If BHO loses the election the Democrat present to Willard is going to be a tax explosion that will cause a nice recession next year and render him politically impotent.

Look for the Democrats to refuse to negotiate on extending the Bush tax cuts for anyone but those under $250,000, which means that taxes for everyone will go up because the Republicans all signed Grover's pledge and can't agree to break up the cuts from the way they are now.

What that means is $400 billion of new taxes next year (Capital gains rates for Willard go through the roof) as well as $100 billion in cuts from the sequestration deal are going to sabotage the economy. The debt will continue to explode, and Hillary Clinton will be prepping to be President in 2016 when she runs.

I have seen on all the left wing blogs that in the case they lose the Presidency, House and Senate that they are planning to be worse than Mitch McConnell as the Senate minority as far as keeping the country at a screeching halt through abuse of the filibuster as we have seen the past 4 years. The playbook is now out there.

There is going to be anger and rage among Republicans if they hold all 3 branches of government but can't get anything done without 60 votes because the Senate minority blocks any and everything, just as we have seen with the Democrats as they complained about the Republicans doing it.

We are in for some interesting times, as the new mission for any Senate minority is to make the sitting President a 1 term President by doing everything humanly possible to thwart them. We saw it done to BHO, and we will assuredly see it done to Willard.

Americans generally have a short attention span and little use for process, so they don't care that a President's hands are tied by Congressional obstruction. They just see things aren't better, and are ready to try out the next guy.

Now that both parties have seen how well it works, I fully expect this to be the new SOP going forward for all future Congresses unless or until the filibuster is reformed, or one party gets 65-70 senators of their party to give them a true working majority. As Democrats saw, just having 60 isn't enough because it makes every Senator a king maker as you can't afford to lose even 1 vote, so they can demand anything for it and you are stuck.

141 in the toss-up category ---- I project most, if not all, will go to Romney. There are also 66 'leaning' obama; my sense is some of those will turn red as well. Some here apparently underestimate the huge discontent with the Divider-in-Chief. Romney wins going away.

IggyPride00;1180465 wrote:If BHO loses the election the Democrat present to Willard is going to be a tax explosion that will cause a nice recession next year and render him politically impotent.

Look for the Democrats to refuse to negotiate on extending the Bush tax cuts for anyone but those under $250,000, which means that taxes for everyone will go up because the Republicans all signed Grover's pledge and can't agree to break up the cuts from the way they are now.

What that means is $400 billion of new taxes next year (Capital gains rates for Willard go through the roof) as well as $100 billion in cuts from the sequestration deal are going to sabotage the economy. The debt will continue to explode, and Hillary Clinton will be prepping to be President in 2016 when she runs.

I have seen on all the left wing blogs that in the case they lose the Presidency, House and Senate that they are planning to be worse than Mitch McConnell as the Senate minority as far as keeping the country at a screeching halt through abuse of the filibuster as we have seen the past 4 years. The playbook is now out there.

There is going to be anger and rage among Republicans if they hold all 3 branches of government but can't get anything done without 60 votes because the Senate minority blocks any and everything, just as we have seen with the Democrats as they complained about the Republicans doing it.

We are in for some interesting times, as the new mission for any Senate minority is to make the sitting President a 1 term President by doing everything humanly possible to thwart them. We saw it done to BHO, and we will assuredly see it done to Willard.

Americans generally have a short attention span and little use for process, so they don't care that a President's hands are tied by Congressional obstruction. They just see things aren't better, and are ready to try out the next guy.

Now that both parties have seen how well it works, I fully expect this to be the new SOP going forward for all future Congresses unless or until the filibuster is reformed, or one party gets 65-70 senators of their party to give them a true working majority. As Democrats saw, just having 60 isn't enough because it makes every Senator a king maker as you can't afford to lose even 1 vote, so they can demand anything for it and you are stuck.

Easy fix. Do what Harry has lacked the balls to do, actually make them get up and fillibuster. Being a pussy and caving every time someone utters the word only emboldens the opposition.

fish82;1180487 wrote:Easy fix. Do what Harry has lacked the balls to do, actually make them get up and fillibuster. Being a **** and caving every time someone utters the word only emboldens the opposition.

They changed the rules years ago so you don't have to do that anymore. He can't make them filibuster like the old days where you read out of the phone book.

fish82;1180263 wrote:You forgot Indiana.

You're right though...Bam is sitting pretty. :rolleyes:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/obama_vs_romney_create_your_own_electoral_college_map.html

I didn't include Indiana because it's not really a toss-up

President Obama IS in a much better position than Gov. Romney right now. It could all change...but I'm not betting on it.


http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/05/24/obama_leads_in_three_key_swing_states.html

Ty Webb;1180522 wrote:I didn't include Indiana because it's not really a toss-up

President Obama IS in a much better position than Gov. Romney right now. It could all change...but I'm not betting on it.


http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/05/24/obama_leads_in_three_key_swing_states.html

At least 2 (WI & MI) solid blue states have slipped to toss-up. His lead in Oregon has gone from 15 points to 4 in the space of 2 months. He's losing ground/lost ground in 8 states he carried in 2008. Romney has lost ground in zero.

Does Bam have a slight advantage? Yes.

Is he in a "much better position?" Not even close.

I won't bother dissecting the NBC/Marist poll methodology. I'll let you find out that painful truth on your own.

IggyPride00;1180465 wrote:If BHO loses the election the Democrat present to Willard is going to be a tax explosion that will cause a nice recession next year and render him politically impotent.

Look for the Democrats to refuse to negotiate on extending the Bush tax cuts for anyone but those under $250,000, which means that taxes for everyone will go up because the Republicans all signed Grover's pledge and can't agree to break up the cuts from the way they are now.

What that means is $400 billion of new taxes next year (Capital gains rates for Willard go through the roof) as well as $100 billion in cuts from the sequestration deal are going to sabotage the economy. The debt will continue to explode, and Hillary Clinton will be prepping to be President in 2016 when she runs.

I have seen on all the left wing blogs that in the case they lose the Presidency, House and Senate that they are planning to be worse than Mitch McConnell as the Senate minority as far as keeping the country at a screeching halt through abuse of the filibuster as we have seen the past 4 years. The playbook is now out there.

There is going to be anger and rage among Republicans if they hold all 3 branches of government but can't get anything done without 60 votes because the Senate minority blocks any and everything, just as we have seen with the Democrats as they complained about the Republicans doing it.

We are in for some interesting times, as the new mission for any Senate minority is to make the sitting President a 1 term President by doing everything humanly possible to thwart them. We saw it done to BHO, and we will assuredly see it done to Willard.

Americans generally have a short attention span and little use for process, so they don't care that a President's hands are tied by Congressional obstruction. They just see things aren't better, and are ready to try out the next guy.

Now that both parties have seen how well it works, I fully expect this to be the new SOP going forward for all future Congresses unless or until the filibuster is reformed, or one party gets 65-70 senators of their party to give them a true working majority. As Democrats saw, just having 60 isn't enough because it makes every Senator a king maker as you can't afford to lose even 1 vote, so they can demand anything for it and you are stuck.

Problem with all that is that the Ds can't blame that last 4 years on a R filibuster, the Ds had a supermajority in the Senate, had the House, and had the Presidency for nearly the first 2 years of Obama's term.

Someone needs to remind the liberals of this, that America revolted against their policies two years ago and flipped the House while nearly flipping the Senate (went from 39 to 47 with only about 33 seats even up for election).

jmog;1180943 wrote:Problem with all that is that the Ds can't blame that last 4 years on a R filibuster, the Ds had a supermajority in the Senate, had the House, and had the Presidency for nearly the first 2 years of Obama's term.

Someone needs to remind the liberals of this, that America revolted against their policies two years ago and flipped the House while nearly flipping the Senate (went from 39 to 47 with only about 33 seats even up for election).

Exactly, 2010 was a major referendum on obama and obamacare and massive deficits. I will not be surprised if the republicans get to 60 in the senate, while adding to their House numbers. And I will not be surprised with Romney getting well over 300 electoral votes. For the sake of the republic, all the above needs to occur, and should.

Problem with all that is that the Ds can't blame that last 4 years on a R filibuster, the Ds had a supermajority in the Senate, had the House, and had the Presidency for nearly the first 2 years of Obama's term.

They only had a super majority for 7.5 months. Al Franken (the 60th vote) was not seated until June of 2009 that year because of an election challenge. Ted Kennedy died in August, and Scott Brown was sworn in Feb 4, 2010.

They had 59 Senate votes, the House, and the Presidency and outside of 7 months couldn't get a vote on anything because all it takes is 41 to stop all business in the Senate.

That is why they are reportedly planning such harsh obstructionist behavior should they be thrown out.

The Republicans would feel like they have a mandate if they win the Presidency and control the House/Senate, so the plan is going to be to just shut it all down and not let them do anything.

In a bizarre way the Senate Minority leader actually is the defacto majority leader, because he/she ultimately decides what is allowed to be voted on except if you have 60 on your side.

There is tremendous anger in the Democrat ranks that they couldn't get anything done even with 59 senators, and they plan to launch a campaign of spite the likes of which we have never seen as payback. Just as Mitch McConnell said about his #1 priority being to make BHO a one term President, Minority leader Dingey Harry will make it his #1 priority to ensure that Willard is a one term president.

It is sad our politics have gotten to this point, but it is what we all wanted I guess by purging both parties of the moderates that used to cut deals to allow things to get done.

Obstructionist politics aside, I will be more than happy to see a Repub controlled-Congress and a Romney White House be stalemated by Dingy Harry & Co. because it will at least mean we won't have to deal with any new Obama Porkulus Sammiches, talk of tax increases, and bullshit like cap & tax.

The Dems can throw all the temper tantrums they want. I'll gladly sit back and laugh my ass off. That in and of itself is sweet enough for me.

talk of tax increases

They are coming in January, big time. Largest in history in fact.

IggyPride00;1181234 wrote:They are coming in January, big time. Largest in history in fact.

Huge mistake. If people think Obamanomics has sucked, wait until those of us who still have jobs have to shell out even more of our money to the spendoholics in DC.

We reap what we sow.

believer;1181238 wrote:Huge mistake. If people think Obamanomics has sucked, wait until those of us who still have jobs have to shell out even more of our money to the spendoholics in DC.

We reap what we sow.

Yup.

Congress will have to actually pass a law to prevent all tax rates from resetting to the Clinton levels.

You can just about guess how well that is going to go.

Pelosi today said she wanted a vote on extending all the tax cuts for those people making under $1,000,000 a year as a political ploy to try and show that the Republicans are so beholdened to the wealthy that they would rather see taxes go up for everyone than just the top half of 1% (which is the amount of earners earning a million+ yearly).

Democrats are going to refuse to go along with anything that doesn't raise taxes on millionaires, and Republicans won't go along with anything that doesn't see everyone get to keep their tax cuts. Both sides are prepared to screw the 99.5% over the last .5%.

The CBO has said there will be a massive recession next year if we have a $400 billion dollar tax increase coupled with the start of the budget sequester which will cut about $100 billion of spending for fiscal year 2013.

That is their back-up plan for getting back into power. Just like BHO, Willard will inherit a recession and continue the massive debt, and by the mid terms the Democrats will be back in power running on a failing economy under Willard just as the Republicans did in 2010. That is the plan right now at least as a worst case scenario among the liberal blogs if they lose total power in November.

The american electorate has incredibly short memories, so as preposterous as it seems it probably is a pretty accurate portrayal of how things play out.

^^^Can't disagree with anything you're saying.

believer;1181233 wrote:Obstructionist politics aside, I will be more than happy to see a Repub controlled-Congress and a Romney White House be stalemated by Dingy Harry & Co. because it will at least mean we won't have to deal with any new Obama Porkulus Sammiches, talk of tax increases, and bull**** like cap & tax.

The Dems can throw all the temper tantrums they want. I'll gladly sit back and laugh my ass off. That in and of itself is sweet enough for me.

I guess that debt thing isn't a big deal then.

I foresee gridlock and none of the problems that both side claim is urgent will be solved.
I see the debt climbing
No major cuts
No entitlement reform
No Medicare reform
No improvements to the tax code or simpler taxes
Or anything large that will change the current course.

We haven't had a functioning Congress since Clinton.
What makes anyone think that will change?

R's nor D's are willing to step across the aisle and compromise on these issues.
And, Romney and Obama haven't said a damn thing on how they would address this.
So, in 2016 we will have the same BS discussions about oh the debt is too high, taxes are too low/ high, etc.

ptown_trojans_1;1181290 wrote: So, in 2016 we will have the same BS discussions about oh the debt is too high, taxes are too low/ high, etc.

***Ding ding ding.

R's nor D's are willing to step across the aisle and compromise on these issues.

They can't. The reward is a primary from the base who is usually really well funded now that there are no campaign finance laws.

Every Republican in Congress just about has signed Grover's pledge. It makes budgeting nearly impossible when you can't make any kind of bargain on taxes on anything because you know that you will be tar/feathered/primaried out of office if you cut a grand deal that trades spending cuts for tax increases.

The Democrats are all beholden to unions and other activist organizations, so any talk of benefit cuts from any program gets them labeled a DINO and ready for a primary challenge.

It is so much easier to do now than it was 20/30/50 years ago before the advent of activist blogs (D & R), talk radio, the 24/7 new cycle and lack of campaign finance rules.

It has helped both parties purge the moderates from within so that now we are left with the true radicals of both sides.

Everyone talks about wanting centrism and Bi-Partisanship, but the reality is that it is the hardcore party base activists that donate the money to candidates in large quantities. They want purity, and will bank role whoever they have to to get it.

This country has major problems to solve, and sadly we haven't had a functioning congress in 10+ years now to be able to do it.

I am torn as an American because I think the filibuster is vital to keeping away from the tyranny of the majority like we see in the house, but at the same time it has made governing on big issues (and even small ones anymore) literally impossible. It is no longer serving the function it was initially designed to do, but I am not sure how you fix it in a way that doesn't allow the majority to run roughshod over the minority, but also doesn't allow them to literally make governing impossible. That is where we are now, and will continue to be now that the playbook the past few years has proven so effective.

Everything that is wrong with this country was done with bipartisanship and compromise. We have no money for any more bipartisanship. The filibuster is the only thing in Washington doing what it is supposed to do.

The filibuster is the only thing in Washington doing what it is supposed to do.

What is that? Lock in excessive spending and make it impossible to address the nation's fiscal problems?

In case anyone didn't notice, Drudge has a link to how the "real" deficit is US$5T. Unbelievable what the baby boomers did to the country.

Manhattan Buckeye;1181479 wrote:In case anyone didn't notice, Drudge has a link to how the "real" deficit is US$5T. Unbelievable what the baby boomers did to the country.

Somewhere along the way we as a nation got this idea that we could give ourselves all these services/goodies and not pay for them. A new program here, another one there. It has gotten so bad that we borrow money from other countries to start wars we can't afford to pay for ourselves.

It does make you wonder how know one stopped along the way and wondered about the idea that we can have sky high spending and low taxes all at the same time like that wouldn't ever become an issue or something. It is amazing.

"Somewhere along the way we as a nation got this idea that we could give ourselves all these services/goodies and not pay for them. A new program here, another one there"

Started with Roosevelt. Once a government goodie is produced, you can't end it. Rentseekers will cry racism, sexism, ageism, victimism, etc.ism if someone remotely competent in fiscal matters tells them the public funded faucet must end. It has seeped into the private sector, the last firm I worked at in NYC we had a "partner" give a talk about her area of "expertise" (health care) and kept saying that tax cuts are bad because it hurts people (read: her industry and her income).

It kind of started with FDR, but at least with him even though he was giving out goodies he had sky high taxes. In the postwar period we had expanded the safety net, but taxes were really high to pay for that stuff.

It was only really 30-40 years ago that we started the unending yearly deficits in which we were continually slashing tax rates at the same time as growing the safety net.

That is what I have a hard time wrapping my head around.

How did we get to the point that we thought as a country we could have low taxes and high services? For a few decades after FDR we were running surpluses and paying down the war debt. Then all the sudden that sense of fiscal responsibility flew out the window as a nation and we started that cycle of unending debt.

Manhattan Buckeye;1181479 wrote:In case anyone didn't notice, Drudge has a link to how the "real" deficit is US$5T. Unbelievable what the baby boomers did to the country.

Eh, you said it yourself....it started with FDR (IE: before the Boomers). And don't pretend that the Gen X, Y, and Z-er's are immune from sucking the gubmint teet. In fact they were born & raised to do it. FDR got the ball rolling, the Boomers jumped on board, and the puppies don't know the difference.

IggyPride00;1181468 wrote:What is that? Lock in excessive spending and make it impossible to address the nation's fiscal problems?

Unfortunately for all of us, both sides get together just fine when it is time to raise the debt ceiling. The filibuster isn't keeping them from cutting spending.