Obama might be sinking hard...and soon.

Post Reply New Topic

techstepgenr8tion: you and Mr Kurtz may very well be laissez-faire capitalists and not like Obama, but if you saw the latest polls its pretty clear that Obama's kicking ass and is destined to win in November.

Two point lead right now, I doubt there will be much flux in the next week unless something drastic happens. Also, wasn't Kerry looking pretty good on paper around this time 2004?

Anyway, I think there are two ways of looking at economics - what works and actually improves economy and standard of living, and then there are the utopian social religions. When people look at what really happened with this whole Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac scandal; Amity Shlaes wouldn't come out against ACORN when interviewed and it was because she believed that the real source was the very existence of Fannie and Freddie - if the CRA1977 and ACORN didn't bring it down something else would. Another economist interviewed said the bail-out package was a bad idea because it was in his words "capitalism on the way up and socialism on the way down" which I beg to differ with him, I think it was both socialism on the way up and socialism on the way down. Social policy through governmental bends on economics (in this case mortgages) is the perfect way to make capitalism crash and burn under the weight of the cancer; I don't think there was nefarious intent to destroy capitalism's name here but it goes to show - you can't have a bit of this and a bit of that without some major fallout.

I don't know what your theory of economics is; if your a socialist then I'd just say we're clear on each others' differences. What set me in motion to write this post though was the point that there is and has been extensive proof not only that the lambasting the press was giving Republicans for 'deregulation' held no merit but that this was in fact a problem induced by liberal ideas at every juncture and I think there's a lot to learn from this situation in that regard in terms of what not to do to free market (of course for those on the other end, that's great - better we all have lower than current poverty standard of living but at least all be equal in the end).

I won't deny it though; there are some rather starkly different philosophies for the future of the United States right now. Personally I would rather have the left of the world screaming that we're an evil empire who's united under judao-christian cultural values than have us be a hollowed out has-been state who, for all the land mass and resources, is no more nor less relevant than Switzerland, Belgium or some other paragon of neutrality.

If he wins in November, I swear, Im going to make you EAT your words!
So what is your source that he has a "2 point lead" right now, eh? Have a look for yourself: http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/

The best statisticians are not saying it is any where near as close as two points - I suggest that only a very few analysts hold that position, and it is not based on good number crunching.

I prefer http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/ - the guy that runs it is the best baseball stats man on the face of the Earth, and his previous election work (meta-analyses) have been excellent. He currently assess the race as a .947 probability Obama will win. But we could see that October surprise - maybe McCain flies a plane to Afghanistan, and Palin leans out and shoots bin Laden. That would change the whole race.

If Obama wins in November, I'll feel bad for the country but I don't have my ego or any sense of self worth hanging on this. My 'eating my words' won't really have whatever effect your thinking it will.

Depends on the mix. Canadian sensibilities regarding banking regulations will shelter us from a lot of your grief. For that reason one cannot blame America for Iceland; they made their own dumb mistakes.

OF course our Canadian economy is in a downturn as well, but that has more to do with America being our biggest trading partner. Luckily we produce our own staples of economy in surplus, so again, thats going to insure that most people keep their jobs , continue to eat, and thanks to banking policy, most will keep their houses.

As a wag of an American once said,


Too late sir! You can likely count on Canada's international star rising a little in the next years.

Fuzzy, you could well be right - I don't frankly know a lot about the Canadian banking system. I have a feeling that if its working for them up there it would mean that they're strictly looking at banks to behave as banks and let government handle the social programs (even at that Canada has a lot of draw backs in their tax rates and having a much smaller population doesn't have the behemoth of a bureaucracy that it would take for the U.S. to implement the same things they have).

No thats true.

As far as taxation goes, I dont think its much higher, really, at least for normal folks. I bet I pay less than 30%. I live in a sales tax free province as well. In my province health care premiums are charged to individuals rather than drawing from a public tax pool. In that sense its possible to opt out(and you will be opted out if you dont file taxes long enough), so its more voluntary.

Yes a smaller population is a benefit in this case, I am betting, for instance, that our tax system is simpler now than yours was when you had our population. Most individuals in Canada have only a single page to fill out. I've heard horror stories about the length of the American tax code. A lot of your taxation is hidden in obfuscation.

I think the biggest thing is that the American government missed the boat on stabilizing things when it would have been simpler. "Thou shalt not loan ten times more than thy assets!"

Our biggest hangup with our tax code (learned this from my tax classes toward my accounting degree) is we use tax loopholes for economic policy - encouraging certain types of spending. Its a quick form of economic governance but its a pain in its own right.



We tried as far back as 2004. Unfortunately Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Maxine Waters, and their ilk didn't concur.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008 ... tions.html


should set things straight on this whole acorn garbage.

Nods. FARTHER back!

gee, it's too bad that in 2004, the republicans still had majority control over the legislative branch along with having bush in the executive branch.


the dems didn't take over till 2006. blaming a majority congress for problems demonstrates a lack of common sense. now remove your head from your partisan ass and wake the f**k up to the obvious fact that both the republicans and democrats are ALL worthless. they're glorified middle management hacks who couldn't get real jobs so they just yell for attention until they get elected into office.

Hope you took your blood pressure medication today:

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/16/w ... it-crisis/

Maybe the republican congress could be blamed if they had an overruling majority with no swing-votes in the middle but simple majority - nah.

you're kidding, right? you expect me to believe some half-ass garbage from a republican web blog?

give me a non-biased source and i might waste a couple minutes to read it.


again, get your head out of your metaphorically partisaned ass.

What is non-biased anymore?

Seriosly the news takes evrything and makes it well... you know the democratic govt we hold dear is being tainted by dirty dealings in the mass meadia this is not a true democracy becuse those who can control the media have a sort of control on evryone else... therefore the govt is more of an aristocracy then a democracy... for extreme right wing and for extreme left its more of a scocalist govt. so i wish there was a moderate that freakin stayed moderate not giving to much power but not eliminating it all together...