# Obama re-elected!!!!



## GuitaristOfHell (Nov 6, 2012)

I am a VERY HAPPY MAN.


----------



## iliketofish (Nov 6, 2012)

Both candidates suck...


----------



## SpaceDock (Nov 6, 2012)

Woot, I am hoping 64 passes here as well.


----------



## Spaceman_Spiff (Nov 6, 2012)

Me too. Just got news he won Ohio. Fuck yes.


----------



## Sephiroth952 (Nov 6, 2012)

Meh not really surprised.

Personally I don't like either candidates, but on the other hand ide take Obama over Romney any day of the week.


----------



## gunshow86de (Nov 6, 2012)

I am stunned by the results of the popular vote so far. I wonder what percentage of those votes are "not-Obama" votes, and how many people genuinely wanted Romney. I was expecting lower 40's% for Romney.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Nov 6, 2012)

FUCK YES. The future of the World now looks even brighter than half an hour ago!


----------



## Spaceman_Spiff (Nov 6, 2012)

^ Well America at least. 

I don't care if you (not anyone specifically) don't like Obama, you have to at least acknowledge that Romney is a twat.


----------



## splinter8451 (Nov 6, 2012)

I am so happy.

Now we can continue to not look like HUGE assholes to the rest of the world for 4 more years.


----------



## ScottyB724 (Nov 6, 2012)

Don't sleep on Barry O.


----------



## morrowcosom (Nov 6, 2012)

Yeah, we are pretty much fucked.


----------



## Spaceman_Spiff (Nov 6, 2012)

^ From Kentucky...not surprised.


----------



## poopyalligator (Nov 6, 2012)

Yay!! I am so happy. There are going to be a lot of old white dudes crying on their rocking chairs tonight.


----------



## Stuck_in_a_dream (Nov 6, 2012)

AWESOME!!!!!! Way to go O.


----------



## Fiction (Nov 6, 2012)

splinter8451 said:


> Now we can continue to not look like HUGE assholes to the rest of the world for 4 more years.



Good luck with that


----------



## Compton (Nov 6, 2012)

I'm just glad Romney didn't win. And congrats Colorado!


----------



## Necris (Nov 6, 2012)

I fucking love being wrong.


----------



## Volteau (Nov 6, 2012)

Compton said:


> I'm just glad Romney didn't win.



This +1.



Spaceman_Spiff said:


> ^ From Kentucky...not surprised.



This made me lol pretty hard. And yeah, this is pretty fucking awesome!


----------



## Spaceman_Spiff (Nov 6, 2012)

Fiction said:


> Good luck with that



Not huge assholes...just really big ones...


----------



## Demiurge (Nov 6, 2012)

Watching NBC, the Romney camp is insisting that they still might take Ohio, so they are not conceding.

EDIT: seems like Obama has NV and CO in the bag, so even if Ohio goes the other way, he's got the votes.


----------



## splinter8451 (Nov 6, 2012)

Fiction said:


> Good luck with that



 well you gotta notice I said HUGE assholes. Most people seem to approve of Obama around the world. Definitely more so than Romney.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Nov 6, 2012)

Trust me, over here in Europe, even amongst more the more conservative, Obama is very popular.


----------



## capoeiraesp (Nov 6, 2012)

splinter8451 said:


> I am so happy.
> 
> Now we can continue to not look like HUGE assholes to the rest of the world for 4 more years.



I dunno man. You guys looked a hell of a lot worse when George Bush Jr. was calling the shots for 8 years. 

"Nuke-u-ler. It's pronounced nuke-u-ler."


----------



## Fiction (Nov 6, 2012)

splinter8451 said:


> well you gotta notice I said HUGE assholes. Most people seem to approve of Obama around the world. Definitely more so than Romney.



 indeed, you should see how happy all the Australian teeny-boppers are!


----------



## iRaiseTheDead (Nov 6, 2012)

Fair enough.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Nov 6, 2012)

Scar Symmetry said:


> Trust me, over here in Europe, even amongst more the more conservative, Obama is very popular.



That's because Obama's actually about as liberal as Nixon


----------



## splinter8451 (Nov 6, 2012)

capoeiraesp said:


> I dunno man. You guys looked a hell of a lot worse when George Bush Jr. was calling the shots for 8 years.
> 
> "Nuke-u-ler. It's pronounced nuke-u-ler."



Yeah I know don't remind me


----------



## Volteau (Nov 6, 2012)

And now Colorado has legalized Marijuana. Awesome.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Nov 6, 2012)

TemjinStrife said:


> That's because Obama's actually about as liberal as Nixon



That's a whole other kettle of fish that I think it would be a shame to get into right now. I'm just really really fuckin' pumped right now... wide awake drinking at 5am


----------



## iRaiseTheDead (Nov 7, 2012)

To the dumbass who neg-repped me, I live in America too xD
Do people really take it THAT seriously?


----------



## Waelstrum (Nov 7, 2012)

Oh, good. I'm broadly in favour.


----------



## Fiction (Nov 7, 2012)

iRaiseTheDead said:


> To the dumbass who neg-repped me, I live in America too xD
> Do people really take it THAT seriously?




Dude, Obama negged you, it's his country.

But really, what did you expect?


----------



## iRaiseTheDead (Nov 7, 2012)

All I'm saying is that everyone is like "please vote Obama so we don't have to deal with romney!!!" then after this whole war-of-an-election, those SAME PEOPLE said "why the fuck did Obama have to win?!?!"
people are so bipolar -.-


----------



## Don Vito (Nov 7, 2012)

Wish Romney won. Not that I like him, but I live in the bible belt.

I have to listen to people bitch and moan about this for a while. It's already begun within my own family.

Happy Colorado is making progress with something.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Nov 7, 2012)

Don't count me in that group. I'm elated.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 7, 2012)

Yeah I have an Aunt who seems to think he cheated. That'd be really hard to do. 

I'm personally relieved....


----------



## SpaceDock (Nov 7, 2012)

Volteau said:


> And now Colorado has legalized Marijuana. Awesome.



Aw hell yeah! 30 days and you can smoke up legally, this is just too good. Best day ever!


----------



## cyb (Nov 7, 2012)

kennedyblake said:


> Wish Romney won. Not that I like him, but I live in the bible belt.
> 
> I have to listen to people bitch and moan about this for a while. It's already begun within my own family.
> 
> Happy Colorado is making progress with something.



I feel your pain. I live in Oklahoma, which if i'm not mistaken had the smallest percentage of Obama votes out of all of the states. I should call in sick tomorrow.  (I work with several FAR RIGHT people...)

don't get me wrong: I'm not crazy about Barry myself, but we'd really be up the creek if mittens won...


----------



## Don Vito (Nov 7, 2012)

cyb said:


> don't get me wrong: I'm not crazy about Barry myself, but we'd really be up the creek if mittens won...




My post really wasn't mean't to be that serious and selfish. I'm just grumpy as Satan on Christmas right now.


----------



## Metalhead77479 (Nov 7, 2012)

Today has been such a great day. Four more years of BroBama and amendment 64 passed in Colorado and Washington! I can't wait to hear all the bitching and moaning about Mitts and his magical underwear losing tomorrow when I go into work. I should bring a huge bag full of bandages for all the butthurt I'll be in contact with. BTW Im from Texas. Red hot Texas.


----------



## Aevolve (Nov 7, 2012)

Just happy that Romney didn't win. Social networking sites are currently a hotbed of buttpain.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Nov 7, 2012)

Metalhead77479 said:


> Today has been such a great day. Four more years of BroBama and amendment 64 passed in Colorado and Washington! I can't wait to hear all the bitching and moaning about Mitts and his magical underwear losing tomorrow when I go into work. I should bring a huge bag full of bandages for all the butthurt I'll be in contact with. BTW Im from Texas. Red hot Texas.



I'm from *RED* hot Louisiana, and I approve this message.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Nov 7, 2012)

Also, Trumpy Boy seems pretty excited... I think.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 7, 2012)

he won the majority too so how is this a sham or travesty.

Oh Trumpy poo needs to be hugged


----------



## Aevolve (Nov 7, 2012)

I've seen his tweets before. They have about as much rational thought as an episode of The View.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Nov 7, 2012)

flint757 said:


> he won the majority too so how is this a sham or travesty.
> 
> Oh Trumpy poo needs to be hugged



I just saw that. Beat Romney my .3%


----------



## Don Vito (Nov 7, 2012)

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> Also, Trumpy Boy seems pretty excited... I think.








2000th post!


----------



## flint757 (Nov 7, 2012)

It will be interesting with a Democratic president/Senate majority and a Republican majority house. I have a feeling there will be more butting of heads all over again for little to know reason.

What Trump suggests is the real travesty and quite anti-american. Our government should not be blackmailing the other branches, they should be cooperating and looking forward (constantly repealing things or suggesting that is getting old too).


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Nov 7, 2012)

I find it hilarious how he claims the world is laughing at us... I'm pretty damn sure we'd be a laughing stock with Mittens onboard. 

EDIT:

Did Mitt Romney Win?


----------



## Randyrhoads123 (Nov 7, 2012)

Aw yeah.

edit: oh facebook friends, you so silly.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Nov 7, 2012)

flint757 said:


> It will be interesting with a Democratic president/Senate majority and a Republican majority house. I have a feeling there will be more butting of heads all over again for little to know reason.
> 
> What Trump suggests is the real travesty and quite anti-american. Our government should not be blackmailing the other branches, they should be cooperating and looking forward (constantly repealing things or suggesting that is getting old too).



Keep in mind, we've had a Democratic President, Democratic majority in the Senate, and Republican majority in the House for the past four years.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Nov 7, 2012)

Okay, one more thing to rub it in. 



Patton Oswalt said:


> Obama, re-elected. The three rape apologists, defeated. Marijuana legal -- flat-out fucking legal -- in 3 states. Gay marriage legal in 3 more states. We're moving forward. You still have a lot of great ideas, conservatives. But you've got to cut away a lot of the barnacles. There's still plenty of room for you guys. Just not the dickscrapes.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 7, 2012)

TemjinStrife said:


> Keep in mind, we've had a Democratic President, Democratic majority in the Senate, and Republican majority in the House for the past four years.



Exactly and look how fucking difficult it has been. 

I was hoping for a sweep.


----------



## tacotiklah (Nov 7, 2012)

My understanding of what was legalized so far...

Marijuana was legalized in:
-Colorado
-Washington

Gay Marriage was legalized in:
-Maine
-Maryland

Combined with Obama's re-election, I'm so stoked right now...


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Nov 7, 2012)

I'm seeing a bunch of guys saying they're moving to Canada...

Oh, the hilarity.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 7, 2012)

If only they were aware of how illogical that is.


----------



## poopyalligator (Nov 7, 2012)

So on my facebook I am seeing a whole bunch of ignorant comments and posts. The odd thing is that it seems to be coming from the people who wear uniforms. They have no problem acting smug as shit saying that they fight and give their lives so we have the right to vote, but they get super pissed off when you vote for somebody they don't agree with.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Nov 7, 2012)

Okay, I promise, this is my last one...


----------



## Waelstrum (Nov 7, 2012)

^Yes.


----------



## petereanima (Nov 7, 2012)

In the name of the rest of the world, I want to thank you all.


----------



## BucketheadRules (Nov 7, 2012)

Obama won - good.

Romney didn't win - even better.


----------



## frogunrua (Nov 7, 2012)

Spaceman_Spiff said:


> ^ From Kentucky...not surprised.



Woah, I voted straight Democrat today.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Nov 7, 2012)

I hope he uses the next four years to really get stuck in and do what needs to be done. He doesn't have to worry about re-election, just putting plans into motion and getting as much done as possible. I mean, already he has accomplished a lot however much people might say otherwise, but America has a lot of growing up to do still and Obama has the chance of really speeding that along.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 7, 2012)

Yeah I'm hoping he plays a little more hardball this term. He definitely has nothing to lose.


----------



## stratjacket (Nov 7, 2012)

TemjinStrife said:


> Keep in mind, we've had a Democratic President, Democratic majority in the Senate, and Republican majority in the House for the past four years.



Actually Democrats controlled House and Senate from 2006-2010, since the slide began in 2006. We had Democrats in control of everything, the White House, Senate and House for 2 years, 2008-1010. They had so much of a majority, they could pass anything without a single Republican vote. And they passed whatever they wanted passed. But never even passed a budget.

Only the last 2 years have we had Republicans in charge of the House. 

I'm not taking up for Republicans, just stating. I'm fed up with all of them and the dumbed down people. We live in Idiocracy, the movie has come true.


----------



## PeteyG (Nov 7, 2012)

I'm just happy for the LGBT citizens and the Women of America, they deserve a leader who at least acknowledges them as citizens worthy of as many rights as everyone else.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 7, 2012)

I think the super majority was only in Senate not House, but I could be wrong. In any case if I recall the idea was that they wanted more than just one party to come to an agreement on the budget. Logic would dictate that this was true otherwise they would have indeed passed one (House wasn't a super majority though so it would had to have been a somewhat unified agreement in the house). Despite not passing a budget they did accomplish other things even though no one seems to care. 

In any case the House has indeed intentionally blocked bills. That to me is fucked up, "Give me what I want or else", this is why I am concerned about the current setup. Until the tea party stops infecting the republican party bi-partisan agreement will probably never occur again on the divisive issues.


----------



## BlindingLight7 (Nov 7, 2012)




----------



## Waelstrum (Nov 7, 2012)

Was it not that the Dems had a simple majority, but the Republicans kept filibustering everything (which requires a 60% vote to over rule)?


----------



## stratjacket (Nov 7, 2012)

Ironic to say the House blocks bills when that is where they originate from. Senate actually blocks or just ignores the bills the House sends over, then turns around and blames the House for only saying no.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 7, 2012)

Waelstrum said:


> Was it not that the Dems had a simple majority, but the Republicans kept filibustering everything (which requires a 60% vote to over rule)?



Actually I think so, but finding info is not particularly easy. A simple google search does not immediately pull up the info. What I did find seems to imply that they only had a filibuster proof majority for 4 months and only in the senate. After that it was only a simple majority.

This is all I find with my minimal effort :

Numbers give Democrats edge in 2008 Senate races - CNN

Both Houses actually create bills that is why you have a House version and a Senate version and block is appropriate if one party creates a bill and then when they vote on it the other party refuses to comply. Both houses bring bills to a vote.


----------



## stratjacket (Nov 7, 2012)

Waelstrum said:


> Was it not that the Dems had a simple majority, but the Republicans kept filibustering everything (which requires a 60% vote to over rule)?



Reps did not have enough for a filibuster until Mass voted in Scott Brown in a especial election to fill Tedd Kennedy's seat. Once there was enough for a filibuster, to get around it, they used a simple majority vote.


----------



## stratjacket (Nov 7, 2012)

Yeah, let me clarify one comment I said. Both the House and the Senate can originate bills. But budget or any bill dealing with money must originate in the House. I was talking about the budget which is why I said that.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 7, 2012)

Okay, makes more sense now.


----------



## stratjacket (Nov 7, 2012)

Well singing off. It was a good night for Obama. The next 2 years should be interesting since the setup is exactly like the last 2 (house, senate, president) and everything scheduled to collapse on Jan 1 if nothing is done. I just have my doubts about all of them.

Hey December 21 the Mayans says everything is ending anyway, haha.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Nov 7, 2012)

I don't want to sound like an ass...

But were's Trenchlord?


----------



## Volteau (Nov 7, 2012)

It's funny how much a lot Republicans whined about it not being fair that Obama won through electoral colleges and that what should count is the popular vote (bearing in mind that Bush won over Gore in the 2000 elections due to an Electoral College victory, not a popular vote victory, but whatever), and now Obama has been dominating in the PV as well with an almost 2 million vote gap. All of a sudden, silence...


----------



## flint757 (Nov 7, 2012)

Volteau said:


> It's funny how much a lot Republicans whined about it not being fair that Obama won through electoral colleges and that what should count is the popular vote (bearing in mind that Bush won over Gore in the 2000 elections due to an Electoral College victory, not a popular vote victory, but whatever), and now Obama has been dominating in the PV too with an almost 2 million point gap.



That's why people shouldn't say ridiculous things until they are final that way they can't be made a fool. I was of two sides on the Popular Vote. I wanted him to win the popular vote so that no one could say the public doesn't support him, but I also wanted him to lose on Popular Vote and win the electoral so the Republicans would want to get rid of it. It is so pointless and makes my vote pointless for certain elections.



HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> I don't want to sound like an ass...
> 
> But were's Trenchlord?



I was thinking the same thing especially since he adamantly stated how it was in the bag for Romney.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Nov 7, 2012)

flint757 said:


> I was thinking the same thing especially since he adamantly stated how it was in the bag for Romney.



I noticed he hasn't said much ever since the VP debate... Only said 2 - 3 things in the passed month.


----------



## Waelstrum (Nov 7, 2012)

He's probably getting sick of being the only one on this forum that far right wing. Although I disagree with him politically, he does get piled on a bit excessively. It might be getting to him...


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Nov 7, 2012)

Waelstrum said:


> He's probably getting sick of being the only one on this forum that far right wing. Although I disagree with him politically, he does get piled on a bit excessively. It might be getting to him...



Well, that's a good point. Now I feel bad. 

Although I do remember him insulting some people. Although there was pretty much mudslinging on both sides.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Nov 7, 2012)

I love trenchlord


----------



## hairychris (Nov 7, 2012)

So the less bad side won. Hooray.

As an outsider, can I ask the 'Merkiners here one thing:

Why the fuck is one of your major parties and a number of it's high profile supporters completely window-licking insane?


----------



## Sang-Drax (Nov 7, 2012)

Thank you for all of you who voted for Obama. Romney as president would be detrimental for the whole world.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Nov 7, 2012)

Sang-Drax said:


> Thank you for all of you who voted for Obama. Romney as president would be detrimental for the whole world.


----------



## axxessdenied (Nov 7, 2012)

This election was such bullshit, honestly. Two mediocre candidates. Once again, america is happy with the "lesser of two evils". 
How many BILLIONS of dollars were wasted on this election? Unemployment is still up since Obama took over four years ago. The econonmy is still really shakey. Will much change? We will see. But, doubtful. The puppeteers are still the same people pulling the strings no matter what the outcome would have been.


----------



## gunshow86de (Nov 7, 2012)

axxessdenied said:


> Unemployment is still up since Obama took over four years ago.



I just wanted to point out that it's under 8% for the first time since he took office.


----------



## axxessdenied (Nov 7, 2012)

gunshow86de said:


> I just wanted to point out that it's under 8% for the first time since he took office.



And, it went up from 7.8% to 7.9% in September


----------



## theperfectcell6 (Nov 7, 2012)

Obama! What a relief.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Nov 7, 2012)

Unemployment rate rises slightly, 171,000 new jobs added in October (Video) - Mesa unemployment benefits | Examiner.com



> The national unemployment rate ticked up slightly, rising from last September's 7.8 percent to 7.9 percent. The number of unemployed Americans stands at 12.3 million. The slight one tenth of a percent rise was due partly to more Americans rejoining the ranks of those unemployed workers who are seeking employment. When unemployed workers drop out of the labor force and are not actively seeking work, they are no longer counted as unemployed. Job seekers are counted as unemployed if they do not have a job, have looked for work in the four weeks prior, and are currently available to work. Once the economy and thus the job market begin to improve, some of those job seekers start to actively seek employment again. This, in turn, affects the overall unemployment rate.



TL;DR: People who previously weren't looking for jobs before are looking for jobs now, thus, adding to the tenth of a percent.


----------



## m3l-mrq3z (Nov 7, 2012)

How many of the SSO members are from the South


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Nov 7, 2012)

m3l-mrq3z said:


> How many of the SSO members are from the South


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Nov 7, 2012)

axxessdenied said:


> How many BILLIONS of dollars were wasted on this election?


 
Bronco and Rombley raised about $1.4B total as of September. It's alot, yeah, but no worse than the money many large companies put into advertising every year. In 2011, Loreal spent $1.34B advertising _makeup_, GM spent $1.78B, and AT&T and Verizon spent $3.5B.

Source: 8 Election Myths You Probably Believe | Cracked.com

Yeah yeah, Cracked, I know. They provide more links.


----------



## AxeHappy (Nov 7, 2012)

This certainly made my morning. 

Thank you America. When you're dealing with running a country, the lesser of two evils is a really important thing.


----------



## axxessdenied (Nov 7, 2012)

theperfectcell6 said:


> Obama! What a relief.



I'm pretty shocked as to how close it actually was...


----------



## Blake1970 (Nov 7, 2012)

Yes!!! It's going to be a good day today!


----------



## m3l-mrq3z (Nov 7, 2012)

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


>



I know, I know.


----------



## hairychris (Nov 7, 2012)

AxeHappy said:


> Thank you America. When you're dealing with a country with that amount of financial clout and weaponry that it insists on using, the lesser of two evils is a really important thing.



Fixed... 

EDIT: To clarify, no, I don't "hate America" or anything stupid like that. However if USA didn't project itself internationally the way it does the rest of us wouldn't say anything. You can't shout "USA is #1" and not expect other people to call you on it.


----------



## Nile (Nov 7, 2012)

I honestly won't give a shit if Obama doesn't exactly do much, because if Romney got it we would be progressing backwards.


----------



## Blake1970 (Nov 7, 2012)

m3l-mrq3z said:


> How many of the SSO members are from the South



 I'm from Texas and am proud to say I voted for Obama. We are here even though it's a red state.


----------



## Syrinx (Nov 7, 2012)

flint757 said:


> It will be interesting with a Democratic president/Senate majority and a Republican majority house. I have a feeling there will be more butting of heads all over again for little to know reason.


It's going to be another 4 years of filibustering


----------



## wespaul (Nov 7, 2012)

I'm about to go to work...I'm pretty sure I'm going to want to blow my brains out by mid-afternoon from hearing all the college students rejoicing over Obama winning, and hearing all the faculty bitch about Obamacare, Muslims, and unemployment. I really hate Oklahoma sometimes.


----------



## engage757 (Nov 7, 2012)




----------



## engage757 (Nov 7, 2012)




----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Nov 7, 2012)

Haha awesome


----------



## Guitarwizard (Nov 7, 2012)

Pheww, that was close, fellow Americanos! 

Must say I favoured that green lady, though.


----------



## GuitaristOfHell (Nov 7, 2012)

303-206. Glad California was 55 electoral votes.


----------



## Blake1970 (Nov 7, 2012)

^
Thanks California!


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Nov 7, 2012)

GuitaristOfHell said:


> 303-206. Glad California was 55 electoral votes.




I don't know why they're not including Florida, since Obama did have more votes, but it would be 332 to 203


----------



## GuitaristOfHell (Nov 7, 2012)

Adam Of Angels said:


> I don't know why they're not including Florida, since Obama did have more votes, but it would be 332 to 203


Faulty machines I believe.


----------



## tacotiklah (Nov 7, 2012)

GuitaristOfHell said:


> 303-206. Glad California was 55 electoral votes.



We do what we can. 
California is historically a blue state anyways, so this was no real shock to me. The shock to me is how RED my local area is. The amount of butthurt here can only be healed by a whole Preparation H factory. 
Thankfully the majority of people I have on fb are counter-culture types, so my feed isn't too clogged with rants and pseudo-intellectuals. Nothing worse than trying to get a civics lesson from a dumbass hick that didn't even start high school.


----------



## MikeH (Nov 7, 2012)

Chances are that if you supported Romney, you're at least two of the following:
-white
-upper-middle to upper class
-male

Regardless of who won, you'll be fine.


OT: Fuck yeah, Obama!


----------



## synrgy (Nov 7, 2012)

There were definitely several Chicken Littles on my FB feed this morning.

I don't mean to be flippant. I acknowledge and sympathize that just under half the country is very upset today. I'm just saying that no matter which way this thing shook out, the World was not going to end. You should see some of the hyperbolic nonsense I'm seeing.



> That loud whooshing sound you hear is the sound of investment capital and job creating wealth being sucked out of the USA. That echoing thud is the sound of the bottom dropping out of the U.S. Dollar.


----------



## Treeunit212 (Nov 7, 2012)

Where's Trench?


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Nov 7, 2012)

A good one from my Facebook feed:



> If you voted for that egotistical lying piece of trash Obama you need to look in the mirror and realize what you have done to American families. You reelected a lying manipulative egomaniac who doesn't give a damn about our country. I'm scared for the future of our country. If we're still around in 4 years wise the fuck up.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 7, 2012)

Waelstrum said:


> He's probably getting sick of being the only one on this forum that far right wing. Although I disagree with him politically, he does get piled on a bit excessively. It might be getting to him...



No there are quite a few people on the forum who agree with him, but he is one of the few who would actually say so.

If he'd stop posting fox items as factual news I don't think he'd have gotten so much shit. Irrelevantly I always tried my best to not be an ass and have actual discussions with the dude. I try and leave the confirmation bias at the door.


----------



## ForThisGift (Nov 7, 2012)

All quotes related to the downfall of society as we know due to the re-election of Obama should be catalogued and revisited in four years when the military still exists, we are not part of a new world order and the economy is at its strongest since 2008. 

I see more baseless, irresponsible fear mongering in regards to Obama than I ever have with any other political figure. If people are going to throw around such asinine comments they should be reminded of them when they are wrong.


----------



## Blake1970 (Nov 7, 2012)

Adam Of Angels said:


> A good one from my Facebook feed:



Ha! my friend said something to the effect that since I voted for Obama I was not patriotic. I had to remind him that I served in the United States Navy. He will be mad for four more years.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 7, 2012)

Having the right to vote and using it is about as far as patriotism can be involved in this situation. Just because people disagree does not make someone an anti-american. Different visions and different goals. However, the ludicrous statements on my side of the tracks has been all from the Romney camp and nada from the Obama supporters (even before the win). So who is acting more like children?


----------



## Nonservium (Nov 7, 2012)

I've spent a good portion of today reading conservative web-sites and media. It is absolutely mind blowing to me that instead of owning up to the marginalization their moral absolutism causes they think they need to double down and become more conservative....


----------



## engage757 (Nov 7, 2012)

Some from my facebook feed:

"Research communist party and the planks(goals) and maybe that will shine some light on the situation. We now have for a second term a president who supports infanticide (born alive infant act). It's astounding alright!"

"bottom line these are the end days"

"Now let us notice that Satan is "an angel of light" . The world system that prepares for the Antichrist will be characterized by deception and dissimulation. It will appeal to the masses because it will be godless and Christless. It will be what is called "humanitarianism'."

"People, stop being so negative and forget the PRESIDENTIAL election! We have Halo 4 now and two states have legalized weed, hopefully more soon, everything is all right with the world..." <Personal Fav. 
*
*"Well I thought Americans were smarter than this, but I guess not. I pray for the future of Our Great Country and Our Military. Obama, yo ..."

"Obama you still suck and you better not make any back door deals with Russia or China!!!!"


----------



## Nonservium (Nov 7, 2012)

One of my favorites from the last 24 hours lol


----------



## Jake (Nov 7, 2012)

I've seen some ridiculous statements from both sides the past few days. People saying the world is ending and shit, just a lot of overreaction. Honestly I voted Romney because I agree with alot of his policies but I dont have a burning hate for Obama and hopefully these next 4 years are productive and everything works out. I figured the election would turn out the way it did. Best of luck to Obama on 4 more years.


----------



## Xaios (Nov 7, 2012)

Good job, America.


----------



## Razzy (Nov 7, 2012)

717ctsjz said:


> I've seen some ridiculous statements from both sides the past few days. People saying the world is ending and shit, just a lot of overreaction. Honestly I voted Romney because I agree with alot of his policies but I dont have a burning hate for Obama and hopefully these next 4 years are productive and everything works out. I figured the election would turn out the way it did. Best of luck to Obama on 4 more years.



Just out of curiosity, what policies of his do you agree with?


----------



## Jake (Nov 7, 2012)

Razzy said:


> Just out of curiosity, what policies of his do you agree with?


I agree alot with his energy policy regarding energy independence and I also believe he would be the person we need to get the deficit down, however I did not believe that he would be able to fix it himself but that he would at least be able to get things back on track for 2016. I also disagreed with a lot of things Mitt has done in the past or said as well but I still favored him over Obama. I dont want to start a firestorm over what my opinions are and what I believe so i will just leave it at this.


----------



## beutifuldeath (Nov 7, 2012)

The financial crisis is coming no matter who is president. This started long before them and it will only end (if at all) long after they are gone.


----------



## tacotiklah (Nov 7, 2012)

Nonservium said:


> I've spent a good portion of today reading conservative web-sites and media. It is absolutely mind blowing to me that instead of owning up to the marginalization their moral absolutism causes they think they need to double down and become more conservative....



Proof that people never learn from their mistakes. "People, even moderates, cannot tolerate our party anymore because it is too extreme. The only way to fix this is to be SOOOOO extreme that they can't help but love us."


----------



## Jake (Nov 7, 2012)

beutifuldeath said:


> The financial crisis is coming no matter who is president. This started long before them and it will only end (if at all) long after they are gone.


Pretty much this


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Nov 7, 2012)

BLABBERMOUTH.NET - TED NUGENT Says OBAMA Supporters Voted For 'Economic And Spiritual Suicide'
BLABBERMOUTH.NET - GWAR Frontman On OBAMA's Re-Election Victory: 'White People Everywhere Are Very Scared'


----------



## synrgy (Nov 7, 2012)

So of course, the market dropped today. Historically, that's what it does after an election. It also usually happens to rise just before the election, just like it did this year. Not to mention, it's all time peak was around 14k, and it closed just under 13k today, so no matter how one slices it, it's business as usual, move along people, nothing to see here, etc, right?


Right?



....Bueller?



God damn it. 

I was starting to compile links to the quotes and articles that are exasperating me, and then I figured screw it; you all know. You're reading/seeing the same crap I am.

Just, do me this favor: Go look at the DJI, and adjust the graph to get the historical context. You know what? I'll even do the work for you.

To illustrate why people are freaking out today, we begin by viewing the DJI over the last 5 days:







It's looking pretty grim, right? Fair enough. But, let's pull back, and look at the last month:





Oh, shit, Son! We're fucked! 



Just kidding, of course. Let's keep pulling back. Here's the last 3 months:





"Dude, you're not helping!" 



Just stay with me, here, all right?  Here's the last 6 months:





See that? This is arguably no worse than it was 6 months ago, and it was _worse than that_ in June, which we obviously recovered from pretty quickly. However, we still don't have the full picture...


Let's jump up a bit to cover the last 5 years. This is _important_, because it includes the crash of 2008:





See what that brings into view? The peaks on the left side are just before the collapse of 2008. Do you happen to notice where the line resides on the right side of the graph, representing now? 



Finally, let's pull back all the way out, to about 40 years:





This final, macro-view hammers home the small point I made in my first paragraph: The _all time peak_ was - relatively speaking - barely any lower than where we are right now, today. Please keep this in mind as you wade through all the hyperbolic nonsense out there. 



Full disclaimer: I am not (yet) an investor, a market watcher, an economist, or anything other than another music loving jerk with internet access. I'm just not buying that the sky is falling when we look at it in historical context. I'll welcome alternative perspectives, though, primarily because I'm the opposite of expert! 


All that said, if one is a day trader, I guess today was pretty rough. There's a moral to that story, too.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 7, 2012)

Your 5 year graph is wrong, it only spans a couple days unless I'm looking at that wrong.  Nonetheless I knew what you're getting at....

Yeah stocks always have peaks and valleys, but in the long run are always on an incline even if ever so slightly. I do think it will begin to level out though especially since the internet hype has begun to die out this past decade.


----------



## synrgy (Nov 7, 2012)

flint757 said:


> Your 5 year graph is wrong



Oops! I'll fix that.


----------



## gunshow86de (Nov 7, 2012)

synrgy said:


> bunch of data from people with book learnin



Wrong! Obama's reelection angered god, so he made stock prices fall. That's the only explanation.


----------



## kmanick (Nov 7, 2012)

I mourn for our country today.
Not Because Obama won but because of how divided its become.
Elections are always a tough thing for me as being a registered independent, I am very liberal socially but very conservative Fiscally.
So who is someone like myself supposed to vote for?
Romney was a lame candidate, shit he needed the bible thumper Ryan as his running mate to even get the GOP to back him.
Getting Obama into office was hopefully going to kill some of the racial bias that exists in this county, but I think it's gotten much worse.
When people say you're a rascist when you don't agree politically with somesones ideals just because he happens to be 1/2 black that's as bad a saying I'm agreeing with him only because he is black.
It's lame and IMO inexcusable for anyone in the media to use those sorts of tactics.
Peolple like Sharpton should be ashamed of themselves rousing hate mongering to try to benefit his partys agenda. Trump and Karl Rove should just shut the fuck up for once.
Gee I wonder why the general population has such a bad taste in their 
mouth regarding the Republican party. some of the absurd statements coming out of these baffoons mouths (all the rape shit was beyond reprehenisible) is not helping, now is it.
Obama and Boehner and company better get off of their asses and start working together or this counry is going to be in even deeper shit before you know it.
I see Jerry Browns proposition to raise taxes on the wealthy has passed. Now lets see which of the Obama backing hollywood elite flees California
to avoid paying it.
Man oh man does this country ever need term limits and a viable 3rd party.
Well I've got my fingers crossed, I can't be celebrating because really Obama has done shit since he's been in office (regardless of who is too blame), if he wore the republican moniker and had performed as he has I really doubt Chris Mathews would be falling down and praying to him like he currently does.
Can you imagine if Romney had actually won last night , Mathews may have a fucking stroke on air LOL!
and the republican party has become a bad 1950's joke, so excuse me if I don't whoop and hollar and party it up because a so far ineffective president has just been granted another 4 year stay.
He's got to figure out how to get the GOP guys to actually work with him and the GOP guys have got to open their eyes and swallow the fact they, well you know what .................you're a little bit off target with your stead fast extreme right wing ideologies, or I fear we will be right where we are now in 2016 
I really worry about my kids future in this country.


----------



## Xaios (Nov 7, 2012)

I'll just leave this here. 

White People Mourning Romney


----------



## Jzbass25 (Nov 8, 2012)

I know a few bankers/investors that were like, "oh god obama was reelected the markets are gonna die! Better pull money from here and here and here..." As someone with an economics degree I just facepalm at this kind of idiocy. 

I'm pretty moderate (slightly left leaning I guess) but the current republican party seems to be so extreme and blind lately. I think if we really want to see change we should start with education, especially in teaching everyone MORE about economics so that we can actually agree on more policies, especially ones that are counter-intuitive and can be misconstrued easily. 

Sidenote: why do almost all the candidates feel it is smart for a "balanced budget" or are they just saying that as a buzzword for the stupid people?


----------



## Semichastny (Nov 8, 2012)

Jzbass25 said:


> I think if we really want to see change we should start with education, especially in teaching everyone MORE about economics



See now the danger here is people could start advocating for a different economic system then what we have now.


----------



## stratjacket (Nov 8, 2012)

On education, good point, I think it is where so many people are lost. Capitalism has been branded a bad word and the definition changed by so many.

I am also a socially liberal but financially conservative person. I keep things pretty simple, I believe any law passed is one less freedom I have and more govt control. I could give a rats as about gay marriage, or smoking pot and the abortion argument will never be settled because both sides have good points no one will budge on. I honestly didn't even know until a few years ago that gays could not get married, I mean what business is it of mine or the govt to control that. Crazy. But I also feel the same that the govt takes my money that I worked for at gunpoint(because the IRS will put me in jail) and gives to some one else. I'm not talking about people who need a hand, I mean for bullshit things like the study of blue berries affect on the honey bee population and shit like that.

I think in terms of a game like Monopoly or Call Of Duty. The maker sets the rules and we all have to play the game under those rules. That is the purpose of govt to me, set the laws, leave them alone and let us live. We don't need 10 million pages of laws to dictate everything we do, just a basic set. We're not that damn stupid. Things that are good ideas do not need to be laws, for example, seat belts. I always wear my seatbelt, even before it was a law because it's just smart. But why does there need to be a law? If someone is dumb enough to not wear it, get injured, that is their fault. But they should be free to make that decision on their own. Anyway, I could go on forever so I'll stop.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 8, 2012)

Ahhh, but a victim-less crime has a victim most of the time. if you don't wear your seat belt and end up in the hospital (without insurance that is) they still have to help you. Where does their loss go? On everybody else and insurance providers pick up part of the tab as well. And before you say they should turn you away, what if you have insurance, but you enter the hospital as a John Do because your ID is not on you? I imagine you'd like to live in that instance...

Who decides what is a waste of your money and what isn't too? Some people think war is ridiculous and some feel like it is the only thing protecting us from certain doom. Some people think NASA is a complete waste of money.

Personally I think Libertarianism is an ideal that can't be reached. Although I'd have to agree somewhat about the blueberry thing. 

I am socially liberal, but do not hold a very specific ideal financially as I feel things should be taken case by case. Also, under fiscally conservative policies it seems like things like the environment always take a backseat which is something I'm not okay with. Corporations NEED to have their freedom restricted.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Nov 8, 2012)

The honey bee population is pretty important actually. There has been a serious problem with regards to a decline in honey bee population lately that has been costing the agriculture sector billions, which also means lost tax revenue for the government.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 8, 2012)

Good Point stealth, very true.


----------



## ASoC (Nov 8, 2012)

flint757 said:


> I am socially liberal, but do not hold a very specific ideal financially as I feel things should be taken *case by case*. Also, under fiscally conservative policies it seems like things like the *environment always take a backseat which is something I'm not okay with. Corporations NEED to have their freedom restricted*.



Flint, I just might love you. 

I completely agree


----------



## flint757 (Nov 8, 2012)

Thanks bro.


----------



## gunshow86de (Nov 8, 2012)

ASoC said:


> Flint, I just might love you.
> 
> I completely agree






flint757 said:


> Thanks bro.



http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/po...aine-maryland-legalize-same-sex-marriage.html

I don't see Texas or Cali on this list.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 8, 2012)

I doubt Texas ever will be on there...


----------



## Semichastny (Nov 8, 2012)

I grew up in a town that was run almost completely by fiscal conservatives. When it came time to build a pool they reluctantly agreed, with the caveat that it would have to be constructed as cheaply as possible. This was met by objections by the democrats (people & politicians) who argued that the design was flawed and the town should spend more money to do it right. They were soundly defeated and the conservative taxpayers rejoiced that they would only have to pay a small amount in taxes and the town could take all sorts of money and eventually tax-rates could be lowered.

The fantasy was shattered when the town had to spend millions to clean out mold and fix severe water damage in the locker rooms because they were to cheap to put in a proper ventilation system. Then of course a few years later came the inevitable collapse of the alternative structural covering they used to try and save money off of the construction costs which then cost millions and millions more to fix. Not to mention both these events cost the town a lot of lost revenue.

The Kicker? They built that pool instead of a brand new high school (the school system being one of the towns biggest draws), and shortly after these debacles the school experienced pipes bursting, a gas leak, all but 2 water fountains not working, and sizable amount of infections reported from a locker room which hadn't been renovated in decades.

ps. they also chose to pay almost a million dollars to put in a turf field at the high school while cutting a million dollars from the budget and firing a bunch of teachers.


----------



## hairychris (Nov 8, 2012)

Now that the election's over are those wonderful preacher folks like Billy Graham going to re-label Mormonism as a cult (after conveniently dropping that opinion earlier this year)?


----------



## Konfyouzd (Nov 8, 2012)

iRaiseTheDead said:


> To the dumbass who neg-repped me, I live in America too xD
> Do people really take it THAT seriously?



Yes... Yes they do.

There was a lady who told me she was approached and berated by a man in the parking lot at the grocery store because she was wearing an Obama hat. He dropped the n-bomb and everything... 

Dis be surrious biznezz...


----------



## Konfyouzd (Nov 8, 2012)

kmanick said:


> I mourn for our country today.
> Not Because Obama won but because of how divided its become.


----------



## m3l-mrq3z (Nov 8, 2012)

Who cares about what Ted Nugent thinks/says?


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Nov 8, 2012)

m3l-mrq3z said:


> Who cares about what Ted Nugent thinks/says?



His 14 fans?

EDIT: I think I pissed off a Nugent fan.


----------



## hairychris (Nov 8, 2012)

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> His 14 fans?


The 14 that can read, that is.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Nov 8, 2012)

hairychris said:


> The 14 that can read, that is.



On them there new-fangled interweb thing called Tweeter or sum sheit


----------



## stratjacket (Nov 8, 2012)

flint757 said:


> Ahhh, but a victim-less crime has a victim most of the time. if you don't wear your seat belt and end up in the hospital (without insurance that is) they still have to help you. Where does their loss go? On everybody else and insurance providers pick up part of the tab as well. And before you say they should turn you away, what if you have insurance, but you enter the hospital as a John Do because your ID is not on you? I imagine you'd like to live in that instance...
> 
> Who decides what is a waste of your money and what isn't too? Some people think war is ridiculous and some feel like it is the only thing protecting us from certain doom. Some people think NASA is a complete waste of money.
> 
> ...



I see what you're saying, but I just respectfully disagree. I don't think central planners can legislate every possibility of any possible situation. I think in the case of the hospital servicing the person, it's up to the hospital and doctors to decide if they treat the person or not and then bill the person. They shouldn't be forced to treat someone or forced to turn anyone away. I trust people to do the right thing where it seems most do not. The reason healthcare is so high now is because of this interference.

I think restricting corporations or anyone around environmental issues is also wrong. If a company owns the land, I think they can use it how they want as long as it doesn't risk other people's safety with a basic set of laws, not complicated ones that no one understands. It's property rights. If the public disagrees, there will be outcry and the company will naturally cave.

I'm not taking up for corps, it's the same for all. We all love music, I love metal, most of us do on here. I think we'd all be pissed if the govt told us Metal was bad for us and banned it. I mean hell, we can't even have bake sales to raise money in some places because the govt says cake makes kids fat and I guess we're all too stupid to know that for ourselves and can't be trusted on our own. It's not a far stretch to ban metal, why not? Where do these decisions end? And please don't say freedom of speech is protected in the constitution because so are property rights, but those have been greyed out. Just look at eminent domain laws seizing private land for the good of the public.


----------



## Xaios (Nov 8, 2012)

stratjacket said:


> The reason healthcare is so high now is because of this interference.



The reason healthcare costs are so expensive is because when a person with limited means gets a $120 hospital bill for having a bandaid changed, he's probably going to default on it. That means that the hospital is going to be left holding the bag, so in an effort to mitigate costs, they'll charge the next guy $125, and so forth. It's a vicious cycle.

Trust me when I say this: 4 years of even the comparatively minimal healthcare that you guys are going to get is going to do wonders for your medical costs.

When my mother was very young is when the concept of socialized healthcare started spreading around Canada, thanks to Tommy Douglas. My grandparents were *horrified* by the concept. However, seeing it all these years later, knowing how much it has helped both individuals and society as a whole here in Canada, they think it's madness not to have some form of national healthcare program, and they're very conservative people.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Nov 8, 2012)

Xaios said:


> The reason healthcare costs are so expensive is because when a person with limited means gets a $120 hospital bill for having a bandaid changed, he's probably going to default on it. That means that the hospital is going to be left holding the bag, so in an effort to mitigate costs, they'll charge the next guy $125, and so forth. It's a vicious cycle.
> 
> Trust me when I say this: 4 years of even the comparatively minimal healthcare that you guys are going to get is going to do wonders for your medical costs.
> 
> When my mother was very young is when the concept of socialized healthcare started spreading around Canada, thanks to Tommy Douglas. My grandparents were *horrified* by the concept. However, seeing it all these years later, knowing how much it has helped both individuals and society as a whole here in Canada, they think it's madness not to have some form of national healthcare program, and they're very conservative people.


----------



## Waelstrum (Nov 8, 2012)

Xaios said:


> The reason healthcare costs are so expensive is because when a person with limited means gets a $120 hospital bill for having a bandaid changed, he's probably going to default on it. That means that the hospital is going to be left holding the bag, so in an effort to mitigate costs, they'll charge the next guy $125, and so forth. It's a vicious cycle.
> 
> Trust me when I say this: 4 years of even the comparatively minimal healthcare that you guys are going to get is going to do wonders for your medical costs.
> 
> When my mother was very young is when the concept of socialized healthcare started spreading around Canada, thanks to Tommy Douglas. My grandparents were *horrified* by the concept. However, seeing it all these years later, knowing how much it has helped both individuals and society as a whole here in Canada, they think it's madness not to have some form of national healthcare program, and they're very conservative people.



There is a similar story in every modern democracy except the USA.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 8, 2012)

Also, the environment affects more than just the land owner. Pasadena and Bay Town are mostly industrial and a lot of crude as well. their pollution affects ALL of Houston, not just their little plot of land. What you're implying is if I had a neighbor burning trash next door (with all kinds of chemicals) I have no right to stop him as it his property basically. That is ridiculous, honestly.


----------



## stratjacket (Nov 8, 2012)

flint757 said:


> Also, the environment affects more than just the land owner. Pasadena and Bay Town are mostly industrial and a lot of crude as well. their pollution affects ALL of Houston, not just their little plot of land. What you're implying is if I had a neighbor burning trash next door (with all kinds of chemicals) I have no right to stop him as it his property basically. That is ridiculous, honestly.



Please re-read my post, because that's not what I said. I said you need a basic set of laws for public safety, so that is not what I'm implying.


----------



## Jakke (Nov 8, 2012)




----------



## stratjacket (Nov 8, 2012)

Xaios said:


> The reason healthcare costs are so expensive is because when a person with limited means gets a $120 hospital bill for having a bandaid changed, he's probably going to default on it. That means that the hospital is going to be left holding the bag, so in an effort to mitigate costs, they'll charge the next guy $125, and so forth. It's a vicious cycle.
> 
> Trust me when I say this: 4 years of even the comparatively minimal healthcare that you guys are going to get is going to do wonders for your medical costs.
> 
> When my mother was very young is when the concept of socialized healthcare started spreading around Canada, thanks to Tommy Douglas. My grandparents were *horrified* by the concept. However, seeing it all these years later, knowing how much it has helped both individuals and society as a whole here in Canada, they think it's madness not to have some form of national healthcare program, and they're very conservative people.



I think we both care about people, just different ways. I think the reason the cost is $120 instead of $60 (or some lower price) is because of the interference and price setting forced on the doctor/hospital. I also think the the person who can't afford that cost is also being held down by the very "help" the govt is giving him.

But I understand the way people think, they really think these things are helping people, but I just disagree. I see them as just another tool to control people and keep them down, keeping the people who have power, in power. I grew up dirt poor in the "projects" and its hell. I worked my ass off to get out of there and I think keeping people in there and dependent is cruel, I would much rather have them the opportunity to live free. I believe all these "helpful" programs do more harm than good. But I know am in the minority thinking this way. Its just hard for me to explain in words my experiences and feelings in this without sounding like I'm mean or something. I'm not, I just have a different idea of help.


----------



## YngwieJ (Nov 8, 2012)

stratjacket said:


> I think restricting corporations or anyone around environmental issues is also wrong. If a company owns the land, I think they can use it how they want as long as it doesn't risk other people's safety with a basic set of laws, not complicated ones that no one understands. It's property rights. If the public disagrees, there will be outcry and the company will naturally cave.



This makes absolutely no sense. While companies and individuals may own titles and leases to land, they don't just have free reign to do whatever they want on it. When BP ignored regulations and safety concerns, would you let them off the hook when their pipe explodes and causes billions worth of dollars in damage to the environment and lost revenue from businesses that were affected?

What about when pollution from coal plants cause tens of thousands of deaths each year? Should we just let them do what they want?

What about when PG&E's cooling stations in Hinkley, California contaminated the town's water supply and caused cancer in many of the residents?

We are all part of the environment in which we live, and everyone's actions affect it. That's why we need regulations to curb that impact. You say we need a basic set of laws, not ones that nobody understands. So please tell me what you think is so complicated about the ones we have.


----------



## Waelstrum (Nov 8, 2012)

Jakke said:


>




That's funny, but Australia a far left country? We don't have gay marriage even with prominent a front bench politician being gay. Also, my home state elected the most conservative Premiere for fifteen years (as in conservative enough to be a modern Republican).

But I guess, compared to US politics, anyone from the centre leftwards must seem a bit radical. 

EDIT: That's not to mention the highly conservative border policies that even Bill O'Reilly would say go to far, wherein we've been locking up refugees for daring to be too poor to have identification.


----------



## Jakke (Nov 8, 2012)

Waelstrum said:


> That's funny, but Australia a far left country? We don't have gay marriage even with prominent a front bench politician being gay. Also, my home state elected the most conservative Premiere for fifteen years (as in conservative enough to be a modern Republican).
> 
> But I guess, compared to US politics, anyone from the centre leftwards must seem a bit radical.



I reacted to that too, same as when they have called Sweden a "socialist country" on occasion. But I suppose it all has to do with perspective.


----------



## stratjacket (Nov 8, 2012)

YngwieJ said:


> This makes absolutely no sense. While companies and individuals may own titles and leases to land, they don't just have free reign to do whatever they want on it. When BP ignored regulations and safety concerns, would you let them off the hook when their pipe explodes and causes billions worth of dollars in damage to the environment and lost revenue from businesses that were affected?
> 
> What about when pollution from coal plants cause tens of thousands of deaths each year? Should we just let them do what they want?
> 
> ...



Not sure why this is hard to understand. I said a basic set of laws would cover these things. You even posted that BP ignored the law, so you're not making much sense in your argument.


----------



## stratjacket (Nov 8, 2012)

Let me rephrase. I understand you love the environment and don't want some big company X to screw it up for everyone and future generations. I agree, that's not what I'm saying. I can't tell you what the laws should be for an oil rig, I've never been on one. I've never worked in a PG&E cooling station, so I'm not sure what kind of regulation they need either. Obviously anything that harms others is not good. But I also know that if laws are too complicated and it's hard to get work done, then people cut corners, regulators turn blind eyes and become on site judges of what parts of the laws should be enforced and what can slide. This creates disasters. So all I'm saying is keep it simple.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 9, 2012)

stratjacket said:


> Please re-read my post, because that's not what I said. I said you need a basic set of laws for public safety, so that is not what I'm implying.



Well you said companies should be allowed to do what they want with their property so in a way it is. Currently the laws in place are arguable for the public's safety. I assume, given your position, that you feel it should be less so who draws this line and decides when a company is polluting too much? Some people don't think protecting the environment has anything to do with public safety, they'd be wrong, but they exist.

There is no way for it not to be complicated because as you pointed out there are a ton of scenarios/industries. Simple simply isn't possible. Companies care about profit above all else, whether that means ignoring laws, cutting corners or trying to do the bare minimum involving regulations. If we lowered regulations, most companies would just pollute more as it is generally cheaper than being green. (not always the case albeit)

It isn't hard to get work done, companies simply feel like it is a waste of their money to be good citizens. It is all about the money.


----------



## ASoC (Nov 9, 2012)

let me just throw in that I didn't care at all about the environment until about two years ago.

I took an environmental science class (I wasn't really interested, just wanted college credit) and it opened my eyes. All the stuff I learned in that class completely changed my worldview. 

Basically, the biggest thing I took away from that class (and this was my own conclusion, it was not taught to me) was that when companies aren't regulated heavily, bad things happen. Its continuously happening, all the way from stuff like DDT and the Love Canal to more modern times with Coca Cola contaminating the water supply in India.


----------



## stratjacket (Nov 9, 2012)

flint757 said:


> Well you said companies should be allowed to do what they want with their property so in a way it is. Currently the laws in place are arguable for the public's safety. I assume, given your position, that you feel it should be less so who draws this line and decides when a company is polluting too much? Some people don't think protecting the environment has anything to do with public safety, they'd be wrong, but they exist.
> 
> There is no way for it not to be complicated because as you pointed out there are a ton of scenarios/industries. Simple simply isn't possible. Companies care about profit above all else, whether that means ignoring laws, cutting corners or trying to do the bare minimum involving regulations. If we lowered regulations, most companies would just pollute more as it is generally cheaper than being green. (not always the case albeit)
> 
> It isn't hard to get work done, companies simply feel like it is a waste of their money to be good citizens. It is all about the money.



Well, you have your beliefs and so many have been educated to think like this, I'm not trying to change your mind.

I think Obama believes like you and will have been in office for 8 years by 2016, we'll see. I bet the world will be just as polluted as it is today, we'll have more environmental laws than ever and just as many accidents. All we'll have to show for it is more poverty, less opportunity and people will still blame some one else. The poorest will get hit the worst which is the saddest part, especially the poor in less developed countries.

I don't mean to hijack this thread.  it's people mostly happy Obama won, so I don't want to come off like I'm raining on the parade. I'm hoping for the best, let's see how it plays out. Please note, I am not a republican, nor a democrat. I think I'm a pretty free thinker and open minded. I appreciate the give and take.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 9, 2012)

Well I agree that pollution certainly isn't getting better. I doubt there will be 'more than ever' though. When it came to environmental talk Romney was talking about the larger change and he intended to remove a lot of regulations. I think there was even talk of eliminating the EPA. Environmental law does not cause poverty as the companies that do the most pollution are typically million dollar companies, at least in the states. It isn't like the money gets thrown into a void either. As for outside the country, can't say as other than controlling outsourcing our government has no control over that AFAIK. It is beneficial in some ways financially for companies to go green though as their is usually a tax credit not to mention good publicity. 

My biggest gripe is that people seem to be very shortsighted. Like when it comes to oil, as an example, I feel like we should extract it (but not destroy the whole world for it or be in needless wars either) for things that are currently impossible to run without it like airplanes or oil based products, but when green is possible (also infinite) why not use it? Using more green would also extend how long oil can be viable until we can find alternatives for everything. At the rate and mentality of this current generation we are just riding the wave until there is no more and we've destroyed Alaska, Canada and have been involved in every war possible to maintain its use. Then we will run out and have nothing sufficient to replace it for all the many uses it served. If 'saving' the Earth isn't a high priority for people then thinking ahead should be IMO.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Nov 9, 2012)

The thing that excites me most is that US identity seems to be changing. The whole 'merica fuck yeah' thing is being toned down and the whole 'what those clever bastards in Europe have been doing looks like a good idea' is being toned up. Nice one 'merica


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Nov 9, 2012)

(p.s. TRENCHLORD if you're reading this, we don't hate you, come back guy )


----------



## m3l-mrq3z (Nov 9, 2012)

Scar Symmetry said:


> The thing that excites me most is that US identity seems to be changing. The whole 'merica fuck yeah' thing is being toned down and the whole 'what those clever bastards in Europe have been doing looks like a good idea' is being toned up. Nice one 'merica



Hmm those 'ropean bastards stop appearing clever when you consider the consequences of socialist policies. Sure, extreme capitalism is in the long run harmful to a country's economy and security, but socialism, really?


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Nov 9, 2012)

He didnt say anything about socialism.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Nov 9, 2012)

Stealthdjentstic said:


> He didnt say anything about socialism.



Stealth, how dare you not read between the lines of what I said. I was CLEARLY saying I fully support socialism and that's why I hate America.









In all seriousness, I support Social Democracy, but I recognise the values in modern Conservatism and if he runs, I will probably support Chris Christie for 2016.


----------



## m3l-mrq3z (Nov 9, 2012)

Scar Symmetry said:


> Stealth, how dare you not read between the lines of what I said. I was CLEARLY saying I fully support socialism and *that's why I hate America*.
> 
> In all seriousness, I support Social Democracy, but I recognise the values in modern Conservatism and as if he runs, I will probably support Chris Christie for 2016.



What if I told you that it was the force of capitalism what made England what it is today?


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Nov 9, 2012)

m3l-mrq3z said:


> What if I told you that it was the force of capitalism what made England what it is today?



I think you've missed the intended humour there my man. I don't hate America. Right now I LOVE America.


----------



## m3l-mrq3z (Nov 9, 2012)

But you did dislike capitalist, imperialist America, right?


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Nov 9, 2012)

m3l-mrq3z said:


> But you did dislike capitalist, imperialist America, right?



I don't need a history lesson thanks dude. There's more to consider than the point I think you're about to make.


----------



## m3l-mrq3z (Nov 9, 2012)

Scar Symmetry said:


> I don't need a history lesson thanks dude. There's more to consider than the point I think you're about to make.



OK.


----------



## Captain Butterscotch (Nov 9, 2012)

srs bsnnss


----------



## Konfyouzd (Nov 9, 2012)

Seriously stupid business...


----------



## Jakke (Nov 9, 2012)

I don't understand... What is there to argue?


And the nit-picker in me is telling me that capitalism is not American.


----------



## stratjacket (Nov 9, 2012)

Jakke said:


> I don't understand... What is there to argue?
> 
> 
> And the nit-picker in me is telling me that capitalism is not American.



I'm just curious, what is it about Capitalism you don't like or don't think is American?


----------



## Jakke (Nov 9, 2012)

Because capitalism existed well before the foundation of the United States.


----------



## VBCheeseGrater (Nov 9, 2012)

stratjacket said:


> But I understand the way people think, they really think these things are helping people, but I just disagree. I see them as just another tool to control people and keep them down, keeping the people who have power, in power. I grew up dirt poor in the "projects" and its hell. I worked my ass off to get out of there and I think keeping people in there and dependent is cruel, I would much rather have them the opportunity to live free. I believe all these "helpful" programs do more harm than good. But I know am in the minority thinking this way. Its just hard for me to explain in words my experiences and feelings in this without sounding like I'm mean or something. I'm not, I just have a different idea of help.



I see what you're saying here. I am not a fan of handouts myself. I would like some more conditions placed on welfare and foodstamps, for instance - but at the same time, i think if someone is hungry, no fault in feeding them.

But for healthcare, I don't view it as a handout. I see it as a service like the police dept and fire dept. I do believe we need to get with the rest of the civilized world on the healthcare front, because sickness can bankrupt anyone but the super rich in this country, even with insurance (who are crooks in my experience)

Funny that no one complains and cries communism about our socialist police and fire depts. 

Your house is on fire - you call 911 -they answer the phone "Do you have fire insurance?" and hang up when you say no.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Nov 9, 2012)

Jakke said:


> Because capitalism existed well before the foundation of the United States.




Ya well Murca dun hav it now boy so u better git ust to it.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Nov 9, 2012)

@Jakke - I'll eat my capitalist freedom fries while you sip on your socialist haterade...  

(Secretly wants to move to Sweden)


----------



## Jakke (Nov 9, 2012)

Adam Of Angels said:


> Ya well Murca dun hav it now boy so u better git ust to it.





Why can't we all just get along???????????



Konfyouzd said:


> @Jakke - I'll eat my capitalist freedom fries while you sip on your socialist haterade...
> 
> (Secretly wants to move to Sweden)



Yes, in Motherland we only have cabbages, and they are no good making fries.
That is why we do not call them fries, we call them american-capitalism-stupid-sticks.


----------



## stratjacket (Nov 9, 2012)

@jakke, Ahh, I see what you're saying.

@VBCheeseGrater, I understand your point about healthcare. I don't see it as a handout as much as I see it too complicated of a thing for govt to control. I think as long as a persons illness is common, meaning it fits what most people catch, then the system will work for them. But if you have some rare illness that isn't defined clearly, then it will be hard to get treatment. Rationing will inevitably occur, it has to because there will be tough decisions made about costs of each program just like some current insurance companies do. We're only shifting those decisions from one 'evil' to another. The only difference is we will have no options, once the govt says no, that's it. Also I believe the costs of healthcare is driven up by the very govt that's trying to save the day. Things would be much more affordable if they did not already dictate prices and coverage.

I think comparing that to a fire department is comparing apples and oranges. Communities have voluntary fire departments as well as larger communities use taxes to fund it. But it's a much simpler task, put out the fire. There are no needs to develop new cures or study something as complex as the human body, just put out the fire and it's rarely used by most people. For police, that is different too because we have laws, someone has to enforce the law. So to have any form of govt, you must have police, otherwise it's anarchy. 

I know I said I was done here, but the conversation is good. There's no personal attacks and everyone is respectful of others views. I normally never talk politics like this. So I appreciate your guys thoughts and civility. I wish most people could have these talks without getting pissed.


----------



## Customisbetter (Nov 9, 2012)

I forgot how "Ameri-liberal" this forum was. 

I'm not pleased as this election was between two of the worst candidates this country was ever had. Only difference between them were one has been president already.

I hope I'm proven wrong, but I think the Obama administration has done very little in attempting to improve the country. Maybe now that he doesn't need to kiss ass for reelection he will start going to work..

Guantanamo? Shut that shit down you procrastinator.
You "support" legal marijuana? Stop being a little girl and do something about it.
You "support" gay rights? Well now that you don't need conservative votes, fucking do something about it.

/rant


----------



## VBCheeseGrater (Nov 9, 2012)

You make some good points strat jacket. True, the police/fire analogy is a bit stretched, but it does at least show that we do accept forms socialism in some areas here in the US, often without even realizing it. Don't forget roads and education.

I will just point out that in the UK, where i'm originally from (i'm pretty much americanized, been here since 4yrs old), folks can choose to see a private doctor if they wish and can afford it. With any socialized system - schools, security, medicine - there are always still private options one can still pay for if they wish.


----------



## stratjacket (Nov 9, 2012)

VB, I agree, nothing is cut and dry. There are forms of socialism that everyone accepts whether we realize it or not. Opinions differ some people draw lines on certain things. I don't think people are as divided on things as it seems. I think people misunderstand each others point of view or enter a conversation with preconceived notions more often than not and that leads to some hate. I also have heard all my life that we should celebrate our differences, but I think we should celebrate more our commonalities. Find something we agree on as a starting point and we'll be able to listen to other people views from a different perspective.


----------



## Xaios (Nov 9, 2012)

stratjacket said:


> The only difference is we will have no options, once the govt says no, that's it. Also I believe the costs of healthcare is driven up by the very govt that's trying to save the day. Things would be much more affordable if they did not already dictate prices and coverage.



Hate to break it to you, but this flies directly in the face of reality for every first world country that has adopted universal healthcare. A) People in countries with universal healthcare are still allowed to see private physicians if they can afford it and b) it is a *proven fact* that instituting universal healthcare keeps costs down.


----------



## stratjacket (Nov 9, 2012)

Please show me those facts and how well compare it with the level of service America had.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Nov 9, 2012)

^ LOL


----------



## stratjacket (Nov 9, 2012)

It's OK, you don't need to come back with WHO rankings, then I'll just come back with how flawed that is pointing out the inaccuracies and then I'll talk about how 80% of medical innovation over the last 25 years have come through the US, etc... It doesn't matter. It's the law now and we'll see how it goes over the next 10 years.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Nov 9, 2012)

stratjacket said:


> It's OK, you don't need to come back with WHO rankings, then I'll just come back with how flawed that is pointing out the inaccuracies and then I'll talk about how 80% of medical innovation over the last 25 years have come through the US, etc... It doesn't matter. It's the law now and we'll see how it goes over the next 10 years.



I used to work for a venture capital firm that focused on biotech and cleantech, the only reason most innovation comes from the US is because of a good legal system that protects IP reasonably well, easy access to educated employees, easy access to a large pool of investors, etc...not because of a private healthcare system.

In fact, that Vcap was Canadian and many many others are also non-american. Most are structured with mind and management in other countries and then the actual companies owned by the vcaps operating out of the US. Im not hating on the US at all, I'm just telling you that the amount of innovating coming out of the states has to do with a great environment for doing business rather than how your healthcare system functions 

So no I dont need to come back with WHO ratings because I have real world experience with this.


----------



## Blake1970 (Nov 9, 2012)

Jakke said:


> Yes, in Motherland we only have cabbages, and they are no good making fries.
> That is why we do not call them fries, we call them american-capitalism-stupid-sticks.




That comment has me cracking up!


----------



## Treeunit212 (Nov 9, 2012)

Here's what's really going to happen.

The House Republicans are going to start having real, meaningful talks with Democrats about raising some revenues, or be responsible for us going over the fiscal cliff. Democrats, strangely enough, seem willing to go over the fiscal cliff for all the revenue we need to reverse the debt, a position i think is ridiculously irresponsible. It's like they're looking at it like ripping off a band aid, when in actuality it would be like ripping someone's arm off. There's simply no way around it anymore, though, and if we are forced to go over it, it will be bad for everyone. Republicans had leverage when they held the debt ceiling for hostage, but that leverage is long, long gone.

The president holds all the cards, and they know that. What's more, they're still in shock after being absolutely destroyed election night without having the slightest clue of what was coming. If the Republicans don't want Hilary Clinton 2016, they need to get their act together and rid themselves of this tea party bullshit or continue suffering crushing defeats election after election. It's that simple. 

The country has spoken, and it was a glorious, _legitimate raping_ of every single Republican who said something ignorant about rape. We now have 19 women senators, one of which being the first openly lesbian senator in history. Three more states have legalized marijuana, two more have gay marriage, and Minnesota's proposal to legalization any future laws supporting it failed miserably.

It does not matter how much money you throw at swing states if people realize that your entire message is complete, utter bullshit. You'd think these asshole billionaires whom made fortunes investing would have thought that through a little harder after humiliatingly wasting their fortunes on Mitt Romney.

Just goes to show, you don't have to be smart to be wealthy.


----------



## stratjacket (Nov 9, 2012)

Yeah, I agree with that which is why I listed the US as where they come from, not that it's Americans doing it all. I just worry how the takeover of healthcare will affect that environment. I don't think we'll really know if it does or not for some years.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Nov 9, 2012)

stratjacket said:


> Yeah, I agree with that which is why I listed the US as where they come from, not that it's Americans doing it all. I just worry how the takeover of healthcare will affect that environment. I don't think we'll really know if it does or not for some years.



It won't. Why would a change in how healthcare is handled affect the laws that create a good environment for investment/vcap/private equity work to be carried out? It just makes no sense. Going back the WHO thing, yes the US comes in very low in terms of health of the overall population when compared to other big GDP countries. I mean look at us in Canada, we are totally fine, I have a severe back problem that causes chronic pain, so if anyone was to bitch about problems with our healthcare system it would be me. Its not like you can't have a private healthcare system in place alongside a public one anyways.


----------



## stratjacket (Nov 9, 2012)

Treeunit212 said:


> It does not matter how much money you throw at swing states if people realize that your entire message is complete, utter bullshit. You'd think these asshole billionaires whom made fortunes investing would have thought that through a little harder after humiliatingly wasting their fortunes on Mitt Romney.
> 
> Just goes to show, you don't have to be smart to be wealthy.



Oh I don't know. I think they may be pretty smart. They spent a lot of money and got you to believe that democratic nonsense. You spoke your points about "revenues" instead of taxes and Republicans holding things hostage about as well as any democratic politician could have hoped. I guess it does work.

This is exactly why we're at this point. Did you stop to take a look at the 3 budgets the Republicans passed and sent over to Harry Reid and the Democrats in the Senate (that they wouldn't even bring to a vote) that would have avoided all this?


----------



## jam3v (Nov 9, 2012)

iliketofish said:


> Both candidates suck...



People say this all the time, and it usually gives them a free pass to not communicate their reasoning.

However, I would like to know, this time, why you think this.


----------



## Mordacain (Nov 9, 2012)

hairychris said:


> Why the fuck is one of your major parties and a number of it's high profile supporters completely window-licking insane?



Really not trying to be a dick here, but lets not forget that the biggest reason (arguably) for the window-licking insanity being propagated as far, wide and fast as it has it due to Rupert Murdoch, who is about as American as 'Roo Pie (though technically, he has been an American citizen for awhile now).


----------



## flint757 (Nov 9, 2012)

stratjacket said:


> I think comparing that to a fire department is comparing apples and oranges. Communities have voluntary fire departments as well as larger communities use taxes to fund it. But it's a much simpler task, put out the fire. There are no needs to develop new cures or study something as complex as the human body, just put out the fire and it's rarely used by most people. For police, that is different too because we have laws, someone has to enforce the law. So to have any form of govt, you must have police, otherwise it's anarchy.
> 
> I know I said I was done here, but the conversation is good. There's no personal attacks and everyone is respectful of others views. I normally never talk politics like this. So I appreciate your guys thoughts and civility. I wish most people could have these talks without getting pissed.



Just FYI One fire truck cost about 2 million dollars and even in a small city like mine each fire fighter has to make at least ~200-250 calls a year or gets the boot. I'd call that really active. Tax dollars pay for ALL the gear and there is innovation in fire safety, training and tools all the time. Just a couple years ago a new safer tool for cutting through any metal object (not talking about jaws of life) was invented as an example.

Police Departments in most major cities are non-stop busy as well. Crime is quite rampant.



stratjacket said:


> Oh I don't know. I think they may be pretty smart. They spent a lot of money and got you to believe that democratic nonsense. You spoke your points about "revenues" instead of taxes and Republicans holding things hostage about as well as any democratic politician could have hoped. I guess it does work.
> 
> This is exactly why we're at this point. Did you stop to take a look at the 3 budgets the Republicans passed and sent over to Harry Reid and the Democrats in the Senate (that they wouldn't even bring to a vote) that would have avoided all this?



So the major corporations spent a shit ton of money on Romney so that Obama would win? 

Mind you the popular vote wasn't a landslide victory so if that really was their intent it very well could have not worked.

Democrats and Republicans are NEVER going to completely agree on a budget (especially currently) as they have very different approaches that require very different policies. Republicans don't want the healthcare reform, democrats do, as just one example, and that greatly affects how the budget is to be distributed. And the 2 'Obama budgets' that didn't get a vote weren't even his own budgets (since presidents can't officially write them), but a shell of what it was as it wasn't even written by a Democrat. Doesn't represent his policies if it isn't written by someone who supports his policies.

Your position is very obvious. You don't trust the government and there are valid reasons to feel that way. The thing is, in the same sense, most Republicans don't want the healthcare reform (as I already mentioned) so no policy they put through is going to be to its benefit. So if it were to fail because of their policies they would then say I knew it was going to fail when in fact in the right environment it would have been fine. So these kind of things matter (the budget). Also, the healthcare reform is a far cry from socialized medicine.


----------



## stratjacket (Nov 9, 2012)

flint757 said:


> So the major corporations spent a shit ton of money on Romney so that Obama would win?



haha, no, I think you missed my point. He was saying how dumb it is for rich people blowing money trying to sway people with BS messages. I was just pointing out that rich democrats swayed him with the same things.

I agree that Dems and Reps will never completely agree. What I think should have happened was the Senate look at it, make revisions and send back to the House. That is how compromise works. But Harry Reid just stonewalled it. Even take the presidents budget he submitted, try to revise it. Something, almost anything is better than nothing over the last 3 years. I don't understand why they even brought Obama's budget to a vote without trying to revise it when it was obvious not a single Dem, Rep or Indie would vote for it. That was strange.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Nov 9, 2012)

Obama didn&#8217;t crash the market! - Salon.com

President Obama Makes Major Tax Demand | TPMDC


----------



## Luke Acacia (Nov 9, 2012)

I thought this should go here.


----------



## Treeunit212 (Nov 9, 2012)

stratjacket said:


> This is exactly why we're at this point. Did you stop to take a look at the 3 budgets the Republicans passed and sent over to Harry Reid and the Democrats in the Senate (that they wouldn't even bring to a vote) that would have avoided all this?



I did. Did you?

When the Obama administration sent their budget recommendations to the Republican controlled House of Representatives, it was 1900 pages long. By the time it had gone through the house and was sent to the Senate, it had been decimated down to 56 pages. Thats a difference of 1844 pages, a ridiculous downgrade for the most economically powerful country in the world. It was then sent to the Senate, where both the Democrats and Republicans voted it down unanimously, and the Republicans naturally screamed, Look! They wont even vote for their own presidents budget!

The truth is, it wasn't Obamas budget at all. When you actually look a little farther than the partisan bickering youre exposed to in your day to day life, you start to see a pattern. The party that claims to be for fiscal responsibility is in fact the complete opposite. Its like when your grandma goes shopping on QVC, runs up a bunch of credit card debt buying jewelry she doesnt need, hands the card to you to pay for essentials like groceries, and blames you for the overage charge. When grandma does it, we call it Alzheimers. When the Government does it, we call them Republicans: the party that ran up ten trillion in debt with not so much as a peep, then started screaming about it as soon as Obama entered office like a toddler who lost his tootsie pop. 

Republicans are the epitome of entitlement. Bill Clinton spelled it out best in his book Back to Work when he said that the greatest accomplishment of the anti-government Republicans was not to reduce the size of the federal government but to stop paying for it.

I like to call it the fiscal entitlement complex.


----------



## Treeunit212 (Nov 9, 2012)

Luke Acacia said:


> I thought this should go here.


----------



## stratjacket (Nov 10, 2012)

Republicans ran up 10 trillion in debt? Haha, thats funny. Both parties have ran it up, but Obama and Bush went extreme.

The current debt is just over 16trillion. It was ~10 trillion when Obama took office, so about 38% (6 trillion) of all the national debt that we've accumulated over 200+ years have been over these last 4 years. Awful. Bush was also horrible at 4trillion over 8 years. Whats really scary is in the last 12 years, our last 2 presidents in office have spent just about 63% of all our debt. Where the previous 43 presidents ran up 37% of the 16trillion.

Stated another way, Obama in 4 years, has ran up the same debt(6trillion) as George Washingkton to Bill Clinton did(6trillion). But both parties own it and have done it.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Nov 10, 2012)

Scar Symmetry said:


> (p.s. TRENCHLORD if you're reading this, we don't hate you, come back guy )


 
Thanks, I really do appreciate that. 

Yeah I'm disappionted with the big one, but things went my way in some of the other elections.
Mike Pence will take over for term limited Mitch Daniels for Indiana Governor (I live next to Terre Haute).
Back up to 30 Republican governors nationally.
Marijewana is cool somewhere finally.
House can still gridlock Obama in his quest for fullblown socialism.

GOP maybe will never realize that image is everything in today's culture.
If they want to compete they'll have to utilize guys like Scott Walker, Bobby Jindell, Marco Rubia, Paul Ryan, ect..

I'll get behind whoever will promote a more limited less restrictive governmental role in society. 

People really need to look at what is going on in Illinois and Indiana (the contrast between the two in regaurds to job creation and business growth/state revenue collection).

Democratically controlled states like California and Illinios are collapsing financially, while Republican run states like Indiana and Texas are thriving.
Just look at what a little union cracking can do in Wisconson.
Scott Walker's leadership has resulted in massive strides for his state's fiscal standing.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 10, 2012)

stratjacket said:


> haha, no, I think you missed my point. He was saying how dumb it is for rich people blowing money trying to sway people with BS messages. I was just pointing out that rich democrats swayed him with the same things.
> 
> I agree that Dems and Reps will never completely agree. What I think should have happened was the Senate look at it, make revisions and send back to the House. That is how compromise works. But Harry Reid just stonewalled it. Even take the presidents budget he submitted, try to revise it. Something, almost anything is better than nothing over the last 3 years. I don't understand why they even brought Obama's budget to a vote without trying to revise it when it was obvious not a single Dem, Rep or Indie would vote for it. That was strange.



Well there suggestion would most likely be what the president originally suggested. If compromise were how many pages to cut out then I would have expected at least 450-550 pages still, not the pamphlet they ended up moving to the Senate. 



stratjacket said:


> Republicans ran up 10 trillion in debt? Haha, thats funny. Both parties have ran it up, but Obama and Bush went extreme.
> 
> The current debt is just over 16trillion. It was ~10 trillion when Obama took office, so about 38% (6 trillion) of all the national debt that we've accumulated over 200+ years have been over these last 4 years. Awful. Bush was also horrible at 4trillion over 8 years. Whats really scary is in the last 12 years, our last 2 presidents in office have spent just about 63% of all our debt. Where the previous 43 presidents ran up 37% of the 16trillion.
> 
> Stated another way, Obama in 4 years, has ran up the same debt(6trillion) as George Washingkton to Bill Clinton did(6trillion). But both parties own it and have done it.



Obama wants to pay it off though by raising taxes, whereas the Republicans want to continue the current wars and potentially start a few more (based on Ryan's comments in the debate) while also lowering taxes to a completely unreasonable level. Recessions cost money for governments when they are attempting to either stop it or at least soften the blow.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 10, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Democratically controlled states like California and Illinios are collapsing financially, while Republican run states like Indiana and Texas are thriving.
> Just look at what a little union cracking can do in Wisconson.
> Scott Walker's leadership has resulted in massive strides for his state's fiscal standing.



Texas isn't that nice of a place if you aren't rich. Education and social programs are absolutely terrible, that is what low taxes and 'conservativism' gave us. it isn't exactly a bed of roses. Doesn't help that a crap ton of people came here as a tax haven essentially and after Katrina the poor from Louisiana moved in and never left as well.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Nov 10, 2012)

Hard to argue with some one who lives there, but the other hugely populous states like New York and California (and Illinios also), have unemployment rates a full 2-3 points higher than Texas's relatively low 6.8.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 10, 2012)

Yeah jobs aren't too hard to find ATM. They were 2 years ago at the part time level though. I will say that while our education blows IMO, I am also told that public education in California isn't better so I'm sure there is a factor in common not tax are party related at play. I was just pointing out that while the numbers are better in Texas, even in the best of times financially across the country, our social programs are sub par. Construction takes way too long as well, but I only have that gripe because it impedes me all the god damn time on the road.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Nov 10, 2012)

And I'll admit, it's not likely Rick Perry who knows what he's doing, but they evidentely have some good state congressmen who are pro-business.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 10, 2012)

Indeed, Texas Government is very pro-business, in the sense of lower taxes and less regulations. Has it's down sides though, like we used to have a paper factory that made the air very dangerous to breathe in Pasadena (neighbor city). Paper is not a cleanly made product at all. In fact people shouldn't conserve paper to save tree's, but to lower the pollution it takes to make paper (same with soda cans). We've had several accidents, fires etc. in our power plants over the years which I honestly contribute to people cutting corners and/or not being active employee's. Don't know if more regulations would resolve the problem or at the very least limit the frequency, but I imagine it would.


----------



## stratjacket (Nov 10, 2012)

In 2012 looks like they stripped the Obama budget down to a skeleton in hopes they could fill it in later with something that actually works. In prior years this was not the case. Never the less. It's disappointing. You guys still have no answers for dems holding everything hostage.

People do not understand basic economics if you think raising taxes will help the debt or anything else. I'm amazed at how dumbed down America has become. We will see, looks like its going to happen. So who will you blame next year when things are worse than now.


----------



## Treeunit212 (Nov 10, 2012)

stratjacket said:


> Republicans ran up 10 trillion in debt? Haha, thats funny. Both parties have ran it up, but Obama and Bush went extreme.
> 
> The current debt is just over 16trillion. It was ~10 trillion when Obama took office, so about 38% (6 trillion) of all the national debt that we've accumulated over 200+ years have been over these last 4 years. Awful. Bush was also horrible at 4trillion over 8 years. Whats really scary is in the last 12 years, our last 2 presidents in office have spent just about 63% of all our debt. Where the previous 43 presidents ran up 37% of the 16trillion.
> 
> Stated another way, Obama in 4 years, has ran up the same debt(6trillion) as George Washingkton to Bill Clinton did(6trillion). But both parties own it and have done it.



That is *bullshit*. Debt is not some finite number, it is a circulating pool of government bonds bought and sold like food at a grocery store.

Do you have any idea how much debt we racked up during WWII? We were spending close to 40% of our GDP on the war effort while rationing everything from tires and gasoline to shoes and nylon.

Do you know how much debt Japan is in? 200% of GDP. They've been deficit spending since the 90's, with zero fucks given, and they even own some of our debt. Government debt isn't like what you rack up at best buy when you max out your $800 credit card. Countries don't max out because they're the most trusted entities to ever pay it back, especially the United States. Debt is a commodity, in that if you buy it with a higher interest rate than when you sell it, you get money back. 

You know what the best part about Government debt is? We can just refinance it and not pay it as if it was never even there. 

As long as people are willing to buy our bonds, we will be fine. When the interest rate picks back up, _then_ start to worry. Luckily Bernanke has the fed by the balls, and that won't happen anytime soon. Also, that Washington to Clinton number is ridiculously skewed by a little thing called inflation. 

Our deficit has stayed level and even gone down since Obama has been in office. That's a fact. Republicans _have_ racked up far more debt than Democrats have in the last 30 years, starting with the master deficit spender Reagan. He handed Bush Sr a deficit, and the guy sacrificed his second term in order to increase taxes and reign it in. Hats off. 

Clinton handed Bush Jr a surplus, and within a year it was a trillion dollar deficit. Do not tell me Republicans gave two fucks about deficits and debt until a black man got into office and it was as if Method Man just maxed their credit card out buying fur coats and gold chains. 

(That was intentionally racist for the sake of point, please don't shoot me) 



stratjacket said:


> People do not understand basic economics if you think raising taxes will help the debt or anything else.





Increasing taxes brings in revenues, cutting the deficit. That's... Basic... Economics..?


----------



## AxeHappy (Nov 10, 2012)

I'll say it again, you can pretty much track the strength of the economy based on how highly the rich are taxed. 

The trickle-down effect (IE. Slash taxes) has been shown to not work again and again and again.


----------



## GuitaristOfHell (Nov 10, 2012)

I hate political parties I am an independent. I thought Obama would do a better job.


----------



## lurgar (Nov 10, 2012)

stratjacket said:


> People do not understand basic economics if you think raising taxes will help the debt or anything else. I'm amazed at how dumbed down America has become. We will see, looks like its going to happen. So who will you blame next year when things are worse than now.



Economics is not a simple area of study. The right-wing media in America right now has people believing that it's as simple as "Give the rich more money through tax cuts and all will be well." It's not that simple because the less money a government has, the less it can operate. If you have more money coming in, the more it can operate.

Right now, we are borrowing money at negative interest rates which means that when we pay that money out to the bond holders, we are paying less effective money. With inflation holding steady and these negative interest rates, the size of our debt is not as big of a problem as it's being made out to be.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Nov 10, 2012)

Treeunit212 said:


> Clinton handed Bush Jr a surplus, and within a year it was a trillion dollar deficit. Do not tell me Republicans gave two fucks about deficits and debt until a black man got into office and it was as if Method Man just maxed their credit card out buying fur coats and gold chains.


----------



## Murmel (Nov 10, 2012)

Not really relevant, but if you go to Romney's Facebook page and refresh every few seconds you can actually see the likes drop, do the same thing with Obama's and the likes will increase


----------



## GuitaristOfHell (Nov 10, 2012)

Murmel said:


> Not really relevant, but if you go to Romney's Facebook page and refresh every few seconds you can actually see the likes drop, do the same thing with Obama's and the likes will increase


I have to + rep you for that this is amusing to do.


----------



## Xaios (Nov 10, 2012)

Murmel said:


> Not really relevant, but if you go to Romney's Facebook page and refresh every few seconds you can actually see the likes drop, do the same thing with Obama's and the likes will increase



Now THAT is funny.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Nov 10, 2012)

stratjacket said:


> Republicans ran up 10 trillion in debt? Haha, thats funny. Both parties have ran it up, but Obama and Bush went extreme.
> 
> The current debt is just over 16trillion. It was ~10 trillion when Obama took office, so about 38% (6 trillion) of all the national debt that we've accumulated over 200+ years have been over these last 4 years. Awful. Bush was also horrible at 4trillion over 8 years. Whats really scary is in the last 12 years, our last 2 presidents in office have spent just about 63% of all our debt. Where the previous 43 presidents ran up 37% of the 16trillion.
> 
> Stated another way, Obama in 4 years, has ran up the same debt(6trillion) as George Washingkton to Bill Clinton did(6trillion). But both parties own it and have done it.



In addition to what Treeunit said, it's definitely worth noting that a lot of the debt increase during Obama's first term was a result of policies and spending that was already in place after Bush's presidency. In the same way, if Obama successfully takes measures that will significantly reduce our national debt over the next 10 years, and a Republican is in office in 10 years, Republicans will praise the then president for such a victory, effectively pretending that Obama was nothing but a failure.


----------



## Hollowway (Nov 10, 2012)

Hey, I may be dropping right in the middle here, but I heard an interview with someone on the radio who was saying he thinks the Dems may let us go over the fiscal cliff, and it might have a pretty nice silver lining for the Republicans as well. If the democrats let us go over, all sorts of programs will be cut, and taxes will go up. Then, in January the parties can get together and add back in some of the social programs (but not all of them) and cut taxes (although not back to the Bush era levels). Then, the democrats will be seen as voting FOR social programs (rather than against if they negotiate now) and the republicans will be seen as voting for tax CUTS rather than tax hikes (which is what they'd have to do if they negotiated now). 
Anyway, that sounded like a logical argument to me, so I wouldn't be surprised if the two sides worked out the basic idea of what they want, but let us go over the cliff, let the automatic things take place, and then enacted everything after the new year starts. That way no republican senator or representative has to go on record voting for a tax increase and similarly no democrat has it on his record that he voted to eliminate a social program.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 10, 2012)

stratjacket said:


> You guys still have no answers for dems holding everything hostage.



Pretending this is 100% valid I did actually give you an answer, I said both sides have extremely different approaches this go around. Compromising for either party means neither approach will work, we have to just to commit 100% to one philosophy this time.



stratjacket said:


> People do not understand basic economics if you think raising taxes will help the debt or anything else. I'm amazed at how dumbed down America has become. We will see, looks like its going to happen. So who will you blame next year when things are worse than now.



Based on your few posts you actually do not understand economics yourself, at the very least no better than the people you are insulting. I personally have taken several economic courses over the past 3 years. Your opinion is not any more likely to work than anyone else's without proper implementation to test it, so tone down the condescension. Economics has some basic truths, but a lot of it is so grand it is all just a 'try it and then see what happens' game. As for the last 2 sentences, fuck you.  Very hostile comment IMO from a guy who claims it is nice to have a pleasant debate/conversation with people who differ ideologically. We've offered up more evidence than you actually, as you have pretty much only said 'everything needs to be more simple'. That's deep man.  As an example you need only look at other more 'socialized' nations to see that these policies actually work, been said more than once here.

Not sure what perplexes you though. If I want to spend $2 I have to gain $2 and that is the most basic function of money and math. Economics is significantly more complicated than that. In fact if you think government should cut back and lower taxes you are in agreement, in terms of economics, with us. You just want the reverse to occur; instead of more spending more taxes you'd like less spending less taxes. Same in principle. That being said the Democratic party is talking about making cuts, ending a war and increasing taxes. In fact without increasing taxes it'd be impossible to cut down the national debt (even though that isn't actually necessary at all) without making the US a terrible place to live for all of those except the super wealthy. Even then they'd suffer as they have to interact with the rest of the world and I don't see them doing everything the government does.


----------



## lurgar (Nov 10, 2012)

If anybody wants to learn more about economics and help contribute to ECONOMICS CHAT, here is a post on reddit that gives some pretty decent advice on where to start

Clickey

I wouldn't say this is the end all be all for discussion, but it can help get people started off learning about the subject. Just be warned that while this can be fascinating and all, it is really dry reading all around.


----------



## Hollowway (Nov 10, 2012)

Yeah, I see a lot of debate on here about the economic policies of the two parties. Apart from the obvious fact that the country's problems are not likely to be solved by a bunch of metal musicians on a guitar forum, there is no actual right answer here, because no one knows which philosophies actually work. There's been a lot of talk in the past few years about John Maynard Keynes, and his policies, as well opposing viewpoints (like Milton Friedman). Unfortunately no one knows which is better. Otherwise we'd at least have economists agreeing.
More interestingly, economists from both parties do agree on a lot of stuff that will still not ever see the light of day because of politics. For instance, conservative and liberal economists both agree that the mortgage deduction doesn't make any sense. But what politician is going to go to the mat over cutting that? 
Still, from an empirical standpoint, I'd prefer to let the economists make economic policy, not politicians. They understand it, they understand its effect on behavior of the public, and no doubt they'd do a superior job.


----------



## stratjacket (Nov 10, 2012)

Wow. Well, we've had 12 years of extreme govt expanding and taking more control. You guys want even more and it's happening. We'll see where it goes. Hopefully you guys wise up with age. I'm out.


----------



## YngwieJ (Nov 10, 2012)

Hollowway said:


> Still, from an empirical standpoint, I'd prefer to let the economists make economic policy, not politicians. They understand it, they understand its effect on behavior of the public, and no doubt they'd do a superior job.



+1

That can be said about any subject matter that our government handles. For instance, the House Committee on Science & Technology consists of Todd Akin, who thinks god gave the vagina magical powers, and Paul Broun, who thinks the Earth is 9000 years old. Every Congressional member should have some expertise to contribute to their committees.


----------



## synrgy (Nov 11, 2012)

YngwieJ said:


> the House Committee on Science & Technology consists of Todd Akin,



Well, technically speaking, Todd Akin isn't really on any committees, any more. 

Anyway, here's some interesting perspective about the States going into defalt, from a variety of those in-the-know from across the political spectrum:

The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that. So there is zero probability of default. 
_Alan Greenspan_

In the case of United States, default is absolutely impossible. All U.S. government debt is denominated in U.S. dollar assets. 
_Peter Zeihan, Vice President of Analysis for STRATFOR_

In the case of governments boasting monetary sovereignty and debt denominated in its own currency, like the United States (but also Japan and the UK), it is technically impossible to fall into debt default. 
_Erwan Mahe, European asset allocation and options strategies adviser_

There is never a risk of default for a sovereign nation that issues its own free-floating currency and where its debts are denominated in that currency. 
_Mike Norman, Chief Economist for John Thomas Financial_

There is no inherent limit on federal expenses and therefore on federal spendingWhen the U.S. government decides to spend fiat money, it adds to its banking reserve system and when it taxes or borrows (issues Treasury securities) it drains reserves from its banking system. These reserve operations are done solely to maintain the target Federal Funds rate. 
_Monty Agarwal , managing partner and chief investment officer of MA Managed Futures Fund_

As the sole manufacturer of dollars, whose debt is denominated in dollars, the U.S. government can never become insolvent, i.e., unable to pay its bills. In this sense, the government is not dependent on credit markets to remain operational. 
_Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis_

A sovereign government can always make payments as they come due by crediting bank accounts  something recognized by Chairman Ben Bernanke when he said the Fed spends by marking up the size of the reserve accounts of banks. 
Government needs to be concerned about pressures on inflation and the exchange rate should its spending become excessive. And it should avoid crowding out private initiative by moving too many resources to our public sector. However, with high unemployment and idle plant and equipment, no one can reasonably argue that these dangers are imminent.
_L. Randall Wray, Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City and a Senior Scholar at the Levy Economics Institute_

Mind you, I'm not pretending to understand well enough to know whether or not they're right, but I do presume they know what they're talking about.


----------



## tacotiklah (Nov 11, 2012)

lurgar said:


> Economics is not a simple area of study. The right-wing media in America right now has people believing that it's as simple as "Give the rich more money through tax cuts and all will be well." It's not that simple because the less money a government has, the less it can operate. If you have more money coming in, the more it can operate.




Where I have a MAJOR qualm with that line of thinking is that they are assuming that businesses (where the only loyalty they have is to their shareholders, not the american people) are benevolent and ethical enough to actually use that money to create new jobs and not just pocket the extra cash. This is a pipe-dream of epic proportions that will be equaled only by the catastrophic failure that it will cause. The government would be better off dumping the money in a pit and lighting it on fire. At least then the heat generated from that money bonfire would warm a few vagrants and homeless people, as opposed to being a complete and total waste if it went to those greedy assholes.


----------



## Jzbass25 (Nov 11, 2012)

lurgar said:


> Economics is not a simple area of study. The right-wing media in America right now has people believing that it's as simple as "Give the rich more money through tax cuts and all will be well." It's not that simple because the less money a government has, the less it can operate. If you have more money coming in, the more it can operate.
> 
> Right now, we are borrowing money at negative interest rates which means that when we pay that money out to the bond holders, we are paying less effective money. With inflation holding steady and these negative interest rates, the size of our debt is not as big of a problem as it's being made out to be.



+1 Also people talk about spending and adding to the debt as if it's completely terrible in all ways, sometimes the gov spends for war or for investments or (depending on where the recession occurred in the business cycle) they may inject money into the economy to stimulate growth; however it doesn't really work as beautifully as the models show since you have businesses withdrawing still from fear due to the gratuitous amount of fear mongering and hate towards Obama. 

I think a major step to helping the economy would be to make news corps responsible for telling the truth otherwise they need a disclaimer saying it's all opinion. I mean cmon we have journalists and bloggers saying PHD, Award winning Economists don't know what they're talking about but somehow a guy with a bachelors in journalism does. 

Also as I previously mentioned education really needs to improve, human capital is arguably the most value asset in our economy, why do we want to make education (which counts towards human capital) unaffordable and shit? We can't just keep crying for manufacturing jobs which are low-skilled and very easy to outsource. Plus some companies (like one I worked for) completely automate some factories where low-skilled labor is rendered useless entirely. 

Also I'd like to mention a subject someone touched on, the size of the government. Reps always yell about government being too large; however, they seem to only support reducing the private sector regulation but they LOVE to try and tell the population how to live their lives. Ah yes mr ceo of Enron shouldn't have to have a transparent business, that is big government! But everyone must follow my religion, not be gay and not argue against my ideas (actually arguing doesn't do shit since people LOVE *confirmation bias*).

As a pretty moderate guy with an undergrad economics degree (working towards an engineering degree and hopefully a phd in econ) I find it frustrating that all we seem to do is *hate* each other, disregard facts and thrive off sensationalism. Also if someone says something we don't agree with we either yell, LIBERAL! or CONSERVATIVE!  It's strange Dems seem to be pussy footing around (albeit currently the gov seems to be focused on smearing each other and ruining good plans that any opposing party backs I look at reps mainly in this statement) 
and Reps seem to be completely bonkers recently?! I feel the rep party has been so wingnutty due to: 
1) A vocal few overpowing the majority
2) Fear Mongering and the abundance of misinformation available at peoples' fingertips (confirmation bias is a small part)
3) group think
4) the dems ran a secret plot to poison all the reps but it failed and now they're all just crazy and still alive. =P


----------



## Treeunit212 (Nov 11, 2012)

synrgy said:


> Well, technically speaking, Todd Akin isn't really on any committees, any more.
> 
> Anyway, here's some interesting perspective about the States going into defalt, from a variety of those in-the-know from across the political spectrum:
> 
> ...



Thanks to macroeconomics 201, I understand the last one just fine. 

He's basically saying that the only factors that make high levels of debt dangerous are inflation and exchange rates (also interest rate), _not_ the actual size of debt. Because of our currently largely deflated economy, these factors are virtually non-existent.

Therefore, follow the Paul Krugman theory and *STIMULATE THAT SHIT INTO RECOVERY WHILE WE STILL CAN.*



edit why the fuck did I say Andrew Sullivan? I need sleep.


----------

