Judgement Day!

[|Tigers Johnson|]

[url="http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2010/11/02/ac.midterm.election.outlook.cnn?hpt=T1"]CNN Video[/url]

"Democrats could be looking at historic losses." I love the sound of that!

[|Tigers Johnson|]

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YI6Ms0b4q-4[/media]

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Tigers Johnson' timestamp='1288730444' post='936791']
[url="http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2010/11/02/ac.midterm.election.outlook.cnn?hpt=T1"]CNN Video[/url]

"Democrats could be looking at historic losses." [color="#FF0000"]I love the sound of that![/color]
[/quote]


and [i]I'm[/i] the partisan one.

[|Elflocko|]

You do realize we're all still fucked regardless of who gets put into office, right?

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Elflocko' timestamp='1288730577' post='936794']
You do realize we're all still fucked regardless of who gets put into office, right?
[/quote]


What are you talking about? The Koch Brother funded tea party is hear to save the day!! The Oligarchy wins again!!

[|Tigers Johnson|]

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vfSk-6tIvo[/media]

Next step:

Refuse to fund this fucking monstrosity of a health care bill!

[Jamie_B]

You know what's sad, is that some people dont even get that this vote is against their interests.

[|Tigers Johnson|]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1288730829' post='936797']
You know what's sad, is that some people dont even get that this vote is against their interests.
[/quote]

Don't you mean... your interests?

I can't post anything else my two boys are here watching and want to watch that freakin baby over and over again.....

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Tigers Johnson' timestamp='1288730708' post='936796']
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vfSk-6tIvo[/media]

Next step:

[color="#FF0000"]Refuse to fund this fucking monstrosity of a health care bill![/color]
[/quote]


Do you realize that you pay for people's healthcare even before this bill was voted in?

[|Tigers Johnson|]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1288730967' post='936799']
Do you realize that you pay for people's healthcare even before this bill was voted in?
[/quote]

yup and I don't need a fucked up reform bill taking even more of my money and helping to bankrupt this country....

We have had this argument... I am not doing it again.

Like I said... Next step.... Refuse to fund that fucking monstrosity of a health care bill!

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GwjfUFyY6M&ob=av3e[/media]

There is a reason democrats are going to take historic losses...... Think about it!

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Tigers Johnson' timestamp='1288730923' post='936798']
Don't you mean... your interests?
[/quote]


Is that what you think?

My interests are meaningless here, this has never been about me, its about the fact that I give a crap about people who cant do for themselves, or people who were hurt by the big banks in betting on wall street that are now unemployed and cant find work. I realize that it takes good government policies to put these people back to work, not some invisible hand of the market that doesnt exist.

This has never been about me, this is about innocent people who are hurting.

[|Tigers Johnson|]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1288731211' post='936802']
Is that what you think?

My interests are meaningless here, this has never been about me, its about the fact that I give a crap about people who cant do for themselves, or people who were hurt by the big banks in betting on wall street that are now unemployed and cant find work. I realize that it takes good government policies to put these people back to work, not some invisible hand of the market that doesnt exist.

This has never been about me, this is about innocent people who are hurting.
[/quote]


BUUUUUUULLLLLLLSSSSSHHHHHIIIIIITTTTTTT!

Carry on!

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Tigers Johnson' timestamp='1288731174' post='936801']
yup and I don't need a fucked up reform bill taking even more of my money and helping to bankrupt this country....

We have had this argument... I am not doing it again.

Like I said... Next step.... Refuse to fund that fucking monstrosity of a health care bill!

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GwjfUFyY6M&ob=av3e[/media]

There is a reason democrats are going to take historic losses...... Think about it!
[/quote]


Yeah and then repeal medicare and medicade and anything else that your taxes pay for because you dont want the goverment taking from your bank account.

Lets start with the fire fighters.

Oh was that not fair?

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Tigers Johnson' timestamp='1288731427' post='936803']
BUUUUUUULLLLLLLSSSSSHHHHHIIIIIITTTTTTT!

Carry on!
[/quote]


What exactly do I get out of it? If this is about me as you think, what exactly do I get out of keeping the tea party out of power?

Or maybe it isnt about me and what I said was the truth.

[hocuspocus]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1288731211' post='936802']
Is that what you think?

My interests are meaningless here, this has never been about me, its about the fact that I give a crap about people who cant do for themselves, or people who were hurt by the big banks in betting on wall street that are now unemployed and cant find work. I realize that it takes good government policies to put these people back to work, not some invisible hand of the market that doesnt exist.

This has never been about me, this is about innocent people who are hurting.
[/quote]


I find this topic on interests and taking care of people interesting... since it seems this boils down to a progressive versus conservative approach here... does a conservative believe that a person who works hard everyday in a blue collar job; who lives paycheck to paycheck; who has to choose between food and medication; who can only afford to live in a crime-ridden neighborhood has only one option to protect THEIR interests or as Russell Kirk penned their “security ...of person and home” and that one option is increased government control? I argue not.

I think we can agree that we want people to have better lives right? It is the means to those better lives (ends) we disagree on. What Kirk is saying in “security of person and home” is a statement on property and the right to property and privacy – of person (choices are our property and in our society choices are made with money) and home/land. The security is knowing that whatever property one has attained for themselves is protected from being taken in any way by govt. This is not a statement on environment this is a statement of existence. There is a difference between equal access and opportunity via free choice to succeed or fail and in any case to know that the outcome is yours in every way and what many progressives want govt to do which equal RESULT guarantee. In the former the decision, the result, etc… is ours and it can never be taken away. This is not equality in the sense of the latter where guaranteeing that a person will have exactly what everyone else has...and how do we do that again? It is important that we all have equality in the sense of access to the same opportunity in a framework of defined laws and civil order to achieve. Isn’t Obama getting elected a perfect example of this conservative thought? Did anyone give or guarantee him the result? No. So why would we deny that opportunity to others by saying we are going to take away what was yours (property, choice, risk, reward etc…) to decide and replace it with a guarantee of equality. Wouldn’t this take away one’s incentive to strive to be better if they were just… well… comfortable? And doesn’t that line of thinking assume that what is a fruit of freedom for one is not for another? Maybe the ultimate in freedom for one person is planting a garden and then sharing with the neighbors and for another it is having a Lexus in the garage… but both happy... just some thing to think about...

The Constitution offers us a window here...“life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” Pursuit… important verb… not guarantee of these things but the opportunity to pursue under a free and defined society – know that you are safe and secure after the pursuit has given fruit. That fruit should be directed and owned by the person who earned it – not taken away. I believe for example in true community where the decisions most directly impacting the lives of citizens are made locally and voluntarily. In terms of helping the 'innocnet' well give back a large % of what we get because we are good stewards and we should be forced to that nor forced to give it to a govt that might spend it in a way we do not agree with because when this passes to a centralized authority then the local community is in danger – it is not wise to transfer our charity and community to some far away director as eventually the disconnection this would cause (because we don’t get involved locally anymore) would only prove detrimental to freedom and human dignity.

I think that the key here is the freedom to choose how to pursue… and that freedom comes with risk. Once govt decides to try and ‘buy’ some of that risk we inherently begin to lose freedom and incentive to become better. Collectivism in the forms that we have today and are proposed in my conservative opinion only restricts freedom. Equality in liberty is what we should support here. How can we decide that in some areas of life we think there should be choice but in others we don’t? I’ve always found it curious that say Pro-Choice supporters are all about the “security of person” and wants the govt out of that (which I agree with) but the same people say no to choice on equally personal matters of ‘property’ like money or products, etc… This creates big cognitive dissonance issue. We either are free or we are not – we cannot have it both ways.

In terms of protecting people from evil banks etc... as is mentioned...Basically what ...do you suggest? Our free markets and freedom have produced more goodness and innovation than the world has ever seen. Do you think that a collectivist society where the entrepreneur has not incentive will produce great thing or wealth? In today’s world there needs to be some level of regulation but the question is where and how much. And do we really want to get into the house thing again when it comes to the financial crisis… congress was ordered by the President under Clinton at the time to make it easier and open housing to more people and as this spiraled into easy to get home loans people who should not have been buying homes were buying homes and lenders were irresponsible (borrower responsibility?) and now we have this situation which since 2006 was sat on by a Democrat congress... so... Frankly, if someone knowing went into a mortgage they knew they could not afford why do taxpayers bail them out? Why am I paying my mortgage? Again why should all risk be bought and that the govt should hand out the happiness to the innocent?

So looking out for the innocents? How about as alluded to earlier that the state should do only what the individual truly cannot do on his own and if government must act then the government that acts should be the most local government possible. Didn't we start this nation with a more de-centralized model with local control and involvement this couple would 1.) utilize family 2.) Utilize local organizations and support 3.) local govt would provide 4.) state govt and 5.) the option of last resort the far away central govt.

So this is a matter of how not if we should help these people. Fed govt is not option of first resort but should be the last in communities where people are involved and caring. I think if we give from the federal level as I mention earlier in this that we at some level take away the reason and incentive for families, neighbors and communities to be the place people go for help first. We want the same things just see them delivered in a different way...

[Jamie_B]

heading home, ill respond to that when i get home, but there is a big straw-man in it that says progressives want equality by the way of everyone having the same. Not the case. Equal opportunity yes, equal in the sense of communism, no. And thats the big lie that has people thinking about all the "isms" these days.

And maybe when I get home TJ will respond to what I get out of keeping the tea party out of power. I'm serious, I want to know.

[hocuspocus]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1288733739' post='936817']
heading home, ill respond to that when i get home, but there is a big straw-man in it that says progressives want equality by the way of everyone having the same. Not the case. Equal opportunity yes, equal in the sense of communism, no. And thats the big lie that has people thinking about all the "isms" these days.

And maybe when I get home TJ will respond to what I get out of keeping the tea party out of power. I'm serious, I want to know.
[/quote]

Yes - good distinction and agreed on your straw man comment. Would be interested to read what you're thinking as the in between.

[|Bunghole|]

I voted for Joe Walsh (again). My guy [i]never[/i] gets elected!

[|Tigers Johnson|]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1288731431' post='936804']
Yeah and then repeal medicare and medicade and anything else that your taxes pay for because you dont want the goverment taking from your bank account.

Lets start with the fire fighters.

Oh was that not fair?
[/quote]

That is fine...

As long as you are all in as well... We can get rid of welfare as well....

I fully support helping those that can not help themselves... period.

...and I don't think you have to worry... Medicare will probably not be there when we retire anyways... even though I have been paying in to it my entire life.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='hocuspocus' timestamp='1288733931' post='936819']
Yes - good distinction and agreed on your straw man comment. Would be interested to read what you're thinking as the in between.
[/quote]


So this is going to be long, but I had this discussion with Scharm in a different thread. Cliff Notes - All of this is about aggregate demand and understanding the government does have a role in the economy when AD is down and that spending does help IF its done in the right areas (which is Obama's problem and why he has been ineffective)

Quoting myself from the other thread.


[quote]The stock prices are surging because of the bailout, companies are offloading their crap assists and giving them to the American People.

[url="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/12/wall-street-pay_n_759068.html"]Wall St. may break a record for the 2nd year in a row in profit.[/url]

Now if the average citizen has no job and no reason to spend money on companies products. Why would these companies not just keep the cash and continue their record profits? Why should they expand employment when the demand for their products is not there? They shouldn't.

The Economy isn't getting better your having the wool pulled over your eyes.

So if all we are really doing is shifting the chairs on the titanic by giving to the rich our money and we cant buy their products why on earth are they going to hire us? If I gave you free money and no reason to spend it to help me would you?

So what we need to be doing to ensure that Jobs do come back and come back in a sustainable way that make the economy healthy and not just an economy that is akin to three card money, is boost aggregate demand. Boost demand for these companies products so that they do hire people because they have a need to hire people.

What is aggregate demand?

From Wiki
[quote]In macroeconomics, aggregate demand (AD) is the total demand for final goods and services in the economy (Y) at a given time and price level[1]. It is the amount of goods and services in the economy that will be purchased at all possible price levels.[2] This is the demand for the gross domestic product of a country when inventory levels are static.[/quote]

There is a formula for it

AG = Consumption + Investment + Government Spending + (Total Exports - Total Imports)

Lets take a look at a few things

We already discussed that because people dont have jobs consumption is low

How is investment? A recent Bloomberg report has it down too (seen [url="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-26/business-spending-drop-in-u-s-may-hit-job-market-undermining-recovery.html"]here[/url])

Government Spending is obviously up (or at least thats what the tea party idiots complain about)

The US is importing more than it is exporting (seen [url="http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-04-13/u-s-economy-trade-gap-widens-more-than-anticipated-on-imports.html"]here[/url])


So all this should tell you were up shit's creek. The only good in boosting aggregate demand is coming from the government spending, at least on the surface. We could argue and I would likely agree that what they are spending on is not going to help. (Except maybe the infrastructure spending but that would be temporary.)

You want a better economy and not a 3 card monty one? You need to boost aggregate demand and that isnt happening in any sector other than government. But government needs to be spending on things that boost people working and that will boost consumption, which should boost capital investment because companies will have reason to invest when their products are being bought. You want to boost the exports while reducing the imports? End free trade.

But all that said this notion that companies are sitting on money waiting for their republican saviors to come back into power is simply not true either.

[url="http://www.truth-out.org/unemployment-dilemma-goes-beyond-supply-and-demand63954"]A September survey from the National Federation of Independent Business shows that smaller companies are much more concerned about weak sales than taxes or regulation, and concerns about the quality of available labor have plunged.[/url]

So in addition boosting aggregate demand we need to be educating the work force. When demand is slow there is no reason for companies to invest in educating people who dont work for them so they can hire them for jobs they dont have a need for because their products are not selling because people dont have jobs or money to spend.

Government spending isnt the problem, its WHAT government is spending on that is the problem. And when the [url="http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/bankruptcy_study.html"]leading reason for bankrupcy is Medical Bills[/url], spending on health care is not one of the bad things, because it would be wise to ensure that people aren't going into bankruptcy so they can pay their bills which would put money into the people who they owe money to's pockets.

Spending isnt the problem, its the what we are spending on that is the problem.[/quote]



So this requires that we invest for the future which requires taxes because the private sector is spent, it isnt creating jobs on a scale that is out-pacing demand for them. I sit posting this today, as I heard about a friend of mine getting a few months notice that they are going to cut his job, as I watch another friend of mine use what little unemployment money he has to get by while he builds up a debit to pay for school in hopes of having a job in a few years that at this pace is worry some it will be there. And then I watch as someone like TJ revels in the fact that these people on a shermans march to get rid of every program that helped create the middle class because his own shortsighted interests dont understand how this stuff works they only see spending but dont see investment. Then when I talk about AD and GDP, terms that are capitalist terms and talk about the governments role in them, which is part of the damned formula, then get called a pinko communist by Backer, its just sad. These are the low level people that get used by the oligarchy, and they cheer the oligarchy for their "liberty". It's why I have the FDR quote in my sig - We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made. - Franklin Delano Roosevelt

So lets talk about their agenda

These people want to [url="http://veracitystew.com/2010/10/04/alaska-tea-partier-joe-miller-wants-to-eliminate-minimum-wage-video/"]end the minimum wage[/url], [url="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/25/tea-party-hopefuls-target-education-department/print/"]close the department of education[/url], [url="http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/09/20/100853/graham-us-must-consider-military.html"]a war with Iran[/url], [url="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/31/tea-party-leader-we-shoul_n_519970.html"]end social security[/url], [url="http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2010/10/20/tea-party-senate-candidate-denies-separation-of-church-and-state-in-constitution/"]they don't believe in the separation of church and state[/url], [url="http://www.times-georgian.com/view/full_story/9695184/article-Tea-party-candidate-defends-use-of-tax-loophole?instance=TG_home_story_offset"]they defend corporate tax loopholes[/url], [url="http://thinkprogress.org/2010/09/24/raese-money-inheritanc/"]want to end the inheritance tax[/url], [url="http://thedailyconservative.net/2010/09/05/angle-dont-extend-unemployment-benefits-go-get-a-real-job-%C2%AB-ask-2/"]don't want to extend unemployment[/url] in a time that jobs are scarce, [url="http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/08/miller-social-security-medicare-unconstitutional/"]called medicare unconstitutional[/url], [url="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Holden_Mirror/lawmakers-seek-distance-f_n_734800_61364433.html"]want to privatize the VA[/url], [url="http://www.autisable.com/733277621/sharron-angle-and-the-tea-party-why-autism-advocates-should-fear-them/"]don't believe in autism[/url], [url="http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/10/gop-tea-party-frontrunner-abolish-public-schools/"]eliminating public schools[/url], [url="http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/tea-party-call-to-repeal-the-17th-amendment-causing-problems-for-gop-candidates.php"]repeal the 17th amendment[/url], [url="http://www.aolnews.com/surge-desk-elections/article/candidates-who-want-to-amend-or-repeal-sections-of-the-us-constitution/19665204"]the 16th amendments[/url], [url="http://www.aolnews.com/surge-desk-elections/article/candidates-who-want-to-amend-or-repeal-sections-of-the-us-constitution/19665204"]the 14th amendment[/url],[url="http://climateprogress.org/2010/08/03/rand-paul-mine-safety-regulations-jobs/"]opposed to federal mine safety regulations[/url]

To get rid of all that while funding another war with Iran...they would pay for the war with cuts in everything else, but here is why they are short-sided again. These wars have unintended consequences of blow-back that have caused some of the very terrorism were fighting. We are an empire and every empire in history has fallen and the way we are going and the things we are doing will be no different. What this means is we need to be funneling our investments out of the war economy and into other areas or the bad we are facing now is going to get [b]ALOT[/b] worse.


Edited to add a few things: Now thats not to say we should never make cuts to government programs, but there is a time and place, and its not when all other sectors of GDP are down, you do it when there is a surplus in the other areas of the AD forumla, and you get rid of the things that dont work or have run their usefulness (and despite what some say thats not medicare or medicade). And that's the time when the other areas have surplus that you dont cut taxes, you use the tax surplus to pay down the debit that everyone (myself included) is worried about. Right now by the AD forumla is not that time.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Tigers Johnson' timestamp='1288738985' post='936847']
That is fine...

As long as you are all in as well... We can get rid of welfare as well....

I fully support helping those that can not help themselves... period.

...and I don't think you have to worry... Medicare will probably not be there when we retire anyways... even though I have been paying in to it my entire life.
[/quote]


I was being factious, I dont want to get rid of your job any more than I want to get rid of any program that helps people that cant help themselves. You say you support helping those people, but Im not sure you understand how these programs do help them in all honesty.

[|Tigers Johnson|]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1288739284' post='936849']
I was being factious, I dont want to get rid of your job any more than I want to get rid of any program that helps people that cant help themselves. You say you support helping those people, but Im not sure you understand how these programs do help them in all honesty.
[/quote]

Yes I do... I see it everyday I work. I also see how the system is abused beyond belief...

I know a lot more about it than you think....

Just for starters.... Do you have any idea how many people on medicaid use the ambulance as a taxi to get across town? Then the ambulance company/fire dept charges medicaid for the ride?

You have absolutely no idea the amount of calls we go on that medicaid pays for that are ridiculous...

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Tigers Johnson' timestamp='1288739691' post='936851']
Yes I do... I see it everyday I work. I also see how the system is abused beyond belief...

I know a lot more about it than you think....

Just for starters.... Do you have any idea how many people on medicaid use the ambulance as a taxi to get across town? Then the ambulance company/fire dept charges medicaid for the ride?

You have absolutely no idea the amount of calls we go on that medicaid pays for that are ridiculous...
[/quote]


Then you fix that stuff, you dont throw the baby out with the bathwater. This tea party movement isnt just another run of the mill conservative movement, I wouldnt be so concern if it was, this is a shermans march to end every progressive legislation that created the middle class.

[|Tigers Johnson|]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1288739809' post='936852']
Then you fix that stuff, you dont throw the baby out with the bathwater. This tea party movement isnt just another run of the mill conservative movement, I wouldnt be so concern if it was, this is a shermans march to end every progressive legislation that created the middle class.
[/quote]

How do you fix it?

When someone calls you for an emergency call because they have not slept for four days(seriously happened)?

You can't just tell him no because if he falls out for any reason and you did not take him you are going to end up in court being sued.....

This current health care reform catastrophe does not fix any of that....

[|Tigers Johnson|]

[b]Rand Paul and Dan Coats Projected Winner[/b]s


Washington (CNN) -- A midterm election that cost more than any other in history headed to completion Tuesday with voters overwhelmingly concerned about the economy expected to give Republicans major gains in Congress and governors' offices.

The heated campaigning continued to the last minute, with President Barack Obama and former President Bill Clinton exhorting Democrats and independents to hold off a Republican surge while GOP candidates promised to change how Washington operates.

While Democrats continued to offer upbeat assessments of their party's chances Tuesday, multiple senior Democratic sources said privately that they expected to lose their House majority just four years after taking control of the chamber.

One early result bore that out: Republican candidate Rand Paul has won the Kentucky Senate race, CNN projects, beating out Democrat Jack Conway to take the seat left vacated by retiring Republican Sen. Jim Bunning.

Other early CNN projections: Republican Dan Coats in Indiana, Republican Jim DeMint in South Carolina and Democrat Patrick Leahy in Vermont winners in their Senate races. Indiana is a GOP pick-up -- the party would win to gain 9 additional seats to take control of the Senate.

Minute-by-minute results on CNN's Live Election Blog

One thing was giving Democrats hope earlier in the day: reports from key districts about high turnout and a big influx of volunteers to help get out the Democratic vote.
Video: Kentucky Senate candidates vote
Video: Watch me vote for me
Video: Candidates' last push
Video: Sarah Palin is fired up!
Video: Race and the race

Still, the question that many House Democratic sources were asking was not whether they would lose the House, but by how many seats.

The long and bitter campaign season drew more than $3.5 billion in spending, making it the most expensive non-presidential vote ever, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, a watchdog group.

With about 100 of the 435 House seats at stake considered "in play," or competitive, an anti-Democratic mood is predicted to result in big Republican gains.

On the Senate side, where 37 of the 100 seats are being contested, the majority will be decided by key races in Nevada, Washington and a few other states where Democratic incumbents face strong challenges.

Republicans need to win an additional 39 seats to claim the House majority and 10 Senate seats to overtake Democrats there.

If a Republican landslide occurs, it could surpass previous major shifts in congressional voting, such as the GOP's 56-seat gain in House seats in 1946.

In addition, the rise of the conservative Tea Party movement has added a new element to the election cycle, roiling Republican races by boosting little-known and inexperienced candidates to victory over mainstream figures in GOP primaries across the country.

No matter how many of the so-called Tea Party candidates win against Democratic opponents Tuesday, the impact of the movement is expected to shift the Republican agenda to the right.

Exit polling showed voter dissatisfaction with both parties, as each received a 53 percent unfavorable rating.

The economy was rated the most important issue by 62 percent of voters, far eclipsing health care reform (19 percent), immigration (8 percent) and the war in Afghanistan (7 percent), according to the exit polling.

Most voters, 88 percent, rated economic conditions as not good or poor, and 86 percents said they were very worried or somewhat worried about the economy, the exit polling showed.
Video: Campaign calls clog phone lines
Video: Virginia voting machine problems
Video: World watching U.S. midterms
Video: 90-year-old woman works polls
RELATED TOPICS

* Elections and Voting
* U.S. House of Representatives
* U.S. Senate
* Barack Obama
* John Boehner

Obama's approval rating was 45 percent, while 54 percent disapproved of his presidency so far, the exit polling revealed. Those figures were similar to the ratings for his two predecessors -- George W. Bush and Clinton -- who both saw their parties lose control of the House in the first mid-term election after they took office.

In a signal that Democratic campaign messaging was reaching voters, the exit polling showed 35 percent of voters blamed the nation's economic woes on Wall Street bankers, while 29 percent blamed Bush and 24 percent blamed Obama.

Voters across the country offered a variety of reasons for their choices Tuesday.

In Wolfeboro, New Hampshire, restaurant manager and internet entrepreneur Stephen Smith, 40, went to the polls hoping "that the entrenched incumbents get booted out of office," he said.

Melissa Bacon, 24, of Sacramento, California, cast her ballot partly for the thrill of the experience, she said.

"You don't get to vote every day. It's sort of its own holiday. You research the issues, vote and then wait to see if your position was the majority. It's as exciting to me as the World Series last night," she said on the heels of the San Francisco Giants' victory.

Nadya Alvarez of Parrish, Florida, went to the polls with her son to teach him about the importance of voting.

"My youngest is almost 2 years old, and I showed him the ballot, and he wanted to help fill in the circles," said Parrish, 28.

"It is good to teach them from an early age to be involved in the welfare of our country and that we all have rights and duties to preserve," she said.

And Susy Kosh, 37, of Dripping Springs, Texas, said she plans to wear her "I voted" sticker all day.

"Politics might not thrill me," she said. "But democracy rocks."

Unemployment -- at a rate of 9.6 percent amid a slow recovery from economic recession -- has been the dominant issue, with Republicans accusing Obama and the Democrats of pushing through expensive policies that have expanded government without solving the problem.

Obama has led Democrats in defending his record, saying that steps such as the economic stimulus bill and auto industry bailout were necessary to prevent a depression, while health care reform and Wall Street reform will lay the foundation for sustainable future growth.

On Tuesday, Obama phoned in to three high-profile radio shows and taped a message for AOL users, saying his "ability to work on behalf of middle-class families is going to be hampered if I do not have people in Congress who want to cooperate."

Clinton worked the phones on behalf of Democrats in Ohio, where first-term Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland is fighting to hold on to his seat.

The former president also called in to four Ohio radio stations during a day of campaigning that will take him from New York through West Virginia and Kentucky before he ends up in Florida.

Republican Rand Paul, the Tea Party-backed Senate candidate in Kentucky, voiced the sentiments of many in the grass-roots, anti-establishment movement who seek change in politics as usual.

"What I'm going to work to try to change is the whole government," Paul said on CNN's "American Morning." "I think government's broken from top to bottom."

He insisted that the government needs to balance its budget, loosen regulations on business and cut waste in the defense budget.

Conservative groups and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce funded attack ads that skewered increased spending under Obama and the health care reform bill he championed, while labor unions and traditional Democratic donors warned that a GOP victory would bring back Republican deregulation and policies that caused the recession.

Observers warned that the expected Republican gains offer little chance of compromise or bipartisan approaches on major issues.

Ohio Republican Rep. John Boehner is expected to be the new House speaker if the GOP wins control of the chamber. He already has signaled little appetite to negotiate with the White House or congressional Democrats, saying last week that "this is not a time for compromise."

Boehner and other conservatives say the top priorities must be spending cuts to try to balance the budget and job creation to spur the economy. However, they also advocate extending Bush-era tax cuts for everyone at a cost of $4 trillion over the next decade.

In the Senate, legislative gridlock is likely if Republicans strengthen their current minority of 41 seats. Obama and Democrats accuse Senate Republicans of using obstruction tactics as a political tool, showing the distrust and animosity that already exists.

Democrats are also wary of a recent comment by Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, who told the National Journal, "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

The first test of a new relationship will come in mid-November, when Congress convenes a post-election lame-duck session to try to clear unfinished legislation before the newly elected Congress gathers in January. Among other issues, lawmakers must decide whether and how to extend Bush-era tax cuts.

Voters on Tuesday also will decide governors' races in 37 of the 50 states, with the outcome potentially having an influence on redistricting based on the results of the 2010 census.

Every 10 years, the states redraw House district lines to reflect population shifts. Some states gain more House seats due to population growth, while others lose seats due to declines.

In most cases, state legislatures draw the lines, and governors have the power to approve or veto the maps. Governors also can influence whether any loss or gain of seats in their state involves districts represented by Republicans or Democrats.

The list of states that will gain or lose seats is released in December. However, Election Data Services issued estimates based on preliminary census figures that indicated Texas will gain four seats; Florida will gain two; and Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, Utah and Washington will each gain one. The estimates also indicate Ohio and New York will lose two seats, and Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey and Pennsylvania will each lose one.