Obama raising huge money since Super Tuesday...

[knucklesplitter]

Obama fans should absolutely love this.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/contribute_c/sincefeb5_email/graphic

He has raised almost $6M since the polls closed on Super Tuesday. Supposedly mostly from small donors too. Extraordinary to say the least.

Meanwhile The Clinton campaign just had to "borrow" $5M from Hill & Bill's fortune. Also reports are saying that some of her staff is going without pay.

[sperry]

Good for Obama.

Too bad I'm getting the feeling he's not going to get the nomination. :( Hopefully I'll be wrong.

A Hillary vs. Romney race would be like a do-over of pick the lesser douche from the last election. While an Obama vs. McCain vote would be like two refreshing candidates running for office to make a difference IMO.

While I disagree w/ McCain's stance on nearly everything, I have nothing but respect for the guy. I think he's really an upstanding, genuine guy that really cares about sticking to his beliefs. Frankly, if we had a bunch of McCains with different platforms running for office, I'd feel like there's hope for the future of the nation. I don't get that feeling w/ Hilary and Mit... I feel like they're the "more of the same" candidates.

[Dean]

Obama clobbered Hillary in the debate when she said she would freeze interest rates for 5 years and he said that he would not as it would not permit the new lower fed and LIBOR rates to bring interest rates down before the resets and possible ReFis.

He has a great new economic advisor/backer and appears to be listening to him.

Hillary is now clearly the worst choice.

McCain / Obama will be an interesting race.

I hope/think it will be a McCain/Huckaby ticket vs. an Obama/???? ticket. But who for the ???? Edwards doesn't excite me. Hmmm...

[ScottyS]

Obama/Hillary ticket with the plan to help Obama "disappear" about a year into the win.....:moon:

[Kevin M]

Obama raised over $35million in January, mostly from small individual contributions on the internet as I hear it.

Scott, I think you're dead on with your thoughts on Obama and McCain being atypical politicians. I too don't agree much with McCain on his policies, but I do think that he and Obama are the only candidates who wants to be President of the United States of America, and not just the voters in their party. McCain's record of working on legislature with Dems on all sorts of issues bodes well.

I honestly believe that the PRresident should be the most moderate candidate possible. Senators should be a little bit more polarized, and the House should have a good portion of peopple from all parts of the spectrum from far left to far right.

[MikeK]

There are a lot of die hard democratic voters in my office who all say they will vote republican if Hiliary gets the nomination.

[knucklesplitter]

It's $7.5M now by Obama. Clinton claims $4M.

The thing I like about McCain is how bad he pisses off the wacko far right. I am all for anybody who Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, Dobson, and that whole dispicable ilk are against. But I'd still hold my nose and vote for Hillary I think. Hopefully I won't have to. Obama is def. not my first choice, but he is 2x better than another Clinton imho.

[Dean]

Romney is going to announce he is pulling out of the race today.

[knucklesplitter]

Romney is going to announce he is pulling out of the race today.He may as well - he doesn't have a chance, especially with the Huckster still in there.

[sperry]

There are a lot of die hard democratic voters in my office who all say they will vote republican if Hiliary gets the nomination.
I hate to say it, but if it comes to Hilary vs. McCain... I'm not sure who I'd vote for. If McCain wasn't so for sticking it out in Iraq and trying to win a hopeless war, I'd probably vote for him over Clinton... but if I voted for McCain I'd have to share the blame for every soldier that dies over there after he takes office.

Granted the situation there isn't his fault as much as it's the fault of the Bush Administration, but if he's not going to be part of the solution, he's part of the problem. Like I said earlier, I respect McCain's opinion about the war, because unlike Bush et. al., he's upfront about how it's a shitty situation that we should never have gotten into rather than blubbering and bullshitting about how great things are going. I just disagree with his opinion on the solution of the problem enough to make him nearly unelectable to me.

If he conceded to popular opinion on that one issue alone it would be enough for me to vote for him. All the rest of the things I disagree with him about (gay marriage, homeland security, abortion, healtcare, etc) I could overlook because I think he's a positive politician that would be willing to work with Congress to meet the will of the people. I'd rather have a president I trust but disagree with than another president that I can't trust no matter how much I agreed with their election platform.

[knucklesplitter]

But about McCain... I think these pics say it all...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/mccain_bush-hug-713122-1.jpg http://www.truthdig.com/images/eartothegrounduploads/mccain_bush_hug_300.jpg

[sperry]

But about McCain... I think these pics say it all...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/mccain_bush-hug-713122-1.jpg http://www.truthdig.com/images/eartothegrounduploads/mccain_bush_hug_300.jpg
How can he be against gay marriage, when that's such an obviously gay moment right there?

[Kevin M]

If he conceded to popular opinion on that one issue alone it would be enough for me to vote for him. All the rest of the things I disagree with him about (gay marriage, homeland security, abortion, healtcare, etc) I could overlook because I think he's a positive politician that would be willing to work with Congress to meet the will of the people. I'd rather have a president I trust but disagree with than another president that I can't trust no matter how much I agreed with their election platform.

That's what I like about McCain. I don't really agree with him on a lot of issues, but I think he's smart enough to be able to agree to disagree. He wants to do the best job he can for the country, rather than the best job he can for his party's hardliners. I'm happy to vote for anybody who recognizes that America is pretty damn moderate and requires compromise on basically every issue.

[knucklesplitter]

Oops, I meant only to imply that Bush and McCain are pretty cozy... not gay. Not that there's anything wrong with that! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_that_there%27s_anything_wrong_with_that)

[sperry]

Oops, I meant only to imply that Bush and McCain are pretty cozy... not gay. Not that there's anything wrong with that! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_that_there%27s_anything_wrong_with_that)
I got it... I was just attempting levity.

Error 404: Levity not found.

[knucklesplitter]

Obama clobbered Hillary in the debate when she said she would freeze interest rates for 5 years and he said that he would not as it would not permit the new lower fed and LIBOR rates to bring interest rates down before the resets and possible ReFis.

He has a great new economic advisor/backer and appears to be listening to him.
I didn't know/notice this. Any more info?

I have said before that Obama could be a good one if he chooses the right cabinet and advisors What the country needs is a real leader surrounded by good staff. Somebody who can rally people through some tough decisions that need to be made and some difficult actions that need to be done. And when I say "rally" I don't mean through fear and manipulation like we've seen the last 7 years.

I think Clinton would choose good competent people, but I doubt she could bring the country together as well. That and so many other negatives...

[Nick Koan]

There are a lot of die hard democratic voters in my office who all say they will vote republican if Hiliary gets the nomination.

That's cause Hilary is awful.

She's just another "more of the same" politician. No one wants that right now. Everyone wants change, and even though Hilary claims to be a proponent of change, its obvious she's just another career politician that'll bend to special interest groups.

I'd vote for Huckabee over Hilary any day.

[knucklesplitter]

Mittens is out. In his exit speech:
"If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror."

Just more Repugnican fearmongering and manipulation.

[sperry]

Mittens is out. In his exit speech:
"If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror."

Just more Repugnican fearmongering and manipulation.
He's right. Getting out of Iraq is surrendering to terror.

The terror of spending lives, time and money on a failed, ill though out, and unjust war while our economy crumbles under the weight of poor government. I know I'm terrified, but not of the terrorists, I'm terrified that we're going to see another 8 years of piss-poor government.

Good riddance to Mit.

[Dean]

I didn't know/notice this. Any more info?

I have said before that Obama could be a good one if he chooses the right cabinet and advisors What the country needs is a real leader surrounded by good staff. Somebody who can rally people through some tough decisions that need to be made and some difficult actions that need to be done. And when I say "rally" I don't mean through fear and manipulation like we've seen the last 7 years.

I think Clinton would choose good competent people, but I doubt she could bring the country together as well. That and so many other negatives...Here is the transcript. (http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2008/02/transcript_of_d.html)

Basically Hillary wants to freeze existing ARM rates for 5 years but Obama rightly points out that that would have adverse effect on everyone. She has since said it would not be a mandatory freeze, but that just shows she didn't understand what she was talking about.

Freezing existing ARM loan rates would drive rates for new loans up making it hard for new buyers, or those existing loan holders to refinance, thus driving the housing problem even further down.

There is a lot more to it, but that is the gist.

Right now with LIBOR and prime rates down, refis for qualified borrowers are probably going to resolve far more of these sub prime issues than anything short of "we will pay your loan for you" legislation.

Raising qualifying loan limits may help a little as well, but it is a double edged sword.

[MikeK]

I'm leaving if Huckabee becomes the next president. The whole religion thing over here scares me enough as it is.

Honestly I think the recockulous national debt is America's biggest problem right now. If something isn't done about it RIGHT NOW the drag on the economy over the next few decades will do more damage to the american way of life than global warming or any other factors. How awesome would it be to have tax rates 10 or 20% higher with every cent going straight to foreign governments. And I just noticed that the current budget includes more money for Iraq than ever before :rolleyes:

Article 1 (http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10650711), Article 2 (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-derugy6feb06,0,7605685.story), etc (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/02/05/bush_proposes_31_trillion_spending_plan/)

[knucklesplitter]

Whoever wins in November will have several real messes on their hands to deal with. That is for sure. It will be daunting. Wouldn't it be great if he/she rose to be the great president of our time? I just don't get that vibe from any of the candidates though.

[knucklesplitter]

Here is the transcript. (http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2008/02/transcript_of_d.html)

Basically Hillary wants to freeze existing ARM rates for 5 years but Obama rightly points out that that would have adverse effect on everyone. She has since said it would not be a mandatory freeze, but that just shows she didn't understand what she was talking about.

Freezing existing ARM loan rates would drive rates for new loans up making it hard for new buyers, or those existing loan holders to refinance, thus driving the housing problem even further down.

There is a lot more to it, but that is the gist.

Right now with LIBOR and prime rates down, refis for qualified borrowers are probably going to resolve far more of these sub prime issues than anything short of "we will pay your loan for you" legislation.

Raising qualifying loan limits may help a little as well, but it is a double edged sword.
Thanks, that makes more sense.

I was really more curious about the new economic advisor you mentioned. Is that just your speculation? I couldn't find anything on Google.

[knucklesplitter]

I'm leaving if Huckabee becomes the next president. The whole religion thing over here scares me enough as it is.
Agreed. I lived in South Carolina and small-town Oklahoma for a total of 12 years. Many can be deeply religious there... in a cherry-picking-the-Bible-for-stuff-that-conforms-to-my-twisted-worldview kind of way.

[Dean]

I was really more curious about the new economic advisor you mentioned. Is that just your speculation? I couldn't find anything on Google.Former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker endorsed him and is rumored to be advising him in some capacity.

Volker is a pretty damn sharp guy when it comes to economics.

[knucklesplitter]

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker endorsed him and is rumored to be advising him in some capacity.

Volker is a pretty damn sharp guy when it comes to economics.
Really? Can't believe I missed that endorsement. Interesting. I remember Volker. He was the Fed, Chairman through most of the Reagan years. I think he was originally appointed by Carter though.

Ah... here's an article:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/01/31/volcker-joins-list-of-obama-backers/

“After 30 years in government, serving under five Presidents of both parties and chairing two non-partisan commissions on the Public Service, I have been reluctant to engage in political campaigns. The time has come to overcome that reluctance,” Volcker, a Democrat, said in a statement today. “However, it is not the current turmoil in markets or the economic uncertainties that have impelled my decision. Rather, it is the breadth and depth of challenges that face our nation at home and abroad. Those challenges demand a new leadership and a fresh approach... It is only Barack Obama, in his person, in his ideas, in his ability to understand and to articulate both our needs and our hopes that provide the potential for strong and fresh leadership. That leadership must begin here in America but it can also restore needed confidence in our vision, our strength, and our purposes right around the world.”

[sperry]

Whoever wins in November will have several real messes on their hands to deal with. That is for sure. It will be daunting. Wouldn't it be great if he/she rose to be the great president of our time? I just don't get that vibe from any of the candidates though.
I think Obama could be that president. Not really because of who he is personally, or because of his policies... but more because of what he represents. If the US has a black president, with the exception of the racist minority in the country, I think most people would feel good about turning a page in history. I think people from both sides of the political spectrum will want him to succeed because his success is also success for the nation as it moves into a new era of higher equality, rather than the current political process where the winning party wants to step all over the losing party as much as possible until they lose the next election when the tables are turned.

I also think that a woman president could have the same effect, but I think that Hilary is too much of a partisan politician. I think she'll have a hard time getting republicans behind her because of all the mutual history of hate between her camp and the republican camp. Obama isn't so stigmatized like that.

[Dean]

Why the US Presidential Election is just like the West Wing:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/politics/christopherhope/feb08/whytheuspresidentialelectionislikethewestwing.htm

[knucklesplitter]

I think Obama could be that president. Not really because of who he is personally, or because of his policies... but more because of what he represents. If the US has a black president, with the exception of the racist minority in the country, I think most people would feel good about turning a page in history. I think people from both sides of the political spectrum will want him to succeed because his success is also success for the nation as it moves into a new era of higher equality, rather than the current political process where the winning party wants to step all over the losing party as much as possible until they lose the next election when the tables are turned.
I think you are too optimistic, especially about the opposition party wanting him to succeed. That is fine though. I could be convinced if he wins the nomination and continues to show promise in this regard.

[Kevin M]

I think you are too optimistic, especially about the opposition party wanting him to succeed. That is fine though. I could be convinced if he wins the nomination and continues to show promise in this regard.

I'd rather get burned by the candidate who preys on my optimism and idealism than give in to the one who doesn't mind being part of the problem.

[sperry]

I think you are too optimistic, especially about the opposition party wanting him to succeed. That is fine though. I could be convinced if he wins the nomination and continues to show promise in this regard.
I didn't say I think Obama will trigger that result, I just said I think he could trigger that result. I'm pretty damn sure Hilary can't unify the parties. I'd rather vote for the possibility of success than the guarantee of failure.

[Kevin M]

I didn't say I think Obama will trigger that result, I just said I think he could trigger that result. I'm pretty damn sure Hilary can't unify the parties. I'd rather vote for the possibility of success than the guarantee of failure.

Yeah, that's kinda what I meant to say.

[Libila]

Although this is slightly off-topic I thought I'd share since it was a rare opportunity...

I had breakfast with Michael Wynne (The Secretary of the Air Force) and General Brady this morning and another Airman asked a question along the lines of "If a presidential candidate that claims he or she will 'get us out of Iraq' wins, what do you think the outcome of our presence in the middle east will be?"

Secretary Wynne assured us that we'll have a presence in in middle east for a LONG time to come. Even if things "go our way" we won't be able to pack up and leave. The higher-ups foresee one or more of the current bases becoming a "short" one year tour much like Korea is right now.

[sperry]

Although this is slightly off-topic I thought I'd share since it was a rare opportunity...

I had breakfast with Michael Wynne (The Secretary of the Air Force) and General Brady this morning and another Airman asked a question along the lines of "If a presidential candidate that claims he or she will 'get us out of Iraq' wins, what do you think the outcome of our presence in the middle east will be?"

Secretary Wynne assured us that we'll have a presence in in middle east for a LONG time to come. Even if things "go our way" we won't be able to pack up and leave. The higher-ups foresee one or more of the current bases becoming a "short" one year tour much like Korea is right now.
For political reasons, I bet "getting out of Iraq" will involve removing all troops and bases from Iraq's borders and maintaining bases in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. We'll still have a military influence in the area for years to come even if we're "out of Iraq".

Also, that's pretty cool you were kicking it with the big guys. What was to occasion?

[Libila]

For political reasons, I bet "getting out of Iraq" will involve removing all troops and bases from Iraq's borders and maintaining bases in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. We'll still have a military influence in the area for years to come even if we're "out of Iraq".

Also, that's pretty cool you were kicking it with the big guys. What was to occasion?

Even if that were the case, there is no way we'd pull out anytime in the next four years. We're just now getting "alligators" (think neighborhood watch) on our side and talking to our intell people. That's a big step for sure, but for the overall goal we're still crawling. Horrible analogy, I know...

In regards to the, "What was the occasion?": The high-ups are finally realizing that they're becoming outdated by us newer and smarter Airmen that come in with a few years of college under our belts, and new blood means new ideas just as was said about the presidential candidates in this thread. Every once and a while a DV likes to sit down with "the brightest young Airmen" and hear what we have to say and what we're finding wrong with today's Air Force. I was recently awarded Airman of the Year and promoted early, so I was chosen to represent my Civil Engineering squadron.

[sperry]

Even if that were the case, there is no way we'd pull out anytime in the next four years. We're just now getting "alligators" (think neighborhood watch) on our side and talking to our intell people. That's a big step for sure, but for the overall goal we're still crawling. Horrible analogy, I know...

In regards to the, "What was the occasion?": The high-ups are finally realizing that they're becoming outdated by us newer and smarter Airmen that come in with a few years of college under our belts, and new blood means new ideas just as was said about the presidential candidates in this thread. Every once and a while a DV likes to sit down with "the brightest young Airmen" and hear what we have to say and what we're finding wrong with today's Air Force. I was recently awarded Airman of the Year and promoted early, so I was chosen to represent my Civil Engineering squadron.
Due to political popularity issues back here though, we'll be removing troops from Iraq and have virtually none left a year after a democrat takes office, regardless of the reality of the situation. The Iraqis will have to fend for themselves. We'll keep a "reactionary force" nearby in Kuwait if we feel a need to protect our selfish interests on short notice in the future. At least that's my guess.

IMO, we'd do much more good over there spending half the money it costs to keep fighting on aid to the Iraqi government. It'd be cheaper, and they'd be able to take care of their own issues themselves. Withdraw all troops by 2010, then pay them $50B in reconstruction assistance in 2010, $25B in 2011, and a final payment of $10B in 2012, with performance and accountability contingencies for receiving and spending the money.

On the other note, it's really cool to hear the AF is doing stuff like listening to the advice of their own up-and-comers. Sounds nothing like the stuck-in-their-ways image the military branches have. :cool:

[Kevin M]

On the other note, it's really cool to hear the AF is doing stuff like listening to the advice of their own up-and-comers. Sounds nothing like the stuck-in-their-ways image the military branches have. :cool:

In some ways, the military is pretty good about that stuff actually. Their leadership is well trained in identifying goals and mission requirements, and planning accordingly without a lot of barking about the old ways. The US military has learned several times that planning to win the last war is a bad idea; they are receptive to forward thinking. It's when it gets to the political level that it bogs down.

[knucklesplitter]

"Mittpocalypse Now" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwLnIhJWV2I)

The beginning made me chuckle. I do love the way McCain alienates the Laura Ingram types (as shown in her speech at the end of the video). :lol:

[AtomicLabMonkey]

I for one am tired of old fucking baby boomers like the Clintons & Bushes being in charge of everything. I know I'm not alone here either. That generation has done nothing but fuck this country ever since the 60s. Obama is at the tail end of it, but he's still the youngest & closest to my generation that's come along to date.

If the race is still contested by the time our primary rolls around (in May, goddammit), I'll swallow hard and actually register as a Democrat just so I can vote for him.

[knucklesplitter]

Looks like Obama is kicking some serious ass in my home state of Virginia!

[k-dogg39]

Saw this today and it made me think of this thread. :lol:

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c392/k-dogg39/bros.jpg

[Kevin M]

Looks like Obama is kicking some serious ass in my home state of Virginia!

And Maryland. And DC. And a bunch of other states in the last few days. Not only is he taking the Ws, he's kicking the crap out of Hillary in most of them. The Dem race might be over in 2 weeks or so.

[AtomicLabMonkey]

It could still swing either way. If she does well in Texas & Ohio this race will go through all 50 states, and maybe even beyond.

[knucklesplitter]

It could still swing either way. If she does well in Texas & Ohio this race will go through all 50 states, and maybe even beyond.Yes, and the Clinton machine will start some real ugliness now that they're backed into a corner. I hope Obama keeps the relative high road and wins.

[sperry]

I'm kinda surprised that Clinton even has a chance... hasn't everyone seen Passenger 57?

Cory, I'm setting you up on this one!

[AtomicLabMonkey]

Yes, and the Clinton machine will start some real ugliness now that they're backed into a corner.

I wouldn't be surprised. They've shaken up their campaign staff already because of these last few losses.

[knucklesplitter]

I wouldn't be surprised. They've shaken up their campaign staff already because of these last few losses.She should have gotten rid of that loser Mark Penn a long time ago instead of the ones she did axe. She seems to value his loyalty over his competence. Does that sound like anybody else we know/loathe?

[knucklesplitter]

Because the Clinton campaign stragety [sic] is going so well...:rolleyes: her senior stategist Mark Penn took time out to promote his new book the other day. In a q&a session he was asked about Obama's success. Penn says all you Obama supporters are just "impressionable elites" relying on "hearsay".

http://www.observer.com/2008/why-clinton-s-back-against-wall-nobody-prepared?page=0%2C2

[sperry]

Because the Clinton campaign stragety [sic] is going so well...:rolleyes: her senior stategist Mark Penn took time out to promote his new book the other day. In a q&a session he was asked about Obama's success. Penn says all you Obama supporters are just "impressionable elites" relying on "hearsay".

http://www.observer.com/2008/why-clinton-s-back-against-wall-nobody-prepared?page=0%2C2
http://observer.cast.advomatic.com/files/imagecache/article/files/021208_horowitz_web.jpg

Look at these douches. That my friends is the definition of the fat-cat white male slimy career politician.

[knucklesplitter]

Update: Mark Penn says only 8 or 10 states matter anyway, so you elitists don't count anyway.

“Could we possibly have a nominee who hasn't won any of the significant states -- outside of Illinois?” Chief Strategist Mark Penn said. “That raises some serious questions about Sen. Obama.”

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/13/662535.aspx

Nice way to alienate everybody in the swing states. And she's paying this guy $5M for this crap.

[Kevin M]

Maybe they're setting up for good cop/bad cop.

"We're sorry we hired such a douche. The new guy is going to be much nicer about dragging my opponent through the slime."

[sperry]

Well, at least he's working for the campaign I want to lose. :lol:

[knucklesplitter]

Obama's campaign guy, David Axelrod:

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-axelrod15feb15,0,610634.story

[knucklesplitter]

This just in... Clinton surrogate says all you Obama supporters are "latte-drinking, Prius- driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust fund babies". (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/20/684411.aspx)

[Kevin M]

Damn, I'm O-fer on that score. :( Who do I have to vote for now?

[sperry]

This just in... Clinton surrogate says all you Obama supporters are "latte-drinking, Prius- driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust fund babies". (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/20/684411.aspx)
Ugh.

Here's what's gonna happen. Clinton is going to push her supports to hate Obama so much that when she loses the Dem nomination, she'll have left the party so split the democrats will lose the general election.

All hail our new overlord John McCain.

[Kevin M]

At least it's not Romney or Huckabee.

[knucklesplitter]

Lot more trustfund babies than I thought out there. Obama has had over 920,000 (and rapidly climbing) people donate to his campaign. That's pretty amazing.

(counter currently here)
http://www.barackobama.com/index.php#

[sperry]

Awesome.

Clinton just gave herself another $6.4M just to make sure that even though she's got virtually no chance of getting the Democratic nod over Obama, she's going to be able to fight long enough to ensure McCain wins the Whitehouse due to a divided Democrat party. :roll:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jld3VILFDbEY6uciu_lp_YgBnGqwD90GUIOG0

[MPREZIV]

Ugh.

Here's what's gonna happen. Clinton is going to push her supports to hate Obama so much that when she loses the Dem nomination, she'll have left the party so split the democrats will lose the general election.

All hail our new overlord John McCain.

You said it 2 months ago... Negrodamus?

[Dean]

She is trying to buy a VP spot on the ticket, though I think Colin Powell would still make a compelling ticket.

[Kevin M]

She is trying to buy a VP spot on the ticket, though I think Colin Powell would still make a compelling ticket.

I'm pretty sure Colin Powell has zero interest whatsoever in high office of any kind. I also doubt Clinton would take the VP. If she lost the nomination and Obama lost in the general, she'd be a shoe-in for the '12 nomination. And if he won, she could probably take on whoever his VP ends up being and potentially win the nomination then.

[sperry]

She is trying to buy a VP spot on the ticket, though I think Colin Powell would still make a compelling ticket.
I thought both sides had already ruled out sharing a ticket, though I think an Obama/Clinton platform might actually work well. I just think that after such a hard fight for the primary, neither will want to campaign with the other.

[sperry]

She is trying to buy a VP spot on the ticket, though I think Colin Powell would still make a compelling ticket.
Colin Powell is a party-loathing Republican. I don't see him running for the Democratic VP nomination. :lol:

[Dean]

Colin Powell is a party-loathing Republican. I don't see him running for the Democratic VP nomination. :lol:What better opportunity could you imagine for a party-loathing republican. And talk about a change to the status quo.

[Kevin M]

It would definitely kick ass to see any of the remaining candidates actually think in terms of improving the country instead of filling their demographic gaps with their runningmate. But I don't see it happening this year.

[AtomicLabMonkey]

We got the job done here in Cackalack. I can't believe this primary fight is still going though...

[knucklesplitter]

It is done. AP says nomination is "clinched".

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i23h4XqvR0Ph96aWYyZ4PgI54YCwD912RMEO0

[Kevin M]

Now the question is whether Clinton will step down before the convention.

[JonnydaJibba]

Wow, have we really not discussed politics in almost 5 months?

I have a question that I'm sure you SMRT guys can answer.

Let's discuss this "redistribution of wealth." I don't understand it at all. The way the Repubs explain it, he will take MY money and straight up give it to somebody else who doesn't make as much as me. The way I understand this part of Obamas tax plan is that people making more than 250k will be taxed at a higher rate. Will that money then be used to fund programs designed to help lower income people? Or am I going to get taxed higher and then that money will be given to people making less? What am I missing here?

[knucklesplitter]

Obama's plan is basically a tax cut for everybody making less than $250k/year, and those making more than $250k/year will be taxed at pre-GWBush rates. I wouldn't call that "socialism" like the McCain/Drudge/FauxNews crowd tends to do. In fact Mcain opposed the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy back when he was more of a real maverick, and nobody called him a socialist.

Here is an online calculator if you want to see what would happen to you if the plan gets implemented:
http://taxcut.barackobama.com/

[sperry]

Wow, have we really not discussed politics in almost 5 months?

I have a question that I'm sure you SMRT guys can answer.

Let's discuss this "redistribution of wealth." I don't understand it at all. The way the Repubs explain it, he will take MY money and straight up give it to somebody else who doesn't make as much as me. The way I understand this part of Obamas tax plan is that people making more than 250k will be taxed at a higher rate. Will that money then be used to fund programs designed to help lower income people? Or am I going to get taxed higher and then that money will be given to people making less? What am I missing here?
A lot has been made of nothing IMO, simply because of the phrase "spread the wealth around a little". Fundamentally, both parties want to redistribute money around to save the economy... the difference is in how they want to do it.

The "standard" Republican method is via tax cuts to the rich. The idea is that by saving the big businesses money, they have more to spend in improving their business, which in turn creates more jobs, which in turn puts money into the hands of the middle class, who in turn are supposed to buy more stuff and therefore make the big businesses more successful, and thus upward-spiral the economy into better days. This is basically what they mean by "trickle down economics", in that you make policy changes to a few at the top of the pyramid that eventually make it down to everyone.

The Democrat method has the same goals, but focuses on the middle class first. The idea is you cut the middle classes taxes so they have money to spend in the economy that eventually makes its way into the hands of the big businesses. But in order to pay for gov't services, taxes have to be raised on the rich... but IMO, the top 1% can afford the cost much more easily than the rest of us... afterall, paying say 20% more in taxes when you make $50M/year is the difference between getting both a Porsche and a Ferrari or having to pick one, whereas 20% more taxes when you make $50k/year is the difference in making your mortgage payment or not.

And IMO, there are several other problems with McCain's plan:

1st, trickle-down doesn't work so well. It was trickle-down policies that got us into the whole housing meltdown (de-regulation of the industry was supposed to allow them to regulate themselves and choose their own risk, but we see how well that worked out). Plus, when you give a big cut to the top, they just pocket half of it for themselves, then trickle only 50% of the savings down to the next guy so takes his half then passes it along... so a $4B tax cut to ExxonMobile ends up doing what for the middle class, saving us $0.03/gal? Big whoop.

2nd if we're cutting taxes to the rich, how do we fund the insane costs of the gov't? Republicans used to be able to suggest tax cuts because they used to also operate on a platform of less and cheaper gov't, but that's not the case with today's Republicans that want to fund a $1 trillion war and a $1 trillion economy bailout (which the Republicans support even though it's far more socialist than Obama's tax plan, figure that one out). If we're cutting taxes to the rich to spur the economy, how do we fund the gov't properly? McCain's said little more than "we'll make it work because American is awesome!".

IMO, the Democrat plan is far more realistic, well thought out, and will have a better over-all effect on the economy. Cutting taxes to the middle class puts money directly in the hands of the people that need it the most when the economy sours. The bailout gets funded by the people that are directly benefiting from the bailout (rich bankers) who are the people that aren't going to be in the poor-house over having to pay more taxes.

It seems to me, we're in for hard times regardless of the plan used... it just seems fair that those that benefited the most at the top during the boom should be the people that step up the most to help the nation recover during the bust. The middle class are going to have a hard enough time with unemployment, inflation, etc... taxing the rich has less of a burden on less people.

[JonnydaJibba]

That really cleared it up for me. Thanks for the posts guys.

[Nick Koan]

Go ahead, milk your 15 minutes. Milk it baby!

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/15072.html

[sperry]

Go ahead, milk your 15 minutes. Milk it baby!

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/15072.html
I hope he makes more than $250,000 off his fame, and Barak's plan taxes his ass. Then everyone forgets about him and he has to go back to making $25k/year plumbing.

[van]

I always like to read sperrys political opinions

[Dean]

He's not even a licensed plumber!!!

[MattR]

The problem is, from an article I cannot find right now on Barron's, that Obama's tax plan affects those making $111k per year and up with significant increases.. not just the rich. I don't consider $111k per year rich, especially when it's lumped into the same group with $250k+ income. I hope it's all flowers and roses like you say Scott, unfortunately, I have a feeling I'll be paying a significantly larger amount of tax in the near future.

[MattR]

According to Obama's calculator, I'm all good, it's just so difficult to decide what stories to believe.

[MikeK]

Written in 2001: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28784

[JonnydaJibba]

it's just so difficult to decide what stories to believe.

I know, especially when everybody is saying everybody else is a liar.

[100_Percent_Juice]

I know, especially when everybody is saying everybody else is a liar.

Especially when everyone is right in saying that.

[JC]

The problem is, from an article I cannot find right now on Barron's, that Obama's tax plan affects those making $111k per year and up with significant increases.. not just the rich. I don't consider $111k per year rich, especially when it's lumped into the same group with $250k+ income. I hope it's all flowers and roses like you say Scott, unfortunately, I have a feeling I'll be paying a significantly larger amount of tax in the near future.

You will be ok big baller.

http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd320/zavigm/Picture3-8.png

http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/29/news/economy/candidates_tax_plans/index.htm

[Dean]

Even that CNN article misrepresents the TPC data. Not that they are even "The Gospel". If you want to see their analysis, go to http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/presidential_candidates.cfm

You will see that the data even diverges based on whether you beleive what they published, or said in speeches or put in press releases, and when...

[JonnydaJibba]

Especially when everyone is right in saying that.

That is a whole other issue entirely. :(

[ScottyS]

Seriously, ignore everything that is promised during an election and simply look at the history of each party machine over the last 2 decades in Congress. Look at the trends of government agency and program expansion, and ask yourself where all that money will come from. Those costs will get passed on via direct and indirect channels to the group of people with the least amount of practical legislative and legal representation - i.e. you and me.

[knucklesplitter]

Past performance is no guarantee of future results, but...

http://tlrii.typepad.com/theliscioreport/images/2008/07/07/gdp.gif

http://tlrii.typepad.com/theliscioreport/images/2008/07/17/employment.gif

http://tlrii.typepad.com/theliscioreport/images/2008/07/07/unemployment.gif

http://tlrii.typepad.com/theliscioreport/images/2008/07/07/stocks.gif

http://tlrii.typepad.com/theliscioreport/images/2008/07/07/gini.gif

http://tlrii.typepad.com/theliscioreport/2008/07/presidential-ec.html

[Dean]

The National debt one is the scariest... We had it all but licked at the end of the Clinton years and now it is higher than ever.... :(

National debt = tax on your children and a reason not to count on social security to fund your retirement.

[ScottyS]

Past performance is no guarantee of future results, but...


Linking economic performance to presidencies is shaky, in a global marketplace the performance of the internal US economy should be dependent upon policies regulated by the Congress. Response times are also an issue.

It can also be argued heavily that the behaviors of various long-term economic stats respond much faster to international events (such as war) than to a single president's policies within his administration timeframe. Different actions and events carry with them various time-lags.

Calculation of such things as the national debt and GDP is very tricky these days......

[Dean]

I agree with Scotty on GDP, but national debt, not so much. National debt is a pretty real number based on pretty hard numbers right on the bottom of the federal government's balance sheet.

[knucklesplitter]

CNNBC: "Obama's Loss Traced To Scott Perry"

http://www.cnnbcvideo.com/index.html?nid=r3dT1DVK3JLGLeqRMnmlZTE4NjI3Mw--&referred_by=13456326-3VuhKax

That is some funny shit.

[van]

:)

[sperry]

I think Obama could be that president. Not really because of who he is personally, or because of his policies... but more because of what he represents. If the US has a black president, with the exception of the racist minority in the country, I think most people would feel good about turning a page in history. I think people from both sides of the political spectrum will want him to succeed because his success is also success for the nation as it moves into a new era of higher equality, rather than the current political process where the winning party wants to step all over the losing party as much as possible until they lose the next election when the tables are turned.

I also think that a woman president could have the same effect, but I think that Hilary is too much of a partisan politician. I think she'll have a hard time getting republicans behind her because of all the mutual history of hate between her camp and the republican camp. Obama isn't so stigmatized like that.
(Yes, I'm quoting myself.) It's now a year later, and Obama is our 44th President. I'm happy to say that right now I really get the feeling that my hope from last year about Obama seems to be coming true... the pictures from the inauguration are really inspiring. A million people waving flags and celebrating is one hell of an endorsement.

Granted, it's only day 1, and the problems our nation faces today seem even harder than they did a year ago. The honeymoon may be *very* short with Obama. But I have to admit, it feels surprisingly good to know that Bush and his cronies can't screw up the world any more than they already have.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2009-01/44612666.jpg

[tysonK]

The DOW took a nice hit, thanks Obama!

But serirously, the fact that many people are happy about the concept of Obama being Presdient is certainly a success for us on the world stage.

[AtomicLabMonkey]

But I have to admit, it feels surprisingly good to know that Bush and his cronies can't screw up the world any more than they already have.

Oh no, they still can and will. People in government mostly go to work for lobbying firms, think tanks and/or write books after their term of service is up, which play large roles in crafting government policy & influencing public opinion. So, they'll still be around. :|

[Dean]

Watching his first major news conference, one thing stands out. He speaks intelligently in complete sentences using actual English words and even occasionally answers the questions. Even if you disagree with his policies or politics, that should at least be refreshing.

I don't want us to end up like the 30s, or Japan and would rather not put future generations further in debt. I don't have the answers, but at least the financial people around him are a good cross section. Now if only we could get the congress, on both sides, to pull the sticks out of their asses and actually work for their constituents, we might get somewhere.

I would really like to see all the rating agency management and staff and risk management folks at the CDO involved firms brought up on criminal fraud charges.