The new party of no?

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

LOL. So what you are saying is that the trillions of dollars invested in mutual funds didnt benefit from the dot.com bubble?

LOL... I think you have a selective reading disorder.. No that is not what I am saying at all. Go back and read with a mind not already made up that I am an enemy Dem.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by jms62

LOL... I think you have a selective reading disorder.. No that is not what I am saying at all. Go back and read with a mind not already made up that I am an enemy Dem.

I think you have basic english sentence disorder. Did you not see the question mark at the end of the sentence? You responded to a post in which Riot bemoaned the loss of 30-40% of the "average american's" investments. You wrote "I agree and.."

So I asked you a question and since you brought up the dotcom bubble referenced both mutual funds AND the dotcom bubble. If you and Riot would ever actually bother to answer questions instead of promoting my supposed narrowminded political biases.

[jms62]

"So what you are saying is that the trillions of dollars invested in mutual funds didnt benefit from the dot.com bubble?"

Odd way to phrase a question no? I may not have been an English major but that sure seems like a paraphrase to me...

To answer your question, Mutual funds prospered as they racked in their fees as did the hedge funds who trade both ways. How did Mom and Pop do if they did what mom and pop always do and entered the game in 1999.. Not so much...

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

Pelosi is correctly reading what her base has been saying for 8 years. For example, Nascar keeps pointing out people don't health care, but what he neglects to realize is that a good portion of those who "don't like it" wanted far more than the few reforms that were delivered (they wanted single payer)

Look at the election results. The election threw out blue dogs, leaving the Democratic party (especially in the House) and Senate far more progressively-oriented than prior to the election, and sending a clear message to the Dems from their base.

Pelosi has always been of that bent, and now she's determined to represent that base, and part of that is preventing the President from giving away more to the GOP.

That will indeed play extremely favorably among Democrats and a significant portion of independents.

The Dem governor association will also become more active (purposely), the main thrust will be to get single-payer health care established in several states (Oregon, Vermont first) before the next election.

The GOP has moved far to the right in the past 10 years, virtually eliminating their middle. Now the Dems have just moved more to the left, kicking out the blue dogs.

Yes, the GOP is very unhappy with the re-entrenchment of the Dems even more to the left, but the Dem base is thrilled. They want to make Obama stop cowtowing to the GOP, and Pelosi and Reid will both now take that stand.

I still think the GOP will end up with Romney as the GOP nominee.

The GOP will always be at a significant disadvantage in numbers in the future, as the white rural older vote (their base) is shrinking in numbers, while minority-young voters are increasing exponentially and will soon be "the majority" in this country. The GOP continues to move further and further from the largest growing voter blocks across the country. They have to recapture a significant number of "independents" to win the next election (their base is outnumbered by Dem base, but more predictably shows at elections) I doubt it will happen with the Tea Party dragging the GOP farther and farther to the right. We'll see.

And regarding your favorite girl Sarah, I do think it's Palin that is the "most unpopular" politician in the country. But hey, at least she supports the North Koreans. South Koreans. Whatever.

Palin is a former politician and current entertainer. Pelosi is by far the most unpopular politician in the country. Even the dems hate Pelosi and blame her for the historic election collapse.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

Wow. If she were trying to "pimp some senior votes", you'd think they would have done this, you know, before the election, when it would have resulted in some votes It's been discussed for a year.

Nobody has intertwined our income tax structure with social security COLA, as you are doing above. Interesting.

Social security is fine for the next 40 years, even if we do nothing, isn't it?

40 years is a very very very short amount of time.

It is fine for the old people and baby boomers, and that is really it.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Passed largest budget-cut in history - over 1 billion to reduce the deficit in one year - Obama, Pelosi, Reid

When you spend 3 billion on a mis-guided cash for clunkers program a budget cut of 1 billion is an insult. How much will the Pelosi $250 per senior cost?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I dont really care what those guys publicaly said. 2 mega rich old guy Democrats who are suffering from guilty consciences. Think they got rich giving money away and asking to be taxed at a higher rate? Find me a 40 year old non-liberal billionaire that agrees.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2010/11/...line-on-taxes/

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

So the trillions made by the average americans over the last 30 years not only by individual investments and retirement funds but by institutional investments such as pension funds is negated by losses? I guess you forgot that there is risk involved and no one was complaining when their nest eggs went up 500% during the boom times...

You missed the entire point. Or are simply avoiding it purposely with a straw man regarding the investment world, which is not the topic.

Currently Social Security funds are not in "risk involved" investments. To privatize social security would put them there. The private sector lost nearly half their investments when Wall Street crashed. Thank goodness that wasn't their Social Security funds, privatized by Bush.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Yeah we are in imminent danger.

You should be scared when the GOP has been blocking normal business for our country for two years, just to try and damage Obama, so they can try and win back the Presidency in 2012.

Routine government business and funding, blocked, treaties in effect since Reagan (hell a treaty Reagan and the GOP created and supported!) blocked .... it's a miracle that Pelosi-Reid-Obama got accomplished as much as they did, considering they needed to overcome the excessive filibuster vote requirement, not the Constitutional majority vote requirement in the Senate, virtually every time something was passed.

BTW, this is a pretty funny website (just insert the f word in the URL if it won't click through): http://www.whatthe****hasobamadonesofar.com/

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

If you and Riot would ever actually bother to answer questions instead of promoting my supposed narrowminded political biases.

You might stick to the actual discussion instead of insisting on only debating with your straw man friends.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

Palin is a former politician and current entertainer. Pelosi is by far the most unpopular politician in the country. Even the dems hate Pelosi and blame her for the historic election collapse.

We disagree, I guess. The Dems love Pelosi, and installed her right back into her leadership position. And from what I've seen, they mostly blame Obama not messaging correctly for the loss of House seats

Still don't understand how this could be called "historic collapse"? when the GOP did not win back the Senate (first time in history that happened, that was a historic loss for the GOP), and the Dems loss less seats this time than the last two changeovers elections?

Have you seen what that idiot backsliding liar John McCain and his buddy Lindsey Graham were saying on the Sunday talk shows about their still trying to block DADT? Morons.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

When you spend 3 billion on a mis-guided cash for clunkers program a budget cut of 1 billion is an insult. How much will the Pelosi $250 per senior cost?

You don't keep up with current political news, do you? And yes, cutting 1 billion out of the deficit is a very good thing, even if you didn't personally like a line item in last year's budget. BTW, have you seen the success of the government bailout of the auto industry? The taxpayers are making back their money on that one, and look at the industry saved, and the numbers of jobs saved (No, Dems cannot message worth a darn)

And we can cut 700 billion more out of the budget over the next 10 years, if the GOP would stop insisting that their corporate donation friends, the top 2% of earners (millionaires and billionaires) in the US, get an extra tax cut over and above the tax cut on income $250K or less get. I thought the GOP was in favor of lowering the deficit and fiscal responsibility? No?

Here's 'the' Austan Goolsby explaining it: http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and...plains-tax-cut

BTW, Obama announced a 2-yr freeze on federal salaries today (except military) - that's 1.3 billion saved over 2 years.

It's beyond obvious what we have to get rid of, in order to cut our deficit in the future:

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

You missed the entire point. Or are simply avoiding it purposely with a straw man regarding the investment world, which is not the topic.

Currently Social Security funds are not in "risk involved" investments. To privatize social security would put them there. The private sector lost nearly half their investments when Wall Street crashed. Thank goodness that wasn't their Social Security funds, privatized by Bush.

I started a thread to ask a few simple questions about the views of the boards participants (democrats in particular) on the strategy employed now by the Democrats and whether you are comfortable with party leadership which now considers Obama to be center-right?

I have not even seen one attempt to answer those questions.

I asked JMS if he thought that mutual funds (and in turn those who are invested in them) benefitted from the dotcom bubble.

He failed to answer and wants to move the conversation to the fees chargedd by funds.

But I am the person who is avoiding topics or creating "strawmen"?

So it is ok to make a blanket statement that Wall Street cost the average investor 30-40% but I have to break financial sectors down?

And who talked about SS finds other than you?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

You should be scared when the GOP has been blocking normal business for our country for two years, just to try and damage Obama, so they can try and win back the Presidency in 2012.

Routine government business and funding, blocked, treaties in effect since Reagan (hell a treaty Reagan and the GOP created and supported!) blocked .... it's a miracle that Pelosi-Reid-Obama got accomplished as much as they did, considering they needed to overcome the excessive filibuster vote requirement, not the Constitutional majority vote requirement in the Senate, virtually every time something was passed.

BTW, this is a pretty funny website (just insert the f word in the URL if it won't click through): http://www.whatthe****hasobamadonesofar.com/

Yes because the GOP is evil and the Democrats are all faithful public servants that always have the common good at heart...

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

You might stick to the actual discussion instead of insisting on only debating with your straw man friends.

Your refusal to answer my questions is really quite telling.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

We disagree, I guess. The Dems love Pelosi, and installed her right back into her leadership position. And from what I've seen, they mostly blame Obama not messaging correctly for the loss of House seats

Still don't understand how this could be called "historic collapse"? when the GOP did not win back the Senate (first time in history that happened, that was a historic loss for the GOP), and the Dems loss less seats this time than the last two changeovers elections?

Have you seen what that idiot backsliding liar John McCain and his buddy Lindsey Graham were saying on the Sunday talk shows about their still trying to block DADT? Morons.

LOl

The GOP is doomed and full of tea party loving idiots and yet they still managed to pick up the house? That is historic when a party that is supposedly on the same path to destruction as the Whigs can do so well.

And Pelosi is hardly "loved" by all the Democrats. Here is a poll taken less than 2 weeks ago in which 47% of Democrats say they prefer someone other than Pelosi as minority leader.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...-house-leader/

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I started a thread to ask a few simple questions about the views of the boards participants (democrats in particular) on the strategy employed now by the Democrats and whether you are comfortable with party leadership which now considers Obama to be center-right?

I have not even seen one attempt to answer those questions.

I asked JMS if he thought that mutual funds (and in turn those who are invested in them) benefitted from the dotcom bubble.

He failed to answer and wants to move the conversation to the fees chargedd by funds.

But I am the person who is avoiding topics or creating "strawmen"?

So it is ok to make a blanket statement that Wall Street cost the average investor 30-40% but I have to break financial sectors down?

And who talked about SS finds other than you?

When in doubt, just start flingin' random contentions out!

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

When in doubt, just start flingin' random contentions out!

Perhaps someone could explain what is so random about what i asked? Why are you so afraid to answer the questions? They arent that tricky.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Your refusal to answer my questions is really quite telling.

I haven't refused. I answered it in my first post on this thread.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

We've answered the question. I'll say it again. The GOP will not come to the center through negotiation. You seem to think a less Liberal Democratic Leader in the House would help the Democrats to negotiate with the GOP. That is a false assumption, because the GOP doesn't negotiate. They are forced (and shamed) into doing things. What the President needs to do (to help his own party) is have votes taken on issues that the majority of voting Americans disagree with the GOP on. That's the only way to get the GOP to "deal." If he does try to negotiate with the GOP, it will be him giving in to them. They will give him zip. So, this "negotiation" should only be done on issues where the Majority of American Voters are against the Democrats. This tax extention stuff is not one of those issues. He needs to make the GOP vote against extending the Middle Class tax break.