Vote for Obama. Here's why.

[metalman]

Re: Vote for Obama. Here's why.

Very well put.

it's not about that. it's a choice between a lefty and a nutjob and his nuttier sidekick.

i voted for kerry, if you can believe that.

I HATE KERRY

but years later after bush did as bush does i'd be able to say, don't blame me. i didn't vote for the idiot. kerry could not have been worse. no one could be worse.

same deal with mccain. no one thinks he can win this election but that's bs. of course he can win. stop watching tv. that's for california and ny. most of america thinks obama's cabinet will look like thabo mbeki's and obama will be driving around in a long, black limo with red, yellow and green flags on it with huge body guards in fatigues pointing guns out the back... and those the only guns allowed in the usa.

if mccain gets elected and years from now we're looking at pictures of russia invading poland because mccain threatened putin after a fight with his wife, while palin drives around in a long, black limo with red, white and blue flags on it with guns pointing out the back, i'll be able to say... don't look at me.

that said, i don't hate obama. he's competent. that'll be nice for a change.

[D-Mack]

Re: Vote for Obama. Here's why.

Dunno... maybe EJ is trying to suck up to the new Dear Leader to get bonus points or something.

What I DO know is that the Kennedy family is very pro-Obama, and considering that JFK had the cohones to take on the Fed, we do have some hope there. People rag on Ted Kennedy, but the Kennedy family is generally a patriotic, good family. Perhaps Obama will show his spine and make hard decisions. It's very difficult to know.

There's also hope before a firing squad, too....

I think they (finance oligarchy) have too much dirt on Obama, he can't make a 180° turn like JFK did. Obama is a creation just like Jimmy Carter.

[Slimprofits]

Re: Vote for Obama. Here's why.

and considering that JFK had the cohones to take on the Fed

I don't want to drag the thread off course, but is this a reference to E.O. 11110?

Check your private messages.

[ASH]

Re: Vote for Obama. Here's why.

Frankly, a victorious war where we have the conquered finance our spending would not only solve short/medium terms stimulus issues but also allow the US to refinance and start anew.

I hate saying it, but the reason people support war is that is passes the credit risk from one group of worthless proles to another.

Who do you suppose we could conquer who would be able to finance our spending?

For that matter, I think it would make much more sense to "tax" the other nations of the world to use "our" oceans for freight and commerce. If you conquer a hostile country, you have to maintain a large land force, and it is too easy for the "conquered" to wear you down and deny you the economic fruits of conquest through guerrilla warfare. A naval piracy/protection racket has many advantages over territorial conquest. It is much harder to wage asymmetric warfare at sea (at least outside of ports), and the US has a major blue water naval advantage right now. You aren't occupying a country, so you don't have to expend time and resources trying to run it. Neither do you have to worry much about bases or supply lines, or raising a lot of manpower.

Seriously, though -- as I've posted before, I don't think wars of conquest are in our future. I'm not advocating the naval scheme, either. It's just that I'm warped enough to enjoy thinking about such schemes.

[phirang]

Re: Vote for Obama. Here's why.

Frankly, a victorious war where we have the conquered finance our spending would not only solve short/medium terms stimulus issues but also allow the US to refinance and start anew.

I hate saying it, but the reason people support war is that is passes the credit risk from one group of worthless proles to another.

[phirang]

Re: Vote for Obama. Here's why.

I'm surprised no one (that I've heard) has pointed out the distinction between wealth and income.

Senators have wealth (homes, munis, portfolios, gold etc.) Buffet has wealth...Soros wealth...Bush's...Clintons...you get the picture.

The "wealth" that Obama wants to redistribute away from those wealthy 250k/yr "rich people" is called income. I suspect no ituliper will confuse 250k/yr (maybe going lower everyday) with being "wealthy".

With that said, why not confiscate some of the true "wealth" (take a few ski homes and beach houses) of those evil capitalists and redistribute that? If you truly believe in redistribution, why not start at the top? I know why...you know why...just venting.

Also, why don't we insist that all our redistributionist pols start making voluntary "Patriotic Contributions". If they believe it's so beneficial, lead by example!

We have been set up...I can't see how this ends well.

Dunno... maybe EJ is trying to suck up to the new Dear Leader to get bonus points or something.

What I DO know is that the Kennedy family is very pro-Obama, and considering that JFK had the cohones to take on the Fed, we do have some hope there. People rag on Ted Kennedy, but the Kennedy family is generally a patriotic, good family. Perhaps Obama will show his spine and make hard decisions. It's very difficult to know.

There's also hope before a firing squad, too....

[ASH]

Re: Vote for Obama. Here's why.

Obama isn't a good choice. He's the less crappy of many other bad choices.

It's like a condemned man exulting in his fortune when he learns he'll be shot instead of drawn and quartered.

Very well put.

[ASH]

Re: Vote for Obama. Here's why.

Obama may be more likely to tax wealth, but he is less likely than McCain–with his limited grasp of economics and tendency to surround himself with less than highly qualified counsel–to engage in war to relieve our economic suffering.

In my opinion, the present financial crisis is not the crisis, but the opener prior to the main event -- which is the demographic entitlement crisis. Senator McCain has at least spoken of the present system being unfair to the younger generations, has specifically spoken about the problem presented by the Trust Funds (which is to say that they are IOUs backed by future taxation rather than saved resources), and has said that "everything" needs to be on the table to address the problem. I don't believe that Senator Obama has addressed this issue with anything approaching that level of candor -- he has talked about raising taxes on high-earners to address Social Security funding shortfalls, but has not presented any sort of plan for how to pay for Medicare (the bigger problem) and, as far as I can tell, hasn't once mentioned the problem with the Trust Funds. Senator Obama has been resolute in promising seniors that their benefits will not be cut and the retirement age will not be increased, while suggesting that the only sacrifice which will be required is a tax increase on the top 3% of earners, and ignoring the pressure Trust Fund redemptions will put on discretionary spending. What kind of economic leadership is that?

I'm not saying that Senator McCain is good on economic issues, but I think it strains credulity to believe that Senator Obama has a realistic or constructive grasp of our economic problems, either (or the political courage required to address them, at any rate). I don't at all agree with EJ's assessment that a McCain Presidency would increase the likelihood of wider war (I see the US as constrained by manpower, money, and domestic public opinion at this point -- we're overextended, and Mr. "we need more troops" is therefore both unlikely and unable to spread us thinner). Frankly, I think if one is making the Republican vs. Democrat choice this year, it's all about differences in emphasis (which favored industries get fiscal stimulus) and cultural issues like EJ's point about race. Neither of these guys is terrible (relative to major party candidates in past elections), and neither of these guys is great (relative to the problems we face).

That's my $0.02 -- but, you know, I only get one vote.

[chris49]

Re: Vote for Obama. Here's why.

I'm surprised no one (that I've heard) has pointed out the distinction between wealth and income.

Senators have wealth (homes, munis, portfolios, gold etc.) Buffet has wealth...Soros wealth...Bush's...Clintons...you get the picture.

The "wealth" that Obama wants to redistribute away from those wealthy 250k/yr "rich people" is called income. I suspect no ituliper will confuse 250k/yr (maybe going lower everyday) with being "wealthy".

With that said, why not confiscate some of the true "wealth" (take a few ski homes and beach houses) of those evil capitalists and redistribute that? If you truly believe in redistribution, why not start at the top? I know why...you know why...just venting.

Also, why don't we insist that all our redistributionist pols start making voluntary "Patriotic Contributions". If they believe it's so beneficial, lead by example!

We have been set up...I can't see how this ends well.

[WDCRob]

Re: Vote for Obama. Here's why.

As long as the Dems and Republicans receive preferential treatment under election law there will never be a viable third party candidate.

And you will always see one or both parties co-opt any electorally meaningful position adopted by a third party candidate.

The reason both parties are relatively similar is they're both fighting over the same 10-15% of the electorate that's truly independent. Stray too from the middle and you end up like the Democrats after the 1970s, or like the Republicans after... ummmm... today.

[grapejelly]

Re: Vote for Obama. Here's why.

well, I completely disagree. Cast your vote by not voting. There is no real choice. As Justin Raimondo says, it's two candidates each from the War Party.

There are no limits to what Washington can do with either party. No constitution. Screw that.

Stay home and cast your vote against the Machine.

[phirang]

Re: Vote for Obama. Here's why.

Well, taxes are going up, and more useless solar farms will get built.

We can finally start trading pig farts for coal CO2, too!

yay!

[WDCRob]

Re: Vote for Obama. Here's why.

But I fear from a risk management standpoint, both upside and downside of Obama being President will be magnified due to the Congressional majority his party will hold.

Too true. He better be good, because he's going to get most or all of what he wants.

[nathanhulick]

Re: Vote for Obama. Here's why.

Obama and McCain are two wings of the same party. Until more people are willing to "throw away their vote" by voting for a third party candidate who represents them, the majority of voters will "throw away their vote" by voting the lessor of two evils.

[phirang]

Re: Vote for Obama. Here's why.

Obama isn't a good choice. He's the less crappy of many other bad choices.

It's like a condemned man exulting in his fortune when he learns he'll be shot instead of drawn and quartered.

I'm more interested to learn about a forthcoming VAT, tax increases, more SS taxes, and of course massive keynsian efforts planned by people who've never had a real job.

As for reindustrialization, who's going to pay for that? Maybe get some of Stanely O'neal and Paulson's plunder... oh, wait, they gave Obama money.

whoops.