Bishop Hedd Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 Umm. Governorships in big states like NJ and VA are hugely important. There have been almost as many US Presidents from Govs (17) as US Presidents from Congress (22). Considering that there are a lot fewer governors, those positions matter. Correct me if I'm incorrect but wasn't former Bush cabinet member Christy Todd Whitman governor of New Jersey not that long ago? This New jersey win for the gop has all the magnitude of an ACORN story. I mean it isn't like New Jersey hasn't had a Republican governor since the Civil War. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 This was definitely about Obama, the Dems, and the frightening direction they're trying to take the country. As an independent who voted for Obama (and regrets it!), I can say that I will never vote for a Democrat again. It's funny that you mention that, I was just speaking to an old friend/mentor to me back when I first got in the commodity industry, an older gentleman that is a life long democrat (who makes a very good living), and I spoke with him about a week ago and he communicated to me that he won't be voting democratic again, at least not for Obama, and that he believes that he is trying to move us into a socialistic country. I was surprised to hear that from him, because he and I had some lively discussions regarding politics in the past. I happen to believe that this election is a precursor of things to come in the 2010 elections. Anyone who wants to downplay the massive shift in Independent voters voting for the GOP candidates is fooling themselves. It's not just in the elections, but Independent voters are fleeing from Obama and his policies, specially regarding healthcare in the polls. Sorry, but that is no coincidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishop Hedd Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 Just out of curiosity, if you really don't think it carries a lot of weight, can you explain why Obama went to NJ five times for Corzine and to VA three times for Deeds? Nothing else to do? Bored? Caught up on his reading? You know I really regret telling you to ace the Paine youtube sig. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 You know I really regret telling you to ace the Paine youtube sig. T-minus 11 days, 22 hours and 45 minutes. The excitement in your abode must really be building. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 Correct me if I'm incorrect but wasn't former Bush cabinet member Christy Todd Whitman governor of New Jersey not that long ago? This New jersey win for the gop has all the magnitude of an ACORN story. I mean it isn't like New Jersey hasn't had a Republican governor since the Civil War. Keep on proclaiming victory for a candidate that got <50% of the vote as if it's a continuation of a mandate. Don't worry there are still a few fig leaves that your idol can uses before they're blown away next November. (Hope I didn't inspire an image for your long awaited spread in two weeks) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 There are some good ones in there, and there are some bad ones. IMO, I don't think it should carry a lot of weight. To each his own. Whether you like it or not, it's a natural stepping stone to presidency. First, it's political. Second, it's an executive position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 Correct me if I'm incorrect but wasn't former Bush cabinet member Christy Todd Whitman governor of New Jersey not that long ago? This New jersey win for the gop has all the magnitude of an ACORN story. I mean it isn't like New Jersey hasn't had a Republican governor since the Civil War. Owens is destined for the presidency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 It's funny that you mention that, I was just speaking to an old friend/mentor to me back when I first got in the commodity industry, an older gentleman that is a life long democrat (who makes a very good living), and I spoke with him about a week ago and he communicated to me that he won't be voting democratic again, at least not for Obama, and that he believes that he is trying to move us into a socialistic country. I was surprised to hear that from him, because he and I had some lively discussions regarding politics in the past. I happen to believe that this election is a precursor of things to come in the 2010 elections. Anyone who wants to downplay the massive shift in Independent voters voting for the GOP candidates is fooling themselves. It's not just in the elections, but Independent voters are fleeing from Obama and his policies, specially regarding healthcare in the polls. Sorry, but that is no coincidence. Ask your older friend and the majority of senior citizens who fear socialism if they're willing to give up the socialistic programs of Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 Ask your older friend and the majority of senior citizens who fear socialism if they're willing to give up the socialistic programs of Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security. You mean the programs those old folks have paid into and now want to make sure stick around. Where the new emperor and his gaggle of thieves want to kill the old folks and give the spoils to the younger crowd that will be around for 50+ years of voting for them. It isn't about what is right it is about finding a whole generation of younger voter who feel indebted to vote D for the rest of their lives on the graves of their grandparents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 You mean the programs those old folks have paid into and now want to make sure stick around. Where the new emperor and his gaggle of thieves want to kill the old folks and give the spoils to the younger crowd that will be around for 50+ years of voting for them. It isn't about what is right it is about finding a whole generation of younger voter who feel indebted to vote D for the rest of their lives on the graves of their grandparents. So only the socialist programs that they don't directly benefit from are bad. That's like being a little bit pregnant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 Ask your older friend and the majority of senior citizens who fear socialism if they're willing to give up the socialistic programs of Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security. Funny you mention Social Security, I'd be lucky to see half the money I put into it. The Social Security program is the largest legalized Ponzi Scheme this world has ever seen, but go on and turn your head and look in the other direction, because one day, we will have to face the day of reckoning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 Ask your older friend and the majority of senior citizens who fear socialism if they're willing to give up the socialistic programs of Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security. Those programs were only sustained as long as they were because US birth rates were going through the roof and you had a higher number of workers paying into the system than money coming out of the system. The end of the baby boom killed that trajectory and now you're on a fast burn to busting. The programs in their current form are unsustainable until you change the demographic trends, raise taxes or cut expenses. (Which means the programs are unsustainable) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 Those programs were only sustained as long as they were because US birth rates were going through the roof and you had a higher number of workers paying into the system than money coming out of the system. The end of the baby boom killed that trajectory and now you're on a fast burn to busting. The programs in their current form are unsustainable until you change the demographic trends, raise taxes or cut expenses. (Which means the programs are unsustainable) Obama mentioned addressing SS during the campaign. My guess is that he and Pelosi and Reid will have a 1200 page bill drafted that will create a new sliding scale for benefits. It'll likely include increased benefits for those with lower net worths and eliminate benefits for those with more $$. Healthy people will have to wait longer to draw from it and the sick will receive benefits sooner. Employers will have to increase the portion that they contribute and higher wage earners will pay a higher percentage in FICA taxes on higher levels of income. While they're at it, capital gains will also be subject to FICA taxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 Obama mentioned addressing SS during the campaign. My guess is that he and Pelosi and Reid will have a 1200 page bill drafted that will create a new sliding scale for benefits. It'll likely include increased benefits for those with lower net worths and eliminate benefits for those with more $$. Healthy people will have to wait longer to draw from it and the sick will receive benefits sooner. Employers will have to increase the portion that they contribute and higher wage earners will pay a higher percentage in FICA taxes on higher levels of income. While they're at it, capital gains will also be subject to FICA taxes. hmmm Never thought about it before up until now, and now that I am thinking about it, I am almost sure that there would be another sort of wealth distribution peice of legislation that would take place. It's insane that the House has a bill to tax people with incomes of over $500,000 an additional 5%, so it can help pay for this Nightmare of a Health Reform Bill, that doesn't even bring down health insurance premiums. This liberal congress and White House has no quams with the idea of wealth distribution for paying for their social programs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 This liberal congress and White House has no quams with the idea of wealth distribution for paying for their social programs. Control and power. This is their goal. They need as many people as possible dependent upon the government so they have deeper control of the masses. When this happens, they have all the power and control. This is what the people are now beginning to recognize, and fight against. I know to many, particularly the libs, it sounds like right-wing nutjob thinking, but Thomas Jefferson was right with two simple statements: "To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association—the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." Libs have their panties twisted because their golden calf is being melted before their eyes. And it's being melted because its efforts to take control and power over the masses is failing with every passing day. Fortunately for many Americans, Obama is keeping his promise of more transparency...because you can see right through the very idiots manipulating the four-fingered asspuppet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 hmmm Never thought about it before up until now, and now that I am thinking about it, I am almost sure that there would be another sort of wealth distribution peice of legislation that would take place. It's insane that the House has a bill to tax people with incomes of over $500,000 an additional 5%, so it can help pay for this Nightmare of a Health Reform Bill, that doesn't even bring down health insurance premiums. This liberal congress and White House has no quams with the idea of wealth distribution for paying for their social programs. And Republicans have no quams about cutting taxes for the wealthy but not cutting budgets. They had their opportunity to cut spending, reform health care, and fix Social Security and Medicaid when they had control of the White House and Congress. How'd that work out? And now we should believe the next bunch of Republicans will be different? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 And Republicans quams about cutting taxes for the wealthy but not cutting budgets. They had their opportunity to cut spending, reform health care, and fix Social Security and Medicaid when they had control of the White House and Congress. How'd that work out? And now we should believe the next bunch of Republicans will be different? Good point. Thats why we need to keep voting against incumbants of both parties until someone will cut spending, balance the budget, reform health care and Social Security and, only then, cut taxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 And Republicans quams about cutting taxes for the wealthy but not cutting budgets. They had their opportunity to cut spending, reform health care, and fix Social Security and Medicaid when they had control of the White House and Congress. How'd that work out? And now we should believe the next bunch of Republicans will be different? The Republican party over the past decade has been a trainwreck, and to be claiming that they have been fiscally conservative is laughable, however, the other option is much much worse. This is why you are seeing the TeaParty movement, these individuals were extremely disappointed with the Republicans and are disgusted with what is happening today with the liberals in control. I happen to believe it is a good thing, not that I believe that the tradional "conservative" in social issues is the direction this party should move in, but if you hear their message, it has nothing to do with that, but everything to do with being anti big government, anti higher taxation, anti massive government spending and pro "government get the !@#$ out of my life". If the GOP can strike the right balance of being more socially liberal and much more fiscally conservative, then there is little doubt that the vast majority of moderates and independents will flock to them. The majority of the public don't even like the GOP, because they had lost their way, in a poll that I recently read, only 20% of the public consider themselves Republicans, but even with this tremendous popularity, you are seeing moderates shift away from the left, because they can see the writing on the wall, which is that we are moving towards socialism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 The Republican party over the past decade has been a trainwreck, and to be claiming that they have been fiscally conservative is laughable, however, the other option is much much worse. This is why you are seeing the TeaParty movement, these individuals were extremely disappointed with the Republicans and are disgusted with what is happening today with the liberals in control. I happen to believe it is a good thing, not that I believe that the tradional "conservative" in social issues is the direction this party should move in, but if you hear their message, it has nothing to do with that, but everything to do with being anti big government, anti higher taxation, anti massive government spending and pro "government get the !@#$ out of my life". If the GOP can strike the right balance of being more socially liberal and much more fiscally conservative, then there is little doubt that the vast majority of moderates and independents will flock to them. The majority of the public don't even like the GOP, because they had lost their way, in a poll that I recently read, only 20% of the public consider themselves Republicans, but even with this tremendous popularity, you are seeing moderates shift away from the left, because they can see the writing on the wall, which is that we are moving towards socialism. Well I'll take socialism over theocracy. Unless and until the GOP stops letting the right wing theocrats dictate whether a candidate passes their litmus tests, the GOP will continue to be marginalized in the northeast and west coast. It's a battle between the fiscal and social conservatives in the GOP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 And Republicans have no quams about cutting taxes for the wealthy but not cutting budgets. They had their opportunity to cut spending, reform health care, and fix Social Security and Medicaid when they had control of the White House and Congress. How'd that work out? And now we should believe the next bunch of Republicans will be different? I get your point about Republicans not cutting budgets and not fixing several issues, but stating that they give tax cuts to the wealthy is the biggest lie that's been told over the past 8+ years. Cuts under Bush benefitted everyone making 28K or more per year (or 56K married filed jointly). Each bracket received a reduction of 2% of income. The only exceptions are the 2 brackets below $28K of income that are in the 10% and 15% brackets which stayed the same and the top bracket which had a 3.6% reduction from 38.6% of the portion of income above $312K per year to 35% for the portion of income above $312K per year. That is hardly a big break for the rich when you consider the feds were taking nearly 40% which is outrageous. Nobody should pay that much in tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts