Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

Republican Majority in the House

Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2010 8:44:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/2/2010 8:41:01 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 11/2/2010 8:39:37 PM, theLwerd wrote:
Who cares :p

How bout this...Should we care?

Yes.

I predict, that nothing will get done in the House (that relates to the economy and jobs).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2010 8:44:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/2/2010 8:38:48 PM, FREEDO wrote:
What will this mean?

It doesn't mean anything. All of the things they say about reducing the size of the government are lies; government will continue to expand and the economy will continue to suck.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2010 8:51:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/2/2010 8:38:48 PM, FREEDO wrote:
What will this mean?

1) John Boehner for president, 2012.

2) The Newt Gingrich years all over again.

Except they called it the "Pledge to America" this time instead of the Contract with America. http://abcnews.go.com...
-Extend the Bush tax cuts
-Prevent the spending of any further stimulus funds
-Attempt to repeal Obama's health care plan
-Keep detainees at Guantanamo

So basically a bunch of vetoed bills out of the House and more filibustering in the Senate.

Same old, same old.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2010 8:53:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/2/2010 8:44:59 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 11/2/2010 8:38:48 PM, FREEDO wrote:
What will this mean?

It doesn't mean anything. All of the things they say about reducing the size of the government are lies; government will continue to expand and the economy will continue to suck.

Check out this interview - Jon Stewart nails Eric Cantor for the fact that Republicans talk in ideals (like "small government") but then only apply these ideals in areas that they want it applied in (like "tax cuts" but not "the military").

http://www.thedailyshow.com...
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2010 8:55:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/2/2010 8:38:48 PM, FREEDO wrote:
What will this mean?

It means the republicans will f-ck up some more people will get sick of it re-elect democrats, and then when things aren't changing enough quickly enough or some bad things happen, they will re-elect republicans etc.
I predict they will [try] to get rid of the healthcare bill, extend the war[s], take from the poor so the rich can keep their money, maybe even get more, even more fights trying to get pot legalized with less of a chance at winning, etc.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
Osiris
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2010 2:17:28 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/2/2010 8:55:59 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 11/2/2010 8:38:48 PM, FREEDO wrote:
What will this mean?


It means the republicans will f-ck up some more people will get sick of it re-elect democrats, and then when things aren't changing enough quickly enough or some bad things happen, they will re-elect republicans etc.
I predict they will [try] to get rid of the healthcare bill, extend the war[s], take from the poor so the rich can keep their money, maybe even get more, even more fights trying to get pot legalized with less of a chance at winning, etc.

I agree. Although, I see gridlock in the U.S. for a while.
"Common sense is not so common." -Voltaire
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2010 5:50:27 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/2/2010 8:55:59 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 11/2/2010 8:38:48 PM, FREEDO wrote:
What will this mean?


It means the republicans will f-ck up some more people will get sick of it re-elect democrats, and then when things aren't changing enough quickly enough or some bad things happen, they will re-elect republicans etc.
I predict they will [try] to get rid of the healthcare bill, extend the war[s], take from the poor so the rich can keep their money, maybe even get more, even more fights trying to get pot legalized with less of a chance at winning, etc.

They can't extend the wars. For one, the president is commander in chief of the army. For two, the withdrawal dates have been set with the United Nations and our international allies.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2010 6:18:38 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/3/2010 5:50:27 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 11/2/2010 8:55:59 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 11/2/2010 8:38:48 PM, FREEDO wrote:
What will this mean?


It means the republicans will f-ck up some more people will get sick of it re-elect democrats, and then when things aren't changing enough quickly enough or some bad things happen, they will re-elect republicans etc.
I predict they will [try] to get rid of the healthcare bill, extend the war[s], take from the poor so the rich can keep their money, maybe even get more, even more fights trying to get pot legalized with less of a chance at winning, etc.

They can't extend the wars. For one, the president is commander in chief of the army. For two, the withdrawal dates have been set with the United Nations and our international allies.

