Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

Increasing education spending and taxing the rich isn't going to balance the budget.

Woooooooooooooooosh.

Pawlenty didn't balance it either. Name one program he cut. He borrowed from the schools.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

Good to see Californians haven't totally gone off the deep end. Though the current state of things is pretty bad, at least it didn't get worse. Here in Arizona, despite all the pundits saying it would pass by a wide margin, medical marijuana is behind by about 6,700 votes with just 3 precincts statewide to report. Not sure if they do a recount or not.

 

[Bakunin]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

Woooooooooooooooosh.

That's your response? Seriously?

Pawlenty didn't balance it either. Name one program he cut. He borrowed from the schools.

Did I say he balanced it? He used nothing more than accounting gimmickry and transfers.

What I posted was Dayton's budget plan given in the campaign: raise taxes on the rich and increase education spending. That's classic Lib Dem policy right there, and it won't balance the budget. So if the Dems had held the legislature, we'd essentially be in the same place fiscally (only with higher tax rates on the productive classes).

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

That's your response? Seriously?

Did I say he balanced it? He used nothing more than accounting gimmickry and transfers.

What I posted was Dayton's budget plan given in the campaign: raise taxes on the rich and increase education spending. That's classic Lib Dem policy right there, and it won't balance the budget. So if the Dems had held the legislature, we'd essentially be in the same place fiscally (only with higher tax rates on the productive classes).

So, you're saying raising taxes can't balance the budget? It was done at the federal level, it can be done at the State level. Nothing that Emmer or Pawlenty offered balanced a single thing.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

Just noticed that Jim Oberstar got bounced by Chip Cravaack in northeastern Minnesota. Wow. That's a district I never thought I'd see a Republican win.

 

[Bakunin]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

So, you're saying raising taxes can't balance the budget? It was done at the federal level, it can be done at the State level. Nothing that Emmer or Pawlenty offered balanced a single thing.

My God you are obtuse. Dayton wants a tax hike AND an education spending increase that will devour whatever additional revenue the tax hike brings into state coffers.

Neither party's gubernatorial candidate had a valid plan to balance the state budget. From what I've read in the strib and elsewhere, Horner's numbers didn't add up, either.

So there you have it: no one had a valid plan to balance the budget.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

So, you're saying raising taxes can't balance the budget? It was done at the federal level, it can be done at the State level. Nothing that Emmer or Pawlenty offered balanced a single thing.

The budget was balanced on the federal level? This must be some alternate universe plane of existence or something I've stumbled into for that to be true.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

There's already a list of GOP Senators getting primaried in 2012 circulating around.

The TP will stay strong as long as unemployment is high. The trick for fiscal hawks is to manipulate TP strength now, while we have it, to enact budgetary reform, because the minute the economy gets better all public will to make hard choices about deficit reduction will evaporate.

They're useful idiots. Use them to drive down the deficit and then let them take the hit at the polls when the very people who voted for them whine their pork isn't coming any more. Everybody wins. We might even get a modest revival of right wing isolationism out of it if the libertarian wing of the TP can ever pry the Neocons' remaining talons out of the GOP. An anti-war right would actually make the last 30 years of right wing yahooism almost worth it.

 

[Bakunin]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

let them take the hit at the polls when the very people who voted for them whine their pork isn't coming any more.

Apparently, my congressional district gets only $0.33 back from the Fed for every dollar collected in federal taxes here. Yet the anti-earmark incumbent won by 20+ points.

Don't assume anything about people getting punished at the polls for taking principled stands on spending.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

Apparently, my congressional district gets only $0.33 back from the Fed for every dollar collected in federal taxes here. Yet the anti-earmark incumbent won by 20+ points.

Don't assume anything about people getting punished at the polls for taking principled stands on spending.

I predict the principled representative who raises taxes responsibly or cuts spending responsibly will tend to lose to the first empty-headed demogogue who screams "big gubmint" or "think of the children," and yeah, I'm pretty confident in that prediction.

 

[Bakunin]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

I predict the principled representative who raises taxes responsibly or cuts spending responsibly will tend to lose to the first empty-headed demogogue who screams "big gubmint" or "think of the children," and yeah, I'm pretty confident in that prediction.

Depends on the district / state and what level of pork they are used to receiving. I can't imagine switching states from +30% on their return from the Fed to -30% would go over too well in many areas, but more modest decreases in federal handouts might be acceptable.

 

[joecct]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

I predict the principled representative who raises taxes responsibly or cuts spending responsibly will tend to lose to the first empty-headed demogogue who screams "big gubmint" or "think of the children," and yeah, I'm pretty confident in that prediction.

But who is cutting spending?? Give the legislature $1.00 in tax money and they'll spend $1.50. The difference will come from "cuts" which are generally accomplished by accounting smoke and mirrors. And just as an FYI, both parties are guilty. And in our state, they'll get the demogogues (Democrats all) will scream that the cutter is (a) racist, (b) a tool of special interests, and (c) uncaring.

When somebody proposes a serious, workable plan on entitlement reform they'll get my vote. However, since we're both from Maryland, that day will be a long time in the future.

One more edit -- and when the chickens come home to roost, they'll all shake their heads and wonder what happened and do an intercine bloodbath.

BTW, do you plan on being a delegate to the MD Constitutional Convention??

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

Just noticed that Jim Oberstar got bounced by Chip Cravaack in northeastern Minnesota. Wow. That's a district I never thought I'd see a Republican win.

To me, this is the most shocking result of a nationwide election that had plenty of them. How a long term Dem loses on the Range is beyond me. I wonder what his closest re-elect bid in the past was.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

The budget was balanced on the federal level? This must be some alternate universe plane of existence or something I've stumbled into for that to be true.

Yes, under Clinton. Before the tax cuts.

Tax cuts that if they actually worked would have the economy humming along right now.

 

[Bakunin]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

To me, this is the most shocking result of a nationwide election that had plenty of them. How a long term Dem loses on the Range is beyond me. I wonder what his closest re-elect bid in the past was.

http://www.startribune.com/politics...UoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUnciaec8O7EyUsl

According to that, he's never gotten under 59% of the vote.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

To me, this is the most shocking result of a nationwide election that had plenty of them. How a long term Dem loses on the Range is beyond me. I wonder what his closest re-elect bid in the past was.

I read that since he was first elected in 1974, he had never gotten less than 59 percent of the vote. I always figured that seat was his as long as he wanted it. But, I've heard from relatives in the area that he doesn't spend much time back in the district anymore, spending most of his time in Washington D.C., with his wife who is a D.C. lobbyist who only visited the district once and was overheard making disparaging remarks about Minnesota.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

To me, this is the most shocking result of a nationwide election that had plenty of them. How a long term Dem loses on the Range is beyond me. I wonder what his closest re-elect bid in the past was.

He got a lot of pork for that part of the state. Those people are going to be ticked when the spigot is turned off and the federal and state budgets still aren't balanced.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

BTW, do you plan on being a delegate to the MD Constitutional Convention??

That passed? Yippee -- I'm sure my delegate will work tirelessly to make public flogging of homosexuals part of the state constitution.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

Yes, under Clinton. Before the tax cuts.

Keep telling yourself that. It'll make you feel better about your Dems.

 

[joecct]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

File this under the slave standing next to the Roman general whispering "Remember your mortality"

"Republicans celebrating yesterday's ballot-box drubbing of Democrats should not be lulled into thinking their virtues carried the day. The election was first and foremost a referendum on the policies of President Obama and congressional Democrats. That verdict was clear: The American people want change. Not the empty phrases promising 'change' that scrolled across Mr. Obama's teleprompter during the 2008 campaign. By now, voters have realized there is no difference between the statist policies of FDR and LBJ and those on offer from BHO. The public is demanding an immediate change away from the big-government direction of Congress and this administration. That's why California Democratic Rep. Nancy Pelosi's brief four-year grasp on the speaker's gavel will come to an end in January. ... Newly elected Tea Partiers are likely to remain true to their platform of reducing taxation and regulation so that the economy might have room to grow. But if history is any guide, establishment Republicans will need to be continually reminded why they were given a governing majority.

The Republican congressional sweep in 1994 promised to shake up the way things had been done for decades, and the new majority delivered in the early years. By 2006, Republicans lost their way. Instead of standing on principle, most devolved into business-as-usual politicians desperate to retain office by spreading around the public's money in earmarks and other pork. They lost sight of why they went to Washington in the first place, and their fall was inevitable. When the contest is over who can spend the most, Democrats are going to win every time. Republicans who run on a message of fiscal restraint have a chance because Americans realize families and individuals will be the ones paying for the government's spending spree for decades to come. That's why fiscal conservatism has now carried the day. Should the new Congress hold true to the principles of limited government, Republicans will build upon a lasting majority as future ballots are cast for them, rather than against their opponents." --The Washington Times