I'm not surprised with VA, but NJ? Wow. That's like a navy blue state.
…and great news for deregulation! Maybe Enron gets a pardon. That means better news for the middle class...uh… I can't wait to continue to cough up my 33% in taxes why those who didn't suffer job displacement and constant threats of layoff get their tax write-offs back.
Of course, then again, with the lowest unemployment and government surplus wiped out under Bush, why am I not celebrating? I got my $200 surplus checks that didn’t cover anything but student loans and left me in debt. In addition, it took away my job security and my belief in free enterprise. Thank God, we got the neo-cons back. Goldwater is turning in his grave. Conservatives will implement their church and moral agendas, squeeze the small business with no help on health care and limit the power of wage increases for lower classes. You are correct. Yeah! Republican control is coming!
LOL, above. Well written (twalker, never TK)!
What I would say is that 3.25 years is a long time (I'll just bet the economy improves in that time), and the Republicans are digging their graves deeper and deeper.
Haha, much love for the "professional." I have no issue with the haves wanting to hold on. It is natural. And I believe that anyone who has worked hard to gain financial stability deserves to hold onto it. I am no economist and would like to believe that a flat tax is the most rational answer to tax issues. Yet, I have talked with a professor at Cal State Dominguez some time back and he explained the problems. They made a little sense, but honestly, most was beyond my understanding.
I was a long-living-card-caring-member of conservative "values." Now I say conservative in the sense of William F Buckley and Berry Goldwater. Still, every time this country has allowed business to run on its own, problems don't leak out, they explode. You give a break to people and instead of reinvesting in the company they give bonuses and shareholder bumps. Yes, that is how it works, but it doesn't make it right. The Republican Party (by the way I was raised) was a party of intellectuals. I am hard pressed to find this group alive in the Party now. And due to the current economic situation, I believe true free market viability is about as probable as Marxism, Locke-ism, true Democracy, or any wonderfully constructed governmental philosophy. Our inherent imperfections mean we require regulation and guidance. I am not happy about paying higher taxes to level the playing field, but it is better than the chips being taken away and I am not given a shot.
and thanks Lita
Yeah, those damn Republicans are in fear of Obama and the gang!
And that is what scares me. Fear is far more effective in politics than any other emotion.
The Labor Union would like to donate all their tools in storage
I think the GOP wins in VA and NJ are going to have a profound impact on the Blue Dogs and how they vote for the health care bill - especially the ones from red states. Most of our representatives are more worried about re-election than about helping US citizens.
I respectfully disagree, Tex. What got BO elected was the hope and belief that he wasn't just another politician. Hope springs eternal...
Well they didn't get a politician. They got a community organizer. How's that working for us?
Isn't that the definition of stupidity? "that he wasn't just another politician" anyone who thought that after all that was discovered before the election would have to be stupid!
I did think that when the Dem's pitched it, but his strategy so far has been identical with FDR and the Depression. The weekly podcasts instead of the radio and throwing money at anything that looks bad. FDR caught the same crap BO is catching. From being a socialist all the way down to a complete failure. He barely won his second election because Americans (and I am one) think that it should already be solved. But how can a problem be solved in nine months? It always takes a shorter time to destroy something than to build. The New Deal didn't really work because it was primarily government paid jobs, but the attitude changed. Obama's problem is that the other side is paying attention to the past and trying to push down optimism. We love the victory—the aftereffects are meaningless.
Are you aware that FDR ran on a platform to end the spending programs initiated by...wait for it...Herbert Hoover? It's true, look up his speeches during the 1932 campaign and you'll see for yourself.
Contrast that with what Harding did in 1920. The economy was in dire straits back then as well, the only difference from 1929 was that there was not a spectacular stock market dive like 1929. Banks were still closing, manufacturers were still laying people off, it was a depression. Harding did nothing and a year later, we were in the midst of the Roaring Twenties.
Look at what Regan did, cut taxes, eliminated excess liquidity and the stagflation of the 1970's was gone. Things have always improved when we have leadership in Washington which leaves things alone and always makes things worse when they get involved.
I didn't vote for him, but I naively thought that just maybe he'd be different.
He is our first communist President, thats different!
Sorry, FDR was the first communist.
He has been different. And despite all the things the people on both the right and left have pretended to believe he said while on the campaign trail, he is steadily doing exactly what he said he would do.
The problem is that a lot of people imagined him saying he would do things that he never promised.
Tex, that's just not true - he is NOT a communist.
He's a socialist.
The wins in VA an NJ have got the spinning pundits fighting to be heard. The election is meaningless because the right candidates won over some pretty crappy ones. The pundits would have you buy into it having a statement as to Obamas popularity. He had to appear at these functions because he is the head of the party.
If the republicans can present a candidate that has some idea as to how to run the country in 2012 Obama may not repeat. If that is the case then the better candidate will have been elected.
Remember these elactions are now being determined by independents and not the two parties.
That's the most intelligent thing I think I have ever heard you say! Keep up the good work.
Don't get mad just because your party lost.
What do you mean? My party decides the elections now. Remember the independents. We vote issues not bias.
Did we "imagine" that BO said lobbyists and special interest groups would have no role in his White House, or than unemployment would not go above 8% if the stimulus passed, or that Gitmo would be closed? He also promised no increase in taxes for the middle class. Most pundits agree that there will have to be an increase in taxes to pay for the health care bill - including those on the middle class. BO excoriated McCain for suggesting insurance policies be taxed, now his Congress is suggesting doing the same thing.
Don't exaggerate the significance of the GOP wins in Virginia and New Jersey. Creigh Deeds ran a poor campaign, and several positions he took were quite conservative--opposed a health care public option, opposed cap and trade legislation, said public employees should not be unionized. This meant that Virginia voters' choice was between a conservative and a very conservative. Not a good way to inspire the Democratic base. In New Jersey, Corzine lost on his own record of failing to deliver on some of his promises. Obama's approval rating in New Jersey is 61%. In NYC Bloomberg, a Rhino republican or closet Democrat and a friend of Obama, spent a record $100 million to win that race.
And of course, nobody has mentioned the defeat of Doug Hoffman, the right wing whackjob candidate for Congress in upstate New York. After shooting the GOP candidate in the head, Palin, Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, Glenn Beck and other right wing ideologues supported Hoffman who ran as a Conservative Party candidate. Despite the support of the right wing of the GOP Hoffman lost decisively to the Democrat Bill Owens.
Thus, none of the elections signify a GOP revival.
There was a great column by David Brooks in the NYT a month ago - he pointed out that Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity and others have virtually no influence on candidates and elections. We can add Sarah Palin to that list now, too.
I love that this district was Republican for over 100 years, and finally got a Democrat the minute those loons started weighing in on the race.
They are just horrible advertising or PR for 'their' party (and it seems by default, as the Repubs flounder for any grip on reality, it is becoming 'their' party). I cannot believe there are people who take anything they say seriously--it's like looking in a funny mirror--their vision and views (and those of whom support them, as well) are so distorted.
I'm glad Owens won. However, I agree this "Republican backlash/takeover" story is naught but an exaggeration. But hey, it's good copy and sells papers, especially when some parties out there are grasping at straws.
I think over the next 5-10 years, some actual leaders will emerge from the right-wing echo chamber and aggregate a viable party (which will annoy the pundits and the dittoheads, but hopefully by then they'll realize they're irrelevant). Until then, to paraphrase Bill Maher, we have a center-right governing party (the Democrats).
LOL! Next year is gonna be so much fun. I don't know what I'll enjoy more, the desperate spin or the silence of seething bitterness. It'll be fun to find out!
You are not strong on nuance...but then we all know that.
You could just go ahead and decide now. Will you be spinning or silent?
Oh I see. You'll just repeat the same B.S. and hope it makes sense in 2010? Good luck with that.
So many ridiculous TK posts...so little time. Let's see there's
"hey, no personal attacks" (as if you're not the main perpetrator)
"Obama is a Communist"
"Republicans are smart gol darnnit"
" I AM NOT AN ANIMALLLLLLLLLLLLLL"
I didn't say any of those things. Are you dishonest?
Ron you need to start using the chin strap and your mouth gaurd.
And you might consider fewer trips to the free taco bar.
I can lose weight but how are _ _ _ going _ _ overcome _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Malfuctions?
Are you ridiculing someone's weight? Are you engaging in personal attacks again?
That doesn't answer my question no matter how 'cute' you try to type it.
OK, comment on my photo and I'll answer your question.
No conditions. Answer my question, then you can ask one of your own.
No really man,I need to know. Should I lose some weight?
Answer my question, then you can ask one of your own.
Are you ridiculing someone's weight? Are you engaging in personal attacks again?
That's not paraphrasing. That's just blatant dishonesty. Why do you feel you need to resort to blatant dishonesty?
I think you're understating the significance or missing the significance of Doug Hoffman. Sure he lost but that may have been just as much because of Scozzafava as Owens. From my understanding New York doesn't have a primary and this may have had an effect on the campaign of the principals involved. Had Hoffman had more than a month or so of campaign time, he might very well have won.
More important than the party, Lita, is the message, wouldn't you agree? The significance of the Hoffman candidacy is that there may be an emerging third choice. You like to ridicule the Tea Party and 9/12 people, but I think in doing so you underestimate the movement.
It may very well be that things will be politics as usual in 2010 and even 2012, but the following elections may be rather surprising. When you get down to it, both parties are corrupt and are in the game for their supporters only. There is a rather large part of the population that is locked out of the political process because there really is no good choices for them. Hoffman's candidacy shows that things might be changing, for all of us.
The East is not the Midwest...or, God forbid, Alaska, LDT. Needless to say, the NYT, as well as Newt Gingrich (even), may agree with me.
I don't "like to ridicule," the Tea Party people; that must be your assumption of what a liberal does. But yes, I find them irrelevant: ie, people whose basic political ideology is to hate the idea of ideas in general do not have my respect. This is absolutely NOT a 3rd party that I would like to see arise.
I think that people put too much emphasis on location and traditionally blue vs traditionally red states or districts or whatever. You're right, I make assumptions. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
How do you get from people who want to see limited government being people who hate ideas? I'm a proponent of no government, but I'm willing to go back to a limited one because no government is kind of an advanced concept for people educated under a Progressive public educational system.
As for the Dems, doesn't it bother you that groups like ACORN are actively encouraging things like getting housing for people who plan to engage in the underage sex trade or that SEIU members beat and kicked a guy handing out American flags at a town hall meeting in St. Louis? What about the "Obama Truth Squad"? Nationally it was worth a sound bite or two, but here in Missouri, it was big news. Especially when the State Patrol released a report a few months later equating veterans with "right wing militias", something that also covered the Justice Department in the first few months of Obama's administration.
Isn't this the sort of thing that led to Waco and Ruby Ridge? The ATF and FBI wanted a PR coup and by their bungling, things went horribly wrong.
The ACORN connection to Obama/the Democratic party I consider too stupid to even discuss. Sorry, LDT... But Newsweek and other valid news sources have called any connection patently false.
The look at militia and right wing conspiracy groups I know a little about...as that is all under our former Governor, Napolitano. Actually, the report was initially shouted down, only to be resurrected again, after several supposedly right wing extremist inspired violent acts have ocurred (such as the Holocaust museum incident). And, uh, no. I don't see how you equate this with what went down in Waco. The study concentrates on possible public threats, given the social climate existing today. I see it as wise, before more lynchings like what happened to the censor worker in the deep south occur.
And it remains my opinion that the misinformed (for whatever reason)...and sometimes just crazy...really have no business in setting any sort of policy. It isn't an advanced concept not to have concepts. lol I am a proponent of a natural meritocracy governing (if you remember that conversation, LDT). I may lean left in some ways, but I am a realist (and that doesn't equate to elitist either). I just don't want a Sarah Palin anywhere near any meaningful buttons.
Too inconvenient, too uncomfortable, too indefensible...
Too stupid and already proven insane...like some other 'things.' Better to ignore.
Yes, avoid whatever doesn't fit all the prejudices and presumptions. Easier on the ego that way.
No. I want a meaningful conversation NOT with a --- who leaves 15-20 ridiculous harassing comments on my hub. I have NO interest in any communication with YOU at all, so leave off.
Given the context, anything you utter just seems more crazy and moronic.
Too stupid to discuss? Oh well. All I'll say is that authority doesn't automatically confer veracity. The only real authority with which we can speak with any true knowledge is our own experiences.
That report came out long before that census worker was murdered, so you really can't say that those reports prevented much of anything. Even so, are you assuming that veterans are responsible for that. The report said that veterans were likely to join "right wing militias".
A natural meritocracy, eh? Ever read Thomas Jefferson and what he had to say about a natural meritocracy? I think you and he would get along famously. You may have an issue with "crazy" people setting policy, but I have a problem with people setting policy to help out their friends while forgetting their oaths they took upon entering office.
I have satisfied myself, LDT, that the ACORN 'matter' is closed by reading several valid sources. And your saying that all we have is our own experiences is actually quite postmodern of you: read lol, perceived as liberal as a philosophy.
And, well, my bf is a Vet...but/and a liberal. He doesn't seem threatened by the reports at all. Must be how the reports are being portrayed by the rightist press that is the issue, I'd imagine.
And trust me, if the Sarah Palins or other loonies were left to run the asylum, we'd be SOL beyond people calling in favors. I've seen it done in businesses--trust me, that's enough. I'm all in favor of bright people. It may just be my prejudice, but one I'm comfortable with.
Postmodern? Yes and no. While I do give experience more weight, there is still something to be said for "book" learning too. I try not to get too tied up in the liberal vs conservative thing, although some days I do better than others. If I had to label myself, I'd say utilitarian. Go with what works and Occam's razor is the preferred method of shaving.
I think we're in agreement that just about any politician is corrupt and willing to take a bribe, right or left. Which is why I'm in favor of a minimalist government. Or do you really think we're better off now than we were a year ago. Actually wait to answer that question. January of February should be long enough. By then we'll have gotten beyond the false "stimulus" and see how the real economy is doing. That will be the real proof, don't you think? That's why I think next year's elections are going to be rather interesting.
Have you ever so much as set foot in Alaska?
Have you ever heard even one person who ever attended one Tea Party ever say that was their political ideology? Or is this just another arrogant dismissal and dishonest representation of American citizens who might have commited the sin of holding views that do not accord with your own?
No influence? Then why a fairness doctrine?
Looks like it's gonna be 'spin.'
Oh, and good job "never posting on the forums again." LOL
Why do you guys get so upset when debating politics? Can't we just debate like adults?
The dialogue here is so brilliant I must make digital copies! But then it is to be expected, .
With friendly, down-to-earth, hard working people. But, I guess some folks could never forgive the crime of not being NY or LA...
Jack Donaghy learned his lesson last week. Have you?
I've never watched that show, so your reference lacks impact.
NYC and LA have down-to-earth, hard-working people. But, I guess some folks would never consider them "real America."
No, LDT. I don't think all politicians are corrupt. I think it is a more complex matter than that. Perhaps the more you see, the less absolutes you see. Certainly there is corruption...more than anything, I think perhaps, there are egos and people who seek/have a need to control. These are actually mentally ill, I believe, but also have the qualities to propel them to positions of power...
There is an interesting book I want to buy:
Evil Genes: Why Rome Fell, Hitler Rose, Enron Failed and My Sister Stole My Mother’s Boyfriend
http://www.barbaraoakley.com/_font_face … _61276.htm
She looks at this very idea.
But I think there are decent people who serve in the government (as well as in other institutions--I make no exception for private or public entities, as we have discussed) as well. The point is in the idea of "service" as leadership rather than the old, weary idea of presumed privilege and a big ego reigning supreme.
