ptown_trojans_1;543827 wrote:However, the worry is deflation not inflation. At least in all my monetary policy readings.

Commodities are up big time this year. They aren't factored into the CPI that policy makers use to perpetuate the deflation myth.

Go to fill up your car with gas, or go to the grocery store and tell the people of this country prices are falling and they will laugh at those monetary policy readings.

This is what happens when egg heads detached from every day life are making policies that don't include things people use every day when constructing their CPI data.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/11/03/news/economy/economy_election_outlook/index.htm

IggyPride00;543823 wrote:No, I don't believe in America doing their best impersonation of Zimbabwe. I know Bernanke's nickname is "Helicopter Ben" and all, but history has shown us that just printing more money leads to no good.

It's more like an impersonation of Japan in this instance right? But I get your point.

The Quality of the Tea Party Christine O'Donnell, Sharon Angle, Joe Miller. Pathetic. They could have beat Harry Reid running a turnip, but the definitive tea partier got soundly beaten by him. 34% for Joe Miller people went so far as to learn to spell Murkowski to keep him out of the Senate. O'Donnell running against a complete non-entity in a Republican tsunami could only get 40% of the vote.

What tsunami ? Looks like a typical mid-term election in which the party out of control won enough seats to control the House only. For all the yelling , screaming, & hype from the Rs and especially the idiots in the Tea Party, this election isn't out of the norm. Once the Rs show themselves and their policy ideas, the ' 12 elections will bring out voters in droves to kick them out again.

Just more hype as usual .

Paladin;543862 wrote:What tsunami ? Looks like a typical mid-term election in which the party out of control won enough seats to control the House only. For all the yelling , screaming, & hype from the Rs and especially the idiots in the Tea Party, this election isn't out of the norm. Once the Rs show themselves and their policy ideas, the ' 12 elections will bring out voters in droves to kick them out again.

Just more hype as usual .

Epic FAIL on your part, as usual.

According to the National Council of State Legislatures:

Overall, more than 6,100 state legislative seats were up for grabs in 46 states. Republican state legislative candidates made a net gain of more than 500 seats on Tuesday, giving them more seats than at any time since 1928, according to the NCSL.

You see, it's not ONLY about the House and Senate. It's also about winning all those local seats at the state level that determine how the political districts will be drawn and redrawn to help candidates for years to come.

This was an historic election, by any measure, and its effects could be felt (harshly) by Democrats for many years to come.

Paladin;543862 wrote:What tsunami ? Looks like a typical mid-term election in which the party out of control won enough seats to control the House only. For all the yelling , screaming, & hype from the Rs and especially the idiots in the Tea Party, this election isn't out of the norm. Once the Rs show themselves and their policy ideas, the ' 12 elections will bring out voters in droves to kick them out again.

Just more hype as usual .

I guarantee you Obama and the democrat leadership do not share your thoughts. You will see some major shifts in leadership and how they govern. They are not dumb.

Did you just say Obama isn't dumb?



Hopefully there are changes made. Obviously many on here differ in their opinion of what changes need to be made but this election could be the catalyst for some real good.

Paladin;543862 wrote:What tsunami ? Looks like a typical mid-term election in which the party out of control won enough seats to control the House only. For all the yelling , screaming, & hype from the Rs and especially the idiots in the Tea Party, this election isn't out of the norm. Once the Rs show themselves and their policy ideas, the ' 12 elections will bring out voters in droves to kick them out again.

Just more hype as usual .

History fail. Go sit in the back. :rolleyes:

I Wear Pants;543897 wrote:Did you just say Obama isn't dumb?

Neither was Karl Marx.

Twas merely a joke.

But it is true. Obama, nor Bush, nor Karl Marx were/are dumb.

IggyPride00;543818 wrote:If Reagan were alive and governing today he would be considered a RINO by today's standards of what a Conservative is, much the same way Nixon would be.

That is how a "Conservative" was able to govern California.

I'm curious to how you would define today's RINOs in Congress. As the head of the executive branch (guv, prez) Reagan had different responsibilities and thus had to govern differently than someone in Congress who sits on a committee and casts votes (and does other stuff I know). Sure he had to make compromises and not be a strict idealogue, but no way does RR go for the crap that RINOs today are known for.

BGFalcons82;543711 wrote:Why is this? Why has it been this way for the past 30 years or so? People forget that Reagan was the conservative governor of.....California. How in the hell did THAT ever happen?

To me, this is the tragedy in America. The urban areas are flush with those that believe the government is the holder of all answers, the supplier of all things needed to survive, and home of entitlements. The suburban and farm areas are the bastion of the individual and liberty-loving Americans. People in the urban areas want more government and everyone else wants less of it. How did we get here? Why are there 2 totally opposite views of America from people that live only a few miles apart? I don't propose to have the answers, but to me, unless this chasm is filled or bridged, it may end up being as devisive as the Civil War was 150 years ago.

That is a great point. It goes way beyond sheer numbers of people. An interesting sociology study for sure. Rural areas- red, Urban areas-blue. And how did it get that way?

Paladin;543862 wrote:What tsunami ? Looks like a typical mid-term election in which the party out of control won enough seats to control the House only. For all the yelling , screaming, & hype from the Rs and especially the idiots in the Tea Party, this election isn't out of the norm. Once the Rs show themselves and their policy ideas, the ' 12 elections will bring out voters in droves to kick them out again.

Just more hype as usual .

If by "typical" you mean "ain't happened since 1932", then yes, yesterday's election was a very typical mid-term election.

The thing is that you don't see any results of the government in rural areas.

If I was able to use a bus, subway, or train and had the other various services city governments provide I might be a bit more supportive of them too.

I read on Red State today that Scott Brown is a big target of the Tea Party to be primaried in 2012. Talk about a rapid fall from grace.

Massachusetts yesterday bucked the national trend and reverted to their historical norm by electing Democrats across the board to Congress again as well as their governor.

It seems unrealistic to think anyone more conservative than Scott Brown can win in Mass. It is situations like this where I sometimes question (and both parties do it) the strategy of primarying a quasi-moderate candidate on your side who is electable (and votes with you more than a member of the other party would) and replacing them with someone with is probably unelectable (and would vote with you 100% of the time).

Liberals do the same thing. I saw boo hooing for 2 years now about how Liberman, Nelson, Lincoln and the likes were not liberal enough, yet isn't a Blanche Lincoln type that will vote with you maybe 60-70% of the time a better alternative than the Conservative who votes with you 0% of the time? Delaware Republicans did the same thing running Mike Castle off as if Chris Coons was a better alternative.

Given the demographic make-up of this country, it is going to be nearly impossible for either side to ever get a filibuster proof 60 Senate votes of pure Liberals or Conservatives without having to rely on a DINO or RINO from their caucus on occassion.

That being the case, why in the world do both parties seem so intent on running them off in favor of a member of the other party that will give them zero support. Isn't something better than nothing?

Both parties aren't very good stategists when it comes to that. And it ends up hurting us because the guys that vote 100% Republican or 100% Democrat are the worst ones. It's the guys that are willing to vote with the other party when it makes sense that can actually do good.

Writerbuckeye;543867 wrote:Epic FAIL on your part, as usual.

According to the National Council of State Legislatures:

Overall, more than 6,100 state legislative seats were up for grabs in 46 states. Republican state legislative candidates made a net gain of more than 500 seats on Tuesday, giving them more seats than at any time since 1928, according to the NCSL.

You see, it's not ONLY about the House and Senate. It's also about winning all those local seats at the state level that determine how the political districts will be drawn and redrawn to help candidates for years to come.

This was an historic election, by any measure, and its effects could be felt (harshly) by Democrats for many years to come.

Pipe dream. Libs thought the same thing in 2008.

