November 2nd, 2010
I sure hope Dennis voted for the Democrats this time, I mean Republican?
As he wants all the Democrats out, just like George Bush did for 8 years and they got us in trouble…lmao lol
Comment by: Dennis, How much cost of living did u get the last 2 years with democrats in office>>>>> $0.00.....the first time in 20 years but they voted themselves a raise....twice....in 1 year......go figure? who needs to go?
Ron's Comment Back:
That’s the Government for you, it does not matter what party you favor, like I said, “They are all crooks when they get elected. But, we only get stimulus money of $250.00 again this coming year, maybe if the ones that are voted in will stop it forever on the SSI and DAV. And you cannot fight the Government….!! We should have never been in Vietnam, just like George Bush did with IRAQ and screwed up the 8 years while in office, as he like to start a war, but Obama did the same as John McCain did….requested to continue the war, now in Afghanistan which we should never been there too. The United States needs to mind there own business and take care of the U. S. And not foreign countries. Charity starts at home and help the needy ones that are starving today and children. When they bail out the auto makers, at least they pay back the Government that was given to them, plus interests, the banks all suck and most of them will not lend money on foreclosures and the housing market is in the bottom of the barrel. A $250.000.00 house when bought 10 years ago are not worth $100,000.00 today, now the banks own them. Should I go on…..??
This is what the Republicans want to do, and this is only the tip of the iceberg..!!
TAKING AWAY YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE FOR YOUR OWN SENATORS
The 17th Amendment To The United State Constitution Allows For Direct Election of Senators By The People. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct. This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution. [17th Amendment to the United States Constitution]
Buck Supported Repeal of the 17th Amendment
Question: “Would You Be In Favor of Repealing…the 17th Amendment in Order to Bring Back the Legislature’s Voice in the National Congress?”
Buck: “The short answer is yes.” [Ken Buck Campaign Speech, Pikes Peak Economics Club, 6/17/09]
Buck Thought 17th Amendment Had a “Horrendous” Effect, Wanted to Repeal it. Buck said, “I don’t know that we get [repeal] tomorrow, but I think we get there in the very near future when people understand just what a horrendous effect the 17th amendment has been on the federal government’s spending.”[Ken Buck Campaign Speech, Pikes Peak Economics Club, 6/17/09]
Buck Thought it Would be Better to Let State Legislatures Elect United States Senators Instead of the American People. In June 2009, Buck told the Pikes Peak Economics Club that the American public needed to be educated “about the populist nature of the 17th Amendment and how it has taken us down the wrong path. How states could very well pass amendments and the same types of protection of women and victims that the federal government has forced on the states and wouldn’t force on the states with senators who are elected by the state legislatures and not by the people in a process that involves a lot more politicization of those elections.” [Ken Buck Campaign Speech, Pikes Peak Economics Club, 6/17/09]
RISKING YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY ON THE STOCK MARKET
Buck Said He Would Consider Privatizing Social Security. As reported by the Wall Street Journal, “Mr. Buck said he would consider some privatization of Social Security but wanted to be sure needy seniors retain a safety net.” [Wall Street Journal, 7/26/10]
Buck Suggested that Government Should Not Be Running Health Care or Retirement, and That The Private Sector Runs it Better. At the Constitutionalist Today forum, Buck said “I don’t know that the federal government should be involved in a retirement plan. It should be a plan that certainly, once people pay into it, they have an expectation of getting a retirement and they’re entitled to that. But the idea that the federal government should be running health care or retirement or any of those programs is fundamentally against what I believe. And that is that the private sector runs programs like that far better.” [Constitutionalist Today Forum, 3/9/10]
Newsday: Wall Street Would Pull In Big Bucks Under Private Social Security Accounts. “No one knows whether workers would prosper in private Social Security accounts, but financial firms would likely pull in big bucks. From mutual fund managers to brokerage firms to investment advisers, financial-services companies could in time earn hundreds of millions of dollars a year in fees and other revenue if workers were allowed to invest part of their payroll taxes in the stock market, as President George W. Bush is proposing.” [Newsday, 2/20/05]
Buck: Individuals Should Invest Their Own Social Security Funds. Buck told 9NEWS during a debate with his Republican primary opponent Jane Norton, "We've got to peg Social Security to individuals so those individuals have the ability perhaps to invest in various funds that are approved by the government. But those individuals also own that fund." [9News Your Show Debate, 7/22/10]
WANTS TO ABOLISH THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Buck Wants to Abolish the Department of Education. At a campaign appearance at Burlington Community College, Buck said that he would be in favor of abolishing the Department of Education.
Question: You mentioned education. Would you be in favor of abolishing the Department of Education at the Federal level?
Buck: “I would be in favor.” [Burlington Community College, 1/10/10]
Buck Wants to End Federal Student Loans. At a campaign stop in Teller County, Buck said: “There are some programs within education that we can get rid of tomorrow. There are other programs that are gonna have to take some time to get rid of like student loans.” [Teller County Tea Party Event, 2/6/10]
Buck: Ending Student Loans is “The Reality.” As reported by the Wall Street Journal: “I've never heard one person say 'Take my kid's student loans away,'’ [Buck] said, referring to his stance that the government should get out of the college-loan business. ‘But it's the reality.’” [Wall Street Journal, 7/26/10]
Buck: “I Don’t Think That Our Founding Fathers Ever Intended For The Federal Government to Have Student Loans.” [Greenhorn Valley Town Hall, 3/3/10]
DANGEROUS FOR WOMEN AND FAMILIES
Buck Supports the Colorado Personhood Amendment. Ken Buck endorses the Colorado Personhood ballot measure (Amendment 62), which states that life begins at the “moment of fertilization” and bans abortions in all cases including rape, incest and when the life of the mother is at risk. [Grand Junction Press, 5/28/10]
Buck: Vote for Me “Because I Don’t Wear High Heels”. During a speech given to the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Party on July 17, 2010, Buck told supporters that they should vote for him “because I don’t wear high heels.” [Buck Remarks, 7/17/10]
Most people lived way over them means, 3 to 4 cars, boat, camper trailer, toys like motorcycles, guns, you name it they got it and they cannot afford that and go into foreclosures with a house that cost over $250,000.00 then they cannot pay for it with the high cost of interest payments on credit cards too!
Plus no jobs or work thanks to the George Bush administration in 8 years in Office and spending the SSI and DAV monthly benefits money to support IRAQ now Afghanistan. That is the main reason that the cost of living stop for SSI and Disabled Veterans.
The ax has fallen: Barack Obama captured the White House in 2008 on the strength of his personal magnetism, optimism that he could lift a sinking economy, an energized party base -- and by winning key battleground states. The results of the 2010 midterm elections revealed considerable erosion in these assets, which proved so vital to his winning coalition.
Unless Mr. Obama can reverse these trends then he will become the fourth one-term president in the last four decades, following the path of Gerald Ford in 1976, Jimmy Carter in 1980, and George H. W. Bush in 1992.
Falling Popularity
One week after Mr. Obama took office, the non-partisan Gallup Poll found 66 percent of Americans approved of him, including 88 percent of Democrats and 62 percent of independents. Even 38 percent of Republicans gave him positive evaluations.
The 2010 exit polls showed that support for the president has fallen considerably from this high water mark. Overall, 45 percent of midterm voters approve of the way Mr. Obama is handling his job as president. Only 40 percent of independent voters and 10 percent of Republican voters give the president positive approval ratings. Support among Democrats is 84 percent.
Obama will have to substantially improve his approval rating, and quickly, if he expects to win again in 2012. Of the nine presidents who have sought re-election since Gallup began measuring presidential approval in forties, five of them had approval ratings below 50 percent after their first two years in office. However, none of the nine won a second term when less than half of the public approved of their performance twelve months before the general election.
At the time of the 2008 presidential election, the recession was well under way. Unemployment had risen from 4.7 percent in October 2007 to 6.6 percent in October 2008. Election Day found an overwhelming number of voters (93 percent) rating the economy negatively, including 44 percent of the electorate who judged the economy as poor. Worse, a majority of voters (53 percent) thought the economy would not get any better in the next year.
Mr. Obama was the clear choice of voters concerned with the economy. Voters who rated the economy as poor cast 66 percent of their ballots for Mr. Obama. Of those voters who did think economy would get better in the next year, 61 percent voted for Mr. Obama.
Since the president has taken office, though, the economy has not improved. It has instead continued to slide. The most recent unemployment figures show that the unemployment rate at 9.6 percent in September 2010.
Despite the recession commencing well before he took office, the exit polls show that Mr. Obama and the Democrats are now bearing some of the responsibility for the struggling economy. Twenty-three percent of voters believe that Mr. Obama is more to blame for the economic problems in this country than Wall Street bankers or George W. Bush. Sixty-five percent think the Obama Administration's economic stimulus plan has hurt the economy or made no difference.
If history is telling, than the economy will need to improve considerably over the next two years for Mr. Obama to be re-elected. Of the last nine presidents to seek re-election, none succeeded when the unemployment rate was 7.5 percent of greater in September of the year they sought re-election. The September unemployment rate in the year Jimmy Carter lost was 7.5 percent, while it was 7.6 percent for both Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush.
Mr. Obama won in 2008 by energizing and exciting the Democratic base. Historically Democratic groups like young people, African Americans, and union members turned out in large numbers. Some commentators went so far as to suggest that it was a realigning election, capable of producing a sustained period of Democratic dominance.
The 2010 midterm elections showed that such judgments were premature as turnout amongst a number of these groups fell considerably. Young people between the ages of 18 and 29 comprised 18 percent of the electorate in 2008, but only 11 percent of the electorate in 2010. Union voters comprised 23 percent of the electorate in 2008, but only 17 percent in 2010. African Americans made up 13 percent of the electorate in 2008, but only 10 percent of the electorate in 2010.
If these groups are not re-energized and head to the polls in 2012, it will likely spell defeat for Obama in his bid for re-election.
Battleground States Swinging Back
Mr. Obama won the 2008 presidential election by converting nine key states from the Republican column to the Democratic column. Majorities in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Indiana, New Mexico, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia voted for Obama after backing George W. Bush four years earlier. If Mr. Obama had not won these states he would have lost to Sen. John McCain 285 to 253 in the Electoral College, rather than winning by a 365 to 173 electoral vote margin.
The 2010 midterm elections show that Mr. Obama has his work cut out for him if he hopes to retain these key states in the 2012 election. Of the House seats that changed from Democrat to Republican, nearly a third flipped in these nine swing states. On the Senate side, Republican candidates won races in Florida, Indiana, Ohio, Iowa, and North Carolina by double-digit margins.
Despite these daunting challenges for Mr. Obama, they have been overcome in the not so distant past. Ronald Reagan faced similar circumstances in the 1982 midterm elections, but was able to reverse these trends over the next two years and easily defeat Walter Mondale in the 1984 presidential election.
At the 1982 midterm, Mr. Reagan's approval rating was only 43 percent. The unemployment rate hovered over 10 percent. Republican base groups turned out in lower numbers. As a result, the Republicans lost 29 seats in the House, including several in key battleground states such as Florida, California and North Carolina.
By the start of the 1984 general election, the unemployment rate had dropped precipitously to 7.2 percent. Mr. Reagan's approval rating had improved with the economy, reaching 56 percent. The Republican based was energized and Mr. Reagan rolled to a landslide victory in his re-election bid - a win that seemed quite unlikely just two years earlier.
Barack Obama faces a much different political landscape in 2010 than the one encountered by Mr. Reagan in 1984. The structure of the U.S. economy has changed, posing different challenges for job creation. Public officials are far more polarized, making the passage of legislation that much more difficult. Voters also appear more fickle, as evidenced by the degree of turnover in recent elections.
Only time will tell whether Barack Obama can turn the tide like Ronald Reagan -- or be swept away by it like Jimmy Carter. Either way, he is on the clock.
The CBS News exit polls were conducted by Edison Research for the National Election Pool. Results are based on 16,982 voters interviewed either after exiting the polls across the nation or by telephone if they voted early. They have a margin of error of plus or minus two percentage points. One copy by: Ron Schaffer November 3, 2010
Now that the Republicans are taking over the house with the vote that happened November 2nd, 2010, what is going to happen now? Only time will tell… as the problems with the economy cannot be done over night. We wish them all the luck in the world.
Ron Schaffer
379 2nd Ave.
P. O. Box 131
Deer Trail, Colorado.
80105-0131
Ronschaffer@Deertrailco.netwww.Deertrailco.net
720-947-9506
No comments:
Post a Comment