And, yeah. I believe the economy is improving (as it always does...I'm beginning to think most people are rather like children who cannot see past the next 'quarter'). However, in all honesty, that cannot be placed on Obama's shoulders if it improves or if it does not improve.
Meaning you think you've 'seen' more than he has?
If you really want to know what's going to happen, you need to look at the history of monetary policy. Very illuminating. Funny you should mention the Roman Empire, most of their decline was due to economics: http://mises.org/story/3663
I rather think there are players who want us focused only on this quarter or the next quarter. I'm a fan of talking a look at the big picture.
I was, perhaps, too strong in my denunciation of politicians, many do at least start out with good intentions. And there are a number of good and decent people who work in government. In fact, I'm acquainted with quite a few people like that and often times they're the only think that keeps things going.
Didn't we talk about Maslow and his self esteem stage being made up of two parts at one time? Those who achieve that stage and move on to self actualization and those who remain trapped in the esteem stage because of their nature to control and be worshiped by the objects of their control.
At any rate, I'll have to keep an eye out for Evil Genes, the premise is interesting, but I think the true cause of things like empires falling is a bit more complex than that.
Of course it is more complex than that. lol Beyond psychology, we come to sociology. But part of the puzzle.
And you are right concerning Maslow...however that is configured. It's a bastardization somehow--narcissism and megalomania.
I just call it spoiled brat. I saw it a lot with over permissive parents and those who had nothing at all to do with their kids.
Oakley seems to suggest it is more complex than that, .
No...I imagine it is both nature/nurture as I know it is discussed. Because as you can see within families, even, some good, intact parents have some insane outa control kids...and it looks like it makes no sense.
Some research seems to point to both being a factor. Genome determines possibility while environment determines the manifestation. A lot of my dad's family are alcoholics, for example, yet neither my brother, sister nor I drink to excess, nor do we have a craving for it. My sister is a bit more wild than my brother and I, mostly because by the time they got around to her they were pretty permissive. 10 years between her and I is a bit much to expect for consistency I guess.
Still, I've worked with kids who seemed hellbent on killing themselves, drinking themselves to death, having a kid before they were out of highschool, etc. and that particular kid, I'm very happy to say has gone on to college, has a two year old and doing very well by all accounts. I can think of another kid we treated who was very bright and had everything going for her who took up with an older man, is an alcoholic and dropped out of school. If I learned anything from that, it's that you never can tell.
by Tim Mitchell 2 weeks ago
An interesting article I read; How Fear and Anger Impact Democracy (May 21, 2019) brings some light on the OP title. It is an essay published in Items, Insights from the Social Sciences of the Social Science Research Council.The article in my view shares what we may have long suspected and lived...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 8 months ago
The Democratic Party have institutionalized socioeconomic policies which are the detriment to America such as welfare & a governmental health program known as Obamacare. Because of the Democratic Party, we have generational welfare which the onus of tax is on the middle...
by Nicola Thompson 11 years ago
Have you ever changed your political stance? What changed your mind? What would change your mind?I find that usually people are stuck to the political side they have chosen. Is it possible to change sides? What might be inspiring to one to go from republican to libertarian? Extreme left to the...
by Scott Belford 11 months ago
In my opinion, yes - the Republican Party no-longer exists today even though Trump followers incorrectly refer to themselves as Republicans.Let me open this discussion with a short tutorial of the Republican Party (now keep in mind, the Party title has no bearing on the Party philosophy and any...
by Greensleeves Hubs 7 years ago
The Conservative Party has always been the major right of centre party in the UK - the party of Churchill, Thatcher, Cameron and current Prime Minister Theresa May. A party which believes in strong fiscal policy and freedom of the individual. A party, most of whose members believe in immigration...
by Credence2 10 years ago
Excellent op-ed page that discusses conservatism taking two distinct tracts. Have a read and share your opinion, please. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 … /?src=recg
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|