The Best Candidates Won Tuesday Night
I'm delighted that President Obama has been re-elected. As I have said on this blog and elsewhere, the demographics of the country are rushing in favor of inclusive, diverse candidates and campaigns, and their issues and priorities and needs.
The Romney campaign went hard in the opposite direction, at its peril.
One word sums it up: Obamacare. No repeal on Day One. People will owe improved lives, enriched families and productivity to this election outcome for years and years.
It's also a great day for Wisconsin and for Tammy Baldwin, our new US Senator.
What a hugely historic win for inclusivity, and against the old guard and its angry, Tea Party extremists and hostility towards women.
And the election carried a blow against legalized voter suppression.
On, Wisconsin!
18 comments:
Winning the election is not the same as delivering the goods.
There will be no more blaming Bush.
Other than the preservation of Obamacare, every other single issue touched by this administration is a no win situation.
Americans, expect a change to your lifestyle.
Wonder Regan's Disciple is? I would love to hear how he spins this.
blugoose
Koch Bros tweet--Scottie, Ryan, No Christmas bonus for you!
America decided to move "Forward!" Sweet!
Well, what can I say. The campaigning is done, the ads are finished and the votes are counted.
The results... We had our tail handed to us last night.
In some predictions with good lefty friends in Madison (yes I do have those), I predicted a close Romney win (with 271-280EVs) with the note that I thought that was still going to be difficult to beat an incumbent President and Obama remained likely to win.
However, I surely didn't see an Obama 330 EV win. I pegged it more in the 280-290 range myself.
Baldwin was just another slap in the face, although I really think Obama helped her down ticket and she wouldn't have won an off year election.
A little good news for Republicans?
Obama will lose millions of votes compared to last time. He will certainly have to move to the center to accomplish things this time around. Remember, the Republican congress was re-elected with a big margins as well. Although I would certainly encourage compromise with Obama, I would also oppose caving on the major core issues.
It can not be understated that this is very depressing day for our party.
The good news on the state level is that it looks like WI will have a 18-15 majority in our state senate. This will eliminate the need to appease Schultz and we will definitely see some good pro-business growth legislation in the next session.
The Presidential election showed that Obama still had a good ground game in place and people were still not quite ready to abandon him.
Congratulations that your guy won. The majority has certainly spoken. I hope Obama and congress can find common ground to improve our economy, cut deficits and reduce unemployment going forward. This will require some give and take on both sides of the aisle.
In the end, Democrats and Republicans will need to work together during this next term for what it is everyone's true goal, the betterment of the United States.
I'm here...
Funny, still can't get a liberal to not mention the Koch Brothers!
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Funny. Still can't find a Republican to stand on his own, without the Koch brothers.
Some things never change.
-HammerHead
Obama will lose millions of votes compared to last time. He will certainly have to move to the center to accomplish things this time around
In BOTH elections, he outperformed GWB in both electoral votes AND popular vote.
Boehner and McConnell have tripled down on their "compromise is full agreement with US" shtick; Obama bent over backwards to compromise all throughout the first term, only to see HISTORICAL levels of obstructionism. Do you think he's stupid?
Remember, the Republican congress was re-elected with a big margins as well.
To pick a nit, the only Republican part of Congress is the House; and Democrats picked up seats in both houses. The only thing to remember is the obstructionist Tea Party House is still in place.
Obstructive or not RZM, Obama will still have to deal with them if/when he wants to get things done.
I'm not saying it will be a 50/50 split on cooperation, but Obama will certainly need to make some concessions if he wants to get things done.
@Hammer,
And the Democrats don't have their high dollar donors? Open your eyes. Does the name Soros mean anything to you?
The big difference is that I don't sit here and cry about it.
but Obama will certainly need to make some concessions if he wants to get things done.
Wow, it is certainly impressive how quickly this is becoming Conventional Villager Talking Point Number 17.
Obama made concessions all through the first term. Rhetoric and talk radio aside, there was nearly no ruling by fiat or tyranny or any of that bushwa. The last concession over the debt limit deal, was based on creating the Catfood Commission, staffed with Deficit scolds and Paul Ryan; enforced with the supposed fiscal cliff of the sequestration rules.
And even with such an imbalanced group, they couldn't give obama a win, and the so-called Fiscal Cliff looms (reminder that the sequestration balance was 2:1 cuts versus revenue increases)
That was a pretty one-sided compromise, and the republicans STILL couldn't take yes for an answer.
" ...He will certainly have to move to the center to accomplish things this time around...."
I disagree. Obama is fairly centrist compared to progressives in the Demcratic Party.
It's the GOP that needs to move closer to center, drop the constricitive and archaic social issues and embrace sharing responsibility for our debt. Everyone needs to pay their fair share. Cut waste. Invest in infrasturcture (looks like mother nature gave us a kick in the fanny to get a move on there). Create better regulation of financial instutions including separating banking from investment products ala Glass Stiegel. And roll back Citizens United.
The citizenry is watching. We all are sick of the game playing and the one-upmanship both parties practice. Time to get serious and represent the people whom you serve.
Everyone needs to pay their fair share.
Please explain what you mean by this.
What is a fair share? Do you not believe the top 5% pay enough already? Stop with the foolish talking points and provide a number. Give a percentage of what you think is fair.
Do I decide what is fair? Do you? Tell us who decides what this "fair share" is and how they come up with this "fair" percentage.
There is no number on a tax form that says, "fair." The IRS needs a number.
Also, does this mean that you believe EVERYONE should pay income taxes? After all, wouldn't that be fair?
Obama will have to move to the left a little bit, and the Wisconsin GOP will have to be more moderate if they want to win in 2014. I doubt they will take my advice, so it is going to be long 2 years.
[i]lease explain what you mean by this.
[/i]
I would like to step in and say, that a fair share was once thought to be 90% at the upper tax rate. This was in the 1950's during the post war economic boom. Obviously, this tax rate did not deter the biggest economic boom in the history of the planet.
Myself, I would like to return to that ratio.
However; I am not inconsiderate nor unreasonable. I am willing to return to the top marginal rates established by JFK during the 60's: 70 percent.
Oh wait; the imaginary job creation class are decrying the shift from the GWB upper marginal tax rates of 35% to 39% as being unsupportable?
Forgive me if I am not sympathetic to the proposed unnoticeable change in that unimaginable wealth, while we are scrambling to find enough money to pay for a fucking biopsy of a lump in our breast that our Insurance Company Death Panel had decreed a 'pre-existing condition" and writing a will so that if it turns out to be cancerous, our children are able to go on living in the same goddam house.
RD, all of us decide what is fair. It's called a democracy, and the country we support is referred to as a commonwealth. What has become painfully obvious over the last several decades is that the upper 1% have not been paying ENOUGH to maintain the commonwealth, both through infrastructure and through support of the most vulnerable of our fellow citizens.
What would be FAIR is for everyone in our fair country to have the same advantages as the most privileged in our country.
ZRM,
First, please have an understanding of our government. We are not a democracy. We are on constitutional republic.
So in your opinion 1% of the population paying 37% of federal income taxes is not enough?
A basic course in econ will teach you that when you tax and regulate, production decreases. We need production to increase to provide jobs. We need to grow the economic pie, not take more of the smaller pie away.
I'm not hiring the extra salesmen if the profit is going to be taxed at 70%. It is simply not a good risk/reward scenario.
I could look at individual examples and cherry pick out scenarios as you do as well. However, that is pretty short sighted when thinking about the overall picture of the US economy.
Furthermore, why stop at 70%, why not 90%, 99 or even 100% of income over $250,000?
While appreciative that you are revealing your socialist roots, 70% will not pass the House or even the Senate for that matter.
As Boehner stated. It is time for the President to lead and put forward a proposal that will pass both the House and Senate and help the country avoid the looming fiscal cliff that is awaiting.
I'll be interested to see the fair and balanced compromise that Obama proposes.
So in your opinion 1% of the population paying 37% of federal income taxes is not enough?
Actually, they pay a touch over 30%, based on The Business INsider; while they own about 37% of the wealth. And since they benefit So yes, I do think that is relatively fair.
A basic course in econ will teach you that when you tax and regulate, production decreases. We need production to increase to provide jobs. We need to grow the economic pie, not take more of the smaller pie away.
If you get beyond the first chapter of Econ 101, you could see this is not true in reality. Changing the tax picture doesn't eliminate any of the pie, merely puts it on a different plate.
What increases production is increased demand. If the top earners are squirreling away extra income, demand doesn't change. Increasing the top marginal tax rates brings that dormant cash back into the economy, so demand increases.
I'm not hiring the extra salesmen if the profit is going to be taxed at 70%. It is simply not a good risk/reward scenario.
You're not being rational, then. If your salesman is increasing your profit to a 70% taxation rate, risk isn't coming into play. And even at that tax rate, you get to keep 300 bucks for every thousand. You're still MAKING MORE MONEY. This kind of argument is puerile.
Besides, you are confusing business taxes with personal taxes. If your business is having its profit taxed at 70%, you're kind of stupid.
70% will not pass the House or even the Senate for that matter.
I am aware of that,and I did not suggest it would.
I could look at individual examples and cherry pick out scenarios as you do as well.
Which you actually DID, in the PRECEDING SENTENCE. RD, you should maybe stick to the short, snarky insult comments. When you go longer, you end up refuting yourself pretty often.
Rayguns:
Supply Side, or Voodoo,Economics was the grand experiment of the 1980s, when lots of things were quite different both nationally and globally. The experiment failed then and again since then.
The only factor that will force businesses to hire more workers is an increased demand for their products and services, aka more customers. And where do more customers come from? Typically, the middle class (and lower class to some extent as well) who must purchase necessary goods and services, and seek to improve their status and comfort level with the purchase of others.
The wealthy class has inherited most of the furniture and goods they need. The class is too small to drive the economy, anyway.
This is Econ 101, as well as Common Sense 101. Google Henry Ford.
Post a Comment