The Tuesday Night Elections

[UNT90]

I think the republicans pick up 68 House seats and 9 Senate seats.

The republicans need to understand that this trend could quickly turn next election if they don' t follow through on their promises.

This is going to be very ugly for the democrats, possibly losing as many as 90 house seats and 11 Senate seats.

Thoughts?

[UNTflyer]

Still not as big as the turnover of 1992 when the GOP picked up 110 seats.

Still as Thomas Paine said, government is at best a necessary evil and at worst an intolerable one. Whoever has power needs to remember that their job is not to get re-elected bu to represent the best interests of the country. The current Congress has not worked in the country's best interests and they're paying for it just like the Republican Congress did in 2006.

Want to kickstart the economy? Freeze all income taxes, eliminate the double taxation that is called the Capital Gains Tax, repeal the health care legislation, and cut the federal budget by 10% immediately.

[UNT90]

Still not as big as the turnover of 1992 when the GOP picked up 110 seats.

Still as Thomas Paine said, government is at best a necessary evil and at worst an intolerable one. Whoever has power needs to remember that their job is not to get re-elected bu to represent the best interests of the country. The current Congress has not worked in the country's best interests and they're paying for it just like the Republican Congress did in 2006.

Want to kickstart the economy? Freeze all income taxes, eliminate the double taxation that is called the Capital Gains Tax, repeal the health care legislation, and cut the federal budget by 10% immediately.

I think you are talking about 1994, and they only picked up 54 seats (perhaps you meant the number shift in the House, which would have been 108)

Tuesday will be interesting.

[SteaminWillieBeamin]

Still not as big as the turnover of 1992 when the GOP picked up 110 seats.

Still as Thomas Paine said, government is at best a necessary evil and at worst an intolerable one. Whoever has power needs to remember that their job is not to get re-elected bu to represent the best interests of the country. The current Congress has not worked in the country's best interests and they're paying for it just like the Republican Congress did in 2006.

Want to kickstart the economy? Freeze all income taxes, eliminate the double taxation that is called the Capital Gains Tax, repeal the health care legislation, and cut the federal budget by 10% immediately.

Aren't all income taxes frozen? They don't change weekly..

How is a CGT a double tax?

How would repealing the health care legislation help the economy?

Which programs would you cut to make up 10%? Or do you cut 10% across the board? How does this help the economy?

[UNTflyer]

Aren't all income taxes frozen? They don't change weekly..

How is a CGT a double tax?

How would repealing the health care legislation help the economy?

Which programs would you cut to make up 10%? Or do you cut 10% across the board? How does this help the economy?

1. Not in this administration. They refuse to extend the tax cuts that are about to expire.

2. Income is taxed twice - once at the corporate level and again when you cash out your investment.

3. By not raising health insurance rates on 2/3 of all Americans.

4. Everything except defense. (How does this help the economy?) By strengthening the dollar and restoring confidence in the direction of our debt burden.

Edited October 31, 2010 by UNTflyer

[Coffee and TV]

1. Not in this administration. They refuse to extend the tax cuts that are about to expire.

If the tax cuts are so damn special the Bush administration wouldn't have them expire in 2011. They would have made the permanent. And lower taxes for the rich have only gotten us a 9.5% unemployment rate, a housing bubble, and major deficits.

2. Income is taxed twice - once at the corporate level and again when you cash out your investment.

Corporate taxes are unnecessary as the management and workers bare the brunt of them more than the CEOs. End the corporate taxes & raise taxes on the top 10%.

3. By not raising health insurance rates on 2/3 of all Americans.

The health care reform bill was average at best. To pass it without public option is irresponsible, to repeal it would be on the verge of stupidity.

4. Everything except defense. (How does this help the economy?)

You think defense spending doesn't keep a shit ton of people working? I'm all for cutting spending on defense, maybe by half. But it has to be done slowly and responsibly.

Republicans take maybe 55-60 house seats, 6 Senate seats at best. Any dream of a Republican Senate or a deadlock is exactly that - a dream. The biggest crime of this election will be that people like Sharon Angle could be elected.

[UNTflyer]

If the tax cuts are so damn special the Bush administration wouldn't have them expire in 2011. They would have made the permanent. And lower taxes for the rich have only gotten us a 9.5% unemployment rate, a housing bubble, and major deficits.

The only way Democrats would vote for them is if they expired in 2011. Presidents don't make laws, Congress does. And the tax cuts didn't cause the current economic situation.

Corporate taxes are unnecessary as the management and workers bare the brunt of them more than the CEOs. End the corporate taxes & raise taxes on the top 10%.

Why? Do you think paying 35% in taxes on your income isn't enough? Not to mention FICA and medicare. Maybe you think taking half of a person's paycheck is right, but I don't. The preogressive income tax system is inefficient and unfair. Impose a system with a combination of a flat income tax and a national sales tax.

And the CEOs don't BEAR the brunt of the corporate taxes..? Shareholders bear it all. Since the CEO is a typically huge shareholder, he or she BEARS a huge burden and so do retirees who are trying to make ends meet.

The health care reform bill was average at best. To pass it without public option is irresponsible, to repeal it would be on the verge of stupidity.

Let the market compete. We don't need reform to provide auto insurance, home owners' insurance, or life insurance at affordable rates to consumers, why should this be any different?

You think defense spending doesn't keep a shit ton of people working? I'm all for cutting spending on defense, maybe by half. But it has to be done slowly and responsibly.

Read what I said. I would cut everything by 10% except defense.

Republicans take maybe 55-60 house seats, 6 Senate seats at best. Any dream of a Republican Senate or a deadlock is exactly that - a dream. The biggest crime of this election will be that people like Sharon Angle could be elected.

I don't think the GOP takes the Senate, not for a minute. And I think it's telling that you think people participating in a democracy is a crime.

Edited October 31, 2010 by UNTflyer

[UNTflyer]

You say six seats at best... I say it will be at least eight.

Dems 51 - GOP 49.

[FirefightnRick]

Dems 51 - GOP 49.

With the house that would be good enough to halt any further damage done to this country the past two years.

Rick

[Green Mean]

With the house that would be good enough to halt any further damage done to this country the past two years.

Rick

I think it is fair to say the this country has been on the damage side for the last decade or so. I get your absolute hatred for Obama but things weren't just rozy before him.

[UNT90]

I think it is fair to say the this country has been on the damage side for the last decade or so. I get your absolute hatred for Obama but things weren't just rozy before him.

I actually agree with you, kind of. Bush spent way too much while in office. Compasionate conservativism was a disaster (conservatives need to learn to stick by their principles and to stop trying to get the other side to like them, it's a lost cause). Pres. Obama comes along and gets elected by saying he is different. The problem is the American people didn't realize that different meant a socialist agenda.

Everyday Americans are sick and tired of having to make due with what they earn and budget according, while watch this government continue to pile up debt like a 18 year old girl with her first credit card. This is the biggest issue in this election that neither side wants to talk about.

Coffee, 60% of American people don't want government involved in their health care in any way, shape or form. They realize that the federal government is a bloated elephant that is only efficent at one thing. Spending taxpayer money. Putting that entity in charge of your health is asking for disaster.

[UNTflyer]

RealClearPolitics.com this morning has shifted the Washington Senate race to the GOP.

They now have the Senate an even split, 50-50.

[UNT90]

RealClearPolitics.com this morning has shifted the Washington Senate race to the GOP.

They now have the Senate an even split, 50-50.

Yahoo has it 51-49 in the Senate (Dems majority), 233-202 (Republican) in the house.

That is a 54 seat predicted gain in the house. The same number the Republicans won in 1994. And this is Yahoo, one of the most liberal political sites around. Looking at the polling data, I would expect 10-15 more seats to go to the Republicans.

I think there will be some surprise races where the conservative candidate win unexpected victories, but I may be just a little prejudice.

Really interested to see if Eddie Burnice Johnson gets re-elected in Dallas County. That district is about as blue as you can get, but after all the bad publicity, will she survive?

Edited November 1, 2010 by UNT90

[untbowler]

Yahoo has it 51-49 in the Senate (Dems majority), 233-202 (Republican) in the house.

That is a 54 seat predicted gain in the house. The same number the Republicans won in 1994. And this is Yahoo, one of the most liberal political sites around. Looking at the polling data, I would expect 10-15 more seats to go to the Republicans.

I think there will be some surprise races where the conservative candidate wins expected victories, but I may be just a little prejudice.

Really interested to see if Eddie Burnice Johnson gets re-elected in Dallas County. That district is about as blue as you can get, but after all the bad publicity, will she survive?

EBJ will get re-elected for the same reason many political rats stay in power 30+ years and have nothing to show, but smoking guns of fraud and corruption, but the tide is turning on both parties. Hope Boehner and McConnell do not screw the Repuglicans for decades with their little power trips.

As for the economy look at the economy Post 2006 and look who had control of the spending powers and the President can not spend money without approval of Congress.

Barney Frank and Chris Dodd managed to do most of the damage and Obama and his unchecked Czars are exacerbating the issues.

Also please stop the "Soak the Rich Strategy" it obviously is not working.

[UNT90]

Interesting read

Tomorrow night will be very interesting, indeed.

[KRAM1]

What is interesting to me is how little people in this country (and on this board) actually know about how government works in this great nation of ours. Some statements made that I hear on a regular basis arew just so outrageous that it doesn't even deserve a reply. I would wage that less than 10% of the peole in the nation who will vote in tomorrow's election have ever read the Constitution, have any idea how bills are actually created and moved through both houses. Let's not even mention economics and taxation.

The think tank I work with just put on a "Policy Boot Camp" about a week ago and it was amazing to listen to some of the questions we got during the Q & A session, and this was from a group of "interested" and "educated" actual voters. We have become a "sound byte" nation of voters who appear to be more than willing to let the media through 30-sec. sound bytes frame our opinions of what we believe and how we should think.

That should scare everyone. It doesn't matter which side one is on in this or ant election. What matters is that you are actualloy voting from an educated and thoughtful position. We all have a DUTY to not only vote but to be an nformed voter. Vote with your minds folks, not your emotions. Most of all vote...many people have fought and died for your right to do just that.

Then...grab a copy of the Constitution and read it! You will be way ahead of most of our elected officials if you do that simple thing.

OK, prediction time...the dems lose the House...retain the Senate, but lose seats in the Senate. It could swing back the other way if the Republicans do not produce actual and sustained economic and political "change". This election is, indeed, all about "CHANGE".

[Censored by Laurie]

RealClearPolitics.com this morning has shifted the Washington Senate race to the GOP.

They now have the Senate an even split, 50-50.

Has Norm made it a double play yet?

[UNTflyer]

Agreed, Kram. Take for instance taxes and spending. Yes, the President submits a proposed budget but it is Congress who is authorized to spend money - not the President. And the President cannot lower or raise taxes, only Congress can do that.

[Coffee and TV]

The only way Democrats would vote for them is if they expired in 2011. Presidents don't make laws, Congress does. And the tax cuts didn't cause the current economic situation.

80% of what's passed in congress is in one way or another introduced via the President's agenda. If you want to get into semantics, fine: if the tax cuts were so damn great congress wouldn't have put a 10 year limit on them, they'd be permanent.

Why? Do you think paying 35% in taxes on your income isn't enough? Not to mention FICA and medicare. Maybe you think taking half of a person's paycheck is right, but I don't. The preogressive income tax system is inefficient and unfair.

I think when the top income bracket was getting taxed in the Eisenhower years they did just fine. And yeah, I don't cry a single tear for someone who can only make 50 million a year instead of 100. Wah.

Impose a system with a combination of a flat income tax and a national sales tax.

The economy is based on 2/3's consumer spending. When we have a recession like we have for the last 2 years then where the hell do you get revenue from with a tax burden like that?

And the CEOs don't BEAR the brunt of the corporate taxes..? Shareholders bear it all. Since the CEO is a typically huge shareholder, he or she BEARS a huge burden and so do retirees who are trying to make ends meet.

I'm sure I could link you a study that shows how I'm right, but you'd probably just ignore it anyways.

Let the market compete. We don't need reform to provide auto insurance, home owners' insurance, or life insurance at affordable rates to consumers, why should this be any different?

You're right, half of all bankruptcies are a result of family illnesses. The market is working great!

[Coffee and TV]

I actually agree with you, kind of. Bush spent way too much while in office. Compasionate conservativism was a disaster (conservatives need to learn to stick by their principles and to stop trying to get the other side to like them, it's a lost cause). Pres. Obama comes along and gets elected by saying he is different. The problem is the American people didn't realize that different meant a socialist agenda.

Once you use the S word when describing Obama, anything rational you might say gets thrown out the window.

