Latest Senate Vote finally representing the majority that elected them

[telcoman]

It's about time our senators finally got some balls.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33...eform/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...ub=AR

Telcoman

[audtatious]

Dems are working to acquire the votes via handouts to those Dems who don't support it.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/new...icaid-/

They have Harry Reid in the bag now as we are all going to be funding his state expansion of Medicaid as part of the Senate bill. The bill cost will go up and up and up while the Dems ponder schemes to buy off their own members.

[AZhitman]

I'm gonna post like Howie did last year - Watch this:

Pretty sad that the POTUS can't even rally his own party.

His approval numbers are tanking, he's not keeping his campaign promises, and his own people are irritated with him. There's talk in the Black community that he's a "sell-out" and that he's "just another politician".

Wait... That was WAY better than one of Howie's posts.

[HashiriyaS14]

I'm gonna post like Howie did last year - Watch this:

Pretty sad that the POTUS can't even rally his own party.

His approval numbers are tanking, he's not keeping his campaign promises, and his own people are irritated with him. There's talk in the Black community that he's a "sell-out" and that he's "just another politician".

Wait... That was WAY better than one of Howie's posts.

Yeah, that's a pretty good Howie impersonation.

EDIT: I will contend, however, that none of that stuff matters. The far right can tea party until they pass out and the far left can have seizures over how Obama isn't championing the rights of transsexual quadriplegic mixed-race rodeo clowns (or whatever the f**k).....but it means diddly.

Here's why:



If that trend line keeps going, then the guy gets re-elected, period. Whether he's primarily responsible or not.

If they get SOME kind of bill passed on health care, it will only help him, even if it doesn't have a public option. He'll be able to claim bipartisan cooperation either way.

[telcoman]

Yeah, that's a pretty good Howie impersonation.

EDIT: I will contend, however, that none of that stuff matters. The far right can tea party until they pass out and the far left can have seizures over how Obama isn't championing the rights of transsexual quadriplegic mixed-race rodeo clowns (or whatever the f**k).....but it means diddly.

Here's why:



If that trend line keeps going, then the guy gets re-elected, period. Whether he's primarily responsible or not.

If they get SOME kind of bill passed on health care, it will only help him, even if it doesn't have a public option. He'll be able to claim bipartisan cooperation either way.

Excellent point Hash

My 401k is slowly crawling back.

Here is something I read today that makes another good point.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09...ml?em

I find it hard to understand why some are so intent on destroying a freely elected president. Are they intending to destroy our democracy?

Telcoman

[audtatious]

Yeah, that's a pretty good Howie impersonation.

EDIT: I will contend, however, that none of that stuff matters. The far right can tea party until they pass out and the far left can have seizures over how Obama isn't championing the rights of transsexual quadriplegic mixed-race rodeo clowns (or whatever the f**k).....but it means diddly.

Here's why:



If that trend line keeps going, then the guy gets re-elected, period. Whether he's primarily responsible or not.

If they get SOME kind of bill passed on health care, it will only help him, even if it doesn't have a public option. He'll be able to claim bipartisan cooperation either way.

THOSE EVIL CAPITALIST PIGS!!!

Granted, if the unemployment rate keeps going up the DJIA won't matter much. Companies can make profits with all their factories and employees overseas.....Instead of focusing on Cap & Trade to fix a potentially mythical problem and on UH to be forced through this year, I'd rather see Congress focus on improving US job growth.

If Cap & Trade gets forced through, what do you think that chart will look like?

[AZhitman]

I find it hard to understand why some are so intent on destroying a freely elected president.

Sometimes I wonder how you feed and dress yourself.

Why was the left so intent on tearing down GWB? Why did the left go bonkers on Palin? Why did the left poop their pants over Gore's loss in the Electoral College?

Ask a dumb question, get a smartass answer.

The answer is: Because a LOT of what he's doing runs counter to good sense, capitalism, the free market, rugged individualism, autonomy, liberty, peace through strength, smaller government, and the American way.

You may not see it that way, and that's your right.

But you can't cry and whine because someone who opposes your boy's (Carter's word, not mine) viewpoint speaks out against him.

QUIT PICKING ON OBAMA!! boo hoo.

Are they intending to destroy our democracy?

Nah. Trying to protect it from morons like Pelosi, Reed, and Frank is more like it.

[smockers83]

I personally don't think that trend will determine his re-election. Here's why.

Obama hasn't talked about the economy or stock market in quite some time. Once he did stop talking about it is where that trend begins. Although the market looks to what Obama says, the market is paying more attention to what the Fed and Treasury do. The market, I believe, has become sort of numb to politicians in DC. For instance, Lewis at BofA resigning, many people on the Street believe he was treated unfairly by politicians and believe politicians should have never gotten involved in the first place.

What I do think will determine his re-election is his policies in the coming three years. It hasn't even been one year yet and people are fed up. I also think he's being to ambitious now and his awe is wearing out quickly. If he gets everything he wants done now, what left is there to do?

The bit about cap and trade, many legislators say it would be the worst vote they ever cast. So that graph can stay in inexistance.

[HashiriyaS14]

First to Matt: The cap and trade argument is a valid one. Unemployment tends to lag equities by up to a year, however. I'm not saying it's fixed, but I'm saying we couldn't possibly know yet. We'll know by Feb-March.

I personally don't think that trend will determine his re-election. Here's why.

Obama hasn't talked about the economy or stock market in quite some time. Once he did stop talking about it is where that trend begins. Although the market looks to what Obama says, the market is paying more attention to what the Fed and Treasury do. The market, I believe, has become sort of numb to politicians in DC. For instance, Lewis at BofA resigning, many people on the Street believe he was treated unfairly by politicians and believe politicians should have never gotten involved in the first place.

What I do think will determine his re-election is his policies in the coming three years. It hasn't even been one year yet and people are fed up. I also think he's being to ambitious now and his awe is wearing out quickly. If he gets everything he wants done now, what left is there to do?

The bit about cap and trade, many legislators say it would be the worst vote they ever cast. So that graph can stay in inexistance.

Again, I'm not saying that the market is responding to anything Obama did in particular. I happen to think that, at least partially, it has, but he certainly didn't "fix" the recession.

The bottom line is that if in 2012 we've had a couple years of healthy GDP and job growth, his line is going to be "The GOP messed it up, I came in and fixed it, and you should re-elect me".

I'm not saying it's CORRECT, but that WILL be his sales pitch, and people, by and large, WILL buy it, at least most of the people who voted for him in the first place (which, apparently, is enough to elect him).

His approval ratings *have* fallen, but he's still far from unpopular, and while the dissenters are loud indeed, I don't think most of his original voting base is unhappy with him.

I'm not giving him an endorsement and I'm not saying that the sales pitch necessarily has merit (or not). What I am saying is that if the economy is A-OK in 2012 (inclusive of effects of inflation and/or cap/trade), he will be sitting in that office for another four years.

[audtatious]

First to Matt: The cap and trade argument is a valid one. Unemployment tends to lag equities by up to a year, however. I'm not saying it's fixed, but I'm saying we couldn't possibly know yet. We'll know by Feb-March.

No argument on my part. I have no issues with addressing C&T nor healthcare, but not to the point that any of it is rushed, one sided and has the potential of collapsing our economy.

[audtatious]

What's your opinion on these figures? I have not been following the job loss news as close as I should.

http://market-ticker.denninger.net/

[4cefed]

Do you think that graph had anything to do with this one?



Start buying gold.

[szh]

I find it hard to understand why some are so intent on destroying a freely elected president. Are they intending to destroy our democracy?

But, ... but ... isn't that exactly what the Democrats and the left tried to do to President Bush while he was in office?

Ah, yes, I forgot ... Democrats like double standards, I guess.

Z

[Kalypso]

His approval numbers are tanking, he's not keeping his campaign promises, and his own people are irritated with him. There's talk in the Black community that he's a "sell-out" and that he's "just another politician".

agreed..... [ from a member of the black community ]

but guys, presidents are simply figure heads, underneath the 3 branches is a secret government.

...lets keep it real

[audtatious]

But, ... but ... isn't that exactly what the Democrats and the left tried to do to President Bush while he was in office?

Ah, yes, I forgot ... Democrats like double standards, I guess.

Z

Dude, you can't bring up the past like that....

Hope and Change!!!!!

[srellim234]

aud- and how quickly people forget. During Bush's first term every one of the world's woes were blamed on the Clintons. Blaming the previous administration has become a national pastime. This country is not forward-looking enough any more.

[audtatious]

I haven't forgotten at all. The Republicans beat up Clinton for being Slick Willy and a liar. The Dems beat up Bush for everything including taking each breath.

[srellim234]

Actually it's a matter of perspective. The Dems beat up Bush for creating an untrustworthy administration, falsifying evidence, starting the wrong war and being ignorant of what his underlings were doing. Later on it turned more toward the Bush administration's trampling on civil rights (warrantless wiretaps, etc.).

Of course, the Dems will tell you that the only thing Clinton ever did wrong was get a bj in the Oval Office.

Everybody tries to downplay their own guy's miscues and build op the opponent's ones.

[audtatious]

Actually it's a matter of perspective. The Dems beat up Bush for creating an untrustworthy administration, falsifying evidence, starting the wrong war and being ignorant of what his underlings were doing. Later on it turned more toward the Bush administration's trampling on civil rights (warrantless wiretaps, etc.).

Of course, the Dems will tell you that the only thing Clinton ever did wrong was get a bj in the Oval Office.

Everybody tries to downplay their own guy's miscues and build op the opponent's ones.

Untrustworthy per the Dems. Falsifying what evidence? Proof please? You say he started the wrong war, I say we should have rolled through Iraq back in '92. Where is the wiretap program now? Has it been ended or extended under Obama?

[srellim234]

aud- I'm not defending the Dems claims as being true; I'm only stating their claims from their perspective. Without even stating whether I believed them or not, you immediately went on the defensive which pretty much proves my point. Your guy is fine; it's the other side's guy that does awful things. They would say the same thing back at you.

I totally agree with you that we should have gone all the way to Baghdad in '92 and the current administration is absolutely wrong to be continuing the warrantless wiretaps. A secure procedure exists to begin wiretaps and get the warrant later in cases of national security. Both Bush and Obama are usurping the power of the judicial branch and thus weakening the seperation of powers that is supposed to protect us from abuse by one branch. I am totally against both administrations for doing it.

[smockers83]

Again, I'm not saying that the market is responding to anything Obama did in particular. I happen to think that, at least partially, it has, but he certainly didn't "fix" the recession.

The bottom line is that if in 2012 we've had a couple years of healthy GDP and job growth, his line is going to be "The GOP messed it up, I came in and fixed it, and you should re-elect me".

I'm not saying it's CORRECT, but that WILL be his sales pitch, and people, by and large, WILL buy it, at least most of the people who voted for him in the first place (which, apparently, is enough to elect him).

His approval ratings *have* fallen, but he's still far from unpopular, and while the dissenters are loud indeed, I don't think most of his original voting base is unhappy with him.

I'm not giving him an endorsement and I'm not saying that the sales pitch necessarily has merit (or not). What I am saying is that if the economy is A-OK in 2012 (inclusive of effects of inflation and/or cap/trade), he will be sitting in that office for another four years.

I know what you were trying to say, I just wanted to get a word in on the subject matter. The thing that makes me sick is that you could very well be right, that he'll claim he helped fix the stock market and what not and point to the trend during is presidency, while it's a gross claim. If he tries to make that claim, I hope enough people realize the truth about what happened to bring it to light. That's what I can't stand about politics and politicians as they battle for individual power.