They don't make Republican consevatives like they used to

[toxicmedia]

Forgive me while I back track a bit here.

I don't think the GOP will produce legislation to address the economy and jobs. I don't thin they can afford any of that to happen before they take back the white house in 2016. To complicate that even more...I'm not sure the congress or the white house even has a way to create jobs using legislation. People like Bill Gates and the Koch Brothers create jobs. Granted they can push the economy around + or - 10% or so depending on how smart, or stupid, their plans are.

And that burnout case Obama...my understanding is that his executive orders are rumored to NOT include amnesty. But let's think about that...amnesty or not, it won't affect how many illegals remain in the US. I think that is another example of a political football. Obama gets to woo Latinos with it, and Republicans get to characterize Obama as a tyrant who's shredding the constitution. But nothing really changes in the US either way, except how people vote.

I cannot imagine the GOP producing any immigration reform before 2016, because, while it might help them in 2016 with Latinos, would infuriate an already fractured base. Far righties (Tea Partiers) would splinter off with all manner of vote killing 3rd party candidates. I'll be amazed if it happens.

As I said...the GOP will not send anything that improves the economy to Obama before he's out. They will not send anything to Hillary either if she wins. That's why I'm voting Republican in 2016 no matter who it is.

I think you've completely misjudged what the GOP has to do in the next two years, Toxic. They appear to finally understand that the electorate sees them in only a SLIGHTLY better light than the Democrats when it comes to the economy and jobs but only because the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party was so absolutely abysmal at stimulating the economy or at creating jobs. This is the GOP's shot to prove to the voters that THEY are the answer to putting people back to work and putting more money in the average American's pockets. If they come through on those things then they will be tough for even a Hillary Clinton to beat. If they don't then they will start to bleed seats back to the Democrats.

What you're seeing from Obama is a deliberate political calculation that essentially blowing up the government rather than letting the GOP have their opportunity to turn things around is better for the liberal wing of the Democratic Party.

I stand on my opinion that the GOP can't afford to let good things get done before Obama is out of the picture, and a Republican president is in the white house, or the Dems will claim Bush left a wrecked economy behind, and a Dem president presided over an administration that fixed it.

I think at this point it's pretty obvious to the electorate that Barry didn't have a clue how to "fix" anything, Toxic. I don't see him getting any credit for GOP generated bills that do fix things from here on out because the public at this point realizes that he's never had any plan to fix the economy or create jobs. He would simply be the lame duck President who signed into law the things that the other party came up with (or if he stays true to form the President who vetoes most of the things the other party comes up with to fix things!).

Do I think he (and his true believers) would try to claim any gains that did take place as "his"? Without question. We've seen him do exactly that with the increase in production of oil and natural gas in the US over the past six years when the only place that has occurred has been on lands that he hasn't had control over. However I don't think anyone is buying what he's selling at this point on things like that except his most ardent supporters.

I think you're overestimating 95% of American voters. They don't watch Fox or MSNBC. Fox averages about 3 million viewers at night, and that's about 3% of the voting population. MSNBC gets about 1% of the voting population.

The vast majority of American voters decide who to vote on based on what family/friends/neighbors/social media tell them. That is very simple. They are told by trusted friends whether or not things suck, or not. Whomever is in charge, will get the credit, or the blame. Worse yet, extreme low information voters just pick a Republican or Democrat because that's what they are. It's a huge uphill climb to think 95% of American voters will consider the mid term congressional shift as the reason for why things suck, or are better, in 2016.

More likely, most voters will have two different mental images when they punch their ballots in 2016. An image of George Bush vis a vis Jeb Bush, and Hillary sitting in the white house from the 90's.

I think that most Americans decide who to vote for based on how they perceive their own personal economic outlook. They've just had six plus years of Progressives telling them how they are there for the Middle Class, Toxic but Middle Class paychecks kept shrinking and the cost of goods kept going up. Let's face it, the Main Stream Media didn't suddenly stop being liberally biased this year...they were still trying to put a good face on the Obama Administration's policies...but a whole lot of voters simply stopped believing what they were hearing from both this Administration and from the Main Stream Media.

As for who is in the White House in 2016? I don't think it matters, quite frankly. Nobody is going to be as clueless about the economy as Barack Obama and his crew have been. Hillary Clinton certainly wouldn't be. Coupled with a Republican Congress to keep her from spending too much, she would probably be fine.

You have a far greater estimation of how much the government can do to create jobs.

IMO, Barak Obama, Mother Theresa, the Queen of England, Elvis, or Eisntein...do not create jobs. Bill Gates and the Koch Brothers create jobs. Right now the American worker is generally lazy, stupid, and over payed compared to any other worker, in any other country, that speaks English an can work using a computer. American manufacturing employees have the same lack of demand in a global marketplace.

 

[toxicmedia]

The Tea Party doesn't stand for limited government spending, it stands for no government spending on anything Democrats want.

What's the difference between those two things?

Tea Partiers are all for increases in military spending, with a nearly unlimited budget. Tea Partiers want government to regulate social/sexual behavior. They don't want to spend less, just not spend any money on things Democrats want.

That's a pack of lies. TEA partiers may want more military spending than Obama and Harry Reid, but they do not want unlimited spending on the military. They do not want to regulate sexual behaviour. They just don't want to pay the cost of your sexual behaviour. The claim that they don't want to spend less is bullshit. All you have to do is look who supported the sequester to know that.

The Tea Party was just a place for Republicans to hang out while they waited out the shame of having voted for George Bush and his badly ending presidency. They're simply people who vote Republican. Republicans may be socially conservative, but not fiscally. Neither party are fiscally conservative

You're obviously just another brainwashed liberal drone.

You really don't know what the Oxford English Dictionary is...do you.....

Sure I do. I've used it many times. I used to have a copy on CD-ROM.

Why do you use it if you think it's a bunch of liberal definitions?

 

[bripat9643]

What's the difference between those two things?

Tea Partiers are all for increases in military spending, with a nearly unlimited budget. Tea Partiers want government to regulate social/sexual behavior. They don't want to spend less, just not spend any money on things Democrats want.

That's a pack of lies. TEA partiers may want more military spending than Obama and Harry Reid, but they do not want unlimited spending on the military. They do not want to regulate sexual behaviour. They just don't want to pay the cost of your sexual behaviour. The claim that they don't want to spend less is bullshit. All you have to do is look who supported the sequester to know that.

The Tea Party was just a place for Republicans to hang out while they waited out the shame of having voted for George Bush and his badly ending presidency. They're simply people who vote Republican. Republicans may be socially conservative, but not fiscally. Neither party are fiscally conservative

You're obviously just another brainwashed liberal drone.

You really don't know what the Oxford English Dictionary is...do you.....

Sure I do. I've used it many times. I used to have a copy on CD-ROM.

Why do you use it if you think it's a bunch of liberal definitions?

I use it for the same reason that conservatives used to watch CBS news: because they had no preferable alternative.

Anyone who thinks dictionaries are the ultimate authority on words is automatically wrong.

 

[toxicmedia]

You're a moron.

The words "conservative" and "liberal" have dictionary definitions, and Tea Partiers or evangelical Republicans don't fit that definition. Nor do they bear any resemblance to conservatives or neoconservatives

Then you're the idiot. The T.E.A. party stands for limited governmen spending. The very definition of conservative.

The Tea Party doesn't stand for limited government spending, it stands for no government spending on anything Democrats want.

What's the difference between those two things?

Tea Partiers are all for increases in military spending, with a nearly unlimited budget. Tea Partiers want government to regulate social/sexual behavior. They don't want to spend less, just not spend any money on things Democrats want.

The Tea Party was just a place for Republicans to hang out while they waited out the shame of having voted for George Bush and his badly ending presidency. They're simply people who vote Republican. Republicans may be socially conservative, but not fiscally. Neither party are fiscally conservative

Where are you getting your views about the Tea Party? It's never been an organized party with set goals. It's always been a large number of small grass roots organizations that on many issues had totally different goals. The one thing that was commonplace with most of them was a desire for a smaller, more efficient, Federal Government with more control being passed back to the States, Counties and individual cities and towns. The Tea Party groups are as fiscally conservative as we have in this nation. It's why both liberal and conservative establishment politicians were scared to death of them.

It all started in December 2006, when Ron Paul put together Libertarian ooposition to TARP. As the election grew closer. Republicans kind of walked around it wondering what it was, and nothing much happened.

One month after Obama took office, a Seattle teacher named Keli Carender, organized the very first protest against government spending before there was a "Tea Party". Michelle Malkin was either in attendence, or got wind of it. Keli's blog was "libertybelle". Carender and Ron Paul held the Democrats and Republicans equaly guilty of run away spending.

Fast forward, after Fox News and Rush promote the Tea Party for a few years, and drive viewers and listeners to rallies....you have the modern Tea Party, that strangely enough...thinks Republicans are great, and Democrats are horrible.

Ask yourself this...why do the 40+ "Tea Party Caucus" house reps always vote the exact same way as establishment Republicans?....and why do the 5 or so "Tea Party" Republican senators always vote in lockstep with estblishment Republicans.

What does it matter if you have a nebulous entity like the Tea Party if every Republican votes the same way?

The answer is there is no difference, and there never was.

 

[toxicmedia]

Tea Partiers are all for increases in military spending, with a nearly unlimited budget. Tea Partiers want government to regulate social/sexual behavior. They don't want to spend less, just not spend any money on things Democrats want.

That's a pack of lies. TEA partiers may want more military spending than Obama and Harry Reid, but they do not want unlimited spending on the military. They do not want to regulate sexual behaviour. They just don't want to pay the cost of your sexual behaviour. The claim that they don't want to spend less is bullshit. All you have to do is look who supported the sequester to know that.

The Tea Party was just a place for Republicans to hang out while they waited out the shame of having voted for George Bush and his badly ending presidency. They're simply people who vote Republican. Republicans may be socially conservative, but not fiscally. Neither party are fiscally conservative

You're obviously just another brainwashed liberal drone.

You really don't know what the Oxford English Dictionary is...do you.....

Sure I do. I've used it many times. I used to have a copy on CD-ROM.

Why do you use it if you think it's a bunch of liberal definitions?

I use it for the same reason that conservatives used to watch CBS news: because they had no preferable alternative.

Anyone who thinks dictionaries are the ultimate authority on words is automatically wrong.

Really....so you're speaking English.....and do you feel conservapedia or Rush Limbaugh have finally gotten the english language right?

If you can't fit how you'd like to think of yourself into an English word.

Perhaps you should try out what you're doing in the original German.

 

[rdean]

But it isn't Extreme for a President of the Democrat party to call Republicans, terrorist, hostage takers, flat earthers, Deniers. blah blah blah

Your Progressive/Democrat/commie is nothing BUT radical extremist. so work on them you really give a crap or just cry us a River over a Republican saying something

I am a life long Republican and some of those in my party are all of those things. I do not claim the Democrats don't have their own nut cases - they most certainly do. But I am more concerned with the state of my own house.

You're about as Republican as Pol Pot.

He directed the mass killing of intellectuals, professional people, city dwellers—perhaps one-fifth of his own people.

Pol Pot Facts

Pol Pot sounds awfully conservative. Pol Pot and Republicans seem to hate the same people.

 

[toxicmedia]

But it isn't Extreme for a President of the Democrat party to call Republicans, terrorist, hostage takers, flat earthers, Deniers. blah blah blah

Your Progressive/Democrat/commie is nothing BUT radical extremist. so work on them you really give a crap or just cry us a River over a Republican saying something

I am a life long Republican and some of those in my party are all of those things. I do not claim the Democrats don't have their own nut cases - they most certainly do. But I am more concerned with the state of my own house.

You're about as Republican as Pol Pot.

He directed the mass killing of intellectuals, professional people, city dwellers—perhaps one-fifth of his own people.

Pol Pot Facts

Pol Pot sounds awfully conservative. Pol Pot and Republicans seem to hate the same people.

Stalin and Hitler hated those same people as well, including what he called liberals

 

[Oldstyle]

I think you've completely misjudged what the GOP has to do in the next two years, Toxic. They appear to finally understand that the electorate sees them in only a SLIGHTLY better light than the Democrats when it comes to the economy and jobs but only because the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party was so absolutely abysmal at stimulating the economy or at creating jobs. This is the GOP's shot to prove to the voters that THEY are the answer to putting people back to work and putting more money in the average American's pockets. If they come through on those things then they will be tough for even a Hillary Clinton to beat. If they don't then they will start to bleed seats back to the Democrats.

What you're seeing from Obama is a deliberate political calculation that essentially blowing up the government rather than letting the GOP have their opportunity to turn things around is better for the liberal wing of the Democratic Party.

I stand on my opinion that the GOP can't afford to let good things get done before Obama is out of the picture, and a Republican president is in the white house, or the Dems will claim Bush left a wrecked economy behind, and a Dem president presided over an administration that fixed it.

I think at this point it's pretty obvious to the electorate that Barry didn't have a clue how to "fix" anything, Toxic. I don't see him getting any credit for GOP generated bills that do fix things from here on out because the public at this point realizes that he's never had any plan to fix the economy or create jobs. He would simply be the lame duck President who signed into law the things that the other party came up with (or if he stays true to form the President who vetoes most of the things the other party comes up with to fix things!).

Do I think he (and his true believers) would try to claim any gains that did take place as "his"? Without question. We've seen him do exactly that with the increase in production of oil and natural gas in the US over the past six years when the only place that has occurred has been on lands that he hasn't had control over. However I don't think anyone is buying what he's selling at this point on things like that except his most ardent supporters.

I think you're overestimating 95% of American voters. They don't watch Fox or MSNBC. Fox averages about 3 million viewers at night, and that's about 3% of the voting population. MSNBC gets about 1% of the voting population.

The vast majority of American voters decide who to vote on based on what family/friends/neighbors/social media tell them. That is very simple. They are told by trusted friends whether or not things suck, or not. Whomever is in charge, will get the credit, or the blame. Worse yet, extreme low information voters just pick a Republican or Democrat because that's what they are. It's a huge uphill climb to think 95% of American voters will consider the mid term congressional shift as the reason for why things suck, or are better, in 2016.

More likely, most voters will have two different mental images when they punch their ballots in 2016. An image of George Bush vis a vis Jeb Bush, and Hillary sitting in the white house from the 90's.

I think that most Americans decide who to vote for based on how they perceive their own personal economic outlook. They've just had six plus years of Progressives telling them how they are there for the Middle Class, Toxic but Middle Class paychecks kept shrinking and the cost of goods kept going up. Let's face it, the Main Stream Media didn't suddenly stop being liberally biased this year...they were still trying to put a good face on the Obama Administration's policies...but a whole lot of voters simply stopped believing what they were hearing from both this Administration and from the Main Stream Media.

As for who is in the White House in 2016? I don't think it matters, quite frankly. Nobody is going to be as clueless about the economy as Barack Obama and his crew have been. Hillary Clinton certainly wouldn't be. Coupled with a Republican Congress to keep her from spending too much, she would probably be fine.

You have a far greater estimation of how much the government can do to create jobs.

IMO, Barak Obama, Mother Theresa, the Queen of England, Elvis, or Eisntein...do not create jobs. Bill Gates and the Koch Brothers create jobs. Right now the American worker is generally lazy, stupid, and over payed compared to any other worker, in any other country, that speaks English an can work using a computer. American manufacturing employees have the same lack of demand in a global marketplace.

Here's one of the main differences between a conservative and liberal, Toxic...what I believe is that what the government is really good at is creating regulations and levying taxes that prevent jobs from being created. I don't want the government to create jobs...I just want government to get out of the way and let Free Markets create them.

The American worker has lost the work ethic that Americans used to be known for because they were told by union bosses and liberal politicians that they don't need to work hard anymore because they are "owed" a prosperous life just for punching a clock.

 

[Oldstyle]

But it isn't Extreme for a President of the Democrat party to call Republicans, terrorist, hostage takers, flat earthers, Deniers. blah blah blah

Your Progressive/Democrat/commie is nothing BUT radical extremist. so work on them you really give a crap or just cry us a River over a Republican saying something

I am a life long Republican and some of those in my party are all of those things. I do not claim the Democrats don't have their own nut cases - they most certainly do. But I am more concerned with the state of my own house.

You're about as Republican as Pol Pot.

He directed the mass killing of intellectuals, professional people, city dwellers—perhaps one-fifth of his own people.

Pol Pot Facts

Pol Pot sounds awfully conservative. Pol Pot and Republicans seem to hate the same people.

Pol Pot was what you get when Communism is taken to it's extreme. It's not pretty.

 

[Oldstyle]

Then you're the idiot. The T.E.A. party stands for limited governmen spending. The very definition of conservative.

The Tea Party doesn't stand for limited government spending, it stands for no government spending on anything Democrats want.

What's the difference between those two things?

Tea Partiers are all for increases in military spending, with a nearly unlimited budget. Tea Partiers want government to regulate social/sexual behavior. They don't want to spend less, just not spend any money on things Democrats want.

The Tea Party was just a place for Republicans to hang out while they waited out the shame of having voted for George Bush and his badly ending presidency. They're simply people who vote Republican. Republicans may be socially conservative, but not fiscally. Neither party are fiscally conservative

Where are you getting your views about the Tea Party? It's never been an organized party with set goals. It's always been a large number of small grass roots organizations that on many issues had totally different goals. The one thing that was commonplace with most of them was a desire for a smaller, more efficient, Federal Government with more control being passed back to the States, Counties and individual cities and towns. The Tea Party groups are as fiscally conservative as we have in this nation. It's why both liberal and conservative establishment politicians were scared to death of them.

It all started in December 2006, when Ron Paul put together Libertarian ooposition to TARP. As the election grew closer. Republicans kind of walked around it wondering what it was, and nothing much happened.

One month after Obama took office, a Seattle teacher named Keli Carender, organized the very first protest against government spending before there was a "Tea Party". Michelle Malkin was either in attendence, or got wind of it. Keli's blog was "libertybelle". Carender and Ron Paul held the Democrats and Republicans equaly guilty of run away spending.

Fast forward, after Fox News and Rush promote the Tea Party for a few years, and drive viewers and listeners to rallies....you have the modern Tea Party, that strangely enough...thinks Republicans are great, and Democrats are horrible.

Ask yourself this...why do the 40+ "Tea Party Caucus" house reps always vote the exact same way as establishment Republicans?....and why do the 5 or so "Tea Party" Republican senators always vote in lockstep with estblishment Republicans.

What does it matter if you have a nebulous entity like the Tea Party if every Republican votes the same way?

The answer is there is no difference, and there never was.

Why do they all vote against legislation proposed by Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama? Obviously it's because the "3 Stooges" were so far to the left with their agenda that even the moderates in the Democratic Party were voting with the establishment Republicans!

 

[Kosh]

Well they certainly do not make Democrat Conservatives like they used to either.

But the far left is proud of that fact..

 

[toxicmedia]

I stand on my opinion that the GOP can't afford to let good things get done before Obama is out of the picture, and a Republican president is in the white house, or the Dems will claim Bush left a wrecked economy behind, and a Dem president presided over an administration that fixed it.

I think at this point it's pretty obvious to the electorate that Barry didn't have a clue how to "fix" anything, Toxic. I don't see him getting any credit for GOP generated bills that do fix things from here on out because the public at this point realizes that he's never had any plan to fix the economy or create jobs. He would simply be the lame duck President who signed into law the things that the other party came up with (or if he stays true to form the President who vetoes most of the things the other party comes up with to fix things!).

Do I think he (and his true believers) would try to claim any gains that did take place as "his"? Without question. We've seen him do exactly that with the increase in production of oil and natural gas in the US over the past six years when the only place that has occurred has been on lands that he hasn't had control over. However I don't think anyone is buying what he's selling at this point on things like that except his most ardent supporters.

I think you're overestimating 95% of American voters. They don't watch Fox or MSNBC. Fox averages about 3 million viewers at night, and that's about 3% of the voting population. MSNBC gets about 1% of the voting population.

The vast majority of American voters decide who to vote on based on what family/friends/neighbors/social media tell them. That is very simple. They are told by trusted friends whether or not things suck, or not. Whomever is in charge, will get the credit, or the blame. Worse yet, extreme low information voters just pick a Republican or Democrat because that's what they are. It's a huge uphill climb to think 95% of American voters will consider the mid term congressional shift as the reason for why things suck, or are better, in 2016.

More likely, most voters will have two different mental images when they punch their ballots in 2016. An image of George Bush vis a vis Jeb Bush, and Hillary sitting in the white house from the 90's.

I think that most Americans decide who to vote for based on how they perceive their own personal economic outlook. They've just had six plus years of Progressives telling them how they are there for the Middle Class, Toxic but Middle Class paychecks kept shrinking and the cost of goods kept going up. Let's face it, the Main Stream Media didn't suddenly stop being liberally biased this year...they were still trying to put a good face on the Obama Administration's policies...but a whole lot of voters simply stopped believing what they were hearing from both this Administration and from the Main Stream Media.

As for who is in the White House in 2016? I don't think it matters, quite frankly. Nobody is going to be as clueless about the economy as Barack Obama and his crew have been. Hillary Clinton certainly wouldn't be. Coupled with a Republican Congress to keep her from spending too much, she would probably be fine.

You have a far greater estimation of how much the government can do to create jobs.

IMO, Barak Obama, Mother Theresa, the Queen of England, Elvis, or Eisntein...do not create jobs. Bill Gates and the Koch Brothers create jobs. Right now the American worker is generally lazy, stupid, and over payed compared to any other worker, in any other country, that speaks English an can work using a computer. American manufacturing employees have the same lack of demand in a global marketplace.

Here's one of the main differences between a conservative and liberal, Toxic...what I believe is that what the government is really good at is creating regulations and levying taxes that prevent jobs from being created. I don't want the government to create jobs...I just want government to get out of the way and let Free Markets create them.

The American worker has lost the work ethic that Americans used to be known for because they were told by union bosses and liberal politicians that they don't need to work hard anymore because they are "owed" a prosperous life just for punching a clock.

At last we agree on the prognosis, and treatment...but not the diagnosis.

"getting out of the way" of free markets is the topic I guess.

A huge problem I see is that "getting out of the way" means a shift of "wealth", or more accuratly a shift of income. Nether side is willing to propose the cuts needed to reallocate government funds in such a way that the government can keep functioning without corporate tax revenues the way they are now.

You can't get out of the way of business by cutting welfare benefits, teacher salaries., and government worker pensions. You have to cut social security, medicare, and defense spending, as well. But cutting those programs the jobs created by the programs would go too.

I can see how a merit driven job market might restore the work ethic we seem to have needed prior to WWII. But the detrimental long term effects of prosperity are a factor because the prosperity is eroding. So even with a renewed work ethic, we're still only going to be as competitive as workers in India, China, and elsewhere.

The key is innovation. Cars, Computers, Medical discoveries, and so on. Those things created booms. And entreprenuers do that in tandem with innovators. Jobs and Wozniak were a good example.

 

[TheIceMan]

I think at this point it's pretty obvious to the electorate that Barry didn't have a clue how to "fix" anything, Toxic. I don't see him getting any credit for GOP generated bills that do fix things from here on out because the public at this point realizes that he's never had any plan to fix the economy or create jobs. He would simply be the lame duck President who signed into law the things that the other party came up with (or if he stays true to form the President who vetoes most of the things the other party comes up with to fix things!).

Do I think he (and his true believers) would try to claim any gains that did take place as "his"? Without question. We've seen him do exactly that with the increase in production of oil and natural gas in the US over the past six years when the only place that has occurred has been on lands that he hasn't had control over. However I don't think anyone is buying what he's selling at this point on things like that except his most ardent supporters.

I think you're overestimating 95% of American voters. They don't watch Fox or MSNBC. Fox averages about 3 million viewers at night, and that's about 3% of the voting population. MSNBC gets about 1% of the voting population.

The vast majority of American voters decide who to vote on based on what family/friends/neighbors/social media tell them. That is very simple. They are told by trusted friends whether or not things suck, or not. Whomever is in charge, will get the credit, or the blame. Worse yet, extreme low information voters just pick a Republican or Democrat because that's what they are. It's a huge uphill climb to think 95% of American voters will consider the mid term congressional shift as the reason for why things suck, or are better, in 2016.

More likely, most voters will have two different mental images when they punch their ballots in 2016. An image of George Bush vis a vis Jeb Bush, and Hillary sitting in the white house from the 90's.

I think that most Americans decide who to vote for based on how they perceive their own personal economic outlook. They've just had six plus years of Progressives telling them how they are there for the Middle Class, Toxic but Middle Class paychecks kept shrinking and the cost of goods kept going up. Let's face it, the Main Stream Media didn't suddenly stop being liberally biased this year...they were still trying to put a good face on the Obama Administration's policies...but a whole lot of voters simply stopped believing what they were hearing from both this Administration and from the Main Stream Media.

As for who is in the White House in 2016? I don't think it matters, quite frankly. Nobody is going to be as clueless about the economy as Barack Obama and his crew have been. Hillary Clinton certainly wouldn't be. Coupled with a Republican Congress to keep her from spending too much, she would probably be fine.

You have a far greater estimation of how much the government can do to create jobs.

IMO, Barak Obama, Mother Theresa, the Queen of England, Elvis, or Eisntein...do not create jobs. Bill Gates and the Koch Brothers create jobs. Right now the American worker is generally lazy, stupid, and over payed compared to any other worker, in any other country, that speaks English an can work using a computer. American manufacturing employees have the same lack of demand in a global marketplace.

Here's one of the main differences between a conservative and liberal, Toxic...what I believe is that what the government is really good at is creating regulations and levying taxes that prevent jobs from being created. I don't want the government to create jobs...I just want government to get out of the way and let Free Markets create them.

The American worker has lost the work ethic that Americans used to be known for because they were told by union bosses and liberal politicians that they don't need to work hard anymore because they are "owed" a prosperous life just for punching a clock.

At last we agree on the prognosis, and treatment...but not the diagnosis.

"getting out of the way" of free markets is the topic I guess.

A huge problem I see is that "getting out of the way" means a shift of "wealth", or more accuratly a shift of income. Nether side is willing to propose the cuts needed to reallocate government funds in such a way that the government can keep functioning without corporate tax revenues the way they are now.

You can't get out of the way of business by cutting welfare benefits, teacher salaries., and government worker pensions. You have to cut social security, medicare, and defense spending, as well. But cutting those programs the jobs created by the programs would go too.

I can see how a merit driven job market might restore the work ethic we seem to have needed prior to WWII. But the detrimental long term effects of prosperity are a factor because the prosperity is eroding. So even with a renewed work ethic, we're still only going to be as competitive as workers in India, China, and elsewhere.

The key is innovation. Cars, Computers, Medical discoveries, and so on. Those things created booms. And entreprenuers do that in tandem with innovators. Jobs and Wozniak were a good example.

Did you really just say all that crap?

Why should we reallocate government funds? How about if we cut off the government? I'd live a much better life without them getting a quarter of my paycheck. And they provide no service to me or mine. They sit around and suck up our money and accomplish nothing.

We pay for a lot of people to do nothing. And no one needs to control me but me.

 

[toxicmedia]

I think you're overestimating 95% of American voters. They don't watch Fox or MSNBC. Fox averages about 3 million viewers at night, and that's about 3% of the voting population. MSNBC gets about 1% of the voting population.

The vast majority of American voters decide who to vote on based on what family/friends/neighbors/social media tell them. That is very simple. They are told by trusted friends whether or not things suck, or not. Whomever is in charge, will get the credit, or the blame. Worse yet, extreme low information voters just pick a Republican or Democrat because that's what they are. It's a huge uphill climb to think 95% of American voters will consider the mid term congressional shift as the reason for why things suck, or are better, in 2016.

More likely, most voters will have two different mental images when they punch their ballots in 2016. An image of George Bush vis a vis Jeb Bush, and Hillary sitting in the white house from the 90's.

I think that most Americans decide who to vote for based on how they perceive their own personal economic outlook. They've just had six plus years of Progressives telling them how they are there for the Middle Class, Toxic but Middle Class paychecks kept shrinking and the cost of goods kept going up. Let's face it, the Main Stream Media didn't suddenly stop being liberally biased this year...they were still trying to put a good face on the Obama Administration's policies...but a whole lot of voters simply stopped believing what they were hearing from both this Administration and from the Main Stream Media.

As for who is in the White House in 2016? I don't think it matters, quite frankly. Nobody is going to be as clueless about the economy as Barack Obama and his crew have been. Hillary Clinton certainly wouldn't be. Coupled with a Republican Congress to keep her from spending too much, she would probably be fine.

You have a far greater estimation of how much the government can do to create jobs.

IMO, Barak Obama, Mother Theresa, the Queen of England, Elvis, or Eisntein...do not create jobs. Bill Gates and the Koch Brothers create jobs. Right now the American worker is generally lazy, stupid, and over payed compared to any other worker, in any other country, that speaks English an can work using a computer. American manufacturing employees have the same lack of demand in a global marketplace.

Here's one of the main differences between a conservative and liberal, Toxic...what I believe is that what the government is really good at is creating regulations and levying taxes that prevent jobs from being created. I don't want the government to create jobs...I just want government to get out of the way and let Free Markets create them.

The American worker has lost the work ethic that Americans used to be known for because they were told by union bosses and liberal politicians that they don't need to work hard anymore because they are "owed" a prosperous life just for punching a clock.

At last we agree on the prognosis, and treatment...but not the diagnosis.

"getting out of the way" of free markets is the topic I guess.

A huge problem I see is that "getting out of the way" means a shift of "wealth", or more accuratly a shift of income. Nether side is willing to propose the cuts needed to reallocate government funds in such a way that the government can keep functioning without corporate tax revenues the way they are now.

You can't get out of the way of business by cutting welfare benefits, teacher salaries., and government worker pensions. You have to cut social security, medicare, and defense spending, as well. But cutting those programs the jobs created by the programs would go too.

I can see how a merit driven job market might restore the work ethic we seem to have needed prior to WWII. But the detrimental long term effects of prosperity are a factor because the prosperity is eroding. So even with a renewed work ethic, we're still only going to be as competitive as workers in India, China, and elsewhere.

The key is innovation. Cars, Computers, Medical discoveries, and so on. Those things created booms. And entreprenuers do that in tandem with innovators. Jobs and Wozniak were a good example.

Did you really just say all that crap?

Why should we reallocate government funds? How about if we cut off the government? I'd live a much better life without them getting a quarter of my paycheck. And they provide no service to me or mine. They sit around and suck up our money and accomplish nothing.

We pay for a lot of people to do nothing. And no one needs to control me but me.

I'm curious how you've made an island of yourself.

Do you not drive on roads?
Do you not have kids in public school?
Are you not thrilled about sending troops to Iraq?
Don't you want the border secured?
Do you not needs cops?
Do you intend to return your social security checks to the government after you retire?
Do you intend to pay all your medical bills instead of getting on medicare when you retire?


Do you live off the grid, and hunt for your food?....

 

[TexM3]

I think that most Americans decide who to vote for based on how they perceive their own personal economic outlook. They've just had six plus years of Progressives telling them how they are there for the Middle Class, Toxic but Middle Class paychecks kept shrinking and the cost of goods kept going up. Let's face it, the Main Stream Media didn't suddenly stop being liberally biased this year...they were still trying to put a good face on the Obama Administration's policies...but a whole lot of voters simply stopped believing what they were hearing from both this Administration and from the Main Stream Media.

As for who is in the White House in 2016? I don't think it matters, quite frankly. Nobody is going to be as clueless about the economy as Barack Obama and his crew have been. Hillary Clinton certainly wouldn't be. Coupled with a Republican Congress to keep her from spending too much, she would probably be fine.

You have a far greater estimation of how much the government can do to create jobs.

IMO, Barak Obama, Mother Theresa, the Queen of England, Elvis, or Eisntein...do not create jobs. Bill Gates and the Koch Brothers create jobs. Right now the American worker is generally lazy, stupid, and over payed compared to any other worker, in any other country, that speaks English an can work using a computer. American manufacturing employees have the same lack of demand in a global marketplace.

Here's one of the main differences between a conservative and liberal, Toxic...what I believe is that what the government is really good at is creating regulations and levying taxes that prevent jobs from being created. I don't want the government to create jobs...I just want government to get out of the way and let Free Markets create them.

The American worker has lost the work ethic that Americans used to be known for because they were told by union bosses and liberal politicians that they don't need to work hard anymore because they are "owed" a prosperous life just for punching a clock.

At last we agree on the prognosis, and treatment...but not the diagnosis.

"getting out of the way" of free markets is the topic I guess.

A huge problem I see is that "getting out of the way" means a shift of "wealth", or more accuratly a shift of income. Nether side is willing to propose the cuts needed to reallocate government funds in such a way that the government can keep functioning without corporate tax revenues the way they are now.

You can't get out of the way of business by cutting welfare benefits, teacher salaries., and government worker pensions. You have to cut social security, medicare, and defense spending, as well. But cutting those programs the jobs created by the programs would go too.

I can see how a merit driven job market might restore the work ethic we seem to have needed prior to WWII. But the detrimental long term effects of prosperity are a factor because the prosperity is eroding. So even with a renewed work ethic, we're still only going to be as competitive as workers in India, China, and elsewhere.

The key is innovation. Cars, Computers, Medical discoveries, and so on. Those things created booms. And entreprenuers do that in tandem with innovators. Jobs and Wozniak were a good example.

Did you really just say all that crap?

Why should we reallocate government funds? How about if we cut off the government? I'd live a much better life without them getting a quarter of my paycheck. And they provide no service to me or mine. They sit around and suck up our money and accomplish nothing.

We pay for a lot of people to do nothing. And no one needs to control me but me.

I'm curious how you've made an island of yourself.

Do you not drive on roads?
Do you not have kids in public school?
Are you not thrilled about sending troops to Iraq?
Don't you want the border secured?
Do you not needs cops?
Do you intend to return your social security checks to the government after you retire?
Do you intend to pay all your medical bills instead of getting on medicare when you retire?


Do you live off the grid, and hunt for your food?....

I believe he means cut the fed. gov. off confining their purview to the enumerated powers. Which I'm in total agreement with.

 

[TheIceMan]

I think that most Americans decide who to vote for based on how they perceive their own personal economic outlook. They've just had six plus years of Progressives telling them how they are there for the Middle Class, Toxic but Middle Class paychecks kept shrinking and the cost of goods kept going up. Let's face it, the Main Stream Media didn't suddenly stop being liberally biased this year...they were still trying to put a good face on the Obama Administration's policies...but a whole lot of voters simply stopped believing what they were hearing from both this Administration and from the Main Stream Media.

As for who is in the White House in 2016? I don't think it matters, quite frankly. Nobody is going to be as clueless about the economy as Barack Obama and his crew have been. Hillary Clinton certainly wouldn't be. Coupled with a Republican Congress to keep her from spending too much, she would probably be fine.

You have a far greater estimation of how much the government can do to create jobs.

IMO, Barak Obama, Mother Theresa, the Queen of England, Elvis, or Eisntein...do not create jobs. Bill Gates and the Koch Brothers create jobs. Right now the American worker is generally lazy, stupid, and over payed compared to any other worker, in any other country, that speaks English an can work using a computer. American manufacturing employees have the same lack of demand in a global marketplace.

Here's one of the main differences between a conservative and liberal, Toxic...what I believe is that what the government is really good at is creating regulations and levying taxes that prevent jobs from being created. I don't want the government to create jobs...I just want government to get out of the way and let Free Markets create them.

The American worker has lost the work ethic that Americans used to be known for because they were told by union bosses and liberal politicians that they don't need to work hard anymore because they are "owed" a prosperous life just for punching a clock.

At last we agree on the prognosis, and treatment...but not the diagnosis.

"getting out of the way" of free markets is the topic I guess.

A huge problem I see is that "getting out of the way" means a shift of "wealth", or more accuratly a shift of income. Nether side is willing to propose the cuts needed to reallocate government funds in such a way that the government can keep functioning without corporate tax revenues the way they are now.

You can't get out of the way of business by cutting welfare benefits, teacher salaries., and government worker pensions. You have to cut social security, medicare, and defense spending, as well. But cutting those programs the jobs created by the programs would go too.

I can see how a merit driven job market might restore the work ethic we seem to have needed prior to WWII. But the detrimental long term effects of prosperity are a factor because the prosperity is eroding. So even with a renewed work ethic, we're still only going to be as competitive as workers in India, China, and elsewhere.

The key is innovation. Cars, Computers, Medical discoveries, and so on. Those things created booms. And entreprenuers do that in tandem with innovators. Jobs and Wozniak were a good example.

Did you really just say all that crap?

Why should we reallocate government funds? How about if we cut off the government? I'd live a much better life without them getting a quarter of my paycheck. And they provide no service to me or mine. They sit around and suck up our money and accomplish nothing.

We pay for a lot of people to do nothing. And no one needs to control me but me.

I'm curious how you've made an island of yourself.

Do you not drive on roads?
Do you not have kids in public school?
Are you not thrilled about sending troops to Iraq?
Don't you want the border secured?
Do you not needs cops?
Do you intend to return your social security checks to the government after you retire?
Do you intend to pay all your medical bills instead of getting on medicare when you retire?


Do you live off the grid, and hunt for your food?....

I think I sent ME to Iraq, brain sturgeon. Where you been?

Now why should I return the retirement I earned? Certainly not because you like to make backwards-assed argument. So if I joined labor union and paid all my life for that, and took their medical, what would be the difference? I had a different employer?

The Fed doesn't pay for roads.

The Fed doesn't pay for public school.

The Fed damned-sure ain't paying for a secure border. I'm a Texan. Guess who's footing THAT bill? Not you.

What do I need cops for? To find out who killed me after I'm dead?

You might want to go back to the drawing board and try again.

 

[bripat9643]

What's the difference between those two things?

Tea Partiers are all for increases in military spending, with a nearly unlimited budget. Tea Partiers want government to regulate social/sexual behavior. They don't want to spend less, just not spend any money on things Democrats want.

That's a pack of lies. TEA partiers may want more military spending than Obama and Harry Reid, but they do not want unlimited spending on the military. They do not want to regulate sexual behaviour. They just don't want to pay the cost of your sexual behaviour. The claim that they don't want to spend less is bullshit. All you have to do is look who supported the sequester to know that.

The Tea Party was just a place for Republicans to hang out while they waited out the shame of having voted for George Bush and his badly ending presidency. They're simply people who vote Republican. Republicans may be socially conservative, but not fiscally. Neither party are fiscally conservative

You're obviously just another brainwashed liberal drone.

You really don't know what the Oxford English Dictionary is...do you.....

Sure I do. I've used it many times. I used to have a copy on CD-ROM.

Why do you use it if you think it's a bunch of liberal definitions?

Only the words with political overtones have liberal definitions. The same goes for Wikipedia.

 

[Oldstyle]

I think at this point it's pretty obvious to the electorate that Barry didn't have a clue how to "fix" anything, Toxic. I don't see him getting any credit for GOP generated bills that do fix things from here on out because the public at this point realizes that he's never had any plan to fix the economy or create jobs. He would simply be the lame duck President who signed into law the things that the other party came up with (or if he stays true to form the President who vetoes most of the things the other party comes up with to fix things!).

Do I think he (and his true believers) would try to claim any gains that did take place as "his"? Without question. We've seen him do exactly that with the increase in production of oil and natural gas in the US over the past six years when the only place that has occurred has been on lands that he hasn't had control over. However I don't think anyone is buying what he's selling at this point on things like that except his most ardent supporters.

I think you're overestimating 95% of American voters. They don't watch Fox or MSNBC. Fox averages about 3 million viewers at night, and that's about 3% of the voting population. MSNBC gets about 1% of the voting population.

The vast majority of American voters decide who to vote on based on what family/friends/neighbors/social media tell them. That is very simple. They are told by trusted friends whether or not things suck, or not. Whomever is in charge, will get the credit, or the blame. Worse yet, extreme low information voters just pick a Republican or Democrat because that's what they are. It's a huge uphill climb to think 95% of American voters will consider the mid term congressional shift as the reason for why things suck, or are better, in 2016.

More likely, most voters will have two different mental images when they punch their ballots in 2016. An image of George Bush vis a vis Jeb Bush, and Hillary sitting in the white house from the 90's.

I think that most Americans decide who to vote for based on how they perceive their own personal economic outlook. They've just had six plus years of Progressives telling them how they are there for the Middle Class, Toxic but Middle Class paychecks kept shrinking and the cost of goods kept going up. Let's face it, the Main Stream Media didn't suddenly stop being liberally biased this year...they were still trying to put a good face on the Obama Administration's policies...but a whole lot of voters simply stopped believing what they were hearing from both this Administration and from the Main Stream Media.

As for who is in the White House in 2016? I don't think it matters, quite frankly. Nobody is going to be as clueless about the economy as Barack Obama and his crew have been. Hillary Clinton certainly wouldn't be. Coupled with a Republican Congress to keep her from spending too much, she would probably be fine.

You have a far greater estimation of how much the government can do to create jobs.

IMO, Barak Obama, Mother Theresa, the Queen of England, Elvis, or Eisntein...do not create jobs. Bill Gates and the Koch Brothers create jobs. Right now the American worker is generally lazy, stupid, and over payed compared to any other worker, in any other country, that speaks English an can work using a computer. American manufacturing employees have the same lack of demand in a global marketplace.

Here's one of the main differences between a conservative and liberal, Toxic...what I believe is that what the government is really good at is creating regulations and levying taxes that prevent jobs from being created. I don't want the government to create jobs...I just want government to get out of the way and let Free Markets create them.

The American worker has lost the work ethic that Americans used to be known for because they were told by union bosses and liberal politicians that they don't need to work hard anymore because they are "owed" a prosperous life just for punching a clock.

At last we agree on the prognosis, and treatment...but not the diagnosis.

"getting out of the way" of free markets is the topic I guess.

A huge problem I see is that "getting out of the way" means a shift of "wealth", or more accuratly a shift of income. Nether side is willing to propose the cuts needed to reallocate government funds in such a way that the government can keep functioning without corporate tax revenues the way they are now.

You can't get out of the way of business by cutting welfare benefits, teacher salaries., and government worker pensions. You have to cut social security, medicare, and defense spending, as well. But cutting those programs the jobs created by the programs would go too.