Coffee, 60% of American people don't want government involved in their health care in any way, shape or form.

I guess the other 40% are all those loudmouth teabaggers who would revolt if anyone took away their medicare?

[UNT90]

Once you use the S word when describing Obama, anything rational you might say gets thrown out the window.

I guess the other 40% are all those loudmouth teabaggers who would revolt if anyone took away their medicare?

So, nationalizing health care, banks, and auto companies is not socialism? There is a reason they call it socialized medicine. Please give me your definition of the word socialism.

You are talking about a President whose first 2 agenda items were a massive bailout that did nothing but generate government jobs and a massive take over of the health care industry. Yes, Medicade has socialist tendencies, but the answer isn't to dump another huge entitlement program on top of one that will be bankrupt inside of 10 years.

I don't use the word with any malice, it just is what it is. You can't look at his agenda 2 years in and objectively call it anything else.

[Coffee and TV]

So, nationalizing health care, banks, and auto companies is not socialism? There is a reason they call it socialized medicine. Please give me your definition of the word socialism.

1) He didn't nationalize health care. Not even Canada has nationalized health care. What was passed last year was in no way close to socialize medicine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada#Government_involvement

2) He didn't nationalize banks. TARP was a bi-partisan creation of the Congress & the Bush administration in 2008, when Obama was in the Senate & out campaigning. Not only did it save us from a 2nd great depression, it will in the end cost taxpayers about $50 billion of the original $700 billion spent.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/treasury-total-cost-of-tarp-will-be-50-billion-2010-10-05-164330

3) AIG was somewhat "nationalized". Its losses were so great because of defaults that it couldn't really afford to go under, not without another Lehman brothers type of hit anyways. The government is also planning shortly the selling of much of its stock that it bought from AIG. Total cost will be close to what TARP did.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/05/business/05sorkin.html

4)The auto companies also needed salvaging. To let them go under would probably have put about a million more on the unemployment payrolls overnight. (SUPER GOVERNMENT SPENDING OH NOES) GM (and I'm unsure about Chrysler) has already paid back their government loans in full. The stock was temporarily owned by the US government, and the treasury department set up rules for them to restructure. This was in no way a 'nationalization'.

http://www.thecarconnection.com/marty-blog/1044391_bailout-successes-gm-pays-off-loans-chrysler-loses-less

5)I won't get into a philosophical battle about the definition of a very vast and complex economic system. All I will say is that any credible definition you can find of socialism will in no way resemble this current administration.

You are talking about a President whose first 2 agenda items were a massive bailout that did nothing but generate government jobs and a massive take over of the health care industry.

Its not a socialism method for the government to spend during a recession. Its a Keynesian argument, and one that has had mixed results throughout modern economic history. It was done greatly throughout the Great Depression. What the stimulus did was not to stimulate anything, it was a desperate measure to stop the bleeding. There are even some (CAPITALIST) economists who would argue that one of the reasons it didn't stimulate was because it didn't go far enough ($875? billion in a $13 trillion economy).

I don't use the word with any malice, it just is what it is. You can't look at his agenda 2 years in and objectively call it anything else.

I would suggest you're not being objective enough. Its ok, we all have bias. Maybe I'd be just as pissed at McCain if he were president today.

Edited November 2, 2010 by Coffee and TV

[Coffee and TV]

But anyways, we're off topic.

According to Nate Silver, whose site was like my bible in the months leading up to the 2008 election, he's predicting 52 or 51 seats for the Dems, about 55-60 in the House.

I'm thinking Dems lose:

North Dakota

Arkansas

Indiana

Wisconsin

Illinois

and 2 of the following (if not all 3, but I still like Ken Buck's chances)

Colorado

Nevada

Pennsylvania

[FirefightnRick]

With the house that would be good enough to halt any further damage done to this country the past two years.

Rick

I didn't say a thing about Barry and I really don't have to. Regardless of which side of the aisle a congressman sat on, if they voted for the insane out of control spending the past 2 years they need to go.

Rick

[GreenMachine]

Agreed, Kram. Take for instance taxes and spending. Yes, the President submits a proposed budget but it is Congress who is authorized to spend money - not the President. And the President cannot lower or raise taxes, only Congress can do that.

and unfortunately it's special interest lobbyist that help "persuade" that money be spent on questionable projects. Can you smell bacon?