Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Tuesday, Nov. 6, 2012 | 2:02 a.m.
Another view?
View more of the Las Vegas Sun's opinion section:
• Editorials - the Sun's viewpoint.
• Columnists - local and syndicated writers.
• Letters to the editor - readers' views.
Have your own opinion? Write a letter to the editor.
I hope many Americans saw the “60 Minutes” interview of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.
Both men calmly and smugly, I think, sat there and told Steve Kroft that things have changed so much that compromise is impossible. What complete nonsense. Compromise doesn’t happen because it isn’t in the interests of Congress’ leaders. Many Americans say they want compromise, but when we validate people like this by re-electing them over and over again, our votes say just the opposite.
Whichever man we elect president, we need to send a loud and clear message to Congress that if lawmakers do not start to compromise and get things done, we will do what we should have done long ago, which is remove the leadership of both parties.
Without a doubt Harry Reid will never listen to or compromise with any conservatives.
Harry Reid has already said that he would not work with Romney even before the election was held.
Harry Reid has shown that he will refuse to work with the House as he has refused to negotiate and pass a budget or negotiate and pass any of the 30 jobs bills that the house has passed.
Harry Reid has stopped any compromise in the Senate
I didn't see the interview. I don't think much of either McConnell or dirty harry, but less of harry. IF the dems keep the Senate, it will because a number of the new democratic Senators are compromisers and will break ranks with dirty harry.
CarmineD
Future is right about Harry Reid, but Mitch McConnell is no better.
Most Americans are clueless about how Congress 'really' works. In each chamber (House and Senate) there are two people who comprise 'leadership'. In the House, it's Boehner - R and Pelosi - D. In the Senate, it's McConnell - R and Reid - D. All four people in 'leadership' tell their House members and Senators how to vote (based often upon what powerful lobbyists want and whether or not to compromise with the other side). If members buck 'leadership', they are punished with a lack of money and support for re-election, blocked paths to chairmanships and primary challenges.
Americans are blind to it, but we essentially have an elected body of 535 House members and Senators, who are controlled by 4 people in 'leadership', who are completely partisan and are themselves heavily dependent on people who lobby them for powerful interests.
We really could not have a more dysfunctional and corrupt Congress if we 'tried' to construct one.
Watching these two 'smug' characters on 60 Minutes turned my stomach and it should do the same to every American.
I'll repeat it once more. It's both parties, not just one, that perpetuate this system that is destroying America.
Michael
Election Day is appropriate for the following story:
Low interest rates and low taxes had characterized the previous ten years. The Federal Reserve
held down interest rates throughout a decade.
The gap between higher and lower incomes widened, with much of the population earning the minimum income necessary for a decent standard of living and a fifth of the people living at a bare subsistence level. Half of all Americans had no or little savings.
The Republican nominee for President was born in the Midwest to a family belonging to a smaller religious denomination. He graduated from a prestigious college and went on to make a fortune in private enterprise and gained a reputation for exceptional business savvy that eventually led him to public service.
You might think I'm describing the election environment of 2012. In a way I am, but the situation I'm really describing is the election of 1928 and Herbert Hoover was the Republican nominee for President. And then stuff happened. Facing a major financial crisis and a depression, Hoover's response was inadequate and, in some cases, made things worse.
So, here's the moral of the story. Like Hoover, what you know won't cause you to fail. What you don't know that you don't know will.
And as we face uncertainties in the years ahead take comfort in those uncertainties. It's the certainties (like housing prices will always rise)that present the real dangers.
Vote your conscience today and good luck to us all.
Re Future. "...negotiate and pass any of the 30 of the jobs bills the house has passed". Enlighten me on said house jobs bills passed. Thanks.
Remember, while President Obama was being sworn in the leaders of the GOP/Tea Party, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Eric Cantor planed to undermine his administration in secret meetings that very same day.
The only possible scenario bringing both parties to gether to compromise would be some outrageuos drastic event.
The GOP/Tea Party has shrunken down to pasty faced angry old white dudes subscribing to xenophobia, race baiting, Obama Derangement Syndrome and psuedo-neanderthal-doctors spouting nonsense about women's sexuality. There was a time when these small minded simpletons performed hysterectomies to calm a women. If that didn't work, insert a needle and a hook into the eye socket and remove a frontal lobe.
The GOP/Tea Party is damaged and stained from the incredibly assinine social issues they injected into these rounds of debates. I saw this happen in 2008 over TARP and years earlier when the Birchers pulled such stunts. It may take years to recover from the far right radical insanity, especially attempting to pull hispanics, blacks and other minorities over to their side. I'll say it one last time, Ronald Reagan COULD NOT pass this parties litmus test!
Of course compromise is dead.
That horse left the building when the republicans conspired to wreak our economy by stopping Obama and the democrats from fixing the economy. This in the hope of gaining control of the house and senate in 2010 and the Presidency in 2012.
Harry Reid's biggest mistake was allowing the current filibuster rule to remain in the senate. Republicans filibustered over 380 bills passed by democrats in the house to fix all the problems they say Obama and the democrats didn't fix when the had control of both houses and the White House for the first two years.
The republicans are not interested in compromise. They see compromise as a weakness and must be destroyed. When they walked out on a $10 spending cut to $1 revenue deal, they exposed their true intentions. Their message was loud and clear. NO COMPROMISING!.
Obama and the democrats heard their message loud and clear. NO MORE COMPROMISE!
Harry "the war is lost" Reid has already stated he will be unable to work with a president romney. It is no coincidence the country started going downhill when he became majority leader.
Read the "Harry Reid Gravyard"
WSJ 10-29-2012 pg A20
brtaylor,
The 2009 Obama $867 billion dollar stimulus was suppose to bring our unemployment rate down to under 6% by now according to Obama's own economic team when the stimulus passed. Our unemployment rate, again, according to Obama's economic team was not suppose to clime above 8% but did for several years. Now? Our unemployment rate is still hovering around 8% at 7.9% What happened brtaylor? Did big government spending not solve our economic woes? Americans took notice when Obama presented unserious budgets in 2011 & 2012 that did not get one single democratic vote. It's clear to many that Obama doesn't have the right solutions. Even many of his fellow democrats up for re-election have not asked Obama to campaign for them. Gee, I wonder why?
"Remember, while President Obama was being sworn in the leaders of the GOP/Tea Party, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Eric Cantor planed to undermine his administration in secret meetings that very same day.", "GOP/Tea Party" , "TARP", "far right radical insanity, especially attempting to pull Hispanics, blacks and other minorities over to their side." "pasty faced angry old white dudes".......................Majority Leader Harry Reid 2007-2012, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, 2007-2010, President Barack Obama 2009-2012, House Speaker John Boehner 2011-2012....
It took Caribou Barbie getting 70 Democrat Congressman and a handful of Republicans fired just to get the clueless bunch from being stuck on stupid. Four more years?
The fact that there are so few responses to what I wrote and virtually none that agree that the leadership on both sides in both chambers are terrible and that Congress is completely corrupted spells doom for this country, in my opinion.
The view I stated in this letter should have brought many comments of agreement, if so many were not wearing partisan blinders. Instead, I read that it's those R's or those D's -- completely ignoring how Congress really works.
This foolish refusal to see what is really going on and insistence in believing the lies each party tells will be the undoing of this once great country.
This is exactly the response I expected and I am sad that I was right.
Michael
We need a new Congress, not a new president.
Mitch McConnell and Harry Reid are strictly acting to obstruct measures to protect the parties positions.
More so with McConnell. Mitch McConnell sole mission as minority leader in the senate is to say no to anything with a Democrat attachment. And even when it seems McConnell has compromised, he has done so knowing the firewall in the House will be there to stop anything out of the senate. Making McConnell appear to be person willing to compromise. But it is not true. John Bohener, the Speaker of House, plays the same compromise game.
After the election John Bohener and Mitch McConnell can no longer hide using the extremely right of the House Republicans as cover. They, not President Obama, will have to make the hard decisions to fix the Fiscal Cliff situation and the up coming Debt Ceiling issue.
A friendly reminder,
President Obama wins re-election by 6 to 8 points.
In the 2010 election Nevadans showed common sense by reelecting Sen Harry Reid over radical right-winger Sharron Angle, the extremist teaparty candidate whose reputation as an uncompromising ideologue in the state assembly earned her the nickname 41-to-Angle. Even her fellow republicans couldn't work with the Reno whacko.
The letter writer voted for Angle which makes a joke of his daily rants about electing sensible lawmakers.
I DVRd the interview and watched it last night. I hope that Republicans will have the courage to admit that they are primarily responsible for our current gridlock. Too many long-standing moderate GOP legislators were defeated in 2010 in Republican primaries by Tea Party candidates.
It's a sad state of affairs when someone like Olympia Snowe decides not to seek re-election because she can't work with people in her own party.
And let's not start with the false equivalencies -- there is nothing on the left that remotely compares to the radicalization that has occurred on the right.
Thankfully the US Senate will remain in control of the Democrats after the GOP / Teaparty shot themselves in the foot again, just like in 2010.
The 53-D, 47-R split will probably stay unchanged because republicans allowed their party to be sabotaged by the extreme right teabagger faction.
Add the names of Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock to the list of radical right roadkill who shoulda, coulda, woulda won but ... well, let's just say voters were appalled and sent the loons into early retirements.
Emthree,
That is where you and others are soooooo blind. If what you believe were true, the Tea Party that you despise would never have been able to elect so many people to the House. In addition, they would all be defeated this election cycle, which looks very doubtful. And finally, Mitt Romney would not even be in this race for President.
Look at reality!!!!! With rare exceptions, nearly every contest is a 50/50 proposition with one side barely prevailing.
It is my continuing belief that many many Americans do not actually favor the far right or far left positions often espoused by each party. We all have to pick a side and when we do, (many, like me, unhappily), it comes out about 50/50.
All the the above puts the notion you offer in the category of 'wishful thinking'.
Michael
Dear RefNV (RE Freeman)
I will gladly address your questions with facts.
1. The 2009 Obama $867 billion dollar stimulus was suppose to bring our unemployment rate down to under 6% by now according to Obama's own economic team when the stimulus passed.
(Answer)
The economy was estimated to have contracted by 4.9% by the time the stimulus was passed. Economist said the spending had fallen far greater than reported and we need a $2 trillion stimulus. Now we know the economy contracted by 9.3%, far worse than reported. Also, 1/3 of the stimulus was tax cuts which do not create jobs.
2. Our unemployment rate is still hovering around 8% at 7.9% What happened brtaylor?
(Answer)
a. The stimulus was too small.
b. We allowed the Bush tax cuts to stay in place instead of using the cash to hire people.
c. In 2010. GOP states laid off over 3 million public workers in an effort to raise the unemployment rate. The unemployment rate would be 7.1% if this had not happened.
d. The GOP took over the house and did not pass one jobs bill.
3. Did big government spending not solve our economic woes?
(Answer)
a. The too small stimulus did save or create over 3 million public sector jobs. The tax incentives given to small business has led to over 5 million jobs being created.
b. Big corporations are sitting on trillions of cash they received due to tax cuts. If the government had this revenue and spent it on infrastructure, we could have created another 6-10 million new jobs.
Those are your answers.
Emthree is a a victim of a misconception. The TEA Party is actually non-partisan and works to defeat any politican, Republicrat or Dumbocrat, that it believes does not have the interest of the public, not party, in mind. The reason they generally side with Conservatives is many on the left despise the traditional values many of us grew up with and are actively working to destroy them. They cloak their true intentions as they know the majority of thinking Americans are non-partisan and would never, if they realized the "progressives" true aims, stand for them. I side with Republicrats in most instances but I don't give a hoot about the Republican Party as I perceive it is as corrupt as the Dumbocratic Party in that its leaders, first, want power and, second, to keep it above all else. We desperately need federal term limits so we can churn the political class and take back our country. Both sides have worked for years to Gerrymander their districts so as to make one side or the other invulnerable to being ousted. How does that benefit those of us who pay the bills? It doesn't.
I can guarantee that if Romney were elected, on the day of the inauguration Reid would NOT hold a meeting with Democrats and plan on how to stop any agenda of the president. This is what McConnell did and it is despicable.
Hi Michael. If your premise is that a majority of Americans are really interested in legislators willing to compromise, then I have to respectfully disagree.
The success of the Tea Party shows that a significant part of the population is, in fact, looking for representatives who will NOT deviate from their strict ideology. Grover Norquist is the perfect example. His philosophy is simple: no tax increases on anyone for any reason. Period. End of story. War? Doesn't matter. Crushing debt? Too bad. Massive unemployment that begs for a jobs bill? Sorry.
There is simply no equivalent on the left. We're going to see exactly what I'm talking about in January as we approach the "fiscal cliff." Democrats have already put massive spending cuts on the table, and are looking for compromise on the revenue side. Taxes are at an 80 year low, yet I can guarantee you that the GOP members of the House will reject ANY tax increase. Doesn't matter if it's 0.000000001% increase on income over a bazillion dollars a year.
If you favor a balanced approach to deficit reduction, I don't see how you can side with the ideologues in the GOP.
Massive spending cuts????Hello 9%+ unemployment.
RefNV,
The economy is improving and has been for some time now:
'Reuters reported last month, "At 1,400, the S&P 500 " was closing in on a four-year high and was up 74% since Jan. 20, 2009, the day Obama took office. Not since Dwight Eisenhower's first term has a president had such a strong run for their first term." Former Merrill Lynch strategist Richard Bernstein told Reuters, "The stock market is a barometer not of the absolute level of the economy but of improvement in the economy. There is no doubt the economy has improved in the last four years'
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opin...
Check out this job creation chart from Obama's website:
http://i46.tinypic.com/2z5kx2c.jpg
We are in the worst recession in American history because of Republican led efforts to deregulate everything,including the financial services industry. And this is what Romney wants to take us back to? No thanks.
The problem with politics is that everyone has a different opinion on what should be done and the country is divided down the middle.
Mr. Freeman and many others didn't like the stimulus. I see it completely differently and think the government should be throwing money out of airplanes.
In the last several years the banking system has been stabilized and banks are again making money. The domestic auto industry is back on firm footing. Corporate profits have been nothing short of outstanding and companies are sitting on record levels of cash.
There has been positive GDP growth every quarter since Obama took office. Job creation has taken place every quarter since Obama took office. Americans lost nearly $20 trillion during the financial crisis. Approximately $5 trillion of that has been put back into people's pockets with a stock market that has risen thousands of points
In addition Obama is the only president in the last 50 years to have improved the deficit every one of his four years.
I can't think of a single metric that has not improved in the last several years, yet the Republicans bark about Obama's failed economic policies.
If Romney wins and can boast the above after his four years in office he will have done an outstanding job.
Another statistic that will be very important for job creation going forward is that a report came out that domestic manufacturing was at a 15 year high. Companies have actually started coming back to the United States. This has more to do with explosive wage growth in China than anything else but it's still good for the United States. My new air-conditioning units are made in Tyler Texas. Some socks I bought at Walmart carried the made in USA label. Even the knives and forks that I used at the Chipotle Grill were made in the good old USA.
If the economic contraction that is ravaging the rest of the world doesn't spread here you could see unemployment back to normal levels in 10 to 15 years. That seems like a hell of a long time but at least it's progress.
Emthree,
We often don't get to elect what we really want. I didn't attend Tea Party rallies, but I did watch and listen. What I often heard were people who did not like what they saw as a move away from traditional American values and others who were afraid of the run away spending and power of the Federal government.
I don't support Grover Norquist and the view that taxes can never be raised on anyone. I also don't support the view that we can solve our fiscal problems while leaving Medicare and Social Security exactly like they are for future retirees.
R's lie when they say we can solve our fiscal problems with tax cuts across the board, more defense spending and changes to SS and Medicare for future recipients. D's lie when the say we can solve our fiscal problems with a small tax increase on the wealthy, much more government spending and no changes to SS and Medicare.
Mathematics should tell everyone that both scenarios are pure fantasy. Either enough Americans are going to figure that out and demand better solutions, or we are all going to learn how easily fantasies turn into nightmares.
For you to think that the D's have not moved to the left by a healthy amount as the R's have moved to the right is just not seeing reality.
The Tea Party was a reaction to the lurch to the left taken by D's and Obama. They are an overreaction in many cases, but it is up to all of us to pull the country back to the middle, where I feel it belongs and does best.
Michael
Gerry,
10 to 15 years to get back to normal? Maybe we could reduce that to 7 to 8 years if we developed and used all the energy resources new technology has allowed us to get access to, while at the same time, have government invest in green energy 'research', not non competitive green energy 'retail' companies, some of which fail.
President Obama is not going to do this. Mitt Romney would. I didn't expect Obama to stop deficit spending during his term, but we are 6 trillion dollars more in debt and still spending over one trillion more than we bring in. I didn't expect miracles given where we were but I think a better job was possible he Obama did not do it.
Michael
brtaylor,
Unfortunately, big government spending doesn't stimulate private sector job growth. When private investment rises unemployment falls. Big government spending and debt leads to low business investment and consumers reign in spending.
http://johnbtaylorsblog.blogspot.com/201...
Gerry states "There has been positive GDP growth every quarter since Obama took office."
We need a GDP growth rate of approximately 3.2% annually just to keep producing jobs at a rate to keep pace with new entrants into the workforce. Obama's last GDP growth rate is hovering around 1.6%. Here is a graph of the unemployment rate projected by Obama's economist compared to the actual unemployment rate. Gerry, tell those who are unemployed how smashing the growth rate of GDP is.
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1...
Ref....The "Johnbtaylorblogspot"...come on!!!
To get substantial private-sector job growth you need GDP growth in the 3% range. That's not in the cards given we are in the midst of what could be another global recession. In addition our economy is 70% consumption. Consumption has been reduced by the massive financial losses that people endured several years ago.
Private-sector job growth will only occur in large numbers when there is a substantial pickup in aggregate demand. I don't see that happening anytime soon.
Michael... The Philly fed put out a report last year that reflected the following;
If we could get GDP growth to 3% or better it would take 12 years to get the unemployment rate back down to 5%. Currently GDP growth is running 1.4% and there is very little employment growth. 10% of our economy is exports. Companies like DuPont that are huge exporters are getting killed by the global downturn. This is why in the latest polling 41% of companies are considering layoffs in the near future. The global economy is lousy. No amount of public investment or private investment can offset this. The global economy is $70 trillion. Our GDP is about $16 trillion. We are spoke in a big wheel. If the world goes down the tubes we are likely to follow. I hope this doesn't happen but every day that the recession worsens increases the likelihood that a recession will occur here.
Ref... What we need and what our economy is capable of producing are two different things. Given the global environment plus the fact that we are a mature economy with an aging population and facing massive entitlement costs 1.4% or 1.6% GDP growth might be about as good as it gets.
We have the lowest birth rate in recorded history, an anti-immigration policy, and record numbers of people over 50 years old. That's a slow growth scenario if I've ever heard one.
The current goal should be to keep the economy growing at all costs. This is starting to look like a 1929 to 1932 scenario. The 1929 financial crisis hit. Then there were several years of recovery followed by another collapse. It took decades to recover from the second collapse. If we slide into another recession unemployment will probably rise several points as it has in the rest of the world and then we've really got problems.
Gerry,
We are one country that is 22 % of the global economy, which is struggling. This is all the more reason for us to go with a 'real' all in energy policy, instead of the one Obama has. It would pick up employment here which would also help the world as a whole if our economy picked up.
Michael
The energy sector provides very high paying jobs to Americans. It's a great place to work. I completely disagree with Pres. Obama's energy policy. It's ridiculous.
Crude oil prices are close to $90 a barrel in an environment of slow global economic growth. When the global economy comes back Americans are going to see gas prices the likes of which they can't imagine. It's time to prepare for that now. High gas prices can kill an economy.
A wonderful day to all, it should prove to be an interesting night.
RefNV
When a person has a job, it doesn't matter if it's private or public sector.
If we hire teachers, that is a job.
If we hire contractors, those are jobs.
This whole private sector jobs is just a way for public companies to skim money off the top to make a profit.
For example, Medicare admin cost are 2%-3% of total costs. Private insurance is 26%-30% of total premiums collected. Medicare by far is the more efficient disbursement of heath care services.
The inefficiency of private companies translate into profits for the investor class.
Do yourself a favor and stop comparing public sector job growth vs. private sector job growth.
A hard working Joe or Jane punching a time clock and putting in an honest days work, doesn't care whether their employer is a private entity or OUR government.
lvfacts101 - "The TEA Party is actually non-partisan and works to defeat any politican, Republicrat or Dumbocrat, that it believes does not have the interest of the public, not party, in mind."
Complete nonsense, they all run as Republicans and caucus with Republicans. Once again proving, the truth and facts don't matter to some.
Mr. Casler, your assessment of how Congress really "works" ( for a lack of a better term) is spot on. Since every member of Congress votes with their respective leadership over 90% of the time, it is completely irrelevant what candidates for the House and Senate believe in. The only thing voters need to know about candidates is whether they are Republican or Democrat. Anything else that a politician tells you is complete BS.
Dustman44,
It's amazing and sad that so few people know how Congress truly works. That is exactly why so many people are unwilling to unseat these incumbents (especially in leadership) and demand that changes be made to how Congress works.
Michael
Vernos,
If what I just described about how Congress works is true, the Tea Party people, as well as non Tea Party R's and D's are told by their leadership.... vote 'this' way...or no chairmanships, no moving up in rank, no assistance at re-election time ... and in the worst case, you'll have a primary challenger.
You just said the Tea Party people caucus with R's and vote with R's.
You see, the real problem isn't the Tea Party...the real problem is the way Congress works...on both sides. Over 90 % of the time, members vote with leadership. Do you really believe that on either side, 100 % of of House members and Senators agree with leadership 90 % of the time? Of course they don't, but they vote as if they do? Why? Because they have to.
Vernos, the system is corrupt and you're focused on the wrong thing.
Michael
Michael Casler:
Enjoyed AND understood your letter and subsequent comments, some of which were informative. Amazing, isn't it guys, that I, a bona fide "Cook County Chicago Democrat" and "senior citizen" understood what he was talking about???
Det_Munch,
Thank you. I am not asking D's or R's to change their vote or party of support. I am simply pointing out how Congress really works, versus how we are educated that it works.
Both parties have a big vested interest in us not understanding how Congress really works because that makes it quite easy to pit us against the 'other' side, which allows them to keep this corrupt system in place.
Congress has been corrupt for a long time, but financially we are reaching the place where for our own survival as a nation, we cannot let the corrupted Congress continue to operate the way it does.
When you add the influence of money and powerful special interests with lobbyists, you should be able to understand why our representative democracy is dysfunctional and benefits special interests and our elected representatives and disadvantages the American people and our country as a whole.
Michael
Compromise is important to getting things done. But just as important is the ability to make, recognize and accept a logical argument that can have no other conclusion.
The biggest problem we have in Congress is the blind adherence to ideology instead of engaging in rational debate. This is the root cause of the outright hatred that is displayed by the public.
Nothing will change in Congress until the rational members of the public get far more involved in the political process. This means not just voting, but becoming active in the local political clubs of whatever party they prefer (which includes the minor parties) and helping to select reasonable, responsible candidates.
That is the only way we are going to see a slate of candidates presented to us that allows us to vote for the best, instead of choosing the least worst.
wtplv - "Vernos, the system is corrupt and you're focused on the wrong thing."
You misinterpret my response. I was responding to what lvfacts101 commented on. I know congress is broken, especially the House who spend their two years in office on vacation campaigning for donations and finances.
Vernos,
No I did not misunderstand your point and you just confirmed it again. You say you know Congress is broken but then immediately launch on the House. You think 1/2 of Congress is broken... the half that is the House and the part that contains R's and the Tea Party. That makes you 1/2 right. You still don't want to acknowledge that both sides are broken and you believe that a fix could involve just removing the Tea Party. You need to reevaluate !
Michael
Michael,
I did see 60 minutes on sunday. The only thing that Sen.McConnell and Sen.Reid seemed to agree on is they were both wearing dark suits and red ties.That was about the extent of it.
Gerry,
GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports imports). What Obama failed to create is an environment conducive for business expansion(investing), entrepreneurship and an environment for those with means to buy which is essential to lifting our economy from stall speed. The US savings rate is comparable to that of the late 90's and early 2000's and the last time I checked consumers consumed back then. High sustained investment rates are needed for economic recovery. With low investment we won't create jobs in the private sector. A low GDP growth rate like we have now that won't even supply enough jobs for new entrants into the workforce. 50% of college grads can't even find work in their chosen fields. Your assessment and the current economic conditions would give any high school grad pause to seeking higher education. We have 58.7% of our population working for the last three years but during the previous 20 years we averaged 62%-64% of the population working. Based on your assessment, those 15 million unemployed Americans don't have much of a chance to gain employment. If the current government tax & spend policies are in place long term then I would agree with you as it would suppress private investment and consumers with means from purchasing.
In reply to Mr. Casler; well Michael, although I admire your resolve in constantly working these political discussion rooms for compromise, what have the voters done? How surprising. Of course, in the halls of Congress, it is confirmed that the status quo will stay intact. More years of Congressional gridlock, no matter whether Obama or Romney is elected to the White House.
Well Michael, Obama has won reelection. America screamed for change, and voted for the entire status quo. Yep, I sat on the sidelines for this election. Sometimes the old coach knows how the game is going to play out without even stepping foot on the playing field.
Do you still believe compromise has a chance???
wtplv - "You say you know Congress is broken but then immediately launch on the House."
Again you misinterpret my comments. By saying the House spends two years trying to garner donations applies to both sides of the aisle. How can anyone govern when they spend the bulk of their time fund raising?
And yes, across the street is the Senate, which I believe a single senator has far too much power to put things on hold by secret votes or filibusters. The entire system needs a revamping.
Michael Casler.......
The republican teabaggers are the problem, not
our great HARRY REID.
Harry Reid is on the correct side of life.
Harry supports all of the programs that average
Americans and poor Americans need.
Like health care, Social Security and Medicare.
Now that PRESIDENT OBAMA was re-elected and
HARRY REID is still the SENATE MAJORITY LEADER,
republicans need to understand what average
Americans need and start working with Democrats.
The majority still rules in this country.
That's what we voted for.
"Now that PRESIDENT OBAMA was re-elected and
HARRY REID is still the SENATE MAJORITY LEADER,"
And Pelosi can caddy for the president. Because she will NEVER have a leadership role in the House again.
CarmineD
Which one of compromises? All million compromises there is just add a new one. Maybe it is time for real change in parlamentary principle.
Bradley,
Sadly, this is what I believe. I believe that so many people 'still' have it so good in this country that they are unwilling to deal with the issues we face, and are willing to 'let it ride', as they say in these parts.
It is a given that if you don't control events, then events control you.
So, and I hope I am wrong, but I believe Europe will continue to be in trouble financially and economically and that will continue to affect our economy. I believe the President and Congress will not properly address the deficit spending and the debt and will 'kick the can down the road', which is really what Americans continue to vote to do, although they say otherwise.
Events will control us until enough people in America don't have it so good anymore that they will wake up and say: 'what happened?'. At that point, it may very well be too late to do much that matters.
I just hope I am dead before that day arrives. I feel sorry for the children of today. And I am not saying here that the election of Mitt Romney would have changed any of this. It would have taken a lot more than that.
Michael
Hey Carmine...
What were those electoral numbers that you predicted for your buddy "mittens?"
Do I have the following correct?
You swore that "mittens" was going to win more that 300 electoral votes and it now looks that "mittens" will safely have a little more than 200 electoral votes....
Also, you said time after time that "mittens" was going to win EVERYONE of the the
swing/bacttleground states....
How many did "mittens" actually win?
Don't run off and hide now.....
Looking forward to your comments!
teamster....
Great post....
You're 100% correct. A majority of this country's voters have spoken.
You said:
"Now that PRESIDENT OBAMA was re-elected and
HARRY REID is still the SENATE MAJORITY LEADER,
republicans need to understand what average
Americans need and start working with Democrats."
Well said but unfortunately I don't have much confidence in the Republicans working with the Democrats......the big reason being that the "tea baggers" are still around.
Compromise is not part of their make-up! They actually believe that compromise is a type of weakness and must be avoided.....
Compromise will happen.
Obama will choose where he thinks he gets the best deal i.e., the lame duck congress, or the newly elected congress.
The filibuster rule will be modified.
Will the elderly Supremes stay on the bench now until they are intubated or will they leave graciously?
A chance for moving the Afghanistan departure date is available to the Afghani people if they address the issue. The military industrial complex has been taken off the protected species list and will need to re-apply for their version of welfare.
Good things CAN happen IF the republicans tell theeir side to work on issues that make sense like I have outlined above.
President Obama is our collective leader. For all of us.
Let's get to work.
@wtplv,
"Many Americans say they want compromise, but when we validate people like this by re-electing them over and over again, our votes say just the opposite." (Michael Casler)
Mr. Casler, today is a day for celebration and to move forward. But after reading your past comments, and reading comments by you, there is a strong conclusion your an instigator hiding in the middle.
Now this is not a slam on you. But many times you seem take the side of an argument that sounds the best. The majority of the time the argument is misleading with a distorted point or view, missing information to bring about a balance debate. In many cases, you and others will not provide comparing information. It can be said your actually debating an argument with yourself.
Look, you are a leading commentator on many subjects posted on the Sun. You should consider taking a real stand on the issues you respond to, and the issues you bring up. Like the leading article posted above.
You cannot remain lukewarm. Take a stand, a real stand, and stop being an echo to other commentators on the Sun.
You have taken a leadesrhip role. Be that, or just be who your really are.
Now Romney can finish getting those car elevators installed at his La Jolla beach mansion. And after that he can visit his money that's stashed in Switzerland and the Caymans.
Enjoy your retirement, Willard! (Psst -- that means go away, your fifteen minutes has expired.)
El_Lobo,
I have asked Carmine to provide he thinking in predicting Mitt Romney would win. It would be good to know why the Mitt Romney supporter choose Romney.
I would also suspect you will not heard from the people opposed the President for no good reason. The President has always been solid with the American People. Mitt Romney has not.
The People have spoken.
...El_Lobo, I use a voice recognition software to post my comments. Many times it misses the complete words. Sorry about the hard read.
LTV
...." just hope I am dead before that day arrives. I feel sorry for the children of today. And I am not saying here that the election of Mitt Romney would have changed any of this. It would have taken a lot more than that." (Michael Casler)
...Your lukewarm, the appearance of changing positions, not taking a stand.
Some people call this talking out of both side of your mouth.
Longtimevegan,
You say I am an echo of other commentators on the Sun. You're kidding, right?
Other commentators on the Sun, almost without exception, consist of those that toe the Conservative line or the Progressive line. You need to remove the blinders and take another look.
Michael
Now that the campaigning and election is over,it is time for these career politicians to prove their motives and meddle. May it be revealed WHO they really serve...those who hold the financial wherewithall to finance these astronomically expensive political campaigns! May the truth behind politics and the governance of the United States of America be discovered and revealed. May the minds and hearts of the American public be ready to receive this information and be ready and able to do something about it.
Some interesting facts behind American politics can be found in the public television presentation by Bill Moyers and Company on the "Winner-Take-All Politics" found online at:
http://billmoyers.com/episode/encore-bro...
Blessings and Peace,
Star
Longtimevegan,
The most important comments I ever make, in my opinion, concern not the President, but Congress, such as the letter leading this line of comments.
If you'll note, these letters always elicit the same responses. Nobody addresses the fact that huge money is required for Congressional elections, people and groups with lobbyists provide that money and then use it to influence leadership of both parties in both chambers of Congress and the leadership then requires that their members vote the way leadership tells them to, totally corrupting Congress...the branch of our government that makes all our laws.
Instead, I get one each side saying it is only the fault of the other side. And you think I echo those views. Oh my!
Each side is given to calling people who believe what their side tells them as cool-aid drinkers. The truth is that, whether you are Progressive or Conservative, if you believe the poor performance of Congress is mostly the result of the Tea Party, far right or far left members, you are drinking the cool-aide. Both sides serve cool-aid, and it works tremendously well in keeping us fighting each other instead of tackling the real issues in Congress. The place needs reform and we're never going to see it as long as the cool-aid works.
Michael
Michael,
You don't have to defend yourself with me. My opinion is only my opinion. Your doing ok. However, I know you can do better.
Two points. Leadership and clarity.
You have taken a leadership role with your commentary. Having leadership role requires a clear position. You have the one, but not the other. Be firm in your concluding comments. And most importantly, show the comparables to your position.
I know this is only a comment board, but your about 70% of the comments on political issues. And your out in front with your identity.
Your strong and most valid argument is the one about money in politics. Your spot on with your assessment of taking the money out of politics. Couple your opinion with both sides of the issues.
Just a friendly suggestion to a spirited and information seeking person..which is you, one Michael Casler.
...in addition, many of the commentators will not return now that the election is over. I suspect you will stay, if so, I look forward to reading your comments.
LTV
PART ONE
Michael, I would love to see Barack Obama and the halls of Congress live up to promises and expectations.
Obama should;
Begin an immediate progressive early troop withdrawal from Afghanistan. Enact more comprehensive programs that care for combat veterans. Provide veterans preference in job opportunities and housing.
Since it is apparent that NAFTA will not be repealed, forcefully renegotiate existing trade agreements that would put America on a globally competitive and equal international footing that promotes middle-class jobs here in the United States.
Adopt extremely strong penalties against U.S. corporations and businesses that outsource American jobs to China, Mexico, India, Mexico, etc...
Drastically increase lawsuits against international currency manipulators such as China.
Raise the minimum wage as originally promised to $9.50 an hour.
Institute as originally promised, a "public option" into the Affordable Healthcare Act.
PART TWO
Other actions that should be on President Obama's second term agenda;
(1) Increase the capital gains and dividends taxes for higher-income taxpayers, (2) Create a foreclosure prevention fund for homeowners, (3) Provide option for a pre-filled-out tax form, (4) Create a mortgage interest tax credit for non-itemizers, (5) Create a retirement savings tax credit for low incomes, (6) End income tax for seniors making less than $50,000, (7) Create a $60 billion bank to fund roads and bridges, (8) Phase out exemptions and deductions for higher earners (9) Sign the Employee Free Choice Act, making it easier for workers to unionize, (10) Lift the payroll tax cap on earnings above $250,000, (11) Forbid companies in bankruptcy from giving executives bonuses, (12) Allow workers to claim more in unpaid wages and benefits in bankruptcy court, (13) Prevent drug companies from blocking generic drugs, (14) Allow Medicare to negotiate for cheaper drug prices, (15) Fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), (16) Require employers to provide seven paid sick days per year, (17) Reduce the Veterans Benefits Administration claims backlog, (18) Expand the Family Medical Leave Act to include leave for domestic violence or sexual assault, (19) Seek independent watchdog agency to investigate congressional ethics violations, (20) Expose Special Interest Tax Breaks to Public Scrutiny, (21) Allow five days of public comment before signing bills, (22) Tougher rules against revolving door for lobbyists and former officials, (23) Expand the Employment Non-Discrimination Act to include sexual orientation and gender identity, (24) Restore Superfund program so that polluters pay for clean-ups, (25) Reduce the number of middle managers in the federal workforce, (26) Strengthen the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, (27) Give annual "State of the World" address, (28) Eliminate earmarks, (29) Work to ban the permanent replacement of striking workers, (30) Establish a low carbon fuel standard, (31) Enact windfall profits tax for oil companies, (32) Create cap and trade system with interim goals to reduce global warming, (33) Use revenue from cap and trade to support clean energy and environmental restoration, (34) Require more flex-fuel cars for the federal government, (35) Allow penalty-free hardship withdrawals from retirement accounts.
This is what I believe the agenda should be in his second term as President. He should work to make America in the global economic world equal, while also doing justice at home for all Americans.
Additionally Michael, I would hope that President Obama this time around listens more closely to private sector labor union leaders. He would have never been elected either time if he had not had their endorsements.
Although union leaders did endorse him in his reelection, Obama did alienate these same union leaders in his first term. If the Democratic Party intends to remain a strong political party, it would be in the best interests to support labor unions. After all, unions represent and protect the absolute backbone of America.
@BChap,
"Begin an immediate progressive early troop withdrawal from Afghanistan. Enact more comprehensive programs that care for combat veterans. Provide veterans preference in job opportunities and housing." (Bradley Chapline)
Mr. Chapline, the president has a plan for all that wrote in the paragraph posted above. The only difference is your reguest of being "progressive."
Clarify your meaning of being progressive?
Bradley,
I agree with some of what you suggest and disagree with other things you suggest. President Obama will probably try to get some of what you suggest passed in the 2nd term. I think he shied away from controversial issues in his first four years because he wanted to be re-elected (SOP).
My problem is that much of what I feel the President will try to pass will be very expensive. Even with some passage of higher taxes on business and higher income individuals, not nearly enough tax revenue will become available to pay for the additional spending without adding even more to the deficit spending and increasing the national debt.
This is what both parties do. They lay out 'priorities', some valid, some not, which cost a lot of money and then they are unwilling to take steps to spend less in other areas and or increase taxes on everyone enough to cover the new 'priority' spending, plus the old spending, plus have some left over to pay down the debt.
There is only so long we can play this financial shell game before our financial chickens come home to roost.
For example, both Obama and Romney called for increased training programs, etc. to help people train for new jobs. It's a laudable goal, but if we invoke many of these new programs and simply add to the debt, we are going to kill ourselves economically.
The bottom line is we cannot afford to pay for everything government is doing and some things are going to have to go away. Our politicians are never going to take these steps if we don't demand that they do.
Honestly, I am convinced we will do nothing that matters until the inevitable financial 'crash' takes place.
