The media is trying to make you believe that we have witnessed the death of the Republican Party and that Democrats now hold the majority opinion of the country. Here is just a look at how out of touch the liberal media is:
1. Obama did not win with a mandate. He won by 4%. But take a look at the map provided paints a picture that he only won in large urban areas, sans Iowa.
2. Democrats only have 53 Senators in Congress. Again, hardly a mandate.
3. The House still has a decidingly Republican advantage with 32 more Republicans than Democrats.
4. Nearly 2/3rds of the Governorships are held by Republicans.
5. Of the state legislatures, 27 of the states have both chambers controlled by Republicans. 5 are split, 1 is non-partisan and 17 are held by Democrats.
I do not see this progressive/democrat tsunami that the media is talking about. In fact I disagree with even the Republican strategists that say the party is in trouble and needs major changes.
What the party needs is strong leaders that can portray the brand in a way that reaches common Americans.
On another note, would prefer [anyday] to have Rubio take a drink of water, then to look at a picture of our President toking on a joint while looking like someone other than the President of the United States.
.At least, Republicans can honestly claim they are the party of free enterprise. That is not in dispute . That Capitalism engine is run on OIL and a aggressive domestic energy policy of Oil , Natural gas and Coal .Wind Mills and solar will be meaningless for decades to come .Cut the regulations and get the hell out of the way and the economy will grow. Obama has put up the RED LIGHT and business is now looking to survive rather than grow. Unfortunately , Obama second term will do more harm than good and I am not sure any party will be able to pick up the pieces of This Presidents Federal Disaster .Obama has 100% crippled growth with a moronic energy policy, over bearing non stop regulations like ObamaCare , and his constant addiction to tax success.
Was just wondering your choices for school board . I know you know that circle far better than I .
How can you support these things? How do you not cry at night with these decisions?
Brian, she isn't quoting anybody. She isn't referencing any web site. Therefore, she wouldn't have a link to share because she is just voicing her own opinion.
She's making claims about the 'states with the worst records on education' and claiming that they 'take more money from the government than they give'. I would consider making such claims as something different than 'just voicing her own opinion'. I think that Brian is making a fair request--those claims should be able to be supported by statistics, news article, web site, etc.
Another: http://taxfoundation.org/article/federal-spending-received-dollar-taxes-paid-state-2005 Google the question re: education and see what you come up with. But here's one for you: http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2012/10/15/americas-best-and-worst-educated-states/ And to CowDung: You will find that a list of the states with poor records on education and those that take more than they give is not identical. But there are many that make both of the lists. And they are predominately "red" states. Well this lazy liberal has to get back to work. Someone's got to get us out of the red.
Not prefaced with I believe, or I think, but asserted as the truth with no data to back it up. Here is some data to disprove her "fact". Using the rankings from KidsCount ( http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/acrossstates/Rankings.aspx?loct=2&by=v&order=a&ind=7247&dtm=14341&tf=868 ) ( http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/acrossstates/Rankings.aspx?ind=5199 ) California is ranked 43rd, Texas 39th. Illinois is ranked 17th, North Dakota16th. New Mexico is ranked 49th, Utah 27th To be fair the top four are Blue states, but they spend waaaaay above the national average: 1-Massachusetts (spends $13,361 per student per year) 2-New Jersey ($15,116/year) 3-Vermont ($17,847) 4-New Hampshire ($13,519) (BTW-Wisconsin is 10th and we average $11,783/year) The Red State/Blue state argument doesn't pan out. There are much more pressing issues, such as poverty and how the money is being spent.
Renee- Do you have a link?
You should note that the first article you linked to explains why most of these states are high on the list for receiving federal dollars--they have high levels of defense spending. That doesn't seem consistent with the 'this could also be referred to as socialism' claim that you made earlier.
I agree with you. We all have way more in common than not. But to read these threads you would think it is a struggle to the death, as you say..... to be right. Life isn't black or white (now don't pull the racist card). Life isn't one way or the other. It's a lot of gray. The bigger picture is if we don't look at each other as friends, part of a community then we are doomed to not get along when it really matters. It is not a duel of republicans versus democrats. It's not a battle at all. It SHOULD be a give and take where we work together to solve problems. I bet if we worked to solve local problems we just might come up with a blue print that others might take notice. Heck, we might even get along. Hard to tell that here.
I responded to you because you made a claim that I believe to be flawed, and I proceeded to indicate why it was flawed--using the link that you provided. It's not so much a matter of 'being right', as much as it is a matter of setting the record straight. Too many people seem to get all their information from talking points memos rather than taking the time to think in depth about things. Your claims about the states taking more money than they give is a perfect example. I learned why because of your link--perhaps you should read it as well. It isn't socialism...
What is missing in the party, and in my opinion, the white house, is a little thing called leadership. There are huge idealogical differences between the parties, and true leaders find ways to get things done. Neither side has that right now.
How can we get to the point of 'give and take' if the premise being argued Isn't based on facts? Was I out of line showing Renee the real reason for those states getting more Fed money than other, bluer states? I even used her link to do it.
What additional research needs to be done? Your link explained rather clearly why the red states got more Fed money than they gave. Are you having trouble believing the truth or something?