2010 midterm elections

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
The election results are not what they are because of paralysis. They are for *exactly* the opposite reason.

I'm sure that's how CNN and NYT will spin it, though . . . btw, aren't you a bit disappointed with how their coverage mislead you? Their projections and "toss ups" weren't even close. Everything seems to be going exactly the way the major independent pollsters predicted. But you don't get to hear about them on CNN and NYT.

Even Obama's old seat didn't go to his financier friend. The only unfortunate thing is Harry Reid has 6 more years. Well, perhaps we'll luck out and Harry will remain majority leader. I sorta like him as the face of the Progressive party.

 
Yes, yes and yes twoboxer. Boo CNN/MSNBC. Really right on about Reid too. Admonishing the majority leader would have been the topper. Like CA, Nevada wants more punishment and despair. They got it.
 
I'm listening to returns - and will until about 4AM eastern. But it looks like 65 seats +/-2.

Quite a statement.

Earlier in this thread we had a couple of international folks comment. I fully appreciate they often have a different world view. And unfortunately most of the international coverage of US affairs is done via CNN and NYT (and AP) feeds. So this is going to be quite a shock to them.

I had the privilege of spending some time in Europe in 2005, and was often asked to explain how Bush got re-elected. Tomorrow I wish I could watch them shaking their heads over what the Americans have done. Again.
 



yep. In '08 Obama was uber goodles in bringing about a new era of change with fresh new faces readied to rid Washington of the tired old hacks of yesteryear. Under his leadership, DC yielded the reins of power to a group of fresh, young, idealistic, new-idea outsiders like Nancy Pelosi. :sol:

The first paragraph of that article caught my attention and is worth repeating.

Quote:

Lady Gaga has proved herself more powerful than the House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, by achieving the 7th position in the new Forbes list of the world’s most powerful women. Nancy appears 11th in the list after Ellen DeGeneres

My comment: That is the most fupped duck four women I can think of. And linked together in one thought when discussing the most powerful women in society is impossible. :lol:
 


+1 I hope some of the Euro's saw this and learned from it. :)
 
I too played "Pick Your Parasite!" yesterday, but unlike the majority of American sheeple, I do not anticipate Government being able to solve problems, even if Government created them.
By the late summer of 2012, I expect WWIII will loom, as the US, China, and Russia eye one another over the wasteland that the Middle East will have become since a limited nuclear exchange in the region (Israel will take the first hit). Europe will be marginalized as no one there will dare to get involved. American pseudo-freedom will endure, but US standard of living will fall through the floor as China emerges as the dominant economic power. Full scale nuclear war will be avoided only because everyone knows that would wipe out humanity, but the necessary agreements will usher in the New World Order (although of a different type than the conspiracy theorists surmise).
 
Here's the only thing you got wrong: There's a large group of folks who will have the bomb who do NOT see any problem with wiping out humanity.

After all, the real reward for them lies in "heaven".

 
Just watched his press conference. After repeated attempts, one presser asked "You said "D" was for "Drive" and "R" for "Reverse . . . do you think the election results mean the voters think its "D" policies that are taking us in the wrong direction?"

His answer: "No".

I think his assessment is dead wrong, but we shall see.
 
+1 couldn't agree more. Obama can not handle rejection. Deep down He feels Republicans are the problem or 'enemy'. Unlike Clinton did, Obama will not be able to move to the center. He is a lame duck and will have an atrocious resume by 2012. Republicans just need to put the right person up for election in 2012 and Obama is long gone. It won't be easy. Wait, maybe it will.
 
The problem is, listen to Marco Rubio
Then see what the Feds done, then see how things are called socialism
Follow all these things, and it leads to a different US, one more like Europe, and more so, since theyre trying to get away from it somewhat
 

Ah, but they won't have enough of them, or the means to deliver them much beyond their region. What few they have left will also likely be destroyed in the retaliation for their "first strike," even if that first one was delivered by some radical diaperheads into whose hands it was [deliberately] allowed to fall. It is concern over their energy supply that will have the three remaining powers in a standoff.
 
Look for Obama to get a boost when the Bush tax cuts are extended. This would be the first right move He makes to improve the economy. Private business will use otherwise non expendile cash/credit to hire and carry on with business as usual knowing their taxes won't be raised. Same can be said for a boost when Obamacare funding is blocked. All Obamacare has done is raise my health insurance payment by a couple of thousand dollars this year. That is about it as far as Obama is great gets.
 
Not so sure. If the pending tax increase were a real reason for lack of investment, then a 2-year postponement will have absolutely no effect on investment decisions. Period. Waste of money. No one starts a business because a prohibitive cost is postponed two years. No one.

The hesitancy on business's part stems from (a) absolutely unknown healthcare cost increases resulting from the new law, (b) absolutely unknown energy costs due to cap and trade, (c) absolutely unknown business operating environment due to expectation that EPA will regulate carbon even without cap and trade, (d) spending and government growth in the face of already unpayable debt - which means the only answer is bankruptcy or taxes (like energy costs) "necessarily skyrocketing", and (e) no end in sight to the "safety net" programs Dems want to provide while at the same time pursuing an open-border policy.

There's more, lots more, but the point is there's little to be gained by a *temporary* compromise on temporarily extending the "Bush" tax cuts for >$250m. It doesn't remove uncertainty, because this specific tax increase is NOT the problem.

It's policy, ideology, and what has to come next if we don't change course quickly. The math just cannot work.
 
In our business, we don't want to make more money than we do already do if we have to give it back in taxes. If the Bush tax cuts are not extended, we will close more days next year. Why make the money and give it back in taxes. We are not interestedi in expanding our personal business creating jobs and income if the government takes it. Simple and true.
 
In the past, the tax code was structured so that earning the next dollar *never* cost you more than a dollar in more taxes. You just couldn't keep as much of that dollar as you did the one before it. So it always made sense to earn more. Always.

Not so sure today - no longer watch tax code that carefully - but I doubt the situation has changed.
 
Individual mid income taxes would go up significantly also should those Bush tax cuts not be extended. Maybe that's what Obamam supporters need to understand what their guy's tax hikes mean in real terms, their pockets. Perhaps someone can prvide a link as to just how much money will be taken for Obama's new tax plans.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom