The people support the payroll tax cut; the Republicans do not.

The people support raising taxes on millionaires; the Republicans do not.

The people support job creation laws; the Republicans have not introduced one jobs bill.

I could go on, but the GOP is just so out of touch with Americans.

Two reasons they won the House last time: 1. A TON of money being spent by the Koch Brothers and other multimillionaires in certain races; 2. The Democrats stayed home and didn't vote.

Dems tend to vote more in the big election years, so expect their percentage to go up in 2012. That should help push the House back to a more even distribution and may even switch it back.

I doubt the House will change unless Obama gets a big win. The big changes we have seen in Congress lately are not normal. Meaning getting a 20-60+ seats switch around.

GOP turnout will be strong compared to 2008, so Obama needs to create a coattails effect to get a lot of seats to turn over.
I do expect seats to go to the democrats, but looking back in 2008, the Democrats won 21 seats and they got millions of extra first time voters and people hated the GOP then.
So, basing on the past I do not think a massive change should be expected like in 2006 and 2010 and I will remind everyone that the GOP won big in 2010 even though people did not like them at all. Also, the democrats in Congress are no Knights in shinning armour to America either, they have not been able to capitalize.

Also what kind of stupid political system is there to have congressional elections every 2 years??
That should be changed to every 4 years and should be with a Presidential election. I know it goes against the American division of powers, but frankly the current mess in the US is due to there being too many divisions of powers.



Also I agree raising taxes but spending more will not create jobs, the initial stimulus was not a success. I do not care if it saved jobs, because that's the least a stimulus plan is suppose to do. Hundreds of thousands of jobs need to be created a month to get a true recovery going.

Also, the economy has faced a point of having massive structural unemployment, millions and millions will not be able to get work because the world has changed.


Also, all of Keynesian supporters forget, that a stimulus is recommended when a country has entered a recession and is in good fiscal health due to a previous expanding economy. To continue stimulus when faced with a fiscal crisis is just stalling an inevitable shitstorm of Biblical proportions.
Meaning, sooner or latter you are going to have to cut massively, increase taxes massively and that will hurt the economy further.

Democrats think raising taxes on the 1% will solve the fiscal crisis.
Republicans think no tax increases are needed and stalling any progress is the only way to get elected in 2012.


I think common sense, order and stability is what is needed more in the US...

Freaking easier said than done, lol. The politics that goes on nowadays is insanely ridiculous.

Agreed on every 2 years being too short for congressional elections. Heck, I'd be worried about my job and saying all the "right things" to make the people who helped me get elected happy so I could keep a steady paycheck through the next election. Definitely not enough time to make the hard decisions needed for the country.

Obama's got it in the bag, hopefully he can make the big changes he wanted to now that he won't have to worry about re-elected.

I wouldn't mind a Ron Paul win though - he's got some interesting ideas (especially the ones that go against the Republican narrative) and doesn't seem to act like a politician at least.

Paul would destroy the country. The last time a president got rid of the National Reserve and Bank we went into one of the worse economic depressions in U.S. history. Andrew Jackson did that in 1830s causing the Panic of 1837
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1837
It took the country almost a decade to recover from that debacle. I also don't like his ideas about get rid of government agencies. I think getting rid of the Interior, and Energy would cripple our infrastructure. Who would take care of the Nuclear Weapons? How would you handle all the nuclear facilities under the control of the Department of Energy. People like my father would be out a job, as he works at one of those facilities. What happens to all the National Parks? Do we sell them to highest bidder to be turned into either them parks (imagine riding the Pickett Charge roller coaster) or stripped minded (I am sure there are those who would love to do that to Yellowstone). His ideas are just dangerous to our country and we would cease to be relevant on the world stage.

No you're totally right on those. I like his stance on removing military presence from around the world, saving billions, and that he doesn't want the government to be involved at all in marriage. Though, recently I've heard him say he wants it to be up to the states, which is not an improvement.

funny thing though Andrew Jackson is considering one of top 10 or 15 presidents all the time...

Historians don't think so, he is ranked in the bottom 20. He destroyed the economy, acted like a dictator by ignoring the supreme court on several occasions, and then you have the Indian Removal Act which is to me one of our our darkest moments in U.S. history. I would compare it to some of the things the Nazis did. Millions of Cherokees and other natives died and they were treated as subhuman.

Jackson was evil and vile, but he does have a bizarre cult following.

Watching the GOP implode should be interesting. Iowa goes to Paul, NH to Romney, SC to Gingrich. I'm calling it now.

I acknowledge all the bad things and hate towards Jackson, however the claim made that Historians do not consider him a great President is false.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_presi ... ar_surveys

He is ranked top 10 and 15 always.

Anyways that list is interesting as many Presidents are becoming more well liked over time. For example, Clinton, Reagan, Eisenhower.

List is different from popular opinion. Historians and the public agree Washington, Lincoln and FDR are great but people also rate Reagan, Clinton and Kennedy way way higher then Historians.

Reminds me of that historical survey of British PM's that had Winston Churchill in 6th position. You ask the people, its a landslide for Churchill.

Wikipedia isn't a great source. The last one by historians placed him in the low teens. His standing has been going down a lot the last 20 years. 20 Years ago he was considered in the top 10, but now historians are looking at his legacy and have begun to drop him in the rankings. And when I say historians I mean at universities not the popular fools who are on the tv networks like plagiarizer Doris Kernes Goodwin.

I love whenever she gets a nice smackdown; same with the president that she worked for in her youth. Jackson also nominated C.J. Taney, who had an extremely long tenure and was the author of Dred Scott v. Sanford.

Jackson was popular during his time and afterwards because he was a war hero, as he won the Battle of New Orleans in the War of 1812.

It happens in American history after a big war, the war hero becomes President.


Grant after the Civil war, Washington after the Revolutionary war, Jackson after the war of 1812, Eisenhower after WW2.

Of those people listed two of them are considered one the top ten Presidents ever.
Grant is considered one of the top ten worst Presidents.

So was Zachary Taylor. What is your point?

One of the reasons Jackson is ranked so high is because of his handling of the Nullification Crisis in 1836 which prevented South Carolina from leaving the Union and Jackson's handlng of the Nullification Crisis prevented the Civil War from happening in the 1830s as opposed to the 1860s. In the 1830s, the main issue concerning the Nullification Crisis was NOT slavery, but actually a strong disagreement over tariffs. John C. Calhoun, the former vice-president of Jackson, led South Carolina to secede, but Jackson's threats and handling of the army prevented South Carolina from gaining any support from other states, and eventually South Carolina herself backed down.

Furthermore, to say the Trail of Tears incident was the US in her darkest hour is a bit of an ignorant statement. It may be the most well-known Indian removal, but Jackson was not the only president to remove Indians from their homeland. It was actually a common practice in first half of the nineteenth century. So to call Jackson one of the worst presidents based on this event is to call every president besides the Adams a bad president because they owned slaves, and this is coming from a person who has lineage linked to the Cheroke tribe, which if you didn't know was the tribe invovled in the infamous Trail of Tears.

The reasons Jackson has been slipping is due to his veto of the Federal Bank and his implimentation of political spoilage and formation of the Democratic Party that plagued nineteenth century United States politics. As has been pointed out, the end of the federal bank and the rise of wildcat bank led to economic turmoil including some of the worst economic problems the United States has ever seen. Political spoilage currupted politics for years finally being somewhat resolved under James Garfield, a half-breed who supported civil service reform. Although he was quickly killed by a stalwart who supported political spoilage and in came Chester B. Arthur. Luckily Arthur converted from a stalwart to a half-breed and implimented a civil service test for anyone wanting a government position. Finally, the formation of the Democratic Party specifically plagued anti-bellum politics, as many of the Democratic Presidents (who dominated the White House during this time period) gained their support by remaining loyal to their party over their country. This was a problem spefically with Franklin Pierce who often made policies, as according to his biography by Michael F. Holt, that would gain him favor with his own party.

Interesting and well said..

John C Calhoun is like the grandfather of the Confederate movement.

"So was Zachary Taylor. What is your point?"

Point is a lot of the Generals who become Presidents only got into office due to their war service. Some were great like Washington and Eisenhower and others were bad like Grant and Taylor.
Eisenhower legacy has improved over time, as his brand of politics is something I think most Americans fall under.

Historians have called it a black eye on our history, and while there were other Indian removals, the Trail of Tears was the largest and had the largest death toll among them. Also, the big problem with is it went against previous views. Most politicians, like Jefferson, argued that if the Native Americans civilized and became Christians they would be allowed to stay. The Cherokee were farmers and Christians by then and weren't that much different than most Americans The Supreme Court ruled it was unconstitutional to remove them and Jackson acted like a dictator and removed them anyway. Imagine if a modern president did that, they would be called a tyrant and could end up being impeached. There were other tribes removed as well including the Choctaw, Chickasaw, and Creek and these get overlooked by most people but they were forced off their land as well. To me it was a horrible decision and still think it was one of the worst acts in our history, by the way I am a historian and I am not ignorant about American history. To me you can condemn past brutality because if you say you can't then you can say that well the Holocaust was another time and we can't condemn what the Germans did to Jews. I still consider Jackson and evil and vile man and he is my least favorite president. Jackson is still listed as a top 15 president because he began the Democratic party and there is still this cult of personality around him. Most modern historians, though, have punched holes in his presidency and his standing has dropped over the last 15 years.

Then you have to call all of the anti-bellum presidents outside of the Adams evil because they owned slaves. Or do you think slavery is okay and we should overlook that? I don't think so.

Also, if you are a historian (aren't you a forest ranger) then you should know that there were several tribes uprooted from their homelands in the east, and one of them was the Munsee tribe of Delaware (although they were forced to migrate to Ohio before the formation of the United States, but were pushed further into Kansas DESPITE being a Christian based tribe, Jackson is not the only one to break this rule).

Eastern Kansas was full of Indian zones, upwards to twenty. Of course Oklahoma was divided as well, but everyone knows that Oklahoma was an Indian territory, but a lot of people forget that Kansas pre the Kansas-Nebraska Act was as well, and other states. The entire early history of the United States was littered with Indian removals. I could go through them, but that would takes hours of research to give you each one, but your a historian, so you should know this.

My question then to you is why does Jackson get all of the focus and everyone else get a free-pass? And lets not forget about the Dawes Act at the end of the century. Why do you ignore that one? American history is full of black eyes involving the genocide of the Native Americans; Jackson was not the only player and he should not get all of the blame, although he certainly should not be ignored as well.

That being said, Jackson is also one of my least favorite presidents, and outside of his handling of the Nullification Crisis, he was one of our worst presidents. But I like you once claimed his worst act was the Indian Removal Act, but to be honest, Jackson was hardly any different than any other politician during that time including Thomas Jefferson who refers to the Native Americans as "the merciless Indian Savages" in the Declaration of Independence.

His cult status is there, for sure, but his handling of Nullification Crisis did prevent South Carolina from leaving the Union

One week to go, and the most recent poll results:

IOWA:

CNN/Time (12/28) - Romney (25%), Paul (22%), Santorum (16%), Gingrich (13%), Perry (11%), Bachmann (9%), Huntsman (1%)
PPP(D) (12/28) - Paul (24%), Romney (20%), Gingrich (13%), Bachmann (11%), Santorum (10%), Perry (10%), Huntsman (4%)

Gingrich sure has tumbled the past two weeks.

Yep I am a park ranger but I work at a historical based park. I went to school for history but there are no jobs in museums right now and the Park Service is easier to find work. Sure I know about the other Indian removals but as I said the later was the largest and then there is the fact he override the supreme court. To me that is the reason, he deserves so much criticism. And sure most of the other Indian Removal Acts are deplorable, especially in the 1880s with people like Sherman who would have preferred to kill them then settle with them. As for slavery, well I do think its is a deplorable act but unfortunately the supreme court upheld it. Jackson acted like a dictator in removing the native tribes. Of course I have other reasons for disliking Jackson but that would take way too long. Anyway this has sidetracked this thread way too far and so back to the Iowa caucuses.

Santorum is sure surprising. I could see Santorum finishing second to Paul. I am still not confident Romney can take Iowa since he has hardly campaigned there.

It all depends about legacy as there are many American icons that have a troubled history but are considered great or legends today.

Sherman is considered a war hero and a icon (well not in the Deep South) even though he did and said some really crazy things.

Sherman has never had a great legacy even in the north. I think between the burning of Atlanta and his involvement in the Indian Wars out west has damaged his reputation. It didn't help he was involved in one of the most corrupt presidential administrations in U.S. History.

Well, I'm happy Paul is finally getting some recognition even though Fox news has done it's best to ignore him completely. In fact, I only see him on Cavuto and that's a business show. I do hope he comes out on top in Iowa but I still think Romney would be best capable of beating Obama. I am happy that Gingrich is falling by the wayside. He is such a wolf. Santorum is rising but if he were the nominee I can only imagine yet more wars in our future. Were it to acutally come down to Paul v Obama in some miraculous way I would be happy with that even if Obama were re-elected just because it would be a clear choice of ideas rather than a greyish choice of the usual Dem vs Pub.

Well, the Battle of NO was kind of a bullshit battle anyway.