OT: Election Tuesday

[Athanacropolis]

Bush and the Republicans acted, quite frankly, like tax-and-spend Democrats. That's why the conservative base was not thrilled by McCain or many of the incumbent senators and representatives. If anything, this crushing loss will force the Republicans to re-evaluate the platforms of their party. I'm hoping for a return to true conservative political philosophy, not this super-eavngelical, hyper-interventionalist, big-government brand of Republicanism.

I agree. I really respect the old fiscally conservative Republicans and hope they take their party back. We need to spend money wisely.

And I respect the Democrat ideals of helping those who need it and looking out for the "little guy." It's why I shall remain the LOYAL opposition on this board

Personally, I think both parties have strayed very far from their roots, but I could be wrong.

[chakdaddy]

yet all of the "change", "hope", "yes we can"

Wow, frightening stuff indeed. "Hope"? man.

[ParticleMan]

Bush and the Republicans acted, quite frankly, like tax-and-spend Democrats. That's why the conservative base was not thrilled by McCain or many of the incumbent senators and representatives. If anything, this crushing loss will force the Republicans to re-evaluate the platforms of their party. I'm hoping for a return to true conservative political philosophy, not this super-eavngelical, hyper-interventionalist, big-government brand of Republicanism.

I agree. I really respect the old fiscally conservative Republicans and hope they take their party back. We need to spend money carefully.

indeed. i'm always stunned at republicans who claim that theirs is the party of fiscal responsibility. um, this chart would say otherwise.

the last republican to leave with a comparable deficit to when he started was nixon. every other republican has run up record deficits. meanwhile the democrats since kennedy have either kept the deficit constant or reduced the deficit.

[TA42]

The talk now is that they might overturn q.2
lame

Heard that, but so many would fight that. Plus it is not like it won 51-49. 60 something to 30 something says it all.

I don't think they'll overturn it. If anything they'll revise it to a lower number instead of an ounce.

This is what Attorney General Coakley said:

"Question 2's passage not only authorizes the decriminalization of small amounts of marijuana, but also establishes a parallel civil regulatory structure that does not currently exist," Coakley said in a written statement. "At this time, we are reviewing all of the implications of the new law and whether further clarification or guidance is needed."

And from the lawyer who helped bring the question to ballot:

"Once the people have spoken and expressed their desire for a specific kind of law there must be full implementation by the state," Kiley said.

Check out the AP's article here: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iSp5AojEbU2anxto3SsjpJQuJY5wD949DUU00

[Gant]

Since the topic was raised, the Obama folks have launched this website which gives more detail to their plans when they take office:

http://www.change.gov/

[GregB]

^^Right...and the Demo/socialists have acted with TOTAL class and grace during the last 8 years of losses (except for when they won in 2006) and the media has been very fair...

If you believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn and a moon made out of green cheese to sell you...

To be fair. The last two elections had a lot of suspicion around them. Dems won the popular vote both times. Then you read about things that happened in Florida and Ohio. I could see how someone might be a little bitter about the results. Last night was a landslide victory.

I just don't get how anyone could have watched his acceptance speech and not have some hope for the future of this country. I look at him and I see someone I trust to make the major decisions to shape our country. He is highly intelligent. But more importantly, He is also smart enough to realize that he doesn't have all the answers. So He will surround himself with other highly intelligent and experienced people to help him make important decisions. Which will more than make up for his lack of experience. It like we have had the blind leading the blind the last eight years. The ultra rich lined their pockets while everyone else suffered.

And you know all of this how? Who lined their pockets? Who suffered extra hard?

Well look at the record profits from oil companies. They certainly were lining their pockets. Then look at all the people getting forclosed on their homes and just having a hard time paying bills in general due to all services and goods being raised because of higher gas prices. Have you not been living in this country recently??

[Parasite]

Ummmm, this country just elected a guy with extreme socialist tendencies because it was the "cool" thing to do amongst younger voters. But a lot of this is the Republicans' fault. Until they get back to being TRUE Republicans, they will flounder. I can't wait for that day, because this country needs true Republican ideals. Socialism and hand-outs and blaming somebody else for your shortcomings will destroy this country. Book it.

[Athanacropolis]

Ummmm, this country just elected a guy with extreme socialist tendencies because it was the "cool" thing to do amongst younger voters. But a lot of this is the Republicans' fault. Until they get back to being TRUE Republicans, they will flounder. I can't wait for that day, because this country needs true Republican ideals. Socialism and hand-outs and blaming somebody else for your shortcomings will destroy this country. Book it.

[GregB]

I'm all for tax cuts for the middle class. But I definitely share Insatiable's concern over the definitions of "rich" and "middle class." Also: tax cuts on the working class are awesome too, but when tax refunds are going to be given to people who are not paying federal income taxes, something is wrong. And you can't cut 95% of people's taxes without cutting spending. These are legitimate concerns.

Also, to those talking about the booing at McCain's concession speech (not classy): I distinctly remember Obama supports booing Obama's mention of McCain serving his country honorably and running a good campaign the day before the election. Does this reflect on ALL Democrats? Of course not, no more than the people booing at McCain's concession speech is representative of all Republicans.

Just my two cents.

Well the thought process is the tax increase on the $250k/year+ will pay for the tax decrease or the Middle/Lower Class. As far as new spending, We will need to spend less in other areas. We have plenty of money. We just aren't using wisely. Obviously day one, We have to spend less money on our military. I am not talking about immediately leaving either Iraq or Afganistan. But, We need to consolidate our effort and come up with a more efficient game plan. Especially in Iraq. Maybe, Scale back our Iraqi on site presence. Stick more to tactical covert operations. Start to slowly turn over police/soldier work to Iraqi. Continue to train them and be involved in the process of rebuilding the country. Give less Aid as the Government gains more revenue to pay for their own stuff.

Then spend some of that money on our own country. Help stimulate the economy. Create Jobs. Balance the budget. That chart posted with every presidents effect on the deficit was pretty telling. We are a very powerful country. But We can't continue to think we can spend without limits. Eventually it will catch up with you.

[floyd]

Ummmm, this country just elected a guy with extreme socialist tendencies because it was the "cool" thing to do amongst younger voters. But a lot of this is the Republicans' fault. Until they get back to being TRUE Republicans, they will flounder. I can't wait for that day, because this country needs true Republican ideals. Socialism and hand-outs and blaming somebody else for your shortcomings will destroy this country. Book it.

This is paranoid non-sense. You sound like liberals that talk about "blood for oil."

If you're talking health care (which is the only thing in the platform that can even be construed as socialist) try looking at reality. Reality is no one is advocating government ownership or management of the system (the definition of socialism). Reality is also that tens of millions of americans (and growing) can't afford it. Reality is that an unexpected illness can quickly bankrupt a family. I heard a story of a family whose infant got a staph infection and was in the hospital for 4 days. They racked up $300,000 in medical bills.

This wouldn't happen in almost any other developed country. You can call stopping these absurdities a "hand-out." I'd call it making this country a better place to live. You can continue your ideological opposition to government attempting to fix broken areas of our society when it is possible. I'd prefer to be a pragmatist and use government (at the minimal level necessary) when free markets fail to work. Which clearly happens in reality.

[BeanTownBrawler]

Well look at the record profits from oil companies. They certainly were lining their pockets. Then look at all the people getting forclosed on their homes and just having a hard time paying bills in general due to all services and goods being raised because of higher gas prices. Have you not been living in this country recently??

I'm sorry I just have to comment on this... inflation is not caused by higher gas prices. It's the other way around. The reason people were foreclosed on was because of the bubble burst in the housing market and the structure of their loans which had rates that would reset after a certain amount of time. Then these people couldn't refinance because their houses weren't worth as much. It had nothing to do with the "rising price of goods and services". We are actually in danger of going into a deflationary phase, not inflation. Have you not been living in this country recently??

And to touch on the misconception that somehow oil companies are benefiting from everyone struggling... that just isn't the case. A company like Exxon Mobile which takes a lot of heat for making "record profits" actually does better when gas prices are lower because they aren't actually making money from their gas station operations, they are primarily a refinery. The fact that they have record profits does not indicated anything beyond great management.

It just so happens that their product is something that the world depends on and cannot give up even in tough economic times, so they are somewhat recession proof. That is our fault for being dependent on oil, not theirs.

[Athanacropolis]

Well look at the record profits from oil companies. They certainly were lining their pockets. Then look at all the people getting forclosed on their homes and just having a hard time paying bills in general due to all services and goods being raised because of higher gas prices. Have you not been living in this country recently??

I'm sorry I just have to comment on this... inflation is not caused by higher gas prices. It's the other way around. The reason people were foreclosed on was because of the bubble burst in the housing market and the structure of their loans which had rates that would reset after a certain amount of time. Then these people couldn't refinance because their houses weren't worth as much. It had nothing to do with the "rising price of goods and services". We are actually in danger of going into a deflationary phase, not inflation. Have you not been living in this country recently??

And to touch on the misconception that somehow oil companies are benefiting from everyone struggling... that just isn't the case. A company like Exxon Mobile which takes a lot of heat for making "record profits" actually does better when gas prices are lower because they aren't actually making money from their gas station operations, they are primarily a refinery. The fact that they have record profits does not indicated anything beyond great management.

It just so happens that their product is something that the world depends on and cannot give up even in tough economic times, so they are somewhat recession proof. That is our fault for being dependent on oil, not theirs.

Well said BeanTownBrawler. Also, the whole housing bubble/mortgage crisis was created artificially in large part due to government intervention, and we saw how that worked out. Yet Barney Frank continues to get reelected by the people of Massachusetts....

[bawstin]

Well look at the record profits from oil companies. They certainly were lining their pockets. Then look at all the people getting forclosed on their homes and just having a hard time paying bills in general due to all services and goods being raised because of higher gas prices. Have you not been living in this country recently??

I'm sorry I just have to comment on this... inflation is not caused by higher gas prices. It's the other way around. The reason people were foreclosed on was because of the bubble burst in the housing market and the structure of their loans which had rates that would reset after a certain amount of time. Then these people couldn't refinance because their houses weren't worth as much. It had nothing to do with the "rising price of goods and services". We are actually in danger of going into a deflationary phase, not inflation. Have you not been living in this country recently??

This isn't entirely true. Core inflation explicitly measures inflation minus energy and food costs because they're volatile. It's a better indicator of economic trends than headline inflation, which includes energy and food costs, but it may not line up with people's wallets if food and energy are very expensive. Now, it's true that we're in danger of moving into a deflationary phase, but people "living in this country recently" have experienced dramatic inflation over the last year... unless they haven't bought any food or energy.

And to touch on the misconception that somehow oil companies are benefiting from everyone struggling... that just isn't the case. A company like Exxon Mobile which takes a lot of heat for making "record profits" actually does better when gas prices are lower because they aren't actually making money from their gas station operations, they are primarily a refinery. The fact that they have record profits does not indicated anything beyond great management.

But it's hard to argue that high energy prices have been fortunate for them and unfortunate for almost everybody else. I'm not blaming them, they aren't supernatural beings that thrive on our misery, it's just supply and demand. But that is the way it played out. And it has more to do with supply and demand than great management.

It just so happens that their product is something that the world depends on and cannot give up even in tough economic times, so they are somewhat recession proof. That is our fault for being dependent on oil, not theirs.

True.

[bawstin]

Well said BeanTownBrawler. Also, the whole housing bubble/mortgage crisis was created artificially in large part due to government intervention, and we saw how that worked out. Yet Barney Frank continues to get reelected by the people of Massachusetts....

I'm assuming that you're referring to the idea that the housing collapse is due to liberals pushing for greater lending to minorities, who then went on to ruin everything for anybody. This is one of the biggest BS memes that has been pushed in the wake of the housing crisis.

If you want to pick the single most culpable group of actors, take a look at the ratings agencies that rated the derivatives. They sold their souls when they gave them AAA ratings. They're supposed to provide the information that makes the market function rationally and they failed. No AAA rating, no market for the derivatives. No market for the derivatives, no outrageous subprime loans. No outrageous subprime loans, no housing bubble. (No housing bubble, much bigger dot-com bust at the beginning of the decade, but that's another story ...)

[MyInsatiableOne]

Well said BeanTownBrawler. Also, the whole housing bubble/mortgage crisis was created artificially in large part due to government intervention, and we saw how that worked out. Yet Barney Frank continues to get reelected by the people of Massachusetts....

I'm assuming that you're referring to the idea that the housing collapse is due to liberals pushing for greater lending to minorities, who then went on to ruin everything for anybody. This is one of the biggest BS memes that has been pushed in the wake of the housing crisis.

If you want to pick the single most culpable group of actors, take a look at the ratings agencies that rated the derivatives. They sold their souls when they gave them AAA ratings. They're supposed to provide the information that makes the market function rationally and they failed. No AAA rating, no market for the derivatives. No market for the derivatives, no outrageous subprime loans. No outrageous subprime loans, no housing bubble. (No housing bubble, much bigger dot-com bust at the beginning of the decade, but that's another story ...)

Actually this is 100% the truth...it started with the Clinton administration putting pressure on the banks to do exactly this, and then Fannie and Freddie padding the pockets of the leftists in DC while taking more and more from Uncle Sam. Now we have the collapse, and because of the completely in the tank mainstream media, it's been blamed solely on Republicans and Bush. Do I think some people got greedy on Wall St and are to blame? Sure do. But the blaming of a crisis almost 100% their doing on the opposition party is a stunning achievement for the Dems/Socialists and is something their likely proud of, while the rest of us should be revolted. Contrary to what they and loads of others think, home-ownership and the right to a nice income are NOT "human rights", they are privileges. I didn't spend 7 extra years after college working my ass off and getting paid **** so that I could earn 6 figures now to support lazy **** who don't want to work. My $$ is not their right.

[Athanacropolis]

Well said BeanTownBrawler. Also, the whole housing bubble/mortgage crisis was created artificially in large part due to government intervention, and we saw how that worked out. Yet Barney Frank continues to get reelected by the people of Massachusetts....

I'm assuming that you're referring to the idea that the housing collapse is due to liberals pushing for greater lending to minorities, who then went on to ruin everything for anybody. This is one of the biggest BS memes that has been pushed in the wake of the housing crisis.

If you want to pick the single most culpable group of actors, take a look at the ratings agencies that rated the derivatives. They sold their souls when they gave them AAA ratings. They're supposed to provide the information that makes the market function rationally and they failed. No AAA rating, no market for the derivatives. No market for the derivatives, no outrageous subprime loans. No outrageous subprime loans, no housing bubble. (No housing bubble, much bigger dot-com bust at the beginning of the decade, but that's another story ...)

I'm not just picking on liberals man--there were a whole host of people who were pushing for these bad loans to be given out on all sides. And of course the ratings agencies are to blame, but there were incentives to doing this.

To accuse me of mindlessly bashing liberals, after reading my other posts on this thread, is pretty unfair. I'm no bomb-thrower.

[greenbeans]

WOW. . somebody's an avid FOX news fan

edit: directed at MyInsatiable

[Athanacropolis]

WOW. . somebody's an avid FOX news fan

edit: directed at MyInsatiable

I don't mean to turn this post into a discussion on the news media, but....

I never understood that criticism, seriously. Pew just released a poll showing that Fox had the fairest positive coverage-to-negative coverage ratio of this past election. When it comes to commentators and opinion programs, sure, Fox leans right (in that it has more than one token conservative), but their straight-up hard news coverage is pretty damn objective (and no, Roger Ailes isn't paying me anything to say this--I just call 'em how I see 'em ) Feel free to disagree--just no personal attacks, thanks.

Also, how can any station with Chris Mathews, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, claim to not also be ideologically driven. I just don't get it.

Here's the study: http://www.journalism.org/node/13436

Handy chart:

[DorfonCeltics]

WOW. . somebody's an avid FOX news fan

edit: directed at MyInsatiable

I don't mean to turn this post into a discussion on the news media, but....

I never understood that criticism, seriously. Pew just released a poll showing that Fox had the fairest positive coverage-to-negative coverage ratio of this past election. When it comes to commentators and opinion programs, sure, Fox leans right (in that it has more than one token conservative), but their straight-up hard news coverage is pretty damn objective (and no, Roger Ailes isn't paying me anything to say this--I just call 'em how I see 'em ) Feel free to disagree--just no personal attacks, thanks.

Also, how can any station with Chris Mathews, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, claim to not also be ideologically driven. I just don't get it.

Here's the study: http://www.journalism.org/node/13436

Handy chart:

+1

Fox's coverage of the election was top notch. I'm a registered democrate and I felt myself settling in on their coverage as much as CCN with all their new found gagets. While I normally don't like the hatred that O'Reilly and Cavuto spew, Fox's election coverage was really good.

[kperk43]

Do you think the McCain campain was good, does it deserve to be fair and balanced just to be fair and balanced.