"a few like Florida or Maine could go either way."

We're saying the same thing, I think. My point is, very few of the seats are in guaranteed blue states like CT. Many will be in play. Spence, do you know why so many Democrats are retiring (like Ben Nelson - NE and Kent Contrad - ND)? Because these guys see that they are polling at less than zero, and they don't have the character to face the music. The GOP is going to open up a serious can of whoop-ass in the Senate elections.



I'll pick Wounded Warriors. It's a great charity that makes it possible for families of wonded vets to be with, and care for, the wounded when they return. A great charity.

What's yours? Free Abu Mumia Jamal? Kidding...

I like this bet Spence, if I lose, at least I know some good will come out of it, so thanks. And remember, I only win if the GOP makes gains in BOTH the Senate and the House. No way we fail to make gains in the Senate, the House could go either way. I should've asked for odds, but I am a man of my word as you will see...

You're right that we can't afford it. You're wrong if you say that's not where we're headed. When Obama explicitly tells a church that it must abandon its beliefs and provide a service which it teaches is immoral, that's at least socialistic, if not outright totalitarian.

Our 2 largest entitlement programs are social security and Medicare. Those programs are currently underfunded by at least $50 trillion, possibly as much as $100 trillion - that's trillion with a "t". There are 300 million Americans. You do the math to figure out how much more we need. Many states are in the same boat, with insane peomises made to public labor unions.

We sure cannot afford it, but for some reason, that's not stopping us from pursuing it. That's what Obama, and most liberals, cannot grasp.

Kind of a tough neighborhood over here.

not really...maybe a lot of passion....you don't learn much about people if you don't engage them, you really learn about people when you challenge their views....it's not a bad thing...actually a pretty good learning experience for everyone ......usually:)

I assume you're referring to me, if not, you can ignore.

I'm sorry if I offended you, really I am. But (1) if you say that liberals protest by voting silently, and conservatives are the ones who aggressively yell at those they disagree with, you have to admit, that's a provocative statement (and one that I happen to think is demonstrably false). And (2) email language often conveys a tone that is harsher than intended, at least in my case.

Joe, I was going to reply but Jim basically covered it. Most liberals I know are very vocal. Do you remember all the anti - bush bumper stickers? How about the unions? Media? Look at the aderserial language Obama has used! I dont recall that with other presidents. I feel I've spent years defending my beliefs from loons.

the angry right????
Love the free education part.......

SACRAMENTO, California (Reuters) - Dozens of protesters angry over fee hikes and budget cuts at California's public universities were arrested on Monday night during a boisterous but peaceful demonstration inside the state Capitol building.

The arrests capped a day in which hundreds of students and others marched on the statehouse and rallied outside the Capitol before many of the activists moved the demonstration inside the building, clogging hallways in and around the rotunda.

One group chanted, "No cuts, no fees. Education must be free," as they sat crossed-legged on the black-and-white tiled floor of the statehouse.

How could I foeget about my favorite bunch, public labor unions. Remember what they did at the Ohio state capital recently? Their governor wanted public employees to contribute 5 cents a month to their bloated pensions, and they went berserk (Zimmy, this is hyperbole).

This is liberalism sumed up in one sentence, thusly...

"gimme, gimme, gimme..."

"Education must be free"...

Education will be free when teachers are unpaid volunteers. These protesters should go to the next Board of Education meeting in their towns, and watch what happens when they suggest that we don't spend a cent on education. I was on my town's board of education, and when I suggested that teachers switch from pensions to 401(k)s like the rest of the planet, they told me that clearly I hate children.

Obviously, these idiots don't mean that education should be "free" - they know that education costs money. They just don't feel like they themselves should bear any of that cost. Rather, others - preferably mean, white, male conservatives - should pick up the tab for them to go to college.

Gimme, gimme, gimme...

What a way to go through life. And here in my state of CT, I lose to these people every single year. The only question is the magnitude of the rout.

