11/7/2012 7:46 AM
Posted by silentpadna on 11/7/2012 7:10:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bheid408 on 11/7/2012 6:26:00 AM (view original):
The downfall of America will not be caused by an inept President that has just been reelected but by the fools that voted for him! Get ready for the biggest hike in the cost of living, and the greatest depression ever that will follow.

For those of you who are in line with the current president's worldview, congratulations.

I hope bheid's post does not come to pass as I don't wish bad times on anyone.  I am nervous for the future, however, and I do think our electorate (as a whole) is economically illiterate.  While not everyone who believes differently qualifies, there are an amazing number of people who are completely clueless about how economics work.

I hope the economy recovers -  I do believe there is a growth cycle somewhere in our future, but if sequestration comes to pass, it could be a long, long way off.

All that said, I have never depended on who is in the White House to determine my or my family's success so we will move forward.

love the last line. feel the same way.
11/7/2012 8:01 AM
.....years of economic struggles, high unemployment, rising taxes and increasing debt.

Yay, America!!!
11/7/2012 8:08 AM
yeah... I predict he takes the debt from $16 trillion to $22 trillion..... and I'll be floored if he ever passes a budget. that's just irresponsible, and painful to watch as a fiscal conservative.

the good news is I'm heavily positioned in treasuries and bonds right now so at least my portfolio should do well.
11/7/2012 8:40 AM
Romney lost because he made stupid comments (see 47 percent) and didn't give more than lip service to the middle and lower classes of incomes, whose votes - much to his chagrin I'm sure - count just as much as a vote from a wealthy person. It's the one way in which those who aren't wealthy can stand on equal ground with those who are, and that is to vote down rich guys who favor policies for the wealthy.

The economic struggle is not Obama's fault, neither is high unemployment. Those things were there under Bush and were what helped him win so dominantly in 08. Change for the sake of change is NOT a smart policy, especially when that change says he has a plan but gives no information on how to implement it. When that change is a wealthy man without a clue, then it is a bad thing.

This comes from a guy (me) who was undecided until he took a good long look at how foolish Romney's stances were on key issues. This comes despite the fact that I lean more conservative, particularly on social and moral issues. I voted based on the economy (Obama actually is better for it in the long run), taxes (I don't want a wealthy man cutting taxes for the wealthy) and education (neither was great but Obama was better).

Obama was the clear less of two evils here, and I'm glad Romney wasn't able to buy the election the same way he bought his nomination. The people have spoken and they have said the wealthy and clueless are not the right choice.

11/7/2012 9:15 AM
Posted by bistiza on 11/7/2012 8:41:00 AM (view original):
Romney lost because he made stupid comments (see 47 percent) and didn't give more than lip service to the middle and lower classes of incomes, whose votes - much to his chagrin I'm sure - count just as much as a vote from a wealthy person. It's the one way in which those who aren't wealthy can stand on equal ground with those who are, and that is to vote down rich guys who favor policies for the wealthy.

The economic struggle is not Obama's fault, neither is high unemployment. Those things were there under Bush and were what helped him win so dominantly in 08. Change for the sake of change is NOT a smart policy, especially when that change says he has a plan but gives no information on how to implement it. When that change is a wealthy man without a clue, then it is a bad thing.

This comes from a guy (me) who was undecided until he took a good long look at how foolish Romney's stances were on key issues. This comes despite the fact that I lean more conservative, particularly on social and moral issues. I voted based on the economy (Obama actually is better for it in the long run), taxes (I don't want a wealthy man cutting taxes for the wealthy) and education (neither was great but Obama was better).

Obama was the clear less of two evils here, and I'm glad Romney wasn't able to buy the election the same way he bought his nomination. The people have spoken and they have said the wealthy and clueless are not the right choice.

romney wanted to maintain the federal income tax rate at 35% for people making over 250,000 dollars. that 35%, i can assure you, is substantially higher than you are paying, but cnn will never tell you that. obama will make that 39.6%, which is an additional 4.6% higher than you will ever come close to paying.

as a mexican national, it amazes me how little americans know about their own politics. but, i suppose it won't matter down the line. you see, we'll be third world countries together, and the world will follow russian, indian, chinese, and brazilian politics just as they once watched you drive your empire into the ground.
11/7/2012 9:23 AM
"and I'm glad Romney wasn't able to buy the election the same way he bought his nomination"

Obama raised over $243m more than Romney in campaign finances for this election, and spent more than $204m more than Romney on this election.

http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/candidates.html

So I might be a little careful about what I say about "buying" an election.
11/7/2012 9:36 AM
I think that ignores super PAC money.
11/7/2012 9:44 AM
I'm just glad that there is one, maybe two more days of this partisan Yank bullshit before we get back to what's important; discussing hockey and the return of Full Tilt poker.
11/7/2012 9:56 AM
And the stock market opens up in the red this morning.

We're off to a roaring start.
11/7/2012 10:14 AM
Posted by sinverguenza on 11/7/2012 9:15:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bistiza on 11/7/2012 8:41:00 AM (view original):
Romney lost because he made stupid comments (see 47 percent) and didn't give more than lip service to the middle and lower classes of incomes, whose votes - much to his chagrin I'm sure - count just as much as a vote from a wealthy person. It's the one way in which those who aren't wealthy can stand on equal ground with those who are, and that is to vote down rich guys who favor policies for the wealthy.

The economic struggle is not Obama's fault, neither is high unemployment. Those things were there under Bush and were what helped him win so dominantly in 08. Change for the sake of change is NOT a smart policy, especially when that change says he has a plan but gives no information on how to implement it. When that change is a wealthy man without a clue, then it is a bad thing.

This comes from a guy (me) who was undecided until he took a good long look at how foolish Romney's stances were on key issues. This comes despite the fact that I lean more conservative, particularly on social and moral issues. I voted based on the economy (Obama actually is better for it in the long run), taxes (I don't want a wealthy man cutting taxes for the wealthy) and education (neither was great but Obama was better).

Obama was the clear less of two evils here, and I'm glad Romney wasn't able to buy the election the same way he bought his nomination. The people have spoken and they have said the wealthy and clueless are not the right choice.

romney wanted to maintain the federal income tax rate at 35% for people making over 250,000 dollars. that 35%, i can assure you, is substantially higher than you are paying, but cnn will never tell you that. obama will make that 39.6%, which is an additional 4.6% higher than you will ever come close to paying.

as a mexican national, it amazes me how little americans know about their own politics. but, i suppose it won't matter down the line. you see, we'll be third world countries together, and the world will follow russian, indian, chinese, and brazilian politics just as they once watched you drive your empire into the ground.
No one actually pays 35%.   Do you pay taxes in the USA?   It isn't very hard to get your tax rate down 10-15%.   

To pay the full tax rate you more or less need to be a renter, without kids and an idiot.
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
11/7/2012 10:29 AM
Posted by bistiza on 11/7/2012 8:41:00 AM (view original):
Romney lost because he made stupid comments (see 47 percent) and didn't give more than lip service to the middle and lower classes of incomes, whose votes - much to his chagrin I'm sure - count just as much as a vote from a wealthy person. It's the one way in which those who aren't wealthy can stand on equal ground with those who are, and that is to vote down rich guys who favor policies for the wealthy.

The economic struggle is not Obama's fault, neither is high unemployment. Those things were there under Bush and were what helped him win so dominantly in 08. Change for the sake of change is NOT a smart policy, especially when that change says he has a plan but gives no information on how to implement it. When that change is a wealthy man without a clue, then it is a bad thing.

This comes from a guy (me) who was undecided until he took a good long look at how foolish Romney's stances were on key issues. This comes despite the fact that I lean more conservative, particularly on social and moral issues. I voted based on the economy (Obama actually is better for it in the long run), taxes (I don't want a wealthy man cutting taxes for the wealthy) and education (neither was great but Obama was better).

Obama was the clear less of two evils here, and I'm glad Romney wasn't able to buy the election the same way he bought his nomination. The people have spoken and they have said the wealthy and clueless are not the right choice.

Regarding economics in my earlier post - example A above....

The high unemployment is a result of a lack of job creation.  Jobs are created by business.  When your policies are against business, the natural result is fewer jobs.  Can government create jobs?  Yes, but they have to spend money they take from job creators to do it.  Did the stimulus create a net jobs increase?  Debateable at best.  The best thing for government to do is NOTHING. 

You want more jobs?  Get out of business's way and stop punishing them for creating weatlh (and by extension creating jobs).  It's weatlh creation, driven by risk that grows the economy and creates jobs.  Class warfare (as you demonstrate above hasn't created a single job.  We reelected a man who's run NOTHING expecting him to do better at creating jobs than someone who has done exactly that for years and knows how business works.  Yes, the unemployment rate is Obama's fault (as he said it would be back when the "stimulus" was passed).  The crash had its roots as far back as the 70's and doesn't rest solely on Bush.

If people agree with Obama about killing unborn humans and letting gays get married and gun control and government provided heatlhcare and etitlements and all that stuff, fine - vote for him based on that.  But voting for him because he supposedly "speaks for the middle class and lower class" shows how little people understand the engine.

The "rich guys" you allude to above provide the capital (and the risk!!).  They also provide the most in charity.  They are not evil for being wealthy.  And we better hope they take their risks here as opposed to going to places freindlier to business.  As an example of how the current policies stand against job creation, I know several owners who are limiting the size of their entities specifically because of the crushing weight of the "(Un)Affordable Care Act".  Once he passes a threshold of a certain number of people, his costs skyrocket (along with associated reward relative to his capital risk).  So instead of creating more weatlh for himself, which would in turn create more jobs, he'll stand fast until the reward is commensurate with the risk for the next marginal dollars.

If you believe the one who promised that "if you make less than $250,000 per year, your taxes will go up one dime" and has broken that promise in a big way, you get what you deserve.
11/7/2012 10:32 AM
um, how have my taxes gone up?  You know, because they haven't.
11/7/2012 10:35 AM
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
of 12

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.