# Great Day for America!



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

They've called it. Obama has won.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

South America, maybe.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> They've called it. Obama has won.


Right now, it might more correctly be considered an interesting day.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

PedanticTurkey said:


> South America, maybe.


Enjoy the next 8 years Turkey.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

I think I probably will. It usually doesn't take the people too long to figure out why the Democrats shouldn't be in power.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

mrkleen said:


> Enjoy the next 8 years Turkey.


1916. 1936. 1996.

America isn't very fond of re-electing Democratic presidents.


----------



## Nicesuit (Apr 5, 2007)

When this idiot finishes off what's left of the world economy and gets us attacked again because he's a spineless sham who should've never even been considered, come back and peddle your moronic "great day" BS.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Miket61 said:


> 1916. 1936. 1996.
> 
> America isn't very fond of re-electing Democratic presidents.


Whatever your point was, you've omitted 1940, 1944, 1948, and 1964.


----------



## thunderw21 (Sep 21, 2008)

Enjoy your socialism.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

I have been reading this section for months, though rarely posting here.

I was wondering if the republicans on this board would come out here on election night and in defeat act as gentlemen, or continue to act like pompous, windbags.

Guess I have my answer.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

*Sad day for our great republic*

Great day for leftists everywhere.

The Democrats can celebrate along with the likes of...

Rev Wright
Bill Ayers
Bernardine Dohrn
Farrakhan
Hugo Chavez
Hamas
Fidel Castro

I'm certain that everybody will enjoy the party.


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

It's a great day for many. Others, like the one's shouting profanity during McCain's speech and many on this thread, should be ashamed of themselves.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

Imagine the sort of change we're in for...

Now Rev. Wright and Ayers, Rezko and the rest can call up the White House and chat with the president on policy matters.

Yes, it's truly a great day for America.


----------



## Desk Jockey (Aug 19, 2005)

Yes we did.


----------



## Preu Pummel (Feb 5, 2008)

thunderw21 said:


> Enjoy your socialism.


Propaganda has taken the public through film and items hidden from (by) the news.

Be prepared for a bumpy two years, economically speaking.
You will all be working harder to support the government as it supports a larger voter base via welfare.

Good times, if that's what you like.


----------



## Joe Frances (Sep 1, 2004)

Let's face it:

George Bush was hugely unpopular
The Financial Mess was the icing on the cake
Obama is the most unqualified man to ever hold the office
He will have large majorities in both Houses
The Democrats will be in control
The tide is on their side
This is their day
The Republicans essentially deserved what they got
No one can take that away from them
They must now resolve the war; improve the economy; keep the country safe; change the world; undue all inequities in society; and in two years there will be a referendum on Obama 

That's where we are.


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

mrkleen said:


> I have been reading this section for months, though rarely posting here.
> 
> I was wondering if the republicans on this board would come out here on election night and in defeat act as gentlemen, or continue to act like pompous, windbags.
> 
> Guess I have my answer.


Some of us who are gentlemen and Republicans are quietly nursing a stiff drink in the library, pondering our future in the new Republic. :icon_smile:

My feeling is that we have no one to blame but ourselves. We long ago departed from the ideals of Ronald Reagan who built the party back up in the first place.

Now that he is president, I for one will support Obama. Goodness knows he's going to need all the support he can get, given the mess we're in as a country.


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

It is a great day indeed. While some of you may miss all of the lies and easy fleecing of our nation, it is time to rebuild from the shambles we are in. I would also have been happy with McCain but Obama does bring new hope and the promise of a better nation.
God bless Obama.


----------



## Xhine23 (Jan 17, 2008)

Yes Indeed.
He has a huge job to do and I hope that the nation would be behind if not infront of him in tackling it.
I think 'twas a good speech.
GOD BLESS AMERICA AND HER PEOPLE


----------



## omairp (Aug 21, 2006)

Nicesuit said:


> When this idiot finishes off what's left of the world economy and gets us attacked again because he's a spineless sham who should've never even been considered, come back and peddle your moronic "great day" BS.


Bitter much?

People keep saying Barack is going to ruin the economy. I'm curious to see whether the stock markets open up or down on the election results tomorrow.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

mrkleen said:


> I have been reading this section for months, though rarely posting here.
> 
> I was wondering if the republicans on this board would come out here on election night and in defeat act as gentlemen, or continue to act like pompous, windbags.
> 
> Guess I have my answer.





nolan50410 said:


> It's a great day for many. Others, like the one's shouting profanity during McCain's speech and many on this thread, should be ashamed of themselves.


What a double standard.

You guys can act like pompous and arrogant jackasses?

Obama won. It is over, but Republicans can still fillibuster - hopefully they have the backbone to use it.

I wouldn't get overly confident over 8 years. Don't forget, the midterm elections have always yielded congressional seats for the party that doesn't hold the presidency. In four years, the game could be played on a new field.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Senator McCain gave a very gracious speech tonight. I hope those that supported him over President-elect Obama will rise to the level of good conduct, good wishes and bipartisan cooperation that he called for.

The time for being sniveling driveling twerps is over. We have no time for bitterness, rancor and calls to "fight" our fellow countrymen. It is time to work together. Our country faces many challenges including two wars, an economic disaster and a crisis of confidence in our moral and political leadership in the world. At our core we are a better people than we have been in the last decade and it's time to become the truly great nation we have been and still can be. 

And yes, Beresford, this includes the Republican gentlemen who are probably more than a little sauced right now. :icon_smile_wink: All means all and that includes John McCain, Reagan Republicans, Libertarians, Independents, Greens, and even those who did not vote. In times of crisis we come together and this is a time of crisis. Tonight we can all get drunk, either happily or unhappily, but tomorrow we can start making things better.


----------



## a4audi08 (Apr 27, 2007)

mrkleen said:


> I have been reading this section for months, though rarely posting here.
> 
> I was wondering if the republicans on this board would come out here on election night and in defeat act as gentlemen, or continue to act like pompous, windbags.
> 
> Guess I have my answer.


the reactions to mccain's magnanimous speech by those who profess to be his supporters should have told you all you need to know about the modern GOP/conservative movement.


----------



## DocHolliday (Apr 11, 2005)

brokencycle said:


> Obama won. It is over, but Republicans can still fillibuster - hopefully they have the backbone to use it.


Can they? I thought it was still up in the air.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

DocHolliday said:


> Can they? I thought it was still up in the air.


Last I saw, the Republicans only lost 4 seats, and that seemed to be all they were going to lose.

To be honest, I'm not that dissapointed.

The Republicans need to lose power and gain back their conservative roots. I'm a conservative, not a liberal, so President Bush and I fundamentally disagreed. I think these four years will be more of the same.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

omairp said:


> Bitter much?
> 
> People keep saying Barack is going to ruin the economy. I'm curious to see whether the stock markets open up or down on the election results tomorrow.


The markets will probably open up tomorrow, this outcome has already been factored in.

I'd expect to see a lot of profit taking before the end of the year and changes in the tax code that are to come.

I hope things will improve economically, but there is no reason to believe they will. Real wages have been shrinking for 50 years and the government has rigged unemployment figures pretty consistently for the last 15 years to hide the steady loss of jobs. While unemployment appears low, what has happened over the last decade or so is that we have traded manufacturing jobs for service jobs, and the high tech jobs we were promised during the NAFTA debate have not materialized. With the loss of manufacturing we've also taken hits in the engineering sector as well. When an engineer loses a $50,000 a year job and takes a job at Home Depot for 10 bucks an hour, the government doesn't see that as a problem. Through the efforts of both parties we are being slowly impoverished. At the other end of things, the dollar is being eroded, thanks to the endless debt policy we've pursued for years. Few, if any, of these issues were even discussed during the campaign. Both parties will continue to ignore them. You don't get elected by discussing fiscal responsibility, you get elected by promising people stuff. Both parties do it, Obama did it more so. The estimates were that McCain's plans would lead to another $600 billion in debt, Obama's another $1 trillion in debt. Neither is good for the long term health of the economy or the republic.

General speaking Democratic Presidents with Democratic majorities in Congress rarely talk about fiscal responsibility. I assume the debt will explode. I don't buy Andrea Mitchell's blather about Obama reining in congressional spending (BTW, isn't Mitchell married to Mr. Magoo himself, Alan Greenspan? One of the chief architects of the current mess.)


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Time to work together my ass. Did you say the same thing in 2004?

No, it's time to celebrate being free of that socialist-in-a-Republican's clothing Bush, and to blame everything, including bad weather and every bad thing Bush left us with, on Obama.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Terpoxon said:


> The markets will probably open up tomorrow, this outcome has already been factored in.
> 
> I'd expect to see a lot of profit taking before the end of the year and changes in the tax code that are to come.
> 
> ...


Try to work a little magic with paragraphs and indents; few want to read endless blocks of political copy like the above.

Be brief. We are not waiting breathlessly for your latest rambling. ​


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Oh Canada, Oh Canada, how good looking you look to me right now. Oh, wait a minute! They come down here for medical because their socialized medical doen't work very well and with the new socialized medical the USA will have there won't be a reason to come down here anymore being it will be ruined here as there.

Putting a side humor, I hope Obama does good for this country. And I hope the drunken Republicans come to their sences, we will need more sober Republicans after the next two years.

I guess Osama bin Laden would have voted for Obama even though Obama supports gays. Therefore, Osama bin Laden would need to kill himself for supporting gays. But, he'd be a hypocrite and not kill himself. Weird world we live in, Huh!


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I am so proud to be a Canadian-American citizen more than ever before. I volunteered with UF Students for Obama here in my town and voted for him in the primary. Not to toot our own horn, but it's because of us (the largest student organisation for Obama in Florida) that this win in this state was possible. This would be unthinkable just a few decades ago in this former-Separatist state. I love this country and have renewed faith in its people.

Yes, we CAN.

(I'll be ignoring all the negative comments here, for the record, so keep trying if you must.)


----------



## Scoundrel (Oct 30, 2007)

All I can say is wow.

The one other comment: I am thoroughly disappointed in the media. The media, as a whole, should be embarrassed of itself for the shameless, open biases held for so-and-so and so-and-so (especially so-and-so).

I suppose I will now have to further contemplate what it means to live in a world that is easily influenced by the widespread media's whims.

Who won tonight? America did.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Scoundrel said:


> All I can say is wow.
> 
> The one other comment: I am thoroughly disappointed in the media. The media, as a whole, should be embarrassed of itself for the shameless, open biases held for so-and-so and so-and-so (especially so-and-so).
> 
> ...


Yeah. Bush upped the amount the needy get from government but the media played that down. And then there is the Bush/Kennedy school law where the media blames Bush for everything wrong with it and praises Kennedy for anything good about it. So on and so on. At least Katie only has half and hour and not a whole hour of gossip.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Biased coverage from either wing is just plain propaganda. I never pay attention to it.


----------



## ErikinWest (Jun 18, 2008)

America will now suffer from the largest expulsion of hope and respect since Nixon. Obama will come in, and macroeconomic pressures will destroy any chance of reform. Four years from now, I believe, real incomes will have decreased, health care will be just as expensive, and the national debt will be larger. If Obama wants to do the right thing, he should raise taxes, pay down the national debt, reduce entitlements, abolish government departments, and tell Americans they need to change from a consumer society to a producer society. Then maybe about 5 years, America will be a great country again.

Cheers,
Erik


----------



## rgrossicone (Jan 27, 2008)

*American Dream*

I was riding in the car last night with my father and one of his older friends, born in the early 1940's when we first realized what was happening. We stopped at a red light, and I asked said, "I can't believe this. I can't even imagine whats going through your heads right now. You were my age, you lived in this country in a day when black children and white children couldn't attend school together, fight in the military together, play in the same parks, and eat in the same restaurants; and today, the very same country, only 40 years later, has just chosen a black man to lead her."

That is the miracle.

As a young voter, I am so incredibly proud, and only hope the future younger generations realize how important their vote is. I fully intend to play the brilliant speeches by both McCain and Obama in my US History class today, and tell those children that when they vote in 4 years, the choice of our country's leader will be their's.

I will also make sure to point out to my many Muslim students, that as bad as they feel they are treated right now, as unfairly as they are treated, we will overcome our prejudices, and that by working hard, and doing right, in the next generation our next president could be sworn in over a Qu'ran.

Obama truly is inspiring to ALL kids who say, "I want to be president when I grow up!"


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

PedanticTurkey said:


> I think I probably will. It usually doesn't take the people too long to figure out why the Democrats shouldn't be in power.


Like the last 8 years of Republican Power have been such a happy time for all Americans!

Happy days are here again
The skies above are clear again
Let us sing a song of cheer again
Happy days are here again
Altogether shout it now!
There's no one who can doubt it now
So let's tell the world about it now
Happy days are here again
Your cares and troubles are gone;
There'll be no more from now on
Happy days are here again
The skies above are clear again
Let us sing a song of cheer again
Happy days are here again


----------



## radix023 (May 3, 2007)

If this breaks millions of African-Americans out of the fatalistic "a black man can't make it" (cult of the victim crap) it will be well worth another diversion into socialism.

I congratulate Obama on his win and I wait for his first budget to see who he really is.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

jackmccullough said:


> They've called it. Obama has won.


Great day for socialism. This country is now full of people who want handouts.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

Can't wait to trash Obama for everything that goes wrong. Paybacks are a *****.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

Jack is going to put on some "Dead" records and smoke a funny cigarette. Congrads Jack.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

rgrossicone said:


> I was riding in the car last night with my father and one of his older friends, born in the early 1940's when we first realized what was happening. We stopped at a red light, and I asked said, "I can't believe this. I can't even imagine whats going through your heads right now. You were my age, you lived in this country in a day when black children and white children couldn't attend school together, fight in the military together, play in the same parks, and eat in the same restaurants; and today, the very same country, only 40 years later, has just chosen a black man to lead her."
> 
> That is the miracle.
> 
> ...


Rob, what a great day to be a teacher.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Reading the tone and substance of the anti-Obama folks, it's pretty clear why he won.

-spence


----------



## Mad Hatter (Jul 13, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Time to work together my ass. Did you say the same thing in 2004?


Indeed.

Nonetheless, I wish the President-elect the best and hope the voters chose wisely.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

Peak and Pine said:


> Try to work a little magic with paragraphs and indents; few want to read endless blocks of political copy like the above.
> 
> Be brief. We are not waiting breathlessly for your latest rambling. ​


Peak,

How's this for brief: Go to hell.

Sorry you can't understand anything above a soundbite. We've had some in depth conversations on the board. Sorry you can't follow them. You don't like what I have to say, don't read it. Your opinion matters little to me.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

Children believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and perpetual motion machines.

Some of us grow up. Some refuse to do so, and insist on clinging to fantasies.

Left-wing economics is socialism, re-labeled and re-packaged a thousand times over, but it's always the same. (This election was not about "change." That's a bad joke. Anyone who has been an adult for more than 5 minutes and can remember further back than 1994 knows that we are in store for more of the same.)

Socialism is the political and economic equivalent of the perpetual motion machine. Infantile minds find it frustrating when they confront the facts of life, when they are forced to accept the fact that reality is unforgiving, that there are laws to the universe that are more powerful than you.

Every generation, I guess, has to learn these lessons all over again. Some learn them more easily than others. Some, like the Baby Boomers and Boomer-spawn, are locked in a never-ending trap of arrested development, and are determined to remain bratty, squawking children forever.

Obama's economic measures will fail. They will cause economic disaster. Just as assuredly as if you drop a rock, it will fall to the ground. Adults understand this. *There are no perpetual motion machines.* You cannot "spread the wealth around." You can steal some _money_ from a lot of people, but you can't make an economy better by stealing, you can't improve an economy by force. You can't create _wealth_ by spreading _money_ by force.

Knowing that Obama's plans are destined for failure is a sobering thought. But that's what adults do -- they face sobering truths.

What happens then? The part I fear is not the coming failure of this latest version of socialism. We've been living under Bush's poorly-disguised socialism for a long time, and it led to the same inevitable failure we see today. But things can always bounce back. People have survived worse. My ancestors survived the Romans, the Saxons, the Vikings, the Normans, and even the Yankee carpetbaggers. Obama-nomics is guaranteed disaster, but he is still a gnat compared to them.

What I fear is a little different. When children face the loss of their illusions, the really hard-core ones refuse to grow up; instead they double down. They retreat even further into the fantasy. They build ever-higher psychological walls, rationalizations, spinning without limit a more and more elaborate defense mechanism to explain away the facts they do not want to accept.

In politics, the last refuge of the failures of socialism is war. Socialists will do anything to keep from having to admit that they are causing economic harm. They insist on the government doing more and more and more. There's only one sure-fire way to silence the critics once and for all, and get millions of people hooked on government paychecks -- put them in uniform and tell everyone that The Enemy is at the door. They'll gin one up, if they have to.

Wilson did it. FDR did it. Johnson did it. GW Bush did it. War is the health of the state. It mobilizes. It gets the government checks issued. It puts Keynesianism into high gear. Keynes himself said as much in his preface to the German edition of his General Theory in 1936:



> I may expect less resistance from German, than from English, readers in offering a theory of employment and output as a whole ... [My] theory of output as a whole, which is what the following book purports to provide, is much *more easily adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state*, than is the theory of the production and distribution of a given output produced under conditions of free competition and a large measure of _laissez-faire_.


This is an unfortunate fact of life -- the existence of a war makes it easier for socialists to implement a government-run economy.

My hope at this point is that Americans can learn these lessons, one more time, sooner rather than later, before the war phase of the time-tested socialist agenda is put into action.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Quay said:


> Senator McCain gave a very gracious speech tonight. I hope those that supported him over President-elect Obama will rise to the level of good conduct, good wishes and bipartisan cooperation that he called for.
> 
> The time for being sniveling driveling twerps is over. We have no time for bitterness, rancor and calls to "fight" our fellow countrymen. It is time to work together. Our country faces many challenges including two wars, an economic disaster and a crisis of confidence in our moral and political leadership in the world. At our core we are a better people than we have been in the last decade and it's time to become the truly great nation we have been and still can be.
> 
> And yes, Beresford, this includes the Republican gentlemen who are probably more than a little sauced right now. :icon_smile_wink: All means all and that includes John McCain, Reagan Republicans, Libertarians, Independents, Greens, and even those who did not vote. In times of crisis we come together and this is a time of crisis. Tonight we can all get drunk, either happily or unhappily, but tomorrow we can start making things better.


+!. Very well said and entirely consistent with the admonition John McCain included in his concession speech; "during the campaign and today we may have acted as Republicans and Democrats but, now, tomorrow, I, and I hope we all, will act as Americans and support My/Our President"! I would simply add my...Congratulations, President-elect Obama!


----------



## adhoc (Oct 5, 2008)

thunderw21 said:


> Enjoy your socialism.





TBOWES said:


> Great day for socialism. This country is now full of people who want handouts.


That's interesting considering how the following institutions are essentially 'socialist' - given of course, that 'socialist' means 'state ownership' to you:

- fire departments
- police departments
- border patrol
- prisons
- libraries
- schools
- healthcare (a part of it, at least)

It appears that you both are in _*denial *_about the already massive role the state (gasp!) plays in your daily life, no? For some unfathomable reason, 'socialism' is a dirty word in America. I bet not many people even know what it _really _means.

And of course, if 'lazy people' who want 'handouts' are the problem, than it's hardly fair to blame 'socialism' for that too, eh?



Spence said:


> Reading the tone and substance of the anti-Obama folks, it's pretty clear why he won.
> 
> -spence


Thank you.

"Alarm" word dropping ('socialism'), (thinly or not veiled) insults, predictions (without substantiation) of doom and gloom seem to me to be more gut reactions rather than well-thought out responses.


----------



## Xhine23 (Jan 17, 2008)

Phinn said:


> Left-wing economics is socialism, re-labeled and re-packaged a thousand times over, but it's always the same. (This election was not about "change." That's a bad joke. Anyone who has been an adult for more than 5 minutes and can remember further back than 1994 knows that we are in store for more of the same.)
> 
> Obama's economic measures will fail. They will cause economic disaster. Just as assuredly as if you drop a rock, it will fall to the ground. Adults understand this. *There are no perpetual motion machines.* You cannot "spread the wealth around." You can steal some _money_ from a lot of people, but you can't make an economy better by stealing, you can't improve an economy by force. You can't create _wealth_ by spreading _money_ by force.
> 
> ...


Apparently 60+mil people dont have the same thoughts like you, no matter what you think Obama is the president elect. Its not time to blame anybody but to build/restore America.


----------



## thunderw21 (Sep 21, 2008)

Who's ready for Hope?

*High Taxes 
*Gun Control 
*State ownership of capital 
*Constitutional reconstructionism through the courts 
*Nanny government and oppressive regulation 
*A weak, impotent military 
*Inept foreign policy 
*Trial lawyers and liberal judges 
*Socialism 
*Internationalist subservience to the United Nations 
*Socialized medical care 
*Stronger labor unions 
*Racism (hiring- and college enrolment quotas) 
*Class warfare 
*Voter fraud 
*Lax immigration controls 
*Wealth redistributionism 
*Hostility towards business, and capitalism in general 
*Over-aggressive environmentalism 
*Support for failed social programs 
*The likes of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Tom Daschle, Pat Leahy, Maxine Waters, Jim McDermott, John Kerry, Charles Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, and Dick Durbin running Congress.


Yes we can! Yes we can, yes we...


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Xhine23 said:


> Apparently 60+mil people dont have the same thoughts like you, no matter what you think Obama is the president elect. Its not time to blame anybody but to build/restore America.


It says that 63 mil people are ready for more socialism in their government, and 55 million were against it. The majority gets what they wanted. He has promised to fundamentally change America. I always thought our fundamentals were pretty good. We shall see what new type of America Pres-elect Obama attempts to build.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

*One question for all you deluded Obama haters*

Define "socialism".


----------



## adhoc (Oct 5, 2008)

thunderw21 said:


> Who's ready for Hope?
> 
> *High Taxes
> *Gun Control
> ...


:stupid:... *not*.

I especially like your "Internationalist subservience to the United Nations" one, whatever that means. "Class warfare" and "Hostility towards business, and capitalism in general" are pretty hilarious too. Classic fear mongering.

And your "Constitutional reconstructionism through the courts" one is remote possibility - given how 7 of 9 judges were appointed by Republican presidents, and that most of the oldest ones are generally the 'liberal' ones (Stevens, Ginsberg, Souter, maybe Breyer?). In fact, Alito and Roberts, the 2 youngest judges, were appointed by GWB.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

thunderw21 said:


> Who's ready for Hope?
> 
> *High Taxes
> *Gun Control
> ...


You forgot involuntary servitude.

Oh, sorry, it's called "universal voluntary national service" now. Of course, by "voluntary," Obama means that you have to work in a government-run project, managed by government bureaucrats, or you don't get your government-issued diploma. And if your government-run school doesn't mandate this "voluntary" work on a government-run project for all its "students," it loses its government money.

Yes, a new era of freedom is upon us.


----------



## Sartre (Mar 25, 2008)

rgrossicone said:


> ...I will also make sure to point out to my many Muslim students, that as bad as they feel they are treated right now, as unfairly as they are treated, we will overcome our prejudices, and that by working hard, and doing right, in the next generation our next president could be sworn in over a Qu'ran...


You're kidding me, right? Am I the only one who read this?

Is the presidential election nothing more to you than a national referendum on race?

Muslim students are being treated unfairly how? Is anti-Muslim prejudice the next great social problem we need to tackle? Personally I'd place it 10,463rd on the list.

And don't forget we must also aspire to the worthy goals of first Asian American president, Native American president, Jewish American president, woman president, gay president, hermaphrodite president, physically disabled president, mentally disabled president, Zen Buddhist president, atheist president, and Mormon president (I assume you supported Mitt Romney?). Get out there, RGrossicone! We still have work to do!!!


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

In response to an earlier post, I voted for McCain, but it is difficult for me to say that Obama is not at least as qualified as Bush.

I hope he is smart enough to know that if he goes too far to the left too often, he will probably lose a lot of political capital. Hopefully he is smart enough to see what happened to Bush and Cheney when they did the same (to the right.)


----------



## adhoc (Oct 5, 2008)

Sartre said:


> You're kidding me, right? Am I the only one who read this?
> 
> Is the presidential election nothing more to you than a national referendum on race?
> 
> ...


Gosh, get your blinkers off.

Remember that whole hoohah about Obama _maybe_ being a Muslim? Remind me why was that _even_ an issue? Oh yes - because for a significant proportion of your country, Muslim = terrorist = something to be feared/hated.

So... Muslim students, or Muslims in general, not treated unfairly in America? Bullshit. We haven't had an attack here in Australia yet based on 'Islam', and they're already treated like crap. I can't imagine it's a whole lot better in America.

And sure, it (social prejudice) isn't a problem to _you_. Because you're not Muslim, right?

Finally, the point isn't that it's awesome that (insert minority group here) got to become president. The point is that he _*could*_ - that the colour of his skin or his religious beliefs didn't get _in the way_. Too much (cue Romney).


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

thunderw21 said:


> Who's ready for Hope?
> 
> *High Taxes
> *Gun Control
> ...


Tom Daschle is no longer in Congress.

Buzz


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Maybe you can't imagine, but you certainly don't KNOW. There are some muslims who go about their daily lives here. No one overtly harasses them.

Some may not like them and some may be wary of them, but no one harasses them here, at least in their normal daily lives.

I'm a white American and there are isolated incidences where minority Americans have harassed me mostly because I'm white, middle-aged and the opportunity (numbers or youth in their favor) was there. I do not extrapolate these three or four experiences in fifteen or so years into an opinion on ALL minorities. 

I hope you will start to do the same.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

MichaelS said:


> Like the last 8 years of Republican Power have been such a happy time for all Americans!


Well, a lot of people need to be reminded that while the lesser evil might be evil, it's the better alternative for a reason.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

This thread and in great measure – this entire section of the website is full of perfect examples of why the Republicans have lost miserably for two elections in a row. They are OUT OF TOUCH.

Our country is increasingly a country of color. The predominant color is still white, but the times they are a changing…and so many old school, white republicans are choosing to kick and scream on the platform, as the train of American change pulls out of the station and leaves them in the dust.

Lucky for your party, you have some strong progressive voices like Bobby Jindal, Tim Pawlenty, and Charlie Crist – that have all shown an understanding of bi-partisanship and understand the value of working across the aisle. But the days of divisive, race based politics ARE OVER – and the sooner the republicans both here and in general understand that, the sooner they can start to repair their fractured party.

As a Democrat, I too think this is a big opportunity. Obama needs to work hard to find common ground with people on both sides of the aisle, and not take this as a mandate to ram through every liberal policy on Nancy Pelosi’s wish list. If the new leadership in Washington can temper their attitude and be fair in their administration of power, the Democrats could find themselves in control for a very long time. But , if they use this as an opportunity to forward a lopsided agenda, in two or four years, they will find their party in the same place the republicans find themselves today.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I totally agree with Mr. Kleen, except that I think most (not all, there are some racist idiots out there.) concerns about Mr. Obama's election deal more with fears of outlandishly liberal revenge and forcing through of actions most folks don't agree with.

Bush was totally guilty of this after he barely was elected, by the way. This is a big reason why Obama is now president.

I agree that it will not be smart for Reid, Pelosi and Obama to do this now that they have the power. Reid and Pelosi do not strike me as people whose political instincts are savvy enough to avoid this. Obama just may favorably surprise us. He's smart enough; I hope he keeps his ego in check and lets his brain do his thinking. If he does, he may be bi-partisan.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Beresford said:


> Some of us who are gentlemen and Republicans are quietly nursing a stiff drink in the library, pondering our future in the new Republic. :icon_smile:
> 
> My feeling is that we have no one to blame but ourselves. We long ago departed from the ideals of Ronald Reagan who built the party back up in the first place.
> 
> Now that he is president, I for one will support Obama. Goodness knows he's going to need all the support he can get, given the mess we're in as a country.


Well said.

I want to be happy but I have a deep seated worry that the train will lurch a bit too far to the left and all we'll be left with is a bloated, mediocre welfare state to try and dismantle in a decade or so.

Other than that, congratulations Jack.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Out of work engineers who contemplate $10 at Home Depot should look again. I worked at HD for 8 years when my Caltrans job as field archaeologist was eliminated by a Republican administration. 
Under a Georgia based, republican voting CEO I finally made $10 after 7 years. But that was to expensive, and after the magical 1000 store presence and market share was achieved Old Bernie and Arthur began a purge of longterm employees that continues today with a lousy employee relations record.
Go on down and apply. The average starting wage is hardly $10, which equals in buying power minimum wage 1968. 
Times are hard, HD knows it and they are offering $8.
Maybe more EMPLOYED engineers should read something about people and issues instead of stress reports so you don't have to steal other folk's jobs.


----------



## omanae (Aug 19, 2008)

It does seem that the government is going to have to take more control over creating jobs and giving people opportunities. Multiple large production facilities for GM and similar corporations saw the writing on the wall about the Obama presidency and began to move their production overseas. A lot of big corporations that used to hire lots of people will be taxed too heavily as the upper 5% and will soon realize that it's cheaper to outsource and all those jobs will be lost. At least this what those corporations seem to believe because they are getting out fast. I have no idea how that's all going to end, and maybe it'll end up being a good thing. All any of us can do now is wait it out and do what we can to ensure that we are valuable enough to society and our jobs to keep them.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

M6Classic said:


> Tom Daschle is no longer in Congress.
> 
> Buzz


That is correct of course. But the broader point remains. My partner, Senator Daschle, who is a good man with whom I profoundly disagree, will have a very high position in the Obama administration. Count on it.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

omanae said:


> It does seem that the government is going to have to take more control over creating jobs and giving people opportunities. Multiple large production facilities for GM and similar corporations saw the writing on the wall about the Obama presidency and began to move their production overseas. A lot of big corporations that used to hire lots of people will be taxed too heavily as the upper 5% and will soon realize that it's cheaper to outsource and all those jobs will be lost. At least this what those corporations seem to believe because they are getting out fast. I have no idea how that's all going to end, and maybe it'll end up being a good thing. All any of us can do now is wait it out and do what we can to ensure that we are valuable enough to society and our jobs to keep them.


If and to the extent the government "takes more control over creating jobs," I can tell you exactly how that's going to end.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Reading this litany of weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth almost makes me wish I had voted for Obama. Almost.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

Xhine23 said:


> Apparently 60+mil people dont have the same thoughts like you, no matter what you think Obama is the president elect. Its not time to blame anybody but to build/restore America.


And almost 56 mil didn't want him. Hardly a minority.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

Xhine23 said:


> Apparently 60+mil people dont have the same thoughts like you, no matter what you think Obama is the president elect. Its not time to blame anybody but to build/restore America.





TBOWES said:


> And almost 56 mil didn't want him. Hardly a minority.


Nooo...it is a minority, actually. A large minority, to be sure, but a minority nonetheless.

Buzz


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

Country Irish said:


> It is a great day indeed. While some of you may miss all of the lies and easy fleecing of our nation, it is time to rebuild from the shambles we are in. I would also have been happy with McCain but Obama does bring new hope and the promise of a better nation.
> God bless Obama.


There will still be lies I'm afraid as lying is an inherent characteristic of all politicians on both sides. Obama won't be able to do all he promised. History has taught us this.


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

It feels like 1976 all over again.

A young Democrat takes over from an ineffective Republican in bad economic times.

I am expecting Mike Eruzione Jr. to get the winning goal against the Russians in the 2012 Olympics to make us all feel good about ourselves again.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

mrkleen said:


> I was wondering if the republicans on this board would come out here on election night and in defeat act as gentlemen, or continue to act like pompous, windbags.


I'm a conservative who supported McCain, but now that Obama has won I wish him nothing but the best as he takes on his new job. I love my country far more than I love any political party.

Cruiser


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

Cruiser said:


> I'm a conservative who supported McCain, but now that Obama has won I wish him nothing but the best as he takes on his new job. I love my country far more than I love any political party.
> 
> Cruiser


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

+1


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

I wish Obama luck. God knows he will need it. I am very concerned about how he is perceived by business. I'm certain big oil is not to happy with him. I am fearfull that their attitude toward him is ultimately not good for future oil prices.

I am also extremely concerned by the "freedom of choice act" (what a misnomer) and it's passage as it effects our economy. It is a terrible proposal that has much support of Democrats.


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

Kav said:


> Out of work engineers who contemplate $10 at Home Depot should look again. I worked at HD for 8 years when my Caltrans job as field archaeologist was eliminated by a Republican administration.
> Under a Georgia based, republican voting CEO I finally made $10 after 7 years. But that was to expensive, and after the magical 1000 store presence and market share was achieved Old Bernie and Arthur began a purge of longterm employees that continues today with a lousy employee relations record.
> Go on down and apply. The average starting wage is hardly $10, which equals in buying power minimum wage 1968.
> Times are hard, HD knows it and they are offering $8.
> Maybe more EMPLOYED engineers should read something about people and issues instead of stress reports so you don't have to steal other folk's jobs.


Thanks, Kav. I'll have my wife check out a job at HD. Up until last week she was an attorney and commercial escrow officer with 30+ years of experience, but her company just permanently laid off 70 people in the latest round of cuts, including her. Now we're having to make the decision: do we try keep the house and pull our kids out of private school and college, or do we keep our kids in school, sell the house and try find an affordable apartment.

Considering the present economic situation, you guys need to watch this (humor):


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

TBOWES said:


> I wish Obama luck. God knows he will need it. I am very concerned about how he is perceived by business. I'm certain big oil is not to happy with him. I am fearfull that their attitude toward him is ultimately not good for future oil prices.
> 
> I am also extremely concerned by the "freedom of choice act" (what a misnomer) and it's passage as it effects our economy. It is a terrible proposal that has much support of Democrats.


Do you mean the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), or the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA)? Or both?


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

eagle2250 said:


> +!. Very well said and entirely consistent with the admonition John McCain included in his concession speech; "during the campaign and today we may have acted as Republicans and Democrats but, now, tomorrow, I, and I hope we all, will act as Americans and support My/Our President"! I would simply add my...Congratulations, President-elect Obama!


Pretty much. Why is everyone still being so vitriolic? He is our president. Give congrats, move on, and _do something about it_ if you believe his policies do not work when he takes office. That is your right.



Cruiser said:


> I'm a conservative who supported McCain, but now that Obama has won I wish him nothing but the best as he takes on his new job. I love my country far more than I love any political party.
> 
> Cruiser


A sign of good character here. Can everyone else please follow his lead and just GET OVER it? Thank you.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

Lushington said:


> Do you mean the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA)? Or both?


EFCA not FOCA - Bad abbreviation on my part.


----------



## flylot74 (Jul 26, 2007)

All I can add is that I hope that the people of this country will treat him with as much respect and the media will treat him the same "neutrality" as our last President was treated.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

flylot74 said:


> All I can add is that I hope that the people of this country will treat him with as much respect and the media will treat him the same "neutrality" as our last President was treated.


I'm sure we can count on it!

Of course, all these good folks in this thread who are so bothered by the posters that are not pleased with the outcome of the election were, no doubt, very magnanimous and respectful toward our current President, both immediately after his last election, and ever since.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

flylot74 said:


> All I can add is that I hope that the people of this country will treat him with as much respect and the media will treat him the same "neutrality" as our last President was treated.


Dear God, man! No one deserves _that_!

You're going to give Jovan a case of the vapors with that kind of talk.



jackmccullough said:


> Define "socialism".


Go read your own website. Or Sydney Webb's _Fabian Essays in Socialism_. Same thing, pretty much.



Jovan said:


> Why is everyone still being so vitriolic?


I get vitriolic when my fundamental human rights to economic privacy, economic liberty and freedom of contract are threatened. And no, I will never "get over" that.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Jovan said:


> Pretty much. Why is everyone still being so vitriolic? He is our president. Give congrats, move on, and _do something about it_ if you believe his policies do not work when he takes office. That is your right.
> 
> A sign of good character here. Can everyone else please follow his lead and just GET OVER it? Thank you.


You liberals wouldn't be singing the same tune if McCain had won.

That being said, I don't hate Obama. I just fundamentally disagree with him. I'm neither Republican nor Democrat. I voted for McCain, but I think that this outcome is better. Obama will get blamed for the economy when inflation becomes massive due to the socialization that has gone on already and that will likely continue.

Hopefully the Republcians will take these next four years to regroup and return to their conservative roots.

I think the government should stay out of our lives, and an Obama government won't.


----------



## adhoc (Oct 5, 2008)

Cruiser said:


> I'm a conservative who supported McCain, but now that Obama has won I wish him nothing but the best as he takes on his new job. I love my country far more than I love any political party.
> 
> Cruiser


+1

And I wish you all, all the best!


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

brokencycle said:


> You liberals wouldn't be singing the same tune if McCain had won.


Yes, one supposes they would. For rather obvious reasons.



> Hopefully the Republcians will take these next four years to regroup and return to their conservative roots.


One hears this quite a bit, but when did the Republican party have "conservative roots."? In the Harding/Coolidge era? In the post-civil war era, the Republican's were hardly conservatives, in say, the manner of the British Conservative party. During the New Deal era, I suppose the party leadership could be said to have been made up of "conservatives", but by the late 40s and early '50s this group was in full retreat. The Goldwater/Reagan era was far more reactionary than conservative, by any measure, and the ascendancy of the Neo-Cons was nothing but the implementation of water-down Trotskyism. The whole "return to _real_ conservatism" rhetoric strikes me as illusory.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

They are probably looking to Reagan's principles, I guess. 

One possible problem with both parties is they seem to stand for nothing, but against whatever is convenient at the moment.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Let's see what Barack can bring to the table for the next 4 years.


----------



## Cabbage (Oct 25, 2008)

I'm a racial minority, I'm an immigrant, I came from a lower middle class background - according to popular discourse, I am exactly the type of person who should've been overwhelmed by the Obama euphoria and voted for him. But I didn't. I voted for McCain. My parents didn't come to this country to live in socialism. Nor did they come here to celebrate that "the first colored person became President" - frankly, we don't give a $hit. 

We came here for opportunity and we've had plenty of it. We don't believe in forced wealth redistribution even though for a long time we would have benefited from it greatly. We believe in the American way - if you want prosperity, you work for it, make sacrifices, and in a generation you will have it, regardless of what your current standing is. And when you've achieved it, you aren't penalized for it and made to subsidize people who want the same prosperity but through special treatment and handouts from the government. This is what Obama's policies amount to for us and we are disgusted by it. 

We aren't people you would expect to be voting Republican, but we will from now on. Bush was terrible, but McCain shouldn't have been punished for it. But that's how life works and we respect the vote.

However, we have signed off the next 4 years and are hoping and praying for Mike Bloomberg to run and win in 2012. :aportnoy:


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Cabbage said:


> I'm a racial minority, I'm an immigrant, I came from a lower middle class background - according to popular discourse, I am exactly the type of person who should've been overwhelmed by the Obama euphoria and voted for him. But I didn't. I voted for McCain. My parents didn't come to this country to live in socialism. Nor did they come here to celebrate that "the first colored person became President" - frankly, we don't give a $hit.
> 
> We came here for opportunity and we've had plenty of it. We don't believe in forced wealth redistribution even though for a long time we would have benefited from it greatly. We believe in the American way - if you want prosperity, you work for it, make sacrifices, and in a generation you will have it, regardless of what your current standing is. And when you've achieved it, you aren't penalized for it and made to subsidize people who want the same prosperity but through special treatment and handouts from the government. This is what Obama's policies amount to for us and we are disgusted by it.
> 
> ...


Common sense from someone who understands what this country is about and the role of government.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

Phinn said:


> Children believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and perpetual motion machines.
> 
> In politics, the last refuge of the failures of socialism is war. Socialists will do anything to keep from having to admit that they are causing economic harm. They insist on the government doing more and more and more. There's only one sure-fire way to silence the critics once and for all, and get millions of people hooked on government paychecks -- put them in uniform and tell everyone that The Enemy is at the door. They'll gin one up, if they have to.
> 
> ...


Let me think for a minute. Since Sweeden is essentially a far left socialist country (by your definition) by your logic, they should be starting wars all over the place. Wait a minute though, they have been pretty much neutal since the middle ages when they were a world power for a short time. It is intersting that such a socialist country has a higher standard of living than us, people live longer than us, has good health insurance and education, has a good economy, low crime rate, etc. Poor suckers just don't know how bad they have it. They should give all of that up to help support corrupt wall street CEOs who run good companies into the ground and then get millions of dollars in bonuses.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Peak and Pine said:


> Try to work a little magic with paragraphs and indents; few want to read endless blocks of political copy like the above.
> 
> Be brief. We are not waiting breathlessly for your latest rambling. ​





Terpoxon said:


> Peak,
> 
> How's this for brief: Go to hell.


There. That's more like it. (Hey, am I a great teacher or what.)​


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Rahm Emanuel will be Obama's Chief of Staff. Yeah, they'll be flying the red flag over 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. in no time. The euthanasia of the rentier is at hand. Jesus.

And Jaime Dimon is being tabbed as Treasury Secretary. Double Jesus. Change? _plus ca change . . ._


----------



## ghost02 (Nov 3, 2008)

I congratulate Obama for winning, although I am a republican, but now we have to get to work, we have to get past being partisans and become true Americans, those who love America make things work. Stop Partisanism and work together to get things done!


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Amen.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

ghost02 said:


> I congratulate Obama for winning, although I am a republican, but now we have to get to work, we have to get past being partisans and become true Americans, those who love America make things work. Stop Partisanism and work together to get things done!


That's nice rhetoric, but from a practical standpoint...

What exactly is the work and how do we do it together?

Does "stop partisanism" mean that we conservatives are to abandon our conservative principles and are no longer to give voice to them?


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

With all due respect, this "let's all work together to implement the agenda that 52% of us voted for" is about as un-American a thing as has ever been said. The framers went to great lengths to keep such things from happening. 

Don't get me wrong, I don't want conservatives to back our foreign enemies and wish the country harm, for political benefit, as, you know, seems to have recently become the custom for the party that's out of power; but we should fight the leftists tooth and nail where it's appropriate.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Relayer said:


> Does "stop partisanism" mean that we conservatives are to abandon our *conservative principles* and are no longer to give voice to them?


What precisely would those principles be?
Spell 'em out please, but only the _ones that are unique to conservatism._

And were they on display during the past three months (which would be from the time your party actually nominated Fred Mertz to the glorious moment he conceded last night)?

I watched as much news as I could, including your Fox News, and I don't recall seeing or hearing anything being expounded that I would recognize as a _principle._ So go ahead please, help me out.​


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

MichaelS said:


> Let me think for a minute. Since Sweeden is essentially a far left socialist country (by your definition) by your logic, they should be starting wars all over the place. Wait a minute though, they have been pretty much neutal since the middle ages when they were a world power for a short time. It is intersting that such a socialist country has a higher standard of living than us, people live longer than us, has good health insurance and education, has a good economy, low crime rate, etc. Poor suckers just don't know how bad they have it. They should give all of that up to help support corrupt wall street CEOs who run good companies into the ground and then get millions of dollars in bonuses.


Some numbers to back up the standard of living claim?

And you can't put a price on freedom.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

The 48% who didn't back Bush have been labeled unpatriotic for 8 years. 'Support Our Troops' has been a club that translates 'support my criminal war.' This (mis) administration has used fear and devisiveness to demean american's patriotism and loyalty.Bush proclaimed his second victory a 'clear mandate' with political capital he 'intended to spend.' Well it's spent, bankrupt.

And now you Bath party, er neocon republicans demean the 52% majority you once held as 'leftists' and prepare for the RESISTANCE with a gun in one hand and main squeeze with the newly popular Palin 'Doo' in the other.
There is a feeding frenzy in firearms going on. M 1A prices have doubled in Texas as good old capitalists gouge good old ( scared little) boys.
I predict a retreat to Wasillla, where Texicans and others can swell the ranks of the Alaska Independance Party, make Palin Empress of the North Pole and drill the hell out of ANWAR once and for all. 
I'm sure communist China will buy it all, with many old friends to conduct the transaction.
The new Republic of Alaska $20 bill can feature the tired, huddled but unfettered and defiant refugees shaking hands with Palin.
Can this get any sillier? or pathetic?


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Peak and Pine said:


> What precisely would those principles be?
> Spell 'em out please, but only the _ones that are unique to conservatism._
> 
> And were they on display during the past three months (which would be from the time your party actually nominated Fred Mertz to the glorious moment he conceded last night)?
> ...


A strict adherence to the Constitution. A small federal government. Increased states rights and responsibilities. Increased individual rights and responsibilities.

If you're referring to the Republicans that don't adhere to these principles, that's because they're not conservatives.

That's a good start. ^


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Peak and Pine said:


> What precisely would those principles be?
> Spell 'em out please, but only the _ones that are unique to conservatism._
> 
> And were they on display during the past three months (which would be from the time your party actually nominated Fred Mertz to the glorious moment he conceded last night)?
> ...


If you need a primer on politics the research is easily done.

If you wish to make the case that there is no such thing as conservative principles then have a go at it.

I asked questions of a fellow conservative. If you wish to answer for him go right ahead.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Peak and Pine said:


> What precisely would those principles be? Spell 'em out please, but only the _ones that are *unique to conservatism*._




brokencycle said:


> A strict adherence to the Constitution. A small federal government. Increased states rights and responsibilities. Increased individual rights and responsibilities. *That's a good start*.


No it's not. It's a _vague _start.

I've heard that stuff over and over. Conservatives can't lay claim to those ideas: they're in the public domain. Be specific, gimme an actual conservative principle upon which McCain ran and routinely hammered on in his rallies, appearances, commercials and debates?
​


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

ghost02 said:


> I congratulate Obama for winning, although I am a republican, but now we have to get to work, we have to get past being partisans and become true Americans, those who love America make things work. Stop Partisanism and work together to get things done!


This is pure left propaganda. The left has and will never do this when the right wins.

Talk about dishonest or brainwashed.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Peak and Pine said:


> No it's not. It's a _vague _start.
> 
> I've heard that stuff over and over. Conservatives can't lay claim to those ideas: they're in the public domain. Be specific, gimme an actual conservative principle upon which McCain ran and routinely hammered on in his rallies, appearances, commercials and debates?
> ​


Did you even read the link?

And this goes back to my point that all Republicans aren't conservatives. If A !=> B, then just because A is true does not mean B is true.

So, conservative views aren't unique because why? You have so many fallacies of logic it is embarrassing.

That is like saying the Democrat's policy of socialized medicine isn't unique so they can't claim it - it isn't their belief.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

MichaelS said:


> Let me think for a minute. Since Sweeden is essentially a far left socialist country (by your definition) by your logic, they should be starting wars all over the place. Wait a minute though, they have been pretty much neutal since the middle ages when they were a world power for a short time. It is intersting that such a socialist country has a higher standard of living than us, people live longer than us, has good health insurance and education, has a good economy, low crime rate, etc. Poor suckers just don't know how bad they have it. They should give all of that up to help support corrupt wall street CEOs who run good companies into the ground and then get millions of dollars in bonuses.


From what I have heard the last decade or so is the younger generation is not wanting the government to hold their hand so much. In other words, they want more freedom and responsibility.

About living long lives- they have been out living most of the lower Europeans for centuries. The Norwegians probably live longer than the Swedes.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

WA said:


> This is pure left propaganda. The left has and will never do this when the right wins.
> 
> Talk about dishonest or brainwashed.


The right never does this unless they are behind or have lost power then they scream about the left being unfair.

Both sides have become very partisian. As I see it (which f course could obviously be wrong;-)) Reagan started a lot of this and Gingrich pushed it to new lows.

It's too bad that it has come to this. in the pre-Regan days, there was quite a bit more discourse between the parties and people in the senate and house commonly voted their conscience instead of the party line. I miss those days.


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

Cabbage said:


> I'm a racial minority, I'm an immigrant, I came from a lower middle class background - according to popular discourse, I am exactly the type of person who should've been overwhelmed by the Obama euphoria and voted for him. But I didn't. I voted for McCain. My parents didn't come to this country to live in socialism. Nor did they come here to celebrate that "the first colored person became President" - frankly, we don't give a $hit.
> 
> We came here for opportunity and we've had plenty of it. We don't believe in forced wealth redistribution even though for a long time we would have benefited from it greatly. We believe in the American way - if you want prosperity, you work for it, make sacrifices, and in a generation you will have it, regardless of what your current standing is. And when you've achieved it, you aren't penalized for it and made to subsidize people who want the same prosperity but through special treatment and handouts from the government. This is what Obama's policies amount to for us and we are disgusted by it.
> 
> ...


Primary thoughts in the view above are seconded! Now that being said, I still heartily congratulate fellow Americans for the historical accomplishment of electing a US born African to be President as I believe (irrespective of party affiliation) that is a true display of one of the core concepts of what America stands for....... opportunity for anybody to be anything they wish to become. God bless America!


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

MichaelS said:


> Let me think for a minute. Since Sweeden is essentially a far left socialist country (by your definition) by your logic, they should be starting wars all over the place. Wait a minute though, they have been pretty much neutal since the middle ages when they were a world power for a short time. It is intersting that such a socialist country has a higher standard of living than us, people live longer than us, has good health insurance and education, has a good economy, low crime rate, etc. Poor suckers just don't know how bad they have it. They should give all of that up to help support corrupt wall street CEOs who run good companies into the ground and then get millions of dollars in bonuses.


https://www.mises.org/story/955

Nearly 50% of GDP is consumed in taxes. The average worker pays a near 60% marginal income tax rate. And they have a funny way of calculating their unemployment rate:

https://truckandbarter.com/mt/archives/000589.html

Sweden is hardly the utopia that you imagine. Besides, who wants to eat Ludafisk every day.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

brokencycle said:


> Some numbers to back up the standard of living claim?
> 
> And you can't put a price on freedom.


I agree you can't put a price on Freedom but I certainly wouldn't say people living in Sweeden (or most other European countries) are not free. But that was not what my post was about.

As to references re Sweeden's standard of living compared to the US: easy, a 10 second search on Google will give thousands of references. While of course not all of these are the most reputable, a lot are very reputable and the great predominance shows the US does not have the highest standard of living in the world.

Here are a few references:

https://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/world-top-ten-quality-of-life-map.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index

https://able2know.org/topic/55762-1

https://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article3137506.ece

https://skeptically.org/economics/id21.html

Some information on Sweeded from the CIA fact book:

CIA fact book

life expectancy by country


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

Sweden is hardly the utopia that you imagine. Besides said:
 

> The Scandinavians claim it makes them strong.
> 
> I don't think it is a paradise but an example of "socialism" which has not met the dire end people seem to be predicting for Obama's "socialism" (by the way what he is proposeing is not a socialism). I would love to hear from some Sweedes about their country.


----------



## adhoc (Oct 5, 2008)

At this point in time, I think the following quote is pretty relevant.

*"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."*
~ Winston Churchill

IMO, the problem with unfettered 'capitalism' is that it encourages the stratification of society, and class-based division, which isn't all that great for 'democracy'.

You guys in the US of A are living through that right now.


----------



## adhoc (Oct 5, 2008)

MichaelS said:


> The Scandinavians claim it makes them strong.
> 
> I don't think it is a paradise but an example of "socialism" which has not met the dire end people seem to be predicting for Obama's "socialism" (by the way what he is proposeing is not a socialism). I would love to hear from some Sweedes about their country.


My fiancee is Swedish. It is a beautiful country, and the women, oh the women! Anyway, here is my take on Sweden.

So far, it's worked for them because of a unique blend of culture and history.

Culture:
Swedes identify *very* strongly with the concept of 'lagom' which has no literal translation - the closest you could get is 'just right'.

Everyone should strive to be 'lagom' - no one should try too much to stand out. Bosses are the same as their workers, and commonly sit together with them in the office cafeteria. Business dress is relatively casual - bosses do not dress better than their lower-downs. You do not arrive late to work, or stay back to do overtime - you must strive for 'just right' - to arrive perfectly on time, to do exactly what is expected of you, and then to leave.

In a nutshell, I think it stems from an ingrained belief in the universality of _the human condition_ - that we are all essentially alike, and that our 'success' in life is not so much due to our individual capability as it is due to the *opportunities* presented to us.

As such, Swedes strive to not differentiate themselves too much - entrepenuerism and laissez faire capitalism was until recently discouraged. By the same token, laziness in the form of welfare theft is also discouraged. Everyone strives for that 'sweet spot' in the middle. The thing about Sweden that makes it succeed is that that 'middle' point is _pretty darned high_ to begin with. I do not think that it is a stretch to say that the Swedish education or healthcare system is superior to the Australian or American ones. In the case of education, likely *far* superior.

History: 
Sweden has a *very *strong national identity with a long history that goes all the way back to the Iron Age, having once been a regional power and at a time the _most_ powerful nation in Europe. They have also suffered terrible lows in more recent history - the aftermath of WW2 was not a good time for them. As such, they are more partial to the concept of 'common good', and the need for social 'safety nets'.

This has manifested itself in the socialisation of health and dental care, schools (which are all nearly identical and of a *very *high standard - not much 'ranking' or differentiation between various schools goes on there), and various other institutions.

Present day:
The system is currently being strained. The system only works because everyone contributes, people do *not *actively try to abuse it, and everyone believes in it.

*Therein lies the crucial difference:* in the USA, you all appear to see socialism as 'the strong supporting the weak'. In Sweden it is more like 'everyone supporting everyone'. No doubt this has a lot to do with their striving for 'lagom', and their marked lack of 'every man for himself'-ness, which seems pervasive in the USA.

_*(An aside* - in Sweden, the environment is __*sacred*. Being something which __everyone lives in, it is taken care of by everyone - everyone for everyone, remember? It is a really beautiful country that has been well taken of. I think they actually IMPORT trash from other European countries to recycle. You will find everywhere else that the environment usually takes 2nd place to money-making. Not in Sweden.)_

But Sweden has had a recent influx of immigrants from Eastern Europe and various African and Middle-Eastern countries. They, not having been steeped in Swedish culture, do not subscribe to the concept of 'lagom'. A large proportion of them have formed enclaves in various Swedish cities where crime is ridiculously high - a scandal in obscenely safe Sweden. They live off welfare in a cynical attempt to take advantage of the Swedish government, while refusing to integrate into Swedish society.

The great tragedy IMO is that they took advantage of the open-minded and liberal Swedes, and basically tried to recreate (insert home country name) in Sweden, while living off the Swedish people. My take on it that one should be intolerant of intolerance; the Swedes, standing by their ideals of tolerance, did nothing for too long. Denmark is facing a far worse situation with similar origins. Sweden has been relatively strict on immigration - Denmark basically opened the doors and called off the guards.

As such, Sweden has been slowly drifting to centre-right over the last decade or so, away from centre-far-left.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

_*Schadenfreude!*_

To all of the right-wing Yahoos out there...a propos Obama's election...rest assured that we feel your pain. We feel your pain and we're enjoying it! :icon_smile_big:

Buzz


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

adhoc said:


> My fiancee is Swedish. It is a beautiful country, and the women, oh the women! Anyway, here is my take on Sweden.
> 
> So far, it's worked for them because of a unique blend of culture and history.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the very enlightening post.


----------



## FIHTies (Jun 24, 2004)

omairp said:


> Bitter much?
> 
> People keep saying Barack is going to ruin the economy. *I'm curious to see whether the stock markets open up or down on the election results tomorrow*.


Do we have our answer yet?


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

FIHTies said:


> Do we have our answer yet?


Sure do:

https://finance.google.com/finance?q=INDEXDJX:.DJI

https://finance.google.com/finance?q=INDEXNASDAQ:.IXIC

The Dow Jones is down over 800 points so far, and the Nasdaq is down over 150.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

FIHTies said:


> Do we have our answer yet?


