QUESTION: Do you think we'd be talking about SS cuts if congress was 83% progressive dems?

[uponit7771]

Seems like we'd be better off putting our energy into getting some red areas blue no?

Your take?

Regards

[Kurmudgeon]

1. 2010, the most disastrous midterm election in US history.

[uponit7771]

5. yeap

[Art_from_Ark]

10. One could argue that it was tied with 1994

After all, 1994 got us Newt Gingrich and the Contract On America

[beanwire]

2. Maybe?

If congress was 83% progs, there would be a lot of discussion somewhere else about turning blue areas red.

[boppers]

3. Yes, because idiotic rumor-stories know no party.

Remember the whole Palin-baby thing?

[uponit7771]

6. Yeap, ...Im starting to wonder if DU isn't full of people who work for the M$M

[leftstreet]

4. It's odd there was no talk of SS cuts when the GOP had the majority

They could never EVER EVER pull it off

[boppers]

7. You missed it, I think.

They wanted to "privatize" the program, cutting government funding.

[uponit7771]

8. Wasn't W willing to "privatize" SS?

[leftstreet]

12. What stopped him? They had the majority

All Republican pols have been tossing out those talking points since FDR.

[21st Century FDR]

9. We had 60 alleged Democrats in the Senate and a huge majority in the House

...and all we got to show for it was the Mandatory Corporate Insurance Enabling Act.

[uponit7771]

11. We still didn't have a controlling share in the senate to enact any REAL change for too long

[Liberal Veteran]

13. Key phrase: "alleged Democrats in the Senate".

Many of whom knifed our party in the back when we did have a majority (on paper at least) for their own selfish reasons.

The House did a pretty good job. The Senate...not so much.

[freshwest]

14. Right on all points.

[dbonds]

15. Seems like that 17% would be able to push the dems around.

There is always some excuse for the corporatist to get what they want.

[vi5]

16. Yes. Same answer as last time you posted this. N/T

[customerserviceguy]

17. Being as the Simpson Commission

was formed during a time where we had solid Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, and we had what can arguably called the most progressive President in the White House since JFK, I guess I disagree with your thesis.

There are good reasons to turn red areas blue, but we dilute the Democratic Party with the only electable Democratic representatives that those areas could possibly send to Congress.