U.S. stocks dived on Wednesday, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average sinking more than 300 points, as anxiety about the so-called fiscal cliff hit investors in the wake of the re-election of President Barack Obama who will face once again a divided Congress.
"Our base-case scenario is the fiscal cliff is now the base-case scenario," said Dan Greenhaus, chief global strategist at BTIG LLC.
"Today with Obama being re-elected, people are saying 'wait a second, this is a real possibility,'" said Greenhaus of the more than $600 billion in tax hikes and spending cuts scheduled to take effect in January should Congress fail to reach a budget agreement
Barack Obama may consider introducing a tax on carbon emissions to help cut the U.S. budget deficit after winning a second term as president, according to HSBC Holdings Plc.
A tax starting at $20 a metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent and rising at about 6 percent a year could raise $154 billion by 2021, Nick Robins, an analyst at the bank in London, said today in an e-mailed research note, citing Congressional Research Service estimates. "Applied to the Congressional Budget Office's 2012 baseline, this would halve the fiscal deficit by 2022," Robins said.
Hurricane Sandy sparked discussion on climate protection in the election after presidential candidates focused on other debates, HSBC said. A continued Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives means Obama's scope for action will be limited, Robins said. Cap-and-trade legislation stalled in the U.S. Senate after narrowly passing the house in 2009.
North American discharges fell 1.3 percent last year amid slowing economic growth. In China, the world's biggest emitter, greenhouse gases from fuel use rose more than 9 percent in 2011, according to BP Plc (BP/) statistics published on June 13.
"Cap-and-trade has been demonized" and Obama probably won't seek to install such a program in his second term, Richard Sandor, founder of the world's biggest carbon trading exchange in Europe, said today at the presentation in London of his book titled Good Derivatives.
New carbon trading programs in California, China and Brazil may encourage U.S. lawmakers to introduce greenhouse gas trading by about 2020, Sandor said.
Hmmmm....last I checked, under our Constitution's Separation of Powers Doctrine, the US House of Representatives initiates tax-writing. Sure, they can do it at the suggestion of the President, but they are under no requirement to write up his taxes on demand.
carbon tax would be less destructive than a big jump in the Cap Gains tx
Posted by: lord garth ||
What they are not talking about is how that would effect the price of gasoline because it seems to me that's how they would implement the tax, on either the oil or the pumps. It might generate a lot of cash but it would be extremely unhelpful to our economy.
Technocrats believe they can create the Perfect Society. Turn this dial here, tweak this parameter there, change one thing and Voila!
But anyone working with complex systems knows there is no such thing as 'one thing'. Everything is deeply inter-twingled. Sure, a carbon tax will generate a trifling bit of deficit reduction. But it will drive up the cost of fuel, of energy production and it will make any manufacturer with an energy-intensive process look elsewhere before building a plant in the US. One teensy change in a parameter, but a BIG hit on the economy.
The United States is headed for a recession during President Barack Obama's second term, renowned financial guru Steve Forbes predicted Wednesday.
"We won't get a depression, thankfully. This is still a very resilient economy, but we will have a recession," Forbes, chairman and editor-in-chief of Forbes Media, told Newsmax.TV in an exclusive interview.
"Raising taxes on capital, raising taxes on small businesses, which we will likely get now, particularly since the Republicans did so badly in the Senate races, that is going to pose a real burden.
"We have Europe doing the same thing: piling on new taxes, Japan piling on new taxes. The Federal Reserve is going to continue to undermine the dollar, which is going to hurt small and medium-size business. It's going to be very tough sledding next year."
Europe is going down. Recession big time. They say thats why our stock market dropped so much today. This will choke our economy as well as China and others. In my opinion Obama will print more money, raise taxes and attack the wealthy just as François Hollande of France has done. He has already raised taxes yes, look for even greater increases.
The more deeper + prolonged be the economic chaos, the better for justifying the set-up of extra-national/sovereign, you-betcha-we're-interdependent NAU + other OWG "Global Federal Unions" polities around the World.
Washington, DC aka Capital of the World's "Sole" Superpower/Hyperpower will become lower than at NAU-or-Higher level of OWG/Global Governance.
'Tis why Amerikkans must lose their current Constitutional right to bear arms + other Constitutional/Civil rights, as OWG-lowly Washingtoncritters don't want to be shot or hanged from the nearest tree, etc. by the US mainstream for anything detrimental that comes out from the future NAU, Trans-, + OWG.
The "Birther" Controversy > NATIONALISM-VS-ANTI-NATIONALISM/GLOBALISM = are Americans = Amerikans willing to follow the US-specific Policies + Decisions of OWG NAU Leaders-Personages whom have little or no ties to America + all things American or Americana, who were NOT born in America andor never fought for America or any American Political-Econ-Military-Social issues, + whom live or reside in foreign countries e.g. CANADA + MEXICO, OTHER???
The guy who was reelected is not the only one in partial but substantial agreement with these Muslims.
The Bush administration criticized and condemned the Danish cartoonist whose lives were and are threatened. They managed extract the apostate Rahman from Afghanistan but they did not criticize or condemn liberated Afghanistan's blasphemy laws.
In early 2008 NATO's military in Afghanistan officially condemned Geert Wilders for making a film critical of Islam. They were siding with murderously intolerant Afghanistan by criticizing basic civil rights in the West.
'Nutty Pastor' Terry Jones was officially criticized by NATO&US military leaders in Afghanistan. In response to Jones Koran burning arch-conservative Pat Buchanan called for his arrest while moderate Republican Lindsey Graham proposed making Koran burning illegal. Maverick 'isolationist' and 'libertarian' Ron Paul condemned Jones as well.
Mitt Romney did condemn the Cairo Embassy's apology for free speech, but the establishment (not only the far left) told him to shut up, and shut up he did.
Egypt's new islamofascistic president would not dare strut around in the US like a Soviet overlord in a satellite state if this self-finlandization wasn't consensus of the US & Western political class.
I don't know the reason for this strange submission in the face of a pathetically weak enemy. But this submission is in plain evidence. Obama is one of the symptoms, not the cause.
So how does this work? If I say Mohammed (p*ss on him) was a homicidal terrorist pedophilic degenerate, what sort of death penalty would they proscribe for me?
They won't have to do anything. Your own government will do it---look up the uses of psychiatry in old Soviet Union (What, you think anybody capable of prescribing ritalin to "unruly" children will hesitate to classify you as dangerous to self & society?)
It would be hypocritical + unethical/immoral for Stratificaion-happy Secularists - you know, "Universalists/Commonalists" - NOT support or vote for Sharia in America = Amerika. ANy so-called "Liberal" Sharists will, not MIGHT, be challenged by ultra-hardline/conservative Sharists = Islamists.
ITS A DEMOLEFTY "CATCH-22" OF THEIR OWN MAKING, as the Hardliners or Conservatives comprise the bulk of Islamic Sharists - THEY ARE NOT ATHEISTS, PLURALISTS, OR ARE WILLING TO SHARE POWER, ETC. IN ANY FORM WID THOSE IN OPPOSITION.
THE DIVORCE WILL NOT BE PRETTY, AMIABLE, OR BLOOD-FREE.
* E.G. CHINESE MILITARY FORUM > [Daily Mail.UK]FORGET THE STORM: THE REAL DANGER FACING AMERICA ARE HATRED, DIVISION, AND A COLLAPSING POLITICAL SYSTEM.
* TOPIX, DEFENCE.PK/FORUMS [Pre-11/06th]> SIX REASONS WHY [US] MUSLIMS SHOULD VOTE DEMOCRAT [OBAMA] - MUSLIM DEMOCRATS 2012, instead of the GOP.
* SAME [old]> THE RISE AND FALL OF CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS, as due to "Excessive Liberalism" + the consequent pervasive rise of subjective
"general/generalist", indigenous Christianity. DECLINE IN ALLEGIANCE + ADHERENCE TO THE VATICAN AND MAIN PROTESTANT DENOMINATIONS, OR TO "CORE" TENETS = CATECHISMS.
IIUC, IOW Subjective "Tribalism" + Excessive Individualism, NOT National Identity = strong common bonds.
D *** NG IT, AMERIKA, WE LOST THE PIGEON + NED
"REMEMBER, BOYS/KIDS, UNITARIANISM IS THE ENEMY" FLANDERS!
* CHINA DAILY FORUM > HOW MUCH WOULD IT TAKE TO HAVE AMERIKKAN REVOLUTION AND REGIME CHANGE? | GUNS DRAWN, PUNCHES THROWN: FIGHT FOR GAS [+ other post-Storm/SANDY Vital Supplies] IN NEW YORK GETS UGLY.
by a Florida A&M University professor who compares Jesus with Obama and says God told her in a dream to write it.
Professor Barbara Thompson, its author, told the school's student newspaper during a book signing Tuesday that the 220-page undertaking, largely a compilation of his speeches, was a result of divine inspiration:
"Her son ... was the impetus behind the book. After a bad accident, Barbara Thompson prayed for her son to be healed. After her son's healing, she had a dream when the spirit of God spoke to her and told her to 'go on a journey with apostle Barack.' ...
Apostle, a leader with a new cause, is how Thompson defines Obama.
"He walks the earth for a more equalized, more middle class and working poor society," she said. She compared apostle Barack to apostles like Jesus and Martin Luther King Jr."
... (During her book signing event) she provided a complete breakdown of the good that has happened during the President's 4-year term. Healthcare, the economy, education and federal initiatives interests are the 'Good news' from the apostle."
Wait for it ... it gets a little nuttier than that.
According to its description on Amazon.com, the book is:
"... it is the intent of the author to utilize the materials contained in the speeches as a means of teaching Apostle Barack's followers about him and guiding them towards understanding 'politics as religion' and 'religion as politics.' The manuscript would also serve as a guide for his followers -- to unlock the answers -- to creating and living in the reality of a middle class lifestyle that was so economically and ethically sound that it appeared to be 'heaven here on earth.' "
From an anthropological point of view she has it nailed. All through history the Shaman or the healer has been an important part of the group. The fact that they call them psychiatrists or climate scientists nowadays doesn't change the dynamic, especially to someone teaching African studies.
And Obama with his tortured background fits the bill nicely to receive a divine calling.
Just listen to his acceptance speech, this is a master class in modern day witch doctoring.
I can't afford to move to Texas, let alone ... Canada? Where would I want to go? I mean, other than Texas, mu adopted home and residence of my three children and three grandchildren. Alas, I live in Bright Blue Northern Virginia, where 75% of eligible voters did so.
75%. Isn't that a new record? But I heard on the news on the way home, the overall participation was low. Could 10% of Virginia voters be dead?
I can explain it in two words, Broadhead: Federal Government.
Some of the people who work for the Fed live in D.C., and probably some live in Maryland, but I think the majority of them live in Northern Virginia. And they certainly weren't going to vote for the guy who wants to trim the gummint (and thereby its employees).
NoVa is a separate state from the rest of us; I wish we could just force D.C. to take it. :-(
Posted by: Barbara ||
TW - thanks, & true. I generally think in a myopic lens of the former mil guys I know that become contracters up that way and have nothing but disdain for Barry.
I do too, Sherry. I suspect a lot of them lied.
Posted by: Barbara ||
Barbara, right. I think we have 3 classes of folks running around these days - "the producing class", "the entitlement crowd", and "the recipients". There can be some overlap between them. Generally, producers are the business types, entrepreneurs, etc. Producing folks can also have entitlement leanings to - i.e. - private sector union employees that work but expect entitlements beyon a rational scope, or, those who confuse charity by gov't w/other people's money as compassionate and a role of govt. Then the recipient class is the percent that won't do jack and wants a handout.
Yeah, I heard that to about the Mil going 50-50 for Obama in VA. I find that really hard to believe as well. I highly doubt a majority of enlisted (and especially not officers) voted for him. All the officers & senior enlisted I know were pretty well disgusted this a.m. at work.
All the officers & senior enlisted I know were pretty well disgusted this a.m. at work.
Were you all Marines, Broadhead6, or a mixture from the various services? I believe that back in the Bush days, the military voted 25% Democrat, 75% Republican, but I don't recall seeing any such statistics for 2008 or yesterday.
Both sides called it a generation-defining race for the White House: a choice between Democrat Barack Obama's brand of government activism and Republican Mitt Romney's commitment to reducing Washington's role in Americans' daily lives.
Obama's victory, however, did not settle that question.
Instead, the hard-fought battle for the White House exposed an electorate deeply divided by race, age and party.
Tuesday's elections - in which Republicans kept control of the U.S. House and Obama's Democrats held on to the Senate - suggested that bitter partisanship would likely remain very much alive in Washington in the new year. They also revealed that there was no broad mandate for much beyond the broadly shared goals of improving the economy and reducing government debt.
That means that undertaking bold new initiatives comparable to healthcare reform, financial regulation and economic stimulus programs will be a great deal more complicated for Obama 2012 than they were for Obama 2008.
Even so, Obama - now unfettered by not having to face voters again - is in position to pursue an ambitious agenda that could leave his mark on government for a generation or longer, including a move to revamp the nation's immigration laws.
Some analysts believe Obama is likely to spend much of his second term "locking down the achievements of his first term," including ensuring that "we will have a functioning national healthcare system," said Cal Jillson, a political science professor at Southern Methodist University in Dallas.
For some, that would be enough to secure his place in history.
"Just by re-electing Obama, that means the Affordable Care Act will continue to be implemented, and that's very important because that's one of the most important pieces of legislation in half a century," Theda Skocpol, a political scientist at Harvard University, said of the law that helps extend health coverage to millions of uninsured Americans.
"Most of the action will occur between the president's administration and states, and my guess is a lot of the Republican governors will find ways to accept parts of the Medicare expansion," Skocpol said.
As Chinese Perts-Bloggers said, this OBAMA-ROMNEY ELECTION RACE may decide the future of the US as a democratic capitalist = free-market state + Republic; ot else as some kind/form of overt Socialist-Govtist state.
It would appear mainstream America has its answer - iff one believes that the Bammer Admin was finally putting US Socialism out in the open, + no longer covert or hidden, 2013-2016 [2020-2025]> INCREASINGLY SO.
As said or inferred before, EVERYONE LIKES TO TALK OR DISCUSS FASCIST-VS-COMMUNIST IN THE US, GOVT, MSM-NET, ETC - THE TERM NO ONE WANTS TO TALK OR DISCUSS IS "SOCIALISM".
Sniff, sniff, And to think it only took circa 20 Yarns for US Politicos + MSM Pundits to realize that ISLAM = THEO/FAITH/GOD-BASED SOCIALISM OR GOVTISM.
But I digress ...
Goodbye America, hello Amerika; goodbye Freedom(s) + Personal Liberties, hello Regulation + excessive Big Govt/Hyper/Mega-Government ......
The only real question is how long Authoritarian SOcialism = Fascist/Nationalists can keep the peace vee Totalitarian Socialism = Communists/
Anti-Nationalist Globalists, + initiate violent divorce proceedings, i.e. PURGES, GULAGS,REVOLUTION + ANARCHIES???
Lest we fergit, 1990'S CLINTONISM > FASCISM = merely LIMITED COMMUNISM, FREE-MARKET OR "LAISSEZ-FAIRE" CAPITALISM = merely LIMITED SOCIALISM-GOVTISM, and so on.
OWG + "GLOBALISM" = the World demands its Natural or God-given Right etc., D *** YOU, to be attacked and invaded by America = Amerika.
The US is the "Tip of the Spear" [forefront] of setting up OWG-NWO in order to give up it up???
Hence two broad questions
> HOW MUCH "SOCIALIST" CAN SOCIALIST AMERIKA BE???
> AS PER PRO-US-VS-ANTI-US OWG-NWO, HOW STRONG OR WEAK CAN GLOBALIST SOCIALIST AMERIKA BE VEE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY + EXTRA/POST-NATIONALIST OWG "GLOBAL FEDERAL UNIONS", e.g. NAU + EU + AFRICAN UNION + ASIAN UNION, ETC.
Will US Commies + Globies + Marxists, etal honor their beloved "will of the people" and put the issues up in honest nationwide or popular referendum(s), OR ARE THEY MORE LIKELY TO GULAG + AK-47 YOUR ASSES.
POLITELY OR QUIETLY "REMOVED/RETIRED VIA MORTAR", as North Korea may put it - IT WAS ALSO VERY KIND OF YOUSE TO DONATE YOUR ORGANS TO THE PEOPLE = STATE WIDOUT YOUR CONSENT [+ while you were still alive?]???
Joe, I think w/the number of people that voted for R2 yesterday, the socialist side doesn't have the numbers or guns to do what you suggest. The people would eventually revolt and would (I think) swing fairly hard back to the right. Even the union schmucks could only take this for so long until the gov't over reaches and goes after the 2nd Amend. MY opinion anyways.
It's really hard to ignore what's happening today; the election phenomenon is global.
Over the last several weeks, I've traveled to so many countries, and EVERYWHERE it seems, the US presidential election is big news. Even when I was in Myanmar ten days ago, local pundits were engaged in the Obamney debate. Chile. Spain. Germany. Finland. Hong Kong. Thailand. Singapore. It was inescapable.
The entire world seems fixated on this belief that it actually matters who becomes the President of the United States anymore... or that one of these two guys is going to 'fix' things.
Fact is, it doesn't matter. Not one bit. And I'll show you mathematically:
1) When the US federal government spends money, expenses are officially categorized in three different ways.
Discretionary spending includes nearly everything we think of related to government-- the US military, Air Force One, the Department of Homeland Security, TSA agents who sexually assault passengers, etc.
Mandatory spending includes entitlements like Medicare, Social Security, VA benefits, etc. which are REQUIRED by law to be paid.
The final category is interest on the debt. It is non-negotiable.
Mandatory spending and debt interest go out the door automatically. It's like having your mortgage payment autodrafted from your bank account-- Congress doesn't even see the money, it's automatically deducted.
2) With the rise of baby boomer entitlements and steady increase in overall debt levels, mandatory spending and interest payments have exploded in recent years. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office predicted in 2010 that the US government's TOTAL revenue would be exceeded by mandatory spending and interest expense within 15-years.
That's a scary thought. Except it happened the very next year.
3) In Fiscal Year 2011, the federal government collected $2.303 trillion in tax revenue. Interest on the debt that year totaled $454.4 billion, and mandatory spending totaled $2,025 billion. In sum, mandatory spending plus debt interest totaled $2.479 trillion... exceeding total revenue by $176.4 billion.
For Fiscal Year 2012 which just ended 37 days ago, that shortfall increased 43% to $251.8 billion.
In other words, they could cut the entirety of the Federal Government's discretionary budget-- no more military, SEC, FBI, EPA, TSA, DHS, IRS, etc.-- and they would still be in the hole by a quarter of a trillion dollars.
4) Raising taxes won't help. Since the end of World War II, tax receipts in the US have averaged 17.7% of GDP in a very tight range. The low has been 14.4% of GDP, and the high has been 20.6% of GDP.
During that period, however, tax rates have been all over the board. Individual rates have ranged from 10% to 91%. Corporate rates from 15% to 53%. Gift taxes, estate taxes, etc. have all varied. And yet, total tax revenue has stayed nearly constant at 17.7% of GDP.
It doesn't matter how much they increase tax rates-- they won't collect any more money.
5) GDP growth prospects are tepid at best. Facing so many headwinds like quickening inflation, an enormous debt load, and debilitating regulatory burdens, the US economy is barely keeping pace with population growth.
6) The only thing registering any meaningful growth in the US is the national debt. It took over 200 years for the US government to accumulate its first trillion dollars in debt. It took just 286 days to accumulate the most recent trillion (from $15 trillion to $16 trillion).
Last month alone, the first full month of Fiscal Year 2013, the US government accumulated nearly $200 billion in new debt-- 20% of the way to a fresh trillion in just 31 days.
7) Not to mention, the numbers will only continue to get worse. 10,000 people each day begin receiving mandatory entitlements. Fewer people remain behind to pay into the system. The debt keeps rising, and interest payments will continue rising.
8) Curiously, a series of polls taken by ABC News/Washington Post and NBC News/Wall Street Journal show that while 80% of Americans are concerned about the debt, roughly the same amount (78%) oppose cutbacks to mandatory entitlements like Medicare.
9) Bottom line, the US government is legally bound to spend more money on mandatory entitlements and interest than it can raise in tax revenue. It won't make a difference how high they raise taxes, or even if they cut everything else that remains in government as we know it.
This is not a political problem, it's a mathematical one. Facts are facts, no matter how uncomfortable they may be. Today's election is merely a choice of who is going to captain the sinking Titanic.
That is a thing lefties can count on:if Conservatives lose they will start beating their chests instead of lookingat what is fishy.
Frankly I cannot believe Romney not getting a single swing state. It is too perfect. Also it doeesn't match with what was seen at ground level. Everywhere we have been told of record high particpation levels in Republican districts and low ones in Democratic counties, of obama giving his finalspeech in half empty arena in Ohio, of many tell-tale signs pointing to ack of enthousiasmbetween Democrats and a strong determination between Republicans; The logical assumption was that Romney would win easily in states where lectorate was divided. But no. Not a single time this translated into a Republican victory. Not a single time.
Then we remind of DOJ preventing Florida of purging voting lists of non-citizens, of voting machines giving a vote for Obama when the Romney button was pressed, of in Pennsylvania, thousands of Republican votes shredded by a "helpthe vote" organization, of Democrats being caught red handed organizing a concerted effort of fraudulent vote through impersonating people they knew wouldn't vote. And of course thereis the persistent fact of a party who opposes bites and nails to voter ID.(If you fear poor people wouldbe unable to vote then makeit 0 cost, also in France for voting yu need an ID _and_ a special nationallyissued lection card thus ensuring you cannot vote in more than one district).
Also when I learned thatRasmussen had been threatened by the DOJ of being sued I immediately knew here was something at work more sinister than simply trying todemoralize the Republican electorate: if poll pointed to an Obama victory fraud would not be suspected.
However the bitter thing i Republican will do nothing about it. They will do nothing bcaue ith Catholic-like eagerne they will tart beting their chets, they will do nothing out of the fear of looking like they were trying toteal the election through litigtion (and alobecaue they knowthe MSM will dowhat ineeded for that.They will donothing becaue over 150 year after it w crated the Republican party ha tillnot learned how to fight wit omeoene who fight diirtyj What could be eoected of aparty whoe dirtiet fighter, that i Richard Nixon, did nothing when Kennedy tolean electionfrom him. Obama expected it and the Republicans gave the anwer he expected.
Nobody who has studied voting fraud, thinks real fraud is more than a few thousand votes in any one State.
The major problems include what was seen in the Medicare poll. People don't want to believe the facts, e.g., that Medicare taxes and copayments don't exceed 35% of expenses. People don't want to believe that Social security income doesn't exceed 70% of future payouts, etc. People want to believe that more money on education improves education. People want to believe that Islam is basically peaceful and a tiny few are making stuff up about what the Koran says.
Posted by: lord garth ||
Unfortunately, I believe the numbers. Americans want all the free stuff, and don't want to pay for it.
Well, they just elected themselves to be Greece. Romney might (big might) have stopped the bleeding for 20 years, but it is inevitable that the collapse will happen. I know I have mentioned in debates that we were choosing between a quick collapse and a slow one. Looks like the public wants a quick one.
This next decade will not be easy and it will be very bloody for the entire world.
Stop worrying about medicare and start worrying about defence spending. More than 50% of global defence spending is done by the US. Its unsustainable, but makes a few very very rich.
The US has bankrupted itself fighting for Saudi Arabia's king.
1) they took our Saddam Hussein, the Saudi's main regional rival
2) they've helped Saudi backed islamists triumph in Libya, and now helping them in Syria.. secular regimes replaced with Islamist ones, just like we did in the 1980s in Afghanistan. How did that turn out?
3) Saudi equipped to put down its own democracy protests, and help stamp them out in Bahrain (where the US has a large base to help protect... err... "freedom" - ie the Saudi regime)
4) Now we'll knock out Iran for them - better we spend the money and see our servicemen die, than the Saudis have to waste any of their fat lazy citizens
People have to decide do they want to spend money to help prop up Saudi Arabia's King, or would they rather it be spent treating sick Americans. We can't afford to do both.
I'm in Europe at the moment (been here 2 years) and the folks here can't believe we run around fighting wars for Saudi after what they did on 911.
>People have to decide do they want to spend money to help prop up Saudi Arabia's King, or would they rather it be spent treating sick Americans.
It would be better if the state didn't extort it in the first place. If you think you own your own body then you're responsible for it. If you don't think that then you believe the state owns you, and you're a slave.
In a swing state youdon't need that manny votes. Also the few thousnad votes was in Bush vs Gore times.Now we are in Alinski times. Anyway a single_ case of vote fraud (the shredding of TRepuiblican votes already made your few thousand votes.
Ah and add the disenfranchisement of military votes tomy laundry list. By itself it makes thousnads of votes in several crucial states;
But is beter to smilelike Nixon while the other cheats.
I'm leaning toward the thinking that this was about a black man running for president. People saw only that, when they would have seen all the terrible numbers and incompetence had it been anyone else.
Also, the GOP went to war with itself, but that is another story.
I partly agree with PlaneSPeeker. I mean, what does it matter if we buy our oil from the Soddies or the Iranians or Saddam or Col. Daffy? They all hate us.
But I don't believe we should cut the military. I think these days our real enemy is China and they are certainly not cutting their military.
As for the debt, I feel like I'm riding in the back of a car headed for a cliff and nobody in the front seat is making any move at all for the brake. Yeah, we're going over that cliff. I don't think I can open that back door and jump out. Where would I go?
I hate it when they say "baby boomer entitlements" as if anyone born during a certain period of time is personally responsible for it.
It was the wartime generation whose politicians put the generous social benefits in place. And that was fine, so long as the baby boomers were diligently labouring to support their elders. But now they are the elders, and the worker to benefiter ratio is unworkable... for which the baby boomers will garner given both the blame and the reduced bennies. Sorry, but life isn't fair.
"Romney in 703 words graciously admitted his loss. He said the word "America" five times, the word "pray" three times and the words "Thank you" 21 times.
The Real Good Talker, who's never seen anything he couldn't throw a speech at, took 2,163 words to claim victory in what is traditionally a moment to call for unity and healing after a divisive campaign.
The victorious Chicagoan, who promised before the last election to end Washington's partisan bitterness, strangely uttered the word "fight" five times and "thank you" but seven times. He spoke the word "unify" zero times, "unity" zero times, "heal" zero times and "pray" zero times.
He did, however, manage to mention himself 27 times.
The posted article is an excellent alarm about the US fiscal situation which is the fault of both parties.
The comments are largely partisan and ignore important facts. The US budget ran in surplus under Clinton and then ran in deep deficit under Bush. Before you blame the Democratic Congress for the Bush deficits, note that large factors were the tax cuts (Republican initiative) and the wars (Republican initiatives). It was/is important to fight jihadists (I am a supporter of this website, after all), but cutting taxes at the same time was not responsible. We did not cut taxes during WWII or Korea, and Johnson was rightly criticized for not raising taxes during Viet Nam, let alone cutting them.
We need a bi-partisan solution to the entitlements morass. Neither party can take on such a disaster-in-the making by itself, as voters would punish whichever party showed political courage. Bashing the other party is natural, especially around election time, but the fiscal mess won't be fixed without dialing down the political rhetoric and working together.
As long as it's the Administration and the idiots who elected him, #17 Admiral AA.
In fact, you might have to get in line behind the rest of us. >:-(
Posted by: Barbara ||
Odysseus -- Obama has had four years to work with the Repubs on this -- he hasn't met with any Repub about anything about the economy since July 2011 -- something Romney brought up often in his speeches about reaching across the aisle -- I say that falls back into Obama's court -- he's the one that needs to stop bashing..
He also has submitted three budgets and got not vote from either party.
I'm leaning toward the thinking that this was about a black man running for president. People saw only that, when they would have seen all the terrible numbers and incompetence had it been anyone else.
George Will wrote a recent column about when Major League Baseball really became color blind ---- it was when the awesome Frank Robinson, the first black manager was fired for not winning enough baseball games.
So no we're not color blind yet, this election had just a touch of AA about it, just enough to matter.
Sherry - And what do you say about my point comparing Clinton surpluses with Bush deficits? The Republican Party used to have Senators who cared about fiscal responsibility like Gramm and Rudman. Now it has a bunch of Grover Norquist disciples and people scared of them.
Odysseus -- better question is, is there a single Democrat in either chamber of Congress who will vote to restrain non-military spending?
The one and very same Nancy Pelosi who criticized the $400 billion Bush deficits in 2006 today has not a word in complaint about the $1100 billion Obama deficit of 2012, except that she'd like to spend more.
Yes, the Pubs in the early aughts were co-opted by K street. That's one reason why they lost in 2006 and 2008.
Republicans get punished when they lose their way. Democrats get rewarded when they lose our way.
Posted by: Steve White ||
I get tired of people always coming back at me with Bush. I don't defend Bush. I think he made some horrible mistakes. That doesn't leave Obama off the hook.
He took the credit for a balanced budget when it was really Newt Gingrich who held his feet to the fire.
It was Clinton who beefed up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That's when the funky mortgages resulted in the housing boom that resulted in the housing bust. That's why the economy tanked in 2008. Bush took the blame but it was Clinton's fault.
It was Clinton who granted most favored nation status to China. They took all our jobs, now they do our manufacturing for us, they pollute more than we ever dreamed of doing and they use the profits to build up their military and threaten us with it. Thanks, Bill.
It was Clinton who threw our border with Mexico wide open thereby turning California into a blue state.
It was Clinton who was having himself serviced by Monica Lewinsky when he should have been killing Osama bin Laden.
I believe America made two decisions yesterday.
One was that they would vote for style over substance. A black man with promises and gifts over the unpleasant math.
The second is I think America decided to no longer be the lone super power. I won't be surprised if the military is gutted and the Republicans in Congress blamed. Doesn't matter if it is true or not as the media will relay that and it will be perceived as true and the cuts as necessary. We will get by with air power and drones and nice words and bows and pretend its the same thing until its obvious that it is not.
Feels like the 30s only I don't really see the Axis powers out there. Iran is nasty and China potentially so but they don't seem to be world conquest nasties and if the US just sacrifices a few long standing allies the nasties might be satiated. Not my desire, just my thought on how the thinking will turn even if not spoken aloud.
Odysseus -- you are learning fast -- moving through the alphabet -- made it to the letter B with "Blaming Bush" -- Big Bird would be proud.
Check out the years 2006 - 2008 -- but then, that would take some energy --- Congress, at least according to our Constitution, controls the pocketbook. Those were the years of the biggest spending, and it was the Dems, not Bush in charge of that spending.... with bullet proof over-ride veto power.
Clinton, too, like Obama, inherited his economy. The economy that Reagan, and by the way, working with Dems, put in place.
The years 2006 - 2008 saw the downfall --- it's widely known, that Fannie Mae and Fannie Mac brought our economy down.
You might want to kinda look at who it was that attempted to put Fannie Mae and Fannie Mac in control -- as their "leaders" made an incredible amount of money that would put the salaries/bonus of private business owners to shame.... Check out Jamie S. Gorelick, the amount of money she made as a director of Fannie Mae -- yes, the same Jamie S. Gorelick that establish that famous stove-pipe that killed the communications/intelligence between our government agency. With that communication opened? Who knows, 911 might not have happened. I don't know how she sleeps each night, but then, probably extremely comfortable 'cause she graduated from that job to one that had yearly compensation in the millions. Nice retirement, if you can get it.
2006 - 2008 Those are the years our economy went out of control -- yea, maybe Bush could have done more... but it would have been hard. Google Bush and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
More than once, he brought up getting control of Fannie Mae and Fanny Mac.... and as all teachers do... repeat, repeat, repeat.... the Dems had bullet proof veto power in the Congress -- the owners of our moneys. They refused to look at Fannie Mae and Fannie Mac.
Progressing into the alphabet, Romney (a really late letter in our alphabet, that letter R) was fighting that letter B -- Blame Bush, Big Bird, bankruptcy, birth control, binders and bullets --
Google is your friend -- research the deficit in each year from 2000 to 2008 --- and with each year, as the deficit grew and at what pace, ask yourself..... who controlled Congress?
Opinions can be changed, facts can't --- except when facts are viewed as we want to see them....
[Dawn] SINCE religious, racial and ethnic identities are central to human conceptions of self-worth, non-constructive speech whose sole purpose is to deliberately insult such identities should certainly be discouraged.
Paks burnt vehicles, theatres and Obama effigies incessantly for days following the uploading on YouTube of The Innocence of Moslems. However, there is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened... such self-directed violence obviously has little chance of success, and wisdom lies in considering non-violent strategies for combating blasphemy.
Moreover, one must pursue not only formal but also informal non-violent mechanisms to increase the chances of success. A dispassionate review of the feasibility of both mechanisms can help allocate effort appropriately across both options.
Focusing mainly on formal mechanisms, people often propose asking the UN to impose a global blasphemy ban. However, those who apply themselves too closely to little things often become incapable of great things... the UN can only develop international conventions. Each member country is free to decide whether to ratify individual conventions fully, partially or not at all.
Thus, Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights already mandates that "any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law".
However, the hip bone's connected to the leg bone... when ratifying this convention, the US submitted reservations (as did Pakistain against numerous other articles of this convention) against Article 20 stating that it would not adopt it since it contradicted its free speech provisions. Consequently, the UN cannot penalise America for not enforcing this article domestically.
Furthermore, the UN also lacks enforcement powers against even those countries which violate international conventions they have previously ratified unless all five veto-wielding countries agree. Such agreement is possible only in cases of grave global security threats given the vast differences in the priorities of veto-wielding countries. As such, achieving UN-imposed blasphemy bans and subsequent action against non-complying countries, especially veto-wielding ones, will require enormous effort.
Moslem countries will ultimately have to influence domestic opinion and legislation in every country individually, which also is an enormous task. They could focus more immediately on Western countries since most blasphemous speech originates there given their lenient free speech provisions.
Since free speech exceptions exist even in Western countries, Moslems could first review whether current exceptions could outlaw blasphemous speech. Thus, privacy/confidentiality laws in Western countries usually trump free speech rights, but are largely irrelevant against blasphemy issues.
Slander is a crime in a number of Western countries, but such provisions mainly protect living individuals and companies rather than identity groups or deceased individuals. Hate speech instigating violence or intimidation against identity groups, beyond just ridiculing them, is banned. However, some men learn by reading. A few learn by observation. The rest have to pee on the electric fence for themselves... this provision would not cover blasphemous speech which does not explicitly instigate violence.
Speech which would invariably create public commotion and injury is banned, e.g., shouting 'fire' falsely in a dark theatre since it will understandably instigate almost everyone to run reflexively to save their lives.
While blasphemy causes commotion in Moslem countries, it clearly represents an avoidable choice rather than reflex action since most Moslems remain peaceful.
Moreover, such commotion occurs beyond the boundaries of responsibility of Western governments, making them largely immune to it.
Thus, existing Western free-speech exceptions, reflecting Western individualistic and materialistic values, largely cover concrete losses to live entities and do not protect sacrosanct matters, including even Western religions.
The ban on Holocaust denial in some European countries is an exception to this trend, which Moslems could use to convince Westerners to have free speech exceptions cover other sacrosanct matters. However, a poor excuse is better than no excuse at all... even that ban has emerged from their own histories where six million Europeans were massacred.
Just as Moslem countries are loath to change their laws to please Western sensibilities, Western countries may not easily change their laws to please Moslem sensibilities.
Thus, while it is still certainly worthwhile to pursue global blasphemy bans diplomatically, one must be mindful of the enormous challenges involved in achieving such bans.
Given these long odds, it is important to simultaneously consider informal mechanisms for combating blasphemy in the West. While Western societies do not prohibit identity-based insults legally, it is possible to discourage such attacks informally there.
Xenophobic right-wing groups in the US have a long history of disparaging minorities, e.g., blacks and Jews. However, there's no worse danger than telling a mother her baby is ugly... Jews and blacks have become better organised and have also developed linkages with sympathetic societal groups to challenge right-wing vitriol.
Thus, even though such insults are not prohibited legally, anyone making anti-black and anti-Semitic insults faces severe public censure today and the frequency of such attacks has reduced significantly.
Such informal censures are much weaker in support of some recent immigrant groups, including Moslems, partly because they are not as strong economically, organizationally and/or numerically as blacks and Jews.
Since their economic and numerical strength is relatively fixed in the short term, the easiest option for such new groups is to enhance their organizational strength and develop linkages with sympathetic societal groups.
Thus, strengthening the advocacy and networking activities of Moslem political groups in Western countries may yield more immediate dividends in combating blasphemy than long, contentious battles in international bureaucracies and may even eventually help win these battles.
However, a woman is only as old as she admits... sympathy for some immigrant groups, including Moslems, is also weak in Western countries because minorities in these groups' original countries face far worse excesses. For example, minorities cannot even pray openly in some Moslem countries.
The contentious movie itself was a deplorable reaction to excesses against Egyptian Christians. Thus, Moslems must also treat their own minorities better to garner greater sympathy and respect globally. As the saying goes, ask not for justice just for yourself but for everybody, for in doing so you make justice more assured for yourself.
The stock market loves President Barack Obama. The love story of Wall Street and Obama is a bromance like no other, a man-crush for the ages.
Despite his threats to soak the wealthy for more taxes, despite Fed Chairman's attack on savers, despite even his threat to kill special treatment for dividends, institutional investors have thrown themselves at Obama's feet as they have not done in the first term of any president in the past century.
You could look it up. The S&P 500 has gained 76% since his inauguration in January 2009, while the Nasdaq 100 is up 128%.
The administration and the Federal Reserve have systematically stuffed big banks' pockets with cash in an unending rescue effort, slashed interest rates to the lowest levels of the past 300 years, diverted senior citizens' savings to revive the moribund residential construction industry and showered drug makers and insurers with fresh sources of revenue from his health care overhaul. Where he says to put your money (if you have any):
Home Construction/Real Estate
Not sure I agree - doubt there's anywhere that will work other than owning your own politician.
And if you looking for a business to start, within 2 years we will see 3D printing store fronts producing small parts for all manner of things.
Will customer service phone lines be replaced with at home 3-D printers that can print replacement parts and upgrades? In the future will companies like Elevation Labs issue physical "patches" until a proper replacement can be produced? Haughey thinks so and writes "Any industry that involves physical objects and small parts is ripe for 3D printing becoming a huge thing (and a problematic thing for stakeholders involved). I know friends that can rapidly produce any part of a R/C (remote-controlled) car or plane that breaks, which is cool for them, and problematic for the manufacturers of R/C parts."
I've made mistakes comment wise here, but the "you are not military, F-U" attitude some offer up in the comments leaves a bad taste. Just sayin' I don't know the things military members know, but I'm sure not their enemy, politically speaking. Go after redhead Ohio parking lot guy who voted for Obama and said our ambassador deserved rape-murder and leave me alone. My opinion on military matters may be naive, but I'm on the US military man's / woman's side all the way...
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
I couldn't open up the link. I believe you M. Murcek. As you know - Anyone who voted for Obama voted for sequestration & anyone who bought into Obama's b.s. about Benghazi/Fast&Furious/DADT repeal is no true friend to the military.
ObamaCare is permanent and a threat to our health care system, the war on coal will be pushed toward its conclusion, and this president's drive to disarm the United States while vastly expanding the entitlement state will proceed apace. Obama's re-election is a catastrophe for those who want a strong and liberty-based America rooted in traditional values and our Constitutional order.
The three-way split inside the Beltway is a opportunity for Obama to behave as a regulatory tyrant, and that is what he will probably do. The divided nation suits a divisive president.
I think these last three lines say it all, more of the same policies and programs, because of which will see a crippling rise in the costs of electricity, transportation fuels, related fuel taxes.
In health care, death panels are assured to become part of the landscape.
And I agree, that without a strong military/intelligence defense, the United States will result in a catastrophic attack, when our enemies find our weakest point.
Posted by: Au Auric ||
On the latter point, they don't need to. Hollowing out from within and then a little push may be all it takes, and the former is well advanced already.