Happy Atheist Forum

Republicans gain over 60 seats in the House of Representatives, giving them a majority.  Democrats narrowly manage to keep the Senate.

Your thoughts?

My view is....Your turn now, I hope you can walk your talk.

I don't think that the US citizens will benefit from the results, unless the Republicans and the Democrats will work together to solve the major problems.

Quote from: "Tom62"I don't think that the US citizens will benefit from the results, unless the Republicans and the Democrats will work together to solve the major problems.

51% and 49%?
Nothing will get through.  The legislative process will be completely stalled for at least 2 years.

Quote from: "DropLogic"51% and 49%?
Nothing will get through.  The legislative process will be completely stalled for at least 2 years.

That is what I fear as well. And guess, who will be the "Savior" in 2012? Yep, Sarah Palin  

Quote from: "Tom62"

Quote from: "DropLogic"51% and 49%?
Nothing will get through.  The legislative process will be completely stalled for at least 2 years.

That is what I fear as well. And guess, who will be the "Savior" in 2012? Yep, Sarah Palin  

Eh..I think the wind is finally leaving her sails. There will be another bimbo to take her place though.  I have faith in the ignorance and stupidity of the American populace.

It bums me out.  I only hope the Democrats call the Republicans on their ever-present bluffs of filibuster, so that people will see exactly what the Republicans are willing to fight for: reduced environmental protection, reduced unemployment insurance, reduced taxes for those at the top .... and so on.

My first thought was back to college learning about battered person syndrome. While JDuster did remind me that there were two things that were done correctly under Bush, the vast, vast majority of things done under Republican rule from 2000-2006 was ultimately harmful to the country and to the planet. The voters are developing learned helplessness.

That said, my new governor is a Democrat and the 2/3 majority rule was overturned. California could start to see improvements in the coming years.

A politician's party doesn't determine if they'll do the right thing or not.

Lack of a multiquote irks me.

DropLogic: I have no doubt that this new Republican Congress will take this country in the right direction.  We will walk our walk.
Tom62: Yes, it will require working together.  Obama said he wanted to work with the Republicans twice.  Once, during the beginning of his term, a fake token gesture, to make an illusion of bipartisanship in a Congress he once controlled.  Now that he lost the house, his proposal is for real this time, because he's in a lowly position now.
DropLogic: The Pledge to America will get passed.  There are a lot of conservative Democrats still.
Drop Logic: Party does matter.  Party is essentially what decides policy.  One cannot say there isn't a huge distinction between the policies of the two parties.  Personal qualities and administrative skills don't matter in Congress.  Representatives do not govern.  They only vote.  That is why a stupid person with the correct policies is better than a smart person with the wrong policies.

I think it's unfortunate that the majority of voters can't learn from history, but speaking of history, this party imbalance is actually the norm. The vote swings like this all the time.

I'm more upset about the fact that my state is now run by a corrupt greedy embezzler who was able to buy political power with his millions of dollars.  

Quote from: "Will"My first thought was back to college learning about battered person syndrome. While JDuster did remind me that there were two things that were done correctly under Bush, the vast, vast majority of things done under Republican rule from 2000-2006 was ultimately harmful to the country and to the planet. The voters are developing learned helplessness.

That said, my new governor is a Democrat and the 2/3 majority rule was overturned. California could start to see improvements in the coming years.

Oddly enough, given my centrist background, I'm very happy Brown won out.  Especially given the alternative.

Yeah, the idea of Meg Whitman (R - Goldman Sachs) as governor scared the crap out of me.

Quote from: "Will"Yeah, the idea of Meg Whitman (R - Goldman Sachs) as governor scared the crap out of me.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F24.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_lba430ZjJG1qzlfumo1_500.jpg&hash=11958496d54be4abbba50f631722641ac6b05d3e)
(From Obey Giant)

I'm indifferent toward the California results, though I do have some affinity toward Jerry Brown.

But I'm very happy with my governor.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F_gcA0ZuKGkI8%2FTIpOVDWUERI%2FAAAAAAAAIqQ%2FaEA4zQzg3H0%2Fs1600%2Fchris-christie-election-night-a8f650a4ba4106c2.jpg&hash=474af19db2a449163aa766cb2b665c05f4d1516e)

Honestly I love Gridlock.

Think about it. When Republicans controlled everything on the Federal level we got alot of crappy budgets, laws and wars.

When Democrats controlled everything on the Federal level we got new crappy budgets, laws, and continued wars (we are still 50,000 in Iraq). I have lived under the so called Obama care law since 2006 in Massachusetts where it is called Romney care. It absoultley SUCKS. Premiums have risen faster than anything, quality is down etc.

I was not raised Republican but in my experience I learned from my state of Massachusetts not to put to much "FAITH" in Democrats. My state is totally loyal to Democrats as this past elections shows despite the super high level of in your face corruption that pervades the state government with the Democrat Supermajorites (that have been around for about 16 years) that tell all Governors what to do.

Thank goodness for some good ol' Gridlock. Last time we had that we had balanced budgets, bipartisan welfare reform and bipartisan tax reform. Bring it on. We need both sides pointing fingers at each other to hold them accountable.

Quote from: "jduster"Tom62: Yes, it will require working together.  Obama said he wanted to work with the Republicans twice.  Once, during the beginning of his term, a fake token gesture, to make an illusion of bipartisanship in a Congress he once controlled.  Now that he lost the house, his proposal is for real this time, because he's in a lowly position now.

I really hope that this happens, but that would only work if both parties could meet each other somewhere in the "middle".  That means that the more moderate Republicans have to regain the control over the party. As it is right now, the Republican party seems to be under the "spell" of crazy, ultra-conservative, silly people.

Quote from: "Tom62"

Quote from: "jduster"Tom62: Yes, it will require working together.  Obama said he wanted to work with the Republicans twice.  Once, during the beginning of his term, a fake token gesture, to make an illusion of bipartisanship in a Congress he once controlled.  Now that he lost the house, his proposal is for real this time, because he's in a lowly position now.

I really hope that this happens, but that would only work if both parties could meet each other somewhere in the "middle".  That means that the more moderate Republicans have to regain the control over the party. As it is right now, the Republican party seems to be under the "spell" of crazy, ultra-conservative, silly people.

The liberals have already sent the government left of center, and now we need to bring it back. There's no compromise in government (though government is compromise).
I'm pumped. (A conservative) Even if I turn out to be poor, Democrats can't help me anyway. I think the Republicans are excited to be in there and are going to kick some rear.

Quote from: "hunterman317"

Quote from: "Tom62"

Quote from: "jduster"Tom62: Yes, it will require working together.  Obama said he wanted to work with the Republicans twice.  Once, during the beginning of his term, a fake token gesture, to make an illusion of bipartisanship in a Congress he once controlled.  Now that he lost the house, his proposal is for real this time, because he's in a lowly position now.

I really hope that this happens, but that would only work if both parties could meet each other somewhere in the "middle".  That means that the more moderate Republicans have to regain the control over the party. As it is right now, the Republican party seems to be under the "spell" of crazy, ultra-conservative, silly people.

The liberals have already sent the government left of center, and now we need to bring it back. There's no compromise in government (though government is compromise).
I'm pumped. (A conservative) Even if I turn out to be poor, Democrats can't help me anyway. I think the Republicans are excited to be in there and are going to kick some rear.

Better hope you don't lose your job.  Republicans want to eliminate UI extensions.

The Republicans do not want to end UI payments. They wanted to get the funding for them from current revenues and not add it to the Federal debt.

Also I would like some more moderate Republicans in the House but there are plenty of non moderate Democrats that were just in office and still are. The Senate is where the compromises will be met as the procedural rules for that chamber demand it.

Moderate Republican = Liberal

By moderate Republican I do mean socially liberal. However I am fiscally conservative.

Quote from: "Moses"The Republicans do not want to end UI payments. They wanted to get the funding for them from current revenues and not add it to the Federal debt.

Because Keynesian economics doesn't work, right?  Right.  It's okay if people are made homeless; the Republicans have finally[/b] found debt religion.  Where the hell was this fiscal discipline from 2001 - 2009?

Sorry, this new-found stringency is political opportunism.  Certainly you're smart enough to see that.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "Moses"The Republicans do not want to end UI payments. They wanted to get the funding for them from current revenues and not add it to the Federal debt.

