2018 Senate (& House)

[iatrogenic]

Tax Revenues increased massively after Reagans tax cut. Interest rates dropped, real income increased, the wealth of the nation increased by $15 trillion, and GDP growth went from negative to over 3%. The percentage of taxes paid by high earners also increased relative to low earners. Reagan added over 20 million jobs to the workforce.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Everyone flourished as extra money from the tax cuts exchanged hands and the economy boomed under Reagan. Once again showing that the American businesses and the American people know how to spend their own money much more than the government does.

Wage growth for the working class hasn't grown since thed Reagan cuts. That was literally the start of the largest widening of income gap between the wealthy and middle class since the 19th century. The economy grew, for sure. It was uneven at best.

 

[Garmel]

Income gap inequality started to widen in the 70's before Reagan took office. A fairly good wiki article here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Divergence_(inequality)

 

[UTChE96]

Real median income increased from $49.3k to $53.1k from 1984 to 1988. For some reason, FRED does not have the figures before 1984. I would also give Reagan much of the credit for the robust economy of the 1990s where real household income reached $58.6k.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N

 

[iatrogenic]

Wage growth for the working class hasn't grown since thed Reagan cuts. That was literally the start of the largest widening of income gap between the wealthy and middle class since the 19th century. The economy grew, for sure. It was uneven at best.

Is there any relevance to your statement? I’m sure some poor folks became rich and rich folks became poor, but income is typically based on the individuals’ decision making.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Real median income increased from $49.3k to $53.1k from 1984 to 1988. For some reason, FRED does not have the figures before 1984. I would also give Reagan much of the credit for the robust economy of the 1990s where real household income reached $58.6k.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N

There is plenty of research on wage stagflation of the middle and lower classes, compared to the upper class. Here is some information from the Economic Policy Institute, a non-partisan think tank albeit they appear to have a liberal lean.

 

[UTChE96]

There is plenty of research on wage stagflation of the middle and lower classes, compared to the upper class. Here is some information from the Economic Policy Institute, a non-partisan think tank albeit they appear to have a liberal lean.

Income inequality and real median income growth are two separate issues. You claimed that "Wage growth for the working class hasn't grown since the Reagan cuts." which is simply not correct. Real median income grew by 10% in Reagan's 2nd term alone and continued to grow in the next decade after Reagan's tax cuts were implemented.

Income inequality will always be an issue in any growing capitalist economy. Folks who are more wealthy have more to invest so they take advantage of compounding growth which in turn increases their passive income. I have spent a lot of time in one former Soviet country and they had exceptional income and wealth equality under the Soviet union because everyone was dirt poor. I think we can agree that the folks in the USSR were not better off than the folks in the US middle class simply because of superior income equality.

 

[Phil Elliott]

I think we can agree that the folks in the USSR were not better off than the folks in the US middle class simply because of superior income equality.

Pffft. Liberals will not concede that point at all, but Maggie puts them straight:

 

[mchammer]

FWIW, Nate Silver just said it is about impossible for Dems to win senate.

 

[Mr. Deez]

FWIW, Nate Silver just said it is about impossible for Dems to win senate.

I'm almost not sure how he can say that. They need to flip 2 seats. That could happen in Arizona and Nevada. Is it really out of the question that the Democratic incumbents from red states win narrowly in what appears to be tough year for Republicans? Are any of them really in serious trouble? Not that I'm aware of.

Improbable that they take control? Sure. Almost impossible? Seems like a stretch.

 

[OUBubba]

FWIW, Nate Silver just said it is about impossible for Dems to win senate.

i will defer to that dude.

 

[Mr. Deez]

i will defer to that dude.

He obviously knows this stuff better than I do, but I'm curious as to what good rationale is.

 

[Horns11]

It's where the contested blue seats are right now that's the problem for Democrats. I'm fairly certain they're going to get Flake's and Heller's seats, but they're probably going to lose out on keeping their seats in red states... particularly the female Senators (because... you know...) in MO and ND. Truly, the only other red seat they have a chance at is Corker's in TN if they could get the urbanites in Memphis and Nashville to unite, but that is a long shot.

Also, it looks like Nelson might retire rather than run again, leaving FL wide open, but it would be a close race whoever took it on. Donnelly is running in IN and that state went by like 20 points to Trump in 2016. That could be an easy pickup for the GOP.

I actually think they'll retain the OH/PA/WI seats because of anger/backlash over how Clinton didn't respect the rust belt states. Those guys have been in action since the day after the 2016 election to make sure they keep the blue seats blue there.

Manchin in WV is always a kook. He might even swap parties within the next year, or he could just lose his reelection bid as a Democrat. I don't know.

So instead of Dems having an easy path to a 51-49 majority, I think it's more likely that it'll stay 51-49 GOP, and perhaps go to 52-48 or even 53-47 with some creative choices for candidates and distancing from Bannon.

 

[I35]

Manchin in WV is always a kook. He might even swap parties within the next year, or he could just lose his reelection bid as a Democrat. I don't know.

Funny that you say this. I'm thinking he's the only one not a kook on the left.

 

[theiioftx]

Let's play Hardball!

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost...ris-matthews-of-sexual-harassment-report/amp/

 

[theiioftx]

New York Post.

 

[old65horn]

New York Post.

Fox News, New York Post, same thing. Fox has been behind sexual harassment against CNN employee and now MSNBC recently. None of them has panned out. I will believe the charges against Mathews when an unbiased source prints it.

 

[theiioftx]

Exactly what I expected. Blame the villain Fox rather than condemn the behavior. Kind is surprised you did not blame Russia.

This is exactly why liberals are seen as so hypocritical. Defend Franken, defend Matthews defend Bill Clinton.

 

[Garmel]

Fox News, New York Post, same thing. Fox has been behind sexual harassment against CNN employee and now MSNBC recently. None of them has panned out. I will believe the charges against Mathews when an unbiased source prints it.

Unbiased? Like CNN or The Washington Post? *snicker*

 

[old65horn]

This is exactly why liberals are seen as so hypocritical. Defend Franken, defend Matthews defend Bill Clinton.

Not exactly a good example. I believe it was the Dems who drove Franken to resign. You need to do a better job of stating examples. I am not defending Mathews of anything, you are accusing using two very biased sources. I said I would believe it when an unbiased confirmed the allegation. If true, force him out, not elect him as you guys seem to do.

Mr. Pot, where are you good christian conservatives on the president and Roy Moore?

 

[theiioftx]

Not a supporter of either, especially Moore. I did vote for Trump as a lesser of two evils. I think anyone who sexually harasses should be fired. I have fired at least two men for such behavior at work. Sexual assault should be criminally prosecuted.

I heard liberal after liberal say Franken should not resign. We will see what they do with Matthews at NBC. We all know how Bill Clinton is still the defacto leader and gold standard for the Democrat party. I just find it delicious that the wholier than thou liberals at NBC are worse than the people they happily expose.

 

[old65horn]

I heard liberal after liberal say Franken should not resign.

Sorry, the facts do not support this talking point. The first allegation was suspect. LeeAnn Tweeten was a very partisan Trump supporter who had a lot to gain by her allegation. The picture was a Sat Night Live joke that was in very poor taste. It was the "Liberals" who forced Franken out. Adjust your talking points.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Sorry, the facts do not support this talking point. The first allegation was suspect. LeeAnn Tweeten was a very partisan Trump supporter who had a lot to gain by her allegation. The picture was a Sat Night Live joke that was in very poor taste. It was the "Liberals" who forced Franken out. Adjust your talking points.

Several liberal commentators opposed his resignation. Most Democratic senators initially said the process should play out through the Ethics Committee, which, by the way, is a perfectly reasonable answer. You're the first person I've heard say that Tweeden was a partisan Trump supporter. Perhaps she did support him, but she didn't act particularly partisan. She accepted Franken's apology and didn't call for his resignation. And it's interesting that you'd be more suspicious of her accusation since it was supported by more evidence than anyone else's in any of these political sexual harassment scandals.

 

[theiioftx]

Tom Hartman, Michaelangelo Signirelli, Mark Thompson, Stephanie Miller, Chris Mathews (go figure) and Rachael Maddow all said Franken should not resign.

 

[old65horn]

Tom Hartman, Michaelangelo Signirelli, Mark Thompson, Stephanie Miller, Chris Mathews (go figure) and Rachael Maddow all said Franken should not resign.

Agree initially, when there was just Tweeten and I, believe one other. I said at the time, he should not resign until the Senate ethic committee passes judgment. If more came forward I said he should go, I can point you to my FaceBook posts if you want. When more came forward, I said, as did 30 Dem Senators, he needs to resign. You original post was inaccurate, that is what I contended. I think we have beat this dead horse to death. I am officially out. You source of Fox and NY Post are very biased. I have no love for Tweety, so if a reliable source comes forward, he should resign. Fox is just trying to get the sexual harassment focus off them.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Several liberal commentators opposed his resignation. Most Democratic senators initially said the process should play out through the Ethics Committee, which, by the way, is a perfectly reasonable answer. You're the first person I've heard say that Tweeden was a partisan Trump supporter. Perhaps she did support him, but she didn't act particularly partisan. She accepted Franken's apology and didn't call for his resignation. And it's interesting that you'd be more suspicious of her accusation since it was supported by more evidence than anyone else's in any of these political sexual harassment scandals.

It's important to point out the context for why commentators (left and right) a made case for Franken not stepping down. Those on the left saw it as naive for the Dems to hold themselves accountable to a MUCH higher bar than than the Republicans hold themselves to (Trump and Moore). Ari Fleischer argued that we were vastly greying the line between true sexual predation (ie assault) and less egregious offenses. He argued Franken's transgressions were minor and arguable when it comes to flirting/joking.

I supported Franken stepping down.

 

[theiioftx]

The ultra conservative Chicago Tribune is running the story now.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...ews-inappropriate-conduct-20171217-story.html

No doubt the democrats were initially for him, but smartly abandoned him for party purposes. But this has angered the leftist media noted above.

 

[mchammer]

Supposedly more coming.

 

[old65horn]

She accepted Franken's apology and didn't call for his resignation. And it's interesting that you'd be more suspicious of her accusation since it was supported by more evidence than anyone else's in any of these political sexual harassment scandals.

She had something to gain, almost no one else did. She was a radio talk show host and made the rounds on all the morning shows to gain nonliterary. That was suspicious. Again, when it got beyond the initial accusations, I said he should resign.

 

[Mr. Deez]

She had something to gain, almost no one else did. She was a radio talk show host and made the rounds on all the morning shows to gain nonliterary. That was suspicious. Again, when it got beyond the initial accusations, I said he should resign.

That's like arguing that Bill Gates has more reason to rob a convenience store than a broke-*** poor homeless guy. She was already famous and had money. (It's nice to have "hot chick privilege.") The others didn't. If garnering attention and notoriety are reasons to be suspicious (and they arguably are), she had less to gain than the others.

Furthermore, her claim was supported by evidence beyond her word. You dismiss it as a joke, but it is the piece of evidence that weakened what would have been "plausible deniability." Without it, Franken would be denying everything to this day and sure as hell wouldn't be resigning. It played a similar role as "the dress" played with Bill Clinton. Things like that are how "I don't know who she is" turns into "I was never alone with her" turns into "ok, ok she was under the desk."