2010 Mid-Term Elections

All Categories >> Politics

10/27/2010 1:21 am

Matt's Archive

Rate this Blog

Yours:

Rated 0 times.

We are less than a week away from the elections, so I thought we should have a place to discuss election related news as well as politics in general. That way, people can ignore just this one thread instead of ignoring multiple threads.

	Matt - 3941 Posts 10/27/2010 @ 01:26:30 AM
To start here are two good links to gauge how the election is shaping up: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/ http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone! 10/27/2010 @ 09:46:50 AM
Health Care polls show a general trend of more opposing then in favor, but it is a far cry from the "70% who oppose the government takeover of healthcare" that most partisan pundits would have you believe. Interesting at least.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - I believe virtually everything I read. 10/27/2010 @ 10:00:06 AM
Well, it very well might be 70% that oppose a "government takeover" but since that's not really what anyone is proposing, that's a lame ass question designed to make things look worse than they are. It would be like taking a poll on if you think we should nuke Afghanistan and then using the results of that poll to make the point "Wow, what an unpopular war!" Edit: Or really, for that matter, it makes almost as much sense to use the results of the "nuke Afghanistan" poll as a reflection of peoples feelings on the actual health care plan.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this 2 times, last at 10/27/2010 10:04:43 am

	Scott - Resident Tech Support 10/27/2010 @ 10:10:22 AM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 10:00:06 AM Well, it very well might be 70% that oppose a "government takeover" but since that's not really what anyone is proposing, that's a lame ass question designed to make things look worse than they are. Exactly my point. Except that Ron Johnson will say "A majority of Wisconsinites opposed the government takeover of health care...but Russ Feingold voted for it anyway." Feingold didn't vote for a government takeover of healthcare. Congress didn't pass a government takeover of health care.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - The pig says "My wife is a slut?" 10/27/2010 @ 10:18:41 AM
In fact, it's sort of a bizarre point to bring up, because if anything the fact that 30% of the country, roughly the same amount of the population as every non-white person, would favor an out and out take over, is more telling of how sick the country is with the current system, than anything.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - 3941 Posts 10/27/2010 @ 05:46:25 PM
Like with most political disagreements it all depends on the phrasing of the question and how people will interpret it. While "government takeover" may mean something to you, it may mean something different to someone else, and then you end up with two sides talking past each other. Is ObamaCare a "government takeover" in the sense that it is a nationalization of health care like in the UK, no (but you could certainly reason that it is the first step to reach that goal). But is it a "government takeover" in the sense that the government will have a much bigger role in deciding the who/what/when/where/why/and how of the health care story, then yeah, I wouldn't argue with someone who decides to characterize it as such. Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 10:18:41 AM In fact, it's sort of a bizarre point to bring up, because if anything the fact that 30% of the country, roughly the same amount of the population as every non-white person, would favor an out and out take over, is more telling of how sick the country is with the current system, than anything. I'm not sure how telling it is. A large segment of the left has wanted fully nationalized health care for a long, long time (well before our current "system" developed into what it is) and they'll keep wanting it in the future too (which is why many feel that ObamaCare is only the first step). Plus, a 70/30 split is pretty big when dealing with pretty much any political question. If you're arguing that 30% is "telling" about dissatisfaction, then every poll would be "telling" that people are sick of the current system in any given area.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Matt screwed with this at 10/27/2010 5:47:54 pm

	Alex - Refactor Mercilessly 10/27/2010 @ 10:21:51 PM
It's difficult to get too excited about any particular candidate because there's always something that I 100% disagree with them on. What's my point? I don't know, other than that I was initially pretty excited about Ron Johnson, then I read all the stuff on his website and lost my excitement right away. To help campaign for someone to you actually have be in total agreement with them? Or just 75%? 50%? Maybe just any % more than the other guy would be enough I guess. Scott Wrote - Today @ 09:46:50 AM Health Care polls show a general trend of more opposing then in favor, but it is a far cry from the "70% who oppose the government takeover of healthcare" that most partisan pundits would have you believe. Interesting at least. Most partisan pundits? Are the lefties using that number as much as the righties? Or are you implying that there are simply more righties?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 10/28/2010 @ 10:28:26 AM
It's hard to say, because what they want to do rarely reflects what they do anyway. (Either because they never really meant it, or because it's not like they can just do whatever they want.) I'm sure we've talked about this before, but polls are almost useless, because it all depends on the question. If you ask 100 americans "Should we provide free heathcare to illegal immigrants?" most will say no. If you ask them "Should hospitals turn away illegal immigrants in need of medical attention?" most people will offer a "Of course not, what are we, animals?" response. Well, those are largely the same question, though I suppose someone in group one could have thought that extended to free nose jobs. Often times the same person elicited both conflicting responses to what in the end was the same issue.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Micah - Bring down the Beast!!! 10/28/2010 @ 10:46:00 AM
There are standards that apply to questions that allow you to get as close to neutral as possible. Researchers at universities have to submit any survey questions to a board that reviews the wording so the least amount of influence on the user is given. Obviously you can't be 100% but research is pretty extensive in this area. Pollsters, clearly, are not bound to submit their questions to anymore, but some are better than others at consistent wording.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - The pig says "My wife is a slut?" 10/28/2010 @ 10:53:24 AM
I'm sure it can be done well, but I doubt those are the polls we normally hear about.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 10/28/2010 @ 01:23:41 PM
Alex Wrote - Yesterday @ 10:21:51 PM Scott Wrote - Yesterday @ 09:46:50 AM Health Care polls show a general trend of more opposing then in favor, but it is a far cry from the "70% who oppose the government takeover of healthcare" that most partisan pundits would have you believe. Interesting at least. Most partisan pundits? Are the lefties using that number as much as the righties? Or are you implying that there are simply more righties? I guess I was implying the righties, in this case.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 10/28/2010 @ 01:27:27 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 10:28:26 AM It's hard to say, because what they want to do rarely reflects what they do anyway. (Either because they never really meant it, or because it's not like they can just do whatever they want.) I'm sure we've talked about this before, but polls are almost useless, because it all depends on the question. If you ask 100 americans "Should we provide free heathcare to illegal immigrants?" most will say no. If you ask them "Should hospitals turn away illegal immigrants in need of medical attention?" most people will offer a "Of course not, what are we, animals?" response. Well, those are largely the same question, though I suppose someone in group one could have thought that extended to free nose jobs. Often times the same person elicited both conflicting responses to what in the end was the same issue. The problem is that a poll can ask the question in the most unbiased way, and then the political hack or the candidate can take the results (51% oppose the healthcare bill) and say in their ads "most people oppose the government takeover". while Matt has a point that you can argue both sides of what constitutes a takeover, my opinion is that the phrase "government takeover" mischaracterizes it with a clear intent to do so, especially when the poll cited didn't spin it that way either. Someone might support the bill as it is, not seeing it as a government takeover of healthcare, and someone might oppose the bill because it didn't go far enough or they disliked one aspect of it. This doesn't mean that they rejected a government takeover. The only reason someone would use the phrase would be to put fear into those that might be a bit uncertain about it. Those that are against it from the beginning probalby already think of it a takeover.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott messed with this 2 times, last at 10/28/2010 1:55:08 pm

	Alex - 3619 Posts 10/28/2010 @ 10:39:39 PM
It's a 900 page bill, so yes summing it up as a "government takeover" isn't necessarily 100% accurate. The only accurate summary would be "haphazard pile of poo that may contain some reasonable changes". But if you get away from is or isn't it a government takeover and just ask if it's moving towards more government involvement with and control over health care or less, it seems fairly obvious that the bill moves the needle towards more.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - You're going to have to call your hardware guy. It's not a software issue. 10/29/2010 @ 09:02:58 AM
By the standards of that, then the government has taken over most aspects of our lives, and I don't agree with that case. Is everything that has federal regulations to be considered as taken over by the government? The federal government regulates the airline industry. Does that constitute as a federal takeover? The government decided that commercially sold food must contain the ingredients and nutrion facts. Does that constitute as a government takeover? Or does the regulation of food labels take us just one step closer to all having to eat the exact same cheese produced in Obama's farm that he bought with tax dollars from Kraft? The government is charged with, among other things, regulating commerce and providing for the general well being of its citizens. While there are things in the bill that are questionable (requiring citizens to purchase anything just for living), I would hardly consider it a move towards government takeover anymore than I would suspect a national airline taking over all other airlines anytime soon.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - As Seen On The Internet 10/29/2010 @ 10:13:36 AM
The funny thing is that one of the largest things to come out of it would normally be fought by opposite sides. A large part of this bill is, in essence, "You can't free load off the rest of us who are actually contributing" which in most other iterations is pushed by republicans and fought by dems.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - Nutcan.com's MBL 10/30/2010 @ 05:31:22 AM
Maybe that's how they tried to sell it, and maybe that's what the intention was, but I'm pretty sure the bill will do nothing of the sort. At most, the bill will just shift around who gets to freeload and who has to pay for it. When the democrats try and sell this bill they will often point to the fact that now people can't be denied coverage because of preexisting conditions, or that you can no longer lose your coverage because you get sick, etc. This is in fact a big incentive to freeload since you can wait until you get sick and then just sign up for coverage. Add this to the regulations affecting how much the insurance companies can charge and you have a big problem since there would be no way for the companies to avoid huge losses. This is where the mandate comes in. The only way you can get the insurance companies to play along is if you assure them of a large pool of new customers who will pay to offset those other losses. Thus, a mandate is born and everyone has to buy insurance. Of course you won't be able to buy any old policy, you'll have to buy one that's government approved and, most likely, quite comprehensive (whether you need that much coverage or not). So in essence you end up with younger, healthier people (who are paying for more care than they need) subsidizing the care of older, sicker, people (who are paying for less care than they need). Meanwhile, this doesn't even touch on the people who will still be on Medicare/Medicaid who will still need to be paid for, except that now the increased demand for health care will outpace the supply and we'll get higher costs, lower quality, or both. Not to mention that the whole mandate is unconstitutional on its face.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Matt perfected this at 10/30/2010 5:38:56 am

	Scott - 6225 Posts 11/01/2010 @ 11:17:30 AM
Ron Johnson claims that Russ Feingold voted to approve social security for illegal immigrants. This is a claim he has made countless times and Feingold has denied vehemently every single time. Finally, PolitiFact rules that claim as FALSE.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - Ombudsman 11/01/2010 @ 05:10:36 PM
I found this especially hilarious: If you don't get it look here.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Matt edited this at 11/01/2010 5:10:55 pm

	Scott - 6225 Posts 11/01/2010 @ 05:51:08 PM
Ironic that the spirit of Jon Stewart's rally was sort of to calm down people like the lady in the red sweat shirt.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it. 11/02/2010 @ 10:14:32 PM
Well, I guess there you have it. Things I liked about Feingold: He almost never missed a vote He voted against giving President Bush clearance to invade Iraq He voted against the Patriot act he voted to reform campaign finance laws (which essentially got repealed by a supreme court ruling) He listened to every Wisconsin county every year He voted for the health care bill he voted for the stimulus bill He introduced a proposed constitutional amendment to require states to elect Senators when a seat is vacated mid-term rather than allow a governor to simply appoint a senator. He wasn't afraid to stand up to his own party even if it was to vote to continue impeachment hearings against a Democratic president He pushed several years to stop automatic Congressional pay raises, and the years he failed to do so, he gave the difference in pay back to the US Treasury. He held to self-imposed campaign limits in his 1998 campaign, limits that would eventually become law He responded to several letters I wrote to him (I don't know if it was him personally, but the replies contained specific answers to specific points I wrote about, so someone on his staff read the letter). He is against free trade with countries that don't pay their workers a decent wage. Russel Dana Feingold, I hope we hear from you again sometime, someplace.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott messed with this at 11/02/2010 10:18:23 pm

	Matt - Washington Bureau Chief 11/02/2010 @ 10:23:48 PM
You almost make me feel sorry for him Scott. Nonetheless, even if I agreed with the man's politics (which I don't), 18 years in the Senate is more than enough for anybody.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Matt messed with this at 11/02/2010 10:25:51 pm

	Scott - 6225 Posts 11/02/2010 @ 10:26:22 PM
"Better a ~~3rd~~ 4th Termer Than a ~~3rd~~ 4th Rater."		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - You're going to have to call your hardware guy. It's not a software issue. 11/02/2010 @ 10:37:28 PM
Johnson made it a pretty clear point in his campaigns to not let anyone know where he stands on most issues. He even said that you'll find out when he's a senator. What people will find out is that the job they can't find right now will eventually be held by someone who can't find America on a map and is making about $1.75 an hour because the country in which he works considers that to be a decent wage. That's what you call a trade war.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 11/02/2010 @ 10:39:01 PM
All it really means is even less will get done.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - Washington Bureau Chief 11/02/2010 @ 10:43:27 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 10:37:28 PM That's what you call a trade war. No, a trade war would be less free trade and more tariffs/quotas/subsidies/etc., which would be worse for people in our country as well as those in the countries who can't find America on the map (and a side note, hopefully you don't want other countries to stop doing business with us, since many of our citizens couldn't find many other countries on a map either).		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Matt edited this at 11/02/2010 11:49:38 pm

	Matt - Ombudsman 11/02/2010 @ 10:43:49 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 10:39:01 PM All it really means is even less will get done. Sometimes, that's the best remedy.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 11/02/2010 @ 10:44:54 PM
This is what I was writing when Matt made his last comment: That's actually the goal of the Republicans. Mitch Mcconnell said the number goal for Republicans is to make sure Obama is a one term president.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - Ombudsman 11/02/2010 @ 10:47:01 PM
Which means nothing.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone! 11/02/2010 @ 10:47:36 PM
So americans making $7 per hour competing for jobs with other people making $2 per hour is fair? China forcibly devalues it's currency to make it more expensive for us to buy their products and less expensive for them to buy our products, and that's a country we want to do business with?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 11/02/2010 @ 10:51:04 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 10:44:54 PM This is what I was writing when Matt made his last comment: That's actually the goal of the Republicans. Mitch Mcconnell said the number goal for Republicans is to make sure Obama is a one term president. The same thing that held true when the pendulum swung blue last time and everyone said "maybe they should be careful what they wish for" still holds true. Presidents who lose lots of seats midterm usually get reelected.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 11/02/2010 @ 10:53:40 PM
It will be a repeat of the Clinton presidency.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - Nutcan.com's MBL 11/02/2010 @ 11:03:05 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 10:47:36 PM So americans making $7 per hour competing for jobs with other people making $2 per hour is fair? China forcibly devalues it's currency to make it more expensive for us to buy their products and less expensive for them to buy our products, and that's a country we want to do business with? Well first, I would say that if $7/hr. is such a problem, why do democrats always want to raise the min. wage? But to be more serious, you can't just look at the raw wages like that to determine fairness, if that was the only factor then the U.S would have no jobs. Companies will pay American workers more money because in many cases they are more productive than foreign labor. In the cases where they are not, then why shouldn't the jobs go to where the good/service can be produced the most effectively. That way, the foreigners benefit. We benefit from cheaper goods/services, as well as allowing capital that was being used inefficiently before, to be freed up for producing things that we are more productive in. Sure, it sucks for the people who lose their job, but overall it will be a net benefit. Instead of wasting money trying to keep those jobs, it would be better if we used that money to help transition those affected into new areas. Scott Wrote - Today @ 10:53:40 PM It will be a repeat of the Clinton presidency. Well, Clinton responded by moderating (his so-called "Triangulation"), and by some Republican miscues. We'll see if that happens this time.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - Ma'am, can you make sure your computer is turned on? 11/02/2010 @ 11:09:09 PM
Matt Wrote - Today @ 11:03:05 PM Sure, it sucks for the people who lose their job, but overall it will be a net benefit. Instead of wasting money trying to keep those jobs, it would be better if we used that money to help transition those affected into new areas. So now those that lost their jobs have to figure out a way to pay for education (without money from said jobs) to find jobs that Republicans sent overseas in the first place. And far be it for the government to intervene and provide assistance to help those laid off employees financially while they try to pay for that transition. After all, government assistance is nothing more than a disincentive. And $7 and hour isn't the problem. I am not in favor of lowering our standards to that of the Communist Chinese government. Are you? I just can't figure out how the campaign slogan "So and So supports free trade with Communist China" couldn't have been more effective.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott messed with this 2 times, last at 11/02/2010 11:10:29 pm

