NY Weiner district goes Republican

The seat formerly held by the weiner wagging Anthony Weiner has been won by a republican.  He’d better make sure to use lysol on the seat.

Dems spin: “It’s a very difficult district for Democrats,” said Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, noting its Democratic margins there tend to be the second lowest of all the districts in New York City. http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2011/09/14/debbie-wasserman-schultz-ny-9-is-a-very-difficult-district-for-democrats/

She fails to mention that Democrats have held the seat since March 1923.

 

Spin Debbie Spin

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

52 Responses to NY Weiner district goes Republican

  1. Referendum on the CIC says:

    “Democrats have held the seat since March 1923″

    That’s a pretty solid pickup.

    Read more: http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/us-house-race-in-new-york-weprin-turner-20110913-apx#ixzz1XvsOdk1k

  2. Momster says:

    Solid is right! This is only the beginning of the trouncing the Dems are going to get in the next 14 months.

  3. I read a couple of op eds on the big change in NYC district formerly occupied by Anthony the Weiner……one called it the revenge of the Jews for Obama’s anti-Israel policy. He is the first American president to oppose the Jewish state and he is going to pay for it big time.

  4. P.S. that NYC City district is about 45 % Jewish voters.

    • Avatar of seaofstories seaofstories says:

      Obama does not oppose a Jewish state. He has not changed the US position on Israel one iota. It’s the same as Mr. Bush’s and Mr. Clinton’s. We’re for a two state solution and we oppose settlements. That’s been the policy and it’s still the policy.

      The orthodox rabinical counsel published and circulated a document forbidding a vote for the democratic candidate. What a disaster! They need to have their tax exemption stripped, yesterday. And we need to end tax exemptions for all religious organizations.

    • False. It’s about 12%.

  5. Joe says:

    Doesn’t the New York Jewish voter pay attention? Obama’s positions on Israel were obvious and predictable since 2004 when he spoke at Kerry’s nomination.

  6. Henry says:

    Now that is the result of obamba’s ideology. Good job democrat party. You picked a winner. What ever happened to the days when real leaders were elected to the democrat party? Truman, Kennedy, et al.

      • Henry says:

        I haven’t felt the tax cuts from Obama. Then again, I am not a one-eyed, half balded, chemically dependent transexual in a wheelchair whose great-great grandparent’s civil rights were violated a couple of centuries ago either. Long story short, I failed to meet Obamba’s rigorous criteria. Effectively, what tax cut?

          • Henry says:

            I did. Did you? Great to get statistics from a liberal think tank funded by George Sore Os devoted to providing Obamba appointments. Great source!

            Why don’t you talk directly to an independent source like an accountant when you have to get your taxes prepared? I went through the new “tax cuts” with mine and walked out with nothing different than what Bush had previously done for me. Like I said, you would have to meet the criteria I already spelled out.

          • I read the article, and I am fully aware that the data is coming from a left-leaning think tank. The same kind of crap comes from right-leaning ones as well.

          • Anonymous says:

            “I read the article, and I am fully aware that the data is coming from a left-leaning think tank. ”

            Thanks for the update. We can disregard the “statistics” because they are skewed.

          • Realistic skeptic says:

            if this is true, I am sure you can find an opposing source. Find the “Right Thinktank” article that disputes this. Until then these are the only real facts presented…… the rest is mindless conjecture.

          • Anonymous says:

            Ralph said: “I am fully aware that the data is coming from a left-leaning think tank…mindless conjecture.”

            We are in agreement.

          • No Brainer says:

            just because you agree, doesn’t make it correct. Provide proof, this should be easy; all you you need to provide is contradictory statistics from a conservative think tank. You know how to use Google, don’t you?

        • Avatar of seaofstories seaofstories says:

          Well I’m a four eyed, able bodied, white, hetrosexual, with a full head of hair who only qualifies as chemically dependant if you count caffine and President Obama cut my 2011 tax bill by $2,000.

