# January '09 Obama; and veto proof congress



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

It's not over quite yet, but it would be a safe bet that in January, 2009, Obama will be President, and there will be a veto proof congress, controlled by the Democrats.

If that becomes reality, what are the implications personally, and for USA?

Personally, it may have a significant impact on your investments? What, if anything, should be done to maximize benefits, or minimize downside, personally?

For USA, what impact do you see for the economy, foreign policy, and national security in the subsequent four years?

Just curious..... Thanks.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)




----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Intrepid said:


> It's not over quite yet, but it would be a safe bet that in January, 2009, Obama will be President, and there will be a veto proof congress, controlled by the Democrats.
> 
> If that becomes reality, what are the implications personally, and for USA?
> 
> ...


Congress will certainly become veto proof numerically, but I don't think they could veto McCain on popularity.

If Obama has the lead much after Labor Day capital will pour out of the US based on his capital gains, income tax, and Iraq policies (choosing not to mention entitlement programs.) The DOW and S&P will plummet with all the selling (< 10,000 and < 1,000). Some are saying it started Wednesday morning, others are saying it's a retracement of the gains from the BS deal.

The worst part is that might ironically seal it for Obama. I'd be shocked if unemployment isn't 10% before he is even inaugurated. I would expect it to rise to 15-17% before the 2010 mid-term election - Republican Revolution Part II.

Regarding Iraq, a weak perception of America will be major trouble. See Machiavelli.

Strategy: global diversification. I say go where the food is, but there are plenty of other ideas.

The big question for me is where do you buy the S&P? I'd probably buy a little in the 9s, but I could see 7s really easy and I'd be prepared for something in the 5s.


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

ksinc said:


> I'd be shocked if unemployment isn't 10% before he is even inaugurated.


:icon_scratch: I'd be shocked if it's above 4.5% before inauguration day. Most of my customers are already starting to see a turnaround. My own company is moving from a hiring freeze into a hiring mode right now...

Over the years much more money has been lost underestimating the resiliance of the US economy than by overestimating it.



ksinc said:


> I would expect it to rise to 15-17% before the 2010 mid-term election - Republican Revolution Part II.


If this were true, there would be no elections in 2010. 15-17% unemployment in this environment would result in a true revolution, not just a political one and it would more likely be socialist than Republican.



ksinc said:


> Regarding Iraq, a weak perception of America will be major trouble. See Machiavelli.


True dat.



ksinc said:


> Strategy: global diversification. I say go where the food is, but there are plenty of other ideas.


While this might be true, I actually think that the Obama Bust that's probably coming in the next few months might provide a buying opportunity for US equities since, in all likelihood, the economy will probably be strong enough to withstand even a disaster like him.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

If Obama busts then I'm with you. I've been optimistic and with the rate cutting hopefully done, but the full out socialist economic agenda is a buzz kill. 

As for the revolution ... cases of Federal Lake City on stripper clips are priced really competitively against imported surplus with the dollar so low right now. :icon_smile_big:

Regarding socialist vs. Republican revolution I was going to ask, "do you really think the electorate is that stupid?" :icon_headagainstwal

Maybe this is 1976 for Ron Paul. :aportnoy:


----------



## AMVanquish (May 24, 2005)

I don't understand the setup of the question. A veto is usually more important when the Presidency and the Congress are controlled by different parties. But what you're saying is that the Democrats will have both. Or are you saying that Obama and Congress will have such wide policy differences, that Obama will be using the veto a lot, and the Democrat Congress will try to override him?

In any case, a veto-proof Congress isn't a "safe bet." You need 67 senators to override a veto in the Senate. Right now, the Democrats are on track to pick up 4 seats in Virginia, New Mexico, New Hampshire and Colorado. (Forget it, go back to doing lame sketches, Al Franken.) That will make it a total of 55(with the two independents.) Certainly, there may be 12 Republicans who may cross over on certain issues, but to call it veto-proof would be assuming a lot of consistency.

