There's never been a worse time to be a Democrat in a red state. Republicans now hold all the reins of power—the governorship and both houses of the state legislature—in 23 states. That's up from just nine before the 2010 elections. There are now more states under single-party control than at any time since 1944. And without even token Democratic opposition, Republicans have busted unions in Michigan and Wisconsin, passed draconian tax cuts in Kansas, and enacted sweeping new abortion restrictions across the nation.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014...nt-control

Good

Sounds good to me.

Republican Rick Snyder has done wonders for Michigan since taking over from the democrat that watched this state crumble and did nothing about it. Unions be damned as well, no one should be able to force you to join a Union. That should be a choice.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

I don't think one party dominance is good for any state. Where are the checks and balances of a system like that?

(10-15-2014 11:33 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  I don't think one party dominance is good for any state. Where are the checks and balances of a system like that?

So, it wasn't good for the US when democrats had Obama in the white house, supermajority in house, and filibuster-proof majority in senate?

I agree that it wasn't.

(10-15-2014 11:33 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  I don't think one party dominance is good for any state. Where are the checks and balances of a system like that?

Checks and balances don't depend on politics.

(10-15-2014 11:36 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 11:33 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  I don't think one party dominance is good for any state. Where are the checks and balances of a system like that?

So, it wasn't good for the US when democrats had Obama in the white house, supermajority in house, and filibuster-proof majority in senate?

I agree that it wasn't.

But that only lasted for 2 years. I don't mind 2 years of super majority for either party.

I do however would worry if there were super majorities for several years.

Yep, things are looking up in red states...


"States run by Republican governors boast highest economic growth rates"

Quote:Nine of the 10 fastest growing U.S. states in the fourth quarter of 2013 were controlled by Republicans governors, according to the most recently available data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The BLS on Wednesday released a state-by-state comparison of GDP growth.

Six of the 10 worst-performing states, on the other hand, were run by Democrats.

url]http://blogs.marketwatch.com/capitolreport/2014/08/20/states-run-by-republican-governors-boast-highest-economic-growth-rates/[/url]

"Democrat States Raise Spending Quadruple the Rate of Republican States"

Quote:It seems the term "tax and spend liberal" isn’t just a cliché. Based on the numbers, if Democrats run your state government, it means, on average, higher taxes and more spending than if Republicans are in charge of state government.

https://news.heartland.org/newspaper-art...can-states

"Where Obama Fails, GOP Governors Find Solutions"

Quote:In fact, while the "blue states" are running up debt and flirting with bankruptcy, the "red states" continue to take the lead in cutting taxes, streamlining government and job creation, according to a report issued Monday by the State Government Leadership Foundation and being distributed by the Republican Legislative Campaign Committee.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/pete...and-growth

The real question is whether or not the Republican and Conservative candidates can successfully campaign on what has been a positive economic plan. Not all of the choices have been popular, but they are showing progress is being made.

(10-15-2014 11:40 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Yep, things are looking up in red states...


"States run by Republican governors boast highest economic growth rates"

Quote:Nine of the 10 fastest growing U.S. states in the fourth quarter of 2013 were controlled by Republicans governors, according to the most recently available data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The BLS on Wednesday released a state-by-state comparison of GDP growth.

Six of the 10 worst-performing states, on the other hand, were run by Democrats.

url]http://blogs.marketwatch.com/capitolreport/2014/08/20/states-run-by-republican-governors-boast-highest-economic-growth-rates/[/url]

"Democrat States Raise Spending Quadruple the Rate of Republican States"

Quote:It seems the term "tax and spend liberal" isn’t just a cliché. Based on the numbers, if Democrats run your state government, it means, on average, higher taxes and more spending than if Republicans are in charge of state government.

https://news.heartland.org/newspaper-art...can-states

"Where Obama Fails, GOP Governors Find Solutions"

Quote:In fact, while the "blue states" are running up debt and flirting with bankruptcy, the "red states" continue to take the lead in cutting taxes, streamlining government and job creation, according to a report issued Monday by the State Government Leadership Foundation and being distributed by the Republican Legislative Campaign Committee.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/pete...and-growth

The real question is whether or not the Republican and Conservative candidates can successfully campaign on what has been a positive economic plan. Not all of the choices have been popular, but they are showing progress is being made.

But we shouldn't judge states by what they are doing for the richest in their state. If we want to judge the success of a state, it should be by what they are doing for the most vulnerable and poorest within their state.

(10-15-2014 11:42 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 11:40 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Yep, things are looking up in red states...


"States run by Republican governors boast highest economic growth rates"

Quote:Nine of the 10 fastest growing U.S. states in the fourth quarter of 2013 were controlled by Republicans governors, according to the most recently available data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The BLS on Wednesday released a state-by-state comparison of GDP growth.

Six of the 10 worst-performing states, on the other hand, were run by Democrats.

url]http://blogs.marketwatch.com/capitolreport/2014/08/20/states-run-by-republican-governors-boast-highest-economic-growth-rates/[/url]

"Democrat States Raise Spending Quadruple the Rate of Republican States"

Quote:It seems the term "tax and spend liberal" isn’t just a cliché. Based on the numbers, if Democrats run your state government, it means, on average, higher taxes and more spending than if Republicans are in charge of state government.

https://news.heartland.org/newspaper-art...can-states

"Where Obama Fails, GOP Governors Find Solutions"

Quote:In fact, while the "blue states" are running up debt and flirting with bankruptcy, the "red states" continue to take the lead in cutting taxes, streamlining government and job creation, according to a report issued Monday by the State Government Leadership Foundation and being distributed by the Republican Legislative Campaign Committee.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/pete...and-growth

The real question is whether or not the Republican and Conservative candidates can successfully campaign on what has been a positive economic plan. Not all of the choices have been popular, but they are showing progress is being made.

But we shouldn't judge states by what they are doing for the richest in their state. If we want to judge the success of a state, it should be by what they are doing for the most vulnerable and poorest within their state.

If a State's Constitution makes helping "poor" and "vulnerable" part of the State's law, then well and good. But if that is not in the State's Constitution then it is not the State's job to "do more" for the "poor" and "vulnerable" than for any of its other citizens, no matter their personal economic standing.

Poor people do tend to have better access to better jobs in States that have growing and robust economies though.

(10-15-2014 11:42 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 11:40 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Yep, things are looking up in red states...


"States run by Republican governors boast highest economic growth rates"

Quote:Nine of the 10 fastest growing U.S. states in the fourth quarter of 2013 were controlled by Republicans governors, according to the most recently available data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The BLS on Wednesday released a state-by-state comparison of GDP growth.

Six of the 10 worst-performing states, on the other hand, were run by Democrats.

url]http://blogs.marketwatch.com/capitolreport/2014/08/20/states-run-by-republican-governors-boast-highest-economic-growth-rates/[/url]

"Democrat States Raise Spending Quadruple the Rate of Republican States"

Quote:It seems the term "tax and spend liberal" isn’t just a cliché. Based on the numbers, if Democrats run your state government, it means, on average, higher taxes and more spending than if Republicans are in charge of state government.

https://news.heartland.org/newspaper-art...can-states

"Where Obama Fails, GOP Governors Find Solutions"

Quote:In fact, while the "blue states" are running up debt and flirting with bankruptcy, the "red states" continue to take the lead in cutting taxes, streamlining government and job creation, according to a report issued Monday by the State Government Leadership Foundation and being distributed by the Republican Legislative Campaign Committee.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/pete...and-growth

The real question is whether or not the Republican and Conservative candidates can successfully campaign on what has been a positive economic plan. Not all of the choices have been popular, but they are showing progress is being made.

But we shouldn't judge states by what they are doing for the richest in their state. If we want to judge the success of a state, it should be by what they are doing for the most vulnerable and poorest within their state.

Hasn't the Obama administration admitted that those benefiting the most from the current economic recovery have been among the richest?

This from the NYtimes.... Economic Recovery Yields Few Benefits for the Voters Democrats Rely On

Also, from the last link I included.

Quote:"Reviewing the accomplishments of state legislatures across the country reveals a clear pattern – that Republican legislatures are not only right on the issues voters care about most, they have also focused on issues that benefit their entire state's population,"

and...

Quote:"During legislative sessions this year, red states focused on education reform that benefits all children, cutting taxes to save money for all residents, and focusing on pro-growth regulatory reforms that benefit all businesses and their employees. In stark contrast lie the accomplishments of blue states, which focused only on narrow special interests critical to their political base,"

A rising tide lifts all ships....

(10-15-2014 11:49 AM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 11:42 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 11:40 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Yep, things are looking up in red states...


"States run by Republican governors boast highest economic growth rates"

Quote:Nine of the 10 fastest growing U.S. states in the fourth quarter of 2013 were controlled by Republicans governors, according to the most recently available data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The BLS on Wednesday released a state-by-state comparison of GDP growth.

Six of the 10 worst-performing states, on the other hand, were run by Democrats.

url]http://blogs.marketwatch.com/capitolreport/2014/08/20/states-run-by-republican-governors-boast-highest-economic-growth-rates/[/url]

"Democrat States Raise Spending Quadruple the Rate of Republican States"

Quote:It seems the term "tax and spend liberal" isn’t just a cliché. Based on the numbers, if Democrats run your state government, it means, on average, higher taxes and more spending than if Republicans are in charge of state government.

https://news.heartland.org/newspaper-art...can-states

"Where Obama Fails, GOP Governors Find Solutions"

Quote:In fact, while the "blue states" are running up debt and flirting with bankruptcy, the "red states" continue to take the lead in cutting taxes, streamlining government and job creation, according to a report issued Monday by the State Government Leadership Foundation and being distributed by the Republican Legislative Campaign Committee.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/pete...and-growth

The real question is whether or not the Republican and Conservative candidates can successfully campaign on what has been a positive economic plan. Not all of the choices have been popular, but they are showing progress is being made.

But we shouldn't judge states by what they are doing for the richest in their state. If we want to judge the success of a state, it should be by what they are doing for the most vulnerable and poorest within their state.

If a State's Constitution makes helping "poor" and "vulnerable" part of the State's law, then well and good. But if that is not in the State's Constitution then it is not the State's job to "do more" for the "poor" and "vulnerable" than for any of its other citizens, no matter their personal economic standing.

Poor people do tend to have better access to better jobs in States that have growing and robust economies though.

I beg to differ. Many of the states that are dominated by republicans are also states with the worst school systems.

How are good jobs going to be available to people with bad education?

(10-15-2014 11:42 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 11:40 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Yep, things are looking up in red states...


"States run by Republican governors boast highest economic growth rates"

Quote:Nine of the 10 fastest growing U.S. states in the fourth quarter of 2013 were controlled by Republicans governors, according to the most recently available data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The BLS on Wednesday released a state-by-state comparison of GDP growth.

Six of the 10 worst-performing states, on the other hand, were run by Democrats.

url]http://blogs.marketwatch.com/capitolreport/2014/08/20/states-run-by-republican-governors-boast-highest-economic-growth-rates/[/url]

"Democrat States Raise Spending Quadruple the Rate of Republican States"

Quote:It seems the term "tax and spend liberal" isn’t just a cliché. Based on the numbers, if Democrats run your state government, it means, on average, higher taxes and more spending than if Republicans are in charge of state government.

https://news.heartland.org/newspaper-art...can-states

"Where Obama Fails, GOP Governors Find Solutions"

Quote:In fact, while the "blue states" are running up debt and flirting with bankruptcy, the "red states" continue to take the lead in cutting taxes, streamlining government and job creation, according to a report issued Monday by the State Government Leadership Foundation and being distributed by the Republican Legislative Campaign Committee.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/pete...and-growth

The real question is whether or not the Republican and Conservative candidates can successfully campaign on what has been a positive economic plan. Not all of the choices have been popular, but they are showing progress is being made.

But we shouldn't judge states by what they are doing for the richest in their state. If we want to judge the success of a state, it should be by what they are doing for the most vulnerable and poorest within their state.

Now THIS is PURE...COMEDY....GOLD....

Psssst- fitbud! Little pro-tip here, pal- Without the "rich" you can't do a damn thing for ANYONE. Do you get that? haha. wow.

(10-15-2014 10:44 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  There's never been a worse time to be a Democrat in a red state. Republicans now hold all the reins of power—the governorship and both houses of the state legislature—in 23 states.

Like GOP'ers in NY, Vermont, Massachusetts, Illinois, California, Hawaii, etc.

Quote:That's up from just nine before the 2010 elections

Take a bow, President Obama. It couldn't have happened without him.

Quote:There are now more states under single-party control than at any time since 1944.

Not a surprise to those who have been paying attention. This book -- Bill Clinton gave it a blurb -- explains some (a lot, really) of what's been going on:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Big-Sort-Clust...547237723#

Democrats have controlled this country for the last 82 years, either by owning the White House or having one or both houses of Congress.

In those 82 years, in only 6 years did we have both a Republican President and a Republican Controlled House and Senate... 1953-55 and 2003-2007. An additional 8 years were with a Republican President and Republicans in control of only one house of Congress (Reagan from 81-87 and Bush from 2001-03)

In those 82 years, the Democrats occupied the White House and controlled both houses of Congress for 34 years...in essence, they were in total control. There were an additional 4 years when we had a Democratic President and only one house of Congress under control of the Democrats (Obama 2011-15)

In those 82 years, the Democrats occupied the White House and had no control in Congress for 6 years, all under just one President (Clinton).

As we all know, who controls Congress, controls the destiny of the country. A President (until recently) could only offer ideas or plans but it's Congress that passes the laws so they either accept the President's plan or they modify the plan or they propose their own plans. In short, in the last 82 years, we've only had 6 years in which a Republican president could get his agenda through Congress without being modified by the Democrats...but even in those 6 years, the Republicans never had an uber majority or filibuster proof majority so they likely still had to compromise to get anything passed and sent to the President.

Controlling both houses of Congress is more critical than who's in the White House because like I said above, the laws originate in Congress. So, regardless of who occupied the White House:

14 years of Republicans in control of both houses: 1947-49, 1953-55, 1995-2001, 2003-2007.

56 years of Democrats in control of both houses: 1933-47, 1949-53, 1955-1981, 2007-2011.

22 years of a split Congress: 1981-87, 1993-95, 2011-2015.

it's easy to see that if you want to blame or give credit for the state of this country, one must put that squarely on the Democrats.

(10-15-2014 11:09 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Sounds good to me.

One party rule!

(10-15-2014 03:02 PM)WKUApollo Wrote:  Democrats have controlled this country for the last 82 years, either by owning the White House or having one or both houses of Congress.

In those 82 years, in only 6 years did we have both a Republican President and a Republican Controlled House and Senate... 1953-55 and 2003-2007. An additional 8 years were with a Republican President and Republicans in control of only one house of Congress (Reagan from 81-87 and Bush from 2001-03)

In those 82 years, the Democrats occupied the White House and controlled both houses of Congress for 34 years...in essence, they were in total control. There were an additional 4 years when we had a Democratic President and only one house of Congress under control of the Democrats (Obama 2011-15)

In those 82 years, the Democrats occupied the White House and had no control in Congress for 6 years, all under just one President (Clinton).

As we all know, who controls Congress, controls the destiny of the country. A President (until recently) could only offer ideas or plans but it's Congress that passes the laws so they either accept the President's plan or they modify the plan or they propose their own plans. In short, in the last 82 years, we've only had 6 years in which a Republican president could get his agenda through Congress without being modified by the Democrats...but even in those 6 years, the Republicans never had an uber majority or filibuster proof majority so they likely still had to compromise to get anything passed and sent to the President.

Controlling both houses of Congress is more critical than who's in the White House because like I said above, the laws originate in Congress. So, regardless of who occupied the White House:

14 years of Republicans in control of both houses: 1947-49, 1953-55, 1995-2001, 2003-2007.

56 years of Democrats in control of both houses: 1933-47, 1949-53, 1955-1981, 2007-2011.

22 years of a split Congress: 1981-87, 1993-95, 2011-2015.

it's easy to see that if you want to blame or give credit for the state of this country, one must put that squarely on the Democrats.

Very interesting and important information. It makes you wonder what time Conservatives refer to when they mention that they want to " Take Our Country Back".

(10-15-2014 03:29 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-15-2014 03:02 PM)WKUApollo Wrote:  Democrats have controlled this country for the last 82 years, either by owning the White House or having one or both houses of Congress.

In those 82 years, in only 6 years did we have both a Republican President and a Republican Controlled House and Senate... 1953-55 and 2003-2007. An additional 8 years were with a Republican President and Republicans in control of only one house of Congress (Reagan from 81-87 and Bush from 2001-03)

In those 82 years, the Democrats occupied the White House and controlled both houses of Congress for 34 years...in essence, they were in total control. There were an additional 4 years when we had a Democratic President and only one house of Congress under control of the Democrats (Obama 2011-15)

In those 82 years, the Democrats occupied the White House and had no control in Congress for 6 years, all under just one President (Clinton).

As we all know, who controls Congress, controls the destiny of the country. A President (until recently) could only offer ideas or plans but it's Congress that passes the laws so they either accept the President's plan or they modify the plan or they propose their own plans. In short, in the last 82 years, we've only had 6 years in which a Republican president could get his agenda through Congress without being modified by the Democrats...but even in those 6 years, the Republicans never had an uber majority or filibuster proof majority so they likely still had to compromise to get anything passed and sent to the President.

Controlling both houses of Congress is more critical than who's in the White House because like I said above, the laws originate in Congress. So, regardless of who occupied the White House:

14 years of Republicans in control of both houses: 1947-49, 1953-55, 1995-2001, 2003-2007.

56 years of Democrats in control of both houses: 1933-47, 1949-53, 1955-1981, 2007-2011.

22 years of a split Congress: 1981-87, 1993-95, 2011-2015.

it's easy to see that if you want to blame or give credit for the state of this country, one must put that squarely on the Democrats.

Very interesting and important information. It makes you wonder what time Conservatives refer to when they mention that they want to " Take Our Country Back".

I would say this one...

Quote:56 years of Democrats in control of both houses: 1933-47, 1949-53, 1955-1981, 2007-2011.

I'm sure there are lots of pieces of legislation passed during those years that many conservatives consider to be detrimental to the health of our country.

I heard somewhere that because of gerrymandering, the house of Representatives now represents less people than ever before. Is there any truth to that?

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App