Because Keynesian economics doesn't work, right?  Right.  It's okay if people are made homeless; the Republicans have finally[/b] found debt religion.  Where the hell was this fiscal discipline from 2001 - 2009?

Sorry, this new-found stringency is political opportunism.  Certainly you're smart enough to see that.

I certainly do see it as political opportunism. Just like when Democrats said that they would implement some spending control.

The debt was a Republican AND Democrat created problem from 2001 -2004 since the Democrats went in and out of controlling the Senate and actually filibustered for more spending when they were briefly in the minority. From 2004 - 2006 it was a Republican problem. From 2006 - 2008 it was a Republican and Democrat problem (Republican President, Democrat Congress). Since 2008-2010 it is a Democrat problem.

The only thing I can say is that both parties are to blame fully for the fiscal irresponsibility and debt this high is certainly a major economic issue. However I think the individual politicians are to blame more than an abstract party. MAYBE and I do mean MAYBE this time with a new influx of people Congress and the President can be held to account and work towards some fiscally responsible budgets.

I know it is not sexy but divided government is what I want. Not all government going to one party.

As far as Unemployment insurance coming from current revenues I do not see what that has to do with Keynesianism. I also do not see how that states that Keynesianism does or does not work. I was not making a statement on that economic philosophy.

Seems to me like America Inc. has been managed about as well as any US corporation.  Cept the gov can't really bailout the gov.

Quote from: "jduster"Moderate Republican = Liberal

What do you mean by that exactly? Is a moderate Democrat a conservative?

Quote from: "Moses"As far as Unemployment insurance coming from current revenues I do not see what that has to do with Keynesianism. I also do not see how that states that Keynesianism does or does not work. I was not making a statement on that economic philosophy.

Keynesians hold that ensuring the circulation of finance is what makes the economy work, even if it means that we borrow to make itr happen in the short-term.  To cut off these payouts on the principle of "no borrowing" will only tank the economy further, because UI money almost always goes directly back into the economy, and thereby primes the pump, so to speak.

[/quote]
Keynesians hold that ensuring the circulation of finance is what makes the economy work, even if it means that we borrow to make itr happen in the short-term.  To cut off these payouts on the principle of "no borrowing" will only tank the economy further, because UI money almost always goes directly back into the economy, and thereby primes the pump, so to speak.[/quote]


I understand the need to makes sure that finance is cirulating but that does not mean that the government needs to go further in debt. In Keynesianism or in any economic theory there is a bad level of debt that can actually start to hurt the credit market.

Reason being that the more something like the government goes into debt the less access to credit other sectors of the economy will have which in turn will eventually hurt the governments ability to obtain credit unless it engages in really big inflation. This would eventually hurt credit even more in the long run since what you loan out will mean substantially less when you get it back so interest rates might rise steadily to try and make up for a return.

Also just look at how Canada under the Liberals were able to get their debt under control. They did not get rid of all their debt just a huge chunk of it so a healthy amount of government credit plays into their market but not an uncontrolable amount so finances flow smoothly and it is not super overly concentrated in one area of the economy.

The U.S government does not need to get rid of all of it's debt but it sure as hell needs to bring it down.

Sorry for that long winded blurp but I think that Unemployment Insurance could be funded without serious pain to the finanical sector and without the need to go further into debt. We would have plenty of debt left over to pick and choose from.

As I've alluded to in other threads, I agree that the national debt needs cutting.  I simply disagree that it should be done on the backs of the unemployed.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"As I've alluded to in other threads, I agree that the national debt needs cutting.  I simply disagree that it should be done on the backs of the unemployed.

I totally agree with you. I dont think their benefits need to be cut and I think they should be extended. But no one as of yet states that they should cut or not extended the program.

Quote from: "Moses"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"As I've alluded to in other threads, I agree that the national debt needs cutting.  I simply disagree that it should be done on the backs of the unemployed.

I totally agree with you. I dont think their benefits need to be cut and I think they should be extended. But no one as of yet states that they should cut or not extended the program.

Last June the Republicans threatened a filibuster against an extension-of-benefits bill because it would be financed by borrowing.

That was to force an amendment to the extension bill to change the source of revenue from new borrowing to already present and existing revenue that the government had not spent yet.

On a side note what do you think about the filibuster? I honestly am trying to come to a conclusion on it.

I saw your new thread on it and answered there.