I checked back in after a year away and how pathetic to see the same banter insults and blatant disregard for truth.. The NY23 is/was the interesting story of the off year election, that is if you disregard the 20 point swings in one year in the key states of Virginia and New Jersey!

So we heard it repeated a hundred or a thousand times that Dems have never held this seat since the civil war, then I heard a caller from the district on radio try to say that wasn't so but he was cut off on time, so I writer hear explains what should have been obvious to any watching politics: With moves, adds and changes in congressional districts, this district has only been in its current shape since 2003! No Dem has ever won it since 2003 is a far cry from 1850 or whenever.

Nice win anyway you libs, getting a lib on the ballot as an R, getting the 'R' to drop out and endorse the 'D' and still almost losing it - because the law of NY did not allow a primary to get the right candidate endorsed in the first place. Like I said, nice "win". You get the seat for one year and next year there WILL be a primary and an election.

If one district is that huge, then last 2 times it must have been Minnesota's 6th district; that's the one Dems wanted most. Tough luck.

Unemployment was 4.6 when Dems took over Washington and 10.2% now. The answer from the board is that it was higher under Reagan. I don't know how to answer children on the board who post an online stat not knowing that there might be people here who lived through that time and remember it well.

You mentioned the similarity high unemployment. You skipped the differences. When Reagan took office we had stagflation - look it up. When Jr. Senator Obama with with his cohorts Pelosi, Barbara Boxer and Barney Frank won a majority in 2006 we had zero inflation 4.6% unemployment and a record 50 consecutive months of job growth. Dems announced to voters and investors alike that this will all change and oh did it!

When Reagan was elected in 1980, he announced a two-prong problem, high inflation with high unemployment that he attacked with a two-pronged solution - tight money coupled with pro-growth across the board tax rate cuts.

There was no delay with the tight money policies to choke out inflation because that cane from Paul Volcker at the Fed (the on-again, off-again Obama adviser of today, lol). The Democratic congress passed the tax rate cuts but they were made smaller, broken into pieces and delayed. What Dems don't get is that the full stimulative affect does not kick in until the final installment of the tax rate cuts and that job growth does not begin until investors are on board and in the game. You call falsely it trickle down we correctly call it a fully interconnected economy.

The full program eventually kicked in and revenues to the Treasury DOUBLED in the 1980s. You mention the end of the COMPLETELY AVOIDABLE HUMAN RECESSION of 1983, but the success of the economy was fully visible by 1984 when President Reagan WON 49 STATES! Mondale won a sympathy vote in his home state of MN only to later lose that state with the agenda in 2002 becoming the first American in history to ever lose a statewide race in all 50 states.

Deficits under Reagan were deficits under were spending deficits under Tip O'Neill - just in case you weren't born yet. They weren't caused by tax rate cuts because tax rate cutsDOUBLED REVENUES to the Treasury. They were caused by reckless spending that Republicans from the 2000s copied and lost there seats and that Obama and Pelosi have exponentially accelerated in their TEN YEAR BUDGET.

FWIW, Pelosi and Obama won't need a 10 year budget. This is a one-term Presidency and for those of you who only read DU, Kos and the Huff Post - you heard it here first!

Serious replies only, thank you. - vrwc

P.S. The Politco is NOT a conservative site. Use your browser and open it sometime.

• Location: - vrwc
• it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests