Random Post Election Thoughts

[Danzig]

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell gave no sign that he was willing to concede his conservative principles, signaling potential confrontations ahead.

"The voters have not endorsed the failures or excesses of the president's first term, they have simply given him more time to finish the job they asked him to do together with a Congress that restored balance to Washington after two years of one-party control," McConnell said.


yeah, it'll be more of the same. great.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Danzig

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell gave no sign that he was willing to concede his conservative principles, signaling potential confrontations ahead.

"The voters have not endorsed the failures or excesses of the president's first term, they have simply given him more time to finish the job they asked him to do together with a Congress that restored balance to Washington after two years of one-party control," McConnell said.


yeah, it'll be more of the same. great.

Yes let's all hold our breath until we get what we want. Compromise is a sign of weakness. Send the country over the cliff instead of compromise.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by jms62

Yes let's all hold our breath until we get what we want. Compromise is a sign of weakness. Send the country over the cliff instead of compromise.

You want to avoid the cliff? Tell your president to stop spending over a trillion dollars a year more than the tax revenue.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by joeydb

You want to avoid the cliff? Tell your president to stop spending over a trillion dollars a year more than the tax revenue.

How you doing Joey? FWIW you handicapped this election pretty fuking absymally.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

You want to avoid the cliff? Tell your president to stop spending over a trillion dollars a year more than the tax revenue.

here joey, maybe this will help you out in the 'blame game'.

http://www.harkin.senate.gov/press/column.cfm?i=237366

Q. How does this process start off each year?


A. The President submits a budget to Congress in early February. This lays out the President’s priorities, and includes details as to how much money he wants allocated to each federal program. The budget request also sets forth the President’s wishes with regard to reducing or raising taxes. However, the President’s proposed budget is only a recommendation. Congress has the “power of the purse.” And under the Constitution, it is Congress’s job to actually write and pass the budget.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by joeydb

You want to avoid the cliff? Tell your president to stop spending over a trillion dollars a year more than the tax revenue.

You must be very relieved Obama won, then, since Romney was proposing adding another two trillion dollars to the defense budget. Or are deficits only important when the President is a Democrat?

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

You must be very relieved Obama won, then, since Romney was proposing adding another two trillion dollars to the defense budget. Or are deficits only important when the President is a Democrat?

You want to play games go ahead. Go smoke some of the newly legalized pot in Colorado.

Party on, dude...

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by joeydb

You want to play games go ahead. Go smoke some of the newly legalized pot in Colorado.

Party on, dude...

Speaking of:

[jms62]

Originally Posted by joeydb

You want to play games go ahead. Go smoke some of the newly legalized pot in Colorado.

Party on, dude...

That is your response? "You want to play games go ahead?" And then you go completely off topic. Respond to her post rather then your stock " Don't play games" which you tend to use when someone schools you and you have no way to defend yourself.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by jms62

That is your response? "You want to play games go ahead?" And then you go completely off topic. Respond to her post rather then your stock " Don't play games" which you tend to use when someone schools you and you have no way to defend yourself.

Eh, I didn't expect any different. During the summer he posted a screed about how abortion is murder, and when I tried to get him to get specific on what legal punishment he felt was appropriate for women who aborted pregnancies (execution? prison term? and how long?), he got all waffly, insisting that was up to the states to decide, even though I made it clear I was asking his personal opinion of what he, as someone who personally felt abortion was murder, felt was appropriate punishment. I have no idea if he ever finally answered the question.

There are people who confuse their political affiliation with their sports team and their behavior reflects accordingly.

[Calzone Lord]

For the democrats, 2016 will probably come down to Mark Warner of Virgina VS a big name from the north like Hilary, Biden, or Cuomo.

I think Mark Warner has been planning and calculating a president run since 2004...and he's made all of the right moves, especially getting out of the way in 2008 and accepting the keynote speech at Obama's first convention ... Obama had the keynote at Kerry's convention and Clinton had the keynote at the '88 convention.

I would make Mark Warner a big favorite to be the nominee in 2016 unless Obama leaves up insanely popular.


On the republican side -- it's Chris Christie VS the best bible beating candidate that emerges.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

For the democrats, 2016 will probably come down to Mark Warner of Virgina VS a big name from the north like Hilary, Biden, or Cuomo.

I think Mark Warner has been planning and calculating a president run since 2004...and he's made all of the right moves, especially getting out of the way in 2008 and accepting the keynote speech at Obama's first convention ... Obama had the keynote at Kerry's convention and Clinton had the keynote at the '88 convention.

I would make Mark Warner a big favorite to be the nominee in 2016 unless Obama leaves up insanely popular.


On the republican side -- it's Chris Christie VS the best bible beating candidate that emerges.

You don't think Rubio will make a play for the GOP nod?

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

For the democrats, 2016 will probably come down to Mark Warner of Virgina VS a big name from the north like Hilary, Biden, or Cuomo.

I think Mark Warner has been planning and calculating a president run since 2004...and he's made all of the right moves, especially getting out of the way in 2008 and accepting the keynote speech at Obama's first convention ... Obama had the keynote at Kerry's convention and Clinton had the keynote at the '88 convention.

I would make Mark Warner a big favorite to be the nominee in 2016 unless Obama leaves up insanely popular.


On the republican side -- it's Chris Christie VS the best bible beating candidate that emerges.

paul ryan did a lot to distinguish himself during the campaign. i'd make him the early favorite over christie as the "moderate" republican choice.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

For the democrats, 2016 will probably come down to Mark Warner of Virgina VS a big name from the north like Hilary, Biden, or Cuomo.

I think Mark Warner has been planning and calculating a president run since 2004...and he's made all of the right moves, especially getting out of the way in 2008 and accepting the keynote speech at Obama's first convention ... Obama had the keynote at Kerry's convention and Clinton had the keynote at the '88 convention.

I would make Mark Warner a big favorite to be the nominee in 2016 unless Obama leaves up insanely popular.


On the republican side -- it's Chris Christie VS the best bible beating candidate that emerges.

Hillary and Biden will be too old. Cuomo has to be considered the fav at this point as he is a skilled politician, is a popular Gov (at this point) in a Democratic stronghold with plenty of old guard support.

Christie started running the day the hurricane hit but he is a flawed candidate who has really pissed off many in the GOP with his over the top praise of Obama in the Hurricane aftermath. That won't be forgotten by the GOP.

[Calzone Lord]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Hillary and Biden will be too old. Cuomo has to be considered the fav at this point as he is a skilled politician, is a popular Gov (at this point) in a Democratic stronghold with plenty of old guard support.

Christie started running the day the hurricane hit but he is a flawed candidate who has really pissed off many in the GOP with his over the top praise of Obama in the Hurricane aftermath. That won't be forgotten by the GOP.

Cuomo would make Mark Warner all the more inevitable.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

Cuomo would make Mark Warner all the more inevitable.

Why?

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Hillary and Biden will be too old. Cuomo has to be considered the fav at this point as he is a skilled politician, is a popular Gov (at this point) in a Democratic stronghold with plenty of old guard support.

Christie started running the day the hurricane hit but he is a flawed candidate who has really pissed off many in the GOP with his over the top praise of Obama in the Hurricane aftermath. That won't be forgotten by the GOP.

Oh, God, please no. Please, please, please no. Can someone get RH10 to say he's a shoo-in? Please?

[cal828]

Originally Posted by joeydb

You want to avoid the cliff? Tell your president to stop spending over a trillion dollars a year more than the tax revenue.

I'm not the most informed person when it comes to taxes for sure, so somebody tell me:

1. Would there be a "fiscal cliff," if the Bush tax cuts had never been been put in place?

2. If tax cuts were the solution to all our problems, then why aren't we up to our necks in jobs, after said tax cuts were put in place?

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by cal828

I'm not the most informed person when it comes to taxes for sure, so somebody tell me:

1. Would there be a "fiscal cliff," if the Bush tax cuts had never been been put in place?

2. If tax cuts were the solution to all our problems, then why aren't we up to our necks in jobs, after said tax cuts were put in place?

1:The tax cuts were the biggest contributor to the deficit, but starting two wars and Medicare Part D didn't help. The big problem is, the tax cuts were passed on the condition that they were temporary, but when it came time to repeal them, the economy was in a deep recession and it was political poison to do so.

And there was no sound reasoning for passing them. Originally it was, "We have a surplus and the economy is going great guns! Ergo, tax cuts!" Then, after the tech market crashed and the projected surplus vanished, it became, "The economy is in trouble! Ergo, tax cuts!"

2: Tax cuts don't create jobs. Demand for products and services creates jobs. I don't understand how the entire nation has been hornswaggled by the tax cuts create jobs ridiculousness. And to create enough demand, you need a large middle class with income to spend.

[cal828]

{I don't understand how the entire nation has been hornswaggled by the tax cuts create jobs ridiculousness. And to create enough demand, you need a large middle class with income to spend.}

Well, maybe not the entire nation. And I think your last sentence hits the nail on the head. Middle class has been decimated by the shipping of jobs to China, Mexico, Guatemala, et al by the corporate crowd. So not only does Obama have to deal with a recalcitrant Congress, but probably more importantly, also figure out how to bring jobs back to the U.S. What a daunting task.