• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A Turning Point For Democrats?

Is this a turning point for Democrats?


  • Total voters
    20
  • Poll closed .
ah conservative....i see you have had a relapse since our last encounter.....this thread isnt about obama, its about the midterms...get with the program!!

And midterms about continued support for the failed Obama agenda and the results generated.
 
Well this is a perfect example of why Congress has such a low approval rating. They did the 2/3s thing because Republicans were just going to keep stalling, Wiener believed the King guy would actually have been able to convince his Republican buddies to vote on helping people that helped in 9/11, instead they didn't because it would have probably cut into their pals profits.

Republicans did what Republicans will constantly do; they overcomplicated a very straight forward vote for their own party, and if you really think that Republicans come out looking like they are on top on this one then well, wow.

What 2/3's thing, the House doesn't operate like the Senate, a simple majority is all that is needed to pass legislation there.
 
And midterms about continued support for the failed Obama agenda and the results generated.
politics are a local event, and i've a feeling the repubs are going to be very dissapointed when they don't regain control of both houses
 
Anything can happen. But, as I said on a previous thread a week or so ago, I got my money on the dems. That is in no way an endorsement but more of a logical observation. But anything can happen.

I know the hard core partisan hacks are telling everyone that the dems are sucking ass and they're gonna lose but we have to remember that they are the same folks that declared, without a doubt, that Obama wouldn't be elected in the first place.

Most of the airplay and noise being made since Obama's election has been coming from the right. But let us not confuse that noise with the silence of the majority of voting citizenry that is more or less just sitting back content with the president. Like a high pitch noise, people tend to tune out certain distractions. I think the right, in it's zeal, have already popped their wad and as soon as the pro-Obama masses take their turn and take to the airwaves, the distant Tea party and GOP whines (and insignificant numbers by comparison) really won't do much for the GOP.

Then there's the unemployment thing. Couple that with the GOP wanting to restrict those unemployed compensation and I think the dems pretty much have it in the bag. Most folks, right or wrong, still put the current economic situation sqarely on the shoulders of the GOP machine of last as well as their predecessors. Many think it is but a domino effect originally started by the republican's in their defense for big-busness capitolism vs. concern for the citizens.

Add to the mix the impression that the current GOP politicians are nothing more than obstructionist do-nothings hell-bent on defying the winning party at every turn regardless of the affect it has on the nation, and I'd say the GOP is in for a pretty rough ride.

But, you never know. But one thing I DO know is that the same folks in here that swore to the high heavens that the dems would lose last go around, will be back making claims against the dem's, that they will lose the NEXT go around. It doesn't seem that the words "Neener, neener" mean much to them. And the beat goes on.
 
politics are a local event, and i've a feeling the repubs are going to be very dissapointed when they don't regain control of both houses

You better hope that the Democrats lose this fall. If not more of the same and those results aren't something to be proud of.
 
Anything can happen. But, as I said on a previous thread a week or so ago, I got my money on the dems. That is in no way an endorsement but more of a logical observation. But anything can happen.

I know the hard core partisan hacks are telling everyone that the dems are sucking ass and they're gonna lose but we have to remember that they are the same folks that declared, without a doubt, that Obama wouldn't be elected in the first place.

Most of the airplay and noise being made since Obama's election has been coming from the right. But let us not confuse that noise with the silence of the majority of voting citizenry that is more or less just sitting back content with the president. Like a high pitch noise, people tend to tune out certain distractions. I think the right, in it's zeal, have already popped their wad and as soon as the pro-Obama masses take their turn and take to the airwaves, the distant Tea party and GOP whines (and insignificant numbers by comparison) really won't do much for the GOP.

Then there's the unemployment thing. Couple that with the GOP wanting to restrict those unemployed compensation and I think the dems pretty much have it in the bag. Most folks, right or wrong, still put the current economic situation sqarely on the shoulders of the GOP machine of last as well as their predecessors. Many think it is but a domino effect originally started by the republican's in their defense for big-busness capitolism vs. concern for the citizens.

Add to the mix the impression that the current GOP politicians are nothing more than obstructionist do-nothings hell-bent on defying the winning party at every turn regardless of the affect it has on the nation, and I'd say the GOP is in for a pretty rough ride.

But, you never know. But one thing I DO know is that the same folks in here that swore to the high heavens that the dems would lose last go around, will be back making claims against the dem's, that they will lose the NEXT go around. It doesn't seem that the words "Neener, neener" mean much to them. And the beat goes on.

Restricting compensation to 99 weeks instead of well over two years? how long do you think an unemployed worker should be funded by the taxpayer? Most Obama supporters buy the rhetoric. I know you are smarter than that so stop buying the rhetoric and look at actual results. Pay attention and I know you will come to the right conclusion.
 
Hey, I hear ya man. Can't say that I disagree. But you tell 16 million people, or give them the impression that the party has a "let 'em eat cake" attitude, vs. the other party that wants to keep sending them checks, who do you think they are gonna vote for?

Man, I'm just sayin'. I am a realist. Sometimes, that kinda sucks. It ain't always the way I'd like to see things go. But I just love being right most of the time. Sticking with reality helps me to that end.

:allhail

:rofl
 
Last edited:
You better hope that the Democrats lose this fall. If not more of the same and those results aren't something to be proud of.
i believe the country is on the right track, but that it will take time to get where we want to be...so why should i hope they lose?
 
i believe the country is on the right track, but that it will take time to get where we want to be...so why should i hope they lose?

I predict a backlash on those who are throwing log-jams on to that track. I wouldn't bet a penny on the GOP making any significant gains. And I will only bet a nickel that the dems will still hold the reins. I wouldn't bet a dime on either.

Anything can happen. For sure. But I can't see the GOP picking up much, if any, additional support and the support they have now just ain't enough.
 
i believe the country is on the right track, but that it will take time to get where we want to be...so why should i hope they lose?

And what track is that, cradle to grave coverage paid by 53% of the public?
 
I predict a backlash on those who are throwing log-jams on to that track. I wouldn't bet a penny on the GOP making any significant gains. And I will only bet a nickel that the dems will still hold the reins. I wouldn't bet a dime on either.

Anything can happen. For sure. But I can't see the GOP picking up much, if any, additional support and the support they have now just ain't enough.
i can see a few seats, but not enough to take over. i do think the whole fight over extending the unemployment benefits will cost the repubs ....
 
I predict a backlash on those who are throwing log-jams on to that track. I wouldn't bet a penny on the GOP making any significant gains. And I will only bet a nickel that the dems will still hold the reins. I wouldn't bet a dime on either.

Anything can happen. For sure. But I can't see the GOP picking up much, if any, additional support and the support they have now just ain't enough.

If Obama supporters are correct this country has shifted far left and more towards the failed socialist model of Europe. Obama was elected on the hope and change message with very few, IMO, believing that is the direction he would take this country. I still believe it is a center right country and based upon the legislation Obama has signed we are going to see real change this fall with Democrats booted out of power, at least I hope that is the case.
 
the track back to a robust economy, and full employment.

You cannot have a robust economy without a strong private sector and Obama is destroyng that. No private sector employer is going to hire anyone with the economic agenda of Obama having to be paid for. The trillions added to the debt have to be funded and that means higher taxes, lower economic growth. The Obama agenda is a prescription for failure.
 
i can see a few seats, but not enough to take over. i do think the whole fight over extending the unemployment benefits will cost the repubs ....

My question is why you support an agenda that grows the public sector, saddles the future with massive debt, and creates greater dependence on the govt.
 
You cannot have a robust economy without a strong private sector and Obama is destroyng that. No private sector employer is going to hire anyone with the economic agenda of Obama having to be paid for. The trillions added to the debt have to be funded and that means higher taxes, lower economic growth. The Obama agenda is a prescription for failure.
what about the bush 2, bush 1, and reagan agendas? they all added debt that has to be paid for....or did you forget about this?? like it or not, your preferred side of the aisle is not innocent when it comes to adding debt.....quit pretending that they are, and quit pretending that debt only matters when it is a democrat in office.
 
So, let's see, when it suits you the stock market is a barometer of how good the economy is? What affect do you believe 16 million unemployed Americans has on corporate expenses thus profits?Where you equally as excited when Bush had a 14000 stock market?




There are 7 million less employed today than when Obama took office, bls.gov and you think that is a success? 16 million unemployed or an increase of over 4 million since the stimulus plan took effect and that is a success to you?

A collapse that apparently Bush created all by himself? Tell us why taxpayers fund Congressional Representatives if it is the President that creates all legislation and unilaterally implements economic policy? Do you realize, probably don't care, but the Democrats controlled Congress and helped get us into this recession. Now with the same Congress and a Democrat empty suit in the WH they have made things worse, higher debt and higher unemployment. Where is your outrage?

Obama doesn't understand the economy nor do his book smart, street stupid Ivy League educated advisors. We have a public sector economy that is being destroyed and the results speak volumes, but Obama supporters never really cared about results.

The stimulus plan was designed to be spent on shovel ready projects but instead has been spent to bail out unions and other Democrat constituent groups. Jobs saved or created cannot be quantified but unemployment can.

After spending over a trillion dollars, taking over GM/Chrysler shouldn't things be better. Companies are hoarding cash because they have lower expenses now due to fewer workers thus higher profits and a fear of higher corporate taxes as well as healthcare costs.

We live in a free enterprise, capitalistic economy that Obama doesn't understand. The results speak for themselves.

Okay - the Great Recession began in 2007. It didn't start overnight, though. In reality, it began several years before that. I would argue that every recession since 1980 all led up to the Great Recession as a result of continuous passing of economic policies under Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush that created more and more income disparity.

saezfigure3.png


Note that the two greatest periods of disparity were right before the Great Depression and right before the Great Recession. Tax policies that help concentrate wealth and reward wealth over work lead to hoarding.

To get the "trickle down" that supply-siders seems to like so much you basically have to force the wealthy to invest and hire.

I agree that the stimulus wasn't done completely properly. However, all Republicans have done is said they wouldn't have done it all. They complained about extending unemployment benefits without paying for it; but want to make permanent the Bush tax cuts without paying for it. They fought legislation that would have eliminated the loophole that left no estate tax for this calendar year, costing the government $25 - $30 BILLION dollars and didn't pay for it.

They are also fighting the bill that will give tax breaks to small business owners who hire and make equipment investments. Not because they dislike the legislation, but because they don't want Democrats to get credit for it. It is their goal to bring this nation to its knees while Obama is in office so they can get their claws back on all three houses and continue funneling money to the wealthy who will continue to pay for their campaigns.

Oh, and by the way: How Ford and GM Turned a Corner -- Seeking Alpha, there's evidence that the auto bailout (with a little help from Toyota's implosion) is actually working. But of course, we'll just bitch about it because maybe it wasn't perfect.

The economy didn't collapse overnight. It won't be fixed overnight.
 
what about the bush 2, bush 1, and reagan agendas? they all added debt that has to be paid for....or did you forget about this?? like it or not, your preferred side of the aisle is not innocent when it comes to adding debt.....quit pretending that they are, and quit pretending that debt only matters when it is a democrat in office.

Reagan and GW Bush understood the benefits of a strong private sector that helped fund that debt with a growing economy. Bush with the help of 9/11 and then a Democrat Congress spent too much money but I know of no one that wouldn't take a 1.7 trillion debt of Reagan's over the 3 trillion of Obama's in just two years. Obama isn't growing the private sector economy thus isn't creating jobs or consumer spending to grow the economy enough to fund our debt, that means taxes have to go up and that kills jobs and economic growth. Debt matters whomever is in office but there is such a thing as funding that debt and Obama isn't
 
Reagan and GW Bush understood the benefits of a strong private sector that helped fund that debt with a growing economy. Bush with the help of 9/11 and then a Democrat Congress spent too much money but I know of no one that wouldn't take a 1.7 trillion debt of Reagan's over the 3 trillion of Obama's in just two years. Obama isn't growing the private sector economy thus isn't creating jobs or consumer spending to grow the economy enough to fund our debt, that means taxes have to go up and that kills jobs and economic growth. Debt matters whomever is in office but there is such a thing as funding that debt and Obama isn't
hmmm....growing the economy to 'service ' the debt...why did reagan run a deficit at all??
 
Okay - the Great Recession began in 2007. It didn't start overnight, though. In reality, it began several years before that. I would argue that every recession since 1980 all led up to the Great Recession as a result of continuous passing of economic policies under Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush that created more and more income disparity.

saezfigure3.png


Note that the two greatest periods of disparity were right before the Great Depression and right before the Great Recession. Tax policies that help concentrate wealth and reward wealth over work lead to hoarding.

To get the "trickle down" that supply-siders seems to like so much you basically have to force the wealthy to invest and hire.

I agree that the stimulus wasn't done completely properly. However, all Republicans have done is said they wouldn't have done it all. They complained about extending unemployment benefits without paying for it; but want to make permanent the Bush tax cuts without paying for it. They fought legislation that would have eliminated the loophole that left no estate tax for this calendar year, costing the government $25 - $30 BILLION dollars and didn't pay for it.

They are also fighting the bill that will give tax breaks to small business owners who hire and make equipment investments. Not because they dislike the legislation, but because they don't want Democrats to get credit for it. It is their goal to bring this nation to its knees while Obama is in office so they can get their claws back on all three houses and continue funneling money to the wealthy who will continue to pay for their campaigns.