It takes 60 votes to end debate. With 45 senators, the Republicans can still kill any bill or appointment with a filibuster, providing they can keep the defectors under the number 4. Bob Dole was able to keep all the troops in line against Bill Clinton in the 90's.


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

AMVanquish said:


> I don't understand the setup of the question. A veto is usually more important when the Presidency and the Congress are controlled by different parties. But what you're saying is that the Democrats will have both. Or are you saying that Obama and Congress will have such wide policy differences, that Obama will be using the veto a lot, and the Democrat Congress will try to override him?
> 
> In any case, a veto-proof Congress isn't a "safe bet." You need 67 senators to override a veto in the Senate. Right now, the Democrats are on track to pick up 4 seats in Virginia, New Mexico, New Hampshire and Colorado. (Forget it, go back to doing lame sketches, Al Franken.) That will make it a total of 55(with the two independents.) Certainly, there may be 12 Republicans who may cross over on certain issues, but to call it veto-proof would be assuming a lot of consistency.


I think what he meant was filibuster proof...more than 60 votes in the Senate. This would be the level at which a President and a like-minded Congress could enact policy at their whim with no input from the minority.

At least that's the way I interpreted it.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

Intrepid said:


> It's not over quite yet, but it would be a safe bet that in January, 2009, Obama will be President....


Then God help us all. It will be Jimmy Carter all over again.:icon_pale:


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

*My Error*



Mark from Plano said:


> I think what he meant was filibuster proof...more than 60 votes in the Senate. This would be the level at which a President and a like-minded Congress could enact policy at their whim with no input from the minority.
> 
> At least that's the way I interpreted it.


You are right, Mark.

The question meant to imply that the White House and Congress could enact legislation without regard for congressional opposition.

Thanks.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


>


LOL!

I'm never disappointed here.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

I'd also considered this, but it's a bit less obvious:










Ariana Huffington and Al Gore get private jets, but you only get one square!


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Intrepid said:


> If that becomes reality, what are the implications personally, and for USA?


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

I think a better question is: if Obama gets elected, what country should we all move to?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

No matter what happens I am NOT wearing a high-roll, 3-button sport coat (forget the t-shirt)! :devil:


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)




----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

I think we can assume the previous poster intends that to represent a drug-induced hallucination.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

"Previous poster" intended to imply an Age of Aquarius type love and peace begins to naturally flow kinda thing.

Harmony and understanding, Sympathy and trust abounding

(So, yeah!)


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Relayer said:


> "Previous poster" intended to imply an Age of Aquarius type love and peace begins to naturally flow kinda thing.
> 
> Harmony and understanding, Sympathy and trust abounding
> 
> (So, yeah!)


Totally groovy! Love it.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

brokencycle said:


> I think a better question is: if Obama gets elected, what country should we all move to?


You can follow all of the jobs the US has shipped overseas to China or India.


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> I think we can assume the previous poster intends that to represent a drug-induced hallucination.


Actually, it's from the eleventh chapter of the Book of Isaiah. Without meaning to be sacriligious, I kind of like this version:


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Beresford said:


> Actually, it's from the eleventh chapter of the Book of Isaiah. Without meaning to be sacriligious, I kind of like this version:


Heh.

Yes, I know what it is supposed to be. My question is-- what is he really seeing inside the crackhouse to inspire that hallucination?


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> You can follow all of the jobs the US has shipped overseas to China or India.


That's not gonna work because Obama is bringing all those jobs back.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Relayer said:


>





Relayer said:


> "Previous poster" intended to imply an Age of Aquarius type love and peace begins to naturally flow kinda thing...


Really! The way I saw it was, the lion was about to enjoy a picnic linch of lamb chops! :devil:


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Heh.
> 
> Yes, I know what it is supposed to be. My question is-- what is he really seeing inside the crackhouse to inspire that hallucination?


Is that the same place you obtain your hammer and sickle hallucinations?


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

From Obama's meager record on the issues? I just don't see it.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> You can follow all of the jobs the US has shipped overseas to China or India.


I think statements like that really irk me, but I'm laughing so hard from the pictures I can't tell. :devil:

BTW Fedex or UPS for "shipping jobs?" Do deliveries require an adult signature?


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

ksinc said:


> I think statements like that really irk me, but I'm laughing so hard from the pictures I can't tell. :devil:





ksinc said:


> BTW Fedex or UPS for "shipping jobs?" Do deliveries require an adult signature?





Shipping: To send away: They shipped the kids off to camp for the summer. 

ship out: 
To leave, esp. for another country or assignment: _He said goodby to his family and shipped out for the West Indies. _

To send away, esp. to another country or assignment.

https://dictionary.reference.com/browse/shipping


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Be careful; last time I cited a dictionary I got banned for a month.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> Shipping: To send away: They shipped the kids off to camp for the summer.
> 
> ship out:
> To leave, esp. for another country or assignment: _He said goodby to his family and shipped out for the West Indies. _
> ...


_-Verb phrase_ 14.*ship out, *a. to leave, esp. for another country or assignment: _He said goodby to his family and shipped out for the West Indies. _b. to send away, esp. to another country or assignment. 

*ship, shipped, shipping*
_-verb (used with object)_ 5. to put or take on board a ship or other means of transportation; to send or transport by ship, rail, truck, plane, etc.
_-verb (used with object) _11. to send away: _They shipped the kids off to camp for the summer. _

Statement: "... the jobs the US has shipped overseas to China or India."

So, the *US* sent those jobs away?

Lax, I know you don't believe that. Cheer up!  The season of political demagoguery regarding jobs only has six months left!  Sheesh, I think I might hurl! LOL


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Be careful; last time I cited a dictionary I got banned for a month.


Hey, there's a time for everything! We may need our resident PedanticTurkey over in the generally-accepted taxonomy of precise clothing terminology thread! :devil:


----------



## Senator LooGAR (Apr 19, 2008)

Who knew a clothing forum would be dominated by rightwing nut jobs?

Just as GWB has not ruined the US, nor shall President Barry.

We may even regain a small amount of stature on the world stage.

Of course, you Birchers probably see that as a bad thing.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Senator LooGAR said:


> Who knew a clothing forum would be dominated by rightwing nut jobs?
> 
> Just as GWB has not ruined the US, nor shall President Barry.
> 
> ...


Your forum handle is a crude spelling of 'Senator Lugar' and you're calling other people nut job? :icon_scratch:


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

Senator LooGAR said:


> Who knew a clothing forum would be dominated by *rightwing nut jobs*?
> 
> Just as GWB has not ruined the US, nor shall President Barry.
> 
> ...


In the absence of any arguments, call names. Maybe no one will notice.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

*This thread.*

It delivers.

I have great hopes for Loogie.


----------



## Senator LooGAR (Apr 19, 2008)

Mark from Plano said:


> In the absence of any arguments, call names. Maybe no one will notice.


Wasn't PT's 1st post a sickle and hammer? Let's not get too off the deep end.

I see the truth hurts.

And ksinc, while I applaud you for knowing who Dick Lugar is, I assure you that I am not named for him.

It's an amalgamation of Loog (like Andrew Loog Oldham, original manager ofthe World's Greatest Rock and Roll Band) and GAR (short for garbage, something I call people instead of "buddy" or "man.")

If you would like to have a substantive discussion of politics and world affairs, I am certainly capable, but when people start talking about socialism and 17% unemployment with a Barry presidency, I think the only proper reply is insults and name calling -- the level of dialogue is most assuredly not going to progress beyond that point.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Senator LooGAR said:


> Who knew a clothing forum would be dominated by rightwing nut jobs?
> 
> Just as GWB has not ruined the US, nor shall President Barry.
> 
> ...


Well I guess I need to point out why your first post in the thread sucked so much air (other than the lack of cogent argument). Mark from Plano is a very strong Repub. The first thing he did was argue with ksinc's assertions. Now, I'm not saying I agree or disagree with either, but again, a very strong Repub immediately jumped in and said 4.5% unemployment would be surprising.

Hardly "right wing nut jobs" run amok. My suggestion, unless you are a sock puppet of course (we have plenty here), is to know the players before you start posting such sweeping and offensive generalizations.

Cheers and welcome aboard.


----------



## Senator LooGAR (Apr 19, 2008)

Well, chances are going to be that a fella named Mark from* Plano* is going to be a Republican (I've spent some time there)

I think the main point of my post was:
Barry can be no worse than Bush.

If I peppered that with some choice name calling and insults, well that's just what I do.

Let's not get all up in arms about me saying Birchers, when it appears to be taken for granted that Barry is a Socialist.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Senator LooGAR said:


> And ksinc, while I applaud you for knowing who Dick Lugar is, I assure you that I am not named for him.
> 
> It's an amalgamation of Loog (like Andrew Loog Oldham, original manager ofthe World's Greatest Rock and Roll Band) and GAR (short for garbage, something I call people instead of "buddy" or "man.")
> 
> If you would like to have a substantive discussion of politics and world affairs, I am certainly capable, but when people start talking about socialism and 17% unemployment with a Barry presidency, I think the only proper reply is insults and name calling -- the level of dialogue is most assuredly not going to progress beyond that point.


As interesting and creative as your invented explanation sounds (you skipped the part about how your first dog was named 'senator') and how you claim to be capable of a higher level of dialogue; I'd think I'd have more fun and would simply rather watch you defending the following:



> *Promethium wrote:*Rival Hillary Rodham Clinton vowed to remain in the race "until there's a nominee."
> 
> I also don't get how Clinton can have such huge leads in both Kentucky and West Virginia. It doesn't seem like any of the election so far has phased those states polling numbers.
> 
> ...


I admit I'm assuming there can't be two of you ... ummm ... nut jobs was it? But, I think my $1.50 is safe. Usually, I bet $1, but the Barry futures are killing the $US peso.

https://www.obner.org/bb/viewtopic.php?p=671153&sid=35680e1046c85fd7ccf5b9b61cd90853

Nice pants, madras? Mint julep? :icon_smile_big:

https://eggnoodlesandketchup.blogspot.com/2007/10/first-post.html

^ "I get to live the rest of my life like a schnook." no comment


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Senator LooGAR said:


> Well, chances are going to be that a fella named Mark from* Plano* is going to be a Republican (I've spent some time there)


Now see, this ad hoc just destroys your credibility more. This means you are saying that you knew a Repub was saying unemployment going into a Barry administration would still be at historic lows. You see, totally contradictory to your original assertion of "right wing nutjobs."



Senator LooGAR said:


> I think the main point of my post was:
> Barry can be no worse than Bush.


I guess that depends who you talk to. I know if Barry does all the tax raises he's been talking about and that are his website, my life is going to be a whole bunch worse.



Senator LooGAR said:


> If I peppered that with some choice name calling and insults, well that's just what I do.


I am sure this makes you popular at all the high school parties.



Senator LooGAR said:


> Let's not get all up in arms about me saying Birchers, when it appears to be taken for granted that Barry is a Socialist.


I just Googled +birch + politics. John Birch society. Hmm. Makes me wonder why a presumably left winger knew about this. Then again, ksinc just zinged your arse quite hard, so apparently this is what you do.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Senator LooGAR said:


> Well, chances are going to be that a fella named Mark from* Plano* is going to be a Republican (I've spent some time there)
> 
> I think the main point of my post was:
> Barry can be no worse than Bush.
> ...


You seem to be quite the expert on geographical bigotry for someone listing Alabama as a location.


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

Senator LooGAR said:


> Well, chances are going to be that a fella named Mark from* Plano* is going to be a Republican (I've spent some time there)
> 
> I think the main point of my post was:
> *Barry can be no worse than Bush.*
> ...


Please cite sources.

Barry can, in fact, be much worse that Bush. Perhaps he will be, perhaps he won't be, but despite what you hear from the MSM there's lots of ground to the bad side of GWB.

As for the rest, jump right in with the name calling and we'll dismiss your opinions with equal thought and consideration. You have to earn your spot at the table around here. We know who the trolls are and whose views are worth listening to...choose carefully which side you join.


----------



## Senator LooGAR (Apr 19, 2008)

ksinc - the dialogue on the music board is decidedly more talk radio oriented. But I think my understanding of the American electorate is such that I will take you bet. 

Barry won't raise taxes as much as it might seem - the Dem majorities in Congress have to get re-elected, and his advisors have learned many lessons from "The Clinton Wars."

And, while Alabama is not a bastion of progressivism, we have Dem Majorities in both state houses and the majority of office holders in over 40 of our 67 counties. 

I will continue to make assumptions. I believe that the Congressional seat around Plano is one of the highest Republican performing in the nation, and like the outer ring of Atlanta suburbs was one of the gestation areas for what is known as the modern day Texas Republican Party.

And I know about The John Birch Society because I observe the world around me - not exactly an obscure organization. (There's even a Dylan song called "Talkin' John Birch Society Blues" on Bootleg Series Vol 1-3 box set)

As to my personal politics, I am a conservative Democrat/practical solutions kind of guy. The heated rhetoric on both sides turns me off. Maybe I should heed my own wants 'round these parts? But at least I sparked some conversation.

And yeah, those pants are Orvis blue patch madras, paired with a HSM MTM 2 Button Blazer.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Senator LooGAR said:


> I will continue to make assumptions. I believe that the Congressional seat around Plano is one of the highest Republican performing in the nation, and like the outer ring of Atlanta suburbs was one of the gestation areas for what is known as the modern day Texas Republican Party.


Not only will you continue to make assumptions, you will also apparently continue to ignore how your ad hoc rescue attempt displayed your true intent, which is just to troll.



Senator LooGAR said:


> And, while Alabama is not a bastion of progressivism...


Quite the understatement in regards to a state that can give you up to a 10k fine and a year in the slammer for having sex toys.


----------



## Senator LooGAR (Apr 19, 2008)

I don't see how wanting to discuss politics in a lively manner = trolling?

Initially I was a little surprised at the vitriol against Barry/Dems and took a few shots.

I said that I might temper that in the hopes of a real dialogue. I see you have rejected that. Very Good.
*
EDIT: Having not read the rules, I was rather unaware that potshots are not considered the standard dumbing down of our culture that is the internet, and are in fact frowned upon/evidence of a troll-esque disposition. That was not my intent. I wanted to provoke dialogue, and though I did so, it was not in the manner befitting a Country Club style forum. I am used to the dive bar that ksinc quoted me from above. I am equally at home in both. Such is the duality of the Southern Thing. That said, if I offended anyone's sensibilities, I apologize, and will work towards a more civilized persona, and comport myself accordingly. Cheers, mates.*


----------



## Senator LooGAR (Apr 19, 2008)

*Here's some stats we can talk about*

From Ed Kilgore's blog (he used to be Sam Nunn's CoS)

A host of recent opinion polls indicate that the economy has replaced the war in Iraq as the leading issue of concern for Americans, at least for the time being. While some Republicans may welcome the distraction from the Iraq mess and think they are in safer territory in discussing economic issues, they will find scant comfort in comparing economic performance under Democratic and Republican administrations. To see why, check out this insightful and well-documented _eriposte_ chart (flagged in Rick Perlstein's at _Blog for Our Future_), comparing economic data under Democratic and Republican presidents. A few examples culled from the chart:
Real Disposable Personal Income Growth per year 1953-2001: D 3.65 %; R 3.08 % Unemployment 1962-2001: D 5.1%; R 6.75%
GDP growth 1962-2001: D 3.9%; R 2.9%
Inflation 1962-2001: D 4.26%; R 4.96%
Percentage growth in Total Federal Spending 1962-2001: D 6.96%; R 7.57%
Yearly budget deficit 1962-2001: D $36 billion; R $190 billion​ Mercifully for the Republicans, economic data from the current Bush Administration is not yet included, since the chart compares completed Administrations.


----------

