Love it or hate it......Obama is in

[ElasticNinja]

Agree. Both parties need to get work together and stop acting like gang members towards each other.

Has this ever happened though for a long period of time? Mere cooperation rarely works in politics. Its either coalition (working together with a set of written agreements), or one party rule, with the other being the opposition. Don't really see this happening what with the way Congress is, all a bit antiquated.

 

[A.Nonymous]

I thought markets gained on the news? Perhaps its a case of world markets vs US markets. Obama might be better for the world economy, but worse for large listed companies.

The stock market here fell 2.6% which is the biggest loss all year.

 

[saptech]

The Market dropped his first term, so nothing new...the same folks (tea party types) who dislike the president continue to dislike him going into the second term.

Yes, both parties need to get their heads out of their butts and start compromising on getting the country on the right track!

 

[NightHawk877]

*pokes head in thread, leaves before he gets banned.*

 

[ElasticNinja]

The stock market here fell 2.6% which is the biggest loss all year.

Markets rise on Obama's election victory - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Asian stock markets rise after President Obama wins another term - The Washington Post

World markets rise after Barack Obama gets re-elected - Economic Times

 

[A.Nonymous]

Those are world markets, not US markets. Caterpillar and Exide announced big layoffs. I think the economy is just going to get worse here. Best case it'll stay as bad as it is and it will still be an issue in the 2014 and 2016 elections.

 

[saptech]

Those are world markets, not US markets. Caterpillar and Exide announced big layoffs. I think the economy is just going to get worse here. Best case it'll stay as bad as it is and it will still be an issue in the 2014 and 2016 elections.

Been watching the Doom & Gloom tv again huh...big layoffs started around 2007 and haven't really stopped since!

 

[buzzcon]

Got this from a friend of mine in Florida. Interesting read. Not a fan of Rush mind you.

What Would Happen if We Split the Country?

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: A note that I got from a good friend of mine -- this is a fascinating little think piece. He lives in Kansas City. He's fed up with all the ads on TV. He's just fed up with it. His Romney sign was defaced. Cow manure was thrown all over it and underneath it on his yard. He says, "You know, I'm getting real tired of all the ads. I can't wait 'til tomorrow, and I hope your prediction is right. But here's my idea: Let's just flip a coin.

"If the Republicans win, they get to select the half of the country they want and the Democrats get the other half. You split this country right down the middle. Republicans pick the side they want; the Democrats get the other side. We have Mitt; they have Obama. You can live wherever you want to live. You choose which side you want to live in." He said, "The question is: How long would it be before Democrats are building tunnels to get underneath the wall keeping them out of the Republican side?"

Stop and think. This is a great illustration. You split the country right in half, right down the Mississippi River, and let's just say the Republicans get the left half the country and they build a wall. The Mississippi River is not a moat. You build a wall there. The Democrats get everything on the East and we get everything on the West. Or flip it. It doesn't matter. We get our ways of life on our side; they get their ways of life on theirs.

How long will it be before all those Democrats are trying to get over to our side?

How long? We'd have to have checkpoints! We'd have to shoot 'em on sight if they're trying to get into our side of the country, just like in the old East and West Germany days. Stop and think of that. It would make a great book: Talking about one side and comparing the two. It would be a great movie showing where certain companies chose to live, where certain people chose to live. It'd show how they chose to run their businesses, how they chose to manage their affairs.

One half of the country you'd have a welfare state, and in the other half you'd have prosperity and good times and all that, and where would people want to end up? Now, do we already have that? (interruption) Who would pay for their welfare? The Democrat half of the country would cease to exist in two weeks. There'd be nobody to pay for their way of life. The Democrat half of the country would become barren and desert and there would be no life. There would be nothing there. And they'd all be scrambling to get to our side of the country.

It's a great way, I think, to illustrate what the election's about.

END TRANSCRIPT

 

[Gmash]

Rush = moron

 

[ElasticNinja]

Got this from a friend of mine in Florida. Interesting read. Not a fan of Rush mind you.

Regardless of the impact of the lower spending of the Republican half on services and welfare, the Democratic base is in the wealthy and industrialised parts of the country. Anyway, I remember West Germany being the state with the extensive welfare system inherited from Otto Von Bismarck. In East Germany everyone had a job where they werent particularly productive, not exactly welfare.

Those are world markets, not US markets. Caterpillar and Exide announced big layoffs. I think the economy is just going to get worse here. Best case it'll stay as bad as it is and it will still be an issue in the 2014 and 2016 elections.

Ah yeah sure I said as much.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Hopefully he and Congress can work out something before January. If the first thing that happens during the new Obama term is my taxes going up $1500 I'm going to be ticked.

 

[ElasticNinja]

Hopefully he and Congress can work out something before January. If the first thing that happens during the new Obama term is my taxes going up $1500 I'm going to be ticked.

Also you would be talking about 4% of GDP being taken out of the economy. Part of me wants to see it happen but the European economy is going back downhill as it is, we don't need another shock.

 

[Gmash]

You have to believe they are not crazy enough to let the sequester happen, but if it does, blame the republicans for holding the economy hostage in the name of not asking the wealthy to pay slightly more in taxes. Hopefully Obama will have some balls and not get bullied into a bad deal.

 

[A.Nonymous]

You have to believe they are not crazy enough to let the sequester happen, but if it does, blame the republicans for holding the economy hostage in the name of not asking the wealthy to pay slightly more in taxes. Hopefully Obama will have some balls and not get bullied into a bad deal.

Yeah, that's the thing that bothers me. On the one hand, both sides would have to be completely nuts to let it happen. But then both sides are completely nuts. If it does happen, then it's a matter of playing the blame game and whoever plays the blame game the best will have a very good chance of ending up with power in two years.

 

[ElasticNinja]

You have to believe they are not crazy enough to let the sequester happen, but if it does, blame the republicans for holding the economy hostage in the name of not asking the wealthy to pay slightly more in taxes. Hopefully Obama will have some balls and not get bullied into a bad deal.

I think Obama and the Democrats have been trying to hard to compromise. 90% of the give has been from them. Also, I have said this before, but more than just the wealthy need a tax increase.

 

[A.Nonymous]

I think Obama and the Democrats have been trying to hard to compromise. 90% of the give has been from them. Also, I have said this before, but more than just the wealthy need a tax increase.

That is where the Democrats won't bend. The Republicans don't want to raise taxes at all. If they do, their entire base will blast them for it and the Democrats will blame them for the tax increases. The Democrats can get away with raising taxes on the wealthy as that is what their base wants, right or wrong. The Democrats can't get away with raising taxes on everyone else. So they are going to try to stick it to the wealthy big time even if this just means that the wealthy will hide more and more of their assets overseas in order to avoid taxation. Those horrible rich people.

 

[ElasticNinja]

That is where the Democrats won't bend. The Republicans don't want to raise taxes at all. If they do, their entire base will blast them for it and the Democrats will blame them for the tax increases. The Democrats can get away with raising taxes on the wealthy as that is what their base wants, right or wrong. The Democrats can't get away with raising taxes on everyone else. So they are going to try to stick it to the wealthy big time even if this just means that the wealthy will hide more and more of their assets overseas in order to avoid taxation. Those horrible rich people.

Well taxes have to be raised on the wealthy. The IMF will tell you that. And because the Democrats have not developed an illogical idealogical opposition to tax hikes, they would be more willing to increase the tax burden on the upper middle classes too.

 

[kymberlin]

The fact of the matter is this.

America is no longer going to be run by rich old men. The politics of long ago are gone. Republicans need to come better, young minority, middle class men (and yes women) are the new majority. Like it or love it. Stop coming to me with old men who sing the 1929 song. How about a gay woman, a Latino man, a 48 year old Indian? I am tired of our presidents being rich old men who haven't paid a insurance premium, had to put a child through college cash or has never had to eat top ramen. This is a democracy here. 52% of Americans are tired of the same ole same ole period.

Get it together republicans!

 

[cjr72]

Well taxes have to be raised on the wealthy. The IMF will tell you that. And because the Democrats have not developed an illogical idealogical opposition to tax hikes, they would be more willing to increase the tax burden on the upper middle classes too.

The Democrats have developed an illogical ideological opposition to tax hikes when it comes to the middle class. Raising taxes on the wealthy alone, even with assuming a static tax base model that does not shrink in reaction to higher taxes, is not nearly enough to address the deficit from a revenue standpoint. It makes for great campaign rhetoric but the math just isn't there.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Well taxes have to be raised on the wealthy. The IMF will tell you that. And because the Democrats have not developed an illogical idealogical opposition to tax hikes, they would be more willing to increase the tax burden on the upper middle classes too.

But the Democrats can't get away with raising taxes on anyone except the wealthy. They also can't get away with cutting any programs (which the Republicans can btw) so this forces them to basically propose soaking the rich. This juts less to the rich hiding more and more assets elsewhere. Then the Democrats through a fit when the wealthiest campaign against them. What do they expect?