Oh, and by the way: How Ford and GM Turned a Corner -- Seeking Alpha, there's evidence that the auto bailout (with a little help from Toyota's implosion) is actually working. But of course, we'll just bitch about it because maybe it wasn't perfect.

The economy didn't collapse overnight. It won't be fixed overnight.

Ford wasn't bailed out and GM repaid some of their funding with additional funding. The economy didn't collapse by Bush policy alone and what Obama is doing isn't helping grow the private sector. That is where the U.S. got its strength and is something Obama doesn't understand and apparently neither do you. Ever run a business, ever invested your own money in business? Invest your own money in a business today and see how much your silent partner gets.

Stop with the class envy and warfare, this isn't a zero sum game meaning that the rich don't make their money on the backs of someone else. There is enough in this economy for even you to succeed but not with the attitude you have.

Then you buy the rhetoric it is going to take time to clean up the mess. Stop buying the rhetoric and pay attention to the results. Obama tells you one thing and then does something else. After spending trillions shouldn't the results be better than they are now and Obama had a very strong Democrat Congress that gave him everything he wanted. The results are there for all to see, 16 million unemployed, 3 trillion added to the debt, and a healthcare bill that taxes everyone thus is a job killer. The Obama motto is "never let a good crisis go to waste" and you buy it.
 
hmmm....growing the economy to 'service ' the debt...why did reagan run a deficit at all??

Reagan doubled govt. income and corporate tax revenue with his tax cuts, Reagan created 20 million jobs, Reagan doubled GDP, Reagan set a record for Presidential vetoes of Congressional spending but Reagan needed one more thing, the line item veto and never got it. Reagan debt was 1.7 trillion with most of that coming from spending bills attached to the military spending that destroyed the soviet union and created a peace dividend in the 1990's something liberals want to ignore. A growing economy creates more taxpayers and more income and corporate tax revenue and that is what services the debt.
 
Reagan doubled govt. revenue with his tax cuts, Reagan created 20 million jobs, Reagan doubled GDP, Reagan set a record for Presidential vetoes of Congressional spending but Reagan needed one more thing, the line item veto and never got it. Reagan debt was 1.7 trillion with most of that coming from spending bills attached to the military spending that destroyed the soviet union and created a peace dividend in the 1990's something liberals want to ignore. A growing economy creates more taxpayers and more income and corporate tax revenue and that is what services the debt.
doesnt matter how much 'revenue' he created, he was part of the problem.....and the whole 'peace dividend', many believe that the soviet union was going to collapse on its own, and that we didnt have to spend what we did on defense. a growing economy that 'creates ' taxpayers is a moot point if you constantly spend more than what you take in....that debt sucks up whatever additional revenue you create in the form of interest payments on that debt. the goal should be to balance the budget, then shrink it an additional 10% to create a 'surplus' that could be used to actually pay down the 'principal' on the debt.
 
doesnt matter how much 'revenue' he created, he was part of the problem.....and the whole 'peace dividend', many believe that the soviet union was going to collapse on its own, and that we didnt have to spend what we did on defense. a growing economy that 'creates ' taxpayers is a moot point if you constantly spend more than what you take in....that debt sucks up whatever additional revenue you create in the form of interest payments on that debt. the goal should be to balance the budget, then shrink it an additional 10% to create a 'surplus' that could be used to actually pay down the 'principal' on the debt.

What many may have believed doesn't matter as many believed Obama walked on water too. What happened is all that matters just like today. It really is hard dealing with people who cannot understand the benefit of keeping more of what they earn, of having personal responsibility, and why growing the public sector creates debt, not benefits to the taxpayers. For someone who cares about debt wonder why you aren't as angry over the 3 trillion Obama has added or why he signed on to all that Bush spending in 2008. No other President in U.S. history has ever had a trillion dollar deficit, Obama now has two and another projected inext year and as far as the eye can see, yet it is always blame Bush or Reagan, not Clinton who added 1.2 trillion to the debt. At least Reagan and Bush grew the private sector something Obama doesn't understand. Instead of demonizing private business and profits Obama needs to grow that segment because even Obama supporters with a little initiative and drive can become the people they now seem to hate, rich
 
The economy didn't collapse by Bush policy alone and what Obama is doing isn't helping grow the private sector.

Totally false. A job I have applied for and am waiting to hear back from, located in Texas and Georgia is looking for people to help break ground on a few new nuclear and solar energy plants. The plants are partially funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and according to their hiring page they are actively seeking roughly 3,500 people for guaranteed 3 1/2 years of employment with the option of going for an 11 year contract. The lowest paying position at the job pays $20/hr the highest pays $10k a week salary.
 
Back
Top Bottom