Mid term elections

[goinbroke2]

I heard on the radio this morning that the US mid term elections are tomorrow...really? I gotta get out of the garage and turn on a radio more often. Or the local radio station is right out to lunch which is an equal possibility.

 

If it is, why is there nothing on here?

 

[akirby]

Because it's not a presidential election? I can't see much general interest in state and local elections.

[Bob Rosadini]

Well guys I'll bite. There is PLENTY of interest here in New England. Several key races including NH Senate seat (Dem Sheehan vs Rep Scott Brown), Gov seat here in Taxachusetts with our current Dem AG running against Rep Baker among them.

 

Am I worried? Yes- but not for me, and not even for my sons. My grandkids? A different story. As I see it, our country has been high jacked. And the worst part about it, we have a self fullfilling program in place. Open the borders, impose No control on the ability to vote, and the "everything is free in America" crowd wins.

 

Over a hundred years ago my ancestors came here from the "old country". The DAR was not there to great them with a fruit basket but before long they had their houses and acerage. They got it the hardway. And they taught their kids at the dinner table how work led to rewards.

 

My how things have changed.

 

Langston-where have you been?-fire away!

[akirby]

Langston-where have you been?-fire away!

 

He was banned 3 times under different names and finally got the message.

 

We don't need partisan fighting and name calling and party bashing.

[akirby]

I'm worried about the borders too but I'm more concerned about our out of control spending and the fact that NEITHER party seems willing to stop it. This is where the tea party should come in but it's been hijacked by regular Republicans.

 

The Dems have used this presidency to "right" all the wrongs they think have been done, trying to punish the rich and evil corporations and redistribute that wealth. They see the federal government as a funding source for their social programs and to hell with figuring out how to pay for it.

 

Our foreign policy sucks. Obama seems more interested in making friends with people who want to kill us than protecting us (proactively when necessary). I'm not advocating more wars just firmer stances with our enemies. I think we still need to cut military funding along with everything else to balance the budget.

 

Meanwhile the Reps seem more interested in gay marriage and abortion than actually running the country. They both seem hell bent on beating the other side without regard to what's right for the country.

 

It's time we recognize that neither side is doing the right thing and if they don't meet somewhere in the middle soon we're screwed.

[twintornados]

The Democrats have discovered the joys of "big donor money" pouring in....they are just as bad as the Republicans that have long tugged at the teet of "corporate donor money" for campaign contributions.....In NY...the governor is out of control, giving away constitutional rights and hard earned tax dollars to appeal to the newest voting class...the welfare line....he needs to go, but the welfare vote is strong....

[akirby]

While I agree that "trickle down" economics isn't the answer, it should be obvious that businesses (private and corporations) create jobs and jobs create taxpayers. Encouraging businesses to come here with minimal regulations (still need to protect the environment and workers but some regulations go way too far) and lower (or no) taxes would benefit everyone including those who want to sit at home and collect a check since there would be more tax revenue to fund them. Where else is all this mythical income going to come from to pay for everything?

 

Does either party have a plan for balancing the budget? I sure haven't seen one. Continuing to overspend is completely irresponsible given the size of the national debt and the cost in interest.

 

Balance the budget given the current revenue projections. Then if you can come up with additional revenue we can discuss increasing spending, but not before.

[goinbroke2]

Ah, it's just local elections, gotcha.

 

I've been too busy this summer racing and avoiding the news/media whenever possible, dunno, I think I'm becoming apathetic to the whole thing. I hear the constant crying from the left here (in Canada) regarding our centre/right gov and pray that there is enough people to vote the right back in. Our liberal choice is a 3rd gen rich boy who's claim to fame was his daddy was PM and his only "job" was as a substitute drama teacher. His biggest threat to not being PM is his own mouth. "the budget? it'll take care of itself" when asked how he would pay for all the $$ he wants to throw at people to buy their votes." canada should not be involved in the fighting, we should do what we're famous for and provide heavy lift capability to other nations" Um..Sir...we don't have heavy lift capability and haven't for decades..we get the Americans to move us...That was in our parliment!! In front of camera's and everything! And people still look at him and say "but he has nice hair" or "he's good looking". WOW! No wonder he's trying to use obama playbook, he's trying to get elected even though he is not qualified in the very least.

 

The other choice here is a hard, hard left socialist communist whack-job that doesn't recognise reality...and they are in opposition!!

 

Pathetic.

[cal50]

It will be interesting if the congress does change hands what comes out of it , if anything productive and if the president will actually work with others instead of the way things have not been getting done lately.

 

For the first 3 years of Obama's term the dems had control of the presidency , the house & senate and there was a huge amount of in fighting among the democrats in control. Hopefully its not more of the same.

 

Hopefully Harry Reid is gone this week.

[Imawhosure]

Were it not for how absolutely terrible the democrats are, I couldn't vote for most of the republicans. Both parties leaders seem to want control of the levers of the status quo, and yet, the status quo is not what most Americans want. Is it any wonder both political parties fight tooth and nail in primaries, where younger people with new ideas try and bring their visions to the fore front.

 

Once you actually discover that most of congress once elected becomes relatively wealthy, while not having to live under the rules they impose for us; it should not be any question of why they want to hold power. The crooked part goes across party lines I might add.

 

I am still in favor of an article 5 convention where the states reassert their rights under the constitution. It is much easier for we the people, to control politicians the closer they are to us, than politicians who live in Washington DC.

[cal50]

It's just a glitch.......

 

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=St25jdBdtmE

[fuzzymoomoo]

This is exactly why we need a valid third party in the US. And don't give me the Green Party, they aren't the answer. All they are is a bunch of lobbyists under the guise of a political party.

[cal50]

Forget the party and just look at the candidate.

Its the need for good people regardless of party , race, gender , etc.

[akirby]

Forget the party and just look at the candidate.

Its the need for good people regardless of party , race, gender , etc.

 

Yes but too many people are party bound these days.

[cal50]

 

Yes but too many people are party bound these days.

 

 

That's the truth on both sides.

 

It makes me laugh driving past the union hall and seeing all the democrat signs on the lawn.

If Charles Manson was running as a democrat they would have his sign in the yard.

 

Amazing how blind party support happens irregardless of who the actual candidate is or whom the opponent happens to be.

[fuzzymoomoo]

 

 

 

That's the truth on both sides.

 

It makes me laugh driving past the union hall and seeing all the democrat signs on the lawn.

If Charles Manson was running as a democrat they would have his sign in the yard.

 

Amazing how blind party support happens irregardless of who the actual candidate is or whom the opponent happens to be.

 

The unions have been that way for ages though. Personally, I basically took the union's opinions on who I "have" to vote for with a grain of salt. Too many special interest groups that are the vocal minority are taken seriously in this country.

[goinbroke2]

You know, I'm one of those die hard right wingers who will vote right regardless of who it is because I believe in the right wing as opposed to the left wing. The person might not be or do exactly what I want every time (of course) but their general leanings are right which I believe in.

 

That said..the problem I see today is that the lines appear to be getting blurred and everybody is out for their personal gain. "The Democrats have discovered the joys of "big donor money" pouring in" is very true and is why they back corporations in some cases as well as Repub's learning that if you promise $$$, people will vote you in. Doesn't matter what the "good" is, they want in so they will tell WHOEVER, they will give them WHATEVER, to get in.

 

In this new scenario, blindly voting for "your party" doesn't work and yes you should vote for the one that promises what's best for the people or the country. Of course all politicians lie during campaigns so once it's over, expect the left to go back to their "ways" as will the right.

 

Canada hasn't dropped to the levels the US has as far as gov corruption/promoting self interest (although there is still evidence of that here)

I just think at this time you can still vote for the party in Canada as opposed to the individual.

 

Good luck guys, repub's got congress, hope they don't piss it away with bickering and fighting. I've never liked somebody opposing something just because they're on the other side of the fence.

Edited November 5, 2014 by goinbroke2

[akirby]

The republicans certainly won't be able to blame the democrats if they can't pass any bills. Time to put up or shut up.

 

My dilemma is I'm fiscally conservative but socially liberal but not completely libertarian.

[BlackHorse]

The republicans certainly won't be able to blame the democrats if they can't pass any bills. Time to put up or shut up.

 

 

 

 

mmm yes, well we all got a good look at what happens when the liberals "put up" didn't we? 52 to 45 is what happens. If more Senate seats had been in play they would have lost more than 7 seats.

 

This is what happens when you have a party with failed policies and zero leadership in charge.

 

The only thing you happen to be right about is that now the republicans will have to lead. We'll see if they're up to it. They certainly won't do any worse.

Edited November 5, 2014 by BlackHorse

[Imawhosure]

mmm yes, well we all got a good look at what happens when the liberals "put up" didn't we? 52 to 45 is what happens. If more Senate seats had been in play they would have lost more than 7 seats.

 

This is what happens when you have a party with failed policies and zero leadership in charge.

 

The only thing you happen to be right about is that now the republicans will have to lead. We'll see if they're up to it. They certainly won't do any worse.

While the senate was important for sure, the most important thing that came out of this election, was that now 30 states are controlled in both houses by republicans. That is extremely significant for every political junkie on this board.

 

Why?

 

Because if in 2016 they win control of 2 more states, the republicans can lose the Presidency, lose the house, lose the senate, and the liberals can put any judge they want in, and the states can over ride it all!!!!! With the control of 32 states, the power shifts out of Washington and back to whomever controls those 32.

 

I know most of you guys/gals don't follow it, but it is exactly why the democrats have suddenly been fighting tooth and nail for seats in states, when with them having control of all the big states.....or highly populated states; they are almost a shoe in for President. The path was pointed out to take all that power away, and they don't like it.

 

32 states, just 2 more, and the libs can pound sand. Why? Because once you institute what you want, for them to over turn it, they have to have 32 states in their control, lolol. That is not going to happen in our lifetime, our childrens lifetime, nor probably our grandchildrens lifetime.

 

And for those of you who insist that somehow that doesn't seem fair, or right; let me point out to you that----------> a congress that is no longer in power, gave us welfare, gave us the great society programs, and just recently gave us Obamacare!

 

The people rose up and threw them out, but the plan is still there, isn't it! And so, if 32 states screw up the liberal Shang-Ri-La by taking power from Washington, changing what socialists wanted, and the libs have to get control of 32 states to re-create Shang-ri-La. Oh well, better get to work, and the next century is only a little over 80 years away, so nobody hold their breath please.

Edited November 6, 2014 by Imawhosure

[goinbroke2]

That's interesting..the point being that 32 states are the tipping point. So you have three arms of government to keep each other in check, and if it all goes out the window, the people can take power from Washington by controlling 32 states.

Very practical, a good "safety net of last resort".

 

And up here the lib's and ndp are fighting over two guys that were kicked out due to inappropriate behaviour...while the Conservatives are laughing all the way to the polls...LOL!

[RangerM]

While I agree that "trickle down" economics isn't the answer, it should be obvious that businesses (private and corporations) create jobs and jobs create taxpayers. Encouraging businesses to come here with minimal regulations (still need to protect the environment and workers but some regulations go way too far) and lower (or no) taxes would benefit everyone including those who want to sit at home and collect a check since there would be more tax revenue to fund them. Where else is all this mythical income going to come from to pay for everything?

 

Does either party have a plan for balancing the budget? I sure haven't seen one. Continuing to overspend is completely irresponsible given the size of the national debt and the cost in interest.

 

Balance the budget given the current revenue projections. Then if you can come up with additional revenue we can discuss increasing spending, but not before.

The "plan" for balancing the budget is simply to broaden the tax base.

 

To most liberals, this seems to mean that poor people have to pay more while the rich pay less. This is not the case.

 

The method to broaden is by making the U.S. more business-friendly. Hillary's recent (and very stupid) comments that corporations don't create jobs demonstrates a simplistic view of the economy. While it's true if you pay people more, they'll spend more, it's not the ideal. The ideal is to pay more people (notice the change in order) by putting them to work in gainful employment that creates value, not work.

 

The first and easiest method is simply decreeing that all profits earned overseas can be imported tax-free.

[akirby]

The "plan" for balancing the budget is simply to broaden the tax base.

 

To most liberals, this seems to mean that poor people have to pay more while the rich pay less. This is not the case.

 

The method to broaden is by making the U.S. more business-friendly. Hillary's recent (and very stupid) comments that corporations don't create jobs demonstrates a simplistic view of the economy. While it's true if you pay people more, they'll spend more, it's not the ideal. The ideal is to pay more people (notice the change in order) by putting them to work in gainful employment that creates value, not work.

 

The first and easiest method is simply decreeing that all profits earned overseas can be imported tax-free.

 

 

Bingo.

 

My point is if you say that you'll balance the budget by increasing the tax base, then show me the actual plan for how you'll accomplish that. I haven't seen anything from the democrats that even smells like a plan to do that. This is my problem with liberals - they have all these grand ideas (many of them noble and worthy causes) but no practical way to pay for them and no practical plan to implement them successfully (first exhibit - obamacare).

 

Taxing businesses and adding regulations prevents job creation. And businesses don't pay taxes - customers of businesses pay their taxes which ultimately gets passed on to us just like rent, wages and benefits and raw materials.

 

The only way to grow the economy is to encourage new businesses to locate in the US instead of other countries so we put more people to work or increase employment at existing companies. Those people will now be paying taxes instead of drawing assistance thereby increasing the tax base. And while there are certainly some corporations out there doing bad things there are millions of employees who get above average wages and benefits from these "evil" corporations and they all pay taxes.

 

I understand the argument against trickle down because for some companies they would not use that extra income to create jobs or give back to employees - so let's give corporations a tax break based on the number of full time jobs. If they employ over a certain amount (full time with benefits) they don't have to pay any federal income taxes.

 

Isn't that a win/win for everyone?

[FiredMotorCompany]

The first and easiest method is simply decreeing that all profits earned overseas can be imported tax-free.

Wouldn't that encourage domestic companies to pursue foreign investment, resulting in jobs being outsourced?

Better we go to a flat tax or other compromise system where success isn't taxed out of existence.

 

How much foreign investment would be drawn to this country if we lowered corporate taxes to 15% without any additional allowances?

We would have to double our population with, and I emphasize,......legal immigration to fill the jobs created.

 

Ok. I am ready to be ripped apart by the OWS crowd.

Edited November 11, 2014 by FiredMotorCompany

[RangerM]

Wouldn't that encourage domestic companies to pursue foreign investment, resulting in jobs being outsourced?

Better we go to a flat tax or other compromise system where success isn't taxed out of existence.

Depends on whether or not you think importing money is a bad thing. If the profits have already been generated, the investment was already made, and the money (offshore) is doing people in this country little if any good. If the money is here, it's more likely to be spent on things that will benefit here.

 

I don't disagree that our present tax system is flawed. We tax work (a.k.a income). We should tax consumption (which done in excess is usually considered a bad thing).