoming too big to fail.


And now Republican senator Darrell Issa of California has sent letters to more than 150 companies, trade groups and research organizations asking them to identify federal regulations that they wanted to see repealed or rewritten.

They just don't learn.

Except that deregulation happened long before that, during Reagans presidency. The result was the fat years of the Clinton presidency which you Dems love to take credit for. Well you can't have it both ways mookie. If deregulation is all that bad then why does it still exist in spite of many Dem opportunities to change it over the past two decades?

Instead of accusing the GoP of partisanship maybe you guys ought to look at your own partisan spending tendencies that are driving Democrat controlled states like California to financial ruin.

Oh and BTW Glass Segall was repealed by a bi-partisan 343–86 vote in the HoR.

[mookiemookie]

Except that deregulation happened long before that, during Reagans presidency. The things I mentioned happened in the late 90s/early 2000s.

The result was the fat years of the Clinton presidency which you Dems love to take credit for. Well you can't have it both ways mookie. So if there's that much lag time, does that mean the 80's were Carter's doing and the current economic climate is Dubya's? You can't have it both ways.

Oh and BTW Glass Segall was repealed by a bi-partisan 343–86 vote in the HoR. Yeah, so? Both parties deserve blame.

If deregulation is all that bad then why does it still exist in spite of many Dem opportunities to change it over the past two decades? Because politicians of both stripes are craven, corrupt and in the pocket of lobbyists and big oil/pharma/auto/Wall Street.

[August]

Yeah, so? Both parties deserve blame

Well it's nice of you to finally admit that now that your attempt to lay the entire blame at the foot of the Republicans has failed. Why didn't you say that when you were agreeing with Gimpy?

[mookiemookie]

Well it's nice of you to finally admit that now that your attempt to lay the entire blame at the foot of the Republicans has failed. Why didn't you say that when you were agreeing with Gimpy?

Why are you putting words in my mouth? I blamed the idea of deregulation. Your attempt to mischaracterize my post has failed.

[August]

Why are you putting words in my mouth? I blamed the idea of deregulation. Your attempt to mischaracterize my post has failed.

I didn't mischaracterize anything. The only party that either you or the Gimpy post that you quoted mentioned was the Republican party. You can't seriously expect anyone to see that as anything but your usual anti-GoP message.

[mookiemookie]

I didn't mischaracterize anything. The only party that either you or the Gimpy post that you quoted mentioned was the Republican party. You can't seriously expect anyone to see that as anything but your usual anti-GoP message.

I quoted the part where you all were discussing who was at fault for the collapse. Would it have soothed your sensitive feelings if I had quoted your post instead of his? It wouldn't have changed the content of my post if I had.

Stop being so cranky.

[gimpy117]

Oh btw. I liked this article. Im sure august won't

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/reagan-insider-gop-destroyed-us-economy-2010-08-10?pagenumber=1 (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/reagan-insider-gop-destroyed-us-economy-2010-08-10?pagenumber=2)

and i don't deny that it takes two to tango...but the republican party has long been spearheading de-regulation, much more so than the democrats.

[August]

I quoted the part where you all were discussing who was at fault for the collapse. Would it have soothed your sensitive feelings if I had quoted your post instead of his? It wouldn't have changed the content of my post if I had.

Stop being so cranky.

I'm not cranky in the least. Believe me, arguing politics on subsim is not something i'm gonna loose sleep over (which i intend to prove just as soon as I submit this reply) if you know what I mean.

I just don't buy your claim of neutrality here. You're acting like I haven't picked up on your political leanings yet in spite of reading literally thousands of your posts over the years. (damn have we known each other that long already?) You confined your criticism to the Republicans like you always do, and only mentioned that "both parties deserve blame" when I called you on it.

FWIW the above is just an observation and should not be construed as being "cranky", "over sensitive" or any other state besides semi-detached bemusement.

[nikimcbee]

Instead of accusing the GoP of partisanship maybe you guys ought to look at your own partisan spending tendencies that are driving Democrat controlled states like California to financial ruin.


You are right on the money there.

I'll just add the the greedy Public employee unions. They are spending the state of ore-gone into oblivion. Multnomah county (Portland) is a great great example of how eco-greenie-liberal progressivism is nothing less than a tyrannical cancer. These guys deserve what they get.

[nikimcbee]

@ August, how was MA able to get people on the right elected where as the left coast elected the same people in. If it weren't for the tech industry, the West coast would be an economic black hole. Something similar to the rust belt, maybe? What are the mainstays for MA's economy? other than lobstah:D

[mookiemookie]

What are the mainstays for MA's economy? other than lobstah:D

Mutual fund companies are huge in Mass. Lots of them are based around Boston.

[Takeda Shingen]

You are right on the money there.

I'll just add the the greedy Public employee unions. They are spending the state of ore-gone into oblivion. Multnomah county (Portland) is a great great example of how eco-greenie-liberal progressivism is nothing less than a tyrannical cancer. These guys deserve what they get.

And I suppose that you'd hold the answer to be Republican conservatism. It appears that this thesis is about to be put to the test. I am confident in the answer, because we've all seen it happen before. You've got to stop thinking like a partisan. Replacing one set of failures for another gets us nowhere, but gets them all kinds of places. The political elites of both parties and the pundits that spread their propaganda grow fat on our misery.

[Takeda Shingen]

Also, the collapse...it isn't necessarily congresses job to keep the pulse on the market. There government agencies that are supposed to keep track of these things...Like the FTC. Who had chairmen who were appointed during the bush administration. where was that oversight by the republican party? Last time I checked congress wasn't the FTC.

Congress holds the nation's purse strings. For better or worse, the federal government and the national economy are fatefully intertwined. So yes, it is one of congress' jobs to monitor the economy. Team D had a major hand in the events leading up to the collapse in 2008. They have also exclusively been at the helm for the past two years. Quite simply, what they are doing is not and has not been working. Like I said to nik, you also must stop thinking like a partisan. As long as we continue to feed the pundit-driven media machine, and see our politics like a sporting event, we will continue to go 'round and 'round with the losers being the American people.

[Takeda Shingen]

In the end, nothing will change, SSDD. i'd bet my bottom dollar on that.

I think that would be a safe bet to make, and it neatly sums up the bottom line in the discussion. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

EDIT: Sorry for the triple posting, everybody.

[August]

@ August, how was MA able to get people on the right elected where as the left coast elected the same people in. If it weren't for the tech industry, the West coast would be an economic black hole. Something similar to the rust belt, maybe? What are the mainstays for MA's economy? other than lobstah:D

Not sure what you mean. What people on the right? Except for Scott Brown we reelected our Dem governor as well as every Dem congressman including Barney Frank. Extremely disheartening to see the same people who caused the mess get re-elected by this one party state.

Our state economy doesn't really have a mainstay anymore ever since the end of the high tech boom, the so called Mass miracle touted by Dukakis when he was running for president (although it was already falling apart).

If I had to pick something i'd have to say it's the Bio-med industry though we by no means have a lock on it.

[mookiemookie]

I'm not cranky in the least. Believe me, arguing politics on subsim is not something i'm gonna loose sleep over (which i intend to prove just as soon as I submit this reply) if you know what I mean.

I just don't buy your claim of neutrality here. You're acting like I haven't picked up on your political leanings yet in spite of reading literally thousands of your posts over the years. (damn have we known each other that long already?) You confined your criticism to the Republicans like you always do, and only mentioned that "both parties deserve blame" when I called you on it.

FWIW the above is just an observation and should not be construed as being "cranky", "over sensitive" or any other state besides semi-detached bemusement.

You obviously see what you want to see, and therefore your mind is closed and no further discussion is necessary.

[August]

You obviously see what you want to see, and therefore your mind is closed and no further discussion is necessary.

Ok. Be that way then. It's no skin off my back. :up:

[Sailor Steve]

IEDIT: Sorry for the triple posting, everybody.
What you should be sorry for is shamelessly plagiarizing Pete Townsend, you shameless plagiarizer, you! :O:

Not really, as I'm sure everybody got it. I just wanted to make sure. :D

[Takeda Shingen]

What you should be sorry for is shamelessly plagiarizing Pete Townsend, you shameless plagiarizer, you! :O:

Not really, as I'm sure everybody got it. I just wanted to make sure. :D

:haha:

[Armistead]

Been a GOP member most of my life, but have lost all faith in them now. They hide under the banner of serving capitalism, when they really serve elitism and so many fall for it. Corporate america no longer works for americans as it did up until the 80's, yet they make more profits than ever.
Now 1% of americans hold 40% of all wealth with 20% holding 80%. Back in the 70's about 60% of us held all wealth. It should be obvious what happened. We were sold out by politics to serve the rich. Yes, the GOP doe's believe in building a strong middle class...in India and China.

The GOP pretends americans are lazy. They say they don't believe in socialism, but spend more money in the war torn lands giving free services, free education, housing, medical, ect..using no bid contracts to do so. The best way to get affordable or free healthcare is to become a terrorist and get put in gitmo, free dental, operations, ect...Yet the GOP would deny millions of us affordable care. Many thousands die everyday from lack of basic care right here in the US and a few million live in torture from illness they can get no care for. The GOP would rather spend several billion keeping old people alive for another few months rather than spend a few bucks to keep those that could live alive.

They've become corporate ho's, being pimped by large corporations. No, dems aren't much better, except as they sell out to their special interest they see human needs. Problem is to them everything is a human need to be paid for by the taxpayer.

[Sailor Steve]

Corporate america no longer works for americans as it did up until the 80's, yet they make more profits than ever.
I don't think they ever have, which is why unions came about in the first place. Have you ever read Upton Sinclairs The Jungle?

I agree with your take on them. I just don't think it's anything new.

[Ducimus]

Oh btw. I liked this article. Im sure august won't

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/reagan-insider-gop-destroyed-us-economy-2010-08-10?pagenumber=1 (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/reagan-insider-gop-destroyed-us-economy-2010-08-10?pagenumber=2)

and i don't deny that it takes two to tango...but the republican party has long been spearheading de-regulation, much more so than the democrats.


Good read. Though i doubt some of the folks here will give it much credence because it looks more like a partisian attack, which automatically invalidates it's claims in the eyes of any hardliner republicans. Sadly, the article is most likely correct though.

[gimpy117]

CThey have also exclusively been at the helm for the past two years. Quite simply, what they are doing is not and has not been working.

You can't just walk up to the recession box and flip the switch to OFF Takeda. the fact of the matter is, These things take time.

But where is the logic anymore? Putting in the same people who caused the mess 2 years later because the other party hasn't been able to fix their mess fast enough? But it figures, we are the United states of amnesia.

[Takeda Shingen]

You can't just walk up to the recession box and flip the switch to OFF Takeda. the fact of the matter is, These things take time.

I agree with you; you cannot simply flip a switch. But that is not how the Democrats sold their legislation. There were going to be green jobs, shovel-ready projects and general job creation all around. None of it happened, and they knew that none of it was going to happen.

[gimpy117]

I agree with you; you cannot simply flip a switch. But that is not how the Democrats sold their legislation. There were going to be green jobs, shovel-ready projects and general job creation all around. None of it happened, and they knew that none of it was going to happen.

A lot of those jobs were going to "cost way to much money". Which is ironic because nobody on both sides of the isle batted an eye when they decided to continue with the republican bailouts.

as far as im concerned, those banks should still be under direct government control until we get every cent back.

[Takeda Shingen]

A lot of those jobs were going to "cost way to much money". Which is ironic because nobody on both sides of the isle batted an eye when they decided to continue with the republican bailouts.

as far as im concerned, those banks should still be under direct government control until we get every cent back.

Those bailouts were wrong. The Democratic Party had the opportunity to stand on principle and stop them. They did no such thing.

Are the banks to be like General Motors? They gave the money back, but are still majority-owned by the government. That's the problem with government bailouts; once given, the government never relinquishes conrtol. And since the government generates no revenue, it makes you, and I and every other American now responsible for a failed company. Given the track record of the banks, I do not want that responsibility either.

[Armistead]

What gets me about these banks, we bailed them out over the housing crisis they created and got rich off of. Due to the fall out, prices dropped.
A house worth 200K in some areas may be worth 100K. Owners that needed to get out couldn't sell it for near enough to pay the loan, so they either try to get a modification or go into foreclosure.

However, it was better for the bank to foreclose as the government paid them for the full value of the loan, minus a percentage for the home, usally 30% of tax value and the bank keeps the home. Not only that the banks could charge the government high late fee's, all legal fee's, ect. on top of that and no regulation to check the cost, just whatever they add.

So instead of working with the homeowner to keep the home with a mod, they made more from the government than what it could be sold for...and it the end the banks still own the home. The kicker is now the loan is paid for and they're sitting on billions of dollars of homes they'll sell higher as the economy improves.

Course these banks paid well for each congress seat they control, mostly GOP.

[Growler]

At this point in our history, our economy is near-inextricably intertwined with our politics. Our politics is geared toward making money for those with access to the policymakers. We've now got the best government money can buy, and we keep paying for it. It isn't party-dominant; they're all in it together. All party division does is make it easier to figure out where the money came from, corporations, or social enterprises.

[The Third Man]

Amazing how much the partisan left is now about compromise. You know who you are. Gridlock in D,C. is the best we can hope for. Republican agenda gains is what we voted for. By a greater margin than BHO was elected I might add.

[mookiemookie]

At this point in our history, our economy is near-inextricably intertwined with our politics. Our politics is geared toward making money for those with access to the policymakers. We've now got the best government money can buy, and we keep paying for it. It isn't party-dominant; they're all in it together. All party division does is make it easier to figure out where the money came from, corporations, or social enterprises.

Too true. It's not R vs. D anymore. It's those with money vs. YOU.

[The Third Man]

Too true. It's not R vs. D anymore. It's those with money vs. YOU.

Or those who want the opportunity to have money and those whose failure of vision accept poverty.

If you want to own that it is your decision. Many don't like it and reject your failure.

It is about vision.

[Growler]

Too true. It's not R vs. D anymore. It's those with money vs. YOU.

Me, personally?

Nah. I don't have anything anybody'd want, unless you count a collection of beer bottle caps, empty cans of compressed air, and a few burnt-out compact florescent bulbs that I've not disposed of yet.

[Takeda Shingen]

Me, personally?

Nah. I don't have anything anybody'd want, unless you count a collection of beer bottle caps, empty cans of compressed air, and a few burnt-out compact florescent bulbs that I've not disposed of yet.

How much for the caps?

[Growler]

How much for the caps?

Oh, shi- :wah:

Uh... uhm... uh...

I don't have no stinkin' caps... yo no hablo ingles!

[Bubblehead1980]

Lets give them a chance.I believe we will see a game change in Congress the next two years, esp after 2012 when GOP will most likely take Congress and possibly the WH.I could be wrong but at the very least take comfort in the fact that Obama no longer has a rubber stamp and/or blank check.

[nikimcbee]

And I suppose that you'd hold the answer to be Republican conservatism. It appears that this thesis is about to be put to the test. I am confident in the answer, because we've all seen it happen before. You've got to stop thinking like a partisan. Replacing one set of failures for another gets us nowhere, but gets them all kinds of places. The political elites of both parties and the pundits that spread their propaganda grow fat on our misery.

First of all, there are zero republicans in the portland metro area, so you can't blame them. This is one party rule here, and it has been for the last 25+ years.

Here's what's wrong with one party (progressive) rule. The city of portland has a HUGE budget, but they have no money for po-lice, fire and schools. They do have money for building trolleys, and bike paths though.

Now portland views itself at the vangard of eco-progressivism. Now when it rains heavily here the sewers can't handle the run off and raw sewage flows straight into our precious rivers:haha:. Now if a private company were to dump raw sewage into the rivers, the EPA would be all over them with fines and such (as they should be)., but when portland does it...meh, no interest.

Speaking of sewers, the mayor raided over half a million dollars from the sewer tax fund to convert roads to bike use only.:nope:

Surprise, surprise, there's no money for the sewer fund:har::har::har::har: this year, so they raised taxes on water rates.:woot:

So if this is the kind of gov't you dig, then it's right up your alley.

Businesses are wising up and getting the heck out of portland. There are even ads on the radio recruiting businesses to a more friendly enviroment.:yeah:

[nikimcbee]

Too true. It's not R vs. D anymore. It's those with money vs. YOU.

I think you are correct. They were just talking about the MILLIONS of dollars spent by the unions in the ore-gone guv election.

I'm not going to whine about money and politics, but you'd think they'd spend it on better things, like improving the schools:shifty:.

[Growler]

... like improving the schools:shifty:.

oooo... socialized schools... that'll go over well. :rotfl2:

[Takeda Shingen]

Lets give them a chance.I believe we will see a game change in Congress the next two years, esp after 2012 when GOP will most likely take Congress and possibly the WH.I could be wrong but at the very least take comfort in the fact that Obama no longer has a rubber stamp and/or blank check.

That may be a bit too forward-thinking. We'll have to see if Team R can hold it's coalition together first. The big test will be healthcare reform. If they are going to get the repeal, they are going to have to play ball with moderate elements of Team D, as they don't have the votes to do it by themselves. This will likely mean a split from ideological purity, which is not going to sit well with certain elements. If Boehner can keep his party together in the midst of this, then I'd say that Team R will finally be out of the woods. If not, I'd say that 2012 will be another rebuilding cycle.

[Gerald]

With regard to healthcare reform, they will back off, if they now want to be with and play with the big elephants

[gimpy117]

Those bailouts were wrong. The Democratic Party had the opportunity to stand on principle and stop them. They did no such thing.

Are the banks to be like General Motors? They gave the money back, but are still majority-owned by the government. That's the problem with government bailouts; once given, the government never relinquishes conrtol. And since the government generates no revenue, it makes you, and I and every other American now responsible for a failed company. Given the track record of the banks, I do not want that responsibility either.

The problem is, there is one true bipartisan thing in washington, being in the pocket of big business especially the banks. So i am not suprised the Dems did nothing. Especially when they were being told the Apocalypse was going to start without a bailout. The only reason GM is still under government control is because they haven't sent enough money, booze, and "escorts" to congress yet.

[Ducimus]

The only reason GM is still under government control is because they haven't sent enough money, booze, and "escorts" to congress yet.


:haha: :har:

[Aramike]

That may be a bit too forward-thinking. We'll have to see if Team R can hold it's coalition together first. The big test will be healthcare reform. If they are going to get the repeal, they are going to have to play ball with moderate elements of Team D, as they don't have the votes to do it by themselves. This will likely mean a split from ideological purity, which is not going to sit well with certain elements. If Boehner can keep his party together in the midst of this, then I'd say that Team R will finally be out of the woods. If not, I'd say that 2012 will be another rebuilding cycle.That is one helluva point, brother, but that's also where I differ from your conclusion regarding ideological purity.

"Ideological purity" has taken on a different meaning in this election cycle. Fiscal conservatism is all the rage - social conservatism isn't even chic. Team R has a great chance at success merely from the fact that Team D is unable to own up to spending - the best they can muster is suggesting that the Republicans have spent money on wars, the idea being that if THEY can spend, WE can spend. That doesn't seem to be sitting well right now.

R's will always vote R, D's will always vote D, but independents are key. And, at this point, it seems as though independents are breaking towards fiscal policy in a manner never seen before.

[Takeda Shingen]

That is one helluva point, brother, but that's also where I differ from your conclusion regarding ideological purity.

"Ideological purity" has taken on a different meaning in this election cycle. Fiscal conservatism is all the rage - social conservatism isn't even chic. Team R has a great chance at success merely from the fact that Team D is unable to own up to spending - the best they can muster is suggesting that the Republicans have spent money on wars, the idea being that if THEY can spend, WE can spend. That doesn't seem to be sitting well right now.

R's will always vote R, D's will always vote D, but independents are key. And, at this point, it seems as though independents are breaking towards fiscal policy in a manner never seen before.

You might be right about the lack of social issues serving as a further unifier. In any case, I don't think that we'll have to wait very long to see what happens; they seem ready to move right now.

[ReallyDedPoet]

R's will always vote R, D's will always vote D, but independents are key. And, at this point, it seems as though independents are breaking towards fiscal policy in a manner never seen before.

That is the sad thing, too bad people would not vote for who they think would do the best job, regardless of their stripe.

There is too much at stake. Yes I am from Canada, but things are really not that much different here.

[Armistead]

Anyone that gives hook, line and sinker to either party are clueless. That's what blows my mind, is so many just fall totally for party lines. It's ashame we can't have an and Ind. party, maybe more would run on this platform. Be nice to see someone control congress beside the life long crooks.

The goal of the Dems and GOP is to destroy each other, doesn't matter if one side has a good plan, the other will seek to undermine it. You can't let the other side succeed, because that would win them elections, so you destroy them at all cost.

Anyone looking at the facts the GOP approves just as much spending as the Dems, just different things and they love pork as much as anyone. I think the only difference between the two parties is the Dems support socialism towards humanity, the GOP towards corporations, both have ruined our nation. The GOP still sells trickle down, make rich people richer and it will spill down and build a middle class. The only thing it's created is an elite class of a few percent controlling 80% of our nations wealth...and even now they keep selling voodoo economics, never work in a global economy where the rich deal in real assets, not a worthless dollar.

I'm to the point I would vote for Nader again. Least he calls it for what it is.

