With Arlen Specter now a D, Dems at brink of 60

The real thing Repubs are upset about with Spector is that Spector sees which way the wind is blowing and that the Republican party is fast becoming an irrelevant party, and the American people are fast rejecting their radical right slant. The Republican party is basically has become a party of radicals while the Democrats are seen as centrists by the majority of Americans

• Link
• Report this comment

Budget deficits

• Link
• Report this comment

I’d glad that Spector has become so comfortable with the Notheast’s radical shift to a radical liberal agenda. Maybe he can divorce his wife and marry his boyfriend which would check all the boxes for this loser.

• Link
• Report this comment

This is good news today. Now maybe we can get the remaining 3 or 4 sensible Republitards to do the same and join the 21st century. I predict that before too long, all that will be left of the Repub Party will be the Book of Genesis addicts.

• Link
• Report this comment

Not at all. I got kicked off a liberal website for DEFENDING Liebernans decision to vote the way he did, largely because it was a position held by a very large percentage of his own constituency in Connecticut.he voted on Iraq the way his constituency wanted him to vote. His constituency is largely very pro Israel and their position was very much pro Iraq War. On the other side on every other issue he was reliably liberal in his vote, so taking him to task over that one position was inappropriate. The result of him running as an independent proved that his constituents still favored his position over that of the person the Democrats nominated to run on the Democratic ticket.

• Link
• Report this comment

I absolutely opposed the position the Democrats took with joe Lieberman regarding his vote on Iraq, because it was largely the position that was taken by Liebermans own constituency. He was on the whole a reliable liberal voter on 99 percent of all other votes, and to take him to task over that single vote and put up another candidate against him was inappropriate. Just as it is for Mitch McConnell and others to threaten Spector, Snowe and Collins for their vote on the stimulus.

• Link
• Report this comment

Oh Dave, Dave, Dave, poor little pitiful thang!

muahahahhahahah!

• Link
• Report this comment

Spector is an issue only to the dimwitted who beleive that there is a difference between the democrats and republicans. Carreer politicians are carreer politicians. Crooked scum all.

• Link
• Report this comment

Spector just came out of the closet. He has been voting (D) for years. Now rather than duplicitous scum, he’s just scum.

• Link
• Report this comment

The entire outcry about Specter’s switching parties is sheer hysteria. I’ve seen no evidence that all Democrats will vote in lock-step, even if the party were to get a 60-vote majority. The Blue Dog Democrats can’t afford to offend their constituencies, which are largely moderate to moderately conservative.

• Link
• Report this comment

GOP = IGNORANCE

N.J.,

These wingnuts ignore facts. They just spout what they’ve heard from their masters (Rush, Sean, Ann, Neal) even when presented with facts.

• Link
• Report this comment

Simply by letting those two tax cuts expire, the deficit vanished and the national debt gets paid down.

None of the supply side revenues that Republicans from Reagan to Bush43 have ever been realized and the government has had to borrow every year to function. The borrowing will become unneccessary when the tax cuts expire. The same projected surpluses that would have been available had Bush not given his tax cuts becomes realizable.

• Link
• Report this comment

This recession is little more than the bill coming due on ‘w’s credit card economics.

How come nobody is asking ‘why’ Arlen jumped ship?

Because we all know – nobody likes a loser.

• Link
• Report this comment

Not leaving the Republican party is the equivalent of being a guard at Auschwitz and not leaving after you saw how the gas chamber worked.

• Link
• Report this comment

Their strategy was two-fold: first, stoke the resentment of the population about the calamitous state of its living conditions-no matter that those conditions had been created by the very right-wing oligarchs who now pretended to befriend the little guy. Rage is rage. It is glandular and unseeing. Once catalyzed it is easy to turn on any subject.

A look inside the playbook.

• Link
• Report this comment

It not over yet. There are still Collins and Snowe to consider and if the Republicans leadership put up alternative candidates to these two they might make the same choice.

• Link
• Report this comment

What NJ wants us to ignore is all the spending going on outside the historically high 3.5 T budget. Which is only 400 Billion higher than the last historically high budget by dems that was 800 B in the red. Not to mention the huge drop in the GDP. Which put us at about 77% debt to GDP. Damage that will take generations to pay off.

Of course, its not going to be paid off by those paying no federal taxes(mostly democrats)…, luckily for Obama, and therefore gets rave reviews from the media pushing an agenda.

• Link
• Report this comment

Nope, Obama’s repeal already factored that in. There will be ZERO capital gains on the first 50,000 dollars of retirement income from investments on people who are also collecting Social Security. That is people who retire EARLY on investments will see their capital gains go up but those who retire after 63 wont pay a DIME in capital gains at all.

Obama has outsmarted the Republicans because all thesev old folks are being told by their tax preparers and brokers that they will be better off under Obama than under the current structure.

• Link
• Report this comment

Susan,
your 3:31 post might take the prize for the dumbest thing ever posted on this blog. I don’t know if you’re uneducated or just trying to get a rise out of people.

• Link
• Report this comment

Susan, your last post:

“Not leaving the Republican party is the equivalent of being a guard at Auschwitz and not leaving after you saw how the gas chamber worked.”

is completely and totally out of line. To take a ideological line of thought and equate it to the murder of millions in the name of racism goes beyond the pale. You are everything that is wrong with this country, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

• Link
• Report this comment

Of course what REALITY KING ignores is who Bush was borrowing 50 percent of the money he was spending from. Those people who pay payroll taxes saw their retirement income go to give tax cuts to people who pay almost nothing in payroll taxes at all.

Right wingers always conveniently forget that INCOME TAXES only account for 40 percent of government revenues and payroll taxes account for 40 percent of what the govenrment SPENDS each year.

The top two percent of income earners, those earning 350,000 dollars a year or more only pay payroll taxes on one third of that income and it accounts for less than one half of a percent of that 40 percent. The bottom 98 percent of income earners pay more to run the government than the income taxes of the top two percent do.

• Link
• Report this comment

Susan

125600 minutes……

• Link
• Report this comment

What al your figures mean, NJ, is that Hope & Change’s budgets will INCREASE our budget deficit almost double what it is now. Thanks for playing.

• Link
• Report this comment

Dave R,

Such a soretail loser you are!

muahahahhahahah!

• Link
• Report this comment

ty webb,

Your mind.

muahahahhahahah!

• Link
• Report this comment

And you are a hate-filled, drug-addled monster.

Now that we have all the name-calling out of the way, try posting something of substance. Wait! You can’t! You’re a liberal! Join the ranks of Ambling Veterinarian, Taxpayer, Copylefty and Midori as being a complete and total waste of oxygen.

• Link
• Report this comment

Here’s a fun piece about the fate of the GOP from the great orange satan.

GOP: Even more of a rump regional southern party

Here:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/4/28/725399/-untitled-story

Stats at the bottom of the article are interesting.

Republicans and Conservatives : America just isn’t that into you!

• Link
• Report this comment

Susan,
Yeah, you compare republicans to nazis gassing the jews, and I’M the crazy one.

• Link
• Report this comment

Coleman should not concede. Whenever two sets of rules are used to apply to ballots, there is no fairness or equality in an election. You Dems are big on disenfranchisement, but only when it applies to elections you think you lost.

If anything should be a do-over in elections, Minnesota would be the poster child.

• Link
• Report this comment

N.J.,

Quit presenting facts here. You’ll make our resident right wing fringe’s heads explode. ewwww

• Link
• Report this comment

One need only look at Europe to see what high deficit spending does to the unemployment rate and GDP. Has the GDP ever not grown under a president?? Might be, looks like, another historical first for Obama..

• Link
• Report this comment

Geeee NJ…, who pays the other 60% of taxes the govenrment SPENDS each year??

• Link
• Report this comment

And is Obama changing those super high Bush tax rates on the poor?????

• Link
• Report this comment

‘debate’ is not something you knuckledraggers partake in, Asbysmally Retarded.

I’ve been watching you sling your feces around.

It’s ok for you, but not for anyone else, correct? How dare someone respond to your filth in kind.

How “R”epublican of you.

• Link
• Report this comment

Midori why are you always concerned with others names?

• Link
• Report this comment

Mrs. Godzilla

I really don’t think he will. We’ve created a monster system wherein everything gets litigated. I think Bosch and I were talking about it one day – thought that if the initial vote was within so much of a percent that it should be an automatic do-over. We’ve this idea that even if it’s litigated and recounted and weighed and balanced it’s gonna be perfectly accurate – it’s not. It’s just the most accurate under the last set of circumstances laid down.

I still think this will likely go to the Supremes. And I think it would’ve gone there no matter which candidate would’ve been behind – in which case Coleman supporters would’ve been making the same arguments Franklin supporters are making now.

Dave R – NJ

Unless I’m mistaken, this is the first election in which we’ve seen Social Security taxes lumped in with Income taxes when discussing tax cuts, tax rebates, etc. Before then, SS was standalone, as it was designed. Then again, it was a way to avoid addressing the fact that a significant number of households pay no tax on earned income and could have weakened the ‘fairness’ argument. How can it be unfair that I earn significantly above the poverty level and pay no tax, when someone way above my earnings pays a lot of tax?

If certain politicians want to make an argument that Social Security taxes ought to be scaled according to income, they should make the case. But that is a road full of potholes.

• Link
• Report this comment

Hey Dave,

how’s that “permanent republican majority” working out for you?

• Link
• Report this comment

Check it out.

Most of the government spending was created under Reagan, largely for military spending and pretty much under threat of veto for additional Social Spending. Same thing with Bush. During his first six years as president he did not VETO a single massive increase in spending by the Republicans, but in his last two year when Democrats attempted to reign in his Iraq War soending and increase social spending Bush issued 12 vetoes and threatened to veto 40 times unless the Democrats removed social spending from the budget. Until the Democrats took office in 2006 Bush was one of the few presidents in history to never use the veto pen.

Reagan issued 78 vetoes agaist Democratic sponsored legislation. Carter used it 31 times, For 66, George H.W. Bush 44 times in 4 years. Clinton and Carter have the lowest veto record in the last 30 years. Republicans have used the veto far more often.

Why dont YOU get real about the “constitutional skills”

Bush basically gave the Republican majority a free hand and then started either vetoing or threatening vetoes at a rate of about two a month for the last two years.

• Link
• Report this comment

Bush’s very first veto of spending was of course a veto for Social Spending when Democrats wanted to add money to school and health care spending. He sent his budget back with increased for defense spending and threatened to veto any budget that increased social spending.

• Link
• Report this comment

Along with that the CBO study concluded that the long term effect of the Bush tax cuts would harm, not help the economy:

A growing number of studies from highly respected institutions and economists have concluded that the negative effect on long-term growth of the increased deficits that the tax cuts are generating is likely to cancel out and quite possibly to outweigh any positive effects on long-term growth from reductions in marginal tax rates and other tax incentives in the 2001 and 2003 tax-cut packages. Stated simply, the tax cuts are more likely to reduce long-term growth than to increase it.

Again the Bush tax cuts did not create jobs, as the unemployment rate rose consistantly and steadily throughout the Bush presidency.

The vast majority of Bush spending was in defense. Again almost no jobs were created in the United States as a result of Bush’s increased spending.

The FACTS about the Bush tax cuts and job creation:

Research Dispels Bush Claims That Tax Cuts Create Jobs
by Haider Rizvi

NEW YORK – Despite considerable opposition from lawmakers, including some within his Republican party, President George W. Bush seems determined to push ahead with plans to introduce further cuts in taxes for the rich, continuing to assert that it would create more jobs for the poor.

But the findings of a new study suggest that Bush’s claim on job creation is based more on political rhetoric than actual facts related to the nation’s economic realities.

“It’s a great sound bite that unfortunately does not hold true in the real world economy,” say authors of the report, entitled, “Nothing to Be Thankful For: Tax Cuts and the Deteriorating U.S. Job Market.”

Changes in tax policy suggest no evidence of their impact on job creation or destruction, according to the 22-page study released Tuesday by United for a Fair Economy (UFE), an independent group that tracks the growing economic divide between the nation’s haves and have-nots.

Since 1950, significant tax increases and decreases have both been followed by job losses and job gains, say the researchers.

Based on statistical analysis of changes in tax polices and rates of job growth in the past 60 years, the report points out that tax reduction does, however, disproportionately lead to economic disparity between the rich and poor.

“No workers have really benefited from President Bush’s tax policy,” says Gloribell Mota, a bilingual education specialist at UFE. “But Blacks and Latinos have suffered disproportionately.”

The study shows that African American unemployment remains about twice as high as that of White workers. Moreover, it indicates no sign of growth in quality jobs (defined as paying at least 16 dollars per hour and including health benefits and a pension plan) for workers from any racial background, including Whites.

Last year, one million people fell below the poverty line, a disproportionate number of them children, while the number of billionaires rose to 374, the study says, adding that the number of people living in poverty rose from 11.3 percent in 2000 to 12.7 percent in 2004.

The study also shows that the percentage of American workers benefiting from employment-based health insurance was down from 63 percent in 2000 to less than 60 percent in 2004. This despite the fact that U.S. workers are spending more than 1800 hours per year at work while their counterparts in other technologically advanced nations work for 1600 hours a year–a difference of five full work weeks.

In June 2003, the Bush administration had claimed that the president’s tax cut policy would create more than five million jobs by the end of 2004, but the study shows that only 2.6 million jobs were created–1.6 million less than what would have been expected without any special economic stimulus.

…The fact remains that from 1913 to date, tax cuts have NEVER stimulated the economy OR created jobs. Ever.

On the contrary, you cannot find a period in which Republican administrations enacted tax cuts that was not almost immediately followed by a relatively long and deep recession, and tax increases that followed them always resulted in a recovery.

• Link
• Report this comment

A lot of interesting points and counter points. Remember though, most Presidents create their legacies in their first term and defend their legacies in the second term .All of which means that losing a couple of seats in 2012 won’t matter that much because all of the major reforms will have been enacted. Also , remember that 2010 is an off year election. Traditionally, the party of the incumbent President loses seats in an off year election, so if Republicans actually lose seats in 2010 , then it is even more unlikely that 2012 will mark the “counter-revolution”. No, these last two election cycles have all the chracteristics of political realignmnet.

• Link
• Report this comment

Or finally, since the end of WWII, it has largely been Democrats who exhibited both fiscal restraint as well as federal spending that was stimulative of the economy, rather than a drain on it.

Looking back to every administration as far back as 1920, every Republican Administration has had at least one recession started in it, most have had two recessions, and most have presidend over lukewarm growth of GDP and lukewarm stock markets, which followed on the heels of tax cuts which led to speculative stock markets, rather than markets where share values reflected the actual net values of the assets of the companies issuing shares.

hoover presided over the speculative markets of the 1920’s fueled by excess wealth made available to the wealthy by dropping the top marginal tax rates from 70 percent under Wilson, to 25 percent by 1925. The market was not doing as well as real estate so the money of the wealthy went into speculative investment in real estate, specifically in Florida, and when the values of land collapsed below that of the stock market, money started being pulled from real estate, which had collapsed in value and dumped into the stock market, creating a market bubble which took about 3 years to burst.

Under Reagan, as REIT’s collapsed because there were more office buildings being built than renters to rent space in them, people again started shovelling money into the markets, junk bonds based on the REITs exploded in face value with nothing to support them and then the market collapsed. The economy entered a recession just as Reagans predecessor took office.

On the other hand while Carter was president, inflation was a problem but the recession that economists were predicting for two years never occured. Or at least not until Reagan was elected and started to institute his supply side economics. The economy entered a recession as Reagan started to attempt to give inflation his full attention, rather than other factors.

During the period of Reagan/Bush 41 the nation saw one huge collapse of the stock market and two relatively steep recessions.

A recession started at in April of 2000 under Clinton, but the market had recovered all of its value by the time Clinton left office. Bush changed policies immediately and then there was a full burst of the economic bubble.

• Link
• Report this comment