Education should be free. These same kooks are the ones who want to give teachers guaranteed jobs for life, ridiculously bloated pensions, and Cadillac healthcare benefits. That's what liberals want. Oh, and one more thing...THEY don't want to have to pay for it.

Calgon, take me away...RIJIMMY and ScottW, how exactly, do we lose to these people??

You know who really sucked as president Busch and who really sucked as Speaker of the House Gingrich and what do they have in common???:no2: Both of those jackasses are Republicans. :fury:

:lurk:

The problem is people throw around words that don't have a lot of meaning.

Very few people in this country are self described liberals. The majority of Democrats in the US are still way to the Right of moderates in the EU or Australia.

Few who call themselves Republicans actually behave like Republicans say they should behave. Many Republicans will quite often behave like Democrats.

The problem with the GOP today is that since they don't often behave like they say they should...nobody believes them.

The problem with the DNC today is that they say they believe in a lot of what Republicans stand for but then don't actually do it...so nobody believes them.

The majority of voters are really independents and will vote for character above anything else, knowing that it probably doesn't really make a difference if the president is a D or a R.

-spence

I learn more from reading threads like this than watching the news. Good stuff.

most experts, most economists, most people, very few, moderates, nobody, the majority :)

How is this voting "for character above anything else" thing been working?

Maybe "independents" are poor judges of character?

Or, maybe, "character," which is in the eye of the beholder, and which is usually manufactured by political and media spin (which is why half the folks love the same guy that half the folks hate), is as irrelevent as the D or the R?

It seems, by your formula, that the "independents" might just as well not vote since "liberals" are not liberals and Republicans are not Republicans and they are all going to do the same thing anyway and the character thing is phony.

Maybe some people fear the unfamiliar and unknown. I support the health care reform for example. What you said there sounds like something I would hear on the republican propaganda network
I mean FOX NEWS :D

Being new to the forum, you are not familiar with Spence's posts. He is being sarcastic (throwing chum as he might put it), he is more on your side than not.

So, you're all in for the Federal Government having the power to require you to buy something?

Welcome to the Site....and since you wandered in here...

God Have Mercy on Your Soul.....

Detbuch, on one hand, it seems awfully totalitarian for the feds to require us to buy something, doesn't it?

On the other hand, hear me out here...some folks are born healthy (thanks to nothing but good luck), some are born sick (through no fault of theirs). It seems to me, and I bet most folks agree, that folks who are born sick, or get sick by bad luck, shou'dn't have to suffer financial hardship because of something they had no control over. Meaning, we should all be required to pitch in to help them out. And one way to do this is to require healthy people to buy insurance, and this will help create the funds to help pay for sick folks.

Maybe there's another way to fund what I'm talking about, without requiring everyone to buy insurance. But I have no problem saying to healthy people "look, you are only healthy by blind luck, so we all have the responsibility to help those who were not as lucky".

As for people who smoke, and choose to be overweight...they should have to pay a huge premium for healthcare.

What do you think?

True,and it all started with Franklin D Roosevelt's second Bill of Rights.

The Founding Fathers Bill of Rights included the following:

Right to equal freedom, independent of other human beings.
Right to aquire property.
Right to Relegion according to the dictates of conscience.
Right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Roosevelt's Second Bill of Rights in 1944 were:

Employment with a living wage.
Freedom from unfair competition and monopoly.
Housing
Medical care
Education
Social Security

So therefore we have this huge Government who conrols close to
50% of our economy and now THEY want Gimme -Gimme -Gimme.

FDR's "New Deal" was a nice idea, but was the beginning of the demise in this country. It helped create what I call the "Career Welfare" class - people on welfare that have no desire to get off.

Agreed, to a point. I could be wrong, but from what I know, at least FDR wasn't in the habit of giving checks to people for doing nothing. Back in his day, in order to get government relief, able-bodied folks had to do something to earn that money, through things like the Civilian Conservation Corps.

No one (without extenuating circumstances) should get a check just for sitting on their couch. You should either have to be in school, or doing some work for somebody.

You're dead-on about crippling these people by making them addicted to welfare, which provides zero economic upward mobility. The ironic thing is that (in my opinion) a tea party-type economic plan (stimulating job growth by nurturing the free market) is exactly what these folks need to get on the path to prosperity, but they've become addicted to welfare, and Obama is now telling them that wealthy people are the reason they are poor...a despicable tactic. One person's wealth does not create someone else's poverty (except for criminals obviously).

There is a lot to what you say. But, going from the general idea of helping the needy to the specific of how to do it, my first concern is that we don't automatically look to the Federal Government everytime there is a problem. As you may have noted by now, I believe that straying from the Constitution is the main reason the Federal Government has become as large, nearly if not all-powerful, and out of the control of the citizens. We The People are supposed to be the sovereign from which power is granted to our governments. It is, now, late in the process of turning this upside down so that Government is the supreme sovereign which grants to we the people whatever rights and oblligations that it deems necessary and proper.

The Constitution mainly intended that the States and their citizens were to grapple with the bulk of how we govern our lives including ALL things not granted to the Federal Government. If the People of every State want a Massachussets style health insurance plan, they can choose that. The Constitution does not grant that power to the Federal government. There is a FUNDAMENTAL reason that it is so. If you believe in individual freedom, you will understand that reason. Individual freedom thrives in smaller units of local government. A large, all-powerful, central government that can dictate at will is the enemy of individual freedom. The irony is that large government over small people is actually weaker than smaller government under a strong people. The latter is stronger in almost every way, including, and especially, economically. It is the freest, most innovative, most evolutionary and adaptable form of society, and as such, the most capable of providing for all, including the unfortunate. If you reduce the power of the People and transfer that power to government, the freedom, innovation, adaptability, all diminish, and, though the government is great and all-powerful, the people and their creativity are diminished, and society gradually, and then ,eventually, quickly withers.

As for insurance, in general, I have a probably oversimplistic view. My perception is that as more than some minor percentage of a population is enrolled in insurance, the less beneficial it is to them. When a small percentage of a population is in an insurance plan, the cost of what is insured is based on the ability of the large percentage of the population that is uninsured and must pay out of pocket. So the insurance company pays out much less in claims and the insured can pay less in premiums. In such a situation, there is an ADVANTAGE to being insured. But when the great percentage of the population is insured, the cost of medical care, for instance, is based on what the third party (the insurance company) can pay, which is much greater than what most can pay out of pocket. So the cost to reimburse claims is much higher, and the premiums are much higher, and a point is reached where a universal coverage gives no advantage to being insured. And if the Government is the third party, you not only have the "wealthiest" third party, but loss of market forces and all the corruption the government can provide to its lobbyists and cronies.

Out of pocket with catastrophic coverage and private charity with various State safety nets might be the best way. Federally mandated is probably the worst, and it chips away at the few remaining glimpses of Constitutional self-government remaining.

Bingo JD, the "Nice to Have" has now become "the expected" and "I'm entitled."

I am all for helping the truly needy, as I think most American's are,
but we are now at a point with the spending and borrowing we will eventually
all be needy and looking for the Gov't to bail us out.
There will be nothing left except the burden of it all on our kids to try and survive.
The American Mind used to want the American Dream, to leave a better life for our children.
Now it looks like the Dream is done and there's very little left of the American Mind.

Yeah, you are right. I would have much preferred the standard of living before the new deal.

[QUOTE=detbuch;925773]

The Constitution mainly intended that the States and their citizens were to grapple with the bulk of how we govern our lives including ALL things not granted to the Federal Government. If the People of every State want a Massachussets style health insurance plan, they can choose that. The Constitution does not grant that power to the Federal government. There is a FUNDAMENTAL reason that is so. If you believe in individual freedom, you will understand that reason. Individual freedom thrives in smaller units of local government. A large, all-powerful, central government that can dictate at will is the enemy of individual freedom. The irony is that large government over small people is actually weaker than smaller government under a strong people. The latter is stronger in almost every way, including, and especially, economically. It is the freest, most innovative, most evolutionary and adaptable form of society, and as such, the most capable of providing for all, including the unfortunate. If you reduce the power of the People and transfer that power to government, the freedom, innovation, adaptability, all diminish, and, though the government is great and all-powerful, the people and their creativity are diminished, and society gradually, and then ,eventually, quickly withers.

[QUOTE]

Perfect explanation of the purpose of the Constitution and Home Rule.

During FDRs terms every single center of industry and technology across the entire globe was destroyed except one. The United States. The new deal didnt raise the standard of living, having the US as the only country that could produce anything was.

China can you imagine. 50 years ago they were getting massacared by Japan. If they become a Global military power, Japan better look out.

Correlation does not imply causation.

Beat me to it. The US was a manufacturing powerhouse.

haven't you ever wondered how it was that FDR managed to get re-elected while presiding over a depression? do a little reading...notice that Obama is routinely announcing more and bigger government handouts and help...each day something new...this will accelerate, FDR engaged in massive government handouts to "buy" votes in order to get re-elected...Obama is doing and will continue to do the same....

Buying Votes

In this madness, the New Dealers had a method. Despite its economic illogic and incoherence, the New Deal served as a massive vote-buying scheme. Coming into power at a time of widespread destitution, high unemployment, and business failures, the Roosevelt administration recognized that the president and his Democratic allies in Congress could appropriate unprecedented sums of money and channel them into the hands of recipients who would respond by giving political support to their benefactors. As John T. Flynn said of FDR, “it was always easy to interest him in a plan which would confer some special benefit upon some special class in the population in exchange for their votes,” and eventually “no political boss could compete with him in any county in America in the distribution of money and jobs.”

In buying votes, the relief programs for the unemployed, especially the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, the Civilian Conservation Corps, and the Works Progress Administration, loomed largest, though many other programs promoted the same end. Farm subsidies, price supports, credit programs, and related measures won over much of the rural middle class. The labor provisions of the National Industrial Recovery Act and later the National Labor Relations Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act purchased support from the burgeoning ranks of the labor unions. Homeowners supported the New Deal out of gratitude for the government’s refinancing of their mortgages and its provision of home-loan guarantees. Even blacks, loyal to the Republican Party ever since the Civil War, abandoned the GOP in exchange for the pittances of relief payments and the tag ends of employment in the federal work-relief programs. Put it all together and you have what political scientists call the New Deal Coalition—a potent political force that remained intact until the 1970s.


creepy huh?

Forget Japan, if we keep borrowing from China at this rate they will
take us over without a shot fired.

Actually, the standard of living before The New Deal was better than during the heyday of The New Deal before FDR's death. Just about all his policies failed to rectify the depression, prolonging it well beyond those of the past. Not only were his policies counter-productive, they were punitive toward business and created the uncertainty that dissuaded investors and kept business from expanding. And prices were intentionally and artificially raised, making it even more difficult for consumers. FDR's passing and the beginning of a rollback of some New Deal policies and the friendlier face of new administrations toward business was the ticket to renewed prosperity, as well as the fact that, as RIJimmy and JohnnyD said, our infrastructure and manufacturing facilities had not been destroyed by the War as they had been in the rest of the advanced world. There have been a few new books on FDR and The New Deal which have revised perspectives from a more objective view than the panegyrics of historians such as Schlesinger, Commager, Morris, and Leucthtenburg.

I've just finished reading NEW DEAL OR RAW DEAL, by Burton Folsom, Jr. It's an easy, very interesting and very informative read. I highly reccommend it for an alternative insight to the accepted orthodoxy. And it has parallels to our current economy and to some of the administration's solutions and methods. It is also interesting to note that FDR was the main facilitator and creator of our current "fourth branch of government," the massive, bureaucratic, administrative State which essentially replaces the Consitution as the process by which we are governed.