The W
Views: 100892125
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
26.11.14 2351
The W - Current Events & Politics - 2010 Senate/House Prediction Thread (Page 3) Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 4.65
Pages: Prev 1 2 3
(120 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (51 total)
spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 24 days
Last activity: 4 min.
AIM:  
#41 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.16
Perhaps I was a bit harsh on independent voters. I can understand as recently as 10-15 years ago someone being a truly independent voter. Both parties offered up a broad spectrum of candidates who could appeal to voters of all persuasions.

However these days the two parties, with very few exceptions, have stakes out positions that are almost diametrically opposed to each other. There is very little middle ground. 20 years ago if you weren't in favor of budget deficits, but you thought that it was important to have clean drinking water, you could find candidates who matched that sort of mindset in both parties. But these days you have one party that is unabashed in its desire to have an activist government, and the other party is unashamed of its desire to drastically reduce the scope of government. It takes some incredible mental gymnastics to jump from one party to the other these days. Not so much always on the local level, but just look at the House of Reps. An agenda pushed by Nancy Pelosi has nothing in common with an agenda pushed by John Boehner.

Nothing has changed in the last 2 years, except that a bunch of people voted for the Democrats, the Democrats did essentially what everyone knew they would do, and those people then went and voted for the GOP this time out. And when the GOP does what everyone knows they're going to do, a bunch of them will vote for the Democrats in 2012. I dunno.




2007 and 2008 W-League Fantasy Football champion!
AWArulz
Knackwurst








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
Y!:
#42 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.67
Mark this down - spf and AWArulz are in agreement.

I don't know that we don't need a third, centrist party. Or that the small government advocates in the republican party (The tea party folks and those who think in that direction) won't leave the Republicans and form a new party (I have heard of resurrecting the "whig" name, which seems odd).

We'll see. If the Reps really follow the small government mold and vote that way (including the dropping of earmarks and whatnot), I think the conservatives stay Republican - but if they stay the spending like sailors on leave in singapore party of the Bush years, I think the conservatives step out on their own, and soon.



We'll be back right after order has been restored here in the Omni Center.

That the universe was formed by a fortuitous concourse of atoms, I will no more believe than that the accidental jumbling of the alphabet would fall into a most ingenious treatise of philosophy - Swift

dMr
Andouille








Since: 2.11.02
From: Edinburgh, Scotland

Since last post: 79 days
Last activity: 4 hours
#43 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.10
    Originally posted by spf
    However these days the two parties, with very few exceptions, have stakes out positions that are almost diametrically opposed to each other. There is very little middle ground.

True, but it's possible to agree with both parties in different areas. By and large I lean more to the right on economic issues, but in other areas I'd definitely be seen as having more 'liberal' viewpoints. That being the case it comes down to what you consider to be the most important issues of the day when it comes to vote and how you think each party has delivered on what it promised since you last voted.

Granted the Republicans and Democrats in the US are much more diametrically opposed than the two main parties we have in Britain, but I can still see how someone could reasonably find themselves switching allegiance from one to t'other.

Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Silver Spring in the Land of Mary.

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 1 day
#44 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.33
    Originally posted by AWArulz

    I think one of the things I really hope our new Congress does is eliminate the so-called "earmarks" - costly projects attached to needed legislation in order to get votes to pass the legislation. So, if Senator Billy wants to get his Transportation bill passed, he bribes Senator Tommy by adding a bill to build a road in his district as an amendment to his bill, so Senator Tommy votes for his bill. That crap has to stop.

    Is a line item Veto for the President too much to ask then?


Wow, two posts in a row that I agree with something you said.
Earmarks, gotta go.

I was so happy that Clinton got a line item veto but it will take an amendment to get it passed again since the Supreme Court ruled that it violated the Presentment Clause of the Constitution.



-- 2006 Time magazine Person of the Year --

-- July 2009 Ordained Reverend --
lotjx
Scrapple








Since: 5.9.08

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 4 hours
#45 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.65
    Originally posted by AWArulz
    Mark this down - spf and AWArulz are in agreement.

    I don't know that we don't need a third, centrist party. Or that the small government advocates in the republican party (The tea party folks and those who think in that direction) won't leave the Republicans and form a new party (I have heard of resurrecting the "whig" name, which seems odd).

    We'll see. If the Reps really follow the small government mold and vote that way (including the dropping of earmarks and whatnot), I think the conservatives stay Republican - but if they stay the spending like sailors on leave in singapore party of the Bush years, I think the conservatives step out on their own, and soon.


The problem with earmarks is that you can usually hide that stuff. You can not hide a Health Care reform package or No Child Left Behind or two wars that going on almost a decade. So, people take their frustration on the government spending when they see those big ticket items. People care less if the government spends a million here or there on pet projects when they see billions and trillions being talked about. Its a problem, however those pet projects are jobs. You cut a bunch of those and you have more unemployed pissed off people who hate the government. Now, they hate the GOP instead of the Dems.

The sad truth with earmarks is you put it all those projects together it is not even close to what the budget for Medicare, Social Security or Defense is. If the government actually went through the Medicare and S.S. to get rid of those who passed away, illegals or scams, we can cut some real money. However, it is going to take real money to government to create those jobs, give overtime and so. You might spend the same or more money going after these guys. The GOP will cut spending here and there, say they are on the right track, but there is no way in hell with all this terrorist bullshit and real gigantic fears about 401Ks, they are going to touch those programs. Maybe a 2% to 5% cut, yet people will scream they lose a family member due to those cuts and watch the media eat it up.Its a no win situation that is why I see very little cutting done in a meaningful way.

A realistic third party with a centrist point of view will not happen until we figure out what the center is. At this point, I have no idea what the center and lets be honest, neither does anyone else. People don't want large government, but they want jobs and not just any jobs, good jobs which is what government jobs are. Tax cuts are meaningless for people without income or very little income. A more freer market will just lead to more laws like NAFTA which was a giant kick in the balls to the American worker. We have to be find common ground which is not coming soon when we have Fox, MSNBC and this new wonderful information age technology to keep us closed minded to listen to what we want to hear and nothing else.
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 107 days
Last activity: 107 days
#46 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.55
    Originally posted by lotjx
    People don't want large government, but they want jobs and not just any jobs, good jobs which is what government jobs are.


Have you ever had a government job?



Kei Posiskunk
Kolbasz








Since: 7.1.02
From: Central PA, USA

Since last post: 177 days
Last activity: 127 days
#47 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.68
    Originally posted by CRZ
    Repeal all term limits!

    Also, let Arnold run for president if he wants.



Taco Bell has already combined with multiple other franchises. Let Arnie run, and Demolition Man becomes an eerie prediction of the future!






My username is kind of inaccurate, now...
Kei Posiskunk
Kolbasz








Since: 7.1.02
From: Central PA, USA

Since last post: 177 days
Last activity: 127 days
#48 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.68
    Originally posted by dMr
      Originally posted by spf
      However these days the two parties, with very few exceptions, have stakes out positions that are almost diametrically opposed to each other. There is very little middle ground.

    True, but it's possible to agree with both parties in different areas. By and large I lean more to the right on economic issues, but in other areas I'd definitely be seen as having more 'liberal' viewpoints. That being the case it comes down to what you consider to be the most important issues of the day when it comes to vote and how you think each party has delivered on what it promised since you last voted.

    Granted the Republicans and Democrats in the US are much more diametrically opposed than the two main parties we have in Britain, but I can still see how someone could reasonably find themselves switching allegiance from one to t'other.




Sorry for the double post, but it seems like at least in the USA, it's hard to say one has left social policies, and right fiscal policies, because our system seems to be set up that the way you deal with your social policies is by dumping more and more and money into them, making it harder and harder for one's economic views to match up with their social views if they want to be taken seriously by either party...

Not sure if it's the same in other countries.






My username is kind of inaccurate, now...
AWArulz
Knackwurst








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
Y!:
#49 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.67
Just a note. It was said

    Originally posted by lotjx
    Tax cuts are meaningless for people without income or very little income.


well, the way it should work is that if the tax rate (especially on businesses) was not so high, and regulation was not so silly (for example, a pal of mine just designed a goal light with a remote so a hockey fan can watch the game and hit the goal light and horn (using a remote shaped like a puck) when his team scores. He had to go through a TON of crap to prove it wasn't a "toy" so he could sell it through his website without going through some insane tests that would have quadrupled his investment), then that money should naturally build jobs. Sure, some people will keep more for themselves, but that it the price we pay for allowing out citizens to be adults.

so, tax cuts are not meaningless for people without income or very little income. They are meaningful, because, traditionally, they have been the way those people GET money. Through work.



We'll be back right after order has been restored here in the Omni Center.

That the universe was formed by a fortuitous concourse of atoms, I will no more believe than that the accidental jumbling of the alphabet would fall into a most ingenious treatise of philosophy - Swift

AWArulz
Knackwurst








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
Y!:
#50 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.67
    Originally posted by Zeruel

    Wow, two posts in a row that I agree with something you said.



I know. It's like weird, isn't it? Grimis might make sense for a second this month.



We'll be back right after order has been restored here in the Omni Center.

That the universe was formed by a fortuitous concourse of atoms, I will no more believe than that the accidental jumbling of the alphabet would fall into a most ingenious treatise of philosophy - Swift

Peter The Hegemon
Lap cheong








Since: 11.2.03
From: Hackettstown, NJ

Since last post: 10 days
Last activity: 2 hours
#51 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.99
    Originally posted by AWArulz
    Just a note. It was said

      Originally posted by lotjx
      Tax cuts are meaningless for people without income or very little income.


    well, the way it should work is that if the tax rate (especially on businesses) was not so high, and regulation was not so silly (for example, a pal of mine just designed a goal light with a remote so a hockey fan can watch the game and hit the goal light and horn (using a remote shaped like a puck) when his team scores. He had to go through a TON of crap to prove it wasn't a "toy" so he could sell it through his website without going through some insane tests that would have quadrupled his investment), then that money should naturally build jobs. Sure, some people will keep more for themselves, but that it the price we pay for allowing out citizens to be adults.

    so, tax cuts are not meaningless for people without income or very little income. They are meaningful, because, traditionally, they have been the way those people GET money. Through work.


That's the way it "should" work? Well, maybe. And maybe Santa Claus "should" come and bring us presents every day.

But here in reality, the last Administration gave us a decade of lower tax rates on the rich and less regulation, and it came closer to destroying our economy than anything since, well, since we started taxing the rich more and regulating the economy more in the wake of the Great Depression.

People get money when there's a demand for consumer products and services. And more income inequality means less demand, because more of the money is in the hands of people who are already able to buy what they want.
Pages: Prev 1 2 3
Thread rated: 4.65
Pages: Prev 1 2 3
Thread ahead: Trial could lead towards legalization polygamy
Next thread: At Least 345 dead in stampede at Cambodian festival
Previous thread: The British Empire might be bought by the Vatican?
(120 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
I've been waiting to use that subject ever since I heard he got the nod. Anyway, the only other time I had ever heard of Bill Frist was during the debate over stem cell research. A lot of Senators went to him for advice, because he was a doctor.
- drjayphd, Frist Me (2002)
The W - Current Events & Politics - 2010 Senate/House Prediction Thread (Page 3)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.184 seconds.