Yesterday was not a good day for the stockmarket.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

M6Classic said:


> _*Schadenfreude!*_
> 
> To all of the right-wing Yahoos out there...a propos Obama's election...rest assured that we feel your pain. We feel your pain and we're enjoying it! :icon_smile_big:
> 
> Buzz


You make me laugh. You are a sporting person.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

I thought about omairp's post yesterday.

His premise is completely flawed from the get-go, but I wondered if any one else remembered it. I'm guessing he'd like to forget it


----------



## Sartre (Mar 25, 2008)

adhoc said:


> Gosh, get your blinkers off.
> 
> Remember that whole hoohah about Obama _maybe_ being a Muslim? Remind me why was that _even_ an issue? Oh yes - because for a significant proportion of your country, Muslim = terrorist = something to be feared/hated.
> 
> ...


Thank you for opining about America all the way from Australia.

You didn't answer my question about just _how_ Muslim students are being treated badly in America, or why the alleged schoolteacher I was castigating in my post should have made a special point of telling his Muslim students, "see, someday you too can be President."

And since you're such an expert on the American zeitgeist -- just how did Romney's religious beliefs get in the way? You should have stopped your post while you were ahead; this comment demonstrates that you have a political agenda. (Romney made not a single mis-step that was associated with his religion; beyond having one.)


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

MichaelS said:


> Both sides have become very partisian. As I see it (which f course could obviously be wrong;-)) Reagan started a lot of this and Gingrich pushed it to new lows.


This isn't really true. By the time Reagan stepped in the country had gone so far left that those who hadn't followed would have to do something since the Kool-aid had gotten poisoned by the left by going to far left. The good old days of the 50s and 60s were no longer around because of the left.

Instead of higher taxes to solve all problems, why not create laws to solve individual problems. When CEOs run a company into the ground have a law that says he owes the share holder and the blue collar workers $$$$$$$$$ and cannot take a nice going away package and put a lenn on his future income until he pays off the amount he owes.

Do share holders really vote in these huge salaries and packages for those Vice Presidents and above? If they don't get to vote for what they think these salaries etc. should be then it needs to be law that they have the say and not the boards and swindlers (CEOs etc). The purpose of owning shares is to make money and not give it away to somebody who is already earning more than most people. The Republicans have failed to fix this problem, but so have the Democrats when they had the power. Besides, Democrats like those $27,000 fund raisers and the only way to do that is to keep some people rich.

Everybody knows Reagan cut taxes. But, how many people know he raised some taxes and created new taxes. Smart politicans pay attention to what a tax does. If it causes harm they get rid of it. Scientic do experiments to find out what works best, so should politicians with taxes. Democrats to often think that higher taxes and throw more money at a prolbem will solve the problem, which almost never works; but a simple law will.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

KenR said:


> Well said.
> 
> I want to be happy but I have a deep seated worry that the train will lurch a bit too far to the left and all we'll be left with is a bloated, mediocre welfare state to try and dismantle in a decade or so.
> 
> Other than that, congratulations Jack.


Thanks, Ken.

Just keep your eyes open. I expect that Obama will not be nearly as far to the left as I hope and you fear.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

jackmccullough said:


> Thanks, Ken.
> 
> Just keep your eyes open. I expect that Obama will not be nearly as far to the left as I hope and you fear.


I suspect he will tear a few pages from the Bill Clinton Handbook and govern, for the most part, from the center. God knows I wouldn't want that job...the man's got more problems on his plate than you can count. One of which may very well be keeping the liberal wing of the party happy. It's reassuring to know he's taking economic advice from Buffett, Volker and Rubin.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

WA said:


> This isn't really true. By the time Reagan stepped in the country had gone so far left that those who hadn't followed would have to do something since the Kool-aid had gotten poisoned by the left by going to far left. The good old days of the 50s and 60s were no longer around because of the left.
> 
> Instead of higher taxes to solve all problems, why not create laws to solve individual problems. When CEOs run a company into the ground have a law that says he owes the share holder and the blue collar workers $$$$$$$$$ and cannot take a nice going away package and put a lenn on his future income until he pays off the amount he owes.
> 
> ...


So a CEO who takes over a struggling company and whose policies fail to turn it is to be personally responsible for the loss of shareholder value, with no indemnification? I have no love for management, but you're not going find many experienced people to take over the operation of, say, Ford Motor Company under that proposal. SOX is one thing, but your proposal takes it to another level.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Lushington said:


> So a CEO who takes over a struggling company and whose policies fail to turn it is to be personally responsible for the loss of shareholder value, with no indemnification? I have no love for management, but you're not going find many experienced people to take over the operation of, say, Ford Motor Company under that proposal. SOX is one thing, but your proposal takes it to another level.


Fair argument. Never said there wouldn't be exceptions. But, to counter your argument, how is the CEO going to rake in millions without doing it off the backs of lots of underpaid workers. Clearly some CEOs don't earn all that they take home.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

WA said:


> Fair argument. Never said there wouldn't be exceptions. But, to counter your argument, how is the CEO going to rake in millions without doing it off the backs of lots of underpaid workers. Clearly some CEOs don't earn all that they take home.


Well, now you're talking a different kettle of fish: "Workers of all lands, unite!"


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

_The Onion_ hits the nail on the head with this one:


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

WA said:


> Fair argument. Never said there wouldn't be exceptions. But, to counter your argument, how is the CEO going to rake in millions without doing it off the backs of lots of underpaid workers. Clearly some CEOs don't earn all that they take home.


Think of it this way:

If a company is losing billions of dollars a year due to the poor managment of a CEO, it is cheaper to pay him $50 million to walk away than keep him around.

It is, from my understanding, quite a task to remove a CEO that doesn't want to leave.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Not if the employment contract was competently and fairly written - - -

Too many boards of directors don't do their jobs.


----------



## Mitchell (Apr 25, 2005)

I find it amusing that the group on the right, with their crystal balls, couldn't predict the poopatorium we're in now, yet they predict, with certainty, exactly how bad the new administration will be.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Not if the employment contract was competently and fairly written - - -
> 
> Too many boards of directors don't do their jobs.


Quite. Giving a CEO the axe is a no-brainer, unless the board bent over when it hired him or her.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

WA said:


> This isn't really true. By the time Reagan stepped in the country had gone so far left that those who hadn't followed would have to do something since the Kool-aid had gotten poisoned by the left by going to far left. The good old days of the 50s and 60s were no longer around because of the left.
> 
> Instead of higher taxes to solve all problems, why not create laws to solve individual problems. When CEOs run a company into the ground have a law that says he owes the share holder and the blue collar workers $$$$$$$$$ and cannot take a nice going away package and put a lenn on his future income until he pays off the amount he owes.
> 
> ...


Regan imposed one of the largest tax increases in history (and he still spent out the yazoo all the while blaming it all on the Democrats).

That aside, how can anyone really say this country has gone "so far left"? We are not left at all. The Gingrich right wing insanity (not conservatism but pure partisan crazyness) has worked to make "liberal" a dirty word and make many people in this country think Democrats are a bunch of Marxists. It was intersting to hear the english head of Goldman Sachs's international something or other (on BBC at 5:45 am I don't remember his exact title) say Obama is only slightly to the left of center. I would argue that he is to the right of center. I would argue we have gone so far right that the "moderates" of today are the far right of the 60's. (I of course am the exception!!!).

Have a great evening.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

MichaelS said:


> Regan imposed one of the largest tax increases in history (and he still spent out the yazoo all the while blaming it all on the Democrats).
> 
> That aside, how can anyone really say this country has gone "so far left". we are not left at all. The Gingrich right wing insanity (not conservatism but pure partisan crazyness) has worked to make "liberal" a dirty word and make many people in this country think Democrats are a bunch of maxists. It was intersting to hear the englih head of Goldman Sachs's international something or other (on BBC at 5:45 am I don't remember his exact title) say Obama is only slightly to the left of center. I would argue that he is to the right of center. I woudl argue we have gone so far right that the "moderates" of today are the far right of the 60's. (I of course am the exception!!!).
> 
> Have a great evening.


Obama would be considered center-right in any Social Democratic republic. Only in the US would BHO be considered a raving socialist. A Treasury Secretary from Morgan-Stanley? Don't expect anyone to break out in the "Internationale" any time soon.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Mitchell said:


> I find it amusing that the group on the right, with their crystal balls, couldn't predict the poopatorium we're in now, yet they predict, with certainty, exactly how bad the new administration will be.


There were plenty of warnings. Multiple people called the eventual meltdown thanks to Freddie and Fannie.

Ironically it isn't deregulation that caused this. It is the exact opposite: forcing banks to make loans to people who can't afford them led to an artificial market of demand thus increasing prices forcing more people to be unable to afford homes.


----------



## Mitchell (Apr 25, 2005)

brokencycle said:


> There were plenty of warnings. Multiple people called the eventual meltdown thanks to Freddie and Fannie.
> 
> Ironically it isn't deregulation that caused this. It is the exact opposite: forcing banks to make loans to people who can't afford them led to an artificial market of demand thus increasing prices forcing more people to be unable to afford homes.


You may have missed my point. I used to live in Kenosha by the way.


----------



## adhoc (Oct 5, 2008)

brokencycle said:


> Ironically it isn't deregulation that caused this. It is the exact opposite: forcing banks to make loans to people who can't afford them led to an artificial market of demand thus increasing prices forcing more people to be unable to afford homes.


Wait... Banks were _*forced**?*_ So greed and personal responsibility had nothing to do with it... I mean, they were _*forced!*_

If anything, that's an incredibly superficial understanding of the situation.

You've missed something quite crucial here - yes, laws were put into place that made it easier for banks to give bad loans out. But to say that they were 'forced' implies some form of _resistance_ from the banks.

Which did not happen, of course.

Looks to me like the banks were at the very least *complicit*. They were content with the situation for years, and were happy to repackage these bad loans as 'special financial products', and sell them off to other banks, funds, etc *at a profit*. Remember those impressive profit figures that held up for almost a decade? Banks have such lobbying clout - where was the action against this?

And regarding regulation, if it had existed in an effective form it would have *stopped* the rot at the original issuing-banks, or at least limited it. It wasn't, and the financial contagion has spread worldwide.

The great irony of this is that if 'socialism' (with the redistribution of wealth and all that) had already been put in place, there would be no 'underclass' that would aspire to homes beyond their means - as I've mentioned earlier, IMO unfettered capitalism causes the stratification of society.

In a nutshell, IMO you're wrong on both points: banks were not strictly forced and instead took advantage, and regulation would have prevented the situation from reaching the state it is in today.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Mitchell said:


> You may have missed my point. I used to live in Kenosha by the way.


It is feeling the effects of Asian car manufacturers outselling the Big Three, and illegal immigration providing cheap labor. It is kinda depressing to be honest.

Snap-On has shut down their forge and plant. Efficiency there was the lowest of all the plants.

Chrysler is slowing down production.

It is kinda sad, and here in Madison, where I go to school, people talk of a bad economy but have no idea what that looks like. Madison's economy is all government and the university, so it remains stable, because in a bad economy we need more government.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

adhoc said:


> Wait... Banks were _*forced**?*_ So greed and personal responsibility had nothing to do with it... I mean, they were _*forced!*_
> 
> If anything, that's an incredibly superficial understanding of the situation.
> 
> ...


Actually, Freddie and Fannie are the ones with the lobbying power. Secondly, they essentially were. There was certainly government pressures. If one bank wouldn't do it, another would, and hey the government had given them an implicit guarantee that they would back them up in case of loss. Now we're all paying the price.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

brokencycle said:


> Think of it this way:
> 
> If a company is losing billions of dollars a year due to the poor managment of a CEO, it is cheaper to pay him $50 million to walk away than keep him around.
> 
> It is, from my understanding, quite a task to remove a CEO that doesn't want to leave.


It really wasn't that long ago that most, if not all CEOs, when they got the boot they got no happy package just like anybody else who got the boot. Trash should be burned. Not gold plated.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Lushington said:


> Well, now you're talking a different kettle of fish: "Workers of all lands, unite!"


Do you really believe a CEO should walk off with a $150 million when some of the lowest rung at that company can't even buy a house? CEOs is just another wage earner. Aren't the *share holders*, who are risking their money, be walking off with lots of *their* money. CEOs are just as lowly as any janitor.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

WA said:


> *Do you really believe a CEO should walk off with a $150 million when some of the lowest rung at that company can't even buy a house? *CEOs is just another wage earner. Aren't the *share holders*, who are risking their money, be walking off with lots of *their* money. CEOs are just as lowly as any janitor.


On a very fundamental level it really is no one else's business to question what a CEO makes. That is contractual between the CEO and the board of directors. It's not for me or for anyone outside, certainly not government, to determine what fair compensation is. Shareholders are absolutely free to divest themselves and go elsewhere.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

pt4u67 said:


> On a very fundamental level it really is no one else's business to question what a CEO makes. That is contractual between the CEO and the board of directors. It's not for me or for anyone outside, certainly not government, to determine what fair compensation is. Shareholders are absolutely free to divest themselves and go elsewhere.


I fundamentally disagree with you. Share holders are the owners. Owners are above anybody else with the company. The purpose of the board is to help the owners, so they make more of a profit. The only reason why CEOs started getting huge wages and other outrageous benefits was to keep the better ones. Nowadays it doesn't matter how terrible a CEO is they all expect to get wheather they are worth it or not, which is the wrong message. The very reason why CEOs started to get these huge packages has 20 years ago been demolished. The position of CEOs is not for some idiots to get rich, which it now is, at the expense of everybody else, including the customers. The purpose of the CEO is to enable the company through wise management to bring in the most money for the owers, which are the shareholders.

The way to make a company rich is to put the money of wages into the most hands- that is a lot of people spending money. Spending money requires something to sell which requires people to make it and ship it and sell it. Take the money away from the masses and not much money goes around. Ford of Ford Motor company became one of the wealthest by upping wages. He became so rich that some people say that Bill Gates is not even close.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> On a very fundamental level it really is no one else's business to question what a CEO makes. That is contractual between the CEO and the board of directors. It's not for me or for anyone outside, certainly not government, to determine what fair compensation is. Shareholders are absolutely free to divest themselves and go elsewhere.


The problem is that corporations exist, with all of their attributes, including limited liability, because it's been determined that it is in the public interest. Corporate CEO's and boards are using other people's money to do whatever they do. Consequently, the public has a legitimate interest in regulating their behavior. How much regulation, and of what types of behavior? There's the rub.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> The problem is that corporations exist, with all of their attributes, including limited liability, because it's been determined that it is in the public interest. Corporate CEO's and boards are using other people's money to do whatever they do. Consequently, the public has a legitimate interest in regulating their behavior. How much regulation, and of what types of behavior? There's the rub.


Yes, but isn't the "other people" the stockholders, as opposed to the general public?


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

WA said:


> Do you really believe a CEO should walk off with a $150 million when some of the lowest rung at that company can't even buy a house? CEOs is just another wage earner. Aren't the *share holders*, who are risking their money, be walking off with lots of *their* money. CEOs are just as lowly as any janitor.


I believe you missed my point somewhat. I believe that the means of production should owned by the people. Always have; always will. My quote is from Marx's headstone.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

WA said:


> Do you really believe a CEO should walk off with a $150 million when some of the lowest rung at that company can't even buy a house? CEOs is just another wage earner. Aren't the *share holders*, who are risking their money, be walking off with lots of *their* money. CEOs are just as lowly as any janitor.


A CEO is worth whatever a company is willing to pay. That's just the free market.


----------



## TBOWES (Nov 29, 2007)

Mitchell said:


> I find it amusing that the group on the right, with their crystal balls, couldn't predict the poopatorium we're in now, yet they predict, with certainty, exactly how bad the new administration will be.


Well with much support for unions under the "employee freedom of choice act" and increased taxes for corporations, it does not seem to be a friendly environment for business. The unions compromise approx. 15% of the workforce with approx. 7% or 8% in the private sector. We are not completive now so with increased labor costs and increased taxes for business we could be in for a rough ride. The timing just is not right for this with the economy in it's current condition.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

KenR said:


> Yes, but isn't the "other people" the stockholders, as opposed to the general public?


That is largely the case but, as you know, the stockholders, especially the small ones, have essentially no power over what the corporations do. The fact that they've chosen to buy stock in a company doesn't mean they've volunteered to have the CEO do whatever s/he wants with their money.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

MichaelS said:


> Regan imposed one of the largest tax increases in history (and he still spent out the yazoo all the while blaming it all on the Democrats).
> 
> That aside, how can anyone really say this country has gone "so far left"? We are not left at all. The Gingrich right wing insanity (not conservatism but pure partisan crazyness) has worked to make "liberal" a dirty word and make many people in this country think Democrats are a bunch of Marxists. It was intersting to hear the english head of Goldman Sachs's international something or other (on BBC at 5:45 am I don't remember his exact title) say Obama is only slightly to the left of center. I would argue that he is to the right of center. I would argue we have gone so far right that the "moderates" of today are the far right of the 60's. (I of course am the exception!!!).
> 
> Have a great evening.


Yes Reagan did add to it some, but why would he ask for a line item veto if he was the only one to blame? Reagan put a lot of money toward the military and where is the USSR today? He also believed that it would be paid off, which it was during the Clinton years after the Republicans took booth the other houses, because he believed companies would be making more money which means everybody pays more tax because they have money to spend. From the taxes that the lefties made that Bush Sr. said he wouldn't sign in, but did, till the the Republicans removed those taxes, when they got both houses, the US economy was rotting.

Gingrich is johnny come lately. Reagan was certainly way before Gingrich, and Reagan wanted to turn this country back to the way it was- it's roots. All this lefty, which you mistakenly consider moderate, is rather new compare what Reagan and Gingrich believes in. I never thought Karl Rove new what the roots of this country were and clearly made a mess of this country with Bush. I can only imagine the terrible mess this country would be in if either the Democrats, running for President, had won instead of Bush. I think this country would be way worse. Anyway, those are my beliefs.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

brokencycle said:


> A CEO is worth whatever a company is willing to pay. That's just the free market.


I don't disagree with that. But, do the share holders, anymore, have a say? I doubt many share holders would agree with these huge wages.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Lushington said:


> I believe you missed my point somewhat. I believe that the means of production should owned by the people. Always have; always will. My quote is from Marx's headstone.


You certainlhy don't understand enough economics to understand my view points are far from Marx's.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

WA said:


> You certainlhy don't understand enough economics to understand my view points are far from Marx's.


Not to worry. I rather suspected that _Das Kapital_ and _The Grundrisse_ were not too high on your reading list, not to mention _The German Ideology_ or _The Theses on Feuerbach_


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> The problem is that corporations exist, with all of their attributes, including limited liability, because it's been determined that it is in the public interest. Corporate CEO's and boards are using other people's money to do whatever they do. Consequently, the public has a legitimate interest in regulating their behavior. How much regulation, and of what types of behavior? There's the rub.


I wholeheartedly agree.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

WA said:


> I fundamentally disagree with you. Share holders are the owners. Owners are above anybody else with the company. The purpose of the board is to help the owners, so they make more of a profit. The only reason why CEOs started getting huge wages and other outrageous benefits was to keep the better ones. Nowadays it doesn't matter how terrible a CEO is they all expect to get wheather they are worth it or not, which is the wrong message. The very reason why CEOs started to get these huge packages has 20 years ago been demolished. The position of CEOs is not for some idiots to get rich, which it now is, at the expense of everybody else, including the customers. The purpose of the CEO is to enable the company through wise management to bring in the most money for the owers, which are the shareholders.
> 
> The way to make a company rich is to put the money of wages into the most hands- that is a lot of people spending money. Spending money requires something to sell which requires people to make it and ship it and sell it. Take the money away from the masses and not much money goes around. Ford of Ford Motor company became one of the wealthest by upping wages. He became so rich that some people say that Bill Gates is not even close.


Wrong! A corporation is not a democracy. Shareholders have limited rights. If I own shares of Coca-Cola I don't have a right to see the secret formula, even though I'm "an owner." If by paying a CEO handsomely with the expectation that he/she will produce results it is not up to the shareholders to OK the pay package. Even if the CEO fails to live up to expectation it does not change the calculus.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

WA said:


> I don't disagree with that. But, do the share holders, anymore, have a say? I doubt many share holders would agree with these huge wages.


If you own stock, for any important vote, you get mailed, and if you want, you can even vote with some of your shares one way and then with the rest of the shares you can vote the other way.


----------



## SlowE30 (Mar 18, 2008)

I lament the neverending flood of bad press and disrespect our president got for the last 8 years. Even if Obama proves worse, I doubt he will be portrayed in the same light. Even though it's wrong, part of me is rooting for him to fail out of spite, and out of desire to get the political pendulum swinging the other way. Despite that, I hope I can avoid classlessly and cluelessly bashing our next president like so many have for the previous.

Even though I voted to the contrary, I stand to personally benefit from "spreading the wealth" for the next few years, assuming of course that the economy does not completely collapse. I'll even have enough savings to not depend much on student loans, should they become unattainable. Plus, a sugarmamma if need-be. After that, I'll have the skillset and education to go live wherever I want in the world if I am still disappointed by the way things are going in this country. Sadly, though, there is nowhere I would rather raise a family than the US, despite the current direction toward becoming a cheap, slovenly immitation of Europe, rather than the world's greatest country.


----------



## adhoc (Oct 5, 2008)

SlowE30 said:


> Even though it's wrong, part of me is rooting for him to fail *out of spite*, and out of desire to get the political pendulum swinging the other way.





SlowE30 said:


> Despite that, I hope I can avoid* classlessly and cluelessly* bashing our next president like so many have for the previous.


 ... :crazy:


SlowE30 said:


> ...despite the current direction toward becoming a cheap, slovenly immitation of Europe, rather than the world's greatest country.


Have you ever been to Europe?

If so, which parts? I'm interested to know.


----------



## SlowE30 (Mar 18, 2008)

adhoc said:


> ... :crazy:
> 
> Have you ever been to Europe?
> 
> If so, which parts? I'm interested to know.


Germany, Spain, France, England.

Also, South Africa, Botswana, Zambia, Namibia, Kenya, Malawi, Tanzania, Zanzibar (technically also Tanzania), and Egypt.

Oh, and Peru.

Aaaand Venezuela.

And most of the US.

Thank you for the opportunity to let you know that I'm great. I'll provide a resume if you would like.:icon_smile_wink:

edit: By the way, how much time have you spent in MY country?


----------



## adhoc (Oct 5, 2008)

SlowE30 said:


> German, Spain, France, England.
> 
> Also, South Africa, Botswana, Zambia, Namibia, Kenya, Malawi, Tanzania, Zanzibar (technically also Tanzania), and Egypt.
> 
> ...


Hey, that would be great! 

I was just wondering why you disliked Europe that much, that's all. :icon_smile:


----------



## SlowE30 (Mar 18, 2008)

Oh, I thought Europe was a great place to visit. Very pretty. Some wonderful people. Thousands of years of history. Lots of style and class. Homogenized to a much greater extent than here. The US will never be exactly like that. Come live in a few different places in the US and see for yourself.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

pt4u67 said:


> Wrong! Shareholders have limited rights. If I own shares of Coca-Cola I don't have a right to see the secret formula, even though I'm "an owner."


I'd buy shares of Kentucky Fried Chicken if I could have some of their recipes.



> If by paying a CEO handsomely with the expectation that he/she will produce results it is not up to the shareholders to OK the pay package. Even if the CEO fails to live up to expectation it does not change the calculus.


I never say a CEO shouldn't be paid more. But, what is honest pay? Like I have been pointing out- what is the board? CEOs of other companies, with an atitude of "you vote for high wages for me and I vote for you the same". So the fox guarding the chicken house. This mentality is not good for anybody, including the inflated minds of the CEOs, because that is inflating their minds beyound what they are worth. Supply and demand. I think high wages of some CEOs has run it's course. Some CEOs probably never got what they are worth, but others it is just a scam.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

WA said:


> I never say a CEO shouldn't be paid more. But, what is honest pay?


WA, some would say that paying someone $11 million/year to throw a ball into a basket or $20 million/film or paying a super model $10 million/year just because she looks good and has a European accent outrageous. There is no honest or dishonest pay. There is simply pay. People need to stop moralizing about compensation.


----------



## adhoc (Oct 5, 2008)

pt4u67 said:


> WA, some would say that paying someone $11 million/year to throw a ball into a basket or $20 million/film or paying a super model $10 million/year just because she looks good and has a European accent outrageous. There is no honest or dishonest pay. There is simply pay. People need to stop moralizing about compensation.


If he has a few consecutive poor seasons, or a major injury, he's out of a job. If she gets acid thrown on her or is caught in a horrific car accident, she's out of a job.

If the CEO messes up, he's still gonna get paid $$$, then he's out of a job.

Doesn't quite sound the same - or right - to me.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

adhoc said:


> If he has a few consecutive poor seasons, or a major injury, he's out of a job. If she gets acid thrown on her or is caught in a horrific car accident, she's out of a job.
> 
> If the CEO messes up, he's still gonna get paid $$$, then he's out of a job.
> 
> Doesn't quite sound the same - or right - to me.


CEOs aren't the only ones who have this deal.

Lots of athletes get similar deals (buyout options), college and professional sports coaches often get fired and still get multimillions just to go away.

For some reason, CEOs are about the only ones that seem to catch the ire of the "public" for their outrageous compensation packages.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Relayer said:


> CEOs aren't the only ones who have this deal.
> 
> Lots of athletes get similar deals (buyout options), college and professional sports coaches often get fired and still get multimillions just to go away.
> 
> For some reason, CEOs are about the only ones that seem to catch the ire of the "public" for their outrageous compensation packages.


Because of the underpaid workers. In sports the fans pay for tickets, so the excess has to go someplace and there isn't that many places for it to go. No doubt CEOs deserve the cream of the top, especially when everybody else has a worthy wage. Top of the rung rarely has the same wage as the lowest rung, but it does happen sometimes for newer companies. The larger the company the larger the difference should be, generally.

There is a moral coruption when the people on the top rungs make outrageous amounts when people on the lowest rung can't even buy a house. Morality is a part of life. Some outrageous amounts are stealing from the shareholders.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

adhoc said:


> If he has a few consecutive poor seasons, or a major injury, he's out of a job. If she gets acid thrown on her or is caught in a horrific car accident, she's out of a job.
> 
> If the CEO messes up, he's still gonna get paid $$$, then he's out of a job.
> 
> Doesn't quite sound the same - or right - to me.


There is no right or wrong when it comes to compensation. Both parties agreed to it. Compensation is morality neutral.

By the way, athletes have contracts with all sorts of clauses about performance. How many players have been let go only to have the remainder of their contract paid out.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I'm a G.K. Chesterton distributionalism guy myself.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Lushington said:


> Not to worry. I rather suspected that _Das Kapital_ and _The Grundrisse_ were not too high on your reading list, not to mention _The German Ideology_ or _The Theses on Feuerbach_


Perhapes I asked the wrong question. It's not how much someone has read, but if they understand it. Encyclopedic memory is not enought if one does not really understand it.

My veiw of economics is it is the study of where money comes from and where it goes. But, that is not enough in it's self, but Why it came from there and Why it goes somewhere else is more important.


----------



## adhoc (Oct 5, 2008)

Thanks for your reply, pt4u67. I agree fully with the second part. The first bit though, got me thinking...


pt4u67 said:


> There is no right or wrong when it comes to compensation. Both parties agreed to it. Compensation is morality neutral.


What happens then when a CEO of a bank (or CEOs of banks) has (have) the power to take the economy down a peg (or two) then? This is the current situation we are facing right now.

Compensation is morally neutral, yes - but I would argue that only applies when it involves just 2 parties. It would be a bit of a stretch to say (as an example of course) that if A pays B for the slaves B is supplying, that the transaction is morally neutral. Ditto for prostitution.

If the compensation, or the action that leads to the compensation impacts a 3rd party, should they not have a say in it? By that logic, shouldn't the public have a say then in the salaries of bank CEOs? They are not democratically elected, yet as is plainly evident despite their actions affecting us all negatively they still get to walk away enriched beyond what many of us will earn in a year, or even a decade.

Why are 'we' the 'externality' in their economic transaction?

Just wondering. :idea:


----------



## MarkfromMD (Nov 5, 2008)

Interesting post adhoc, I was reading it and contemplating the idea of an externality and was very pleased to see you come to this point near the end. Did you study economics in school or are you just an interested citizen?


----------



## adhoc (Oct 5, 2008)

MarkfromMD said:


> Interesting post adhoc, I was reading it and contemplating the idea of an externality and was very pleased to see you come to this point near the end. Did you study economics in school or are you just an interested citizen?


Just a concerned MD - but I did do a little economics and politics while an undergraduate. I mean... the study of _money_, and _power_!


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

adhoc said:


> Thanks for your reply, pt4u67. I agree fully with the second part. The first bit though, got me thinking...
> 
> What happens then when a CEO of a bank (or CEOs of banks) has (have) the power to take the economy down a peg (or two) then? This is the current situation we are facing right now.
> 
> ...


The CEO of a bank is simply one person in a multi-trillion dollar economy. Its rather unfair to blame poor judgment of one for the down turn of an entire economy. The one caveat would be if he/she were engaged in unethical or illegal activities.

The cases you cite relate to immoral/illegal activities. Banking and working in the financial sector are neither immoral or illegal. I would say this however, if a compensation package were agreed upon by the CEO and board, and then it turns out that the CEO was provided with a "secret fund" that was outside the agreement and the control of the board, then this would be problematic.

All compensation impacts more than just the two parties involved. As long as the rules are followed then so be it. People are laid off all the time due to no fault of their own due to decisions made by people that do not know them. That doesn't mean that the public has a right in the say of someone's salary. What if we said that UAW members are grossly over-compensated for the work that they do. Here in Chicago the trades are well compensated due to strong union presence however in the south salaries for tradesmen are roughly 1/2. Things still get built in the south so should the public step in and arbitrarily limit carpenters' salaries.

Its easy to pick on CEOs and other executives but when we start to talk of limiting salaries we are going down the slipperiest of slopes. Don't I have the right to benefit as much as possible from the fruits of my labors. Why should some arbitrary third body step in and put limits on me. The public has absolutely nothing at stake yet the public wants to have a say? Remember too, externalities are both positive and negative. It would be difficult to have one without the other in such a complex economy. It's also unfair, and unrealistic, to place the burden of these externalities on one individual given the complexities of these organizations and the way they are interwoven into our economy.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> If the compensation, or the action that leads to the compensation impacts a 3rd party, should they not have a say in it?


No.

"Impact" is far too ambiguous a term, and is therefore meaningless here.

In economics, everything "impacts" everything else. That's what economics is -- the study of complex inter-connections among otherwise separate-seeming events and circumstances.

You only have a "say" in transactions that violate your property rights. To do that, the transaction must affect you directly. The slave's property rights (i.e., his self-ownership, which we all enjoy from birth as an inalienable right) are clearly violated in your hypothetical scenario, since he is the one being treated like someone else's property. He therefore has a legitimate basis to object to the transaction, to put it mildly.

Externalities that violate the property rights of others should be fully actionable and remedied. Otherwise, people should mind their own business, and keep their noses out of other people's lives.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Kav said:


> I'm a G.K. Chesterton distributionalism guy myself.


You would make an excellent Napoleon of Notting Hill. :icon_smile:


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

Phinn said:


> No.
> 
> "Impact" is far too ambiguous a term, and is therefore meaningless here.
> 
> ...


Well someone has been boning-up on his Coase!


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Phinn said:


> Externalities that violate the property rights of others should be fully actionable and remedied. Otherwise, people should mind their own business, and keep their noses out of other people's lives.


So you are saying the share holders should go somewhere else?


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

WA said:


> So you are saying the share holders should go somewhere else?


Shareholders' rights are defined by the shareholder agreement. It either gives them the right to control officer compensation, or it doesn't. If having such control means that much to him, then the investor can limit his investments to corporations that offer this feature, or invest in something besides corporate securities altogether. The market for such rights will determine the extent to which they are economically sound.

If the shareholder agreement doesn't provide for such a right, and some shareholder still thinks officer compensation is excessive, he can sue on the grounds that whoever authorized the compensation breached his fiduciary duties to the corporation, or some theory of shareholder oppression.

For Congress or Chairman Obama to dictate by fiat what shall and shall not be permitted, or otherwise interfere in the intra-corporate relationships, is a gross intrusion on private, contractual arrangements, not to mention unconstitutional.

(Not that the Constitution functions as any sort of limit on power-mad aspiring criminals, of course.)



> Well someone has been boning-up on his Coase!


Coase is Chicago School. I'm Austrian.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Phinn said:


> For Congress or Chairman Obama


I thought he was going for Baron or Overlord Obama....


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Phinn said:


> Shareholders' rights are defined by the shareholder agreement. It either gives them the right to control officer compensation, or it doesn't. If having such control means that much to him, then the investor can limit his investments to corporations that offer this feature, or invest in something besides corporate securities altogether. The market for such rights will determine the extent to which they are economically sound.
> 
> If the shareholder agreement doesn't provide for such a right, and some shareholder still thinks officer compensation is excessive, he can sue on the grounds that whoever authorized the compensation breached his fiduciary duties to the corporation, or some theory of shareholder oppression.
> 
> ...


Thanks Phinn, Thought it was something like that.

For somebody else; Fair market value is the lowest price to pay. Therefore, these exorbent pay to CEOs and the others on the highest rungs are way over paid- for many, who are just as good, will fill those places at a quarter of the price. So, it is back again to the foxes guarding the chicken house again.


----------



## adhoc (Oct 5, 2008)

Sounds to me like a wrong is being wrought (Obama) to rectify a wrong (the situation with CEOs). I'm of mixed feelings about it. The utilitarian vs deontological argument all over again.


----------