What is needed is more than anything is spending cuts and reining in the score of government. Do that and tax hikes may not even be necessary. Neither party its really interested in that at all.

 

[ElasticNinja]

But the Democrats can't get away with raising taxes on anyone except the wealthy. They also can't get away with cutting any programs (which the Republicans can btw) so this forces them to basically propose soaking the rich. This juts less to the rich hiding more and more assets elsewhere. Then the Democrats through a fit when the wealthiest campaign against them. What do they expect?

What is needed is more than anything is spending cuts and reining in the score of government. Do that and tax hikes may not even be necessary. Neither party its really interested in that at all.

The Democrats have committed themselves to spending cuts already, and more spending cuts than tax rises in fact. The Republicans want a 99% cuts, 1% revenue rise plan to get the federal structural deficit down. The Democrats are saying 60-80% cuts, 20-40% revenue increases.

Perhaps the two parties should simply agree to invite in the IMF and let them tell them what to do.

 

[copestag]

The Democrats have committed themselves to spending cuts already, and more spending cuts than tax rises in fact. The Republicans want a 99% cuts, 1% revenue rise plan to get the federal structural deficit down. The Democrats are saying 60-80% cuts, 20-40% revenue increases.

Perhaps the two parties should simply agree to invite in the IMF and let them tell them what to do.

this is the fantasy they have the weak minded democrats believing

that democrats want to 'fairly raise taxes' and want to 'cut spending responsibly'

complete idiocy

democrats want to raise taxes on the only portions of america paying anything at all.... they enjoy the fact that half of america 'fairly' pays ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in income taxes

and they only want to cut spending on defense they arent interested in even looking at entitlement spending or social programs

I for one hope the tax cuts expire..... most of us will be just fine

the question for the democrats is......when will you pay your fair share??

 

[ElasticNinja]

this is the fantasy they have the weak minded democrats believing

that democrats want to 'fairly raise taxes' and want to 'cut spending responsibly'

complete idiocy

democrats want to raise taxes on the only portions of america paying anything at all.... they enjoy the fact that half of america 'fairly' pays ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in income taxes

and they only want to cut spending on defense they arent interested in even looking at entitlement spending or social programs

I for one hope the tax cuts expire..... most of us will be just fine

the question for the democrats is......when will you pay your fair share??

Well personally I do not think that everyone should pay federal income tax. Everyone should probably make a social security contribution, but things like education are provided by the states and these are where lower income folks' taxes should be going.

Now, the US spends 5% of GDP on Defence. That is an awful lot. As I am sure you have heard before, it accounts for more than 40% of global military spending. There needs to be some level of cuts. You cut things like Medicare/caid which are more efficient and cheaper than leaving things to the free market, and the economic situation will dis-improve. Anyway, this is just basic economic logic. There is spending which I would like to see kept I am sure but the economic arguments might not be as strong.

Nonetheless while I empathise with the people of the US it doesnt really effect me. The federal government should get its house in order, with a combination of taxes and cuts. Its stuff like US emissions and foreign policy which I worry about, but yeah.

 

[A.Nonymous]

First of all, the idea that the cheapest and most efficient way to provide medical care is through the feds is laughable. Veterans get free medical care (as they should). The VA system (completely and totally federally funded and run) is a complete and total joke. I wouldn't take my dog to a VA hospital. The friends I've had who went there went there because they had to. The minute they got better insurance in place, they went somewhere else. The fact that they chose to pay to go to another hospital rather than the free federally funded care tells you something.

Second of all, neither party is proposing any cuts. They're proposing cut in increases on future spending. None of them are proposing actually cutting existing programs and spending less in the future.

 

[ElasticNinja]

First of all, the idea that the cheapest and most efficient way to provide medical care is through the feds is laughable. Veterans get free medical care (as they should). The VA system (completely and totally federally funded and run) is a complete and total joke. I wouldn't take my dog to a VA hospital. The friends I've had who went there went there because they had to. The minute they got better insurance in place, they went somewhere else. The fact that they chose to pay to go to another hospital rather than the free federally funded care tells you something.

Whatever about your biases against the VA system, I AM NOT ON ABOUT GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTHCARE.

All I said is that medicaid/care is currently more efficient than the pure free market alternative. I think they are shitty systems but the point stands.

You constantly fail to read what I say in my posts. I never mentioned veterans hospitals or whatever (which IMO are a completely ridiculous concept in the first place, but whatever).