Republicans take back control

[trappincoyotes39]

Well interesting mid term elections made. It seems more and more dems are distancing themselves from President Obama I feel they are getting ready for elections in 2016. The question now will be will some things get done in congress and will our president become even more lame duck? I found it interesting e is now willing to meet with the republicans in his office on moving forward.........

I hope we can see some positive things done in the next two years and not a senate that sat ideal for the last 4 basically. Our country ends engaged people to make positive chnages I have some doubt but we shall see what if anything this election cycle means for our country.

Obama will have a tougher time with some aspects no doubt . Appts and things will not be so easy in the future.

Your thoughts on the way people voted on Tuesday?

[bogio]

Do you suppose obama will remember this statement: ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES

Congradulations Joni Ernst!

[trappnman]

I really don't understand- I mean it falls into the category of mindblowing- that after 6 years of absolute, definitive obstructionism, that anyone could blame Obama. kind of like getting stuck in the middle of a corn field- and railing against the DOT for not having it plowed good enough.

but this election was stacked for the republicans- expected to happen. but now, I hope the republicans don't spend the next 2 years, doing what they did the past 6.

they aren't going to get anything repealed- because they could never get a veto override- so I strongly suspect, the 2 two years WILL be like the past 6.

I was just happy MN reelected democratic gov, all statewide offices for democrats- and really happy that douchebag Mills was defeated.

[bogio]

Harry Reid was the obstruction.

[James]

Well, the Republicans can no longer blame Dems if Congress is dead-locked and doesn't accomplish anything or shuts down government.

Jim

[PamIsMe]

I just don't understand how people can overwhelming vote to raise the minimum wage, then vote in candidates from the party that opposes it.

Personally I think the Dem candidates made a mistake by not standing solidly with the President. I don't think they know what they stand for any more.

Oh well, I try to look for a bright side, at least we won't have to keep being harassed about rampant voter fraud any longer. lol

[trappincoyotes39]

Tman and Pam you want more dems to stand solid behind a president that has accomplished what? The dems did not want him campaigning for them, they are pulling away because that was their only hope to get Re elected. His approval rating is in the tank, dead lock in Washington is a two way street not one, Obama said he would do what he could on his own, nothing has been done in the senate in years and that is all the party without controls fault?

He now makes a plea Tao meet with republicans as he knows what the future could hold and his selections for many important positions will not be slam dunks before he leaves office that is a major point going forward.

I hope they can accomplish things in the next two years we shall see if they stay divided or come together, the republicans have a majority but still not enough to go it alone.

many people voted against the dems because of Obama many of them middle road people and many democrats themselves switched their votes. It is not hard to see why they have pulled away from Obama. Michelle Obama comes to Iowa and mis pronounces the name of the person she is stumping for not,once but twice before being reminded again of the persons last name. Even the crowd who was their to root on their democratic had to tell her your not pronouncing the name right. Think she really cared she was even in Iowa? that gets to voters no matter how staunch they may be.

The debt is massive, job growth is very slow, nothing getting done in DC the states take on more and more of federal mandates and people wonder why their was a changing of the guard? many have said the Republican Party was dead never to see a Republican president elected for many years, Mitch M in Kentucky had very low approval rating and some of it for good reason yet he still wins, like the state of Mass hardly ever votes for a republican.

The time has come for them all to be heard or many more incumbents will feel the wrath of people across this country that work hard and watch as the middle class and medium income ranges keep falling while the price of just about everything keeps rising. I am glad most if my kids are either in college or will be in the next two years to try and raise a family of 3-4 kids today with where our country is? Would be very tough! very tough indeed.

[trappincoyotes39]

Pam what positive effect would raising minimum wage have? You have a work force made up of retired people far more than you have 16-21 year olds working in this day and age. So we raise minimum wage to say 10.00 per hour still has no real effect on anyone, except the cost of goods would go up accordingly. If wal mart, mcdonalds, Arby's, menards, lowes ,Home Depot and many others all had to pay 10 minimum what do you think the cost of goods and services would do? they would go up as the profits will not go down. So raising min wage would have no real effect except for people could say we raised minimum wage big deal.

To think anyone with the cost of goods and services, state and local taxes, gas, car insurance etc could live off 10 per hr is unrealistic. The net gain would be nothing except create more taxation which is that good for the worker or the tax collector?

The minimum wage thing has been exhausted over the years, the market will bare what people make you can move to Williston, ND and make 15 per hour at the mcdonalds, why? Becuase they cannot find the help as many work the oil fields for far more and the traffic is very high their. Does mcdonalds want to pay that? No of course not but that is what the market bears if they want to keep the doors open.

[trappnman]

TC- its silly to worry about the middle class, and vote republican.

couldn't agree more Pam

[trappincoyotes39]

Tman that is where WE differ, I think it is silly to vote democrat and think the middle to upper middle class will ever get ahead with them controlling things, as taxes and federal programs continue to grow. The middle class have a better chance and we have more growth with less taxes and not more on a federal level for the higher 10 percent of people in this country. So taxing the rich so to speak is not a sound investment in our economy.

Here is a real good look at some numbers through the ages prior to Obama. Note many of this information is from the IRS itself.

www.aei.org/publication/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes/

By looking at this it would seem that while popular with some, adding a larger burden on the rich while offering little REAL gain for debt reduction 553 billion over 10 years when our deficit sits at 16 trillion, is well silly at best and will stifle job growth and investments and keep middle class people with less jobs and lower wages.

The benefactors will be low income people as they will still get the govt programs and much of the so called increased revenue always gets spent of more federal programs. I for one feel it is time to ween more people off the federal program list and get our unemployment below 5 percent a real 5 percent not funny numbers counting PT workers as part of the work force which we all know PT jobs does little for a middle income family.

[bblwi]

Below are my thoughts and a bit of summary

A lot of moderates and independents turned out nationwide and voted center right or GOP this round. That has given the GOP a chance to lead in legislation to bring to the WH for approval or veto. If the minority (Dems) are given a chance to offer input then there may be some movement in Congress and government overall. I hope the GOP taking the Senate will break the gridlock and move us forward.
The Chamber of Commerce in the USA went out and tapped some moderate and business oriented candidates and they won in important swing states and districts. That shows some real improvement in the GOP as to searching for electable candidates. Let us hope they continue that mode in 2016.
Reid's decision to not have Democratic Senators have to take votes on sensitive issues like immigration etc. may well have hurt more than helped many Dems in vulnerable states.
It will now be up to the WH to decide if they want to work with Congress and compromise on legislation or if the WH will just utilize more executive authority and not work with Congress. We will see.
I am sure many voters are going to be watching the GOP closely the next two years to see how they react to having the majority position in both houses.
In 2016 the GOP has 24 senators up for election and the Dems have 10 so there will be opportunity for change if voters feel they were duped or not heard.
The fact that the GOP is doing very well in governor races bodes well for future candidates for president. Not very likely that presidential candidates will be coming from Congress with their low ratings and there is little executive leadership training there. The senate can provide great opportunity for foreign affairs knowledge and leadership but that is about it and voters want serious domestic change in the near future.
Bryce

[trappincoyotes39]

I will note that it takes people willing to make change and be able to actually get something done in order for any of this to be useful to the general American work force. that is the sad truth as we have too many on both side of the isle looking to play politics rather than enact things that can make positive changes for the people of our country. I do not count more federal assistance for any length of time to be a positive change for our people. it mask or puts a band aid on the real issues effecting our country.

The dumbest thing I think Bush did was the year he gave out money to everyone and then taxed them on the free money at the end of the year, that was a horrible plan that was not going to work. A band aid just like many of the federal assistance programs and how they have increased the dollars earned in order to qualify for much of it.

[mmwb (Andrew Parker)]

I don't see that either party is much of an asset to the middle class. It will be more matter of the character and priorities of those elected, then which party they are in, that will make a difference. If the republicans will do something good the next two years, then they will have good odds to get a republican president. If they do nothing or screw up, it will be to the democrats' advantage.

[PamIsMe]

"...adding a larger burden on the rich ..."

Sort of an oxymoron I'd say since the rich have very little tax burden on their incomes compared to the middle class.
And don't give me that line about the rich being taxed at 35%, we all know that's not true.

"For example, the Treasury’s estimate was that the top 1 percent of earners would pay 31 percent of taxes if the Bush cuts did not go into effect; with the cuts, they actually paid 37 per­cent. Similarly, the share of the top 10 percent of earners was estimated at 63 percent without the cuts; they actually paid 68 percent."

What kind of mumbo jumbo is that?

Maybe this is why? "A 2011 study by the CBO found that the top earning 1 percent of households increased their income by about 275% after federal taxes and income transfers over a period between 1979 and 2007, compared to a gain of just under 40% for the 60 percent in the middle of America's income distribution."

Pam

[trappnman]

yes, the tax burden of the rich, is something even FAUX is embarrassed to bring up.

I was hoping the Dems kept control- but at the same time, as one commentator put it- all the swing elections, were in effect "home games" for Republicans so it was completely expected.

Bryce brings up a good point that in 2 years- with a presidential election with a widely popular candidate on the dems side, and real incentive to turn out the vote, that 24 reps will be up for re-election, vs 10 dems- leaving the reps in the same situation the dems were in this year, so its doubtful the senate will start in GOP hands for more than those 2 years. The House? different story- the reps have gerrymandered it so effectively (should be a national scandal- was in decades past) that it will be very hard to take control from the GOP for many years.

Lets hope that congress doesn't waste their time, and our money, voting on ideological bills that will have no chance at succeeding.

its going to be and interesting, and I fear unproductive 2 years-

yes TC, we do think different- when the national leaders of a party, come out immediately after the election of a president, and state boldly (no subtle under tones here) that their plan of operation, was to stifle any programs of that president, and to ensure nothing gets done.

wow- I read that and think what a bunch of assholes- wasting time and money when we need leadership the most (40 some freaking repeal HC bills- people working DAC work harder, and smarter)- and TC thinks......cool.

[PamIsMe]

" ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES"

Indeed they do and if nothing constructive gets done in the next 2 years, the Repubs no longer have the Dems to blame it on.
And, there's a bigger election voter turnout coming in 2 years.

Cheers,
Pam

[bobbrennan1]

Hey pam maybe they can say its bushs fault! That seems to have worked for the last 6 years! Both parties suck it's just like asking how you want to get beat up when you vote!

[trappincoyotes39]

The idea that the middle income people are footing the largest of the taxes is pure bunk a liberial folly to keep soaking a singular group the high income earners.

here are factual data from the IRS and CBO concerning this matter. So while some complain the rich have some tax loops look at the numbers from the federal govt and see even if some loop holes exist they would be paying even a higher burden without them. Again facts.


BY over taxing job creators you stifle job growth when you have to figure in all input cost and taxation at times it makes little sense to expand for many business owners. Wd are not talking Fortune 500 even people making a few million a year fit the criteria.



www.cnbc.com/id/101264757


www.aei.org/publication/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes/

[trappincoyotes39]

Tman please copy and paste the exact words and who used them ,stating what you did in your last post........... That their plan was to stifle and see nothing gets done. Thanks.

[trappnman]

"In 1952, corporations paid 32% of all federal taxes. Today, despite record-breaking profits, they pay less than 10% and 1 out of 4 large corporations pay NOTHING in federal income taxes. The wealthy and large corporations must pay their fair share of taxes. We need real tax reform" Sen Bernie Sanders (I-Vt)

2 years ago, the GOP candidate campaigned hard on the myth that the wealthy, etc paid far to much in taxes- strangely enough, the truth was that Romney never paid over 20%, and in the years before his nomination he paid from 11-13%.

you pay 13%?

no?

me neither.


but yet some believe, and even pontificate on how the wealthy pay too much-

too bad we didn't have some sort of mechanism to be able to check that.......