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%
November 12, 2014 08:35 AM UTC
17 Comments
But the Kansas version of the Ryan "plan" is working so well!
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/sam-brownback-budget-forecast-2015-2016
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-kansas-tea-party-disaster-20141023
None of that "facty stuff" matters to GOP voters. While I was in Georgia, handling my Moms' affairs, I had a chance to discuss politics with my brother and his wife, both fundamentalist Christians.
They are incredibly ignorant about anything relevant to politics, with the exception of the abortion issue, which is continually pounded into their heads by the pastor of their church and practically everyone else in their community. It is the only issue that matters to them. Even though my sister-in-law is working for the Kroger supermarket chain for minimum wage (well, actually, she got two $.05/per hr. raises in the year she has been there), none of that matters…only abortion.
It's morning in America . . . again . . . !
Pretty sad isn't it. I've decided that they will get what they deserve by voting Republican or worse yet, not voting. That sounds mean but I can't gather much sympathy for willful ignorance.
Pardon my broken record bit but low info, meaning the overwhelming majority of, voters would know that they're on the same page as Dems on policy and that Rs oppose almost everything they want and that does them good if Dems weren't such spineless cowards, so timid in their let's not bring too much attention to our… uh… being Dems messaging.
Basic Dem messaging paradigm: Let's just meekly accept the GOTP's definition of us as "too liberal' and run from anything that might get them going, including stuff polls tell us people really like. A lot. Yep. That's what all the "expert" ops were selling to candidates who put their trust in them and ignored boots on the ground folks who'd been around the block on home turf many times. WTF did we bumpkins know?
Think Ill take a break and come back when all this rehashing of the obvious has faded a bit. Including mine.
My only hope (and it's more than likely misplaced) is that the Senator-elect pulls a Gillibrand and realizes he's no longer Representative of the conservative and mostly rural CD-4, but Senator of the moderate and mostly urban State of Colorado.
A fleeting hope, but hope nonetheless.
Its always amazing how the winning party always interprets a victorious campaign as and endorsement of every policy scheme they believe in even though most of their beliefs were never vetted in the most recent campaign and have been rejected by the voters in the past.
On the budget and taxes, I've never understood the Republicans love for tax cuts and their blind adherence to the belief that massive tax cuts will automatically translate into huge economic growth and therefore more tax revenues than the government collects presently. President Reagan tried it with a 25% across-the-board reduction in federal income taxes on corporations and individuals and the $40 billion annual deficits, the ones he criticized President Carter for running up, soared to hundreds of millions. At the time, President Reagan's deficits were exponentially higher than any previous deficit. President Reagan ended-up agreeing to tax increases (he called them revenue enhancements) to stem the red ink.
President George W. Bush came into office and inherited $800 billion annual revenue surpluses so he took the same tac as President Reagan, got Congress to pass massive tax cuts, and what happened, the budget deficits soared to all-time highs and economic growth no where came close to making up the reductions in federal revenue.
Gov. Brownback comes along in 2010 and tells the people of Kansas all we have to do is end taxes on partnerships, sole proprietorships and LLC's and reduce rates; economic activity will soar, and state tax revenues will be more than ever before in Kansas. What happened – 15,000 businesses became a different kind of legal entity so they could avoid any state taxation, the state's reserve fund is now exhausted because revenues have collapsed and next year the state will begin to run deficits in the neighborhood of $250 million which will require massive cuts in K-12 and higher education and the highway budget. Oh, and guess what else, tax revenues have not grown in Kansas, they've collapsed. The only thing that saved Gov. Brownback in the election this year is the fact Kansas is a deep red state and the deficits won't really hit people where they live until 2015, but they're certainly coming.
Today on the federal level, the $1.4 trillion annual deficits the government was running have been reduced by 66% by President Obama (a fact the Democrats failed to emphasize in the campaign).
If the new Republican Congress enacts tax cuts you will see the deficit soar again. Bottom line: Supply side economics doesn't work. Its been tried three times and completely failed every time. The theory doesn't reduce deficits, it makes them larger than ever before. In 2014, the Republicans campaigned on the notion the present federal deficits are far too high and yet, when all is said and done, they want to increase them. The disconnect in all of this is amazing. They've experimented three times over the past thirty-four years with this theory and failed all three times but they want to do it again. You'd think they would learn.
Elements of the Ryan tax plan make a lot of sense. What my fellow Republicans refuse to grasp is that spending has to be equally cut. Why do we have a defense budget that is greater than the combined total of the next 10 countries on the list? President Obama agreed to the "chained CPI" which would slow the growth of Social Security. Yet liberals refuse to even consider it. Why do Republicans oppose allowing Medicare to get bids from big pharma companies for Medicare drugs, instead of just paying what big pharma wants to charge, as is presently done? Just three examples of many.
Both parties are equally to blame for not getting deficits under control; and beginning a process to pay off the national debt. Regards, C.H.B.
Bull. Severe tax cuts were first part of the now demonstrably false theory that was originally pushed by Rs that tax cuts so stimulate the economy they actually don't cause a decrease in revenue. Everyone makes lots of money creating plenty of revenue at reduced tax rates. That was soon pushed aside for admitting that actually it really does seriously decrease revenue but that's fine since we want to shrink government to bathtub drowning size and then everyone will be better off. That one's demonstrably bull too. What we know is that plenty of people with well paying jobs and money to spend spreads wealth through the entire economy. Including government employees with money to spend. Businesses don't care who signs customers' paychecks as long as they have plenty of customers with nice ones. Cutting tons of them in the public sector just cuts jobs,and reduces the number of people paying taxes and spending money. Austerity is a bust. Trickle down tax policy is a bust. All of Ryan's basic premises have long been demonstrated to be wrong. Bu-bye for a while.
enjoy the break, BC
Oh yes, Chained CPI! As in: "Folks, if your social security check no longer lets you afford Alpo for dinner, then just buy the store brand of dog food. It's just as tasty and good for you!"
Thank you. I agree.
"Chained CPI….." Having worked within social security programs for a quarter century, I know something about the inner workings, so to speak. Some points: as an age range of citizens, those over 60 are the wealthiest in American society. Yes, there are exceptions, but generally speaking, that's where the money is. The "having to eat dog food" reference is nothing more than mindless rhetoric. Second, back in the '90s, I read a piece that said that a social security recipient will earn back every penny they & employers put in, within about 12 years of going on the retirement rolls. After that, they live off the taxpayer.
For Blue Cat, yes, federal public employees make good wages and contribute in their local economies. But, don't forget that their salaries come largely from loans made to the USA by Asian & European bankers. I agree that Obama has brought the deficit down and I will also acknowledge that Bush/Cheney blew it royally by squandering the budget surpluses left by Clinton. OK to cut taxes; but getting us into not one, but two, wars? That's hardly cutting spending. And finally, please provide a convincing argument as to why the Defense Department needs up to 1,000,000 civilian employees, not including contractors. Social Security spends more money, but has a much smaller workforce. C.H.B.
p.s. "shrinking government to bathtub drowning size…." That's just Grover Norquist bullshit. Grover has been inside the Beltway too long and thus divorced from reality.
CHB, the "living off the taxpayer" part of Social Security has always been true. My father started paying into SS since day one, and when he finally started drawing his benefits in 1968, even though his monthly check was just a few hundred dollars, he told me that he was getting much more back than he ever put in. That's why the ratio of earners vs. recipients is a closely watched metric of the program's viability.
Two Democratic-supported fixes would make the program solvent well into the future, and obviate the need for Chained CPI. 1) Eliminating the contribution cap on income, and as you note, many seniors are quite well off, 2) so means testing based on assets and other income would also help the program's solvency, and not punish those that depend completely on social security benefits to survive.
Maybe neither you nor I need social security to live comfortably in our golden years, but millions more certainly do.
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/16/nyregion/fear-of-hunger-stalks-many-elderly.html (1993)
"An 80-year-old widow living alone on the Upper East Side had no food at all in the house and relied on neighbors' kindness. A woman in her 80's was eating dog food until a neighbor took her to a food pantry."
http://www.wboc.com/story/23662934/some-seniors-in-kent-county-strapped-for-cash-eat-pet-food-to-save-money (2013)
"Many seniors are on a limited income which means they do not have enough money for food. Some would even spend one dollar on three cans of dog food instead of one can of tuna."
http://www.wptv.com/news/state/floridas-tide-of-seniors-rising-even-faster-than-predicted (2014)
"Some seniors have to choose medicine over food. Some actually buy dog or cat food because it's cheaper than groceries, Lugo said."
They could be lying or mistaken, I suppose.
"Having worked within social security programs for a quarter century, I know something about the inner workings, so to speak. Some points: as an age range of citizens, those over 60 are the wealthiest in American society. Yes, there are exceptions, but generally speaking, that's where the money is. The "having to eat dog food" reference is nothing more than mindless rhetoric. Second, back in the '90s, I read a piece that said that a social security recipient will earn back every penny they & employers put in, within about 12 years of going on the retirement rolls. After that, they live off the taxpayer"
As one who has lost all liquidable assets in 2008 and living solely on Social Security income from from 46 years of maximum contribution and finding oneself without a job or anything beyond minimum wage, I find your comment outrageous. Perhaps you may be able to define a segment within those of us in our seventies who are well-to-do, but they are far from the majority. I will have received what I, and employers when I was not self-employed, contributed when I pass my 82nd year. Maybe your data is accurate, but it is far from my own and many of may acquaintances' experience. If you think you're accurate on this, please show me the complete data. Otherwise go back to your gated community, sip your julip and talk to your rich neighbors about how us Lucky Duckies have it so goodl on the government teat.
Teachers don't pay into social security. So pension funds are all we get – IF there is any left after the Walker Stapletons of the world finish plundering them.
CHB I agree with you on the bloated Defense department budget. DoD keeps buying new toys, because they can, and the defense industry lobby is so pervasive. D o D then donates its old toys to local police departments who now need an excuse to use them to keep down peaceful protest, as in Ferguson.
By the way, I thought of you when I saw the "Concert for Valor" on HBO – amazing to see thousands of veterans jamming out to Metallica, the all-time favorite combat band.