Dickerson says:

The evening was not a referendum on Obama. Each race had local issues—taxes in New Jersey and transportation in Virginia...

True true. But Obama will need New Jersey-style taxes to pay for his programs. So it could be called a referendum on the taxes Obama will need for his program; and therefore a referendum on Obama's program? I think that's a safe read.

the congressional race in New York was more of a chance to evaluate democratic chances to keep control of congress in 2010.

Fortunately, he will have the new Democratic Congressmen from New York and California to support his agenda.

Right. And then they'll raise taxes, and what do you think will happen then?

Hmm...No actually you're just retarded. In the race in NY, the Republican candidate was opposed by a strong 3rd-party candidate, which don't exist in most districts. Then she pulled out and endorsed the DEMOCRAT. In a small rural district. You think this all has any relevance nationally? Well you probably do, because, again, see my first sentence.

What happens to your paranoid scenario if taxes are not raised? Are you going to the mattresses for the top 1% ? You button men for the rich are pathetic.

Since we don't know what the costs will be or whether new taxes will be necessary at this point, that's no more than speculation.

Although the Teabagger crowd has been doing their best to scare people with ooga-booga stuff about higher taxes, of course.

What happens to your paranoid scenario if taxes are not raised?

Well that'd be fantastic! Then Obama would stay in office and everyone would enjoy the current tax rates. Why do you think I wouldn't like that? I'd love to not be paying 60% of my income to the feds. I think I *will* wind up doing that, and the Dems will lose like they never have before, but look at the position I'm in: heads, I win because my party gets back in power; tails, I win because I get to keep my money.

Whereas, your scenario is, heads, you lose, because your party gets obliterated; tails, you lose, because you get impoverished to pay for healthcare for the (slightly) poorer.

Love it!

Since we don't know what the costs will be or whether new taxes will be necessary at this point, that's no more than speculation

Guess you don't read the news much, do you...have you heard of a little outfit called the "CBO"? No, you probably think that means, "Congratulations, Barack Obama!" (it doesn't)

I've read projections, if that's what your sneering pile of drivel was supposed to indicate. And FYI, I'm certainly not a supporter of all things Obama.

(as a Rightie, though, your confusion is understandable)

to pay for his programs."

The taxes that did in the current governor are state and local taxes; sales taxes, property taxes, state income taxes etc.

Is Obama suggesting any of these taxes on a national level, other than income taxes? I know that the fair-taxers advocate something like a national consumption tax, but that doesn't seem to be getting too much traction.

For the record, I'd agree to a pay-as-we-go plan on government expenditures. How about a sur-tax to pay for the wars? Perhaps the bank bail-outs could be tied to bonds that you and I would buy before money could be disbursed?

Long live the Empire!

OldGaffer:

What happens to your paranoid scenario if taxes are not raised? Are you going to the mattresses for the top 1% ? You button men for the rich are pathetic.

Oh please. The health plan's budget assumes that doctors and hospitals will all receive a TWENTY SEVEN percent pay cut in a few years. Do you REALLY believe that will happen, considering the Congress keeps putting off a pay cut for them NOW?

Not in a million years. So, where do you think that money is going to come from? Not the rich, it's already been found that taking 100% of the money from the rich won't cover it, and you can't take it from the poor, they don't have money, leaving..... you.

Simple, eh?

While it's true the GOP candidate was opposed by a far-Right Republican, the latter was also 1)endorsed by prominent members of the nut-wing of your party, and 2) trying to hold a seat which had been Republican for something like 150 years. Oh, and 3) is probably party disunity, since with moderate v. nutwing infighting, you have NO chance to take back ANYTHING in 2010....or 2012.

Sweet! :)

OK OK. Let me be more precise. New-Jersey style "LEVELS OF TAX BURDEN." At the end of the day, voters care how much of their income is sent to the gov't (except, arguably, by means of sales taxes, but that's not the biggest issue in NJ by far). They don't care whether it's by means of property taxes, or fees (or even of the mandated purchase of insurance). They care how much of their income they're keeping, and in NJ it's at levels that we will soon see nationally.

that taking 100% of the money from the rich won't cover it, ..."

Found by whom? Why don't you google "wealth distribution"? When I did, the top hit was <link>

but there were plenty others.

Long live the Empire!