Obama Wins!

Can't change what has been done. That being said, I'm very glad it was a land-slide, either way, because I think it's important that America felt like this was his decision. So, while he wasn't my candidate, he is my President and I support and wish him well, because wishing him folly only wishes folly on myself and my own.

Sooooo, let's hope we do well these next 4 years. I may not agree with what he does, or how he does it, but I'll be hopeful it will work nonetheless. Hopeful, he can show me that we can have success, even if we don't agree on the Method to get there.

As a conservative, obviously we are going to be opposite on how things should be handled, but that doesn't mean the other way can't work. America decided, and that's where we stand. No point in being bitter in defeat or smug in victory (Not that I think anyone is doing either at the moment.)

THE BEST THING about all of this is that IT IS OVER. Now maybe people can return to being nice to each other. This board was getting fairly saucy in my mind, but man my work was FAR FAR worse.

Happy to be alive,
Keck

litlkeck wrote: As a conservative, obviously we are going to be opposite on how things should be handled, but that doesn't mean the other way can't work. America decided, and that's where we stand. No point in being bitter in defeat or smug in victory (Not that I think anyone is doing either at the moment.)

I'm a conservative. The most conservative politician won. I know he's labeled "the most liberal," etc, but those are labels that don't match his political views or history.

He wants a surplus within 3 years. McCain's 4 year plan was all more deficit.

I know the "socialist," label was thrown on him, but why? Because he wants to tax the extremely rich more and everyone else slightly less? As a true conservative I'm all for a flat National Sales Tax. It makes sense and would work. However, as long as we're using our current unbalanced system it must be used to solve our problems. There is no way to fix the rising costs in our budget but to raise taxes on someone.

Mandatory Spending is on a steady rise with no stop in sight. Why? Because Social Security & Medicare, etc. are going up. We're seeing Baby Boomers about to retire. It's not a pretty picture. Mandatory Spending will continue to rise for the next 50 years. There is nothing that can be done about that in the near future.

The problem is our DEBT. It's over TEN TRILLION! The board on wall street that kept track of our debt didn't have the extra digit for it! A part of our debt is intragovernmental. Meaning we keep borrowing from ourselves. Where are we borrowing it from? The Social Security and Medicare funds. Currently FIVE TRILLION of our debt dollars are owed to the Social Security and Medicare funds. We're going to need that FIVE TRILLION in the next decade unfortunately.

Thanks to the bailout, now we'll run out of Social Security Funds by as early as 2012! GREAT! We've got to stop borrowing and start paying back.

The other part of our Mandatory Spending is INTEREST on the money we've borrowed. Next year that number will be close to THREE HUNDRED BILLION. We're now talking about nearly TWO TRILLION of our budget going towards Mandatory Spending and Interest.

Discretionary Spending has been gradually dropping since the 60s (percentage wise). We're getting to a point where 33% of our budget will be descretionary.

We can only lower discretionary spending. To lower Discretionary Spending to match our income we'd have to lower it by 40%. That isn't going to happen. So that means we must RAISE INCOME.

The only way to raise income is to raise taxes. We start lowering our DEBT, and we'll start raising the value of the American Dollar. Raise the value of the American Dollar and the economy will improve.

That is part of the Obama plan. That it makes sense from a conservatives stand point is interesting when he's the liberal. The McCain plan of LOWERING TAXES, RAISING DEFICIT, and RAISING DEBT are not a conservative's stance.

Yes, Obama is taking MORE from the rich. IS that socialist? I don't think so. The reason we have to tax the rich is because it is their greed that ultimately put us all in this position. The lower "rich," are going to have to pay for the greed of the filthy rich and that's definitely unfortunate.

The problem seems to be that American Voters are dumb. They've failed to realize that certain Parties changed their political actions to not match their constituents. I'm a registered Republican, but my party has not delivered on their "conservative stances," at all in the last 28 years. Since Reagan the Republican Presidents have taxed less but grown government, taken a $800 Billion dollar debt and turned it into a debt of over TEN TRILLION! During the Clinton years our debt only grew by $1.5 TRILLION. His tenure also saw the only large payoff on the debt of $350 Billion. Bush has increased our debt by FIVE TRILLION.

Reagonomics had a purpose. To increase growth and "trickle down," the winnings. This was supposed to be a short term solution. Which means it was never meant to keep going the way it was planned and run from the start. Reagan himself knew that the DEBT and DEFICIT had to be dealt with. Their whole plan was "let them deal with it later." The problem was our later became today, and our leaders have done nothing with it. The result in addition to all our other economic difficulties is a debt of TEN TRILLION+ far more than TEN TIMES the debt Reagan had to deal with when he took office.

This doesn't mean there aren't Republicans in Congress or the Senate that don't share OUR beliefs. I know Rep. John Carter (who voted against the bailout) and Ron Paul are two definite true Republicans in the conservative sense. John McCain wasn't.

There is no way to stop Mandatory Spending or its steady growth in the near future. There is a way to lower Discretionary Spending some. However we must raise taxes.

Keck, if you're truly a conservative then you should be dancing in the streets. No, Obama isn't "perfect," for a conservative but on the most important problem facing our country he had the much better and far more conservative solution.

Sadly, I start thinking of Ross Perot. He seems like a prophet now.

Neither of them were too conservative. I voted Chuck Baldwin.

joliet_jane wrote:The best part of it was that I got the news from my heroes, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert last night. I would've enjoyed it no matter what the results were.

I was watching the show too. I think they were the first to officially call the election. Pretty ironic, yet cool.

I like how "sharing the wealth" became a socialist ideal in this campaign. Is there anyone in this capitalist country who remembers what capitalism actually stands for?

The idea was to encourage the best in their fields to succeed and make their industry prosper, bringing their employees along with them towards a better life. The money earned through their success was meant to develop technology through research and ensure wealth, or at least a certain quality of life, for all involved. Leaders of each field would ensure the development of the entire country while government would handle the basic necessities. The government was doing its part in this system by keeping taxes and interventions to a minimum.

In contrast with communism, individuals are working to build a community, instead of the community taking upon its shoulders all individuals.

The trouble began when some jerks decided to screw the rules of the very system that made them rich in the first place. Large corporations paying nickel and dimes to their employees, destroying the already fragile middle class, accumulating astronomical wealth instead of re-investing (and yes, SHARING) it, speculation across the board that doesn't contribute to any industry, financial products creating money that simply doesn't exist, and the list goes on.

Socialists always claimed the industry couldn't be trusted with the community's wealth, and the industry is proving them right. Neo-capitalists and liberalists are the only ones to blame for the fall of capitalism, as well as the economical turmoil the world is currently facing. The elite, led by the banking lords, literally stole the economy of all its wealth, sharing it strictly among themselves and their stock owners.

What they don't seem to realise is how they're putting their own wealth at risk by doing so. Not only is their money fragile, they're threatening the backbone of the capitalist economy by sucking every penny out of the consumers' pockets. Wal Mart, to name this shining beacon of foolishness, destroys the middle class by keeping their ridiculous salaries so low. The entire sale industry is reaching a point where the employees themselves cannot afford to buy what they sell. If the company across the street has the same salary policy as yours, who the hell do they expect to buy the stuff they sell? Once the middle class reaches a bottom low there will be no turning back, hence the importance of keeping it strong, starting with respectable salaries for all. The industry simply cannot continue to make fake profits on the back of their employees.

Finally, we can't ask the government to collect little taxes and invest a lot. Field leaders absolutely must reinvest massively in society instead of boosting their profits for stock value purposes. Research and development has always been profitable for all, including the industry itself. No one has ever gone poor by investing in research, and no one has ever gone truly successful by keeping their money stuffed in a sock. If the industry wants to keep their privileges and their freedom of action they have to play by the rules, and that's that.

Frank for president!

-Cub. =o)

I'm aiming for emperor, personally

I think an oligarchy comprised solely of members of this board would work well... of course there'd be Tex Murphy propaganda on every street

Wall Street would be Renamed "Chandler Avenue"...

And a New Tex Game would come out of the Federal Budget, 700 Billion Dollar Bail Out of AC & CJ...

Since everyone's putting in their two cents, I don't suppose anyone would hold it against me to do so as well.

Obama is a socialist. (Hint: try http://www.mises.org or http://lewrockwell.com if you'd like to know what capitalism really is.) "Spread the wealth" = tax one group and give the proceeds to another group. This is the very definition of socialism, no matter how folks try to spin it. Now, some people don't think there's anything wrong with socialism, but it's no use denying that the Democratic platform has included socialism since the New Deal.

Socialism confounds the purpose of law, which is only to protect the individual's life, liberty, and property. Socialist policy like that articulated by Obama (no matter what you call it), is legalized plunder, in which the police power of the state is used to steal from a minority voting bloc in order to give to a majority voting bloc. Group A wants Group B's property, but group A cannot legally just take anything from Group B because theft is against the law; but that same group, if they elect socialists like Obama, can achieve that result under a cloak of decency known as the state. Bottom line: the state has no say as to what your "fair share" is, but exists to protect your right to keep private property. When private property is subject to being stolen by others under the auspices of "government", that government is hopelessly corrupt, and the rule of law is upended.

The mission of the law is not to oppress persons and plunder them of their property, even though the law may be acting in a philanthropic spirit. Its mission is to protect persons and property.

Furthermore, it must not be said that the law may be philanthropic if, in the process, it refrains from oppressing persons and plundering them of their property; this would be a contradiction. The law cannot avoid having an effect upon persons and property; and if the law acts in any manner except to protect them, its actions then necessarily violate the liberty of persons and their right to own property.

The law is justice—simple and clear, precise and bounded. Every eye can see it, and every mind can grasp it; for justice is measurable, immutable, and unchangeable. Justice is neither more than this nor less than this.

If you exceed this proper limit—if you attempt to make the law religious, fraternal, equalizing, philanthropic, industrial, literary, or artistic—you will then be lost in an uncharted territory, in vagueness and uncertainty, in a forced utopia or, even worse, in a multitude of utopias, each striving to seize the law and impose it upon you. This is true because fraternity and philanthropy, unlike justice, do not have precise limits. Once started, where will you stop? And where will the law stop itself?


---Frédéric Bastiat, "The Law" (1849)

McCain? Major "meh" for me. Shoulda been Ron Paul. Period.

I'm done.

Do people even know what socialism is? It's when a government controls all means of production and distribution and shared among everyone as a whole.

Taxing one portion more than another isn't socialism. His term "spread the wealth," is a good term, it mean to have more wealthy people. Obama has never stated nor do any of his policies state "take money from rich, give to poor." No he wants to tax the rich to get us back in an anual surplus so we can get rid of our DEBT, so the dollar can at least be improved. In addition that would improve SAVING RATES. Right now as a major country we're dead last in savings rates.

His talks of punishing companies that outsource, etc. is "regulated capitalism" and not socialism.

I just don't see the socialism. We actually have a "socialist," in our congress. I believe he is from New Hampshire. His policy ideas aren't all that bad. "Democratic Socialism," isn't a bad thing when combined with conservative ideals.

Your man Ron Paul btw... Democratic Socialist who sometimes uses the label "libertarian," but is a "republican," so he can stay in office. He very much is the ideal Democratic Socialist. Socialism just for the HEALTH of the people, etc.

Stephen, you know I adore you, but I do not agree that Obama is a socialist. He is simply repealing tax cuts from a higher tax bracket that were given from the previous admistration.


From the official Obama web site.


Families making more than $250,000 will pay either the same or lower tax rates than they paid in the 1990s. Obama will ask the wealthiest 2% of families to give back a portion of the tax cuts they have received over the past eight years to ensure we are restoring fairness and returning to fiscal responsibility. But no family will pay higher tax rates than they would have paid in the 1990s. In fact, dividend rates would be 39 percent lower than what President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut.
Obama’s plan will cut taxes overall, reducing revenues to below the levels that prevailed under Ronald Reagan (less than 18.2 percent of GDP). The Obama tax plan is a net tax cut – his tax relief for middle class families is larger than the revenue raised by his tax changes for families over $250,000. Coupled with his commitment to cut unnecessary spending, Obama will pay for this tax relief while bringing down the budget deficit.

Of course in theory it sounds good. Hopefully ending the war in Iraq will help stop some of the hemmoraging of money that is currently an issue, but I simply don't see the socialist aspect in this.

I don't see Obama doing any worse than the current President... With control of the House and the Senate just about any Bill Obama wants to pass will undoubtedly get passed... I'm not saying he will go overboard with that kind of power, but he is well aware that it is there if he needs it...

Only time is going to tell... We can speculate all we want, but we aren't going to know anything until the middle of next year and beyond...

Jen wrote: Obama’s plan will cut taxes overall, reducing revenues to below the levels that prevailed under Ronald Reagan (less than 18.2 percent of GDP). The Obama tax plan is a net tax cut – his tax relief for middle class families is larger than the revenue raised by his tax changes for families over $250,000. Coupled with his commitment to cut unnecessary spending, Obama will pay for this tax relief while bringing down the budget deficit. [/i]

Of course in theory it sounds good. Hopefully ending the war in Iraq will help stop some of the hemmoraging of money that is currently an issue, but I simply don't see the socialist aspect in this.

Actually in theory it's awful. What that implies is the new tax plan will bring in LESS money than before. We're already 400 Billion in deficit. Stopping the Iraq war (and not going anywhere else) would save us 100 Billion. However Obama's Health Plan is going to cost billions.

There is no realistic way to cut our budget by $400B. It may be possible to lower it by $250B (still a near 25% cut in the budget).

Biden has said some things that totally contradict the web site. He also said the web site wasn't "up to date." Basically because of the bailouts (the $840B we know about and the car company bail outs no one mentions, or a separate bank bailout also not getting enough media attention) we've added another TRILLION to our debt. Biden has said people making over $150K now will have their taxes raised and he implied that Obama is going to raise taxes in addition to eliminating the tax break that Bush implemented.

All I know is we MUST raise taxes on someone. If the poor people can't afford it, then tax the rich.