	Matt - Ombudsman 11/02/2010 @ 11:18:47 PM
You quoted the part about me saying the the money would be better spent transitioning those affected into new skills/jobs/states/etc. right? And I don't think we should lower our standards, we should use our trade to raise their standards. While China is still not politically free, economically they are becoming much more free over time, and I believe our trade and influence is a part of that. With economic freedom, political freedom follows, and that is a good thing.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - Ombudsman 11/02/2010 @ 11:25:45 PM
Another point about people losing jobs overseas. If we play the protectionism game, you may save jobs in a certain industry for the time being, but the costs will be a slower growing economy which will cause job losses/fewer new jobs and a lower standard of living for others. The problem is that these jobs are a step or two removed from the decision, while the saved "outsourced" jobs are more of a direct result, therefore they get the political attention. It's the classic case of the seen vs. the unseen.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - I was too weak to give in Too strong to lose 11/02/2010 @ 11:33:20 PM
I kind of doubt that trade relations with China was the deciding factor for very many voters. The biggest pro that you listed for Feingold that I don't like about Johnson is the Patriot Act support. But I guess that's how the cookie crumbles. Also, I didn't trust either of the choices for governor. But Barrett's "optimist" commercial was so pointless that I couldn't even take him seriously.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 11/03/2010 @ 01:12:59 AM
Well, it's like all those commercials where so-and-so had the audacity to cut fire fighters and/or police. Which of course means they want you to be unsafe and for your house to burn down. Clearly the solution is to employ everyone without a job as a firefighter. It's win win, and apparently it's not possible to have too many firefighters. In the end I don't have a problem with the jobs going over seas, if that's what the market dictates, but that's not what those candidates say. Don't talk a big game about supporting the local workers, if you don't support wage guarantees, increasing unemployment support, etc. If you think a free-as-possible market is the way to go, that's a perfectly reasonable position, but then argue that point. Agree or disagree with their positions on this issue, Democrats at least do what they campaign on. We've been transitioning to a service based economy for a long time. I'm not the econ major, but it stands to reason one drawback of such a system is that it's not as stable, because it only takes one little blip and the first thing people cut out are those extras our economy is based on. (Cable TV, Cell phones, movies, restaurants, etc) The good news on that front is that those things swing back and forth too. For a period it looked like the software game was going to be almost all overseas, but the results were shit, and companies spent so much fixing it stateside, that they decided doing it here is cheaper. There can only be so many lead based paint recalls, and other such things, before these companies move back. And really, this is one subject where the position Scott and I share as a general tenet is as much to blame as anything. If a company has to pay an American worker $18 an hour, paid holidays/vacation, health insurance, retirement, etc, while a Chinese dude can do it for $18 a week, I mean really....what do we expect to happen? If you have a job a monkey/robot/7 cent an hour worker can do, then I don't think there's a lot we can realistically do for you, cold though that may seem. Training you for a job a monkey can't do is really our only viable option. Nothing happens in a vacuum. Walmart pays their employees crap, but there are many areas where it's a good gig, and Walmart prices are like giving everyone else in the country a 5% raise. Though it's 1 am and I haven't thought through all the ramifications, you could probably make a pretty good case that the best thing to ever happen to the American working class would be ditching minimum wage altogether. For one thing 3 people making $5 is probably better overall than 2 making $7.50.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - Nutcan.com's MBL 11/03/2010 @ 03:18:46 AM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 01:12:59 AM If you think a free-as-possible market is the way to go, that's a perfectly reasonable position, but then argue that point. Agree or disagree with their positions on this issue, Democrats at least do what they campaign on. I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. As for the minimum wage, it's another program that basically does the opposite of what it is intended to do (help low income workers). If a business has a budget for labor, it goes to reason that when the price of labor goes up (without a corresponding increase in productivity), the business will have to reduce the amount of labor it buys. It also goes to reason, that when a business has to decide who to keep and who to let go, they will keep the workers who are most skilled/productive and let the least skilled/productive ones go. In essence, the ones hurt the most are those who most need any help given. Since most minimum wage jobs tend to be "stepping stone" jobs held by young people without much work experience, this effect is multiplied. Not only do these unskilled workers lose out on the income from the job, they also lose out on the chance to attain the needed skills and work experience that would help them land other, better paying jobs in the future. I don't see the need for the government to decide for workers whether or not a job is worth the pay, especially when the government is dealing with only one factor (wages) and the employer and employee are dealing with other factors as well (flexibility, working conditions, experience, etc.). In addition having a federal minimum wage makes even less sense since you have one set wage for everybody, yet the costs of living can vary greatly across the country.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Matt edited this at 11/03/2010 3:35:08 am

	Scott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it. 11/03/2010 @ 07:29:02 AM
Matt Wrote - Yesterday @ 11:18:47 PM You quoted the part about me saying the the money would be better spent transitioning those affected into new skills/jobs/states/etc. right? I did quote you saying that. However, Republicans almost to a person (at least the ones in power) do not believe in that sort of thing. That would be big government, nanny state welfare that would only lead to disincentivizing dependence making that isn't what our founding fathers would have ever intended. Thomas Jefferson wouldn't have paid to educate a worker with federal funds.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 11/03/2010 @ 09:13:58 AM
The unemployment rate didn't change much from yesterday till today. Where are the results the Republicans promised? (I'm giving them pretty much the same amount of time they gave Obama before ruling him a failure--the TEA party started 30 days after he took office)		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott screwed with this at 11/03/2010 9:16:40 am

	Matt - Nutcan.com's MBL 11/03/2010 @ 02:41:41 PM
The people that would make up the Tea Party were already disturbed over the lack of fiscal conservatism under Bush, and angry over the bailouts his administration enacted at the end of his presidency, so the seeds were there when Rick Santelli had his rant on CNBC over the Democrats plans to "bailout" home owners. Obama's continued spending and fiscal policies added fuel to the fire and we are where we are today. I think you make a mistake to assume the Tea Party is just an anti-Obama movement, and if the GOP leadership assumes the same thing and doesn't act on these issues, then you'll probably see another revolt in 2 years, this time aimed at many more republicans as well.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - Ignorance is bliss to those uneducated 12/04/2010 @ 03:40:50 PM
Just a comment on the current tax news. I want to see the budget balanced and think that allowing the cuts to expire for people with maybe $500,000 or above is what Congress should do. I don't think we would ever cut enough spending to get expenses in line with tax income at the current tax rates. I hate how Republicans are saying that the voters voted for them and that means don't raise taxes for anybody.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - You're going to have to call your hardware guy. It's not a software issue. 12/06/2010 @ 05:52:59 PM
Well, let the season of compromise begin. Depending on how you look at it, either everyone wins or everyone loses...or maybe some win and some lose....but it's hard to strike a deal where everyone wins.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jon - 3443 Posts 12/09/2010 @ 03:23:57 AM
Scott Wrote - 12/06/2010 @ 05:52:59 PM Well, let the season of compromise begin. Depending on how you look at it, either everyone wins or everyone loses...or maybe some win and some lose....but it's hard to strike a deal where everyone wins. What does Derek Jeter have to do with the midterm elections?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it. 12/09/2010 @ 10:56:30 AM
Jon Wrote - Today @ 03:23:57 AM Scott Wrote - 12/06/2010 @ 05:52:59 PM Well, let the season of compromise begin. Depending on how you look at it, either everyone wins or everyone loses...or maybe some win and some lose....but it's hard to strike a deal where everyone wins. What does Derek Jeter have to do with the midterm elections? Hi-yo!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.