          He cut the SS rate 2%. If you work, he cut your taxes. So, Henry, if he didn’t cut yours there’s only one conclusion I can reach and it’s got nothing to do with sexual preference, disability, addiction, heritage, or hair line.

          • Concerned Senior says:

            “He cut the SS rate 2%”

            Why would he cut SS revenue? Isn’t the program facing insolvency in the very near future?

          • Avatar of seaofstories seaofstories says:

            Because it put more money in the pocket of every working American immediately, and he could get the Republicans to agree to it.

            Yes, it impacts the solvency of SS a little bit a long time from now, 25 or 30 years down the road. But SS, even after a 1 year reduction in contributions, is still a relatively easy thing to fix. An order of magnitude easier than Medicare and Medicaid.

          • Concerned Senior says:

            So – you’re stating that Obama’s actions will speed up the insolvency of Social Security. In addition he wants to continue the SS revenu cut in the next year, thereby further speeding up the insolvency of Social Security.

            Be scared, seniors.

          • Moving Goalposts says:

            This is assuming insolvency in imminent. If the Republicans keep up their movement to remove this safety net from the elderly, what Obama is doing is politically savvey.

            He should be taxing it, which would not affect the people who need it the most at all.

          • Concerned Senior says:

            “This is assuming insolvency in imminent. ”

            The more he robs from the SS revenue stream, the quicker insolvency will come.

          • As the GoalPost Shifts..... says:

            The more we borrow to pay for wars, the quicker the economy will collapse for the democrats……..

          • As the stomach churns..... says:

            who will win the next election…. the incumbant who has refreshed the economy or Bachmann who will…

          • Avatar of seaofstories seaofstories says:

            If you’re drawing SS now, I’d worry more about the reaper than the solvency of the SS system. It’s fine for another 25 years or so and the odds are good on further tweaks in the next 5 years that will extend that further.

          • India says:

            That’s an ingenious way of thkninig about it.

  7. Henry says:

    “Well I’m a four eyed, able bodied, white, hetrosexual, with a full head of hair who only qualifies as chemically dependant if you count caffine and President Obama cut my 2011 tax bill by $2,000.”

    2011 taxes cannot be reconciled yet unless I suppose you are dead or changed citizenship.

    Cutting the Social Security tax liability by 2% to create a $2000 savings means your Social Security Tax Liability was $100,000. Wow, SOS! You’ve done well, grossing about $1.6 million using your numbers.

    • No Brainer says:

      Gee, once again you have proven a profound lack of reading comprehension. Read the article again and tell me what percentage the SS will provide……. oops, you don’t need to read the article to see 2%.

      • Henry says:

        According to SOS, Obamba “He cut the SS rate 2%.”

        What were you saying about reading comprehension? Perhaps you should get some.

        • No Brainer says:

          That would equate to 2% of his tax difference too, not the 100% you are implying….. simple math, but I guess you must be a product of NCLB.. oops, that reform came AFTER you graduated..

          • Henry says:

            A math lesson relating to politics from a democrat? That would be pretty funny. I’ll pass.

            NCLB is also the proud heritage of Teddy Kennedy, although his only qualification in teaching was driver’s ed. Perhaps his involvement helps to explain a few things. Billy C. thought so as well. But then, Hill thought it was good enough to vote on. She must not have done her homework.
            http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/02/bill-clinton-bl/

    • Avatar of seaofstories seaofstories says:

      I do fine but not $1.6 million. Your math is a little out of sorts there, Henry.

      The point is he cut taxes for everyone who draws a paycheck. It’s entirely possible to estimate your payroll tax liability and the resultant savings from a reduction in the SS tax rate before the end of the tax year. It’s directly proportional to a person’s wage up to the SS withholding cap.

      • Henry says:

        An example of garbage in garbage out based on the numbers you provided. The point was that $2000 could not be saved from a measly 2% SS tax rate cut. It is laughable to claim Obamba made any meaningful tax cuts. You would need very special circumstances to take advantage of them, like Obamba’s friends at GE did.

        • Avatar of seaofstories seaofstories says:

          Let me do the math for you, because you’re not getting it and as a result you’re inadvertently misinforming other readers. If you made $100,000 last year and the SS tax rate was 6% you paid $6,000 in SS taxes. If you make $100,000 this year and the SS tax rate is 4%, a decrease of 2 percentage points, you pay $4,000 in SS taxes, or $2,000 less. If you make $50,000 that’s $1,000 in your pocket. If you make $10,000 it’s $200. This is what Congress passed late last year and is the SS tax regime for individuals working in 2011. The actually tax rates aren’t 6 and 4, they’re a fraction higher but I’ve rounded them for simplicity. The reduction is 2 percentage points, for everyone who earns a paycheck.

          • Henry says:

            SOS, I stand corrected. I understand what you are saying. Your social security tax is not reduced by 2%, rather it is reduced by 1/3. This is why I am not an accountant. Thanks for the clarification.

      • Concerned Senior says:

        “The point is he cut taxes for everyone who draws a paycheck”
        The point is that he cut SS revenue for everyone who depends on SS payments. This type of risky behavior is why we need a change in Washington. The security of our nation’s seniors is too important to be toyed around with for campaign fodder.

        • Avatar of seaofstories seaofstories says:

          1) The Republican’s agreed, and 2) If the Republican’s were running the whole show they’d end SS entirely. So think carefully about just what kind of change you want in Washington.

          • Concerned Senior says:

            Yes – the Republicans agreed with Obama’s plan to cut revenue to the Social Security fund.

          • Concerned Senior says:

            I hit send before I finished:

            Yes – the Republicans agreed with Obama’s plan to cut revenue to the Social Security fund, as did Obama’s Democrats.

          • No Brainer says:

            To attack liberals for reducing the Social Security payment is specious at best….

            It has always been the Conservative agenda to completely end Social Security, bottom line. The people the lower income elderly should fear is the Republicans if they get too much control, not Obama.

            The recent push is to privatize SS and turn it into private “Investment” accounts, but the problem with that is then the rich make money on it, and the poors retirement is entirely dependent on the economy, and if there is a crash, they poor will lose their retirement money.

            This is not a safety net.

          • Concerned Senior says:

            “To attack liberals for reducing the Social Security payment is specious at best…. ”

            If by specious you mean that it was the Obama administration that directly pushed for a reduction in revenues to the social security program, then you are correct.

            This is not the type of “change” that we seniors want.

          • No Brainer says:

            Hey, its better than cutting benefits, which is what the Republicans would do… completely.

            Frankly we chose to go to 3 wars completely on credit while cutting taxes, its time to pay the piper.

            If you want to assure solvency, then we should be taxing the benefits, and putting those revenues back into the trust fund… that would make it completely solvent, and the only people who would pay are those who have such high after retirement income that they don’t need the benefit. Those depending upon SS for their sustenance don’t make enough to be taxed.

  8. Fox does it again.... says:

    Tell you, Faux news is as good a source as you can get!

    http://news.yahoo.com/dr-oz-accused-fear-mongering-apple-juice-212559761.html

  9. Henry says:

    Taxes going up $1.5 trillion (if Obamba had his way):
    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_DEFICITS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-09-18-23-33-29

    The plan: Step 1, cripple the economy with trickle-down poverty (See today’s forum). Step 2, Maintain trickle-down poverty by going after those who provide jobs to people (See link to AP article). Some words come to mind: destitution and despair. The case is being built (manipulated) for the complete nanny state whether it is by sheer ignorance or design.

  10. The Peoples Eyebrow-^ says:

    Pass the Buffett Law before stupidity and more hackery return. The rich can afford to pay more…it is not like the proposed taxes will send them scurrying for the protection of European societies……oh wait…some of those guys are Eurotrash…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>