I can see how a merit driven job market might restore the work ethic we seem to have needed prior to WWII. But the detrimental long term effects of prosperity are a factor because the prosperity is eroding. So even with a renewed work ethic, we're still only going to be as competitive as workers in India, China, and elsewhere.

The key is innovation. Cars, Computers, Medical discoveries, and so on. Those things created booms. And entreprenuers do that in tandem with innovators. Jobs and Wozniak were a good example.

Why does the government getting out of the way of free markets so the Private Sector can create jobs mean a "shift of income"? I'm talking about reducing the red tape that so many American businesses are now forced to deal with because of all of the Federal Government's regulations. I'm talking about getting rid of the rampant waste that is so prevalent in the Federal Government. I'm talking about letting American corporations bring overseas profits into the country without paying stiff taxes. I'm talking about lowering the corporate tax rate to a level that would make us a little competitive with the rest of the world. The United States is currently losing jobs and investment to other areas of the world that are simply better places to do business. The longer that goes on the weaker our economy will become and the stronger we will make economies elsewhere.

 

[toxicmedia]

I think you're overestimating 95% of American voters. They don't watch Fox or MSNBC. Fox averages about 3 million viewers at night, and that's about 3% of the voting population. MSNBC gets about 1% of the voting population.

The vast majority of American voters decide who to vote on based on what family/friends/neighbors/social media tell them. That is very simple. They are told by trusted friends whether or not things suck, or not. Whomever is in charge, will get the credit, or the blame. Worse yet, extreme low information voters just pick a Republican or Democrat because that's what they are. It's a huge uphill climb to think 95% of American voters will consider the mid term congressional shift as the reason for why things suck, or are better, in 2016.

More likely, most voters will have two different mental images when they punch their ballots in 2016. An image of George Bush vis a vis Jeb Bush, and Hillary sitting in the white house from the 90's.

I think that most Americans decide who to vote for based on how they perceive their own personal economic outlook. They've just had six plus years of Progressives telling them how they are there for the Middle Class, Toxic but Middle Class paychecks kept shrinking and the cost of goods kept going up. Let's face it, the Main Stream Media didn't suddenly stop being liberally biased this year...they were still trying to put a good face on the Obama Administration's policies...but a whole lot of voters simply stopped believing what they were hearing from both this Administration and from the Main Stream Media.

As for who is in the White House in 2016? I don't think it matters, quite frankly. Nobody is going to be as clueless about the economy as Barack Obama and his crew have been. Hillary Clinton certainly wouldn't be. Coupled with a Republican Congress to keep her from spending too much, she would probably be fine.

You have a far greater estimation of how much the government can do to create jobs.

IMO, Barak Obama, Mother Theresa, the Queen of England, Elvis, or Eisntein...do not create jobs. Bill Gates and the Koch Brothers create jobs. Right now the American worker is generally lazy, stupid, and over payed compared to any other worker, in any other country, that speaks English an can work using a computer. American manufacturing employees have the same lack of demand in a global marketplace.

Here's one of the main differences between a conservative and liberal, Toxic...what I believe is that what the government is really good at is creating regulations and levying taxes that prevent jobs from being created. I don't want the government to create jobs...I just want government to get out of the way and let Free Markets create them.

The American worker has lost the work ethic that Americans used to be known for because they were told by union bosses and liberal politicians that they don't need to work hard anymore because they are "owed" a prosperous life just for punching a clock.

At last we agree on the prognosis, and treatment...but not the diagnosis.

"getting out of the way" of free markets is the topic I guess.

A huge problem I see is that "getting out of the way" means a shift of "wealth", or more accuratly a shift of income. Nether side is willing to propose the cuts needed to reallocate government funds in such a way that the government can keep functioning without corporate tax revenues the way they are now.

You can't get out of the way of business by cutting welfare benefits, teacher salaries., and government worker pensions. You have to cut social security, medicare, and defense spending, as well. But cutting those programs the jobs created by the programs would go too.

I can see how a merit driven job market might restore the work ethic we seem to have needed prior to WWII. But the detrimental long term effects of prosperity are a factor because the prosperity is eroding. So even with a renewed work ethic, we're still only going to be as competitive as workers in India, China, and elsewhere.

The key is innovation. Cars, Computers, Medical discoveries, and so on. Those things created booms. And entreprenuers do that in tandem with innovators. Jobs and Wozniak were a good example.

Why does the government getting out of the way of free markets so the Private Sector can create jobs mean a "shift of income"? I'm talking about reducing the red tape that so many American businesses are now forced to deal with because of all of the Federal Government's regulations. I'm talking about getting rid of the rampant waste that is so prevalent in the Federal Government. I'm talking about letting American corporations bring overseas profits into the country without paying stiff taxes. I'm talking about lowering the corporate tax rate to a level that would make us a little competitive with the rest of the world. The United States is currently losing jobs and investment to other areas of the world that are simply better places to do business. The longer that goes on the weaker our economy will become and the stronger we will make economies elsewhere.

To get out of the way of free markets, you not only must reduce regulation, but lower business taxes as well. If the government has less income, cuts have to be made. The notion that the government has enough revenue now, and just needs to spend it more wisely may be partially to mostly correct...but that's a fantasy that can never come true because of the nature of special interest, and the fact humans are flawed. History is rank with extremist expectations of perfection that turn into resentments and oppression.

I agree with everything else you said after "so prevalent in the federal government"

I DO NOT believe that all that will happen if we elect a Republican president in 2016, nor will it happen if Hillary is elected.

The advantage created for the party out of power in any election is that Utopian scenario of how it would have been if you had only elected us.

Are you confident that the Republican party has crossed some strange boundary, whereby if we elect an all Republican congress, and President...they'll do what our government has never done?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

These guys would be drummed out of the GOP is they said things like this today.

Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history.
Dwight D. Eisenhower

Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
Barry Goldwater

One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed - different plans have to be made. And the kernal here is the acknowlegement of defeat.
William F Buckley

Freedom is an indivisible word. If we want to enjoy it, and fight for it, we must be prepared to extend it to everyone, whether they are rich or poor, whether they agree with us or not, no matter what their race or the color of their skin
Wendell Willkie

Here's a hint those Republicans that you quoted were not dealing with liberals agenda of today, if they were they also would have the same view of liberals today as we do.