U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) George Stern
(D) A. Gonzalez
(R) Sheri Davis
40%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
September 12, 2011 10:01 PM UTC
22 Comments
What you’ve failed to understand is why Republicans have resisted the agenda of this president. It’s not obstructionism, it is a fundamental difference in philosophy between conservatives and liberals.
The current bill may be the least offensive of Obama’s proposals, but it is still government solutions to America’s problems. If Republicans support it there will be amendments, and it will be reluctant. It also will never pass unless the president offers serious deficit reduction next week (my prediction, he won’t).
and don’t you find it odd that your conservatives find tax cuts are always the answer to everything, probably including cancer, except when they are directed to workers through cuts in their payroll taxes.
Somehow more money in workers pockets would not be good for the economy but more money for corporations sitting on trillions in profit without creating any jobs, supposedly for fear of having to pay a few more bucks in taxes, is just what the economy needs to produce the jobs that no amount in tax cuts has tempted them to produce so far.
Yeah, that’s a fundamental difference. Dems don’t think that policies that help only the wealthiest, screw the middle and lower income workers and don’t produce jobs are good for the economy. Conservative Republicans do.
Not so much a difference in philosophy as a difference in ideology. The conservative ideology has no interest in improving the economy for anyone but a tiny elite. Dems think things weren’t so bad before the Bush era when everyone was doing well, including the poor downtrodden rich and between reasonable tax rates and broad prosperity the deficit disappeared almost over night.
Actually it isn’t even an ideological difference. I’ve got mine, screw you isn’t a philosophy or and ideology. It’s just naked amoral greed. And it is what is responsible for the Great Recession and failure to recover. That and Dem cowardice.
There is no polling on Obama’s Job Plan, even if there were it’s irrelevant because this purported legislation has yet to develop within the eyes of the public.
It’s like polling whether or not you like and support life, food, a paycheck and fresh air ….
The problem Obama has is that his policies to date have detracted from the US employment picture. That is, he has killed jobs versus strengthening America. If he rolled back the damage hes done, he might get some traction. But everyone knows the only real impact of Obamacare is the acceleration of the cost curve that is pricingmore and more people out of healthcare.
life, food, a paycheck and fresh air = Obama’s job bill.
death, starvation, poverty and smog = Republicans
but to the general Democratic positions on the economy. Polls definitely show public preference leaning toward Democratic policies as opposed to Republican ones.
Polls show the majority prefer that the Bush tax cuts be allowed to sunset for the highest brackets, for instance. They show, in fact, that the majority believes increased tax revenue should be part of a long term plan, not just cuts in spending.
They show the majority believe that it is more important to preserve social security and medicare benefits than to preserve the tax breaks for the highest earners. The general public also polls in favor of the payroll tax cut for workers.
Those preferences are more in sync with Democratic, not Republican, positions which is what I claimed to be the case. Maybe you should brush up on your reading comprehension before going off half cocked?
As for Obama’s plan, it is more in line with what the polling shows the public prefers than the Republican nothing but tax and spending cuts option to the extent that it incorporates more of the majority peferences. It is also considered a step in the right direction, though probably not a large enough one, by a wide variety of economists.
It is very difficult to find any economists who believe we can get out of our present economic doldrums by putting the immediate emphasis on severe spending cuts.
Over the last five years – ExxonMobile, Chevron, Shell, and BP made $546 billion in profits yet laid off more than 11,000 American workers. So the question is why are we giving these oil barons tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer-paid corporate welfare?
They refuse to cut defense. They refuse to close tax loopholes. They refuse to raise any revenue at all.
Until they do so, they’re not serious.
Since you, like your GOP talking-point colleagues, enjoy comparing government budget to families, then explain this one to me.
The economy craters. One of the two adults in the household loses his/her job. The family cuts back expenses to the bone. The unemployed person tries and tries but can’t find work. Income is the problem.
Under the current GOP scenario, the family would react not by increasing income, but by DECREASING income even more by having the person with a job cut back on his/her hours.
Republicans want only more tax cuts, thereby decreasing income. So deficit reduction is NOT their priority. Lowering taxes by as much as possible is the priority, so the rich get richer and the well-off approach rich, and having millions of Americans out of work is helping beautifully since they aren’t paying income tax.
All the GOP is serious about is winning the next election, the country, the economy and our citizens be damned.
Your right the GOP is focused on winning next years elections, that is why they have promoted and passed common ence solutions.
Why won’t the Democrat Senate act on the legislation passed by the GOP House?
Why is the Obama administration killing jobs via the false proxies that run departments such as the NLRB?
The legislation the House has passed does nothing about the deficit. Not. One. Thing.
Tad’s not interested, however, in factoids. He prefers being the provocateur.
He can start something by repeating talking points but he doesn’t have the knowledge or reasoning ability to follow up and finish what he’s started.
The Republicans don’t give a flying backword #^&!ing @%$^ about the deficit — never have, never will.
From The Republican Dictionary: “Deficit” — 1. a hoop we make Democratic Presidents jump through; 2. a cudgel for beating Democratic Presidents about the head; 3. something Ronald Reagan taught us doesn’t matter (whenever we’re in charge); 4. something we can run up to the benefit of our overlords.
Hell, if the Republicans ever did anything to reduce the deficit, they wouldn’t have as much deficit to use against Democrats.
Cheney to Treasury: “Deficits don’t matter”
Former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill was told “deficits don’t matter” when he warned of a looming fiscal crisis.
O’Neill, fired in a shakeup of Bush’s economic team in December 2002, raised objections to a new round of tax cuts and said the president balked at his more aggressive plan to combat corporate crime after a string of accounting scandals because of opposition from “the corporate crowd,” a key constituency.
O’Neill said he tried to warn Vice President Dick Cheney that growing budget deficits-expected to top $500 billion this fiscal year alone-posed a threat to the economy. Cheney cut him off. “You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don’t matter,” he said, according to excerpts. Cheney continued: “We won the midterms (congressional elections). This is our due.” A month later, Cheney told the Treasury secretary he was fired.
Source: Adam Entous, Reuters, on AOL News Jan 11, 2004
I agree, Republicans are fundamentally different from the rest of us. They are against Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. They want tax breaks for the super-wealthy. They want to raise taxes on wage earners and cut taxes on investment. They want to control women’s decisions about family planning. They want our kids to be ignorant about evolution.
The real poison is the anti-intellectualism and anti-science. If facts are liberal, then ideological falsehoods are used to deny the science.
What a load of horseshit. Stimulus spending was a Republican mainstay during the Bush administration when the country was in far less dire economic straits. Do you really not know that, or are you simply trying to rewrite history?
We need to understand what’s under the bullshit.
The Republican Party (I’ve said this for years Ralphie)is a cart load of lying, thieving, power addicted ignoramuses. Their aim is having it all and controlling it all.
Yes, they control TV, the broader press (i.e., the message)and even political blogs (are you listening guvs?).
Republican “cooperation” has officially ended:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes…
what a piece of madison ave branding.
If Employers lay people off or ship jobs to China–do we get to call them Job Destroyers” and tax the shit out them?
Genuinely wanting the Republican/FC argument on this:
Why are fiscal conservatives opposed to raising minimum wages as a long term economic stimulus, but in favor of tax cuts as a long term economic stimulus? If both put extra money in workers’ take-home paychecks, wouldn’t both be effective? Is it just the argument that the government is not a responsible spender and should reduce tax collections? Or do FCs feel that minimum wage earners are not best equipped to stimulate the economy by earning more?
I’m not trying to poke you guys, I promise. I just realized reading this thread that I’ve never really seen a Republican make a scholarly, economic science based argument on that particular issue, and I’m sure I’m not the first to make the comparison.
Remember the Bush tax cuts? Nothing fiscally conservative about that. They only talk about deficits when Democrats came to power. That should be a big fat clue:
It’s all about political power.
There is no Republican economic model, but there is definitely a political model.
Anti deficit arguments are nothing more than a political strategy. It could be any issue [shriek] THE SKY IS FALLING[/SHREIK] We have to cut taxes on the wealthy, remove inheritance taxes, remove environmental safety regulations, cutback Social Security.
Republicans are consistent, but all that BS about deficits is just BS.
Well, there is one model they have in mind: the Keynesian economic model, which holds that in a recession, you can stimulate the economy by using deficit spending to create demand. Republicans don’t want to risk the economy getting better, so they are terrified that Democrats use deficits for infrastructure and demand-side policies.