• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

2010 Midterm Results Discussion

dems have an advantage in that poorly educated and ignorant people tend to reproduce at faster rates than intelligent and self sufficient people and dem policies since FDR has been to subsidize the creation and expansion of the poorly educated and dependent class.[/QUOTE}

....who grow up to be tea partiers....
 
The RCP average (as opposed to polls that you handpick to make your case) currently has him at 45.4%. That's nothing for Obama to brag about, but it's not terrible and hardly evidence of an electorate furious with him. In fact, it's almost exactly the same as Bush's approval rating on the eve of his narrow reelection in 2004.


Aaaaaaaand more random attacks against my place of residence rather than discussing anything substantive. You're on a roll.

Many confuse personal approval with policy approval. That wave election as you called it was historic and carried over into the states. It is the Obama policies that continue to be the issue, NOT Obama as a person. I don't like his arrogance nor his resume but other than that he seems like a very nice guy.
 
dems have an advantage in that poorly educated and ignorant people tend to reproduce at faster rates than intelligent and self sufficient people and dem policies since FDR has been to subsidize the creation and expansion of the poorly educated and dependent class.[/QUOTE}

....who grow up to be tea partiers....

Let's see, an historic election last night rejecting Obama's 4 million added to the unemployment roles since he took office and 3 trillion to the debt and that is the best you can do? Don't blame you for being scared of any American who dares stand up for the Constitution.
 
dems have an advantage in that poorly educated and ignorant people tend to reproduce at faster rates than intelligent and self sufficient people and dem policies since FDR has been to subsidize the creation and expansion of the poorly educated and dependent class.[/QUOTE}

....who grow up to be tea partiers....

that claim of yours is barren of facts and seems to be spawned by bitterness. the average tea-party attendee is certainly better educated that the groups that gave Obama his highest levels of support in terms of percentages
 
Facts don't bring facts into this discussion-soundbites, now that's more like it.

that makes no sense-could you try again please?
 
Repbulicans took over Congress, Bill Clinton staed "Big government is over", and we had a hugely prosperous decade, thanks solely and only to Newt and the Republicans. I'm sure your college professor lied and told you differently.

I don't need a college professor to tell me your response was revisionist history.
 
Revisionist history? Offer verifiable actual facts to refute the statement?

I'm really not sure what you believe that the Republican Congress did to make the late 90s prosperous. The fact is that neither Congress nor the President can do much to impact the short-term state of the economy, for better or for worse. In fact, the entity with the most direct control over that is the Federal Reserve.

The US economy is far too complex for a few new congressional acts to radically alter its course in the short term. Tax cuts are too slow and don't necessarily induce spending. Stimuli are slightly better, but tend to only be used during recessions (and rightly so). No other policy changes can significantly impact the short-term state of the economy at all.

The reason we had an economic boom in the late 90s was not because of Bill Clinton or Newt Gingrich or anyone else. It was due to the popularization of the world wide web and the globalization of countries that formerly had centrally planned economies.
 
Last edited:
Holy ****, this thread has grown quite rapidly.

I decided not to read past page 57, as it was getting noticeably partisan, and thus, predictable.

Plus, I’m lazy.

Anyone else go to the polls at around 1400-1500 in PA?

When I dropped by on my way to work, my local polling place was remarkably uncrowded.

I’m guessing because most people don’t go to work in that time period, at least in my small town area.
 
I'm really not sure what you believe that the Republican Congress did to make the late 90s prosperous. The fact is that neither Congress nor the President can do much to impact the short-term state of the economy, for better or for worse. In fact, the entity with the most direct control over that is the Federal Reserve.

The US economy is far too complex for a few new congressional acts to radically alter its course in the short term. Tax cuts are too slow and don't necessarily induce spending. Stimuli are slightly better, but tend to only be used during recessions (and rightly so). No other policy changes can significantly impact the short-term state of the economy at all.

The reason we had an economic boom in the late 90s was not because of Bill Clinton or Newt Gingrich or anyone else. It was due to the popularization of the world wide web and the globalization of countries that formerly had centrally planned economies.

Check out the Contract with America. It is all about direction and attitude. The GOP Congress repealed many of the Clinton tax increases which created economic incentive and incentive drives our economy.
 
Results up to date as of 7:15 est

The Democrats should have thought about moderation, BEFORE they locked Republocans out of Health care negotiations. I'm sure they will recieve the same courtesy they just gave in 2009.
 
btw, does anyone know anything about the total POPULAR vote for this election?
 
The Democrats should have thought about moderation, BEFORE they locked Republocans out of Health care negotiations. I'm sure they will recieve the same courtesy they just gave in 2009.

i have found nothing which indicates the republicans were locked out of any health care negotiations. i recall Obama specifically requesting the republicans engage in the dialogue. please point to those things that excluded the republicans from an opportunity to debate the national health care issue
 
The Democrats should have thought about moderation, BEFORE they locked Republocans out of Health care negotiations. I'm sure they will recieve the same courtesy they just gave in 2009.

The way GOPers have thought about "moderation" all these years? :lamo
 
Once again, a lovely sounding platitude from the right wing that conveniently ignores some ugly realities.

My brother had major heart surgery earlier this year to treat a genetic heart defect that had become life-threatening. (IOW, he did not have heart problems because of unhealthy lifestyle.) The good news: he survived the surgery. The bad news: he has not recovered enough to be able to return to work, and his out of pocket medical expenses, which run into six figures, far more than his income, have forced him into bankruptcy.

This is not an unusual problem

I am glad to hear that the surgeries were successful for your brother. Isn't it great that we have the greatest doc's in the world that can pull off these miracles on a daily basis?

As for bankruptcy over Medical costs, it is a problem, and one that I don't think you'll find anyone here saying that it should go unaddressed. However, you said that your brothers condition was a genetic defect, so it was one he knew had to be taken care of at some point no? How much did he save while he was working to mitigate these costs? Did he take advantage of the programs that most hospitals, and even the government offers in cases like these?

Hard to make a real determination unless the entire story is told.

j-mac
 
You're asking me for facts when you did not provide any? You're kidding right? :lamo:lamo:lamo

I always provide verifiable facts from bea.gov, bls.gov, and the U.S. Treasury Dept. Still laughing after the historic repudiation of the Obama agenda on Tuesday night?
 
Last edited:
the education product is already inferior...competition will not make it worse (probably can't make it worse...just sayin)

medicine is not inferior, BECAUSE there is competition HEAVY competition.

Largely, that's not true either. Most schools are pretty good, and students with involved parents and motivation to do well, do well. They are pockets of problem schools, and there problems will not eb fixed by competition. Uninvolved parents in inner city problem areas have more problems than competition can fix. We have this utpoian mindset concerning competition which ignores some of the real draw backs. We can deal with rent-to-own type atlernatives, paying more for less, but education is too important to treat as a commodity. Same with medicine.

And medicine is inferior for some. And that is the point. Competition has made it so health care is great for those who can afford it, but not so much for those who can't. Some simply do get inferior care.
 
I always provide verifiable facts from bea.gov, bls.gov, and the U.S. Treasury Dept. Still laughing after the historic repudiation of the Obama agenda on Tuesday night?

You throw numbers out there without context. Numbers alone don't tell the story.

So. While we're on this subject, repudiation? Might I remind you, several presidents who lost this many seats in a mid term were re-elected. And the way things look for the GOP, he will get re-elected, since they can't seem to scrounge up a single decent candidate to run in 2012.

I think.... O'Donnel/Palin would be a good ticket ;)
 
This is easy.

in a capitalistic society prices are set to maximize profits. If your operating expenses are too high, or you charge too much because you want even more profit, competition can come in with a lower price, thereby stealing your business. If you don't adjust, you go out of business.

Explain how it works in a world where competition ceases to exist. how do prices get set and what pressure exists to push prices down?

For many things that works just fine. But take medicine. You're daughter has been hurt, or is iill, or needs an expenive treatment. Explain to me how you negotiate. What's your leverage? Can you walk away? Go to a city with more than one hospital, is one much cheaperr than another? Not likely. What you describe works with those things you can reasonably effect by being able to walk away. Medicne lacks that control. So does education in a large way. Those most in need suffer not because the product is inferior, but because the obsticles in their path hinders everyone. Competition will only make that gap larger. A cheaper version, an inferior version will be created to take that poor money. Maybe give a grade, but not show concern for actual learning.
 
You throw numbers out there without context. Numbers alone don't tell the story.

So. While we're on this subject, repudiation? Might I remind you, several presidents who lost this many seats in a mid term were re-elected. And the way things look for the GOP, he will get re-elected, since they can't seem to scrounge up a single decent candidate to run in 2012.

I think.... O'Donnel/Palin would be a good ticket ;)

No President since 1938 lost as many seats as Obama thus making this election historic and that is context. Not worried about a decent candidate in 2012 as Obama got elected with the worst resume in U.S. history.

For some reason it is always a question of context when anyone posts actual data. The actual data IS context.
 
No President since 1938 lost as many seats as Obama thus making this election historic and that is context.

FDR was re-elected in 1940. Presidents Truman and Clinton also survived mid-term electoral routs. The 2010 election outcome will probably have little bearing on the outcome of the 2012 Presidential election if history is a guide. Factors such as the state of the economy, how Republicans govern (e.g., did they follow through on their key campaign commitments), whether one side or the other overreaches, who will be the Republican nominee, etc., will have a larger bearing.
 
Back
Top Bottom