Funny how Republicans just HATE pork so much despite the fact that their own Congressmen and Senators earmark at LEAST as much as the Democrats do. You never hear them saying that, though.
Wow! Thanks so much, everybody. Very useful (including the links).
I guess part of my motivation for the question in the OP (“why the anger”) is that from my perspective (ignorant and removed), it’s only been a year and many, if not all, the problems confronting the US were extant before Obama took power. I mean, things don’t get fixed overnight, or even in a year, when you’re talking the type of problems the US faces.
Now that you’ve done learned me some, I suppose it’s a good point to drop the gloves if you want - as the OP’er, I’ll say, “Start your engines. You may now be as partisan as you want!”
I disagree with Brown being center-right. His campaign very cleverly presented him as such but his actual politics do not represent someone close to center.
From a MA point of view Brown ran an excellent campaign with the Republican party backing him the whole way, while Coakley ran a mediocre campaign with little support from the Democratic party. They last two weeks the Democrats woke up to the fact they could lose and did to little to late. Now Coakley is getting all the blame for the party’s failure.
The importance of the election was Brown winning allows the Republican party the ability to filibuster any vote without help from the 2 Independents or any Democrat.
Democrats might have learned a lesson in all this but they seem to be slow learners and find new mistakes to replace their previous ones.
Yeah. Except that’s not true, is it? According to The 2008 Citizens Against Government Waste report, of the top 30 pork spenders in Congress, Democrats were responsible for 5.3 billion dollars of pork, and Republican were responsible for 3.8 billion. Not that I’m defending Republicans on this, but your statement is demonstrably false.
Try and get your facts straight next time.
So what was the ratio 1995-2005? I’d bet that if you check lobbyist donations to individual members of Congress for 2008, you’d find that Democrats have the majority of those, too. But I’d also bet that if you checked for 2005, it would be a different story.
Pick those cherries, Smitty!
And prone to (political) mood swings.
Anyway, add me to those saying you should not underestimate the effect the economy had on this election. In fact, more than health care reform, it still will be the biggest factor in the November elections. If by then the economy noticeably improves (or looks like it’s improving), Obama and the Democrats will generally make through the mid-terms okay and, at worst, lose only a few seats in both the House and Senate. However, if things are as bad as they are now or worse, they’ll take a big hit and probably lose control of Congress.
Unfortunately, so far Obama has continued the policies of his predecessor which got us into this mess. And in a two party system the only way to really punish the party in power is to put the other party in power, even if that party was originally the problem.
Once again, the river you’re thinking of is in Egypt. The amount of vote buying in the current health care bill is substantial, highly visible and the reason Ted is spinning in his grave.
Funny how a densely Democratic state just voted in a Republican.
That’s all you got? “Nana na na na”? Frankly, I don’t give a damn about Massachusetts. I guess not everyone in New England actually has good old Yankee common sense.
Perceptions of US citizens that “are angry at Obama”:
- Economy and wonderment as to why he hasn’t fixed it yet.
- Unemployment is greater than 10% and doesn’t look like its going get better any time soon.
- Troop build-up in Middle East, when he promised in campaign that they would be coming home.
- Health care reform. Majority of voters don’t think it needs to be messed with.
- $$$ given to bail-out the banks, when the execs all got rich.
- Nobody really trusts a closet smoker.
Some people think common sense involves spending money wisely and not rushing through stuff for the sake of a vote.
I don’t think anyone is blaming Obama for the bank bailouts. Bush gave the first round of bailouts without any kind of controversy. People are angry at the BANKS for the executive thing, and they might tell a pollster “yeah I disagree with the bank bailouts” but I don’t think that issue actually affected votes anywhere.
Also the closet smoker thing is a non-issue. You’re the first person I’ve ever heard even mention it since “People” or some other trashy magazine mentioned it in the same article they rated his clothing and blackberry texting habits.
Rushing through? What are you on? They’ve been arguing about this shit for fifty years, now!
Could you please define ‘densely Democratic’ If you look at the percentage of registered Democrats in MA it does not deviate from the national average. In some polls MA has a smaller percentage of democrats then the national average.
No, the majority support some kind of health care reform; just not the kind the Democrats are willing to pass. And regardless, the people who think nothing needs to be done are just wrong; our present setup is insupportable and unethical.
Lets give that a big :rolleyes: with a side of :dubious: .
The majority support some kind of health care reform; just not the kind the Democrats are willing to pass. Der Trihs.
I don’t see what’s so bad about pork. Federal money is spent on things that have only a local beneficial impact all the time, and every legislator, to a greater or lesser degree, wants to bring the bacon home to his or her constituents. A bridge built in Delaware benefits me not at all, because I live in California, but I am not about to join a Tea Party protest because my money is being spent to build it.
On the other hand, how does the War On Terror stack up against pork, in terms of dollars spent and borrowed?
Pork is a nice sweet meat.
Quoth Shodan:
I’ll grant you calling Lieberman (and Sanders) as a Democrat, for the sake of argument, but even at that, the Democrats have only had a filibuster-proof majority since July 7, when Al Franken was seated.
Quoth Smitty:
Again counting Sanders and Lieberman as Democrats, during that time there were 286 Democrats in Congress, and 249 Republicans, so it’s hardly surprising that there are more Democrats than Republicans among the big-spenders, too, and an honest assessment would account for that. Even aside from that, though, it’s difficult to pin down what constitutes “pork”, and who’s to say that Citizens Against Government Waste is being fair in their assessments?
Now, this was posted during the ‘non partisan’ part of the thread so I will assume it’s generally held to be the case that a) everyone must purchase health insurance (I find all three emphasized words rather startling) and b) the predicted cost will be more than “many people” can afford.
These points make me wonder “must” “everyone” “purchase”?, e.g. cannot one’s employer pick up the whole tab? Won’t there be assistance to those can’t afford it? Can’t you opt out and join a plan that, say, your employer pays? And, if someone can’t afford the cost of the insurance, how the hell could they afford paying for something like a serious illness or a major operation?