And 2006.

I Wear Pants;543995 wrote:Both parties aren't very good stategists when it comes to that. And it ends up hurting us because the guys that vote 100% Republican or 100% Democrat are the worst ones. It's the guys that are willing to vote with the other party when it makes sense that can actually do good.

Compromising on budgetary items (NOT trading pork for votes), taking hard looks at their own party's nominess (SCOTUS for example), and working with the other party on defense-type items are examples of bipartisanship that most conservatives can agree upon. Supporting Cap and Trade and ObamaKare are huge monstrosities that conservatives and Tea Party people draw the line on agreement. Coons wanted these, so he's no conservative and no friend of conservatism. Good riddance. Now he can run as a liberal Democrat, which is what he votes like. There are limits to compromise.

BoatShoes;544011 wrote:Pipe dream. Libs thought the same thing in 2008.

Paladin;544039 wrote:And 2006.

Wrong. Both of you.

This is the year following a census -- which means apportionment boards will be meeting in each state across the country. With last night's results, Republicans won more than 500 state-related slots, and control a majority of statehouses. That gives them a huge advantage in redistricting to ensure Republicans have the best possible setup to win elections for the next 10 years, until another census is done.

This election was much more meaningful AND historic than either of those two -- and Dems will feel its effects for the next Decade, unlike both of the years you mentioned.

I like the shake up, and i hope the Red boys realize if they do nothing they are next on my list. To me this was not about party it was do your job or your gone.

Writerbuckeye;544052 wrote:Wrong. Both of you.

This is the year following a census -- which means apportionment boards will be meeting in each state across the country. With last night's results, Republicans won more than 500 state-related slots, and control a majority of statehouses. That gives them a huge advantage in redistricting to ensure Republicans have the best possible setup to win elections for the next 10 years, until another census is done.

This election was much more meaningful AND historic than either of those two -- and Dems will feel its effects for the next Decade, unlike both of the years you mentioned.

So Republicans making gains is more historic than the first African-American President??? Are you high?

Ty Webb;544056 wrote:So Republicans making gains is more historic than the first African-American President??? Are you high?

You need to take a valium and a remedial reading class.

Read what I was responding to before you make youself look (more) stupid.

Writerbuckeye;543867 wrote:Epic FAIL on your part, as usual.

According to the National Council of State Legislatures:

Overall, more than 6,100 state legislative seats were up for grabs in 46 states. Republican state legislative candidates made a net gain of more than 500 seats on Tuesday, giving them more seats than at any time since 1928, according to the NCSL.

You see, it's not ONLY about the House and Senate. It's also about winning all those local seats at the state level that determine how the political districts will be drawn and redrawn to help candidates for years to come.

This was an historic election, by any measure, and its effects could be felt (harshly) by Democrats for many years to come.

You're overestimating.

Ty Webb;544056 wrote:So Republicans making gains is more historic than the first African-American President??? Are you high?

C'mon Gibby. You can do better than that. Wait a minute. Strike that. No you can't.

BoatShoes;544097 wrote:You're overestimating.

I don't think Writer is overestimating at all. I think he's right on target.

It's highly possible that with the current volatile political climate the Repubs could lose what they've gained in just 2 short years, but the fact remains that the Repub gains - for the moment - have put them in a HUGE strategic position to redistrict to their advantage.

This only happens every 10 years and thanks to the past 2 years of incredible ineptitude on the part of the Dems, they've handed the Repubs a gigantic gift just in the nick of time.

Redistricting only works if you still have lots of angry old white men and thats a shrinking base of the party. If you haven't been watching, the demographics are starting to work against being able to "redistrict". And I'm not sure what the Rs think they are going to accomplish in the next two years . Looks like gridlock to me. Not bipartisanship. If they hang the people out to dry with no unemployment or cut programs that help people in this time of need, they'll get booted out fast. Tax cuts for the rich ? That should look good.