The 2010 Election

[WinePusher]

Ok, so what's everybodies predications on the upcoming 2010 congressional elections?

I think republicans will take a sweeping majority in the House, and will get huge gains in the senate (but won't regain the majority).

Key races to look out for are:

California Senate: Carly Fiorina (R) vs. Barbara Boxer (D)
Delaware Senate: Christine O' Donnell (R) vs. Chris Coons (D)
Nevada Senate:Sharon Angle (R) vs. Harry Reid (D)
Florida Senate: Marco Rubio (R) vs. Chris Cristie (I)

I also predict republican victories in every single one of these races, even though they are very tight races.

I realize there's nothing religious about this, but I thought it'd be an interesting discussion in light of the upcoming elections. If moderators feel this is inappropriate they can delete it or lock it.

[nygreenguy]

Socialized medicine results in health care rationing, and someone has to decide who gets the care.

Then why is it people who live under "socialized" medicine have happier, more healthy lives,longer (we are 42nd in life expectancy) lower infant mortality rates, etc...

Also, the current system decides by who can pay, and if you have insurance. I have been waiting 2 years to get some needed dental work done despite have the cash to pay for it because I have to search for who the cheapest is, but first get an exam, which usually takes months, etc...

My friends with insurance get this stuff done in weeks.

Im sorry but anyone against universal coverage is simply on the wrong side of the truth.

[East of Eden]

All the polls said Castle would have won over Coons, so the evidence is against you here.

If Castle was so great why couldn't he even win his own party's primary?

It is difficult, but you are wrong on your statement.

John Thune defeated Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle only 6 years ago. I'll grant you that was the first time in 50 or 52 years.

Wrong, Daschle was the Senate Minority leader.

[East of Eden]

Then why is it people who live under "socialized" medicine have happier, more healthy lives,longer (we are 42nd in life expectancy) lower infant mortality rates, etc...

Not really. In 2008, Britain had a cancer death rate 0.25% while the United States had a rate of only 0.18%. The UK cancer death rate was 38% higher than in the United States.

The Guardian, the UK’s left wing daily, estimated that “up to 10,000 people� are dying each year of cancer “because their condition is diagnosed too late, according to research by the government’s director of cancer services.�

In Canada, the cancer death rate is 16% higher than in the United States.

[Chuck_G]

Then why is it people who live under "socialized" medicine have happier, more healthy lives,longer (we are 42nd in life expectancy) lower infant mortality rates, etc...

Not really. In 2008, Britain had a cancer death rate 0.25% while the United States had a rate of only 0.18%. The UK cancer death rate was 38% higher than in the United States.

The Guardian, the UK’s left wing daily, estimated that “up to 10,000 people� are dying each year of cancer “because their condition is diagnosed too late, according to research by the government’s director of cancer services.�

In Canada, the cancer death rate is 16% higher than in the United States.

Yes, I have heard this on Fox News repeatedly. And it is cherry picking.

Despite the claim by many in the U.S. health policy community that international comparison is not useful because of the uniqueness of the United States, the rankings have figured prominently in many arenas. It is hard to ignore that in 2006, the United States was number 1 in terms of health care spending per capita but ranked 39th for infant mortality, 43rd for adult female mortality, 42nd for adult male mortality, and 36th for life expectancy.3 These facts have fueled a question now being discussed in academic circles, as well as by government and the public: Why do we spend so much to get so little?

Source: http://healthpolicyandreform.nejm.org/?p=2610

edited to bold.

[micatala]

All the polls said Castle would have won over Coons, so the evidence is against you here.

If Castle was so great why couldn't he even win his own party's primary?

Red Herring. I believe it was claimed that Coons would have beaten Castle, which the polls did not indicate.

Castle lost the primary narrowly because the Republican Primary narrows the electorate, and especially in an off year, narrows it to an extremely conservative group. I would guess a lot of those who supported O'Donnell in the primary did so in the general election as well. But I would guess a lot of Castle supporters AND a lot of independents went for Coons.

It is difficult, but you are wrong on your statement.

John Thune defeated Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle only 6 years ago. I'll grant you that was the first time in 50 or 52 years.

Wrong, Daschle was the Senate Minority leader.

I stand corrected. Yes, Daschle was Minority Leader at the time of the election. My mistake, and apologies for erroneously taking you to task on your original assertion.

I would also acknowledge your larger point made about the Reid election. It is difficult to knock of a majority leader. In fact, I think McConnell had a very close election the last time he was up.

[East of Eden]

Red Herring. I believe it was claimed that Coons would have beaten Castle, which the polls did not indicate.

I said I wasn't positive he would have beaten Coons.

Castle lost the primary narrowly because the Republican Primary narrows the electorate, and especially in an off year, narrows it to an extremely conservative group. I would guess a lot of those who supported O'Donnell in the primary did so in the general election as well. But I would guess a lot of Castle supporters AND a lot of independents went for Coons.

The primaries do tend to bring out the most extreme elements in both parties. This first happened on the presidential level when McGovern was nominated, and creamed. Before the primary system candidates were more or less picked by the party bosses, Humphrey being the last such candidate for the Democrats.

I stand corrected. Yes, Daschle was Minority Leader at the time of the election. My mistake, and apologies for erroneously taking you to task on your original assertion.

I would also acknowledge your larger point made about the Reid election. It is difficult to knock of a majority leader. In fact, I think McConnell had a very close election the last time he was up.

I think whatever the popularity of the majority leader's politics, there is a perception that the state has a powerful friend in DC. It is very hard to overcome that.

[East of Eden]

Yes, I have heard this on Fox News repeatedly.

Is the Guardian a right-wing source?

Despite the claim by many in the U.S. health policy community that international comparison is not useful because of the uniqueness of the United States, the rankings have figured prominently in many arenas. It is hard to ignore that in 2006, the United States was number 1 in terms of health care spending per capita but ranked 39th for infant mortality, 43rd for adult female mortality, 42nd for adult male mortality, and 36th for life expectancy.3 These facts have fueled a question now being discussed in academic circles, as well as by government and the public: Why do we spend so much to get so little?

Because we need tort reform badly, and free-market incentives to reduce costs such as Health Savings Accounts.

[micatala]

The recovery is slow. Whether we have a right to expect it to be faster given the steps that were taken is a good question. We can be fairly certain that we would be in much worse shape now without those actions. Keep in mind TARP and the auto bailouts will very likely in the end be deficit neutral or actually make the taxpayers money. Thus, there is really no downside to those actions, and most economists think the first saved us from a melt down and the second saved several hundred thousdand jobs.

Also keep in mind this recession had several aggravating factors, besides being the worst recession since the 1930's. I am not sure how you have any basis for expecting us to have recovered more than we already have.

Want to compare Obama's 'recovery' with Reagan's?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 24906.html

With the caveats that the much more severe nature of the current recession is taken into account and that we are in process within the current recovery and can't look back at retrospectivley yet, sure.

I think it is worth noting at this time that the auto bailout seems to have been a huge success.

All three big three American auto makers are going to have a profitable year for the first time in half a decade.

GM's stock offering today was a huge success, making GM 20 billion. GM has already paid back their loan package, and is now getting close to being able to buy back the stock. The taxpayers are very likely to make money on this deal.

And 1.4 million jobs, possibly up to 2 million, were saved in the process.




On the Wall Street Journal comparison, WSJ suggests that since the length of the downturn of the most recent recession was only two months longer than Reagan's, the recent one was not that out of the ordinary historically.

This ignores the deepness of the recessions. Reagan's downturn was less than 3%. The Bush recession a solid 4%. It looks to be a good 50% more severe in its depth.

I'll stand by the assertion that the Bush recession which Obama has had to deal with is much more severe than Reagan's. And I will again point to the evidence that Obama's actions have had a huge positive effect.

Auto bailouts save, even conservatively, at least 1 million jobs.

The stimulus package saved even more jobs, an estimated 1.5 to 3.3 million.

TARP, for which the credit goes to Bush, looks like it will, like the auto bailout, pay for itself. It also saved us, by most accountings, from a much worse financial crisis.

[East of Eden]

The recovery is slow. Whether we have a right to expect it to be faster given the steps that were taken is a good question. We can be fairly certain that we would be in much worse shape now without those actions. Keep in mind TARP and the auto bailouts will very likely in the end be deficit neutral or actually make the taxpayers money. Thus, there is really no downside to those actions, and most economists think the first saved us from a melt down and the second saved several hundred thousdand jobs.

Also keep in mind this recession had several aggravating factors, besides being the worst recession since the 1930's. I am not sure how you have any basis for expecting us to have recovered more than we already have.

Want to compare Obama's 'recovery' with Reagan's?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 24906.html

With the caveats that the much more severe nature of the current recession is taken into account and that we are in process within the current recovery and can't look back at retrospectivley yet, sure.

I think it is worth noting at this time that the auto bailout seems to have been a huge success.

All three big three American auto makers are going to have a profitable year for the first time in half a decade.

GM's stock offering today was a huge success, making GM 20 billion. GM has already paid back their loan package, and is now getting close to being able to buy back the stock. The taxpayers are very likely to make money on this deal.

And 1.4 million jobs, possibly up to 2 million, were saved in the process.




On the Wall Street Journal comparison, WSJ suggests that since the length of the downturn of the most recent recession was only two months longer than Reagan's, the recent one was not that out of the ordinary historically.

This ignores the deepness of the recessions. Reagan's downturn was less than 3%. The Bush recession a solid 4%. It looks to be a good 50% more severe in its depth.

I'll stand by the assertion that the Bush recession which Obama has had to deal with is much more severe than Reagan's. And I will again point to the evidence that Obama's actions have had a huge positive effect.

Auto bailouts save, even conservatively, at least 1 million jobs.

The stimulus package saved even more jobs, an estimated 1.5 to 3.3 million.

TARP, for which the credit goes to Bush, looks like it will, like the auto bailout, pay for itself. It also saved us, by most accountings, from a much worse financial crisis.

I reject the idea that Obama's problem economy he inherited was worse than Reagan's. Obama didn't have to deal with high inflation and interest rates. The famous 'crisis point' happened when Bush was president, not Obama.

You don't get the same recovery results using two opposite strategies. Reagan's was lower taxes and regulation and smaller government. Obama's is the opposite. We are getting a demonstration of which one works.

My only complaint with the auto bailouts was it was weighted towards Obama's union pals at the expense of the bondholders. It would have been nice to get more concessions from the unions, like maybe selling their $30,000,000 resort and stop the practice of paying union members not to work.

[Wyvern]

I reject the idea that Obama's problem economy he inherited was worse than Reagan's. Obama didn't have to deal with high inflation and interest rates. The famous 'crisis point' happened when Bush was president, not Obama.

Except that with high interest rates you have an easy fix available in cutting interest rates which in turn increases economic activity and employment which in turn solves most of the problems you get from a recession. Obama did not have this easy fix available since the interest rates have been near zero for quite a while now

You don't get the same recovery results using two opposite strategies. Reagan's was lower taxes and regulation and smaller government. Obama's is the opposite. We are getting a demonstration of which one works.

You also can't use the same strategies when those strategies are not available. Tax rates are close to the same rate under Reagan already. Deregulation has been ongoing for the last thirty years and as such there is significantly less regulation than during Reagans term. Reagan may have advocated smaller government but his own administration caused the government to grow. It should also be said that making a judgement over twenty years after the fact is much easier to do than when you are in the middle of a crisis.

My only complaint with the auto bailouts was it was weighted towards Obama's union pals at the expense of the bondholders. It would have been nice to get more concessions from the unions, like maybe selling their $30,000,000 resort and stop the practice of paying union members not to work.

Considering the bondholders would have lost everything if these companies would have been allowed to go bankrupt as many right wingers have advocated they got a pretty good deal. As far as the unions go they are a major bondholder in their companies. As far as paying for union members not to work the only other option would be to have them go on unemployment in which they would then be paid by the state to not work along with the need to expand the government in order to process the paperwork for the expanded unemployment claims.