Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

alstry (35.40)

Obama is our ONLY chance

Recs

18

June 04, 2008 – Comments (37)

Too many businesses are in too much distress.  Period.

Airlines, Autos, Banking, Construction, Non Federal Government, Retail, and Restaurants just to name a few.  Just the above constitute the majority of our economy.  ALL THESE INDUSTRIES ARE IN VERY SERIOUS DISTRESS AND MANY CONSTITUENTS FACE SIGNIFICANT THREAT OF BANKRUPTCY!!!!!!!

Real Estate, Equity, Municipal Bonds, Corporate Bonds.....collectively represent the majority of wealth in our nation and in jeopordy of losing value as defaults start rising along many asset classes.  And defaults are rising now!!!!!

At this point, our country is in a very sharp downward economic spiral.  I call it concentric contraction....but quite frankly, it doesn't matter what you call it.  It simply sucks and there will be a lot of road kill along its path.

Changes will have to be made.  Clearly the current path is heading us toward a very negative outcome.  Let's hope that any change is a better path.

37 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On June 04, 2008 at 3:37 PM, alstry (35.40) wrote:

Actually, the title should read is Obama our only chance?

Report this comment
#2) On June 04, 2008 at 4:05 PM, jsthwrth (45.87) wrote:

To finish the title:

...for socialism wrapped in smooth-talking.

Report this comment
#3) On June 04, 2008 at 4:12 PM, mandrake66 (85.03) wrote:

I don't believe a president in my lifetime has had a positive effect on the economy as a result of policy. Clinton and Reagan both took credit where little was due. Several have had very negative effects, none more so than the current one. If Obama successfully dedicated himself to nothing but reversing what Bush has done at almost every step, I'd consider us way ahead of the game.

But our system being what it is, it's tough to imagine politicians at any level successfully coping with the problems du jour and those still to come.

Report this comment
#4) On June 04, 2008 at 4:19 PM, scullymj (< 20) wrote:

Yeah, if you consider Marxism a chance.

Report this comment
#5) On June 04, 2008 at 4:23 PM, cubanstockpicker (20.91) wrote:

jsthwrth, we already live in corporate socialism, why not just go all the way. SEE BSC. Maybe Obama has the brilliance to keep all the major hedges from creating a 60% difference between oil prices and inflated prices. Create a separate capital gains tax on commodities at about 30% and use the taxes on viable alternative energy funding for cities and munis. We will see very cheap oil from then on. Wouldnt be a speculator who would touch it.

Report this comment
#6) On June 04, 2008 at 4:44 PM, mandrake66 (85.03) wrote:

Yeah, cuban, that was my thought as well. We have socialism for rich people and capitalism for poor people. It's about the dumbest system you could possibly have.

Report this comment
#7) On June 04, 2008 at 4:49 PM, LordZ wrote:

Hmmm you would think given the above responses that Oblama  has already won the election, fortunately there will be an election to decide the presidency.

Wow Drakie you forget to mention JImmy Carter, I remember as a grade schooler that i was the only in my class who was willing to vote for Jim.

I disagree about no presidents having a positive effect on the economy.

 

Report this comment
#8) On June 04, 2008 at 4:51 PM, alstry (35.40) wrote:

Do you think this could be Bill O'Reily's reaction once FOX endorses Obama due to declining ad revenues?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j2YDq6FkVE

Report this comment
#9) On June 04, 2008 at 5:04 PM, cubanstockpicker (20.91) wrote:

WE WILL DO IT LIVE WELL DO IT LIVE!!!! LETS DO IT LIVE!!!!!

Lol, there is no stopping Obama, and I dont want Hillary as VP, especially after giving a subtle threat that Obama would catch a bullet.

Get a middle of the road moderate democrat as VEEP and Obama will win.

Report this comment
#10) On June 04, 2008 at 5:04 PM, SemperGumby77 (60.24) wrote:

I would tend to disagree with you mandrake, at least in the case of the Clinton years. The decisions not to tax internet purchases, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (which lowered taxes on small businesses, while raising them on the wealthiest 1%) and the decision to shut down government on multiple occasions in order to pass budget restrains all were contributing factors to the balanced budget and Federal surpluses that the U.S. enjoyed during the 1990's.

Report this comment
#11) On June 04, 2008 at 5:06 PM, LordZ wrote:

Cuban all that bull that your proposing about overly taxing commodities would simply take said markets away from the united states and benefit some other foreign entity.

The battle between the have and the have nots has raged for centuries, and whenever any bright idea'd fool comes in to try to take wealth away from the wealthy well in most instances they only make things worse for the least well off.

Why are people such haters on the wealthy ??? shouldn't the goal be for everyone to have the opportunity and not for the government to set up deterents to people working hard to accumulate wealth.

I'll be the first to agree that Bush junior has never been the sharpest tool in the tool shed, however he does make a succinct argument in that when people retain (most and)    more of their money as opposed to forking it over to the government to overspend and misallocate, people generally are willing to work harder.

Bush Junior managed to beat out his pathetic democratic opponents ~ George Bush JR   a c- student.

 

Report this comment
#12) On June 04, 2008 at 5:13 PM, LordZ wrote:

Obama's legacy   ~~~~ the most pathetic candidate for the presidency ~~~~ future historians will look back and laugh.

 

Report this comment
#13) On June 04, 2008 at 5:17 PM, LordZ wrote:

Meanwhile i'm already laughing, except that given the opportunity for the Democrats to finally step up and truely lead, they once again fumble the ball right into the hands of their opponents, and they have an unproven unprecedently minority candidate who stands little chance and has even less experience. very sad....

Report this comment
#14) On June 04, 2008 at 5:18 PM, vicpicks (< 20) wrote:

I think Barrack and Michelle were made for eachother.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGjR81pFJI4 

But seriously, "hope" and "change" for the Obama's mean the worse kind of socialism for the people of the United States. Probably much worse. And Louis Farrakhan is behind them 100%.

"Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan said that presidential candidate Barack Obama is the "hope of the entire world" that the U.S. will change for the better."

 Oops! There are those words again "hope" and "change."

Report this comment
#15) On June 04, 2008 at 5:18 PM, Retirnsoon (< 20) wrote:

Does anyone think Obama will step in and make an impact?  What happens now is the result of what happend 5 or 10 years ago, not last week.  If we think back to happier times when Clinton #1 was in office, we are thinking back to the results of Bush #1 and Reagan's policies, Bill was just along for the ride and a smooth character. 

Please don't be blinded by the "Change" retoric.  Once people are placed in commanding positions, we all fall in to the same agendas.  If we did not invade Iraq, we would be facing much steeper oil prices and a far more expanding war.  The general population cannot handle going to war over a speculative and potential catastrophic event.  Saddam was positioning himself and the oil supplies to shut off the east.  This is the real reason we went to war.  Thank goodness we have intelligence commanders willing to accept the backlash of falsifying the war in order to save 100,000's of lives.  Believe that. 

Report this comment
#16) On June 04, 2008 at 5:22 PM, alstry (35.40) wrote:

Lordy Z,

What would you say if between now and the election, more wealth would have eroded from the "wealthy" than the total of wealth the wealthy accumlated from the inception of our wonderful nation through the year 2000?

Report this comment
#17) On June 04, 2008 at 5:29 PM, mandrake66 (85.03) wrote:

Let me amend what I said. I don't think that on balance any president in my lifetime has had a positive effect on the economy due to policy. Clinton is the only one where I'd be open to argument, but even in that case the good he may have done paled in comparison to the effects of the factitious stock market boom that happened on his watch.

Report this comment
#18) On June 04, 2008 at 5:30 PM, LordZ wrote:

I would say this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltiyatTYXKo&feature=related

 

not... lol

Obama elitist aloof inexperienced fool  much like Hector who thought he had killed Achilles only to have killed his little cousin.

When Hector finally meets Achilles, he'll get whats coming.

Report this comment
#19) On June 04, 2008 at 5:42 PM, LordZ wrote:

Eventually Alstry we will have  a select few families that will own most of the wealth in the world.

Report this comment
#20) On June 04, 2008 at 5:50 PM, jesusfreakinco (28.91) wrote:

Alstry, 

I hope this is all tongue in cheek or you've lost all credibility with me ;)

Wow - you really know how to stir controversy!

When are you going to comment on HOV 'earnings'?

Report this comment
#21) On June 04, 2008 at 5:56 PM, alstry (35.40) wrote:

Please read my first comment.  I am actually politically agnostic.

HOVs earnings speak for themselves. 

With forclosures rising and banks dumping inventory at cheaper and cheaper prices, especially in the areas where new homebuilders congregate.......most major HBs don't have a prayer to build homes at a profit for the foreseeable future.

You can only lose money until your cash runs out.  That is the new analysis until things change.

In HOV's case, paying 11 1/2% on $600 million sounds like a great way to profit on the SWAPs.

Report this comment
#22) On June 04, 2008 at 5:57 PM, LordZ wrote:

I guess the demise of the USSR evil empire  and the fall of the East German wall doesn't qualify as significant DRAKE because your too much of a snob to give REAGAN any credit because he was a former actor who was Republican.

Report this comment
#23) On June 04, 2008 at 5:59 PM, WillSurfForFood (76.40) wrote:

When Hector finally meets Achilles, he'll get whats coming.

Hector was fighting to protect his land and prevent his wife from being carried away as a slave and save his kid from becoming a slave or killed.  In my opinion he was one of the few honorable characters in the Illyad. I doubt any of the Greeks actually cared about Helen, she was just a convenient reason to get together to pillage Troy. The ending of the Illyad was about a just and happy as the ending of "No Country for Old Men"

 

Report this comment
#24) On June 04, 2008 at 6:09 PM, LordZ wrote:

Never saw the movie No Country for Old Men, however like the quote of that movie

"I think you know where this is going"

Report this comment
#25) On June 04, 2008 at 7:04 PM, abitare (34.56) wrote:

Ten Most Corrupt National Politicians 2007
http://www.judicialwatch.org/
1. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY)
5. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R-NY)
6. Governor Mike Huckabee (R-AR)
8. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL)

Lessor of Evils is still chosing evil, no thanks. I will write in Dr Paul 

 

Here NEOCON Shill Bill Oreilly:

"We should also not overlook the reality that the US elections are pure spin anyway, a charade. The United States is not a democracy and has not been for a long time. Its political system is a duopoly of power, with the same plutocratic forces controlling both the Democrat and Republican parties, the election being a 4-yearly circus to fool the masses into thinking that they live in a democracy. In one sense democracy is an absurd concept anyway - how can you allow ignorant, uneducated people the same vote as intelligent, discriminating people? The answer is that that you can - and then you program them to do what you want them to anyway via their favorite entertainment and media inputs. If you spend an hour of your time going down to the polling station to vote, you have just wasted an hour of your life, except that it can be amusing to watch the other fools wasting their time lining up - thinking that they are going to make a difference."

http://www.clivemaund.com/article.php?art_id=1648

 

Report this comment
#26) On June 04, 2008 at 7:14 PM, jester112358 (28.80) wrote:

Obama will make us look fondly on that naive Jimmy Carter, the worse president of this century.  Double digit unemployment(driving capital out of the country due to high taxes on capital gains and dividends), interest rate (to try to control inflation), and chronic shortages of oil and other commodities as we retreat from the mid-east and abdicate to Iran complete control of the world's oil supplies.  The military exists for one purpose:  the extention of political will through force (Adam Smith).  Dictators only understand this as the greatest president of this century, Reagan, demonstrated when he brought down the evil empire.  O'Bama and the democrats are hopelessly naive on every important principal, especially individual freedom and responsibility.  The government is the problem not the solution!  What can you expect from a lawyer?   Maybe we can sue ourselves to wealth.  The alternative, productivity and savings is apparently too painful for lazy obese Americans.

Report this comment
#27) On June 04, 2008 at 9:48 PM, russiangambit (29.27) wrote:

> Obama will make us look fondly on that naive Jimmy Carter, the worse president of this century. 

Bush is not any better. I tell you, there were jaws dropping all across Europe when Bush was elected not once, but twice. They couldn't beleive Americans would elect somone so average and un-flexible. Obama will not be worse than Bush. 

Report this comment
#28) On June 04, 2008 at 11:52 PM, EScroogeJr (< 20) wrote:

Obama is an intelligent bastard, and McCain is a bastardly fool. I'm rooting for the fool of course. Too bad I can't put one cent on his victory because the chance of him winning is not even zero but an imaginary number.

Report this comment
#29) On June 05, 2008 at 12:35 AM, LordZ wrote:

How is Obama intelligent ????

Please someone tell me what major legislation he has personally done ??? oh thats right hes only in his second year as a senator and has spent most of that time caimpaigning for his next position ~ the anti christ ~ opps i mean the first black president ~ than instead of doing anything he will caimpaign for leader of the world.

Mccain's track history is much better, and I would prefer his wife over Barry's wife who only recently has found a new appreciation for her country ~ but when she says country is she referring to the US or some foreign entity ???

Barack has admitted to doing coke and smoking weed.....

Personally I do not want some former coke crack head in office let alone in charge of anything.

Report this comment
#30) On June 05, 2008 at 1:30 AM, EScroogeJr (< 20) wrote:

"Barack has admitted to doing coke and smoking weed....."

That doesn't mean anything. Clinton also didn't inhale.

Report this comment
#31) On June 05, 2008 at 2:25 AM, SemperGumby77 (60.24) wrote:

"Personally I do not want some former coke crack head in office let alone in charge of anything."

 Lordz, you already had one in office for the last eight years. Bush's substance abuse problems early in life are well-chronicled.

 

 

Report this comment
#32) On June 05, 2008 at 2:39 AM, LordZ wrote:

Please have you seen how fat Clinton is... i doubt there is anything that he won't or hasn't yet inhaled.

Report this comment
#33) On June 05, 2008 at 3:06 AM, DemonDoug (65.96) wrote:

the really really funny thing is that if you look at Eisenhower's presidency you will find many similarities with Obama.  What kind of world is it that we live in that a conservative in the 1950's is now considered to be a liberal marxist socialist in the 2000's?

Some Eisenhower quotes:

"Though force can protect in emergency, only justice, fairness, consideration and co-operation can finally lead men to the dawn of eternal peace."

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron."

“When people speak to you about a preventive war, you tell them to go and fight it. After my experience, I have come to hate war. War settles nothing.”

“May we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion”

Should I go even further back, and quote one of the best presidents in history?

"Speak softly, and carry a big stick" - name that republican!

anyone who believes obama is some kind of left wing softy nut who will raise taxes on the rich to 75% and give welfare to everyone out there and bread lines etc, has bought into the neoconservative talk entertainment BS that drives ratings and makes you do stupid things like post emotionally on a financial based website.

Obama is for fair taxation - why should hedge fund managers be paying 15% for their regular paycheck.  Their regular paycheck, people, not capital gains, but their regular, plain old wage.  Meanwhile, energy prices and food prices are effectively a tax on the poor.  We should not seek to kill the incentive for the rich, but should we not seek fair taxation for all americans?  Even Warren Buffett has remarked on numerous times over the years how he pays less in tax than his secretary.

I could also post a litany of his positions and platforms, but my belief is that anyone reading this has pretty much made up their mind about him - are either like him and are against the war in Iraq, or are a Rush/O'Reilly lover who wants all our kids to be praising jesus in homeroom and learning about creationism in biology and biblical numerology in math, and oh, you're also very likely a global warming denyer.  So good luck with that guys. 

Report this comment
#34) On June 05, 2008 at 4:19 AM, LordZ wrote:

Come on Demon, does Buffett really pay less in total taxes than his secretary ?????

Or are you talking about percentages... and that in itself is messed up.  If Barry excuse me Barack really wanted to reduce taxes it could easily be done without pandering or claiming that hes going to raise taxes on them so called rich people, many of whom really aren't that well off.

Taxes in general should be eliminated or reduced on the majority of americans.

Imagine if you made less than 100,000 and you didnt have to file or pay an income tax.

Does it really make sense for people earning 30,000 a year forced to pay income taxes and file these parasitic taxes...

Back to the Buffet secretary comparison who do you think benefits the economy and tax coffers more ???

Only an ignorant fool would claim that secretary is more vital than Buffet.

 

Report this comment
#35) On June 05, 2008 at 5:57 PM, SemperGumby77 (60.24) wrote:

Lordz,

Nobody is suggesting that the secretary is more vital than Buffet. And the reason nobody has suggested it, is that its an inconsequential point. There's no reason to further reward Warren for his "benefit to the economy" - his billions of dollars is more than enough reward.

The reason Buffet advocates raising his own taxes and lowering them on the poor and middle class is because doing so is the best way to increase U.S. GDP. Why? Because the lower and middle classes spend a higher percentage of their available income. That spending translates into a higher velocity of money (ie. more transactions), which results in more job growth, higher incomes, and more tax revenue.

Its simple economics.....

 

 

 

Report this comment
#36) On June 14, 2008 at 1:51 PM, FishSRQ (27.28) wrote:

jsthwrth:

To finish the title:

...for turning the economy around by ensuring another Gingrich type conservative takeover of congress in 2010.

Report this comment
#37) On June 20, 2008 at 2:11 AM, awallejr (81.56) wrote:

I'm afraid your "hope" will prove false.  Obama will not win the presidency, assuming McCain doesn't flat out blow it.  Not because of issues, but for one simple reason.  A sad one, but a true one.  Racism.  Plain and simple.

Personally I don't like either.  I don't like Obama's "Jimmy Carterism" (in my opinion the worse President I lived under so far).  I also hate his wife. I just don't ever want to see her live in the White house.  Ever.  A woman who obtained incredible power and fortune in a Country that is designed to allow such possibilities, yet she is not "proud" of it.  She can go to hell for all I care. 

As for McCain, he just is too wishy washy. 

So it is a lesser of two evils.  I Just don't want to return to the "Carter" years. 

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement