By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - US Midterm Elections 2018- Dems take the House, GOP Keeps the Senate.

 

Who did you vote for?

GOP Rep and GOP Senator 20 30.77%
 
Democrat Rep and Democrat Senator 38 58.46%
 
GOP Rep and Democrat Senator 0 0%
 
Democrat Rep and GOP Senator 4 6.15%
 
Third Party/Other 3 4.62%
 
Total:65
DrDoomz said:
Mr_Destiny said:

The GOP won the overall House popular vote by 6.8% in 2010 (Wikipedia), which everyone called a wave. So far, the Dems also lead by 6.8% (Cook Political Report, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WxDaxD5az6kdOjJncmGph37z0BPNhV1fNAH_g7IkpC0/edit#gid=0), and that will only go up as California counts its absentee and mail-in ballots. If you go by the 2010 standard, this election definitely counts as a wave.

Huh. Didn’t know the whole “wave” descriptor was based on popular vote. Thought it was based on seats won.

Learn something everyday.

Lol, it is based on seats won. They're going to twist whatever info they can to make it seem like big win. This was a normal mid-term in terms of the shift of power slightly.  By comparison, in 2010, the Reps picked up 63 seats in the House, Dems picked up just over half that, and Reps won 6 seats in the Senate, Dems just lost a seat.



Around the Network
cycycychris said:



Its over in Arizona, Mcsally has conceded. Arizona just elected its first female senator, the first bi-sexual senator ever, and she is also non-religous.... which I'm gonna also count as a first since I doubt anyone has been that before.

Can you say that Arizona might be turning blue? if not, maybe the coming decade?



Mr_Destiny said:
thismeintiel said:

Not my fault you guys are mad that the blue wave didn't happen.

The GOP won the overall House popular vote by 6.8% in 2010 (Wikipedia), which everyone called a wave. So far, the Dems also lead by 6.8% (Cook Political Report, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WxDaxD5az6kdOjJncmGph37z0BPNhV1fNAH_g7IkpC0/edit#gid=0), and that will only go up as California counts its absentee and mail-in ballots. If you go by the 2010 standard, this election definitely counts as a wave.

Just so you know, California sways the population vote for this, due to the fact that there was no republican on the ballet, so 100% of the votes in California all go towards the % you are using.



cycycychris said:
OTBWY said:

Can you say that Arizona might be turning blue? if not, maybe the coming decade?

Arizona is getting a lot of people from liberal areas moving into its metropolitan areas, like Phoenix. With large amount of immigrants living in the state, its very possible the demographics are shifting. But I think one of the biggest reasons Sinema won is that she is incredibly moderate. Like really moderate, she votes with Trump 50% or 60% of the time. While Mcsally is rather moderate of a republican, she went full Trump during the campaign. So are the Democrats making a break out in Arizona, yes and no. I think what we saw in this election is that Arizona wants a moderate politician to represent them them, not a trumper like Mcsally played herself to be.

Anyways, expects the republicans in the state to pass voter suppression laws pretty soon to stop the Hispanic vote from impacting elections.

One thing I heard interesting the other day, in regards to Texas voting more Democratic than before is due to people moving.

People commonly think "oh immigrants"

But the point brought up was that middle class/wealthy people who are democrats move out of California because of the high taxes to places like Texas with little taxes, and yet when they move their they keep their ideology and continue to vote for politicians like they had in California, which includes higher taxes. Kind of funny when you think about it.



irstupid said:
cycycychris said:

Arizona is getting a lot of people from liberal areas moving into its metropolitan areas, like Phoenix. With large amount of immigrants living in the state, its very possible the demographics are shifting. But I think one of the biggest reasons Sinema won is that she is incredibly moderate. Like really moderate, she votes with Trump 50% or 60% of the time. While Mcsally is rather moderate of a republican, she went full Trump during the campaign. So are the Democrats making a break out in Arizona, yes and no. I think what we saw in this election is that Arizona wants a moderate politician to represent them them, not a trumper like Mcsally played herself to be.

Anyways, expects the republicans in the state to pass voter suppression laws pretty soon to stop the Hispanic vote from impacting elections.

One thing I heard interesting the other day, in regards to Texas voting more Democratic than before is due to people moving.

People commonly think "oh immigrants"

But the point brought up was that middle class/wealthy people who are democrats move out of California because of the high taxes to places like Texas with little taxes, and yet when they move their they keep their ideology and continue to vote for politicians like they had in California, which includes higher taxes. Kind of funny when you think about it.

Actually, I was listening to some Ben Shapiro this week and he said most of the people moving to Texas are voting Republican. The Native born Texans are voting Democrat more than Republican (by a little).

It would make sense because if you lived in a liberal area, you will know how the Democrats will treat you and chase all the middle-class jobs out with a lot of regulations and high taxes. Some native-born Texans won't understand how Democrats really are.

Last edited by Snoopy - on 13 November 2018

Around the Network
irstupid said:
Mr_Destiny said:

The GOP won the overall House popular vote by 6.8% in 2010 (Wikipedia), which everyone called a wave. So far, the Dems also lead by 6.8% (Cook Political Report, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WxDaxD5az6kdOjJncmGph37z0BPNhV1fNAH_g7IkpC0/edit#gid=0), and that will only go up as California counts its absentee and mail-in ballots. If you go by the 2010 standard, this election definitely counts as a wave.

Just so you know, California sways the population vote for this, due to the fact that there was no republican on the ballet, so 100% of the votes in California all go towards the % you are using.

That's how it worked out in the Senate race, but we're talking about the House. Statewide, there were 8 races without a Republican, and one without a Democrat, so it does move the needle, but not by much.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/06/us/elections/results-california-elections.html

Last edited by Mr_Destiny - on 13 November 2018

Florida... where voting goes to die. So, the main issue in Florida is that their technology is so screwed up and old that they might as well do it by hand. For nearly 20 years now I have witnessed one botched election after another. Now, their counting machines are actually overheating and they are saying that they found where machines are just so old they can't record the correct choice. Then there is freaking Palm Beach County with machines so old, they are breaking and the company that makes them no longer exists. What in the 1960s is going on down there. If I lost a race down there, I would dispute the vote no matter what.



Hiku said:
Snoopy said:

Actually, I was listening to some Ben Shapiro this week and he said most of the people moving to Texas are voting Republican. The Native born Texans are voting Democrat more than Republican (by a little).

It would make sense because if you lived in a liberal area, you will know how the Democrats will treat you and chase all the middle-class jobs out with a lot of regulations and high taxes. Some native-born Texans won't understand how Democrats really are.

And some native born Texans do understand that when Republicans give major tax cuts which mostly benefits the wealthiest in the country, they pay for them by cutting funds for programs like medicare and medicaid, which will impact low and middle class income takers more than the bread crumbs they were tossed with a tax cut.

Take this example that Paul Ryan proudly retweeted, of a secretary who was happy that she got.... wait for it... a $1.50 weekly increase in take-home pay.
After it dawned on him that an extra Snickers bar per week is not something to brag about when the wealthiest in the country just got trillions in tax breaks, he deleted the tweet.

But yeah, those are the kind of people who tend to vote for Republican tax cuts. The ones who who don't question the crumbs they are tossed.

CosmicSex said:
Florida... where voting goes to die. So, the main issue in Florida is that their technology is so screwed up and old that they might as well do it by hand. For nearly 20 years now I have witnessed one botched election after another. Now, their counting machines are actually overheating and they are saying that they found where machines are just so old they can't record the correct choice. Then there is freaking Palm Beach County with machines so old, they are breaking and the company that makes them no longer exists. What in the 1960s is going on down there. If I lost a race down there, I would dispute the vote no matter what.

Whenever you cut taxes, wealthiest will always benefit because they pay the most taxes by far. It isn't even close. Second, there is a reason why thousands of people a DAY move from California to Texas. It is cheaper and gives you a lot of opportunities to grow yourself and take care of yourself. There is no state taxes or high cost of living like California unless you choose to live in a rich area. Which gives us opportunities to grow and save up for rainy days. Lastly, social programs should be removed. It is obvious whether or not we tax a lot or not, there isn't enough money to keep programs like social security alive. Medicare has also artificially made health care more expensive than it needs to be. If you notice, any sector that the government puts a lot of regulations on gets a lot more expensive. Look how expensive education and health care gotten when the government got their big noses in it. When we let the private sector take over, things become a lot cheaper and consumers have more choices. Look how over the years entertainment industry and cars have gotten cheaper for the average consumer when the government doesn't have nearly as many regulations and more importantly isn't FORCED.

Last edited by Snoopy - on 16 November 2018

Hiku said:
Snoopy said:

Whenever you cut taxes, wealthiest will always benefit because they pay the most taxes by far. It isn't even close. Second, there is a reason why thousands of people a DAY move from California to Texas. It is cheaper and gives you a lot of opportunities to grow yourself and take care of yourself. There is no state taxes or high cost of living like California unless you choose to live in a rich area. Which gives us opportunities to grow and save up for rainy days. Lastly, social programs should be removed. It is obvious whether or not we tax a lot or not, there isn't enough money to keep programs like social security alive. Medicare has also artificially made health care more expensive than it needs to be. If you notice, any sector that the government puts a lot of regulations on gets a lot more expensive. Look how expensive education and health care gotten when the government got their big noses in it. When we let the private sector take over, things become a lot cheaper and consumers have more choices. Look how over the years entertainment industry and cars have gotten cheaper for the average consumer when the government doesn't have nearly as many regulations and more importantly isn't FORCED.

It's not just one single tax, nor a flat figure that blankets everyone. Nor is it just about income. And it does not have to disproportionately benefit the wealthiest. The tax reform that Republicans passed affect many different taxes, such as the estate tax. In 2016, only 5,200 estates were so valuable that they qualified to pay for the estate tax. Needless to say, this is not a tax that affected common people. But rather the more wealthy people only.
The reason for it's existence was so that the super rich could not get away with unfettered accumulation of untaxed wealth. By turning their assets into estates and stock, they could avoid being taxed on it, before this tax was implemented. That's why Republicans fought hard to repeal it. And they succeeded.
Their strategy to get support for these tax reforms is to give roughly 10% of the benefits to the low and middle class, and 90% to the most wealthy, who do not need it. So the secretary who was happy about her extra $1.50/week is their target demographic, while their executive donors get an extra yacht and mansion.

As for social programs should be removed, people with the sink or swim attitude tend to be drawn to Republican policies. But there are people in our society who need to be taken care of. And I'm sure you don't bring your own roads to drive on.
Though your conclusion about what makes healthcare expensive is demonstrably wrong. Every other developed nation on the planet has socialized healthcare. And every single one of them spend less per capita on healthcare than USA does. In fact, it's so bad in the US that the same US manufactured medicine can be bought cheaper in Canada. You know things are messed up when it's cheaper to drive to Canada to buy US manufactured medicine. The reason for that is also one of the only things that separate USA from every other country. In 2002 Republicans (surprise surprise) passed a law that prevents the government from negotiating drug prices. That is not a thing anywhere else in the industrialized world. And as a direct result of this, your healthcare costs just keep rising. Because pharmaceutical companies can, and do, charge essentially whatever they want.

If you want an example of just how expensive it can get when they are allowed to do whatever they want with people's health, remember Pharma bro? He raised the price of an HIV drug from US$13.5 to $750 per pill. That drug could be manufactured for ~$2 per pill by the way.

Also, before education became a right, only the rich were able to get their children an education.

Theoretically, it could get just as bad if the government is in charge. However, the big difference here is that we can hold our elected officials accountable with our votes if they betray us. Private insurance companies answer to no one but their investors.
So given the choice, we want it in the hands of those that represent our votes. Not the ones who give them the most money. Which unfortunately applies to corporate politicians, which includes Democrats, who do take corporate donations (bribes). But that's what we're trying to change by getting money out of politics. This current election saw a large number of new and mostly young politicians become elected officials who don't take corporate or PAC money.
People like Bernie Sanders, Beto O'rourke and Alexandra Ocasio Cortez have shown that they can raise just as much money as their corporate sponsored opponents, if not more, by going door to door and getting single small donations from their constituents. Which means they work for them. Not for the pharmaceutical industry, or the fossil fuel industry, or the NRA, etc.

First point, again the rich pay for the majority of our stuff. If you tax them to death, they'll end up leaving this country and do their business somewhere else. Which will mean less money for us. These tax laws are for everyone, not just the rich. Businesses and communities could easily pay for the roads. It's not like 300 million people will be like "Geez, I wish we had a road" and do nothing about it. Also, the federal government only spends about 1% on infrastructure.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sj7wuHFn6pI

Second, we have a bunch of charities and institutions who can take care of people that are nonprofit organizations. Sorry, but just because you're born in a rich country doesn't mean you're entitled to anything. I rather have a face attached to these charities, then to just hand out money to someone through a faceless government. This way people can get a clear understanding that the money is coming from someone. Also, there isn't enough money to keep running these social programs. Hell, Sanders medicare for everyone plan has been proven impossible. And again health care, in general, has been expensive because the government has gotten involved.

Pharma bro, would've been forced to lower prices to actually sell the pills, or else go bankrupt if the government stop interfering with health care. It's very similar to the reason why college has gotten more expensive.

Federal government: We will give student loans out for any degree they want and won't deny them.

Colleges: LOL okay, we will charge 5x the price because young folks won't know any better and take out 70k+ loans for gender studies.

The point you made regarding this "Also, before education became a right, only the rich were able to get their children an education."

My great grandparents were dirt poor and still got a traditional education.  I can understand maybe kids not getting an education if they have to work all day on the family farm, which back then is an education all on itself (life was way different back then). However, if they wanted to go to school, nothing was stopping them when they get older except themselves.

Lastly, elected officials will betray you because you need the vast majority to not be corrupt. Sorry to say, but most elected officials have gotten this far in their career thanks to money from corporations or interest groups. The Catholic church isn't a corporation, but they have an agenda. People like George Soros is not a company but has an agenda.

Last edited by Snoopy - on 16 November 2018

Hiku said:
Snoopy said:

First point, again the rich pay for the majority of our stuff. If you tax them to death, they'll end up leaving this country and do their business somewhere else. Which will mean less money for us. These tax laws are for everyone, not just the rich. Businesses and communities could easily pay for the roads. It's not like 300 million people will be like "Geez, I wish we had a road" and do nothing about it. Also, the federal government only spends about 1% on infrastructure.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sj7wuHFn6pI

Second, we have a bunch of charities and institutions who can take care of people that are nonprofit organizations. Sorry, but just because you're born in a rich country doesn't mean you're entitled to anything. I rather have a face attached to these charities, then to just hand out money to someone through a faceless government. This way people can get a clear understanding that the money is coming from someone. Also, there isn't enough money to keep running these social programs. Hell, Sanders medicare for everyone plan has been proven impossible. And again health care, in general, has been expensive because the government has gotten involved.

Pharma bro, would've been forced to lower prices to actually sell the pills, or else go bankrupt if the government stop interfering with health care. It's very similar to the reason why college has gotten more expensive.

Federal government: We will give student loans out for any degree they want and won't deny them.

Colleges: LOL okay, we will charge 5x the price because young folks won't know any better and take out 70k+ loans for gender studies.

The point you made regarding this "Also, before education became a right, only the rich were able to get their children an education."

My great grandparents were dirt poor and still got a traditional education.  I can understand maybe kids not getting an education if they have to work all day on the family farm, which back then is an education all on itself (life was way different back then). However, if they wanted to go to school, nothing was stopping them when they get older except themselves.

Lastly, elected officials will betray you because you need the vast majority to not be corrupt. Sorry to say, but most elected officials have gotten this far in their career thanks to money from corporations or interest groups. The Catholic church isn't a corporation, but they have an agenda. People like George Soros is not a company but has an agenda.

First point, the rich do not get taxed to death. They're still rich. And the Estate tax is not for everyone. Like I said, in 2016 only 5,200 estates in the country were qualified expensive enough to pay that tax. I'm sure you're aware of this, but rich people constantly try to look for loopholes so that they can pay less than they're supposed to. Turning their assets into estate and stock was one of those. Repealing the estate tax only benefited a small portion of the country who had estate worth that much.

Regarding leaving the country, there are several reasons for why that can be difficult for them. Economically, the US is the ONLY country which has citizenship based taxation, which means relinquishing or renouncing US citizenship if you are wealthy and want to leave with your money.
When it comes to renunciation, the US government has defined ‘wealthy' as a person who triggers either one or both of the tests set out in IRS 8854 ( https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i8854.pdf ). Individuals who trigger these tests are called  ‘Covered Expatriates.  It is only Covered Expatriates who trigger a capital gains deemed disposition. This capital gains event is the same that would occur upon sale or death, with the same rules, exemptions and rates applying. It is often referred to as an ‘Exit Tax’.

Aside from the Exit Tax, rich people just like everyone else want to live where they like living. They want to be near their friends. Near their relatives. Where they grew up. In the place they like to be. Once you have a lot of money, the marginal benefit from having more diminishes.

And a community building a road is the principle behind pooling our money (taxes) together to benefit our society. But when you ignore what the majority want, and instead leave everything to the whim of individuals who may have wildly different priorities and ideas about what they want, much in our society just wouldn't function.

Second, in spite of charities there are around 40 000 people who die every year in the US because they can't afford healthcare. If people rely on charities such as the ones you are referring to, they are at the mercy of which cause those charities happen to benefit. For reference, that number is 0 in every other developed nation on the planet.
And that's just one example of how private charities are not designed to reach or identify specific problems.

What do you mean by "Pharma Bro would have been forced to lower prices or go bankrupt if the government stop interfering with health care?"
You'll have to explain that one. I just explained earlier that the US government is unable to negotiate drug prices. Which makes your own drugs cheaper to buy from Canada in some instances.

As for your great grandparents, I was referring to a time further back than that. Universal public education law was first passed in one state in 1885. Not until 1918 did all states have this law enacted. But my point was that there was a time when a general education, even at elementary level, was something for privileged rich kids. Until people stood up for themselves and said their kids deserve an education as well.

Lastly, you are right about the importance of having the majority of elected officials not be corrupt. But in order to get there, we have to support more and more representatives who make it a point not to take corporate or PAC money, to the point where those contributions are legally defined as bribes.
While some will find loopholes, making it more and more difficult for them to be financially corrupt will weed out more and more bad players, who will pursue different venues instead like Wall Street. That way more of our elected officials are actually there to represent their constituents, rather than prioritize their wallets.
And refusing corporate and PAC money is growing a lot in popularity in recent years. I think largely because of Bernie Sander's campaign in 2016. And you saw what the establishment Democrats thought of that. They didn't like that an independent was more popular than their corporate funded candidate, and rigged the primaries against him.

Until then, we look at the donation records of our elected officials, and how they voted. And we vote them out.
Speaking of which, I like the fact that Nancy Pelosi currently does not have the votes to become speaker of the house. And this is largely because of the new group of independent Democrats who just got elected. They even had a protest (about a different matter) in her office before they have even been sworn in.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yr4yY9O4Sdg

It's not even Day 1 and they're already at it. I like where this is going.

1. Yes, they do get taxed a lot and they pay a lot more than any of us. It isn't even close. We shouldn't be taxing them this much. So what if they are rich? We are not entitled to their money.  Also, those "loopholes" are tax laws that are available for anyone who falls in the category. Also, seems that particular "loophole" protects them from a discriminatory tax code that hurts a specific group.  Giving money to poor people won't solve anything. If you don't know how to manage money, it won't do anything. That is why a lot of lottery winners or professional athletes who were poor before end up being poor again.

Companies should keep the money so they can invest money in the next product. If I split 10 billion dollars for example to everyone in the United States, that might pay their cell phone bill for the month. If I let a company or investor keep it, they can make the next big product which will lead to more jobs and create more income for the United States.

2. Doesn't matter if it's difficult, which it isn't since you are rich you have a lot of resources. You can always find a way to visit the United States or move your family with you. Also, there are many ways to store your money in other countries without leaving the country. I don't think I have to go to much into that.

3. With the government subsidizing or paying someone's health care completely with Medicaid, companies have no incentive to lower prices for anything health care related. Again, look at my College example, it is very similar. Companies can charge a lot more and they know they will get the money because the government will just pay it and bill us.

4. Regarding the 40,000 people who die, that is a small fraction and their fault most of the time. Hospitals will not turn away someone and again Medicaid should cover it. Also, I'm not sure the 40,000 is an accurate number.

According to this:

https://fee.org/articles/if-american-healthcare-kills-european-healthcare-kills-more/

"The question is hotly contested, and approximations range from 0 to 45,000 people per year. The latter figure is obviously what most progressives prefer to cite,"

According to Fraser Institue, Canada has a similar problem.

Increases in wait times for medically necessary care in Canada between 1993 and 2009 may have resulted in between 25,456 and 63,090 (with a middle value of 44,273) additional deaths among females.

Keep in mind that the United States population is almost 9 times bigger than Canada.

Life in 1885 was so way different, that traditional education wasn't as important for everyone. Kids still have to work to support their family and stay alive. Their work didn't call for a higher education. Around the 1920's, the nature of work was changing significantly which require higher learning. This was one of the reasons for the law. Also, you can get a higher education when you are older in 1885. America is about creating your own adventure.

The government should step away from education allow the private sector to take over. Privatized education is much better than public schools.

Lastly, we need to downsize the feder government and give power back to state and local so the last issue won't be a problem.