Utopia Talk / Politics / A more extreme Congress

Aeros Member	Wed Nov 03 08:39:14 It was an interesting discussion I saw on CBS last night, and I thought I would share. The Republican victories in the house occurred primarily in the swing districts and conservative districts. As consequence, the so called "Blue Dog" Democrats, the group that for example, killed off the "Public Option" in the Health Care bill are gone. What remains is the Liberal wing of the Democratic Party. To make matters worse, the moderate Democrats have been replaced by very conservative Republicans in many situations. The result is that now the House is split between two factions who will be completely ideologically opposed. Obama will throw a small bone to the Republicans about bi-partisanship (he has too), but he can't go too far or else his base will revolt. The Republicans will reject the offer (they have too) and the next two years are going to be brutal.
Milton Bradley Member	Wed Nov 03 08:55:03 It's the last 2 years that have been brutal, with all that unpopular shit getting rammed down our throats.
Valishin Member	Wed Nov 03 09:39:00 I like this setup, I think this gridlock will give the business community the comfort they are looking for to start investing in jobs. The question is come 2012 will the liberals be able to claim that as a success of the policies from the past two years or will conservatives be able to claim that as a success of preventing further policies during the next two years. Who the people believe will be reflected in the presidential race and control of the Senate.
Rugian Member	Wed Nov 03 09:39:24 Good. When your idea of "bipartisanship" is "I want to fucking effectively nationalize the entire health care industry but in the interest of bipartisanship I'll get rid of a public option," you deserve nothing.
Rugian Member	Wed Nov 03 09:40:56 Sadly though, Republicans will probably vote for a lot of shit that Obama wants anyway. For all their claims about supporting small government, we all saw what their idea of "small government" was under the Bush administration. And it was scarily similiar to Obama's agenda.
Jason.Bourne Member	Wed Nov 03 09:46:03 Yep. Which is part of why I'm saying we aren't out of the woods yet.
Valishin Member	Wed Nov 03 09:46:17 If they do, then they haven't learned their lesson and will be tossed out on their butts in a couple of years and we will give someone else a chance until we get someone who does what we the people want.
CrownRoyal Member	Wed Nov 03 10:02:01 "I like this setup, I think this gridlock will give the business community the comfort they are looking for to start investing in jobs. " Indeed. The jobs might be oveseas, but thats a minor detail. "Multinational corporations, such as International Business Machines Corp., Merck and Company Inc. and Caterpillar Inc., that get a big part of profits from overseas will also breathe easier. Under Democratic control of Congress, these companies faced the prospect of higher taxes on overseas profits and potential penalties levied against them for moving jobs to other countries. Citigroup Inc., J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and other financial services firms, already reeling from the new Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, likely won't see more meddling legislation." http://onl...4462704575591171988213264.html
Milton Bradley Member	Wed Nov 03 10:05:36 "As consequence, the so called "Blue Dog" Democrats, the group that for example, killed off the "Public Option" in the Health Care bill are gone. " There never was a "Public Option" in the Health Care bill.
CrownRoyal Member	Wed Nov 03 10:07:46 I thought there was one in the House version. Maybe I am wrong though.
Milton Bradley Member	Wed Nov 03 10:13:28 a glaring (and quite typical) scam perpetrated by Congressional Democrats: all year long, they insisted that the White House and a majority of Democratic Senators vigorously supported a public option, but the only thing oh-so-unfortunately preventing its enactment was the filibuster: sadly, we have 50 but not 60 votes for it, they insisted. Democratic pundits used that claim to push for "filibuster reform," arguing that if only majority rule were required in the Senate, then the noble Democrats would be able to deliver all sorts of wonderful progressive reforms that they were truly eager to enact but which the evil filibuster now prevents. In response, advocates of the public option kept arguing that the public option could be accomplished by reconciliation -- where only 50 votes, not 60, would be required -- but Obama loyalists scorned that reconciliation proposal, insisting (at least before the Senate passed a bill with 60 votes) that using reconciliation was Unserious, naive, procedurally impossible, and politically disastrous. But all those claims were put to the test -- all those bluffs were called -- once the White House decided that it had to use reconciliation to pass a final health care reform bill. That meant that any changes to the Senate bill (which had passed with 60 votes) -- including the addition of the public option -- would only require 50 votes, which Democrats assured progressives all year long that they had. Great news for the public option, right? Wrong. As soon as it actually became possible to pass it, the 50 votes magically vanished. Senate Democrats (and the White House) were willing to pretend they supported a public option only as long as it was impossible to pass it. Once reconciliation gave them the opportunity they claimed all year long they needed -- a "majority rule" system -- they began concocting ways to ensure that it lacked 50 votes. http://www...greenwald/2010/03/12/democrats
Valishin Member	Wed Nov 03 10:18:11 Those jobs would be going overseas anyway regardless of what does or doesn't happen in government, there are plenty of ways for a company to shield its overseas operations from the US government. It may cost the company a bit more to set up the shelter structure but that shouldn't be a major issue if they really were ready to make those moves. If the companies are actually sitting on investment money, as they claim to be, because according to them they are too afraid of what the curent administration might change then they logic dictates they are looking for those investments to be stateside otherwise they would be using some of that cash to setup the structures needed to avoid US government involvement.
CrownRoyal Member	Wed Nov 03 10:30:21 "Those jobs would be going overseas anyway regardless of what does or doesn't happen in government, " Indeed, and god forbid Dems make it less profitable for corporations. Lets celebrate investing in jobs overseas and congressional gridlock. " because according to them they are too afraid of what the curent administration might change " Doesn't seem plausible. "27 October 2010 Okay, but let's get to the substance. Is there any evidence whatsoever that this antagonism is "affecting hiring and other business behavior?" If the antagonism was affecting hiring, then we would expect to see firms increase the length of the average workweek as they worked their existing workforce longer hours rather than take on new workers. There is zero evidence of this. The average workweek is up slightly from the low-point of the downturn, but it has been flat in recent months. It is still far shorter than it was before the downturn. If businesses were deferring hiring then we would also expect to see them make more use of temps. Again, the data will not cooperate. Temp hiring is also up some from the low-point of the recession, but it still down more than 20 percent from pre-recession levels. As far as the "other business behavior," investment, which is the one we most care about, has actually been pretty healthy in the last few quarters. Investment in equipment and software has grown at nearly a 20 percent annual rate over this period. Investment in structures has been plummeting, but this is to be expected given the huge overbuilding in most categories of non-residential structures. " http://www...-slowing-hiring-and-investment
mexicantornado Member	Wed Nov 03 11:01:23 only aeros would think that the this last congress wasn't extreme.
miltonfriedman Member	Wed Nov 03 11:03:20 "I like this setup, I think this gridlock will give the business community the comfort they are looking for to start investing in jobs." There is little doubt that you are a retard. "Those jobs would be going overseas anyway regardless of what does or doesn't happen in government" So it's good that we have a government that cannot do anything to address this, amirite, retard?
Paramount Member	Wed Nov 03 11:56:02 Is there still a record number of Jews in Congress?
kargen Member	Wed Nov 03 12:15:27 "So it's good that we have a government that cannot do anything to address this, amirite, retard?" What is bad, is we had a government that thought they should address this, and have a president that still does. Just happens that it is the same president that pushed through regulations that makes going overseas look more attractive. Basically his policies are pushing companies overseas, and he wants to then fine them for going. Not anything the president can do about it really, but if you look at the companies looking to expand overseas and those expanding in the USA you will see unions are a big reason work is going else where.
CrownRoyal Member	Wed Nov 03 12:18:20 "Just happens that it is the same president that pushed through regulations that makes going overseas look more attractive." Well yeah, if you mean some consumer protection, how dare he go against business on this? If he wants America to compete with China, he must strive for China's consumers protection, and wages?
kargen Member	Wed Nov 03 12:33:51 Consumers didn't want the protection. The more government tries to control business the more they are going to run away. How to tax a business is the one area the government can effect what a business does. President Obama wants to tax the hell out of them. There are of course some regulations that are needed and actually wanted. lately though the government has really overstepped what it should be doing.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Nov 03 12:36:02 Wait a minute, congress became more balanced and less extreme, because now it is split between 2 parties. Only aeros could be dumb enough to not only be wrong with the numbers, but to even have the sign wrong.
CrownRoyal Member	Wed Nov 03 12:41:19 "Consumers didn't want the protection" Really? None? What are you basing this on? "The more government tries to control business the more they are going to run away." By controlling you mean protecting consumers again? You know, actually enforcing regulations? "How to tax a business is the one area the government can effect what a business does. President Obama wants to tax the hell out of them. " Examples? "There are of course some regulations that are needed and actually wanted." I find this hard to reconcile with your categorical "Consumers didn't want the protection."
Dakyron Member	Wed Nov 03 13:03:51 "Consumers didn't want the protection. " Wrong. Consumers want existing protections enforced with greater consistency. What they dont want is more uneforced bureacratic nonsense that causes reputable companies to drown in overhead costs while disreputable companies continue to thrive.
so what Member	Wed Nov 03 13:50:06 Valishin Member Wed Nov 03 09:46:17 If they do, then they haven't learned their lesson and will be tossed out on their butts in a couple of years and we will give someone else a chance until we get someone who does what we the people want. ----------------- You get the people who are offered to you.
miltonfriedman Member	Wed Nov 03 15:52:28 "Just happens that it is the same president that pushed through regulations that makes going overseas look more attractive. Basically his policies are pushing companies overseas, and he wants to then fine them for going." Evidence? Or is this another secret google search you have done? "Not anything the president can do about it really, but if you look at the companies looking to expand overseas and those expanding in the USA you will see unions are a big reason work is going else where." Evidence? Is union is the main reason? Is there data to support this or is this yet another secret google search that led you to discover that social security fund has a secret trust fund but you cannot reveal? Kargen, do you just type Republican jingo or do you ever have any data to back your shit up?
kargen Member	Wed Nov 03 16:20:08 "Really? None? What are you basing this on?" Okay a few did. Vast majority,no. What do I base this on? My paying attention to what is happening. "By controlling you mean protecting consumers again?" No, I said what I meant. "Examples?" See the Whitehouse site and look at what he has said about many of the Bush tax cuts. You think raising the capital gains taxes isn't going to have an effect on business? "I find this hard to reconcile with your categorical "Consumers didn't want the protection." " Your lack of mental prowess isn't my concern. "Wrong. Consumers want existing protections enforced with greater consistency." One doesn't contradict the other. What does enforcing existing protections/regulations have to do with creating new regulations? So you could have just as easliy typed: "Correct. Consumers want existing protections enforced with greater consistency." This statement would have made more sense. "Evidence? Or is this another secret google search you have done?" No, you see they have this thing called a television. Sometimes on this television President Obama gives a speech or otherwise communicates things. In just such a speech he promised he would tax/fine companies who shift jobs overseas. I took him at his word. "Evidence? Is union is the main reason?" One of, if not the main. " Is there data to support this" Yes there is. Look at the auto industry. Compare non union to union companies. That is but one example. "Kargen, do you just type Republican jingo" I pay attention to what is happening in the world around me. I realize not everything need be gleened from some blog somewhere on the internet. Open your fucking eyes. Listen to what is being said. It isn't that hard to figure out and you don't even need exact numbers or figures to see it. For instance I know just by looking around that the US has produced quite a bit more maize this year than they did last year. I don't know how much was produced last year, nor do I know how much was produced this year, but I know this year was quite a bit more. I don't need the internet to tell me this. I just pay attention to what is going on. Try it some time. and I'm still not Republican.
cloud Strife Member	Wed Nov 03 16:23:54 `If they do, then they haven't learned their lesson and will be tossed out on their butts in a couple of years and we will give someone else a chance until we get someone who does what we the people want. ' We will elect a Republican or a Democrat, we will have notoriously short memory, and the more discontent we become the more likely we are to switch rapidly between the two.
Forwyn Member	Wed Nov 03 16:30:22 I didn't take you as a anti-globalism type of guy, CR.
miltonfriedman Member	Wed Nov 03 17:01:35 "No, you see they have this thing called a television. Sometimes on this television President Obama gives a speech or otherwise communicates things. In just such a speech he promised he would tax/fine companies who shift jobs overseas. I took him at his word." So you are resorting to Pedo Rod's debating technique? That we should see the evidence by "watch the television," yes? Wow. And how is this different from "just google it yourself to find the evidence?" "Yes there is. Look at the auto industry. Compare non union to union companies. That is but one example." I see. Why is it that Harley Davidson, a major company with unions, leads all competitors including Japanese non-unionized firms? Are we trading stories or do you have data? Or is your evidence consisted purely of "I saw it on tv" and "google it yourself"?
miltonfriedman Member	Wed Nov 03 17:07:13 "For instance I know just by looking around that the US has produced quite a bit more maize this year than they did last year. I don't know how much was produced last year, nor do I know how much was produced this year, but I know this year was quite a bit more. I don't need the internet to tell me this. I just pay attention to what is going on. Try it some time." I look around and found that earth is flat. I don't need internet to tell me otherwise. I just based it off my observation. Try it some time. What kind of retarded adult would use "personal observation" as a legitimate evidence to support personal arguments? Did you even finish 8th grade?
miltonfriedman Member	Wed Nov 03 17:09:07 "and I'm still not Republican." You also don't have to register yourself as a retard to be one.
Dakyron Member	Wed Nov 03 17:13:39 "We will elect a Republican or a Democrat, we will have notoriously short memory, and the more discontent we become the more likely we are to switch rapidly between the two. " True, which is exactly what happened the last 4 years. First we blamed republicans for causing the mess, so we voted in democrats, then we blamed them for not fixing things fast enough, so we voted back in the republicans. There is hope. In the senate race in Arizona, the libertarian candidate got 5% of the vote. Not great, but the best showing in years. Another decade of this nonsense and maybe a few senators and a handful of representatives will be independent or third party.
Milton Bradley Member	Wed Nov 03 17:28:13 red or blue will not change the bottom line
kargen Member	Wed Nov 03 17:45:54 "I see. Why is it that Harley Davidson, a major company with unions, leads all competitors including Japanese non-unionized firms" Could it be because when Harley Davidson was suffering that President Reagan put a 50% tarrif on bikes coming from Japan? Or could it be because when Harley Davidson threatened to move jobs overseas the union compromised and agreed with a new contract? That is something the auto makers union failed to do,a nd it cost jobs. "I look around and found that earth is flat. I don't need internet to tell me otherwise. I just based it off my observation. Try it some time." This is a perfect example of your idiocy. You see I look around and I notice that as things move away from me they tend to drop into the horizon almost as if going down hill. When I am at a higher altitude I actually see the curvature of the earth? I have seen mathmatic equations that explain the size and shape of the Earth, and have even seen the Earth as it appears from space in photos and on the dreaded television. I don't need some blog to tell me what shape the world is. Seems you do with your simplistic approach to things and your lack of mental prowess. "Are we trading stories or do you have data?" I am stating facts. You are wallowing in ignorance. "What kind of retarded adult would use "personal observation" as a legitimate evidence to support personal arguments?" Personal observation has long been accepted in determining any number of things. It was personal observation that gave us the microwave oven. Personal observation is why we know where a lot of the stars are located. Personal observation is how we first figured out you shouldn't stick your hand in boiling water. "Did you even finish 8th grade?" Yes I did. "You also don't have to register yourself as a retard to be one." As you are successfully demonstrating with the dribble you post here.
miltonfriedman Member	Wed Nov 03 18:22:50 "Could it be because when Harley Davidson was suffering that President Reagan put a 50% tarrif on bikes coming from Japan?" So could it be that Toyota outperforms American car companies because we have to pay health insurance? Could it be that Toyota had safety issues because it doesn't have unions? Gosh. You mean anecdotal evidence don't stand up to scrutiny? "That is something the auto makers union failed to do,a nd it cost jobs." Or that jobs are lost because healthcare cost is too high. Or corporate taxes are too high. Or workers are too badly trained. Or... Oh, how come VW makes more profit than Toyota? Isn't VW unionized? lulz. "This is a perfect example of your idiocy. You see I look around and I notice that as things move away from me they tend to drop into the horizon almost as if going down hill. When I am at a higher altitude I actually see the curvature of the earth?" And for a person who never goes to a higher altitude? I think it's pretty clear that we have long rejected "personal observations", "secret google search", and "I saw it on tv myself" as acceptable evidence for argument. "Seems you do with your simplistic approach to things and your lack of mental prowess. " Isn't that why your evidence consisted of "I saw it on tv" and "secret google search that I will not reveal"? Really, I don't know how else to demonstrate a stunning lack in mental prowess when you backed up your argument by saying "I saw it on tv so go find it yourself." "I am stating facts. You are wallowing in ignorance." No. You are stating what you have interpreted based on Obama's various speeches on tv. I think it's pretty clear that such things are not considered as "facts." Although you seem to accept "I made a secret google search that Social Security Trust Fund has a secret fund but cannot reveal it to anyone" as "fact", I guess your interpretation of Obama's speeches on tv is "facts" to you as well. "Yes I did." Shocking. Yet you also used "I saw it on tv" as "facts" to back up your argument like Pedo Rod did. "As you are successfully demonstrating with the dribble you post here." dribble huh? Amazing. So, let's run through your evidence: 1. Your interpretation of Obama's speeches on tv 2. personal observations on the effect of union despite having no numbers to support it Any other evidence?
miltonfriedman Member	Wed Nov 03 18:28:09 I will always "win" because I have "secret google searches" and "tv footage I saw." Those are really solid evidence. No wonder you have taken upon yourself to be Pedo Rod's spokeperson. Are you also a libertarian like Pedo Rod? lulz.
kargen Member	Thu Nov 04 01:38:00 "Could it be that Toyota had safety issues because it doesn't have unions?" Irrelivant even if it is correct. I said the unions were a reason for jobs going overseas and they are. Simple as that. I stopped there because it is obvious you wish to remain ignorant on the subject. You did entertain me with your idiotic posts for a while though so it wasn't a total waste.
CrownRoyal Member	Thu Nov 04 02:29:40 "Okay a few did. Vast majority,no. What do I base this on? My paying attention to what is happening. " Could you elaborate, what are you talking about here? "See the Whitehouse site and look at what he has said about many of the Bush tax cuts. You think raising the capital gains taxes isn't going to have an effect on business? " Maybe a positive effect, we are talking about returning to Clinton era capital gains tax levels, after all. And we can compare business investement in Clinton year vs the same in GWB years anytime. Or any other data.
miltonfriedman Member	Thu Nov 04 11:42:20 "Irrelivant even if it is correct. I said the unions were a reason for jobs going overseas and they are. Simple as that." I said it's not, based on my observations and secret google searches. Evidence or be convicted of trollery, HR spokesperson. "I stopped there because it is obvious you wish to remain ignorant on the subject. You did entertain me with your idiotic posts for a while though so it wasn't a total waste." I recognize of you running away again after request for evidence. Kinda like what happened after you lied about you have found "secret social security trust fund" on google that cannot be shared to people. But what's the bigger waste is possibly my tax dollar going toward your education. It's hard to believe that an adult would resort to Hot Rod's school of argument where "evidence" can be "footages I caught on tv" and "my personal observations." Typical Republican debating skillz.
miltonfriedman Member	Thu Nov 04 11:45:02 "Could you elaborate, what are you talking about here?" What kargen is saying is that because he said so, it must be true. Arguing otherwise is wrong. Kind of like how he "observed" that unions caused jobs to go oversea. Therefore, even without evidence, this "observation" must be taken as facts. Even though unionized car makers make bigger profits than non-unionized car makers. But you can't argue against kargen's "observations." They are true and must be taken as such. No evidence needed.
miltonfriedman Member	Thu Nov 04 11:46:37 "Or any other data." Data come from Kargen's own observations and "tv footage" he saw. I think this has become pretty clear. Kind of like the "secret social security fund" he found on google that cannot be shared with people.
eds Member	Fri Nov 05 01:55:26
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: