Obama Thanks Supporters After Winning Re-Election

[samran]

Twenty seven pages of blasting the Republicans?

And the Democratic candidate won!!!

Isn't it time to close this thread and open up something constructive, like what is going to change in the next four years?

Battle of the fittest. Dog eat Dog. The weak get left behind....

I thought that was how you guys rolled?

It has nothing to do with battle of the fittest. The battle is over, the better campaign won. We are now at this stage...

It is now time to try and figure out what will happen during the next four years. Since Obama has no idea, perhaps some of the brilliance on this forum will show through and light the way.

So far the only concrete changes that are being talked about is Harry Reid saying he will change the rules on cloture.

Give us a few more days Chuck - years of conservative bile needs to be re-balanced.

More seriously? I guess the GOP needs to sit down and decide whether they are going to let themselves be held hostage to their Grover Nordquist pledge.

Spending needs to come down sharply. The tax base needs to be broadened.

Unless you look at both sides of the equation (and cut equally amongst all rent seekers), then there will be another 4 years of the same.

[chuckd]

Battle of the fittest. Dog eat Dog. The weak get left behind....

I thought that was how you guys rolled?

It has nothing to do with battle of the fittest. The battle is over, the better campaign won. We are now at this stage...

It is now time to try and figure out what will happen during the next four years. Since Obama has no idea, perhaps some of the brilliance on this forum will show through and light the way.

So far the only concrete changes that are being talked about is Harry Reid saying he will change the rules on cloture.

Give us a few more days Chuck - years of conservative bile needs to be re-balanced.

More seriously? I guess the GOP needs to sit down and decide whether they are going to let themselves be held hostage to their Grover Nordquist pledge.

Spending needs to come down sharply. The tax base needs to be broadened.

Unless you look at both sides of the equation (and cut equally amongst all rent seekers), then there will be another 4 years of the same.

There has already been plenty of bile thrown around on both side of the aisle. Please don't try and restrict it to one side only.

This sentence caught my attention..."Spending needs to come down sharply. The tax base needs to be broadened."

I totally agree with your statement but I do have a couple of simple questions.

1. Where do the spending cuts come from? I have some suggestions but they won't be popular.

2. How does one expand the tax base when corporate and individual tax rates are set to increase and not one new idea to decrease the unemployment rate. Broadening the tax base means getting new employees on payrolls, not simply taxing the rich.

As has been stated many times on this forum, Obama's "tax the rich" scheme will raise additional tax revenue by some $80 Billion. That amount will run the federal government for 8 DAYS and 19 HOURS. Some 23 million Americans are unemployed or under employed and therein lies the problem.

Government does not create jobs...except for government jobs. Private enterprise is the job creator and if the government continues taking even more from private enterprise then where are the new jobs going to come from. Private enterprise has been stifled by this administration with departmental regulations, Presidential Orders and Obamacare As a self admitted business owner, I would think you of all people would understand that.

My point, Samran, is why not try and figure out on this thread what is going to happen rather than spewing out more bile...from both sides. That approach is getting us nowhere.

[mania]

I thought that was how you guys rolled?

You thought many things...based on what?... I do not know

did not make any of them right though.

Give us a few more days Chuck

Us?

The saddest thing about this election is not who won.

But never in my life have I seen America so divided that it borders on hatred.

I actually had very high hopes for Obama when he ran for his 1st term.

He seemed like someone who could help reunite America & promised many

times in that 1st election to do so. I admit I forgot that old saying

"You can always tell when a Politician is lying, His lips are moving"

I have been an American since birth.

I have seen many,many close races but it was not the same type of divide.

This goes much deeper & both sides are responsible like it or not.

But today more than ever America division appears extreme. It does not help

when the sitting President during one of his final re-election speeches

tells his followers basically to go & vote for revenge. How can that be good

for America regardless of any reason for saying it. It would be equal to a parent

telling one of their children to take revenge on a sibling.

It also does not help that foreigners with a wealth of no idea

join in spitting vitriol at every chance. Thinking somehow the side they back

is less to blame. The reality is both sides are to blame. Adults can see that.

System has been broken for a long time now.

Edited November 9, 2012 by mania

[Jingthing]

OMG: not the revenge thing!

That was nothing like what Romney/Fox painted it as.

It was just a play on a popular cultural cliche: living well is the best revenge.

[mania]

It was just a play on a popular cultural cliche: living well is the best revenge.

Braaap

No sorry next

living well + revenge is one thing

voting + revenge is clearly another

The context & usage was just wrong accept it.

It is not like the first out of place thing a candidate has said.

But it is used as an example of what I am talking about & that is the current

division in America that borders on hatred...if not already there.

Besides it is not like I did not say both sides are to blame for the current status

in America

PS: Dont get Fox here nor do I watch much TV

But the International news stations IMO have the best unbiased reporting

Edited November 9, 2012 by mania

[MaxYakov]

If I can go back to this election for a while (!), I was actually fortunate enough to catch the Limbaugh Advanced Institute of Terminal Whinging last night and it was truly hilarious.

I've never heard the obnoxious buffoon sound so deflated and confused.

And he seemed shocked from reading about exit polls and interviews that demonstrated that more than half of those who voted for Obama did so on the basis of his handling of the economy, and specifically because they blamed Bush and the Republicans for making the mess in the first place.

It's heartening to hear that so many people saw through the rubbish the GOP churned out and realised what a monumental task they left for Obama.

Now if the Republicans could just do the decent thing and stop thinking about themselves for the moment, and try not to block,out of sheer spite, everything Obama tries to do to fix the economy, the USA might actually have a chance at repairing the damage.

Besides throwing a lot of money at the problem (most of it misspent), like FDR, and Obamacare, can you please detail what Obama has done to repair the economic damage? Do you consider Obamacare to be an effort to repair the economic damage, BTW?

Do you actually listen to Rush Limbaugh or just get a second-hand opinion from the MSM (which is often quite mis-representative of what he actually says)? Are you a candidate for paying for the 6 trillion or so debt Obama has piled on top of the pre-existing Bush trillions?

Auto bailout, bank bailout, investment banking bailout, AIG bailout, and trying to finish two wars ain't cheap. Maybe Bush tax cut extension not so smart.

You didn't mention the great 'stimulus' bill and the burgeoning welfare and social security (phony) disability payments, just for starters. At least they were able to cut our financial losses in Iraq by failing to get a status of forces agreement with the those 'folks'. But how about all the parasitical costs such as the, what, billions we're going to give Pakistan and Egypt. We'll have to look at the budget to get the details. Oops, where did we put that budget, anyway?

They haven't curtailed the Bush-era tax 'cuts', yet. They still have time to kick something down the road until next year. California just voted for tax hikes on themselves. Actually, it was the have-nots voting for taxing the haves, I believe. One voter was greatly surprised, I understand, to discover that there was a sales tax buried in the proposition, heh, heh.

Edited November 9, 2012 by MaxYakov

[samran]

Battle of the fittest. Dog eat Dog. The weak get left behind....

I thought that was how you guys rolled?

It has nothing to do with battle of the fittest. The battle is over, the better campaign won. We are now at this stage...

It is now time to try and figure out what will happen during the next four years. Since Obama has no idea, perhaps some of the brilliance on this forum will show through and light the way.

So far the only concrete changes that are being talked about is Harry Reid saying he will change the rules on cloture.

Give us a few more days Chuck - years of conservative bile needs to be re-balanced.

More seriously? I guess the GOP needs to sit down and decide whether they are going to let themselves be held hostage to their Grover Nordquist pledge.

Spending needs to come down sharply. The tax base needs to be broadened.

Unless you look at both sides of the equation (and cut equally amongst all rent seekers), then there will be another 4 years of the same.

There has already been plenty of bile thrown around on both side of the aisle. Please don't try and restrict it to one side only.

This sentence caught my attention..."Spending needs to come down sharply. The tax base needs to be broadened."

I totally agree with your statement but I do have a couple of simple questions.

1. Where do the spending cuts come from? I have some suggestions but they won't be popular.

2. How does one expand the tax base when corporate and individual tax rates are set to increase and not one new idea to decrease the unemployment rate. Broadening the tax base means getting new employees on payrolls, not simply taxing the rich.

As has been stated many times on this forum, Obama's "tax the rich" scheme will raise additional tax revenue by some $80 Billion. That amount will run the federal government for 8 DAYS and 19 HOURS. Some 23 million Americans are unemployed or under employed and therein lies the problem.

Government does not create jobs...except for government jobs. Private enterprise is the job creator and if the government continues taking even more from private enterprise then where are the new jobs going to come from. Private enterprise has been stifled by this administration with departmental regulations, Presidential Orders and Obamacare As a self admitted business owner, I would think you of all people would understand that.

My point, Samran, is why not try and figure out on this thread what is going to happen rather than spewing out more bile...from both sides. That approach is getting us nowhere.

Hold on - on this and previous threads I've talked about policy questions - only to hear silence.

Admittedly I've been dancing a bit of a jig in the past few days, but apart from that, you'll see my discussion points on this particular topic have been pretty fair.

But to answer your questions:

1) subsidies on agricultural products would be a start. A huge waste. But you can say goodbye to the midwest.

2) Broadening the tax base. Again, economist hat on. The US has state by state sales taxes. Abolish those to be replaced by a nation wide VAT like tax on all consumption - so that you tax final consumption, and not savings or production. That would enable you to get rid of a raft of taxes that happen during the production process. It would probably allow you to raise personal income tax thresholds for everyone.

3) Stay the course with Obama care. You guys spend 30% more on health expenditures than comparable nations. Any programme which saves the hip pocket 4-5% of GDP per year over time has to be a worthy one, even if there is some up front expense.

4) And you know what? Regularise the status of the 11million illegal workers there. That is 11 million more tax payers in one swoop.

[Jingthing]

It was just a play on a popular cultural cliche: living well is the best revenge.

Braaap

No sorry next

living well + revenge is one thing

voting + revenge is clearly another

The context & usage was just wrong accept it.

It is not like the first out of place thing a candidate has said.

But it is used as an example of what I am talking about & that is the current

division in America that borders on hatred...if not already there.

Besides it is not like I did not say both sides are to blame for the current status

in America

PS: Dont get Fox here nor do I watch much TV

But the International news stations IMO have the best unbiased reporting

No, I don't accept it.

While I agree that the USA is a very politically divided country, I will never agree that the playful revenge comment is actually a real thing. It is a manufactured thing, faux outrage from a desperate sinking Romney, trying to paint Obama as an angry black man and his base as violent revolutionaries, not the "real" Americans that he paints his base as. People in the USA play with the revenge thing all the time, in all kinds of contexts: JUST FOR FUN. It was actually done again IN FUN to diffuse the crowd BOOING when Romney was mentioned.

Edited November 9, 2012 by Jingthing

[lomatopo]

Thank God, the angel Moroni, and Joseph Smith for this. We never have to think about Mormons again. They had their 15 minutes of fame.

Why do I think Tagg Romney might have something to say about this in 2020/2024?

After all he did such a great job with the Dodgers. And look what baseball experience did for GWB.

[Jingthing]

Thank God, the angel Moroni, and Joseph Smith for this. We never have to think about Mormons again. They had their 15 minutes of fame.

Why do I think Tagg Romney might have something to say about this in 2020/2024?

After all he did such a great job with the Dodgers. And look what baseball experience did for GWB.

I do wonder if the Christian fundamentalists types like Billy Graham who took Mormonism off their "cult" list for obvious political reasons during the Romney campaign, will be gingerly putting it back. It's a serious question. (I reckon they will.)

[mania]

JUST FOR FUN.

Own it

Why is it so many in these threads constantly say

I was just joking after saying something wrong in a similar

vein as the revenge comment?

Forget it as it is beside the point & was just one recent illustration

Bottom line is you said " I agree that the USA is a very politically divided country"

I agree & held hope that someone someday would be bigger & able to bring America

together

This kind of "Fun" is not going to get it.

Edited November 9, 2012 by mania

[Jingthing]

OK: Romney concedes Florida!

So the total massive electoral Obama victory is final at:

Obama 332, Romney 206.

Obama won EVERY battleground state except one, North Carolina.

Edited November 9, 2012 by Jingthing

[samran]

Chuck:

Interesting article about consumption taxes from that radical lefitst publication: Bloomberg

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-17/consumption-tax-would-make-it-easier-to-reduce-u-s-budget-deficit-view.html

[keemapoot]

I do wonder if the Christian fundamentalists types like Billy Graham who took Mormonism off their "cult" list for obvious political reasons during the Romney campaign, will be gingerly putting it back. It's a serious question. (I reckon they will.)

Yup, I reckon they go back on the black list (pun intended), only doubly so. One for being blasphemist, and two for being the cause of the loss of the election to that colored fella.

[Jingthing]

Own it

You are entitled to your OPINION. You aren't entitled to order people to "Own It."

Obama was merely encouraging people to go to the polls, yet Romney somehow twisted the words, even if he left a basic question unanswered: Revenge for what? “Suddenly, we are in the rhetorical space of class warfare,” points out The New Yorker’s Amy Davidson. Although talking of revenge may be a new twist, it’s merely another way in which Romney has accused those who oppose him of resenting his success.

http://www.slate.com...ot_revenge.html

Again, the revenge thing is/was a FAKE issue.

Edited November 9, 2012 by Jingthing

[SteeleJoe]

I do wonder if the Christian fundamentalists types like Billy Graham who took Mormonism off their "cult" list for obvious political reasons during the Romney campaign, will be gingerly putting it back. It's a serious question. (I reckon they will.)

Yup, I reckon they go back on the black list (pun intended), only doubly so. One for being blasphemist, and two for being the cause of the loss of the election to that colored fella.

(No "like" button on this app)

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

[lomatopo]

Yes, the U.S. is very divided politically with The Women, The Blacks, The Latinos, The Asians, The Homosexuals, The Young, The College-educated on one side and some angry, bitter, old, white males on the other.

And yes, 47% of Americans want "stuff": roads, bridges, schools, fire/police, FAA, FCC, FDA, CDC, FBI, FDIC, FEMA, VET, maybe fewer prisons?, Military, you know, "Stuff".

[mania]

You aren't entitled to order people to "Own It."

Yes sorry I worded that poorly

Obama "owns" it not you

[mania]

Yes, the U.S. is very divided politically with The Women, The Blacks, The Latinos, The Asians, The Homosexuals, The Young, The College-educated on one side and some angry, bitter, old, white males on the other.

Oh how I wish that were true.

It would be such a small divide it would not be noticeable.

[bendejo]

You would not say that if you still lived there.

Obama is a MONET WASTER.

I hate how he wastes that fine art too!

I thought it was a comment on how Obama gave a painting to someone the poster didn't approve of. Not kidding.

[samran]

Chuck:

Interesting article about consumption taxes from that radical lefitst publication: Bloomberg

http://www.bloomberg...ficit-view.html

Economic policy debate anyone?

Sounds of silence.......

[bendejo]

Let's cut back to the GOP clown-car primaries. Mitt would not commit to a single-<deleted> thing, save how much he loves America and his family (sort of). It was his own side that came up with the Etch-A-Sketch meme.

If he would have stuck a stake in the ground, said "this is what I stand for" he would have at least garnered some respect. Instead he did the slimy-salesman getting-to-yes bs, that sorry smile he wore during the last debate was an encapsulation of his whole approach to the campaign.

It turned out like 2004 and for the same reason: no one really liked the candidate, the only thing he had in his favor was he was not the incumbent.

I am enjoying watching the Fox Noose yoyos acting like parents whose kid finished last in the talent contest despite all the $$ they put into lessons, costume, etc. "Yeah he won but..."

Is there anyone who still buys the 'fair & balanced" con?

Edited November 9, 2012 by bendejo

[geriatrickid]

Chuck:

Interesting article about consumption taxes from that radical lefitst publication: Bloomberg

http://www.bloomberg...ficit-view.html

Economic policy debate anyone?

Sounds of silence.......

Maybe the people complaining about poor people and their "hand outs" were off checking to see if their own social security stipends or government pensions were deposited?

[geriatrickid]

President Obama offered a heartfelt thank you to his campaign workers. He teared up and was emotionally moved. Look to his right, Axelrod and Messina, two white conservative middle aged guys that engineered his victory are there, beaming and so proud of their friend and boss.

Had this occurred a week ago, Obama's majority would have been a massive landslide. This is what the man is all about.

Certainly a difference than Romney's foot in the mouth event;

[samran]

Chuck:

Interesting article about consumption taxes from that radical lefitst publication: Bloomberg

http://www.bloomberg...ficit-view.html

Economic policy debate anyone?

Sounds of silence.......

Maybe the people complaining about poor people and their "hand outs" were off checking to see if their own social security stipends or government pensions were deposited?

well, we will see. But in my experience with people on Thai Visa that given the choice between talking policy and having a slanging match, the latter wins. The problem is most people wouldn't have a clue what good policy is as they confuse good policy with salvish adherence to ideology.

[webfact]

Mitt Romney had transition website that momentarily went live — even though he didn't win

Full story: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/election-2012/romney-transition-website-ready-roll-won-article-1.1199197

[poanoi]

David Walker for President (former GAO General)

Edited November 9, 2012 by poanoi

[lomatopo]

I guess if I p*ssed away $ 100 million in attack ads I'd be pointing the finger too.

What a pin-head. His meltdown on BMN was classic stuff.

Karl Rove claims President Obama won reelection by 'suppressing the vote'

The Republican super-strategist was feeling the heat after his shadowy political committees burned through $100 million on anti-Obama attack ads — to little effect.

BY JONATHAN LEMIRE / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

PUBLISHED: THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2012, 9:37 PM

UPDATED: THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2012, 9:37 PM

Republican super-strategist Karl Rove tried to shift blame Thursday for his failed spending spree to defeat President Obama, claiming Obama won reelection by “suppressing the vote.”

Rove was feeling the heat after his shadowy political committees burned through $100 million on anti-Obama attack ads — to little effect.

Obama’s top strategist, David Axelrod, joined the piling on Thursday, chortling that if he were one of the Republican benefactors who bankrolled Rove, he’d be “asking where my refund is.”

“Congrats to @KarlRove on blowing $400 million,” Donald Trump tweeted. “What a waste of money.”

[chuckd]

Chuck:

Interesting article about consumption taxes from that radical lefitst publication: Bloomberg

http://www.bloomberg...ficit-view.html

Economic policy debate anyone?

Sounds of silence.......

Maybe the people complaining about poor people and their "hand outs" were off checking to see if their own social security stipends or government pensions were deposited?

\

Social Security is an entitlement for which I and every other working American have already paid. I contributed for 50 years for my government "stipend".

I never drew unemployment, food stamps or welfare of any sort. You may be the expert on that, I do not know.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Samran, give me a little time to do some things around the house. Let me address one thing before I complete my chores.

Your suggestion that we cut out all agricultural subsidies will save about $20 Billion per year. You have just covered the cost of 2 days and five hours of government operations. Congratulations.

How about cutting the EPA, DHS, Energy Dept., Education Dept., foreign aid, Labor Dept, Czar Dept., ad nauseum? This is only the start of my suggestions.

[samran]

Your suggestion that we cut out all agricultural subsidies will save about $20 Billion per year. You have just covered the cost of 2 days and five hours of government operations. Congratulations.

yeah, but how much would it shave off the deficit? You are speaking like there should be savings for 365 days of government operations? ie no government at all.

How about cutting the EPA, DHS, Energy Dept., Education Dept., foreign aid, Labor Dept, Czar Dept., ad nauseum? This is only the start of my suggestions.

How about we do a deal. Lets not run 'lines' or talking points that you'd generally associate with a particular political camp - and that line sounded remarkably like one?

But I'd like to know your detailed objections to all of the above, their impact on the budget in dollar terms, and what would be the policy consequences of getting rid or scaling down of those departments.

Edited November 9, 2012 by samran