[ReallyDedPoet]

The goal of the Dems and GOP is to destroy each other, doesn't matter if one side has a good plan, the other will seek to undermine it. You can't let the other side succeed, because that would win them elections, so you destroy them at all cost.


:sign_yeah:

[Growler]

:sign_yeah:

Concur.

[gimpy117]

The goal of the Dems and GOP is to destroy each other, doesn't matter if one side has a good plan, the other will seek to undermine it. You can't let the other side succeed, because that would win them elections, so you destroy them at all cost.

Its sad that politics is the way it is now. Im a little to young to remember much before bush, but I think 2000-2008 really polarized this nation, no matter who was right or wrong.

[August]

That is the sad thing, too bad people would not vote for who they think would do the best job, regardless of their stripe.

Actually I think what Aramike was saying: "independents breaking toward fiscal policy", is a good thing. Our fiscal policy has been too long slave to ideological whims.

[ReallyDedPoet]

Actually I think what Aramike was saying: "independents breaking toward fiscal policy", is a good thing. Our fiscal policy has been too long slave to ideological whims.

Thanks for pointing that part out August. I got caught up in the Rep. vs. Dem. thing :yep: Here in Canada it is the Liberal Party vs. Conservative Party, with a little New Democratic Party thrown in for good measure.

I should have known there was more to that post. He is after all a Packer's Fan :DL

[August]

I should have known there was more to that post. He is after all a Packer's Fan :DL

I'll try not to hold that personally against you guys. You'll have enough problems dealing with the crushing despair you'll experience on that long bus ride home from Philadelphia! :O:

[ReallyDedPoet]

I'll try not to hold that personally against you guys. You'll have enough problems dealing with the crushing despair you'll experience on that long bus ride home from Philadelphia! :O:

Tough game for sure, we need to get to Vick early and often :yep:
I like the Packer's Defense in this one.

[Aramike]

Actually I think what Aramike was saying: "independents breaking toward fiscal policy", is a good thing. Our fiscal policy has been too long slave to ideological whims.Precisely.

...and GO PACKERS!!!

[Takeda Shingen]

Go birds!

[Armistead]

Its sad that politics is the way it is now. Im a little to young to remember much before bush, but I think 2000-2008 really polarized this nation, no matter who was right or wrong.

It got really bad with Clinton. The GOP went nuts over Hillary. Had we actually started working on healthcare then we may have come up with a workable plan, but the GOP destroyed that totally and you never heard them mention it again. Clinton took the middle road midterm and being a Dem he did about as good as a job as possible, least we had a surplus. The GOP went nuts to destroy him including the Monica crap. Like we cared he got a BJ, 80% of past presidents screwed around.

[August]

Like we cared he got a BJ

Some Democrats keep saying that but repeatedly telling a falsehood don't make it true. It never was about a BJ, it was about lying under oath. It was about going on TV and self righteously shaking his finger in the face of the American people to perpetuate that lie even as it became evident that he was lying, rather than manning up and telling the truth like the President of the United States should.

Now you can continue to defend that if you want but all it really does is continue to give your political enemies a moral stick with which to beat you with. I'm sure they appreciate it.

[Sailor Steve]

On the other hand, for the Republicans it was never about lying under oath; it was about getting rid of Clinton. Nothing more than a witchhunt.

Same as the Democrats and Ollie North. That one was about getting rid of Reagan.

American politics at their finest.

[August]

On the other hand, for the Republicans it was never about lying under oath; it was about getting rid of Clinton. Nothing more than a witchhunt.

Most definitely. That's why I say that had Clinton been honest it would have taken away their justification for conducting that witch hunt. The electorate will usually forgive a leaders personal transgressions, look at Marion Barry for example, but they hate to be lied to.

Of course we're forgetting that Clinton only found himself in the position to commit perjury in the first place because he was a sexual predator given to making inappropriate advances toward women.

Way to take your eyes off the ball Bill!

[gimpy117]

they just wanted to screw him over august.

Its funny how, when a president lies about a personal question like "did you get head from Monica" and one party freaks.

but later, one illegally wire taps, and lies about a premise for war, and that party behind him is waving the flag.

[August]

they just wanted to screw him over august.

Of course they did. But that is missing the point now isn't it? Clinton's perjury and finger shaking really only gave his enemies the ammunition they needed. Had he come clean he might have lost the Paula Jones suit but would have come off as an honest man and the Democrats wouldn't have come off as elitists and hypocrites willing to ignore their own ideals when it suits them.