I was thinking along the lines of they will try and get rid of Obamato keep the wars going. I wasn't aware of the withdrawal date tho, so that part may still be inaccurate.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2010 6:55:37 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/2/2010 8:41:01 PM, FREEDO wrote:
How bout this...Should we care?
If you care about the quantity of false promises, then yes. All of the parties promise what they cannot (and will not) deliver.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2010 7:55:17 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/3/2010 5:50:27 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 11/2/2010 8:55:59 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 11/2/2010 8:38:48 PM, FREEDO wrote:
What will this mean?


It means the republicans will f-ck up some more people will get sick of it re-elect democrats, and then when things aren't changing enough quickly enough or some bad things happen, they will re-elect republicans etc.
I predict they will [try] to get rid of the healthcare bill, extend the war[s], take from the poor so the rich can keep their money, maybe even get more, even more fights trying to get pot legalized with less of a chance at winning, etc.

They can't extend the wars. For one, the president is commander in chief of the army. For two, the withdrawal dates have been set with the United Nations and our international allies.


BWAH HA HA HA HA HA, HA HA HA HA, good one *wiping the tears from my eyes*.
devinni01841
Posts: 1,405
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2010 8:50:50 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I was watching the polls last night on tv... the map was pretty much a blood bath.

The kansas governor's race was a disappointment...., my stepdad's best friend is now out of a job, he was an attorney general
There is nothing more bad-@ss than being yourself.

I solemnly swear I am up to no good.

Member of the Texas Army National Guard since 20111212

An Armed society is a polite society.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2010 1:18:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The Republican takeover of the House means that the Obama legislative agenda is dead. A major result is that now there will be House hearings and oversight on many things that were out of bounds under Pelosi. For example, the Justice Department's apparent unequal enforcement of the laws, and the impact of over-regulation on killing jobs.

California and New York were liberal sweeps, as they both teeter on the edge of bankruptcy. There is little chance that a Republican House will move to bail them out. They will get to keep all the benefits of a worker's paradise for their own.

The GOP took over governing 19 more states. I think the total is around 35. The focus of economic recovery will move to the states where pro-capitalists are in charge. Admittedly, they have to work under an enormous burden of Federal regulation, but overall it greatly increases the chances for recovery.

In his press conference today, Obama re-asserted his assumption that all advancement derives from increased government. He pointed to areas like energy policy and unemployment benefits where Republicans might be willing to extend government. The new Republicans don't share his premise. All funding bills must originate in the House. Look for Republicans to isolate health care and other big government expansion programs into separate legislation, then refuse funding.

I think Obama will move to using the regulatory agencies to expand government. There have already been hints that card check, cap-and-trade, immigration amnesty, and the "fairness doctrine" might be imposed by regulatory edict. Obama will say that he had no choice, because Republicans refused to pass the legislation.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2010 1:26:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/2/2010 8:51:05 PM, bluesteel wrote:

2) The Newt Gingrich years all over again.

I don't see that. Clinton moderated substantially after the 1994 losses, enabling working with Gingrich to accomplish expansion of free trade, welfare reform, and adopting a balanced budget. The Clinton balanced budget, incidentally, was mainly authored by John Kasich, the new Republican governor of Ohio. Obama is unlikely to go moderate. He made that clear enough in his press conference today, and there is nothing in his past history to suggest he will do that. Perhaps Obama will experience a miraculous conversion, but I doubt it.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2010 1:32:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/3/2010 1:26:51 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 11/2/2010 8:51:05 PM, bluesteel wrote:

2) The Newt Gingrich years all over again.

I don't see that. Clinton moderated substantially after the 1994 losses, enabling working with Gingrich to accomplish expansion of free trade, welfare reform, and adopting a balanced budget. The Clinton balanced budget, incidentally, was mainly authored by John Kasich, the new Republican governor of Ohio. Obama is unlikely to go moderate. He made that clear enough in his press conference today, and there is nothing in his past history to suggest he will do that. Perhaps Obama will experience a miraculous conversion, but I doubt it.

I don't think Obama is as politically adept as Clinton. He maneuvered his second term by his veering to the right of center. Welfare reform, DOMA and certain international stances helped along with the balanced budget. - I really don't see Obama doing anything of that sort.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2010 1:52:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/3/2010 5:50:27 AM, bluesteel wrote:
They can't extend the wars. For one, the president is commander in chief of the army.

*Glares blankly at you*
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord