3 1/2 more years of this left... but what about the next 4 after
Real Estate Investor · Las Vegas, NV - LAS, NV · Member since 2008 · 168 posts · 11 votes
OK I am still coming to terms with the current administration.(and may not ever) But what do you think will happen here? Do you think it's likely that he will be re-elected? If no, please input on who you think will win the Republican nomination that can win. (please dont say Mit Romney)
I am interested in hearing all thoughts on the matter
Mr. Investor post:
"Tell me something Eddie are all left wing liberals as naive as you?
_________________________________________________
First, Mr. Investor, just because I don't hold the same political views as yours doesn't make me either liberal or naive. Second, if you really knew what I believe in, you couldn't even label me. I know... It's hard for some people to keep others outside a box.
But since you brought it up, let see:
I'm pro choice, pro gay marriage, pro stem cell research and in favor of relaxing immigration laws. So far, that would label me as liberal I guess but...
I'm strongly against illegal immigration, enforcing the border, cut all welfare, education, and health services to illegal immigrants and their families unless they pay taxes.
I don't like my tax dollar to be spent on social program either but if the choice is invest in America or fight unworthy wars abroad, I vote for America.
I don't think government should be in business of "investing in people" but I think corporations should be investing in people. It simply good business. Every person who's coming out of welfare and start working, automatically become a product buying consumer. Good for the country and good for business.
Now, can you still label me? I see myself as social liberal and fiscal conservative...
Too early to say. At this time during the last presidential term Obama was saying he had no intention of running for office. You never know.
I can't imagine he will get re-elected if he keeps running things the way he has so far. All the people that voted for him and praised him are looking like idiots and they likely won't be too happy with him for not living up to their expectations.
on the other hand, they might re-elect him in the hopes that given another 4 years MAYBE he can manage to accomplish SOMETHING, ANYTHING so they can be like "see he just needed more time" ...
Waaa, Waaa Waaa... Still wining and still in minority... Let me quote John Carry looking at the poll results the eve of the election: "I can't believe I'm loosing to this idiot..."
Think what you want about Obama. Don't discount his re-election bid.
My point exactly, even though I am an independant. I just dont see how the republicans remove this socialist that breaks his word from the get go from the White House.
One thing is certain... If the Republicans nominate Palin, I think all is lost.
I think it all depends on the economy. If things continue to get worse I think that the republicans will retake the Whitehouse and possibly a turnaround in the house at the mid-turn elections. If the economy turns around, then it’s another 4 of the Democrats.
Mr. Investor post:
"Tell me something Eddie are all left wing liberals as naive as you?
_________________________________________________
First, Mr. Investor, just because I don't hold the same political views as yours doesn't make me either liberal or naive. Second, if you really knew what I believe in, you couldn't even label me. I know... It's hard for some people to keep others outside a box.
But since you brought it up, let see:
I'm pro choice, pro gay marriage, pro stem cell research and in favor of relaxing immigration laws. So far, that would label me as liberal I guess but...
I'm strongly against illegal immigration, enforcing the border, cut all welfare, education, and health services to illegal immigrants and their families unless they pay taxes.
I don't like my tax dollar to be spent on social program either but if the choice is invest in America or fight unworthy wars abroad, I vote for America.
I don't think government should be in business of "investing in people" but I think corporations should be investing in people. It simply good business. Every person who's coming out of welfare and start working, automatically become a product buying consumer. Good for the country and good for business.
Now, can you still label me? I see myself as social liberal and fiscal conservative...
I wouldn't call that a fiscal conservative by a long shot but I agree that it's hard to label people. Almost nobody fits COMPLETELY into one category. I also think we should abolish the party system and just have a lot of candidates run in a primary, say up to half a dozen, maybe the US could be divided into 6 or 8 sections and each could elect someone who is already a senator, rep, governor or mayor, to run in the primary. Then the whole country, not states, vote for the 1 who will be President. A lot of people just blindly vote by party and it's sickening. Also the party bickering is so beyond old it's not even funny anymore. People throw around "republican" and "democrat" like they're insults.
I would say give him some time...I think that if things change in the economy for the better he will be reelected...I think the action he has taken in such a short period of time has been pretty good..give then hand he was dealt.
I can't imagine that any McCain voters really feel that McCain could of done a better job..If he had better ideas he could of stated them rather than playing games the whole campaign , using fear tactics , while proving that he was unfit to lead the country.
McCain was the best the Republicans had last time around....They might be able to regain credibility with the country as people especially Americans have such short memories.
I think that people should feel a reason to believe in someone , rather than voting for someone just because you THINK you don't like the other guy based on often outdated cliches ..the whole "bleeding heart liberal" label that gets stamped on every single democrat by the Republicans for example.
while it is still way too early...
i really think charlie crist will be throwing his hat in this time around. i still think that if mccain had him as a running mate the race would have been a lot closer. i wouldn't be surprised if mccain did offer him the post, but crist turned him down as he had his eyes on the bigger desk.
he's already positioning himself in the national stage by gunning for mel martinez's opening seat.
since we are all business minded people here....
Most economist would agree that any U.S. President or majority political party has little to no impact on the GLOBAL economy (which is largely reflective of the U.S. economy).
But, since we're at it.... let's not forget that the Bush/Republican majority contributed more to the national deficit than any other president in the history of the United States ( 8 years of continued budget deficit vs. 3 years of a budget surplus under the Clinton era)
It seems like a lot of us (including myself sometimes) forget that this TARP money is actually accounted for in the Congressional budget and not just being spent at will... Obama's true measure of fiscal responsibility will be if he can maintain a budget surplus vs. deficit and pay down the national debt....
Some of you who idolize Warren Buffet should check out his opinion on the stimulus package.
I would just like to comment that I find it extremely irritating when everyone brags about Clinton's wonderful surplus. Is no one else noticing the fact that he cut defensive spending, CIA human intelligence programs were reduced, etc, etc... and shortly after we had Setp. 11th...?
Don't get me wrong I'm not blaming Clinton for 9/11 in a direct sense, but you have to keep in mind that all the money Clinton shaved off the budget had to come from somewhere. I agree Bush was a total jackass. I just don't think Clinton was all he's been cracked up to be.
In all fairness, I know what you're talking about when my dad and I had a conversation where he said he thought Clinton had balanced the budget. I clarified that Clinton balanced the "projected" budget. There's a big difference there.
Cory's post:
" would just like to comment that I find it extremely irritating when everyone brags about Clinton's wonderful surplus. Is no one else noticing the fact that he cut defensive spending, CIA human intelligence programs were reduced, etc, etc... and shortly after we had Setp. 11th...?
Don't get me wrong I'm not blaming Clinton for 9/11 in a direct sense, but you have to keep in mind that all the money Clinton shaved off the budget had to come from somewhere. I agree Bush was a total jackass. I just don't think Clinton was all he's been cracked up to be.
__________________________________________________
Cory, let call a spade a spade. Contrary to popular beliefs, the defence budget dwarfs compare to the entitlement budget (Medicare, medicate, SS, and at that time welfare programs).
Clinton enjoyed an economical and political "perfect storm" if you will. (Especially in the 2nd term). A boost of the economy - the dot.com boom, A republican congress which force him to be moderate, the reform of the welfare system and a relative peaceful period (Except Kosovo and Bosnia which in term of American casualties and cost were relatively low.) Clinton biggest asset was that unlike Reagan who kept vetoing bills by a Democrat -lead congress, Clinton worked with the republican congress and got some results.
It is not that I am unconcerned about what Bush did or Clinton for that matter , but we have bigger problems here with the current administration. Lets not be overly concerned with the last 8 to 16 years as we cannot change them.
So we should definitely tax the most productive members of society higher to give more money to the many that refuse to take action to improve their lives.
We should also make energy more expensive to the public right when there will be the rising tide of a commodity crunch.
If he is going to balance the budget, we are quite possibly going to see all sorts of tax laws change. Especially things that have a lot of money attached to them, like 1031 tax exchanges, 401Ks, IRAs etc.
I am not saying ;that it is not important to learn from the past, but lets make sure our rights and livelyhoods are not trampled on in the near future.
Posted by Tony Tomasek:
"So we should definitely tax the most productive members of society higher to give more money to the many that refuse to take action to improve their lives.
We should also make energy more expensive to the public right when there will be the rising tide of a commodity crunch."
___________________________________________________
Tom, your statement is too extreme. To say that an employed worker or self employed who makes less then $150,000 ( I didn't use the $250K Obama is talking about) is "someone who refuse to take action to improve their lives." is hardly true
After eight years of corporate favoritism, no wonder that the pendulum swung so far left.
With regard to energy, the only ones who make it more expensive are the future commodity traders.
Remember the Methanol craze that was brought to us by the previous administration and with the help of big corn producers? Well that was a big waste of money, wasn't it.
These past eight years have been about money flowing uphill and the rich getting richer disproportionate to the value they were adding; people aren't used to things swinging away from big business and back towards the citizens. It's funny that, while everyone is complaining about the government handing money to the poor, they didn't seem to be complaining about the past 8 years of the government handing money to the rich.
Regardless of how hard one group of people works, the government shouldn't be handing them money, especially when the amount of money is disproportionate to the amount of value being added.
Don't get me wrong, I made lots of easy money in the tech industry these past eight years (enough that I could be one of those non-productive members of society for the rest of my life :), so I'm not complaining about how things were; but it gives me perspective on the ridiculousness of how things have been skewed towards big business this past decade.
And, I definitely understand why some of those who have had it good for the past several years feel like the rug is being ripped out from under them.
The problem is that the past decade hasn't been "typical" either, so the economic ideals that people have gotten used-to couldn't be (and shouldn't be) sustained any more than economic ideals that are being proposed by the current administration.
The pendulum was too far to one side, and now is at risk of moving too far to the other...it's time for some moderation and compromise, where more than just one group of people is being favored.
I just fundamentally don't believe in graduated income tax - you shouldn't be punished for earning more! so ridiculous! The people who earn more already contribute more literal money, since 25% of 500k is more than 25% of 50k, so why slap them twice by making them pay a higher percentage too? it's ******** and for the record my family has never made more than about 100k so it's not like I'm being subjective here.
Cory, I understand your frustration with the progressive tax system. It is frustrating but it was created actually to help the Feds more then anything. Uncle Sam needs revenue and they know they cannot get the revenue form the "little guy" because the little guy doesn't earn enough, so they adapted the progressive tax system. It is not so much about "carrying the burden" as it is about revenue.
The other big problem is that we turn from product producing nation to finance products producing nation and real estate turn overs (Guilty as charge... :wink: )
We don't make stuff anymore so our trade deficit is growing and taxation is the only way to gain revenue.
I would love to abolish all payroll taxes and just go with sales tax. The more you buy, the more taxes you pay - You are in control...