debates

[MoneyPity]

It seems to me that whether a Senator or a Congressman is a Dem or a Rep they should first and foremost represent their constituents that voted them into offfce and not just along part lines. There are numerous examples above that seem to tell me that our representation isn't representing their constituents but unfortunately party lines.

The message is clear from many of you. The country needs change. We may be unhappy with Obama and who knows how we will feel for Romney later but Novembers election needs to go deeper than Obama. We need representation that will work for the people. Take the time and look at your Senators and Congressman and look at how they voted and what they worked on in the last couple of years. I know I will not vote for my current Senate representation based on their records.

[Nobody]

The bottom line ,is my family or bussiness better off since he took office?? Answer no, we havent had it this bad since the Carter administration, thank goodness he only had 4 years.

Oh God, not this line.

Puhleeeez.

[dom w. forte]

Oh God, not this line.

Puhleeeez.

By the way check your history again, Dems, had control of both houses from 2006 to 2010 when Rep, took back the house, so again they could and did pass anything they wanted , so are we better off??????????, in the the same three plus years under Regan there was a big inprovement over Carters mess !

[Nobody]

By the way check your history again, Dems, had control of both houses from 2006 to 2010 when Rep, took back the house, so again they could and did pass anything they wanted , so are we better off??????????, in the the same three plus years under Regan there was a big inprovement over Carters mess !

I'm sorry your not better off, and neither am I. No new Z3 for me this year. Ro Rell.

The only relevance worth debating is how and why we got here.

It's is my firm believe that we will stay here for another 15+ years, and the reason (according to my beliefs) is because of US globalization policies. Which in the long run is essential to being (and maintaining) the great democracy, capitalist and military power of the world that we are. The US must again become prosperous on a "new" global scale. Thomas Friedman's book "The world is Flat" spells out where the US is heading and why extremely well. Good read.


What we DON'T need to do is exploit the poor, or less fortunate in the process (which many R's define as lazy). As Shawndoggy shares, it's essential to have social safety nets and good policy (nothing to do with force) that maintains social equality, dignity, respect and fairness for EVERYONE. This is good for society as a whole, but not for those looking out for #1, or "what's in it for me now" ideology.

Above all....we MUST have corporate accountability. Wall Street, Health Insurance, Credit Card, Mortgage and Banking. All of which the D's have successfully accomplished in the past 4 years, and for which I am extremely grateful. These great works deal with the problem of how we got where we're at today. Abuse, greed and lack of accountability.

This is essentially where we differ as D's and R's, and it's also the underlying difference between the two parties in my opinion. Me versus US.

Can't we agree on just this much?

[shawndoggy]

By the way check your history again, Dems, had control of both houses from 2006 to 2010 when Rep, took back the house, so again they could and did pass anything they wanted , so are we better off??????????, in the the same three plus years under Regan there was a big inprovement over Carters mess !

arcane as it may be, in the senate a bare majority is not a ticket for the party in control to pass anything it wants. You need 60.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster

So legislation is either bipartisan or it withers on the vine.

[talltigeguy]

arcane as it may be, in the senate a bare majority is not a ticket for the party in control to pass anything it wants. You need 60.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster

So legislation is either bipartisan or it withers on the vine.

It depends on the strength of the opposition. Does every bill that has some votes against it go to filibuster? Certainly many bills have passed 51-49 without a filibuster, right? I think trying to filibuster everything that goes through would be impossible.

[dom w. forte]

I'm sorry your not better off, and neither am I. No new Z3 for me this year. Ro Rell.

The only relevance worth debating is how and why we got here.

It's is my firm believe that we will stay here for another 15+ years, and the reason (according to my beliefs) is because of US globalization policies. Which in the long run is essential to being (and maintaining) the great democracy, capitalist and military power of the world that we are. The US must again become prosperous on a "new" global scale. Thomas Friedman's book "The world is Flat" spells out where the US is heading and why extremely well. Good read.


What we DON'T need to do is exploit the poor, or less fortunate in the process (which many R's define as lazy). As Shawndoggy shares, it's essential to have social safety nets and good policy (nothing to do with force) that maintains social equality, dignity, respect and fairness for EVERYONE. This is good for society as a whole, but not for those looking out for #1, or "what's in it for me now" ideology.

Above all....we MUST have corporate accountability. Wall Street, Health Insurance, Credit Card, Mortgage and Banking. All of which the D's have successfully accomplished in the past 4 years, and for which I am extremely grateful. These great works deal with the problem of how we got where we're at today. Abuse, greed and lack of accountability.

This is essentially where we differ as D's and R's, and it's also the underlying difference between the two parties in my opinion. Me versus US.

Can't we agree on just this much?

I respect your opinion, but I will vote for the platform that I feel best serves the country and my bussiness and you will vote for your beleifs and thats what makes our country great.

[shawndoggy]

It depends on the strength of the opposition. Does every bill that has some votes against it go to filibuster? Certainly many bills have passed 51-49 without a filibuster, right? I think trying to filibuster everything that goes through would be impossible.

In the olden days that would've been true. You don't have to read the phonebook now. I'm by no means an expert on the rules of the Senate, but as I understand it now, it's purely procedural. If you can't get cloture (3/5ths) to "end debate" on a bill it will whither and die.

Stats here: http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/ref...tureCounts.htm

[shawndoggy]

Anybody else's working spouse a little offended by Mitt's 30 year old concept of women in the workforce?



Last night was interesting and I thought both did pretty well, honestly.

This is the first time I've heard Mitt say no tax on savings ever. That's quite honestly one of my biggest pet peeves -- that my neighbor down the street gets a tax break to borrow money for his house, and I get a tax hit for saving my pennies for a rainy day.

[dom w. forte]

Anybody else's working spouse a little offended by Mitt's 30 year old concept of women in the workforce?



Last night was interesting and I thought both did pretty well, honestly.

This is the first time I've heard Mitt say no tax on savings ever. That's quite honestly one of my biggest pet peeves -- that my neighbor down the street gets a tax break to borrow money for his house, and I get a tax hit for saving my pennies for a rainy day.

My wife has been a mechical engineer in the power industry for 36 years and we werent affended.

[dom w. forte]

Oh there must be some math experts on here, the President said that the gas prices were lower when he took office because the economy was in a ressesion, so has the economy doubled with the gas prices or due to the current state of the economy should gas prices be about 10 cents a gallon??????????

[WakerideN]

Anybody else's working spouse a little offended by Mitt's 30 year old concept of women in the workforce?



Last night was interesting and I thought both did pretty well, honestly.

This is the first time I've heard Mitt say no tax on savings ever. That's quite honestly one of my biggest pet peeves -- that my neighbor down the street gets a tax break to borrow money for his house, and I get a tax hit for saving my pennies for a rainy day.

My wife was beyond pissed about mitt's women in the work force comments. She is in HR and so when he is handed a pool of peeps for the job and they are men, that means uh all the women have been screened out! duh! So it was like this is beyond lame in her mind.

This is just hillarious to me. was bought in less then 90 seconds after he said it. www.binderfullofwomen.com

[shawndoggy]

Oh there must be some math experts on here, the President said that the gas prices were lower when he took office because the economy was in a ressesion, so has the economy doubled with the gas prices or due to the current state of the economy should gas prices be about 10 cents a gallon??????????

Check the number on the DJIA on the day he took office and get back to us.

And remember, just because the economy sucks here doesn't mean that India, China and Brazil aren't still killing it. If there's worldwide demand for oil, that sets the price. And remember too that it doesn't matter how much oil we produce domestically, because it's going to sell for the world price too. If oil is $100 a barrel, it's $100 a barrel, whether it came from the north slope, the tar sands, the gulf, or venezuela.

I like the idea of energy independence as a point of national security. But energy independence doesn't mean that the price at the pump will be less. (yes, of course there will be some marginal savings on the cost to transport the oil if produced domestically).

[dom w. forte]

Check the number on the DJIA on the day he took office and get back to us.

So then your saying the economy has doubled like the gas prices and I should start to see an inprovement in bussiness soon.

[shawndoggy]

So then your saying the economy has doubled like the gas prices and I should start to see an inprovement in bussiness soon.

Well... my point was that if you think gas at $1.84 on the day the president took office was a good thing, that's a very selective memory. What about the summer of 2008 when gas first crept over $4 a gallon?

Dom I don't know where you are or what you do. I'd expect that makers of stone wheels, livery stable proprietors, and door to door vacuum sales have all seen steep declines despite a rising economy.

Local to me we overbuilt like crazy during the boom. Many many people made money in construction here 10 years ago. Very few can today.

And it's still not 2006. And it probably won't be back there for some time to come. That wasn't "normal," it was a boom.