Michael
In reply to "longtimevegan"; I was referring to changing the timetable for troop withdrawals in ending the war in Afghanistan. Whichever way field commanders would determine is the safest route for our troops. Only they could determine whether or not these withdrawals would occur concurrently and or consecutively, or a combination of both. My point is, get our troops out of there much sooner than what is planned for now!
Longtimevegan,
I will continue to write letters and you may find some interesting and you may not. I will not however be 'firm' in my closing comments, as I believe you and most others define 'firm'.
We have two main parties and unless you wish to support a 2nd tier party, you must support one of the two 'when you vote'. Most people want everyone, regardless of what opinion they express on any subject, to conclude with which side best supports that opinion.
I totally reject that notion. I don't have any words to express what abject failures both parties are. They both run in lockstep with the corrupted system in Congress and have zero interest in changing it. I will continue to point that out for what I consider an important reason.
If you note, almost nobody that comments has much criticism for 'their' party, only the 'other' party. These parties are not sports teams to be rooted for, as if they can have no direct effect on the lives of their fans. These parties, so completely supported, by their fans, are systematically destroying my country. I will not view them like a sports team where I am some silly fan.
Michael
In reply to Michael Casler; although the research I am about to provide you may not be absolute, and may be somewhat politically biased towards my personal opinions, here is my answer as just an example of the federal government saving money, making money, and paying down the debt.
First, I do not approve of the federal government providing financial and or political aid to any country.
DEFENSE CONTRACTORS
I don't have a problem with defense contractors producing weapons that are outdated and not conducive for today's necessary requirements of our own military.
However, these type weapons that are produced should already be bought and paid for by our allies in advance at extreme levels of profit to the U.S. government. These type of defense contractors, once they first fall into the "red ink zone" should be eliminated immediately by law.
The federal government needs to learn how to turn a profit and logically expand those profits into greater sums of money. In other words, Israel, South Korea, etc. decides they do not desire to buy our outdated conventional weapons; in turn, they would get nothing and they are on their own.
Michael, a reasonable estimation provides that trillions of dollars in potential debt as the "status quo" is now, would vanish over the period of a decade.
There are many answers to our debt and unemployment problems. My point was, as an example in my above post is, all our government must do is not exceed spending what government coffers take in, and operate to a degree off the principals and methods of free enterprise and capitalism.
If we, as a country do this Michael, our funds spent on social programs would not even be an issue.
El_Lobo - "You swore that "mittens" was going to win more that 300 electoral votes and it now looks that "mittens" will safely have a little more than 200 electoral votes...."
That's what happens when you spend your life in a bubble ignoring reality. I told my friends months ago Obama would win because the GOP went off the deep end. An opinion that was published here in the Sun back in 2009.
Vernos Branco, Las Vegas
Friday, Dec. 25, 2009 | 2:03 a.m.
Where did the Republican Party that I once knew go? What's happened to thoughtful, open debate?
Now elected Republican officials seem to be afraid of backlash from the fringe right. People have come to "tea party" rallies carrying weapons in open view. Why is that allowed? I just don't get the hatred being spread like an uncontrolled virus.
People on the far right label you as liberal when you disagree with their political views. Is that a matter of relativity? Is anything left of extreme right considered liberal and, thus, no longer moderate?
And when do lifelong Republicans become not Republican enough?
Christine Todd Whitman, Lawrence Wilkerson, Susan Eisenhower, Lincoln Chafee, Colin Powell and Christopher Buckley all have been lifelong Republicans who have thought the party was heading in a wrong direction. Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina was recently judged by the far right as not being Republican enough.
A member of the Republican National Committee recently proposed a 10-point purity test that Ronald Reagan couldn't pass. Is this what's expected from here on in? What has happened to our politics? There are no longer debates, just opposition.
If you believe the planet is more than 14,000 years old, or that global warming or evolution exists, are you automatically an unfit Republican? Is there a future for Republicans not associated with the "tea party" movement? Will "tea party" members elect competent leaders? I simply wonder what the outcome will be. Do we actually need a third-party format, or just exercise common sense?
Vernos,
"where did the republican party that I once new go?What's happened to thoughtful, open debate"?
I have been fighting with myself for the past couple of years over these same feelings.I switched over just month's ago after realizing that the republican party that I once knew is not coming back.
To hear that tea party republicans are carrying weapons out in the open at rallies, is a bit scary.Earlier this year(April 2012) rocker Ted Nugent stated that if Pres.Obama is re-elected that he will either be dead or in jail.These kind of actions can only breed hatred and possible violence.
Sen.Rep.minority leader Mitch McConnell stating a few years back that.It should be job number one to make sure that Pres.Obama is not re-elected to a second term.Actions such as these have turned away loyal republicans in droves to the democratic party.
There may still be some time left to salvage this one time great party. Wake up republicans the country has spoken to you with the results of last nights re-election of Pres.Obama.If you want to lay the blame on someone,look no further blame yourself.
Bradley,
I agree that alot of savings are possible if certain actions were taken. However, we must always keep in our determinations of what is and isn't possible, the following:
Let's say you and I open ice cream shops down the block from each other. Yours is efficient, well run, and offers good tasting ice cream at a reasonable price with good customer service. My ice cream parlor is inefficient, poorly run and offers mediocre ice cream, bad customer service and I charge more than you do.
Competition from your parlor will cause one of two outcomes for me. I will correct deficiencies so I can compete and am profitable or my customers will become your customers and my business will fail and disappear.
People who favor government rarely want to recognize that without competition, you get inefficiency, high cost and poor service. Government has no competition and therefore much of what you'd like to see it do more cost effectively and with greater efficiency just isn't possible in a system with no competition.
Michael
In reply to Michael Casler; you're analogy that you posted at 2:29 PM is so true. I can't possibly argue with your position. However, there are enough exceptions to the rule that makes government participation in some areas of business a necessity. I'm going to tell you a true story that is so outrageous it will set every reader back on their heels.
But first, let me say this; after one of our past brutal political disagreements, I did a public records search on your small business. In the aftermath, there was no doubt I had to honestly change my opinion of you. I found an intelligent, honest businessman who sacrifices some profits for the customers benefit, but provides more per se, "elbow grease" at the same time to benefit your customers. I'm perplexed how any competitor can possibly compete with your standards of business. Both my wife and I know to recommend your business to anyone we come across who would need such services. You are both a commendable businessman and citizen.
But, I'm now going to move to the contrasting side of this issue and why government participation in some forms of business is essential. This man I'm referring to is somebody I had the displeasure of growing up with. Now, he is in his early 60's and has never held a job in his entire life for any period of time. During his life, he's had jobs in high levels of government security, a police officer, and has even been hired as an insurance underwriter. He's squandered them all and lived off the wealth of his mother, while sponging his medical care from free community medical clinics and county and state run hospitals. He's NEVER paid a dime. He has had two strokes and a heart attack. And we know how much cost that type of care mounts up to be. This has all been at tax payer expense. Absolutely unbelievable isn't it? To make matters worse, when his mother died he was the primary beneficiary to an estate valued at over one million dollars. He still does not have insurance. He is still sponging and getting away with it. No liens have been filed, and all those medical costs he incurred are not costing him one red cent. It's still all on the taxpayer.
I strongly believe every American must have healthcare insurance. The "public option" to healthcare, although not a profit motive, should have premiums that make every person pay their fair share. Getting something from these remoras is better than nothing, and the levels of "public option" premiums should be based on keeping clinics, county and state hospitals financially solvent, rather than buried in red ink and the burdens of debt being put on taxpayers.
If all Americans were like you Michael, all these government actions of getting involved in business would not be necessary. This example of a so-called man I am using, gives the truly needy a bad name.
Jeff, Obama is our COLLECTIVE leader??? Freudian slip??
Compromise will never happen with Pinky in charge. The bills are too big and way too much get stuffed into the sausage machine. The special interests on both sides won this round.
El_Lobo.........
John Boehner said today that House Republicans
were willing to work with the White House to avoid
the fiscal cliff, including new revenue, under the
right conditions.
We'll wait and see what those right conditions
are.
And thank you very much for all of your great
comments.
They helped re-elect our great president.
Thanks also to Jeff, Nancy, peacelily, kepi, sam,
Longtimevegan and many more.
You were all awesome.
I can't help but laugh in a most disgusting manner of the two main political party commentators of the "Mutual Admiration Club" as they pat each other on the back for reelecting the "status quo". They hold each other's hands at the edge of the fiscal cliff. Yes, yes, how intelligent. And WOW!!! Such brilliance in their work! Such a job well done! I think I'm going to be sick!!!
Bradley,
Thank you for the kind words. Health Care is an area where my thinking has evolved quite a bit.
When I had excellent insurance provided by my employer, Hughes Aircraft, I was all for the 'private' system, as I was of course clueless about people that did not have what I had. Once I had to purchase insurance in the private market and I wasn't 25 anymore, I realized the system we had wasn't very good for many people and even employers were beginning to struggle to cover health care insurance costs.
I still believe the ACA was and is a poor solution but President Obama deserves credit for trying to modify the system and make it better.
The main reason I find it problematic to be a supporter of the D party, is not their stands on social issues, many of which I agree with, but their reluctance to recognize that the profit motive and competition do not exist in government. Without a profit motive, people tend to do less than their best work and without competition, there is little incentive to innovate, improve or provide outstanding service.
I saw this when I worked in Aerospace, which was funded by government spending, and I now see it in my interactions with the court system.
Government is absolutely required in a society for a variety of very good reasons. But when we start to expand government into many areas where it really isn't necessary, we create less incentive to innovate, improve or provide outstanding service and we increase costs.
The R party 'says' they recognize and believe that, but they just 'talk the talk' and don't 'walk the walk' and many on the far right want to take the concept way too far. The D party, in large part dismisses the lack of a profit motive and competition in government and speeds ahead with expanding government into places I think it is ill suited to be.
For these reasons, I find little difficulty disliking and criticizing both parties, a position which draws fire from many directions.
C'est la vie... as they say.
Michael
In reply to Michael Casler; your post of 4:01 AM said it all.
PERFECTO !!! Michael, your intelligence and wisdom expressed in your words above make you a perfect member for the "Whig Party"!!!
Bradley and Jim,
I am assuming here that you are both referring to the Whig party that Jim told me about before.
Here is my feeling about a viable 3rd party. As long as America was operating relatively smoothly for a good majority of Americans, as it was until about 2005, a 3rd party never had a shot. The R and D supporters could just be told and they believed that any 'bad' patch was just the result of the 'other' side acting stupid. The message was 'just put us back in and everything will be fine'.
Now, we have had a R's mostly in charge from 2000 to 2008, D's mostly in charge from 2008 until 2012 and D's will be mostly in charge until at least 2014 or 2016. During this time, the lives of more and more Americans have changed for the worse. By 2016, I expect it to be little better, and maybe a lot worse.
If that is the case, the old argument of both parties, that it's those other guys, will become more and more difficult to make with a straight face... and it will be one more and more Americans will not buy.
That will be the opening for a viable 3rd party, if they offer quality candidates that do not come with a checkered past or ideas totally out of the mainstream.
The time of the 3rd party is coming...I suspect.
Michael
Teamster,
Challenge the unreasonable. As you can see, many of the "number posters" have disappeared.
GOP doesn't need to compromise--they have already compromised us into bankruptcy, insolvency, endless debt. We MUST cut spending.
I Am Puzzled
The "Bush Tax Cuts" were a roll back of Clinton's taxes..including taxes on the middle class
So why does Obama not want ALL of Clintons' taxes?
I bet that no matter what Boehner tries to do..Reid will not agree..When we go over the fiscal cliff..with high taxes and deep cuts..the Democrats will step in..save Big Bird..leave the taxes high and blame the whole mess on the Republicans..
Longtimevegan
I bet Obama was going to win..
When the issues are ...Big Bird and Dancing Vaginas ..?
No one ever lost a bet by underestimating the intelligence of the voters
Roberta,
I agree that spending must be cut, and it will be, either voluntarily or by force when the nation goes broke.
However, the GOP does need to compromise. They have tried telling Americans that the Progressive agenda of President Obama and the D's is not the right one. Slightly over 1/2 of the country does not believe the R's and the recent election confirms that.
The GOP is going to have to stop pushing the evangelical social issues, concentrate on fiscal matters, and compromise enough so D's cannot so easily label them as obstructionists.
The tax the rich, redistributionist agenda of the Progressives is NOT going to be able to right our economy. If the GOP will just let the Progressives try some of what they want to try, when the economy is still running very slowly and our debt is still heading for 20 trillion dollars, the ice cream will fall off the Sundae, Americans will be open to listening again.
When the R's offer cooperation, they just need to continually do it publicly with this caveat: We are doing this because we realize we need to move forward, but make no mistake, we do not believe this is the best course. All Americans need to look closely at the results and decide for themselves.
Michael