TylerDurden
100 GW
Very surprised to see Oregon fail to pass the doobie.
USA Election: TGiO!
- Thread starter Kingfish
- Start date
LiFe
1 W
TylerDurden said:
Proponents were out getting stoned, and literally forgot to vote.
TylerDurden said:
Read up on why that bill sucked and actually removed rights while pretending to give them.
Many smokers were against it once they found out what was in it.
I suppose they are OK with waiting another 4 years. The state will eventually want the tax revenue..
Kingfish
100 MW
Notes:
In Washington State, both initiatives for marijuana legal possession and support of gay marriage have succeeded – essentially moving us further left of California. Every Republican challenger lost their bid. Both houses and the Governorship are held by the Democrats now, the first time a single party has controlled all three since 1960. The validity of the Republican Party has imploded here, and if it wants to succeed in the future, it needs to drop the firebrand derisive fringe elements that have been its’ trademark since Newt’s 100 Days.
After the celebration comes the hard part: Can both parties reach across the aisle and craft the painful but taxing solutions to cut deficits? How do we increase jobs and cut military expenditures? From another angle: Though natural disasters are horrible, Sandy provides an opportunity to rebuild and keep people busy. I suggest shifting the IMC into National Defense of a different sort with civil engineering projects. The prospect of rising tides is inevitable, so maybe we should cut our losses and build more inland and upwards. At the same time, create a firewall of a different sort that better protects our infrastructure from foreign threats - all in one swoop.
Personally, I prefer to plant trees and pet fish… if they’d let me. And I’d send prized pedigree cannabis to my war-mongering enemies you know cos I think the native Indians were on to something with the peace pipe: Smoke, then let’s talk. In Washington State, we should get into the business of exporting pipes – preloaded …along with hoppy beer. Between the two, bliss seems so much closer. 8)
Planting a seed, KF
In Washington State, both initiatives for marijuana legal possession and support of gay marriage have succeeded – essentially moving us further left of California. Every Republican challenger lost their bid. Both houses and the Governorship are held by the Democrats now, the first time a single party has controlled all three since 1960. The validity of the Republican Party has imploded here, and if it wants to succeed in the future, it needs to drop the firebrand derisive fringe elements that have been its’ trademark since Newt’s 100 Days.
After the celebration comes the hard part: Can both parties reach across the aisle and craft the painful but taxing solutions to cut deficits? How do we increase jobs and cut military expenditures? From another angle: Though natural disasters are horrible, Sandy provides an opportunity to rebuild and keep people busy. I suggest shifting the IMC into National Defense of a different sort with civil engineering projects. The prospect of rising tides is inevitable, so maybe we should cut our losses and build more inland and upwards. At the same time, create a firewall of a different sort that better protects our infrastructure from foreign threats - all in one swoop.
Personally, I prefer to plant trees and pet fish… if they’d let me. And I’d send prized pedigree cannabis to my war-mongering enemies you know cos I think the native Indians were on to something with the peace pipe: Smoke, then let’s talk. In Washington State, we should get into the business of exporting pipes – preloaded …along with hoppy beer. Between the two, bliss seems so much closer. 8)
Planting a seed, KF
TylerDurden
100 GW
Some global reaction via the LA Times.
Voters in the United State handed President Obama a second term in office on Tuesday. As the rest of the world reacted and reflected on the presidential campaign, here’s a sample of the reactions and analysis from newspapers and other media around the globe:
Obama won with pragmatism and realism, Clarin (Argentina): In effect, after the promised hope and change of 2008, this year Obama recognized that he hadn’t achieved all that he had set out to do. And he honestly asked for four more years to be able to do it. Few leaders, in the campaign to get reelected, have the courage to recognize their limitations.
Obama will disappoint his friends around the world, Gulf News (United Arab Emirates): Drone attacks continue to outrage public opinion in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. And Guantanamo Bay prison which operates outside U.S. law remains open, despite Obama’s specific promise to close this moral outrage during his first year in office. The new Democrat administration would generate a huge amount of goodwill if it chose to do something about any (or all) of these problems.
Mitt Romney lost because hard-line Republicans betrayed him, Guardian (Britain): By all historical precedent, given the figures, Romney should have sewn it up months ago. But his Reagan-esque ideas were out of date. The voters replied: "It's the economy, but we're not stupid."
A new term, an old playbook, Jerusalem Post: Elections usually turn a new page, and the president certainly has an opportunity to try to make a fresh start. But so far, Obama and other figures on the national and international stage have done little to suggest they’ll be using a different playbook.
No change in policy, Dawn (Pakistan): In so far as our region is concerned, who the next incumbent is is really not very material. If there was one thing that emerged clearly from the otherwise inane presidential debate on foreign policy and the vice presidential debate it was that there is little daylight between the positions of Obama and Mitt Romney on Afghanistan and by extension on Pakistan.
Not for the old, El Pais (Spain): Obama's victory is a rejection of the more conservative America, captive to an idyllic past that doesn't exist, faithful that the market will magically resolve things. ... Romney has failed in his attempt to make the election a referendum on the economy.
'With Obama, no surprises for Colombia,' El Tiempo (Colombia): It was evident from the campaign and the televised debates between the Democrat president, Barack Obama, and his defeated Republican rival, Mitt Romney ... few references to a region that has been seen as a "backyard" to American power and has few assets to offer, save its experience in the fight against drug trafficking.
Obama Victory to Further Euro-Crisis Clash with Berlin, Spiegel Online (Germany): Obama will continue his cerebral approach to Europe, drained of the sentimentality that has often been a hallmark of the relationship. But his engagement with the Continent will increase. By necessity, Germany will be his partner of first instance. It is unclear whether it would be his partner of choice.
Victorious Barack Hussein Obama, Leadership (Nigeria): This son of the world ends the 2012 presidential race much in the same way he began: on the back of the ultimate victory. And as his lead increases, as the final results are being read, I would like to congratulate Americans all over the world in advance for making a wise and right decision, not only for America but for the whole world.
Defeat for a man of contradictions, Sydney Morning Herald: Had Romney won the election, Americans seriously would be waking up tomorrow not having a clue about what to expect from their new leader. Which of his contradictory tax reform positions might he hold to? Was he with immigrants, against them or really for them -- all positions he had taken in the campaign?
As U.S. elections wind down, so might China-bashing, New China News Agency (China): With bilateral trade standing at nearly half-a-trillion U.S. dollars, tit-for-tat tariffs and, eventually, an all-out economic war will be a disaster for China and the U.S. Conversely, embracing each other's progress while helping each other ride out hardships will not only make both do better jobs, but also serve to put the global economy onto a faster track for recovery.
President Barack Hussein Obama -- again. But the grace is gone, Al Jazeera: The assumption that Obama is relatively better than Romney is of course very hard to sell to Iranians, Afghans, Palestinians, or Pakistanis, who are in one way or another suffering the consequences of his deadly decisions. ... While he won the second term, Obama has lost the grace that once his name and visage invoked among millions of human beings wishing for a better world.
Obama won on the economy, Mail and Guardian (South Africa): The U.S. is still digging out from the deepest recession in 80 years, and employers are barely adding enough jobs to keep pace with population growth. Trillions of dollars of household wealth have vanished in the housing bubble, while the gap between rich and poor widens. But historically, voters have given a second term to incumbent presidents who preside over even modest economic growth during an election year.
Why Romney lost U.S. presidential race, Straits Times (Singapore): In the end, the 65-year-old former Massachusetts governor lost because he lacked that one critical ingredient -- the political instincts to make the advantages and opportunities count. Mr. Obama, in contrast, made full use of the power of incumbency and his battle-hardened reelection team to carve out a victory that defied economic gravity.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/11/what-foreign-media-are-saying-about-the-us-election.html
Voters in the United State handed President Obama a second term in office on Tuesday. As the rest of the world reacted and reflected on the presidential campaign, here’s a sample of the reactions and analysis from newspapers and other media around the globe:
Obama won with pragmatism and realism, Clarin (Argentina): In effect, after the promised hope and change of 2008, this year Obama recognized that he hadn’t achieved all that he had set out to do. And he honestly asked for four more years to be able to do it. Few leaders, in the campaign to get reelected, have the courage to recognize their limitations.
Obama will disappoint his friends around the world, Gulf News (United Arab Emirates): Drone attacks continue to outrage public opinion in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. And Guantanamo Bay prison which operates outside U.S. law remains open, despite Obama’s specific promise to close this moral outrage during his first year in office. The new Democrat administration would generate a huge amount of goodwill if it chose to do something about any (or all) of these problems.
Mitt Romney lost because hard-line Republicans betrayed him, Guardian (Britain): By all historical precedent, given the figures, Romney should have sewn it up months ago. But his Reagan-esque ideas were out of date. The voters replied: "It's the economy, but we're not stupid."
A new term, an old playbook, Jerusalem Post: Elections usually turn a new page, and the president certainly has an opportunity to try to make a fresh start. But so far, Obama and other figures on the national and international stage have done little to suggest they’ll be using a different playbook.
No change in policy, Dawn (Pakistan): In so far as our region is concerned, who the next incumbent is is really not very material. If there was one thing that emerged clearly from the otherwise inane presidential debate on foreign policy and the vice presidential debate it was that there is little daylight between the positions of Obama and Mitt Romney on Afghanistan and by extension on Pakistan.
Not for the old, El Pais (Spain): Obama's victory is a rejection of the more conservative America, captive to an idyllic past that doesn't exist, faithful that the market will magically resolve things. ... Romney has failed in his attempt to make the election a referendum on the economy.
'With Obama, no surprises for Colombia,' El Tiempo (Colombia): It was evident from the campaign and the televised debates between the Democrat president, Barack Obama, and his defeated Republican rival, Mitt Romney ... few references to a region that has been seen as a "backyard" to American power and has few assets to offer, save its experience in the fight against drug trafficking.
Obama Victory to Further Euro-Crisis Clash with Berlin, Spiegel Online (Germany): Obama will continue his cerebral approach to Europe, drained of the sentimentality that has often been a hallmark of the relationship. But his engagement with the Continent will increase. By necessity, Germany will be his partner of first instance. It is unclear whether it would be his partner of choice.
Victorious Barack Hussein Obama, Leadership (Nigeria): This son of the world ends the 2012 presidential race much in the same way he began: on the back of the ultimate victory. And as his lead increases, as the final results are being read, I would like to congratulate Americans all over the world in advance for making a wise and right decision, not only for America but for the whole world.
Defeat for a man of contradictions, Sydney Morning Herald: Had Romney won the election, Americans seriously would be waking up tomorrow not having a clue about what to expect from their new leader. Which of his contradictory tax reform positions might he hold to? Was he with immigrants, against them or really for them -- all positions he had taken in the campaign?
As U.S. elections wind down, so might China-bashing, New China News Agency (China): With bilateral trade standing at nearly half-a-trillion U.S. dollars, tit-for-tat tariffs and, eventually, an all-out economic war will be a disaster for China and the U.S. Conversely, embracing each other's progress while helping each other ride out hardships will not only make both do better jobs, but also serve to put the global economy onto a faster track for recovery.
President Barack Hussein Obama -- again. But the grace is gone, Al Jazeera: The assumption that Obama is relatively better than Romney is of course very hard to sell to Iranians, Afghans, Palestinians, or Pakistanis, who are in one way or another suffering the consequences of his deadly decisions. ... While he won the second term, Obama has lost the grace that once his name and visage invoked among millions of human beings wishing for a better world.
Obama won on the economy, Mail and Guardian (South Africa): The U.S. is still digging out from the deepest recession in 80 years, and employers are barely adding enough jobs to keep pace with population growth. Trillions of dollars of household wealth have vanished in the housing bubble, while the gap between rich and poor widens. But historically, voters have given a second term to incumbent presidents who preside over even modest economic growth during an election year.
Why Romney lost U.S. presidential race, Straits Times (Singapore): In the end, the 65-year-old former Massachusetts governor lost because he lacked that one critical ingredient -- the political instincts to make the advantages and opportunities count. Mr. Obama, in contrast, made full use of the power of incumbency and his battle-hardened reelection team to carve out a victory that defied economic gravity.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/11/what-foreign-media-are-saying-about-the-us-election.html
TylerDurden
100 GW
... and via BusinessWeek:
In Foreign Press, Cheers for an Obama Win and 'Olympic Levels of Schadenfreude' for Romney
By Bruce Einhorn and Carol Matlack on November 07, 2012
As news spread that Barack Obama had won re-election, the foreign press weighed in. Here’s a quick roundup of what the press is saying around the world.
In Paris, the left-leaning tabloid Liberation ran a full-page photo of a smiling Obama on its cover, with the headline, in English: “Yes!”
A blog by journalists who covered the election at the U.K.’s Guardian took a dig at Romney in an item entitled, “Olympic levels of Schadenfreude”: “The London Olympics went rather better than Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign,” the Guardian bloggers noted, referring to Romney’s July visit to London, when he infuriated the British by implying they weren’t well prepared for the Games.
Italy’s Corriere della Sera attributed Obama’s victory to “a team of professionals who made extensive use of ‘big data’ technology, along with extraordinary support for the president from music and film stars, a very effective Bill Clinton, and Michelle Obama, who carried on a parallel campaign in support of her husband as no first lady has done before.”
Russia’s Izvestia said that Obama is generally “more conciliatory” toward Russia than Romney would have been. However, the newspaper quoted Alexei Pushkov, chairman of the Russian Parliament’s foreign affairs committee, as saying the Obama administration had been “tactless” in its treatment of Russia and urged Obama to send “a signal of readiness to build a constructive personal relationship” with President Vladimir Putin.
Most of Europe’s papers had long gone to press by the time the election was called for Obama, which prompted some creative hedging. Several Belgian newspapers got around this problem by offering alternative election scenarios. Le Soir had a headline “Obama” at the top of its front page, followed by a headline on the left saying, “Has lost, see page 2″ and another on the right, “Has won, see page 3.”
Spain’s El Pais had an article highlighting the role of Hispanic voters, entitled: “Hispanics Decisive in the Reelection of Obama.” Citing exit polls showing Obama had won 75 percent of Hispanic votes, the article read: “Election night showed that any candidate aspiring to the presidency must have them on his side.”
A headline atop page one of Germany’s Bild-Zeitung read, in English: “Yes he can again.”
In Australia, the Sydney Morning Herald welcomed the continuity of an Obama presidency that has focused on building ties with countries in the Asia-Pacific region with the headline: “Analysis: Result a relief for Australia.” In a piece entitled, “Obama’s return comes with renewed focus on region,” senior correspondent Daniel Filton, writes: “BREATHE a sigh of relief, Australia—had Mitt Romney won the day, it would have made for an ugly time with our big alliance partner. Barack Obama, by contrast, will now be judged in his second term on a pledge to ‘pivot’ America’s attention to this neighbourhood.” Filton goes on to point out that Australian Treasurer Wayne Swan had dismissed Tea Party members as “cranks and crazies.”
In Japan, the focus of broadcaster NHK’s coverage was military and geopolitical issues at a time when Japanese are angry over the U.S. military presence in Okinawa, but want American support in the dispute with China over islands in the East China Sea. “A senior official of Japan’s foreign ministry says Japan welcomes the continuation of the U.S. basic policy that focuses on Asia,” NHK reported online. “The governments of Japan and the United States have to overcome many issues. They include the relocation of the US Marine Corps’ Futenma Air Station in Okinawa and training flights of the controversial Osprey transport aircraft over Japan.”
In Thailand, the Nation newspaper focused on the big local angle, Illinois Democrat Tammy Duckworth’s victory over Republican Representative Joe Walsh in a suburban Chicago district. Duckworth, 44, is the daughter of a Thai mother and an American father and was born in Bangkok. An Iraq War veteran and double leg amputee, Duckworth is the first Thai-American woman elected to Congress. “She can speak Thai,” reported the Nation.
In India, the big focus was on the election’s impact on the country’s outsourcing industry. The Economic Times quoted Phaneesh Murthy, chief executive officer of IT and consulting firm iGATE, saying that Obama’s reelection was “not best news” for India’s IT outsourcing industry. Though Murthy went on to say that Indians shouldn’t pay too much attention to Democrats’ criticism of outsourcing. “However, we need to understand how much of the election rhetoric continues into 2013 and that will determine the full implications for us.” The newspaper also quoted Indian business leaders expressing confidence the outsourcing issue would fade now that Obama had won.
In South Korea, the big issue is how to deal with North Korea, Yonhap news service reported. Relations between the U.S. and South Korea “have been arguably at their best state in nearly a decade,” Yonhap said. Following Obama’s victory, the big uncertainty is now the Dec. 19 presidential election in South Korea to replace President Lee Myung-bak. “In terms of future relations between Korea and the U.S., what’s more important is who will take the presidential office in Korea, rather than a foreign-policy direction by the Obama second term,” said Chun Chae-sung, a professor of international relations at Seoul National University.
Einhorn is Asia regional editor in Bloomberg Businessweek's Hong Kong bureau. Matlack is a Paris correspondent for Bloomberg Businessweek.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-11-07/an-obama-win-and-olympic-levels-of-schadenfraude-for-foreign-press
In Foreign Press, Cheers for an Obama Win and 'Olympic Levels of Schadenfreude' for Romney
By Bruce Einhorn and Carol Matlack on November 07, 2012
As news spread that Barack Obama had won re-election, the foreign press weighed in. Here’s a quick roundup of what the press is saying around the world.
In Paris, the left-leaning tabloid Liberation ran a full-page photo of a smiling Obama on its cover, with the headline, in English: “Yes!”
A blog by journalists who covered the election at the U.K.’s Guardian took a dig at Romney in an item entitled, “Olympic levels of Schadenfreude”: “The London Olympics went rather better than Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign,” the Guardian bloggers noted, referring to Romney’s July visit to London, when he infuriated the British by implying they weren’t well prepared for the Games.
Italy’s Corriere della Sera attributed Obama’s victory to “a team of professionals who made extensive use of ‘big data’ technology, along with extraordinary support for the president from music and film stars, a very effective Bill Clinton, and Michelle Obama, who carried on a parallel campaign in support of her husband as no first lady has done before.”
Russia’s Izvestia said that Obama is generally “more conciliatory” toward Russia than Romney would have been. However, the newspaper quoted Alexei Pushkov, chairman of the Russian Parliament’s foreign affairs committee, as saying the Obama administration had been “tactless” in its treatment of Russia and urged Obama to send “a signal of readiness to build a constructive personal relationship” with President Vladimir Putin.
Most of Europe’s papers had long gone to press by the time the election was called for Obama, which prompted some creative hedging. Several Belgian newspapers got around this problem by offering alternative election scenarios. Le Soir had a headline “Obama” at the top of its front page, followed by a headline on the left saying, “Has lost, see page 2″ and another on the right, “Has won, see page 3.”
Spain’s El Pais had an article highlighting the role of Hispanic voters, entitled: “Hispanics Decisive in the Reelection of Obama.” Citing exit polls showing Obama had won 75 percent of Hispanic votes, the article read: “Election night showed that any candidate aspiring to the presidency must have them on his side.”
A headline atop page one of Germany’s Bild-Zeitung read, in English: “Yes he can again.”
In Australia, the Sydney Morning Herald welcomed the continuity of an Obama presidency that has focused on building ties with countries in the Asia-Pacific region with the headline: “Analysis: Result a relief for Australia.” In a piece entitled, “Obama’s return comes with renewed focus on region,” senior correspondent Daniel Filton, writes: “BREATHE a sigh of relief, Australia—had Mitt Romney won the day, it would have made for an ugly time with our big alliance partner. Barack Obama, by contrast, will now be judged in his second term on a pledge to ‘pivot’ America’s attention to this neighbourhood.” Filton goes on to point out that Australian Treasurer Wayne Swan had dismissed Tea Party members as “cranks and crazies.”
In Japan, the focus of broadcaster NHK’s coverage was military and geopolitical issues at a time when Japanese are angry over the U.S. military presence in Okinawa, but want American support in the dispute with China over islands in the East China Sea. “A senior official of Japan’s foreign ministry says Japan welcomes the continuation of the U.S. basic policy that focuses on Asia,” NHK reported online. “The governments of Japan and the United States have to overcome many issues. They include the relocation of the US Marine Corps’ Futenma Air Station in Okinawa and training flights of the controversial Osprey transport aircraft over Japan.”
In Thailand, the Nation newspaper focused on the big local angle, Illinois Democrat Tammy Duckworth’s victory over Republican Representative Joe Walsh in a suburban Chicago district. Duckworth, 44, is the daughter of a Thai mother and an American father and was born in Bangkok. An Iraq War veteran and double leg amputee, Duckworth is the first Thai-American woman elected to Congress. “She can speak Thai,” reported the Nation.
In India, the big focus was on the election’s impact on the country’s outsourcing industry. The Economic Times quoted Phaneesh Murthy, chief executive officer of IT and consulting firm iGATE, saying that Obama’s reelection was “not best news” for India’s IT outsourcing industry. Though Murthy went on to say that Indians shouldn’t pay too much attention to Democrats’ criticism of outsourcing. “However, we need to understand how much of the election rhetoric continues into 2013 and that will determine the full implications for us.” The newspaper also quoted Indian business leaders expressing confidence the outsourcing issue would fade now that Obama had won.
In South Korea, the big issue is how to deal with North Korea, Yonhap news service reported. Relations between the U.S. and South Korea “have been arguably at their best state in nearly a decade,” Yonhap said. Following Obama’s victory, the big uncertainty is now the Dec. 19 presidential election in South Korea to replace President Lee Myung-bak. “In terms of future relations between Korea and the U.S., what’s more important is who will take the presidential office in Korea, rather than a foreign-policy direction by the Obama second term,” said Chun Chae-sung, a professor of international relations at Seoul National University.
Einhorn is Asia regional editor in Bloomberg Businessweek's Hong Kong bureau. Matlack is a Paris correspondent for Bloomberg Businessweek.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-11-07/an-obama-win-and-olympic-levels-of-schadenfraude-for-foreign-press
EMF
100 kW
Chalo
100 TW
Apple Inc's chart looks much better yet.
I don't own any of that, either.
I don't own any of that, either.
Chalo said:
And that's why we're both stupid for not taking solid investment advice from both FOX news and silicon valley
AAPL is on the way down, but i see gold heading upwards for a while. Silver will go up too, but not as dramatically.
If you bought gold in 2000, you woulda paid $272 an ounce. It's now worth ~$1700.
If you bought apple stock in 2000, you woulda paid $21 per share, and your investment is ~$550.00
You'd be rich if you bought either. Percentage wise, AAPL would have made you a lot more $.
But if our country goes under, your apple stock is worth nothing and your gold is worth quite a bit still.
So it all comes down to this - do you believe in the stability of our country? conservatives tend to take a pessimistic view. And libertarians like me are even more pessimistic. That's why the Ron Paul crowd ( more libertarian than conservative ) tend to be the biggest 'gold bugs'.
neptronix said:And that's why we're both stupid for not taking solid investment advice from both FOX news and silicon valley
AAPL is on the way down, but i see gold heading upwards for a while. Silver will go up too, but not as dramatically.
If you bought gold in 2000, you woulda paid $272 an ounce. It's now worth ~$1700.
If you bought apple stock in 2000, you woulda paid $21 per share, and your investment is ~$550.00
You'd be rich if you bought either. Percentage wise, AAPL would have made you a lot more $.
But if our country goes under, your apple stock is worth nothing and your gold is worth quite a bit still.
So it all comes down to this - do you believe in the stability of our country? conservatives tend to take a pessimistic view. And libertarians like me are even more pessimistic. That's why the Ron Paul crowd ( more libertarian than conservative ) tend to be the biggest 'gold bugs'.
Interesting, we could be looking at the start of a gold bubble.
EMF
100 kW
Don't forget Acapulco Gold if you live in Colorado or Washington....
A guy could make a lot of money in a small amount of area if this new taxable product is allowed to flourish! 8)
A guy could make a lot of money in a small amount of area if this new taxable product is allowed to flourish! 8)
The fingers
10 TW
Prospecting/panning looks better all the time. :wink:
Hmm, i'm not entirely sure if it would fit into the definition of a bubble.. it's an asset that always gains value historically, and ultimately never depreciates. It is so oxidization proof that it is used to coat other metals to prevent them from oxidizing.
It has had high value for tends of thousands of years.
The banks hoard gold. The Jews escaped nazi germany with their gold, and that is how they kept their wealth. People who deal with large amounts of wealth seem to be fond of it.. would you call them stupid gold bugs?
It can fluctuate a lot, but even if you buy high right now, in another couple decades it could very well naturally be ~1,700/oz at a low price, due to inflation etc.
If you buy now, you are betting that the price will continue to grow for a while due to continued economic instability. You are effectively betting against our economy and securing your future. But you could also make money doing it.
I bet the democrats' lapdog economists who continue giving out positive news actually have some gold tucked away.
It has had high value for tends of thousands of years.
The banks hoard gold. The Jews escaped nazi germany with their gold, and that is how they kept their wealth. People who deal with large amounts of wealth seem to be fond of it.. would you call them stupid gold bugs?
It can fluctuate a lot, but even if you buy high right now, in another couple decades it could very well naturally be ~1,700/oz at a low price, due to inflation etc.
If you buy now, you are betting that the price will continue to grow for a while due to continued economic instability. You are effectively betting against our economy and securing your future. But you could also make money doing it.
I bet the democrats' lapdog economists who continue giving out positive news actually have some gold tucked away.
TylerDurden
100 GW
Meanwhile, back on Planet Karl...
Karl Rove: Obama succeeded by ‘suppressing the vote’
By Erik Wemple
Posted at 02:59 PM ET, 11/08/2012
Fox News host Megyn Kelly introduced Karl Rove in a just-concluded segment by saying that Rove had had a day to think about the presidential election and was ready with some reflections. One topic that Rove apparently wasn’t ready to discuss was his Ohio-related meltdown on the Fox News set on Tuesday night.
Yet Rove was available to speak to how dark and miserable and insignificant was President Obama’s victory at the polls. The highly successful political operative reprised some of the points from his Wall Street Journal opinion piece of today, noting that Obama’s vote totals had dropped by 9 million from 2008, that his margin of victory dropped from roughly 7 percent to 2 percent, and other negative indicia as well.
All this was evidence, Rove explained, that the president “succeeded by suppressing the vote.” Neither Kelly nor Rove examined how the alleged suppression squared with the highly documented Team Obama get-out-the-vote operation.
Later in the discussion, after Rove started cycling through these same statistical points yet again, Kelly switched into accountability mode.
Kelly: “You keep saying that, but he won, Karl.”
Rove: “Won what?”
That would be the presidency.
:lol:
Karl Rove: Obama succeeded by ‘suppressing the vote’
By Erik Wemple
Posted at 02:59 PM ET, 11/08/2012
Fox News host Megyn Kelly introduced Karl Rove in a just-concluded segment by saying that Rove had had a day to think about the presidential election and was ready with some reflections. One topic that Rove apparently wasn’t ready to discuss was his Ohio-related meltdown on the Fox News set on Tuesday night.
Yet Rove was available to speak to how dark and miserable and insignificant was President Obama’s victory at the polls. The highly successful political operative reprised some of the points from his Wall Street Journal opinion piece of today, noting that Obama’s vote totals had dropped by 9 million from 2008, that his margin of victory dropped from roughly 7 percent to 2 percent, and other negative indicia as well.
All this was evidence, Rove explained, that the president “succeeded by suppressing the vote.” Neither Kelly nor Rove examined how the alleged suppression squared with the highly documented Team Obama get-out-the-vote operation.
Later in the discussion, after Rove started cycling through these same statistical points yet again, Kelly switched into accountability mode.
Kelly: “You keep saying that, but he won, Karl.”
Rove: “Won what?”
That would be the presidency.
:lol:
LiFe
1 W
Had me all misty, thinking of our buddy studebiker. OK, I was actually in tears -laughing. Mr. SuperPAC; Karl Rove exemplifies how diseased both he and Fox really are :lol:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a21_1352390776
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a21_1352390776
EMF
100 kW
I like how everyone is laughing their asses off at how all of a sudden, FOX NEWS is concerned about "media bias" and holding all sorts of discussions about it! :lol: They are broadcasting this from the summit of bullshit mountain. ( As The Daily Show has dubbed them. They even call them BMN now. )
My brother-in-law has been drinking their Kool-Aid so long, that they have him worked into a frenzy. He watches them all day and is about at the end of his emotional rope, sell your house, world is coming to an end, buy gold etc etc.
We are all like - hey Charlie- the douche that has you all worked up about the End of Days is the same MORON that claimed Romney was going to win the election!
Turn the damn TV off....
My brother-in-law has been drinking their Kool-Aid so long, that they have him worked into a frenzy. He watches them all day and is about at the end of his emotional rope, sell your house, world is coming to an end, buy gold etc etc.
We are all like - hey Charlie- the douche that has you all worked up about the End of Days is the same MORON that claimed Romney was going to win the election!
Turn the damn TV off....
TylerDurden
100 GW
SATURDAY, OCT 27, 2012 03:00 PM EDT
Frank Rich: Right will rage if Obama wins
If Obama wins, Frank Rich says the GOP's fury will intensify, and the party will only get more extreme
BY DAVID DALEY
Ever since the days of Barry Goldwater, many liberals have assumed — or naively hoped — that each national defeat would teach Republicans that they had overreached, and pull them back from the extremes. Instead, the opposite has happened: The lesson of every loss, even the routs, has been “we were not conservative enough.”
The Goldwater smackdown in 1964 really did lay the groundwork for the Reagan revolution and the ensuing conservative era. But the loss to Barack Obama in 2008 — and the toppling of establishment conservatives by tea party insurgents in 2010 — has put the extremes in charge. Even someone as conservative and virulently opposed to the Obama agenda as Mitch McConnell has hired a tea party veteran — and Rand Paul adviser — to run his 2014 Senate re-election campaign.
So what happens if Obama beats Mitt Romney and the Republicans again, this time after the likes of McConnell made denying him a second term their main legislative mission over the last four years? The earnest-minded might hope that Republicans view Obama’s re-election as a message to cooperate and a sign that their obstruction failed. The sober-minded might look at the number of ridiculous white men determined to make rape victims carry their attacker’s baby and a primary campaign filled with evolution opponents and assume common sense and basic decency, or at least post-Renaissance thinking, might return on social and cultural issues.
But Frank Rich says none of that will happen. The only lesson that will be learned, the New York magazine columnist says, is to head further right. And Rich argues that’s because there simply aren’t any other voices left. The moderate Northeast wing of the party was purged long ago. The primary defeats of conservatives like Bob Bennett in Utah and Richard Lugar in Indiana taught establishment figures that any compromise has its costs. Even a moderate-conservative wing, Rich suggests, would have no leaders, let alone followers, in the national party.
As part of a new series of conversations with leading thinkers and writers about where American politics goes from here, we sat down with Rich on Thursday afternoon in New York. The former New York Times columnist and executive producer of HBO’s “Veep” sees more of the same ahead — a president who remains cautious in a second term, an opposition party that thinks it needs to be even more conservative, and a race among true believers for the party’s nod in 2016.
David Daley is the executive editor of Salon.
http://www.salon.com/2012/10/27/frank_rich_right_will_rage_if_obama_wins/
Frank Rich: Right will rage if Obama wins
If Obama wins, Frank Rich says the GOP's fury will intensify, and the party will only get more extreme
BY DAVID DALEY
Ever since the days of Barry Goldwater, many liberals have assumed — or naively hoped — that each national defeat would teach Republicans that they had overreached, and pull them back from the extremes. Instead, the opposite has happened: The lesson of every loss, even the routs, has been “we were not conservative enough.”
The Goldwater smackdown in 1964 really did lay the groundwork for the Reagan revolution and the ensuing conservative era. But the loss to Barack Obama in 2008 — and the toppling of establishment conservatives by tea party insurgents in 2010 — has put the extremes in charge. Even someone as conservative and virulently opposed to the Obama agenda as Mitch McConnell has hired a tea party veteran — and Rand Paul adviser — to run his 2014 Senate re-election campaign.
So what happens if Obama beats Mitt Romney and the Republicans again, this time after the likes of McConnell made denying him a second term their main legislative mission over the last four years? The earnest-minded might hope that Republicans view Obama’s re-election as a message to cooperate and a sign that their obstruction failed. The sober-minded might look at the number of ridiculous white men determined to make rape victims carry their attacker’s baby and a primary campaign filled with evolution opponents and assume common sense and basic decency, or at least post-Renaissance thinking, might return on social and cultural issues.
But Frank Rich says none of that will happen. The only lesson that will be learned, the New York magazine columnist says, is to head further right. And Rich argues that’s because there simply aren’t any other voices left. The moderate Northeast wing of the party was purged long ago. The primary defeats of conservatives like Bob Bennett in Utah and Richard Lugar in Indiana taught establishment figures that any compromise has its costs. Even a moderate-conservative wing, Rich suggests, would have no leaders, let alone followers, in the national party.
As part of a new series of conversations with leading thinkers and writers about where American politics goes from here, we sat down with Rich on Thursday afternoon in New York. The former New York Times columnist and executive producer of HBO’s “Veep” sees more of the same ahead — a president who remains cautious in a second term, an opposition party that thinks it needs to be even more conservative, and a race among true believers for the party’s nod in 2016.
Let’s assume that Nate Silver – everyone’s Xanax these days — is right, and Obama has a 70 percent chance of winning reelection (Silver’s calculation moved to 74.4 percent on Saturday). What do you expect from an Obama second term? I think that there are a lot of people who fantasize that his second term will liberate him to be the lefty, transformative president they dreamed he would be. And that seems like a fundamental misreading of the sober and cautious and bipartisan president that he’s attempted to be.
I think you’ve answered the question. I don’t believe people change. I think we know who Obama is, despite the Republican attempt to caricature him as a wide-eyed radical. He’s a moderate Democrat. In another era, he might have been a moderate Republican. And, generally speaking, presidents don’t accomplish much in their second terms anyway. I think anything he does will be kind of incremental. I don’t have great expectations.
I know the things he’s said he’ll work on: tax reform, immigration reform, entitlement reform, a grand bargain — all this. And I’m sure he’ll in good conscience pursue it and perhaps succeed at some of it, depending on the mood of the country and what hand he’s dealt in Congress. But I think the idea that there’s going to be a radical difference — or even if there were, that he’d be able to effect it — is not realistic.
Your colleague Jonathan Chait argued last week that we’d get an immediate read on Obama, if reelected. He could fight the entire misframing of the fiscal cliff and break Congressional obstructionism. He could simply let these defense cuts mandated by the debt ceiling deal go into place, and allow the Bush tax cuts to officially expire. And if the House Republicans then refuse to raise the debt limit in the winter, he simply does it by executive fiat. But then in the last debate, he seemed to take that off the table already, when he said the sequester cuts would not happen.
It is a test. But, back to my answer to the first question—
People don’t change.
People don’t change. I think there’s going to be some attempt to thread the needle — barring some extraordinary circumstance, like the Democrats take the House, but that’s not going to happen. But even if it did, I still think Obama would be a very moderate Democrat.
Does this mean that he has not learned the fundamental lesson of his first term: the raw determination of Republican obstructionism? The debt ceiling debate and the collapse of the grand bargain seemed to be when the wool finally came off his eyes. Would he really start a second term thinking these guys wanted to compromise with him?
I think he did learn that lesson, but that doesn’t mean that his actual action in the next showdown is going to be that much different. It’s not necessarily going to pay off in terms of the way he actually proceeds at the top of a second term. Obviously, eyes have been opened and he’ll be less inclined to fall for bullshit from the Republican leadership in Congress. Will he be played by people even like Olympia Snowe — who, of course, will no longer be in the Senate. But I don’t think that the end result will be all that different. It just may happen in a faster, clearer and more transparent way, with less dawdling and less waiting for a bipartisan miracle that’s not going to happen.
So how would the Republicans behave in a second term? You argued last week, in a piece that I am sure surprised some people, that the party will continue moving to the right no matter what – that there is no chance a loss in this election would convince them to become more moderate.
Whether he’s reelected or not, I think the party, the radical, conservative, right-wing party, is going to keep moving to the right. Keep getting rid of dissidents, purging dissidents. To liberals, something like the Richard Mourdock thing is, “Oh my god, this is the end of the Republican Party,” but, no. A lot of Republican powers that be circled back to Todd Akin once the spotlight was off of him. That is the party. For liberals to have the illusion that it’s going to change, or that they’re going to learn a lesson if Romney loses, is to make the same mistake liberals always make.
All the way back to Goldwater, liberals have expected Republicans to stop moving to the right after a defeat.
And they’re deluding themselves. Every liberal pundit — Tony Lewis and James Reston in the Times, Richard Hofstadter in the New York Review of Books — back then predicted oblivion and, two years later, Reagan was elected governor of California and the rest is history. So, if Romney wins, I think he is going to be a messenger boy for Paul Ryan.
Right.
If Obama wins, they’re going to say — I can already read the stories — “If only we had found a true conservative.” Now, they couldn’t find a true conservative who wouldn’t frighten children. All they could come up with was Michele Bachmann, Santorum, Herman Cain, Gingrich, but the next go-round they’ll have Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan and others. That’s the way the party is going to go. They’ll say as much as they said of McCain, “He didn’t really represent us.”
How many times in a row can you say that after a loss?
Well, you can keep saying it because you keep saying, “They weren’t Ronald Reagan. We won when we had a Ronald Reagan, so now we’re going to find our Ronald Reagan.”
Except that Reagan would looked like Jon Huntsman if he was running in the primary field this year.
Look, they knew Romney wasn’t it; 75 percent, more or less, of the party opposed him in the primaries. The other thing that’s going to happen is: unbelievable rage at Obama. We’re going to see the rage of fanatics and spin keep ratcheting it up. The position has been — and this is even by relatively establishment people like Peggy Noonan, George Will — “He’s an incompetent. Americans can’t stand him. They think he’s a nice guy but he’s in over his head. This is an historic change to end this collectivist presidency.” Because underlying so much of this, in my view, is race, they’re going to be furious. They really felt they could knock him off easily.
So when that fails, they’re going to be very angry. They’ll be angry at Romney, but they’ll forget about Romney in two minutes. They’re really going to be angry at Obama because they can’t believe that this collectivist black man has, in their view, bamboozled the American public once again.
Even in the midst of this economy.
Exactly, when all of the factors were in their favor. And they convince themselves that their point of view about Obama is essentially the universal point of view of everyone except minorities. They think all white people agree with them.
And not to be another deluded liberal: But is there no election result that can dissuade them from heading down that path? Is there no more tempered voice to say, you know, a party of tax cuts and abortion extremism just isn’t going to be a majority party again – especially since, demographically, there won’t be enough angry white men left for them?
Who would represent it? Who are the people in that party to be that tempered voice? Not that she has been effective, but Olympia Snowe is leaving the Senate. Who is it going to be? John Cornyn? John Boehner? They’re held in contempt by the right as it is. So, no. It just doesn’t exist.
This is a right-wing party now. And if you follow the history of the Republican Party over the past 50 years, it’s been a steady progression to drum these people out. To invite in Democrats, the Dixiecrats and segregationists from the Deep South, then to purge the old Rockefeller, Javits, George Romney wing of the party. It just doesn’t exist, except for a few congressional districts in the Northeast, but that’s it.
There’s not a single national Republican leader that falls into that category. You can’t count Jon Huntsman because Gary Johnson is more popular than he is. I don’t see anything changing. I don’t see who the leader of it would be. Hypothetically, once upon a time, it would have been Michael Bloomberg. But he’s not a Republican, and wouldn’t be welcomed by Republicans. I mean, Rudy Giuliani was supposed to be an example of moderate Republicanism, too. I’m not a Giuliani fan, but he got absolutely no traction. When Jeb Bush talked about it being a big tent party and leading the Republican Convention this summer, he was held in contempt or just laughed off.
And there’s about to be this generational shift where even the voices who were essentially establishment, moderate-conservative voices — the Romneys, the McCains, even in some ways the Bushes — are really about to leave the stage to the Ryans, the Rubios, the Jindals.
Right. And, that’s why I feel that even if Romney wins, he’s a placeholder. If he loses, people won’t remember who he was 48 hours after the election in that party. They’ll be like, “Good riddance to bad rubbish, and next time we’ll find our Rubio, Ryan or Christie.” Whoever they want.
So the Republicans head further to the right in 2016, but in an America that’s rapidly changing demographically in ways that would seem to benefit the Democrats. What’s the strategy to compete?
There aren’t going to be enough white people left for them so it’s all about status. They’re never going to win the African-American vote when they’re still trying to bring back Jim Crow — it’s not happening. But, you could argue — and I’m not arguing this, I’m not saying it’s going to happen — that they learned that they made a big mistake demonizing illegal immigrants and, by extension, all immigrants and, by extension, Latinos. And Rove and Bush recognized that —
Bush got something close to 40 percent of the Latino vote.
They got somewhere between 36 and 40 percent. This year they may get 25 percent. This election cycle, nothing can happen. Romney went to the right of Rick Perry. But if they very quickly bury all of this — I think that for cynical reasons — I think they would take the argument that some elements of the Latino community might like a social conservative message. So we’re going to come up with our own version of the DREAM Act, as Rubio was trying to do before he was preempted by Obama with the new DREAM Act. They will no longer have a candidate that will veto the DREAM Act and effect self-deportation, whatever that is. And so they have a chance — and, frankly, a gun held to your head where you cannot win an election systemically if you cannot appeal to the Hispanic vote might help. They really have to change their ideology to do it. I also think it’s very revealing in this election that gay rights have basically fallen off the table. Because obviously they’re looking at polls showing that gay baiting and gay bashing and demagoguery on gay marriage is a losing issue, certainly with independent voters.
If that’s the case, though, why can’t they stop talking so offensively about rape?
They will always be the pro-life party. I think the fact is that they’re looking at polls showing it’s not helpful but they can’t really change it. The move to shut down Akin was real. If they didn’t feel there was a problem with having these things publicly stated then they wouldn’t have tried to shut him down. Mourdock has done some damage. So they’ll try to put that in the closet. They’re still anti-same sex marriage. Ralph Reed is still getting out the vote for Romney, but they’re going to put this stuff on the down low. Mark my words. Romney is already trying to put it on the down low, and took out an ad where the woman is saying, “He is pro-choice because it’s OK to have an abortion is cases of rape and incest and the life of the mother!” That shows that they know that they have to polish up that turd.
They’ll do it on gay issues, too. And my guess is, with Latinos, they will find a Rubio or someone like him — though their ideal candidate would be a Mexican-American and not Cuban-American — to move on that. And the truth is, their financial base wants immigration reform. Because it’s big business and it’s corporate America and they want immigration reform. So, if they can get themselves back toward 40 percent of the Latino vote — it’s not happening this year, may not happen two years from now, but could happen four to eight years from now. So that, in my mind, allows one to argue — doesn’t mean it’ll happen — that there is a way that they can outrun the demographic issue. If it was this party now — loathed by most Hispanics and Latinos in the country, with these policies on immigration, embracing Kris Kobach and the Arizona law and all of that — then, no, they’re demographically dead. But you can’t assume that that’s what they’re going to be doing. They’re not that stupid. We never thought that they would disown neocon foreign policy after Bush, and they have, basically.
But John Bolton and Dan Senor are still advising Romney on foreign policy. He can stuff them in the closet now, but if he wins, they’ll be right there driving policy on Iran, for example, no?
With Romney there’s no way to know. Colin Powell said it yesterday, he said, “I don’t know in foreign policy which Romney we’re getting. The one in the debate? Or the one a few weeks ago?”
Or the one during the primary campaign.
Yeah. Over the long haul, and you saw this in the primaries, Romney notwithstanding, a return to a classic, vaguely isolationist realism foreign policy among the Republicans. And now we literally have Romney saying, “We don’t want to have another Iraq or Afghanistan.” And that’s where the country is, so, it could always be lying in wait, but …
Iran is right there waiting. And it was only last month when Romney sounded ready to join Netanyahu in an attack on Iran.
Clearly Romney has decided within the last couple of weeks, “I don’t want to go there.” His policy just really does not differ from Obama’s. People just aren’t listening anymore to McCain and Lindsey Graham and Joseph Lieberman. That’s all over. People do not want to fight another war. If you listen to right-wing talk radio, no one is saying, “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” as McCain was saying four years ago.
There are two competing concepts here, though, whether we’re talking about social issues or foreign policy. Whether it’s Personhood or forcing a rape victim to carry a baby to term, as the party heads further and further right, these extremes have very real policy consequences – and the people driving the party in that direction do want to go there, and those ostensibly in charge don’t seem to have the will to stop them.
If you’re running in a right-wing state. The national policy doesn’t have to be that, even if it’s in the platform as it has been for decades now. The truth is that I think the Republicans have always known that if Roe v. Wade were to be repealed, and abortions were to really become illegal, it would be bad for them.
It’s an issue I’m very concerned about and am very passionate about. But I feel they’re going to try to keep it on the down low. But, yes, you’re always going to have candidates that are neanderthals on this issue, and Mourdock is a classic example. But Mourdock is running in a very red state.
Let me back up and look at the coverage of this campaign, big picture. As somebody who has written as eloquently as you have on the way that lies harden into truths: Have there been big-picture lies in this campaign that have simply not been called out? There’s lots of fact-checking now, but it doesn’t seem to stop false claims from being repeated.
I think they’ve all been called out. I think the fact is that it doesn’t matter that they’re called out. That’s the real lesson of this campaign. The real lesson is the now overworked Daniel Patrick Moynihan quote: Everyone has his or her own facts and that’s it. That’s really scary, because when a democracy makes its decisions without having the proper information, it’s going to go astray. Furthermore, when you combine that with the decline of journalism as a profession, largely for economic reasons — I’m not talking about the quality of what journalism there is, but the economic precariousness of news gathering.
There’s less of it.
There are fewer facts available to get wrong. That, to me, is the biggest story: the rise of false narratives. But I don’t think it matters when they’re called out. That’s the really interesting thing. The right always was against moral relativism but now they’ve embraced it. “With our facts, there is no climate change.”
Can anything be done to stem the lack of faith in government, which very directly threatens the ability of liberals to convince people that government can be a force for good?
I think that everyone has to clean up his or her act. I was very taken with this Washington Post investigation that came out a few months ago on how rich everyone in Congress is, with Democrats equaling Republicans, as far as that’s concerned. So when you have a congressional approval rating below 10 percent, that means both Democrats and Republicans — that it’s corrupt. Not just that it’s dysfunctional but that it’s corrupt.
So yes, the Republicans have been horrible obstructionists and have moved way to the right. All of that’s true. But the fact is that the Democrats, including Democrats in Congress, have not set an example that’s inspiring or necessarily redolent with integrity. People look at any politician in Washington and they see a hack — and usually they’re right.
David Daley is the executive editor of Salon.
http://www.salon.com/2012/10/27/frank_rich_right_will_rage_if_obama_wins/
Electroddy
100 mW
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2010
- Messages
- 38
TylerDurden
100 GW
Ted Nugent On Obama Election: 'Pimps Whores & Welfare Brats' Voted For 'Economic & Spiritual Suicide'
The Huffington Post | By Cavan Sieczkowski
Posted: 11/08/2012 6:03 pm EST Updated: 11/08/2012 6:28 pm EST
Detroit rocker and right-winger Ted Nugent was not too happy when President Barack Obama was reelected, so he took to Twitter to denounce the "pimps," "whores" and "welfare brats" who voted for America's "economic [and] spiritual suicide."
Nugent tweeted some choice words on Wednesday after Obama earned four more years in the White House in a landslide victory over GOP candidate Mitt Romney. He bid America "Goodluk" [sic] and good riddance.
See tweets here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/08/ted-nugent-on-obama-election-twitter-rant-economic-spiritual-suicide_n_2094490.html
http://thegrio.com/2012/11/07/ted-nugent-on-obama-re-election-pimps-whores-and-welfare-brats-have-a-president/
Nugent's Twitter meltdown does not come as a surprise to some. The Amboy Dukes guitarist has long been a source of controversy for his political commentary.
In April, while speaking at a National Rifle Association convention, Nugent said there are two alternatives for him if the "vile," "evil" and "America-hating" Obama beat Romney. "If Barack Obama becomes the president in November, again, I will be either be dead or in jail by this time next year," said Nugent, who has also defended Romney's "47 percent" comment.
Four years earlier, he threatened both Obama and 2008 competitor, Hillary Clinton. While dressed in camouflage hunting gear and wielding two machine guns during a 2007 concert, Nugent raged: "Obama, he's a piece of sh-t. I told him to suck on my machine gun." Continuing, "Hey Hillary. You might want to ride one of these into the sunset, you worthless b-tch."
Nugent was not alone in his anti-Obama ranting after the incumbent's victory. Donald Trump called for a "revolution." Former "SNL" cast member Victoria Jackson said "America died." And born-again Christian actor Stephen Baldwin tweeted that God's wrath is now upon the U.S.
TylerDurden
100 GW
More likely a guest of honor on Rush's show.
EMF
100 kW
bigmoose
1 MW
My prediction was sure way off the money on this election! 
Now that I am near 60 years on the planet, one thing I have seen out of both parties in Washington, is they spend everything they can get their hands on, and then more.
My question is: "How do we survive with $1.2+ Trillion/year deficits for at least the next four years?"
This question is followed by the "follow the money" statement. Let's face it, our "ruling class" composed of both parties are "rich". Where are they putting their $'s to not be at risk and to grow and multiply? It appears the "old rules" of investment and "save for your kids future" are dead.
Now that I am near 60 years on the planet, one thing I have seen out of both parties in Washington, is they spend everything they can get their hands on, and then more.
My question is: "How do we survive with $1.2+ Trillion/year deficits for at least the next four years?"
This question is followed by the "follow the money" statement. Let's face it, our "ruling class" composed of both parties are "rich". Where are they putting their $'s to not be at risk and to grow and multiply? It appears the "old rules" of investment and "save for your kids future" are dead.
