Bwaaahahahahaahahahahahaahaha
Now continue on with your group delusion of how Obama could be any worse than what America has endured for the past 8 years. You guys are absolutely ridiculous.
Looks like a large portion of the republicans have been marginalized.
Maybe the party can come back towards the center, hopefully while re-adopting a fiscally conservative stance, and leave the turkeys behind…
[quote]vroom wrote:
Looks like a large portion of the republicans have been marginalized.
Maybe the party can come back towards the center, hopefully while re-adopting a fiscally conservative stance, and leave the turkeys behind…[/quote]
Seriously, I hope that conservatives start being conservatives again. Hopefully this was a big enough kick in the ass to do just that.
I miss Reagan…
[quote]vroom wrote:
Looks like a large portion of the republicans have been marginalized.
Maybe the party can come back towards the center, hopefully while re-adopting a fiscally conservative stance, and leave the turkeys behind…[/quote]
Towards the center in what respect?
[quote]100meters wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
The thing people are failing to understand is that the government’s budget is going to shift towards more social policies that help out the american people instead of switching to help up major businesses, stock holders, and special interest groups. Your taxes will NOT sky-rocket.
Well, the tax brackets that were to see a tax increase were dropping like a stone last I checked the Obama rhetoric. First, it was $250K, then $200, then $150. If it goes low enough, I’ll just ask my employer for a pay cut, I suppose. There’s not much point in working to fund some underemployed malcontent or likely criminal, IMO.
Another retard. Good lord.[/quote]
Another rocket scientist calling me stupid.
[quote]HangerBaby wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
The thing people are failing to understand is that the government’s budget is going to shift towards more social policies that help out the american people instead of switching to help up major businesses, stock holders, and special interest groups. Your taxes will NOT sky-rocket.
Well, the tax brackets that were to see a tax increase were dropping like a stone last I checked the Obama rhetoric. First, it was $250K, then $200, then $150. If it goes low enough, I’ll just ask my employer for a pay cut, I suppose. There’s not much point in working to fund some underemployed malcontent or likely criminal, IMO.
Its 250k, always has been[/quote]
Be sure to tell Obama and Biden:
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
100meters wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
The thing people are failing to understand is that the government’s budget is going to shift towards more social policies that help out the american people instead of switching to help up major businesses, stock holders, and special interest groups. Your taxes will NOT sky-rocket.
Well, the tax brackets that were to see a tax increase were dropping like a stone last I checked the Obama rhetoric. First, it was $250K, then $200, then $150. If it goes low enough, I’ll just ask my employer for a pay cut, I suppose. There’s not much point in working to fund some underemployed malcontent or likely criminal, IMO.
Another retard. Good lord.
Another rocket scientist calling me stupid. [/quote]
You know… it doesn’t take a rocket scientist…
[quote]HangerBaby wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
100meters wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
The thing people are failing to understand is that the government’s budget is going to shift towards more social policies that help out the american people instead of switching to help up major businesses, stock holders, and special interest groups. Your taxes will NOT sky-rocket.
Well, the tax brackets that were to see a tax increase were dropping like a stone last I checked the Obama rhetoric. First, it was $250K, then $200, then $150. If it goes low enough, I’ll just ask my employer for a pay cut, I suppose. There’s not much point in working to fund some underemployed malcontent or likely criminal, IMO.
Another retard. Good lord.
Another rocket scientist calling me stupid.
You know… it doesn’t take a rocket scientist…[/quote]
Technically, anyone can call anyone stupid, I suppose. It just helps to have proof and to not be an idiot oneself. Of course, you’re not into internet penis-waving, so you wouldn’t engage in such behavior.
[quote]HangerBaby wrote:
Sloth wrote:
So. Will we get to control the lifestyle choices of our fellow Americans with your healtchare system? If we’re responsible for providing healthcare for others, will they abstain from risky behavior, thus being responsible to us?
Edit: Or, is this one of those “Pay for it, and shut the hell up type of deals?”
Well if you’re not filthy rich you won’t be seeing any major changes in where your money is going. The thing people are failing to understand is that the government’s budget is going to shift towards more social policies that help out the american people instead of switching to help up major businesses, stock holders, and special interest groups. Your taxes will NOT sky-rocket. [/quote]
Perhaps you may be right but since when did a flourishing business climate not help average Americans?
To think that taxes won’t go up is a bit too optimistic. Income taxes are only a small piece of the puzzle.
[quote]zephead4747 wrote:
I’m counting on the EU disolving in the next decade or so.
Look at what those euro bastards are doing:
http://www.capmag.com/articlePrint.asp?ID=1836[/quote]
The low taxes of Ireland has been hailed as a big success, and proof of trickle down economics. Of course the EU wants to dismantle it.
Interestingly I recently heard that Russia has a 12% flat tax, and as a result, money is just flowing into Russian coffers.
[quote]jp_dubya wrote:
Perhaps you may be right but since when did a flourishing business climate not help average Americans?
[/quote]
You mean other than the recent looming financial collapse, right?
[quote]vroom wrote:
You mean other than the recent looming financial collapse, right?[/quote]
Yep, right after the big tax increase, and massive government buildup.
[quote]vroom wrote:
jp_dubya wrote:
Perhaps you may be right but since when did a flourishing business climate not help average Americans?
You mean other than the recent looming financial collapse, right?[/quote]
So you are still holding Clinton and Frank to blame for the current financial crisis? How did this impact your vote? Oh wait…
[quote]jp_dubya wrote:
So you are still holding Clinton and Frank to blame for the current financial crisis? How did this impact your vote? Oh wait…[/quote]
Okay, and during the last eight years, the Bush administration, especially when it had an agreeable congress, was powerless to do anything… or to fix any policies that might have been considered misguided.
Good to know, I thought he had some measure of power.
[quote]vroom wrote:
jp_dubya wrote:
So you are still holding Clinton and Frank to blame for the current financial crisis? How did this impact your vote? Oh wait…
Okay, and during the last eight years, the Bush administration, especially when it had an agreeable congress, was powerless to do anything… or to fix any policies that might have been considered misguided.
Good to know, I thought he had some measure of power.[/quote]
No. Bush is to blame too. His liberal ownership society crap deserves alot of blame, indeed. So does the Fed.
OBAMA IN THE WHITEHOUSE…
Perry de Havilland (London) North American affairs
Unlike many, well, most of my compatriots, I am not filled with a deep sense of gloom and foreboding at the prospect of the most left wing president since FDR gaining the Whitehouse. In truth, I can see many reasons to think it may well be a far better outcome than if a Big State Republican like McCain won.
Of course Obama will bring an avalanche of policies that will be truly appalling and quite wicked, of that I have no doubt, much like his predecessors in office in that respect. As the global economy continues to come unglued, everything Obama does to deal with the mounting crises will I fact make things worse. Civil liberties will be hammered, all in the name of ‘fairness’, and the flood of regulations pertaining to every aspect of economic life will grow into a drowning ocean.
And that is actually the good news.
Why? Because in truth the Republicans under John “I support the bailout” McCain would scarcely have done much better. The economic global meltdown is only just starting to roll: if you think the sub-prime mortgage crisis was the biggie, just wait until you see the fallout from the fun and frolics of the impending mess in other areas, such as debt swaps. This is all going to get worse, a lot worse, and Obama is going to do absolutely everything to dig the holes deeper. Looking back on this period ten to twenty years from now, the Republicans crying into their beer tonight will be saying “thank Christ it was not us in office then”.
The lesser evil is not going to win this time and much as it may not seem that way now… or any time soon I suspect… in the long run this has a far far better chance of leading to the rebirth of a genuine pro-liberty, pro-market political culture that the gradual incremental surrender of recent times made impossible.
Many will find the glee of the statist left over the next few days and weeks hard to endure, but to be honest I have been walking around with a grin all day. Finally the era of gradualism is over and the masks are going to come off. The USA has voted for statism and it is going to get exactly what it voted for at a juncture in history where it will very quickly be impossible to hide the cost of those votes.
Obama is not the start of a new era, he is the death knell for the old one.
http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/2008/11/obama_in_the_wh.html
Just imagine if we took all of hollywood’s salaries, all of professional sports salaries, and all political salaries and “redistrubuted the wealth”. I wonder what the national average income would be for 1 year for the “average” american.
So is that communism or socialism? Who cares, it’d be a great experiment.
Seriously though, I just think any President (current excluded) should focus on making America worth more. Just like a CEO/CFO of a company, the President should act like the CEO/CFO of the country. Focus on bringing down national debt, smaller government and it’s agencies, and make the economy stabilize.
For those of you who are against pulling troops out of Iraq… 7 years of combat, many troops on their 4th or 5th tour of 6-9 months. Many troops passed away or severly injured for a fight that has always been about the control of oil. You should be ashamed. I thank the troops for their service and hope those left return safely to their families.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
No. Bush is to blame too. His liberal ownership society crap deserves alot of blame, indeed. So does the Fed.[/quote]
What it seems like is the credit default swaps (CDS) which are essentially an insurance, except they aren’t called insurance, were totally unregulated.
Because they were insurance, but not regulated like insurance, the companies selling the insurance didn’t have to keep any money on hand, and why bother, right, because housing prices could never go down.
Then, oh-oh, falling housing prices lead all kinds of banks, worldwide, because they bought CDS’s on the mortgage instruments they’d bought, to suddenly require payment. Damn, all the companies selling CDS’s with no capital reserves in case they eventually have to be paid go tits up.
Banks, insurance companies, distrust, lack of interbank lending, lack of lending in general, and looming financial standstill and collapse results.
Enough regulation to ensure people selling insurance can actually have a good chance at paying out on claims might have saved the nation a 700B bailout bill. It might have done that without interfering with market forces, capitalism, or any other ideological buzzwords that we like to complain about when the government wants to ensure markets operate efficiently and safely.
Anyhow, I sure wish we had of put all of our social security into the stock market, that would have really made things work out a lot better for us… especially those recently retired or soon to retire.
We don’t need bigger government, but we certainly do need an intelligent government.
And yes, I know that giving mortgages to people that couldn’t pay them was wrong, but that seems to be more a factor of corporate greed than anything else. Wrapping up a mortgage, and then selling it as a fancy instrument, let companies that wrote mortgages profit from them without holding them and taking the risk of defaults. Thanks to the rating agencies… which called these things AAA.
[quote]The Mage wrote:
zephead4747 wrote:
I’m counting on the EU disolving in the next decade or so.
Look at what those euro bastards are doing:
http://www.capmag.com/articlePrint.asp?ID=1836
The low taxes of Ireland has been hailed as a big success, and proof of trickle down economics. Of course the EU wants to dismantle it.
Interestingly I recently heard that Russia has a 12% flat tax, and as a result, money is just flowing into Russian coffers.
[/quote]
Yeah, because everyone migrates to Ireland for “opportunities”.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Sloth wrote:
No. Bush is to blame too. His liberal ownership society crap deserves alot of blame, indeed. So does the Fed.
What it seems like is the credit default swaps (CDS) which are essentially an insurance, except they aren’t called insurance, were totally unregulated.
Because they were insurance, but not regulated like insurance, the companies selling the insurance didn’t have to keep any money on hand, and why bother, right, because housing prices could never go down.
Then, oh-oh, falling housing prices lead all kinds of banks, worldwide, because they bought CDS’s on the mortgage instruments they’d bought, to suddenly require payment. Damn, all the companies selling CDS’s with no capital reserves in case they eventually have to be paid go tits up.
Banks, insurance companies, distrust, lack of interbank lending, lack of lending in general, and looming financial standstill and collapse results.
Enough regulation to ensure people selling insurance can actually have a good chance at paying out on claims might have saved the nation a 700B bailout bill. It might have done that without interfering with market forces, capitalism, or any other ideological buzzwords that we like to complain about when the government wants to ensure markets operate efficiently and safely.
Anyhow, I sure we wish we had of put all of our social security into the stock market, that would have really made things work out a lot better for us… especially those recently retired or soon to retire.
We don’t need bigger government, but we certainly do need an intelligent government.
And yes, I know that giving mortgages to people that couldn’t pay them was wrong, but that seems to be more a factor of corporate greed than anything else. Wrapping up a mortgage, and then selling it as a fancy instrument, let companies that wrote mortgages profit from them without holding them and taking the risk of defaults. Thanks to the rating agencies… which called these things AAA.[/quote]
Do it the easy way. Don’t socialize risk. No implicit guarantees, no bailouts.