GOP takes Senate, increases majority in house, and picks up more governorships

Even in the mirror, I see no examples of such behavior from me - but that's not easy, and you, typically, provide nothing for guidance.

On the other hand, all of these bad behaviors I have assigned to you have been accompanied by specific examples you have been asked to justify or explain.

You don't need to look in the mirror and figure things out for yourself - other people have done you the favor of that effort. All you have to do is read simple, declarative sentences with comprehension - and respond to them, honestly.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The only reason Obama would be considered more disappointing than Hoover, Reagan, Bush, or W, is that his supporters are not universally afflicted with the peculiar amnesia currently protecting those massive failures of governance elected with such overweening confidence and high expectations.

"Morning in America" indeed.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Tiassa opined: "Every time Republicans win according to structurally predictable factors..."

He doesn't want you to know that Democrats lost according to structurally predictable factors.

He needs you to believe it was not his ilk's fault.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So Democrats are responsible for Republican gerrymandering and voter suppression? Talk about scapegoating...

I'm not sure why you think Tiassa needs people to believe his ilk is faultless.

 

I'm sure why you're not.

 

And what does that mean?

 

In the wake of the midterm election, the New York Times asks Is Obamacare Destroying the Democratic Party?

 

Yeah - they've also given David Brooks a raise and a bigger "research" staff to go with his seat at the high table, printed dozens of columns by Ross Douthat, and generally embarrassed themselves in public for

Imagine an informed person actually wondering whether Romney's health care plan, installed nationally, is destroying the Democratic Party. Imagine an informed person thinking Obamacare itself has anything to do with the troubles of the Democratic Party. Imagine the NYT pandering to the ignorant and Fox addled.

That last needs little imagination.

The NYT is in bigger trouble than the Democratic Party, methinks.

 

And Landrieu going down makes it a net pick up of nine Senate seats.

 

Well I wouldn't get too excited just yet. Republicans only have a 4 seat advantage in the Senate and next election cycle. Two years from now the election geography favors Democrats rather than Republicans as was the case this election cycle. Further, now the heat is on to show Republicans can govern...something they have not done since Obama was first elected POTUS. Instead of doing everything within their power to cause government dysfunction, Republicans are now accountable. They have to do more than just gum up the works of government now that they control both houses. Given the insanity of right wing extremism and the inability of Republican leadership to lead, it is not at all clear Republicans can govern. The old adage, be careful what you wish for is apropos.

 

The last time something like this happened, we got an economic crash a tripled national debt, and two useless wars out of it - it got so bad we are now cheering gas prices below $3 a gallon. The time before we got wage stagnation, transfer of welfare and mental health dealings to SS disability and jail time, and the launching of the modern prison population.

Think anything will be different this time into the mudhole? Or more to the point: will the voters responsible for the incoming mess remember whom to blame when it all goes to hell on them, this time?

What makes you think that this time, unlike any other time in the past forty years, any Republican politician is going to be held accountable for anything they do or say in office?

 

For all the Republican talk about jobs, the last time they controlled both houses of congress and the presidency, George Bush Junior only created 300k private sector jobs during his 8 years as POTUS.

"President Obama’s economy created over 300,000 jobs in a month, whereas George W. Bush averaged 58,000 jobs created per month during his presidency. Priebus said that the economy should at minimum create 300,000 jobs per month, but during the Bush years job growth only grew by 300,000 or more six times. George W. Bush also lost 300,000 or more jobs six times during his presidency.
The president delivered a dose of hardcore reality by highlighting the fact that he is doing something that Republican Party failed to do. Republicans created the Great Recession, while this president has dug the country out of the depths of economic despair.
Obama has accomplished this feat while being saddled with a Republican controlled House that has spent their days trying to devise ways to wreck the economy. Beyond the basic job creation numbers, President Obama has overcome Republican obstruction and gotten the economy back on the right foot. http://www.politicususa.com/2014/12/05/obama-smacks-republicans-eyes-facts-record-job-growth.html

The Obama administration has created over 4 million jobs and most of them private sector jobs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms

 

If socialized medicine is so good, why does Australia have a thriving private healthcare sector? Why are Australians choosing to pay more for Private? We're not talking about the 'rich' - we're talking about middle class Australians scraping together extra cash and buying private healthcare insurance and going to private hospitals. Or being treated by private surgeons - who are seen (and probably are on the whole) more competent.

Why are Australians paying $25,000 a year to send their children to Private schools - when the State pays (and pays a lot) for Public schools? Again, I'm not talking 'The Rich'. I'm talking struggling middle class families working two jobs to send their kids to a good Private school. Why do it when Public is highly funded and 'free'?

Summary: If by Socialism you mean redistribute at the point of a gun - then it's worse than 'bad', it's immoral. The biggest lie here, is that you can take from one group 'by force' and give to another and call that 'Progressive Socialism'. It will NEVER be cheaper than a free-market because it costs uncountable amounts of money to maintain the Police State and massive Bureaucracies needed to redistribute the goods from one group to another. And that doesn't even begin to take into account all the parasites who have burrowed deep into various Public institutions snuggled away under layers of red-tape, water-tight contracts and unions. Nor the perversion that occurs TO society as everyone scrambles to use regulatory capture and rent-seeking to make more money than the free-markets would otherwise award them/value their services. Socialism is worse than bad. And it only works in the beginning - when there's a strong free-market to pilfer from. Sometimes that pilfering can go on for centuries, but it does come to an end.

Imagine Steve Jobs. By all accounts he was an arse-hole to work with. But get this. He had the ability to empathize**. To look into the minds of others and see what they might want - and then provide it to them. This means, in free societies, the arse holes of the world must provide virtue if they want to make money. This only happens in free societies. Thus, Apple became (and is) one of the largest companies in the world. And then get this. As powerful as Apple Inc is, Apple employees are powerless to do anything other than provide us with what we want. They work tirelessly trying to provide us with the goods we want. Some went to Universities for a decade to develop the skills to make us what we want. Contrast that with the functionally illiterate cop who recently (legally) strangled a morally innocent man to death - and for what? For the State crime of selling a 0.50 cent cigarette to adults - voluntarily.
See, free-markets are actually moral.
Socialism is actually immoral.
By definition.
The problem is, no one remembers what 'free-markets' (or close to free) even looks like. We live in hyper-Regulated markets. And, there's so much at stake, mentally, physically, structurally - that we will never return to free-markets/a free society. The only option now is slowly get used to hyper-Regulation in the New Economy and to losing our privacy via the NSA. I don't care who is elected, this is a fact.

One day, maybe a few decades off into the future, when the rest of society looks Detroit and Chicago. THEN, maybe then, we'll get slightly freer markets. But, not one day sooner.

Note: Socialism also makes another glaring error (aside from being immoral). No one knows how much "I" value my coffee cup. Is it $1? 0.01 cents? $100? Only I know - and I may change my mind. The only way for you to find out is to give me sound currency and the freedom to buy and sell it to or from you.
It's the ONLY way to know.
Even if we had 'perfect' government run by an impartial super-computer with AI. We'd still end up with a Police State to redistribute by force. We'd thus still lose our freedom and Liberty. It'd need to spy on us to watch our behaviors in order to create it's models of our subjective experiences. And we'd be a poorer society for it.

No one can tell me how much I value my coffee cup. That's never going to change.


So, elect Republicans or elect Democrats - or invent a super computer with impartial AI. We're living in a Police State and we're going to become poorer. It's that simple. Cheap oil may stretch out the day of reckoning - but its not going to prevent it from coming to pass. And, for many, it already has.




** Empathy. Something to think about.

 

It will be a new bill, but it is an old bill repeated 55+ times. It is a virtual certainty they will once again vote to repeat Obamacare.

 

I disagree. Obama inherited a mess - a nightmare. I would give him a B. He has a nasty habit of inexplicably screwing up big time and for no apparent reason (e.g. Debates, Obamacare, etc.). Just when he has an opportunity to knock it out of the ballpark, he inexplicably stumbles - big time. I am not sure why. So in that sense, Obama has been very disappointing.

But he has done a lot of good, under harsh and dire circumstances.

 

I would give him a C+.

 

They may vote to "reform" Obamacare.
Unless they want to create an incredible mess for which they will later be blamed.

You need a "free at the point of service" healthcare system for those who either don't want, or can't afford to pay for, private healthcare
It's taken you long enough to get the malformed creature which is Obamacare, so that may take some time.

 

You're going to get whiplash, snapping back and forth like that.

btw, here are the US governmental origins of Apple's major consumer products: https://books.google.com/books?id=Q...onepage&q=origins apple us government&f=false

As you can see, Apple employees have spent much of their time working hard to provide US government agencies with what they want - and then selling what seems likely to the general public. Without the US government, Apple does not exist.

 

And with the recount in Arizona now complete, Republicans have picked up one more member in the house which gives them their largest majority in 83 years....

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-12-17-12-24-35

 

Republicans may say they want to replace, but they have nothing to replace Obamacare with because Obamacare was their healthcare plan. Republican resistance to Obamacare is entirely political. Republicans think they can misrepresent it enough to use it as a political weapon. That is what Republicans have done and will continue to do.