Get over it, dude. Your hero is a fake and now the hard work begins.

Haven't heard much about repealing the financial reform bill. Health care? Have at it guys! I'd rather be going down this road than the road of card check, cap and trade and whatever else the Dems cook up. I'm beginning to think you're past the point of no return.

BG, wow, this politics stuff really has you wound up, take it wayyyy to seriously...

OK, so let's say that we're all wrong and the GOP doesn't take control of either the House or Senate.  Are telling us that you're actually happy with the way things are being run right now?  You make very convincing arguments against the GOP and the ads being run.  But you have yet to convince me, or anyone else for that matter, that Obama and the Dem controlled House and Senate are doing any real good for this country.  Sure, they're promising health care, job creation (or saving), better economy, a chicken in every pot, and four leaf clovers for everyone. 

But all of that stuff comes at a cost to the average person.  For instance,  I got my health insurance packet for 2011 last week.  I feel fortunate that I don't have to worry about finding a new insurance carrier like those folks in NM are going to.  But at the same time I now have to make more money every month, which will raise my taxes, cost me more time and effort, add more stress, and just generally piss me off so that I can pay for my new health care premiums.  You want to know the reason  they gave us?  New health care legislation makes it more expensive for everyone.  So, not only are my taxes inevitably going up to help fund the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, but my health insurance costs are too.  The kicker is that the major components of that act haven't even taken hold yet.  What's it going to be like in 2014 when the majority of the bill actually gets going?  I'm going to have to go independant so that I can afford to buy health insurance for my family.  Wait, no, that won't work because I'm sure NM is just the first state where carriers are going to start shutting down health care plans for individuals and small groups because they're too expensive. 

While I agree with you that $100 Billion isn't even a drop in the bucket of the $13 Trillion - let me put that number in the right light  - $13,000,000,000,000 in current debt, at least it's a start.  That $13 Trillion comes out to $40K+ per US citizen, BTW.  If we have two more years of spending at the rate the Dems have been spending thus far into Obama's reign how big do you think that number will grow to? 

That's the part of this political mess that pisses off most of of the TP and conservative voters.  It's also the obvious hot button that those folks running for office can push.  So, we're getting a lot of ads doing just that. 

The ads in my area are also saying that they're going to repeal parts of the health care bill.  I'm not familiar enough with the bill to know which parts they can or can't repeal, but you can't argue that in a 2000+ page bill there aren't a ton of wasteful or unnecessary additions that can be done away with. 

What do you expect the GOP candidates to say?  Do you want them to say that they can't really change anything, but vote for them anyway? 

Yes, moving to the center could only improve O's reelection odds.

No, the repub agenda does not prove that your banging the drum about staying off in left field is validated.

100 billlion here, 100 billion there. Many of us have a bunch of clients with around 1 million. 1 billion is 1000 million. 100 1000 1000000 is a good start. The economy is fragile, there is not enough demand, so huge cuts right now is not a good idea. Mainly symbolic.

Health care needs to be rolled back to pre "reform" beta. Interstate competition with guaranteed insurability for citizens, portability. Job loss was a  big driver in people losing their coverage (under age 65).

Torte reform, wellness incentives. Look at all of the fatties at Costco, need intelligent bill, not Pelosi's " we'll find out what's in the bill after it's passed".

The repubs will fight to extend the Bush tax cuts and improve the business climate by bringing more certainty around the business climate ( trend toward less regulation, no climate bill, clean up health care uncertainty and tax limbo).

A few minor adjustments and the economy is still in trouble - this is going to be slow going.

At least the grown-ups are back in the driver's seat of the car that the dems drove into the ditch ( B. Frank). Okay, we all put it into the ditch.

Dems should be feeling really ashamed of B. Frank, Obama saying to the Mexicans they should vote against the enemy, Pelosi's weird leadership, Reid's ridiculousness, sheesh, I can't believe what we have endured for the last couple of years.

Maybe we can finally get back to business. Starting to feel enthusiastic again, I'm sure America is moving back to the center of the road. Really positive.

You see, BG? Your friends here are ready to help you assimilate and rejoin reality. Wake up and say, what happened, dude?

I'm going to have to go independant so that I can afford to buy health insurance for my family.  Wait, no, that won't work because I'm sure NM is just the first state where carriers are going to start shutting down health care plans for individuals and small groups because they're too expensive. 

My solo policy (covering 4 people) just went up 18%. In January, they will decide about the rate of increase to cover the legislation, or even if there will be a private policy in my state. This is really scary and annoying; we take care of ourselves and have been lucky, and can only afford to subsidize the general population up to a point, without going into debt to fund college or even the mortage payments.

[quote=Times7]

Yes, moving to the center could only improve O's reelection odds.

No, the repub agenda does not prove that your banging the drum about staying off in left field is validated.

100 billlion here, 100 billion there. Many of us have a bunch of clients with around 1 million. 1 billion is 1000 million. 100 1000 1000000 is a good start. The economy is fragile, there is not enough demand, so huge cuts right now is not a good idea. Mainly symbolic.

Health care needs to be rolled back to pre "reform" beta. Interstate competition with guaranteed insurability for citizens, portability. Job loss was a  big driver in people losing their coverage (under age 65).

Torte reform, wellness incentives. Look at all of the fatties at Costco, need intelligent bill, not Pelosi's " we'll find out what's in the bill after it's passed".

The repubs will fight to extend the Bush tax cuts and improve the business climate by bringing more certainty around the business climate ( trend toward less regulation, no climate bill, clean up health care uncertainty and tax limbo).

A few minor adjustments and the economy is still in trouble - this is going to be slow going.

At least the grown-ups are back in the driver's seat of the car that the dems drove into the ditch ( B. Frank). Okay, we all put it into the ditch.

Dems should be feeling really ashamed of B. Frank, Obama saying to the Mexicans they should vote against the enemy, Pelosi's weird leadership, Reid's ridiculousness, sheesh, I can't believe what we have endured for the last couple of years.

Maybe we can finally get back to business. Starting to feel enthusiastic again, I'm sure America is moving back to the center of the road. Really positive.

You see, BG? Your friends here are ready to help you assimilate and rejoin reality. Wake up and say, what happened, dude?

[/quote]

This post.     wow.

well put my man    brings a MF tear to my eye

Times7=God

[quote=Times7]

Get over it, dude. Your hero is a fake and now the hard work begins.

[/quote]

Times7=God

Thanks R-R, I'm fallible not God.

" The economy needs to grow by at least 5 percent for a full year to bring down the unemployment rate by a percentage point, economists estimate. "

No way the economy is growing at 5% in 2011, so the recovery is going to be slow. It probably p*sses BG off that the "repubs" will take credit for the recovery, but the fact is things still hang in a fragile balance, with a smaller chance of double dip recession.

Politics aside, I'll predict "America" starts feeling better on Wednesday morning and at least a few employed workers go out and buy a new Jeep. After the market crash of 2000, pundits learned to temper their enthusiasm about the markets - perhaps the potential for a psychological boost (election) to aggregate demand has been understated. 

In this business, bull markets are a lot fun, especially when you are starting your career.

I'm looking forward to having some fun again, and telling my clients I feel it's coming.

Space, again, good post!

I'm not going to change any hearts or minds here, really not trying. Just pointing out the obvious.

That said, I'll give you a great reason to vote for a dem incumbent who voted for the bailouts and stimulus: They did the right thing. That is, in the face of incredible pressure not to do it, they put the country first and their own career second. How many times have you seen a politician do that? Now, two years later their brave vote has stabilized the economy. Because of their vote the bailouts worked. Ironically, with voters still angry over a still weak economy, their accomplishment has been twisted by the political agenda of the oppossing party. It is now being used as a club to defeat them. Again, the beat the dead horse observation, that's just not right! These people deserve to stay in office. We are replacing people with the integrity and fortitude to make a tough decision with, well, liars.

Some other points:

The deficit: Bush inherited 240 bilion dollar budget surplus. The national debt was about 4 trillion when Bush took office. When Bush left the Whitehouse the deficit was over one trillion dollars and the debt had soared to 10 trillion. That's what happens when you give trillion dollar tax cuts year after year while at the same time increasing spending. And, ironically no republican outcry for spending reform during Bushs' spend for all.

That said, Obama's spending plan isn't going quite as planned and will end up increasing the debt. This why he's adament about not extending the Bush tax cuts. We can't afford it! The repubs counter argument to cut spending will not signifcantly reduce the deficit or total debt. Add in the tax cuts they want to extend, and the deficit gets worse, not better. Again, the original plan under Bush was that the tax cuts would be more than paid for by the resulting tax infused economic benefit. That didn't happen. Yet, according to repubs that was then this is now, this time it will work. What's that defination of insanity?

Healthcare: pinning cost increase on Obamacare is the newnew thing in corporate suites that want the good old days back. The fact is that very little additional burden has been placed on your insurance company to date. When repubs say they want to undo the healthcare bill what they really want is to undo the cost controls built into the bill which will help reign in costs.  The repubs want to protect profit, not reduce cost. They also want to keep your healthcare insurance company in charge of your family's healthcare. That versus the new plan which will put the patient in the driver's seat.

The other big healthcare lie is the 500bil medicare cut. That's an out and out distortion. The plan seeks to cut by 500 billion the medicare dollars given to large private providers like Humana thru Medicare Advantage. However, there are no cuts to those who utilize medicare. In fact, the plan increases certain benefits in progressive steps.

Past all that, a divided government will probably increase the deficit.

BG, did you not read my post WITH LINK INCLUDED regarding the "Bush inherited a surplus" argument?

Also, because Republicans didn't argue against Bush's spending when they were in power, that means they can't argue against it now?

BG, the last part, you are so trying to have everything one way here, another way there, just to suit your progressive liberal agenda. On one hand, you brag about Clinton beating the deficit, ...while the GOP had the Senate and House, and a majority of Gov houses across the nation. But, in your last sentence, you claim that a divided house will increase the deficit?

You folks are awful good at putting anything negative, on the Bush administration. Just keep blaming him right?

But with Clinton, you folks never credited Reagan/Bush for the economy Clinton inherited...

I agree that the Fed Govt had a responsibility to save the economy, bailouts and bandaids, etc. Otherwise we'd have wound up in a depression for sure. BUT, you can't create a stimulus plan for a TRILLION dollars, then not have any job creation, or even any hope for it! It is the lack of jobs, or hope of jobs that is going to cost the Dems in these mid term elections. The healthcare thing too, amazing that apparently the Dems learned NOTHING when it came to Hillarycare's failure, and the election of 1994. 

Neither party serves the American people. The Dems are hard core left wing socialists, even communists, and are currently being actively supported by communist party of the USA. The GOP forgot that they were conservatives, and have decided instead to become big spending moderates that turn a blind eye to illegal immigration, and social distortion. The Tea Party has come about, because the GOP started rotting from the core. God Bless the Tea Party!

And if you want to see what the Tea Party really stands for, look at the GOP Mission Statement of Maine. Look it up...

When james madison started the the whole thing

....there were 4 departments in the federal govt.

Here is MF "a" today

We should stop cutting when we get back to 4................

BG, all of this looking back and lamenting the fact that dems are unappreciated has some degree of validity. What it means, though, is that both "sides" have stopped communicating, and there are no creative solutions forthcoming.

FA86 is saying, the economy is dynamic. We are now engaged in a post-industrial economy - competing against Chinese labor and such, this is an unprecedented economy.

Big is saying he sees you walking the traditional firing line with your logic in order to continue drawing the political lines - yes, stimulus is needed during a classical recession situation, this situation is different.

And both dems and reps continue to fight over the (shrinking) pie, or at least a pie with 2% growth, which is not sufficient to create enough jobs or even generate enough aggregate demand to have the intended multiplier effect of stimulus.

And as R-R and Big are pointing out,  the repubs were "bad" with their spending and bloating the government, no doubt. Tea Party represents mainly cutting government and debt, which leaves health care to controlled by free market mechanisms.

And I would argue that the free market is still the best alternative - too bad the world is so overpopulated and corrupt, but:

What is implicitly understand is that two years ago, hope and change might have meant the U.S. focused on a few things and did them well, like, energy independence (use social policy to reduce dependence on foreign oil).

In fact, the libs sold out this opportunity in favor of corruption ( unions, big government, big corps, big spending) - follow the money.

Therefore, the moral authority of progressivism has become undermined ( no big surprise to students of capitalism).

If you want to defend or realize some kind of ideal, you have to do better than defending the corrupted status quo of Democratic politics. People can clearly see through that now, the best alternative is still less government.

In order to create solutions, you have to give up some ground and communicate with the other side. Come to the reasonable center and reexamine your beliefs. Change.

[quote=BondGuy]

Past all that, a divided government will probably increase the deficit.

[/quote]

Lots of things I disagree with BG, but this makes me question your thought process on all issues.  Assume the house and senate go to a small majority Republican.  What happens to tax rates?  I assume they go up to Clinton era rates or at least they do over $250K AGI.  What happens to new spending?  I assume (or at least hope) that the republicans hold their end of the bargain and stop new spending and/or reduce existing spending. So, more money coming in (higher marginal tax rates) coupled with less money going out (less spending) yields a decreasing deficit, not increasing. 

[quote=BigFirepower]

BG, the last part, you are so trying to have everything one way here, another way there, just to suit your progressive liberal agenda. On one hand, you brag about Clinton beating the deficit, ...while the GOP had the Senate and House, and a majority of Gov houses across the nation. But, in your last sentence, you claim that a divided house will increase the deficit?

Big you need to do something about your reading comprehension probelm. I didn't credit Clinton for handing Bush a surplus. I said only that Bush had a surplus.

I'll go into more detail in my answer to Incredible's post about how a house divided increases the deficit, since you can't seem to figure that one out for yourself.

You folks are awful good at putting anything negative, on the Bush administration. Just keep blaming him right?

Big, you can argue about results, but you can't argue with results. The legascy of the Bush era was a 10 trillion dollar national debt and a trillion dollar deficit. I'm not blaming him, just pointing out that fact. If you have facts from some alternative universe where the debt and deficit didn't get run up, by all means, share!

But with Clinton, you folks never credited Reagan/Bush for the economy Clinton inherited...

When you say you folks who do you mean? Because i always credit Bush 1 for the economy that Clinton inherited. So does Clinton. Just so you know, you can't credit Reagan. he's the guy that ran up the debt that caused Bush to raise taxes and pushed the economy into recession. To put in today's terms reagan did to Bush what Bush 2 did to Obama. That is, handed over a budget that was in meltdown phase. The interesting thing about the 92 election was that the economy was in a similar position to today's economy. The worst was over and we were on an upswing. But, Bush didn't get it, that there was still a lot of pain out there. Clinton did and thus "it's the economy stupid" was born.

 The repubs learned that lesson and from the moment they lost two years ago have made sure the economy lays on its back for as long as it takes to regain power. It's sad that you blame dems for today's problems when dems have done all they can to move the economy forward. meanwhile the repubs have remained a  solid rock in the road. You said it yourself, the bailout/stim was needed. How many repubs voted for those programs? If those no votes had impeded the bailouts stim would we be better off today or worse?

I agree that the Fed Govt had a responsibility to save the economy, bailouts and bandaids, etc. Otherwise we'd have wound up in a depression for sure. BUT, you can't create a stimulus plan for a TRILLION dollars, then not have any job creation, or even any hope for it! It is the lack of jobs, or hope of jobs that is going to cost the Dems in these mid term elections. The healthcare thing too, amazing that apparently the Dems learned NOTHING when it came to Hillarycare's failure, and the election of 1994. 

Define job creation? Stim has saved an esitmated 1 million jobs.  How is a job saved not the same as a job created? But, you are right, the dems are headed for a 1992 Bush like defeat even though they don't deserve it any more than Bush did back then.

Then there is this: Many economist beleive we need another round of stimulus to pull us out of this mess for good. What are the chances of that happening with a repub house?

The healthcare isn't the big evil the repubs make it out to be. Could it have been better, yes. Know this, even if the repubs get a majority in both houses they aren't unwinding the entire healthcare package. They only want to undo the cost controls. It's about money, not your money, and not the govt money.

Neither party serves the American people. The Dems are hard core left wing socialists, even communists, and are currently being actively supported by communist party of the USA. The GOP forgot that they were conservatives, and have decided instead to become big spending moderates that turn a blind eye to illegal immigration, and social distortion. The Tea Party has come about, because the GOP started rotting from the core. God Bless the Tea Party!

I'm with you on the immigration issue. But maybe we both need to lighten up on that. If the demographic trends continue the way they are going, we won't be a hispanic nation 50 years from now, We'll be a Muslim nation. Either way the rich white men will be a minority.  I disagree about your far left view of the dems. I see centrist in both partys. However your view neatly illustrates the polarized nature of the country.  It's black or white, no grey, no compromise.

And if you want to see what the Tea Party really stands for, look at the GOP Mission Statement of Maine. Look it up...

I'll check it out

[/quote]

The difficult thing for the incoming TP candidates is going to be telling the American people no.  You can't cut spending, shrink governments, lower taxes, and stop healthcare without pissing off some people.  At some point, if they do what they've been elected to do, they're going to step on everyone's toes. 

The problem is that the average American is way too short sighted and selfish to understand that sometimes you have to be told no, or at least told to figure it out for yourself, for the betterment, no survival, of the country going forward.  Seniors are already upset that they're not getting a raise in their SS checks.  Just wait until you tell them that they aren't going to have this service or that service that Federal dollars used to pay for.  We're all OK with cutting benefits and services that don't affect us.  We're not OK when we get told no. 

Bond - I don't disagree with you that some of the dems that voted for the bailouts didn't get the recognition they deserve.  But the problem you have with that argument is that one good decision does not a great politician make.  Sure, that was the right decision at the right time.  It's the many, many issues that followed that really concerns us.  Obama has started a social justice/social engineering spending spree that isn't going to work in the long run and will cost taxpayers lots and lots of money.  FDR tried similar tactics in the 30's with the New Deal and the New Deal part deux.  They worked about as well as I would expect Obama's tactics to work today.  The Dems/Progressives follow him blindly into that initiative without thought for what those social engineering policies might actually do to our country. 

I bothers me when the Obamas, Pelosi, Frank, and some of the other high profile Dems talk down to me as a conservative.  The lump us all into the Republican party, which is fine for talking points but not technically correct.  They talk about us as a king or monarch would - you're to dumb and uneducated to make these kind of tough decisions for yourself so we're going to make the decisions we want to make regardless of  what you think.  That kind of rhetoric is maddening. 

So, this next election, I'm going to excercise the most powerful right I have in this country - the right to vote.  You and I will most certainly vote differently.  That's OK.  The sun will still come up on Nov. 3.   Maybe then we can have a discussion not about donkeys or elephants, but rather about floating rate funds vs short duration funds. 

The problem is that the average American is way too short sighted and selfish to understand that sometimes you have to be told no, or at least told to figure it out for yourself, for the betterment, no survival, of the country going forward.  Seniors are already upset that they're not getting a raise in their SS checks.  Just wait until you tell them that they aren't going to have this service or that service that Federal dollars used to pay for.  We're all OK with cutting benefits and services that don't affect us.  We're not OK when we get told no. 

Yep. I think the other significance of the Tea Party movement ( besides political)  is behavioral. Hoard your cash and property, structure your life to avoid taxes. This might not be good for aggregate demand or social works, but "every man for himself and his private charities" is probably the smartest course and most logical response to the madness of BG politics as usual.

This is how the country will survive, by promoting selfish interests, without an ever increasing percentage of GDP going to taxes. Period.