FUCK. This year will be DISASTROUS for Dems, especially when we consider that Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd, a senior Democrat who is chairman of the Senate Banking Committee is not running for a sixth term.
Fishskinfreak needs to calm himself. Evidently he was unaware that the people in Massachusetts were all brain dead liberals who march lock - step to the sounds of the socialist drummer.
This is only the beginning. People around America within every state will cast their votes against the soft fascist regime known as the Obama Administration put into office based on lies from their leader, the most non - accomplished socialist/defacto Muslim of all time-
Name sounds like that of a despot from the ancient days of Persia.
The "brain dead liberals" voted for Brown. The others for Coakley.
Not only Dodd but there are several other dems and rep. bowing out of their careers. What happened last night with the Brown election is some serious business for dems. However there is still time before the midterm elections for the dems to recover if they know how
The pundits will be analyzing this election for a month. I don't believe there is a simple explanation. There are a lot of Hannity and O'Reilly fans in Boston. And the "usual suspects" played an important role, even right wing California doctors--
Spending Supporting Brown or Attacking Coakley:
* The Tea Party Express PAC: $285,000 on e-mail and Internet newsletters and media buys.
* The Chamber of Commerce: $1,001,400 for media buys.
* Americans for Job Security, an organization created by the American Insurance Association: $479,268 for media buys.
* American Future Fund, a conservative anti-tax group (John Kerry says created the "Swift Boat" attacks on him): $409,000
* Cooperative of American Physicians, an association of California-based doctors: $35,400 for robo-calls.
* National Organization for Marriage, a group against gay marriage: $50,000 on calls.
* National Republican Trust PAC, a PAC dedicated to "protecting the legacy of Ronald Reagan" and supported by Dick Morris: $96,000 on media buys.
* National Rifle Association PAC: $19,000 for postcards.
Whats to analyze? Another vote against Obama is all it is, he's a one termer, I have told you that.Hey Ron Montgomery, people sure hate them Republicans don't they!
Yes they do. Apparently even Brown does. He went pretty far out of his way to distance himself from the party during this campaign.
People don't hate ALL Republicans. I'm sure you are universally adored by all who have met you.
That big (R) next to his name on the ballot let people know who they were voting for, your claims of no more Republicans being elected doesn't seem to be going the way you predicted, and yes I am universally loved.
No more Republican P R E S I D E N T S. Seriously, all you do is mis-read posts and confuse yourself. Seriously.
Thats not what you have said, but I will give it to you now, 2012 will see another Republican elected President and a return of Power to NORMALCY!
Do you think the Republicans have the answer to normalcy? The politicians truly hope you do. It does not matter which party is in power. They all feed off of us and give us nothing in return. Why do you think the lobbyists pay both candidates campaign money? They already know what the outcome is. They will deal with either party because they have bought them. The republicans under "W" raped the treasury through wars and goverment contracts to support them, gave tax breaks to the very rich which resulted in a collosal reccession, bailed out their buddies on Wall Street and swelled a goverment mealticket the likes of which we have never seen before. Obama is headed the same way except he has done it on our childrens' children future.
Define normalcy for me so it has some meaning that can be explained.
Rhamson, you say this as if you haven't said it 10 times this week already! Let me help you out,WE GET IT!!! The next two years will not bring about an independent candidate that will sweep into power fixing all that is wrong, it just ain't gonna happen. The voters have had a taste of hope and change or rather bait and switch and they don't like it, a Republican will win and the normalcy I talk about will be business as usual!
I am sorry I did not pick up on your sarcasm when you referred to "normalcy" as a return to the same old crap and instead to something new and refreshing.
I too agree that the electorate will still want to fool around with the slime on the hill and their false promises rather than taking more of an independent route.
I also appologize for the constant reference to the broken two party system and how wrong people are for having any confidence it will create any good change. I only do this as it has to be repeated enough to get it through some peoples heads.
I may have to disagree with you, at least for now, I think an independent candidate for the very first time stands a very strong and legitimate change to win the Presidency. More than likely it will be a Constitutional Conservative that takes hold of this position but the numbers of unaffiliated voters is growing and that will be the difference. Most have seen to many years and administrations built on party politics and I do not think the party lines will carry much longer.
Can anybody tell us how much the Democrats have spend? Rumor has it that Obama's campaign alone cost 2 million dollars
Hey, I'M happy! Brown's election gave me plenty of material for my latest hub predicting Massachusetts will vote for Sarah Palin (and of course for Scott Brown at the same time, for a full Senatorial term) in 2012.
oh, gee, now an ex cosmo pin up takes senator ted kennedy's seat.
This was a statement against Big Government ! This was about the American people reclaiming their voice. The first cannon shot just went over the bow !
I am very surprised a heavily Democratic and liberal state like Massachusetts elected a Republican like Scott Brown. I watched his acceptance speech and he sounds like the real deal. The only other Republican I know from the Commonwealth is Mitt Romney. This election is clearly a referendum on the policies of the President. Now, we will see what shapes up in the healthcare debate and other policies.
I really think this is a vote against the awful health bill congress is trying to shove down our throats. The democrats are plowing ahead to win the battle and lose the war. The independents are not happy with this crap bill and this is the quickest response they can give to stop it.
The health bill has been bungled from the beginning by the notion that Obama left it up to congress to write it as a shot at bi partisan harmony. These slimebags couldn't write a fair bill if their life depended on it. Just look at the bribery and sweetheart deals that are included in it.
The vote turned out as it should have but let's see how long Brown will keep his promise of representing the "people's" seat and not get drawn into the slimebags clutches.
The fact of the matter is that no seat is safe. That being the case, I was a bit surprised from the get-go that the Dems weren't putting in as many resources as usual. Not sure what happened there... I have seen this happen on the GOP end (too many times!!), but not from the Dems.
Either way, today's results are extremely significant. I'm not sure how anyone could believe otherwise. Much like '06 was for the GOP.
Lastly, money simply did not win this seat -- just as though money did not win Obama the presidency.
Oh the Dems pulled out all the stops. Did you hear that the President even showed up in Mass. after previously saying there were no plans to? You are right that money didn't win the race. Ralph is only telling one part of the story.
http://www.opensecrets.org/races/summar … cycle=2010
Coakley's campaign spent five times what Brown's did.
Is that what you're reduced to Ralph? There are a lot of Hannity and O'Reilly fans in Boston? Um, Brown may have gotten money from around the country, but only citizens of MA voted. Oh wait, you're a liberal, you don't think that people can make their own decisions and live their own lives without guidance from above.
Ralph Deeds happens to be one of the most independent thinkers here. Why do you always insult people?
No he's not Sweetie. You only think that because you agree with him.
You're not privy to some conversations which we had a while back. Ralph is of the firm belief that more regulation is a good thing. So I asked him how you keep industries that are regulated from dominating the regulatory agencies. He has yet to provide a reasonable, rational answer to that question. Until he does, I will continue to call him out on his inconsistencies.
You may consider that to be insulting, but I find it insulting to have someone make unsubstantiated comments and act like an authority with absolutely nothing to back it up.
To be honest several people have said the same thing about you. Also, liberals vary and have widely different opinions as you would know. I actually am probably happier with many of Obama's policies than Ralph is. Seriously, you really love to judge people, and that is about it.
What's wrong with judging people by what they do and say? I've never denied that I have criteria by which I define things. Tha'ts how rational people act.
That is merely your interpretation of the facts. By the way, when you consider yourself to be overly rational I believe you miss out on some of the finer points in life, such as being cordial, diplomatic, and open minded. You may be upfront about what you are, but your strong belief that your opinions are more rational than others is just, well your opinion. Blue Dog even mentioned the other day that he asked you a few questions you could never sufficiently answer. Pgrundy has pointed out the same thing. I noticed girly_girl seems to make her points without putting others down.
Being judgemental, not good because everyone has a different idea of what is best. I guess this is why politics gets boring after awhile because who really cares who thinks they know the most all the time.
That is where we disagree. You seem to believe that all things are relative. I do not. There are certain natural laws that govern the universe and we can best live in peace when we live in harmony with those laws.
And no, being rational is not just an opinion, in order to be rational you have to use logic. As an example, let me ask you this: How can you help the poor and downtrodden by taking from the rich and giving to the poor? Won't that, over time, make everyone poor? That is the one of the many fallacies of the liberal left in the United States today. That is why many of them are irrational, they make false assumptions about many things and can't or won't question those assumptions.
Another example. If I'm what most liberals would term a conservative, why am I against foreign interventions?
I know you have these grandiose ideas about how things should be, but I seriously think you should run for office if you want to implement some of that.
The Democrats will probably win the seat back in 2012. Hopefully this is a wake up call for them to unite and get things done.
I have more respect for myself than to associate with those criminals in DC. I'd rather make an honest living than living off the backs of people who work for a living.
Why not show by example by being the honest politician? Seriously, maybe if more people like you did run for office things could improve.
Seriously? Because no person should have that much power over the lives of other human beings. Read Thomas Jefferson sometime. After his Democratic-Repbublicans won the election and forced the Federalists from power, Jefferson lamented that "his" politicians began the same patronage games the Federalists had done beforehand.
Also I don't really see the need for a government. I don't believe there is anything a government does that private enterprise can do better. A business, after all, has to make its customers happy in order to survive. A government can throw you in jail if you do something they don't like. You can walk away from a company whose policies you don't like, you can't do that with the government.
This is one of the most "irrational" things I have ever read. No need for a government? For example, do you really think that our roads should be built, maintained, and operated by private enterprise?
Pretty, you have no idea what you've just gotten yourself into. I predict a massive headache for you over the next 3 hours. You're about to read an incredibly absurd series of posts that proclaim the unfailing glories of capitalism; no regulation needed at all; consty-tushin this and that; founding fathers were gods ad nauseum.....
I'm off to shovel the snow.
Yes! Our toll roads around Austin, Texas were built by private business, they are maintained by private business. Hundreds of miles of roadway built in less than 5 years, the state took 30 years to widen and repair 10 miles of highway.
"Yes! Our toll roads around Austin, Texas were built by private business, they are maintained by private business. Hundreds of miles of roadway built in less than 5 years, the state took 30 years to widen and repair 10 miles of highway."
Your private prisons are doing quite well also. I'm sure you could probably privatize the Texas Rangers and local police forces to Blackwater.
You must hate that Texas isn't a broke cesspool like Michigan, maybe its the politicians you elect.
Is that for Waaaaaah?
Republican, say it Ron, R E P U B L I C A N
Dinosaur is much better than coming out "losing elections"!
Hey, I bet even the dinosaurs had one last hurrah before their inevitable extinction. Republicans have become the most pathetic brand since New Coke.
Ron the Dems had their last hurrah, unfortunately its like every hurrah they ever had, ending badly!
Not that I give a Rat's ass about the Dems, but I don't see how their past failures have anything to do with the ultimate demise of your beloved Republicans. Any party that can produce W should be banned for 50 years.
Where is the demise? They are getting elected in places they traditionally don't! I'm sure you saying it gives you wood, but the evidence is against you.
I have been down this road before and the answer is yes we need a government to provide services for the common good. What we don't need is the government getting into our lives and pockets for what it wants for its' own gain.
Funny you should ask. Yes I do believe that roads should be maintained by private enterprise. There're been some scholarship done. You are aware that celebrated trails like the Oregon trail were private.
Look at how much money has been wasted on "shovel-ready" projects. None of it has made any difference in the job numbers. Any type of monopoly is more harmful, no matter the agency. There really is nothing that the government does that cannot be done at less cost by private agencies.
Wait. There is nothing government does that private industry couldn’t do better? Really?
Medicare cost about 4% in administration costs and private health insurance costs between 20% and 30%.
Private industry just took care of the US economy with no government regulation by causing a greed created recession that costs America $2 trillion dollars and about 26 million unemployed.
We need both a strong government and a strong well regulated private sector.
Some things government does better and some things the market does better. Healthcare should be universal and profit should be taken out. No one should make a profit on the sick, suffering and dying.
America is the only western democracy without universal healthcare out of 38 countries.
80% of Americans claim they are Christians – where are they when we need them?
Without government oversight businesses would run amock, and who would look out for the rights of people. Seriously, I am serious, and I have read those documents as a history major, and on my own. I simply have more faith in government than you do. I was never overly scared of it, and declaring that less government is the answer is quite scary actually. If it had not been for legislation allowing unions to organize, well then businesses would continue to take advantage of their workers. Your idea of less government would not work.
I am so glad there are fewer and fewer people with this mindset now!
Many people in the country still feel this way. Trying to make people feel second class citizeny will not work with me, I am too plucky for that! As I said the election of Republican senators in 1994 did not turn over Clinton's second term. My way of thinking is still popular among many, and I never suffer from paranoia many have regarding the government.
By the way Ledefensetech, every administration has had companies "in bed" with them. There is nothing new about that.
Nobody is trying to make you feel like a second class citizen, you may want to rethink that paranoia thing. There are a lot of citizens who think like you thankfully there is less today than November 2008!
That doesn't make it right sweetie, that is exactly my point. Your moral relativism is showing again.
No they wouldn't. One of the reasons I think you believe the way you do is because there has not been much scholarship done on the late 19th century, especially as concerns the Farmers' Alliance. Nor has there been much taught in our universities about the differences between the visions of Hamilton and Jefferson in the early days of the Republic. Those arguments are still germane today.
When I look at government "oversight", I see things like Hitler's Germany or Mao's China or Stalin's Russia. Those are examples of allowing people power over others. No private company could do near the damage that a Stalin or Mao could. Do you really have that low an opinion of your fellow human that you don't thing people would buying the goods and/or services of a company that acted badly? You don't have that kind of an alternative when dealing with a government. They can incarcerate you or kill you, whichever they prefer. In the end that is the difference. No private company can incarcerate you, nor can they murder you. Government can.
Nor does "democracy" make the government beholden to the people. Bush persecuted wars against the will of the people, Obama has prosecuted his agenda against the will of the people. Politics is a game of "let's get this done fast so people won't complain" and perception rather than a realistic assessment of our problems and rational solutions to them.
Seriously, all you do is judge people, seriously!
It's a vote against Big Brother is what it is. Should Palin align herself with smaller government advocates and she shows that she's committed, not just "change" and "hope", yes even people in Massachusetts will vote for her. They voted for Bush I instead of their hometown boy in '88 didn't they?
Hmmm, that's true. I'm really starting to like Mass. They have a mind of their own. It's kinda refreshing.
It's a strange place, that's for sure. I lived there for several years while my dad was stationed on a military base on Cape Cod. The year we left, the high school I went to lost its accreditation because the voters refused a tax increase because they already paid too much in taxes. I guess the Dems never figured out that you can't tax people forever before they decide that they don't want Dems in office any more.
hahaha, that's funny. it's so fitting that mass would fight back against taxes!
I love MA. Went there on a business trip in 2003, went through boston, salem, worchester..never figured out why it's pronounced that way.
Loved the people there. They were nice but direct. It was refreshing as I came from the south where no one ever says what they think.
It`s appropriate that in the place where freedom began the people once again affirmed their desire for freedom! Obama ran on a platform of change but he has demonstrated that change was not as he said rejecting lobbyist run government, reaching across the isle and governing from the middle, or legislating in the open. No, Obama`s change is to transform America into a socialist republic and even the liberals in MA rejected that notion! In a state where only 12% of the voters are reoublican, the people have spoken loudly and clesrly that we intend to keep our freedom!
Actually no, they haven't done that at all. Some people will try to make more out of this than it is. All that happened is that a lousy candidate ran a terrible campaign and lost. This isn't Lexington / Concord and Obama is not King George.
Yeah sure, the socialist democrats will try to downplay this and spin it blaming Coakley alone, but the trend is clear and if the democrats don`t shift back to the middle and scrap healthcare there won`t be a single one standing after 2012! America doesn`t want to become France we don`t want to be a socialist republic!
But the thing is, Massachusetts has the most socialized health care in the nation, and is one of the only states that actually has something to LOSE by adopting Obamacare.
I don't think this was a referendum on health care so much as the people of Massachusetts spitting in the Dems' faces for taking them for granted and running such a godawful candidate, but if it was, you could argue just as easily that the people of Massachusetts want Obamacare to die so they can KEEP their socialized medicine.
A vote for a new senator is hardly a vote against Obama. In 1994 the Democrats were largely voted out of the Senate, but Clinton was re-elected in 1996. The funny thing is I have noticed that everyone is declaring this a vote against Obama, but that is hardly the case. Many true progressives want a more liberal government, and Obama is assuredly quite moderate. With a Democratic Congress we have simply had a further push for health care, and our country is so behind the rest of the world really on this. People are so funny, a vote for a governor or president is not a vote against Obama. Of course all the hype leads to a fun drama filled discussion.
What drama? This is a clear vote against Obama, hide and watch.
You ignore the fact that a majority of Americans don't seem to want any part of a progressive agenda. After reading up on things like the Great Depression, I can hardly blame them. Things like universal healthcare and welfare are blinds. They conceal a form of economic slavery. You won't, after all, vote against the people who give you "free" stuff will you. Especially when you become dependent on it. Government intervention takes your choices away, it doesn't expand your choices. Only the free market does that.
It works well in the UK and many progressive European countries that have universal health care models. It is only a manner of time before people in the US shift their way of thinking. Actually from state to state many people are in favor of health care. In California health care reform is quite popular, and we happen to be the most populace state in the country. As I said I just do not trust large businesses, or even small ones to run unchecked. This is hardly socialistic, just realistic. Just because businesses cannot put you in prison does not mean I feel happy. What if someone running a business is conducting himself like Madoff? In cases like that I am glad there are laws that keep everyone in check.
I'd argue it doesn't work well. Ever hear about Gamon's Theory of Bureaucratic Displacement?
http://hadm.sph.sc.edu/Courses/Econ/CLA … edman.html
That's one of the few articles Milton Friedman wrote that I remotely agree with. That explains why you can increase spending on things like schools, roads, etc. and see them decline over time. We spend more now per student than at any time in the history of the US, yet our schools routinely graduate kids who can't read, write or do something as simple as make change.
Caveat emptor is as true today as it was in the days of Rome. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. People will always do stupid things because they think they can get a "steal". You can't keep people from making mistakes. "Saving" people for the consequences of their mistakes only ensure that they will continue to make them. Besides Madoff ripped off a bunch of rich people who should have known better. They acted stupidly and got exactly what they deserved. Um, laws didn't seem to keep him in check did they? He still tried to rip off a bunch of people.
I hate to tell you Sweetie, but just because CA is the most populous state, that doesn't mean that what CA thinks is the right way to do things is the best thing for the country as a whole. If you're so concerned about universal health care and think CA can find a way to make it work, then by all means pass it for Californians and prove the opposition wrong.
Of course CA is bankrupt due to their support of unions and the gigantic welfare system they have, so it might be that those schemes concocted by politicians don't work as advertised. Hasn't CA been losing population for years because of high taxes and over-regulation of business?
In this case it was, in large part, a vote against Obama and what his administration has come to represent in the minds of voters. In '94 Clinton at least had the sense to get the message and run for his life to the center. The State of the Union Address doesn't suggest Obama has gotten the message yet. I imagine a lot of democrats in the Congress have gotten it though.
This election was neither Democrat nor Republican. It was about telling both parties and those in power to shove it. The midterms are going to be even more of a shock to the status quos and party politics as usual. The People are flat tired of the BS and backroom deals and are realizing the Vote has real power and they are going to wield it.
Incumbents better make plans for new careers come Christmas and the to Major parties better revamp or close up shop.
I agree 100%. That's what this election was about.
As one Republican to another, perhaps you should peek out of the Republican cloister and smell the winds of dissention. Not the stench of the Liberal Progressive dream, but the fact that the electorate is feed up. A strong Constitutional Conservative Candidate is going to rise, and will carry the independent vote as well as gleaning considerable power from both Republicans and Democrats.
Scott Brown won on this very strategy, he disavowed the Republican platform and politics as usual, spoke of Constitutional duties and his responsibility to the electorate. And like Brown, this Candidate may have an “R” in front of his name but this candidate will more than likely be a staunch Constitutionalist.
And for the record, I have never been 100% wrong.
You are so right about the process. The Democrats made this process of REFORM require REFORM. The secret deals, pay-offs and just plain dishonesty was what killed any hope for something better for the over 40 million without healthcare and that includes 8 million children.
We need to flush the entire congress, but it will not happen.
The real problem is the system is now so corrupt nothing good can come from it.
Apparently the government thinks so as well since many are opting to lease toll roads and even paking meters to private industry for up front cash!
Look at companies like Blackwater and other civilian security companies. They routinely do stuff that had been the province of the military. The funny thing is that private companies can do the so-called "public good" services at much less cost to government than the government can to the people. So why not just take out the middleman? I can assure you that if I owned a network of roads and were charging a toll, that I'd have any potholes filled in and smoothed over pretty quick.
Maybe you would, but not all businesses have savvy practices. I simply would not trust big businesses to run alone without oversight. Things are pretty good here in America now, but I hope for more health care reform down the line.
There is a difference between business and big business. Look at GE and how much they stand to make if cap-and-trade and other "smart" grid technologies are forced on the American citizenry. The only problem is that there are plenty of people who would opt out for such a system, for various reasons. That's why GE and their subsidiary NBC are in bed with the Obama administration.
It's business ties with the government that allow them to get away with bad business practices. I trust business more than government. Can you explain to me why Lasik surgery, which is not covered by any private or public insurance, has dropped in price, when most medical procedures that are covered under insurance, private or public, have gone up in cost.
Besides, if I didn't smooth over the roads and make people's rides enjoyable, people would stop using my roads and someone else would move in and force me out of business. That's what's called enlightened self-interest. I have to care about the needs of my people, otherwise I won't be in charge of meeting that need anymore. Anyone who can't do that deserves to go bankrupt.
Things are pretty good in States without Democrat control.
I don't think bringing up Blackwater does much as far as making the case for privatization. That's like saying Sarah Palin is a fine example of successful literacy programs in Alaska.
It would be nice if you had something more than rhetoric behind your words, Ron. Really I expect better from you.
It would also be nice if you actually did some research before posting ridiculous positions like brandishing blackwater as a model for privitizing government functions. Sometimes you just make it too easy.
As opposed to things like Abu Gharib or Mai Lai? Wars produce atrocities. To be clear, this is not an indictment of our soldiers, it's an incitement of the institution that allows such things to occur. Blackwater was nearly destroyed for allowing that atrocity to occur. The Army practices CYA.
You also miss the import of companies like Blackwater. Now only were they used because they could do the job for less money than the national government could, they could also afford to pay their employees much more than the Army could. So they charged less and paid more. Hey, how is that possible. Everyone "knows" how greedy capitalists are.
HaHaHaHaHaha I can only hope Barry O will campaign for every liberal in 2010.
I guess she should have guessed the right team that Curt Schilling pitched for.
Ldt: "No they wouldn't. One of the reasons I think you believe the way you do is because there has not been much scholarship done on the late 19th century, especially as concerns the Farmers' Alliance. Nor has there been much taught in our universities about the differences between the visions of Hamilton and Jefferson in the early days of the Republic. Those arguments are still germane today."
In case you hadn't noticed, we are now in the 21st century! There have been a few minor developments since the bucolic days of the 17-19th centuries for which you apparently yearn. (I hesitate to comment lest I become stuck to HubPages' "tar baby!"
Not the least of which has been the progressive view that the constitution is a living document the interpretation of which should change with the times and the strengthening of the federal government at the expense of the states and the people which is why something like this health care bill is even being considered and why the feds are being forced to bribe senators for support!
Many corporations have also bribed senators to vote against health care reform. As if any side is more angelic than the other LOL. At the end of the day it sounds to me as if some people are frustrated with some part of their life, so they take it out on the government. No government is perfect, but to hear some here you would think we live in Communist China of the 1950's.
If you don't start listening to some here communism is just what you might get!
We are dealing with an administration that has members who think Mao was a great philosopher.
Ah Ralph, I knew you'd join us sooner or later. You know there have been periods of devolution, the waning of the Roman Empire comes to mind. Civilization was dealt such a blow it was centuries before the common man's standard of living approached that of the average Roman, much less exceeded it.
It's obvious you have no sense of what has come before, without know that, how can you be sure you know what's coming? You can't.
In full disclosure Anita Dunn has since resigned since saying Mao was one of her favorite philosophers.
California's population is growing every day, so I do not know where you get your statistics. I work with the public, and I am always signing people up for new library cards. Many have moved to California. Sure our state has some economic difficulties, but we also have the largest population, so that is to be had. I would not want to live in any other state, besides Hawaii, so life out here is quite grand. The taxes are not really that high, unless you own a great deal of real estate or something. If you do, well then you choose to own that property, and should expect to pay taxes. The climate, cultural diversity, well stocked libraries, well we have many pluses too. We are not some veritable waste land, and many people move here every day actually.
California's population is still increasing quite steadily.
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stor … ily38.html
If people leave because they hate the taxes, well there will always be many new people to arrive in their place.
I get the feeling that most of the incoming immigration is due to people who want to sponge off the welfare system. So you have the most productive members leaving while more and more destitute (or not so destitute) arrive to take advantage of all the "free" stuff. That's not exactly a good thing for the state and its finances. You have to pay your prison guards in scrip, they don't even get real money anymore. How long do you think those people are going to stick around? Who is going to guard your prisoners when they don't get paid in real money? That sounds a bit more than a few problems.
That is simply not accurate. Many people moving here are doing so to find jobs, and your ideas about sponging off the system are just not accurate. California is doing fine and well, and many people love it here. Sorry you look at the negative, but since you do not even live here, I suggest you stop making assumptions about why people enjoy living in this state.
Yes I am also friends with several prison guards, and they get a salary just like other state employees. Most enjoy working in that environment, and they make better pay than many people in the state for only having to have a high school education.
Sweetie, I spent the first decade of my life living in California. I loved the climate and where I lived, but I'm glad I got out and saw more of the country. I've also, interestingly enough, lived in Taxachussets for some time as well. I think that I have a bit of experience from which to base my statements on. The high school I went to in MA lost its accreditation because the voters nixed a tax increase. They'd had enough of paying more and more for less and less.
You seem to equate people saying bad things about the way the state is run with insulting citizens of California, that's simply not true. Heck, I wouldn't mind living there again if it weren't so expensive.
It is not so expensive out here as you imagine. I pay a thousand dollars a month for my sister and I to live in a two bed room apartment. If you are looking to buy a house it might not be the time, but renting is always affordable here if you are willing to look around, and not live some where overly expensive like Rancho Cucamonga. The hospitals are always hiring as well, and my friend just got a job as a PA at one.
I pay 400 dollars a month in rent for a two bedroom apt. Also your unemployment rate is about 9.3 to 11% depending on the "official" source. Which means it's probably about 20% or even higher in reality. They don't count people, after all, who are no longer getting benefits or have given up looking for a job.
My tax rate is 5.675 percent, 2.675 percent for food. I pay about $2.50 a gallon for gas and live within minutes of work. I'd rather not trade that for more expenses and a longer commute. The weather is great and I'd love it, but I'm not a playboy millionaire.
Not exactly happening the way she says even with the increase in Library cards.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2 … ecade.html
California is a great place to live and work if you are a Prison Guard or a Teacher, for everyone else, it's no utopia. Just as LDF says, the affluent are moving away and the immigrants and down trodden are moving in. Looking for jobs, that's funny as California has the 4th largest unemployment record in the country. Though I'm sure its a great place to live if you work in a public (tax payer paid) position.
Here are some interesting stats on California:
Here is a depressing comparison of California taxes and economic climate with the rest of the states (version 1.37 of my report). The news is breaking bad, and getting worse:
California has the 2nd highest state income tax in the nation: 9.55% at $48,000 income, 10.55% at $1,000,000 income.
California has by-far the highest state sales tax in the nation, 8.25% (not counting local sales taxes).
California has the highest state car tax in the nation, at least double any other state: 1.15% per year on value of vehicle.
California corporate income tax rate is the highest in the West: 8.84%
California's 2009 Business Tax Climate ranks 48th in the nation.
California has the fourth-highest capital gains tax: 9.55%
http://www.thereibrain.com/realestate-b … s-state...
California has the third-highest gas and diesel tax in the nation at $2.00/gallon. At $3.00 a gallon, California is numero uno.
California has the fourth-highest unemployment rate in the nation as of March, 2009: 11.2%
California’s 2009 "Tax Freedom Day" (the day the average taxpayer stops working for government and start working for oneself) is again the fourth-worst date in the nation, up from 28th worst in 1994.
One in 5 in Los Angeles County are receiving public aid.
www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-welfar … 7048.story
California prison guards are the highest-paid in the nation.
California teachers are easily the highest-paid in the nation.
California has the lowest bond ratings of any state, edging out Louisiana.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c … 16JLKH.DTL
For every dollar in taxes Californians send to Washington, D.C., California got back 78 cents -– 43rd worst (in 2005, latest figures).
America;s top CEO's rank California "the worst place in which to do business" for the fourth straight year (3/2009). But here's the interesting part: They think California is a great state to live in (primarily for the great climate), they just won't bring their businesses here because of the oppressive tax and regulatory climate.
California has 12.1% of the nation's population, but California had 20.9% of the newly-unemployed in February, 2009. That means California's growth in UNemployment was 72.7% above the national average. (California's population is 36,756,666, the USA is 303,824,640)
California residential electricity costs 28.7% more on average than the national average. For industrial use, California electricity is 48.6% higher than the national average (11/08).
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricit … 5_6_a.html
Consider California's net domestic migration (movement between states). From April, 2000 through June, 2008 (8 years, 2 months) California lost a NET 1.4 million people. The departures slowed this past year only because people couldn't sell their homes.
http://www.mdp.state.md.us/msdc/Pop_est … table5.pdf
The people leaving California are not welfare kings and queens. They are the young, the educated, the productive, the ambitious, the wealthy (such as Tiger Woods), and retirees seeking to make their pensions provide more bang for the buck. The irony is that a disproportionate number of the departing seniors are retired state and local government employees fleeing the state that provides them with their opulent pensions -- to avoid the high taxes that these same employees pushed so hard through their unions.
There are many affluent people that live in the Lake Arrowhead and Redlands area, both in the Inland Empire, and most are not itching to move away. Our climate and cultural diversity just cannot be beat, and it is a truly beautiful place. People that thrive on negativity focus on taxes, and other things in life. Personally I am happy to live in this state, and what a wonderful life. Beautiful mountains, beautiful oceans, great libraries, yummy oranges, I could go on.
That's as may be, Sweetie, but I've talked to quite a few Montanans who would like to see their expatriate Californios go back to where they came from.
Neither does Arizona. Where are these poor people going to live?
Hey that's an idea, we could use them in the construction industry, farming industry, cleaning industry, etc. Kind of ironic, don't you think?
Probably harder to get into Mexico than the US!
It would be like the only scene I liked from Day After Tomorrow, when the Mexican Army moved north to seal the border. Actually Mexico discourages immigration. If you're a foreigner you can't legally own land. That's one of the reasons people aren't rushing to invest in Mexico.
You are a veritable fount of misinformation. Foreigners can and do buy and own land in Mexico. The restrictions are only on coastal land and there are easy ways to get around those restrictions. Plenty of Americans own condos and houses all along the coasts of Mexico. Some friends of mine recently got a free paid trip to Cancun simply by agreeing to attend a couple of sales sessions for condos there.
"People aren't rushing to invest in Mexico." Wrong again. NAFTA and cheap wages prompted a huge manufacturing exodus from the U.S. to Mexico. Where have you been, ldt?
Um, who owns the land, Ralph. They may have bought a condo, but they don't own the land. The usual deal is to give them a 20 year lease then the deed reverts to the landowner. Owning a condo is not the same as owning the land.
Also you might not be aware, but UPS once stopped doing business in Mexico due to the corruption and having to pay off government officials. So yes, those sorts of things keep investment money out of Mexico. The interesting thing is that even with paying the bribes it's still less expensive to hire Mexican workers than American workers. I guess our manufacturing jobs will keep going overseas. Thanks unions.
You really don't see a distinction between the working class and the elitist ruling class when you make broad statements about the unions and their contribution with sending jobs overseas. The illegal immigrant workforce that operates under the radar to undermine domestic labor, the unfair lending and borrowing practices of the banks and the drive for greater profits by driving down labor costs to help rich corporate executives collect their bonuses has nothing to do with the export of jobs overseas? Just look at Nike whos' cost to make a pair of shoes is around $6.00 and pays the laborer around $0.65 to sew it, to sell it for $90.00 to $125.00 in the US is not unfair to the American worker? How much is enough for corporate greed? Blaming it on the very people who have to come up with the money to buy these greatly inflated goods while losing their jobs to the slave labor who performs the work is lunacy.
Unions have been and continue to be one of the most exclusionary and racist groups around. Do you know who was behind the resurgence of the KKK in the 1920's? Unions. Why? Well there was the beginnings of a great migration from the South at the time. Blacks were leaving in droves for higher wage factory jobs in the emerging industrial centers of the North and West. Oh wait, there we have cheap labor again. God forbid we allow the Blacks to rise to social prominence. That is why unions specifically excluded blacks at the time. Today it's no longer fashionable to discriminate against those of a darker skin color, so now the unions have targeted those dirty, job stealing immigrants.
Your attempts to keep the US at some sort of 1950's utopia will doom us. The only certainty in life is that things change. You have to ride change if you want to survive. Look at how irrelevant Europe has become. China basically walked away from the talks. They know what they need to do to ensure that their people prosper, and for a wonder, they seem to actually be doing some of it. It's not wages that are important but production, the more you produce, the more you are able to pay. Production. It's a very simple concept.
Unions forced corporate greed to share more with the people who produced the goods. Henry Ford realized it early on and paid his employees a wage they could afford to buy his product with. He fought the unions tooth and nail but finally succumbed to the demands of the unions because he needed the workers and they realized they needed him. The change you so readily accept is the corporate need to circumvent the American workforce to employ slave labor overseas. Corporations love this as they don't have any child labor laws or minimum wage restrictions or workplace safety or healthcare ... etc. to deal with. This is a race to the bottom and we will soon have to revert to either working for the same conditions in America as we have employed the South American illegal laborers or find a sugar daddy to pay us. Characterizing the Unions as a racist organization is a mute point as with ties to the mob there was equal corruption to whites that were shared. No organization is without criminal behavior. Just look at churches and congress.
Production is the savior of the living wage? Really? More production only increases inventory and drives down cost. How are we to believe that jobs will come back to America if we could produce as much as China or Thailand? Corporate greed is not going to move the jobs back here because they are addicted to the easy money they get from doing business the way they do now. Besides the next step in that scenario is to lower the standard of living here to that of the foreign worker we are supposed to out produce. Some plan.
You are amazingly ignorant of simple economics aren't you? Yes production is king and lowing the cost of a good increases your custom. You don't consider that even today, the population of the US is expanding. That means that, yes, you can increase production, increase wages and still pull a profit because you're selling more product or service. Like I said, do you really know anything or do you just spew stuff out? If we made American factory workers more competitive in the world labor market, we wouldn't need those jobs to come back because A. Americans would buy more stuff because the price would be lowered and B. the more competitive we are, the more we would sell to people in Thailand and China. Seriously, what is wrong with you?
I am sorry to question your great intellect with some common sense knowledge as there are far more loftier aspirations you should be pursuing rather than wasting your time with us common folk.
Your assertions just further exacerbate the ongoing problems we already have and offer no solution for the long term. What you are proposing is a Ponzi scheme with a race to the bottom serving only the well to do. The past ten years has seen the greatest transfer of wealth to the rich which has desimated the middle class. Saying that we would buy more things because of increased production of foreign labor markets to decrease the prices is crazy. As you send more jobs overseas there will be fewer for our increasing population. A squeeze that will only result in lesser and lesser wages being paid to buy these cheaper imported goods.
You may think you have a corner on the market for knowledge in the way economics are applied but I think you are very dangerous in your assumptions and your willingness to sell out the American worker. Your race to the bottom only shows that you are on board with the fools that have put us in the position we are in now.
I guess your decision to insult me has brought our conversation to an impasse and further discussions between us would be useless to continue. So I will say good day to you sir.
Do you read at all or are you so wrapped up in what you know that you just ignore stuff. What I said was that if the US worker eliminated unions and were willing to accept lower wages, we could kick start the manufacturing sector of this nation into high gear. The increased manufacturing output would lower the cost of manufactured goods and services to the point that even with lower wages the American worker would see no decrease in their standard of living. Remember simple economics, the more of something you have, the lower the price.
A fringe benefit of doing this would be to lower the cost of manufactured goods to the point that even people living in extreme poverty like Africa and Haiti would be better able to afford these manufactured items and could then, possibly, get to increasing their standard of living as well.
One of the main barriers to that is the Federal Reserve. Because of their deliberately inflationary policies, the poor never get ahead anymore. That little tidbit about the more there is of something the cheaper it is applies to paper money too. That, along with unions, is why the American worker has been priced out of the world labor market.
But keep holding to your Marxist philosophy. Keep ignoring the fact that all Marxism has done is brought untold misery and suffering to the world.
Even if what you said about unions were true, they only represent about 7% of workers in the private sector. So, it wouldn't make a lot of difference if they all disappeared tomorrow.
You're right, Ralph, but when you consider the mindset of union members and how far that's penetrated the non-union workforce, well things look a bit different. I used to think like a union worker, that all businesses exploited their workers and paid them less than they were worth. Then I realized that rather than being exploited, all I was doing was unskilled work. In order to make more money and become more valuable, I've had to grow and make myself more useful to my bosses.
You are aware, aren't you Ralph, that pound for pound an automobile in 1920 was the least expensive manufactured item in the world? And that Henry Ford not only lowered costs but increased what he paid his employees, right?
Yes, I'm aware of the history of Ford. Henry Ford made a great contribution to productivity in the U.S. He also hired thugs to beat up union organizers and was a virulent anti-Semite who coseyed up to Adolf Hitler in the 1930s. Ford was the last of the auto companies to be unionized.
In my experience of 34 years in the auto industry the majority of the auto workers were conscientious and hard working. Here's a paragraph which appeared in every national agreement between the UAW and GM beginning in 1948:
"The wage increases provided herein recognize that a continuing improvement in the standard of living of employees depends upon technological progress, better tools, methods, processes and equipment and a cooperative attitude on the part of all parties in such progress. It further recognizes the principle that to produce more with the same amount of human effort is a sound economic and social objective."
The UAW from the beginning accepted that their members' economic progress was made possible by technological change. Unions in some other industries, notably the printing trades, resisted technological change and engaged in featherbedding. The officers of the UAW did not, however, depending on the relationship of the local parties there were local practices and agreements that retarded productivity. Your view of unions is an innacurate sterotype, and you go so far to blame the "union mindset" for penetrating among non-union employees. Perhaps what you meant to say is that health insurance plans, paid vacations and holidays, and socialistic defined benefit pension plans, first negotiated by unions in the auto and steel industries, spread to non-union salaried employees in those industries and to non-union workers in other industries. This is certainly true.
Perhaps you have a point about the work ethic of auto workers, Ralph but one thing that has steadily been climbing among domestic auto companies is customer complaints. A read a recent Consumers Report article on small cars, hatchbacks and the like, not one domestic auto made it into the top 10, although the Ford Focus cracked the top 15 among small sedans.
In addition, my dad spent several years in the 1990's working with a company that contracted to make parts for the GM plants in St. Louis. Now in your time worker's may have been hard working and conscientious, but that was not the case, at least at the GM St. Louis plant in the 1990's. In fact I rather believe your generation of auto worker was more productive and hard working that the current generation. The entitlement mentality of the unions didn't have time to sink in like it has over the generations.
Also employee health insurance and other "perks" supposedly bought by union tears and blood were around long before collective bargaining. Employee sponsored health plans, for example, have been around since 1910 or 1911. They didn't gain wide acceptance until FDR used it as an incentive to get people to work in war-related industries.
Perhaps the UAW was an exception in your time. But that cannot be the case anymore. Declining sales and customer abandonment have nearly destroyed the domestic auto industry.
I also, in my last occupation, had the opportunity to read various literature on HR topics. One of the items that stuck out was the relative inability to terminate union employees even with evidence of malfeasance. Now that may have been different in the UAW you knew, but that is not the case today.
And I did over generalize about unions causing the entitlement mentality, Johnson's Great Society and the culture of the baby boomers also played a large part in it. But the fact remains that there is a large amount of that mindset in union employees today. Would it surprise you to know, Ralph, that I was actually a member of two unions in my lifetime?
I agree with one of your points--there were a lot of labor problems in GM's plants in St. Louis. I spent quite a bit of time there when there were strikes and strike threats. In contrast, GM never had a problems at the Oldsmobile plant in Lansing. It is still operating (building Buicks, not Oldsmobiles) and the plants in St. Louis are closed. If anything in recent years the UAW has been much more cooperative than when I worked there. There have been very few local strikes or strike threats and a whole lot of emphasis on cooperative programs.
You mentioned quality issues--these generally don't result from problems with worker effort or care. Good quality and durability stem from management decisions about the design and specifications of the vehicles and their component parts, the application of statistical quality control methods (the U.S. companies lagged far behind the Japanese in adopting Deming's methods of quality control) and the investment in plant and equipment. There have always been and always be labor issues in auto plants, but it's a big mistake to blame the decline of U.S. auto companies on labor or labor unions. Unions aren't blameless, but they are a small part of the problem.
LDT, "What I said was that if the US worker eliminated unions and were willing to accept lower wages, we could kick start the manufacturing sector of this nation into high gear."
How much lower? Wages in China are around a dollar an hour. In Vietnam and Cambodia, more like 20 cents an hour. The clothing mfg business is leaving China for Vietnam, Canbodia and Bangladesh because the wages are too high in China. It's unrealistic to expect American manufacturing workers to compete with workers in low wage countries, working long hours, in unsafe, unhealthful plants that are polluting the world environment. Free trade may benefit many people in the U.S. by providing cheap products, but it has killed the textile and clothing mfg. industries, and it has decimated the much of the rest of the manufacturing industry. If workers in these industries are going to be sacrificed in the overall public interest more needs to be done to help them survive economically and, where possible, transistion to other occupations.
Ldt, you're slipperier than an eel!
You said: "If you're a foreigner you can't legally own land. That's one of the reasons people aren't rushing to invest in Mexico."
I disagreed, pointing out that except along the coasts where there are restrictions, anyone can buy land in Mexico. You replied "Who owns the land under the condos?" To get around the coastal restriction the land is owned by trusts and leased to the American condo buyers. Elsewhere in Mexico plenty of individual Americans and corporations own land, houses, plants, etc. You neglected to reply to my point that in the 1980s and since NAFTA there has been a huge investment by U.S. and other corporations in Mexico. At one time GM was the largest private employer in Mexico with 60-odd components, engine and assembly plants there. I suggest you try to stick to the facts, and we'll have a better discussion.
Just as I thought, livewithrichard does not live in California. There is hardly anything "opulent" about a retirement pension. Really, what a joke.
No, I don't live there but I did and I would never move back there as my only experience was in the Mojave Desert and around San Bernardino, while I was in the Army. But I think its funny that you would point it out that my not living there somehow discredits the info I presented. The pension plans in CA are opulent compared to the pensions negotiated in other states by public employees, but the point that was being made is that the very people that voted in the high taxes in CA are taking their pensions and moving to states with lower taxes.
Here ya go sweetie
Thanks for the post Tex, but as a practical matter, you can still get your land taken away from you on a whim. You're a gringo and thus you don't have protection under the law. And I think I mentioned the endemic corruption of the Mexican government. If they were really interested in protecting the rights of investors, they'd amend their Constitution.
Why bother, he's a white condescending liberal. He obviously knows how to tell us how to run our lives and where to live and how to die. The good news is that a majority of Americans seem to be abandoning that viewpoint in droves.
But then again you can't tell anything to a kumbaya liberal. They just don't get it.
I have to disagree with you two. This Liberal got it. President Obama commited suicide and took the Democratic Party with him. He stood silent and let the Health Care Bill and the Democratic Party die a painful death. We may never know the reason behind his silence on the Public Option. We may never know his reason behind his way too little, way too late backing of Democratic Candidates. If it's fear; that's understandable. If it's some highminded brilliant strategy; I dont get it, his base turned out and elected him to see some Highminded Action. We deserved his support on the Public Option, or we at least earned the right to an explanation of his insulting silence when the people of this Country and the Congress needed him the most. In the end, he was forced to push this monstrosity on the American People thereby destroying himself and his party. I'm done waiting for his actions to be explained.
There's no surprise, Friendly, Obama ran on one ticket, but once in office did exactly the opposite of what he said he was going to do. Televising the healthcare debates on C-SPAN comes to mind. Not all the closed-door nonsense we've seen. Look at the bank bailouts. He told us one thing, then it turns out the money was used by certain people to break their rivals and/or get their money back.
I don't think he was forced to push this monstrosity on anyone, this bill was what he wanted from the beginning. Why else would Republicans not have anything to do with it. They understood, at least, that to support this bill meant political suicide. Be glad this bill is dead, Friendly, it would never have come close to solving the problem. All the bill was, was a giant payoff to campaign contributors, not a sincere effort to help people. Now that it's dead, maybe we can have a real debate about the problem and the best way to deal with it.
It wont work. Unlike Bill Clinton, Barak Obama is a True Believer. It's not his policies that caused the losses in recent elections, but the candidates. There really are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
Glad to be back. I doubt I'll be on as much as I have been, but I decided to take some time off, read some good books and get back to fighting the good fight.
You're doing well, I hope.
No Ralph, I'm just thinking like a Mexican. We're not really all that well liked south of the border, don't you know. Central and South America has a history of screwing Americans and Europeans out of their investment money. It's happened numerous times in the past. If I didn't have someone I trusted down there keeping an eye on things, I'd be worried about losing my investment. Still, if you don't want to listen, it's your money, or your friends on the line not mine, so you can believe what you want.
Do you agree that Americans can buy land, except along the coasts, in Mexico and that there has been a huge amount of American money invested in Mexico during the past 25 years to take advantage of low wage costs?
I've spent a lot of time in Mexico, and while there is some resentment against the U.S. for various reasons, I've found the people their friendly and gracious to visitors. And the workers learn new jobs quickly and work very hard for very low compensation.
You may consider their wages low, but compared to most non-professional jobs in Mexico, they make much more in manufacturing than they would just about anything else. Heck my mother's family are professionals there, doctors, architects, nurses, etc. so a lady my mother works with in the States told her she wasn't a real Mexican because she was born with a silver spoon in her mouth. If she thinks that about another Mexican, how do you think she feels about gringos?
You're right, most Mexicans are kind, wonderful people. But don't think for a minute that if you buy land there, it's yours. All land is vested in the government, it says so right in their Constitution. So no, you don't have clear title to any land, much like eminent domain in the US, the Mexican government can take your land. Unlike the US, they don't really need a reason. At least here you have to build a freeway for something on the land. Since you don't have a free and clear claim on the land, you can't really own it.
I wouldn't call this an epic upset, as Massachusetts has regularly elected Republicans into state office. That tax-happy liberal image is not entirely accurate (compare Mass. taxes with nearby states like NY and you'll see why). This was without a doubt the weirdest campaign I've ever seen. From Martha's supposed friend and supporter not knowing her name to Brown's victory speech that for some reason had to include the message that his two daughters (one of whom is a teenager) are both "on the market", this is not the type of circus politics Massachusetts is used to seeing.
I am from MA and I can say circus politics defines Bawney Fwank pwetty well!
Lord knows Barney Frank ain't a circus, he's a frikin freakshow!
Coakley did not show up for the race. For there to have been a referendum the voters would have needed to have a choice. It is not over yet. Mass Dems will not let this stand. Brown should rent monthly in DC. The General Election will be great! If we are lucky Palin will show up to help out.
114 more days and Scott brown will have more experience then Obama had when he started campaigning for POTUS.
He already has more experience as a nude model for a magazine--Cosmopolitan as I recall. He may have been turned down by Playgirl. :-)
and now you marginalize the women voters by implying that a 28 year old picture is the reason they voted for him? Your hidden sexism is showing! The circular firing squad continues
He wasn't marginalizing women, he was explaining the gay male Republican vote.
Coakley shot herself in the foot. She arrogantly assumed she would win; that was her undoing.
The problem with globalization is that it has been handled in the main by people who have no interest in workers in either the developed world or developing world.
There are instances of globalization though which have been genuinely beneficial to all concerned.
The EU used its trade leverage in Thailand (and its expertize)for example, to persuade the Thai government to introduce humane working hours, health and safety regulations for products (and for factory conditions) plus a whole raft of other reforms which have improved the lives of millions.
It also meant a more level playing field for trade that benefited western workers.
If the US had taken a similar approach twenty years ago, there would be a lot less pain all around. Now, I think it is too late. The US and Europe don't have the power that they used to have to demand reforms
by Mike Russo4 years ago
I'm curious to know what have been the Republican congress accomplishments since Obama has been in office? It seems to me all they have done is criticsize everything that he has done and say no to any bill or...
by John Coviello5 years ago
Mitt Romney Has a 20 Point Lead in South Carolina. Is the GOPNomination Over? I thought that Romney would take New Hampshire, then lose some southern states, and leave the door open for someone else to come...
by Wag The Dog7 years ago
Scott Brown(R) or Martha Coakley (D)?The democrats must be scared. They sent the president in. Did it help or hurt? Who do you think will win, and Why?
by Mike Russo3 years ago
In your opinion, what has the republican congress done to create or pass legislation since Obama has been president?
by LucidDreams3 years ago
I am not saying ALL Republicans are, I am just wondering why anyone would actually stay with a party that is clearly not on the same page as most of America? Most (not all) but most who are die hard right Republicans...
by Susan Reid4 years ago
A binder full of women is bad enough.But the truth is, Romney didn't even ASK for the binder.It was supplied before he took office by women's activists.Is there anything this guy will not take credit...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.