"You Didn't Build That"
while most people are not as eager to vote for obama a second time,
they know the failed economic and social policies of the past three republican presidents are unlikely to work on a fourth attempt...
Quote: WongBothey know the failed economic and social policies of the past three republican presidents are unlikely to work on a fourth attempt...
They do? Are you sure? LOL!!!!
Quote: EvenBobWherever socialism is tried, it ultimately fails. It has to fail,
it goes against human nature. Yet intellectual types like
Obama (and the Clinton's) love the idea of socialism.
Because they think they're smarter than everybody else,
and never doubt they beileve that down to their core,
they feel if they could only get us stumblers and bumblers
to accept it, and let them lead us in it, the world would
be a better place.
Of course they would be living in the glass palaces
and we'd be living in the mud huts, but thats our punishment
for not being born as bright as they are.
I remember when Expelled first came out, how many of its "arguments" I'd already heard, not from Christians or Jews, but socialists, who would rail against "Darwinism," especially as applied to anthropology, in favor of some form of neo-Michurinism to prop up their Rousseauian fantasies of human nature. A paper I was made to read in 2005, I wish I could remember better or track down, but it was some pop-scientific sophistry that the professor assured us proved Darwin a capitalist ideologue. Even then, my BS detectors were playing a symphony, but I wish I could view it through more scientifically literate eyes.
Still, I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks that Obama or any Clinton is a socialist has never met a socialist.
Quote: rdw4potuscrowd-lending sites? www.prosper.com is around 10% in net return (after fees & bad-debt write-offs).
That's not near-zero risk, or low-risk at all. It's not even medium-risk.
Any solid economic drip and lenders are going to get wiped out by the scopes.
You need very low risk for a 45-year investment, because even a mere 1% risk per year (this is easily 6% - base 1%, plus recessions about every 10 years, likely half loss) will accumulate into a crapshoot.
---
So let me do some realistic math.
$5/day is $150/month (note how it suddenly doesn't feel so trivial) or $1,800/year.
Realistic near-zero-risk return is about 5%. That's $300,000 after 45 years.
With 2.5% annual inflation, or 3x over the period, down to $100,000 in today's value.
What do you need to get a million? Well, per figures above, saving up $500/month will get you that coveted million.
For a million in present-day value, you need to save up $1,500/month or $18,000/year.
In a more realistic scenario, where you increase your additions with inflation, you'll need to start investing $250/week or $1,000 month at 20, increasing at 2.5%/year, up to $3,000/month at 65, to retire with an amount equivalent to a million today.
This assumes there are no "rainy days" where you fail to invest ($250/week isn't peanuts) or dip into that fund.
Quote: P90In a more realistic scenario, where you increase your additions with inflation, you'll need to start investing $250/week or $1,000 month at 20, increasing at 2.5%/year, up to $3,000/month at 65, to retire with an amount equivalent to a million today.
This assumes there are no "rainy days" where you fail to invest ($250/week isn't peanuts) or dip into that fund.
Or you could buy $250 a week of lottery tickets for 45 years, and hope for the best.
That's how I treat my poker roll, if I need a credit and it doesn't come at below discount rate, but make sure to set up a payment plan.
Quote: s2dbakerThe Romney campaign must be floundering if "Thisgate" is all they got. I'll look for this thread in November, after the election. Fun times :)
1. Unemployment never <8% since Obama's first 100 days in office
2. >50% of the population wants Obamacare repealed, few really "like" it
3. Yet abain Obama's biggest promise if you re-elect him is a tax increase
4. GDP and job growth now clearly slowing back towards recession
5. Gas prices edging back upwards
6. Trillion dollar deficits, and the guy refuses to cut ANYTHING but the military
7. Obama has basically, unilaterally repealed work requirements for welfare aka "welfare reform act of 1996.)
8. Highest protion of population ever now paying >50% if their income on housing
9. Most divisive POTUS of our time, only reaches out to minorities, women, gays, and union members. Has written off the blue-collar white vote, a bad sign fir him.
10. Demanding people be allowed to refuse to have any form of ID yet they should be able to walk in and vote
Don't worry, Romney has plenty. He was at 49% among likelys yesterday, and his trend is up. The day after the election he could have to start packing his bags faster than you can say "furious."
Quote: EvenBobWho said Obama is stupid? Just because he says really
stupid things whenever he's off the prompter and has
to tell the truth doesn't make him stupid. Just ill prepared.
Well, in my book, it would be pretty stupid of a presidential candidate to be ill prepared.
I think, we are talking about the same thing. My point is it is pretty arrogant and careless of you (and, unfortunately, about many other conservatives) to discount the obvious and apparent strengths of the opponent. It has allowed Obama to win once already, and it is about to happen as gain. Some people learn from mistakes of others. Some people learn from their own mistakes. Some people never learn at all.
"
Yes, quite sure :)Quote: EvenBobThey do? Are you sure? LOL!!!!
Quote: weaselmanMy point is it is pretty arrogant and careless of you (and, unfortunately, about many other conservatives) to discount the obvious and apparent strengths of the opponent.
"
Besides reading a teleprompter really well, what are his strengths,
exactly. Please list them. What will we miss when he's gone.
Quote: P90So let me do some realistic math.
How is the actual return of the S&P500 over the last 45 not realistic? Particularly when just about every one agrees that the last 5 years have been the worst economic times since the Great Depression.
I don't quite get your premise that you should be doing long range financial planning using "near zero risk returns". Why not just assume you simply stuff your money in a mattress, using zero risk returns is about as realistic as that scenario. No one does that in the real investment world.....particularly starting at age 20.
Quote: ParadigmI don't quite get your premise that you should be doing long range financial planning using "near zero risk returns". Why not just assume you simply stuff your money in a mattress, using zero risk returns is about as realistic as that scenario.
Well, to begin with, a mattress is not zero-risk.
Second, because predictable gains are sought, not gambling.
S&P also isn't a consistent set of companies, it changes all the time, and these returns are calculated after the fact.
Quote: P90Second, because predictable gains are sought, not gambling.
S&P also isn't a consistent set of companies, it changes all the time, and these returns are calculated after the fact.
You win........systematic monthly investing in the S&P500 index over a 45 year time frame is equivalent to gambling.
I wish you and your client's well with your no-risk investment plan.
Quote: EvenBobBesides reading a teleprompter really well, what are his strengths,
exactly. Please list them. What will we miss when he's gone.
You realize, these are two completely different questions, don't you?
I am not going to miss anything when he is (finally) gone. I will be glad that he is.
As for his strengths, without going into much detail, I think, his strengths are what gives him the ability to secure an impossible nomination from his party as a presidential candidate, without any verifiable relevant skills or experience whatsoever, to run a successful campaign, to get elected into an office and to push his agenda through Congress with a lot of success.
It is evident that none of the conservatives had had a matching set of strengths in the past. Instead of bashing the more successful opponent, the smart thing to do is to learn from him. But too bad, it almost seems like the republicans are too proud to admit they could learn something from Obama. They'd rather lose again.
Quote: weaselmanI think, his strengths are what gives him the ability to secure an impossible nomination from his party as a presidential candidate, without any verifiable relevant skills or experience whatsoever, to run a successful campaign, to get elected into an office and to push his agenda through Congress with a lot of success.
HORSE PUCKY!! Obama had two 'strengths'. He was a good speaker. And
he was the FIRST black nominee. And he was running against an old fart
who nobody in his own party even liked. Thats why Obama was elected, it not
that difficult to figure out.
He has none of that going for him now. Nobody cares if he's black, not even
black people. His speech style has everybody bored to death, and he's
running against somebody who is real competition this time.
Quote: EvenBobHORSE PUCKY!! Obama had two 'strengths'. He was a good speaker.
I am not sure what exactly you mean by "good speaker" if you admit that Obama is it, while at the same time insist, that he is unable to talk for two minutes without a teleprompter. Perhaps, you meant to say "good reader"? But being able to read is not a skill rare enough to count in a presidential race ...
Quote:
And he was the FIRST black nominee.
Forget the color. The fact of the matter is he was a nominee. Romney was not.
Quote:Thats why Obama was elected, it not
that difficult to figure out.
Excuses, excuses ... Who cares why? He was the worst candidate of all. No skills, no experience, nothing whatsoever to put on his resume. He was a Community Organizer. And he got nominated, and he got elected. Running against an old fart? Sure. But why did that happen? Were republicans just too stupid or too arrogant to find a better nominee, or did they not have anyone better? Either way, don't look for excuses. What matters is he won, and Republicans lost. If you think he is stupid, what does it make the Republicans?
In an era where my peers are watching an average 5 hours of TV a day (according to various studies), taking $100k+ in loans to get some degree that has no value in the job market, sitting paralyzed and helpless waiting for someone to hand them success on a silver platter, expecting government to rescue them from the sum of all their stupid decisions, I'm wondering why the president is trying to tear me down for taking actions that benefit both myself and the country. Successful businesses contribute to society: in the form of taxes; in the form of employment; in the form of providing goods and services at prices that customers are willing to pay; in the form of competition, lowering those prices and improving those goods and services; and in the form of innovation, making new technologies and techniques possible.
Also, if everyone is this smart and this hard-working (and they aren't), how come everyone doesn't have a successful business? If universal government intervention is the key to a business' success, is it also responsible for the failure of the 50%+ of small businesses within their first 5 years? Or is it government when something good happens, and individuals when something bad happens?
Quote: Llew
In an era where my peers are watching an average 5 hours of TV a day (according to various studies), taking $100k+ in loans to get some degree that has no value in the job market, sitting paralyzed and helpless waiting for someone to hand them success on a silver platter, expecting government to rescue them from the sum of all their stupid decisions, I'm wondering why the president is trying to tear me down for taking actions that benefit both myself and the country.
You just explained "why". This "peers" you mentioned - they voted for him last time, and they will vote for him again. He says what they want to hear ... and then makes it look to you like he simply misspoke, so that you think he is stupid, and don't get too mad at him.
Quote: LlewEvery time Obama goes off script and says something he really means, he proves his critics right - you know, the ones who called him a socialist and who claimed that a lifetime without any experience in the private sector whatsoever had left him completely ignorant of microeconomic matters.
Every time Romney goes off script, he does the same, revealing he's a rich guy disconected from regular folk, who probably knew about outsourcing jobs, has tried to distance himself from his own Romney care, probably has tax havens....yadda yadda etc.,
Yup.
This guy would be a better Republican nominee NSFW, but not exactly what it first appears to be if you listen to it.
I'm kidding on that, but i give him about 1000 times more respect than your average politician
Quote: rxwineEvery time Romney goes off script, he does the same, revealing he's a rich guy disconected from regular folk, who probably knew about outsourcing jobs, has tried to distance himself from his own Romney care, probably has tax havens....yadda yadda etc.,
Yup.
This guy would be a better Republican nominee NSFW, but not exactly what it first appears to be if you listen to it.
I'm kidding on that, but i give him about 1000 times more respect than your average politician
I count rich as a plus. Since when is success a bad thing?
And every presidential candidate ever is "disconnected from regular folk".
And outsourcing is not a bad thing. It improves our quality of life by making things cheaper for us and replaces low-end jobs with high-end ones. Protectionism has been proven again and again to be poor economic policy, useful only as populist FUD to fool the easily misled.
I'm not a big fan of Romney because at heart he's a government-is-the-answer guy himself. But at least he doesn't see businesses, wealth, and prosperity as the enemy.
Quote: LlewBut at least he doesn't see businesses, wealth, and prosperity as the enemy.
He sees a progressive tax as the way to go, and there's nothing unusual in American politics about that position, or any of his other positions really.
Roosevelt fought the Nazis. Obama is fighting Al-q
He doesn't need any fake credentials of the right.
Quote: weaselmanYou just explained "why". This "peers" you mentioned - they voted for him last time, and they will vote for him again.
No they won't. Nobody is fired up now, the Dem base is
completely flat. They don't care anymore.
Quote: weaselmanI am not sure what exactly you mean by "good speaker"
A good speaker is good with any media, reading it
or whatever. Obama had that and he was the first
black candidate. If he had more than that, you tell me,
I'm at a loss. America proved to the world we aren't
a country of bigots, now its time to move on. Let
Obama get on the job training in some other profession,
like Jimma Carter did.
If everyone would get about the business of cleaning up their own backyards, and stop worrying about what others are getting, this country would be in MUCH better shape. And please don't give me that welfare state BS. If welfare was dismantled tomorrow, you wouldn't see any more money, they would just find someplace else to blow it. It is the system, both parties, that have F***ed this up so badly, not the Dems, not the Reps, all of them, one collective group. Follow my lead, take care of your own world, stop paying banks interest, buy things with cash. Do what your grandparents did, WAIT, if you can't afford it, don't get it! Funny how none of this matters when your not "leveraged" up to your ears!
Quote: ParadigmYou win........systematic monthly investing in the S&P500 index over a 45 year time frame is equivalent to gambling.
I wish you and your client's well with your no-risk investment plan.
In 2000, S&P 500 lost 9%.
In 2001, S&P 500 lost 12%.
In 2002, S&P 500 lost 22%.
Your 1999 investment just dropped to 62.4%, or 56% inflation-adjusted.
Tell me you wouldn't at least consider pulling out at that point.
Practical funds working off current S&P tend to do a bit worse than the index, so you've lost half your investment.
A lot of people wouldn't have the balls to keep going with it, considering it's their life savings. Even though it picked up right after.
Add the fund management's cut (unless you juggle 500 stocks monthly yourself - which is easily a part-time job) and the risks of loss due to factors ranging from fund fraud to identity fraud, and you'll have more issues to consider.
So most people would only dare keep their life savings in a bank account, which is near zero risk, and that's return around 5%, not 9%.
Quote: avargovGood Grief!!! What does it matter?!?!? It's not like if Romney gets elected unemployment will magically go down to sub 5% overnight.
Not overnight, but he will get the ball rolling. Everywhere
you look people with money aren't investing in new business
because they're terrified of what Obamacare and whatever
Obama does with taxes will do to the business climate.
Just this week I heard a typical story. A woman has a new
business and she took it as far as she can. She has investers
lined up but none of them will move until after the election.
Romney wins, with his guarantee of repealing Obamacare and
she gets the money. Obama wins and she gets bupkis. You hear
stuff like this constantly.
Its great that you're doing better than 4 years ago, I'm afraid
not everybody shares your experience. When I drive around
all I see are deserted strip malls or almost deserted. Its very
depressing. The mom and pop restaurant near us thats been
there for 15 years just went belly up last week. It was their
only source of income.
But I think you are right about most people. A very close friend of mine pulled everything out and stopped investing 3 years ago. Now he is looking to reinvest. Kills him to think of what he lost over the last 3 years.
Quote: EvenBob
Its great that you're doing better than 4 years ago, I'm afraid
not everybody shaes your experience. When I drive around
all I see are deserted strip malls or almost deserted. Its very
depressing. The mom and pop restaurant near us thats been
there for 15 years just went belly up last week. It was their
only source of income.
Most people *should* keep doing better. You develop along life. If you are not doing better you had some real bumps. I ask, "is the USA doing better than it was 4 years ago?" Right now the answer is a clear "no."
Quote: LlewAnd every presidential candidate ever is "disconnected from regular folk".
Obamacrowd believes he's an exception, because, "ZOMG, he's Black!"
Black my leathery backside. I've got a lower albedo than BHO, and albedo is the only way in which he's remotely "black". He grew up in a perfectly prosperous White environment, no Black connections unless he decides to visit some de-facto strangers in Kenya, wouldn't understand half the words of a real Black person from NYC or Baltimore, has never been called a nigger in his life or pulled by a cop for DWB.
He doesn't have the same business background as Romney, but we're still talking millions of old money, Ivy League college paid with said money, law degree, all as stereotypical as a president gets.
Quote: EvenBobNot overnight, but he will get the ball rolling. Everywhere
you look people with money aren't investing in new business
because they're terrified of what Obamacare and whatever
Obama does with taxes will do to the business climate.
Just this week I heard a typical story. A woman has a new
business and she took it as far as she can. She has investers
lined up but none of them will move until after the election.
Romney wins, with his guarantee of repwaling Obamacare and
she gets the money. Obama wins and she gets bupkis. You hear
stuff like this constantly.
Its great that you're doing better than 4 years ago, I'm afraid
not everybody shaes your experience. When I drive around
all I see are deserted strip malls or almost deserted. Its very
depressing. The mom and pop restaurant near us thats been
there for 15 years just went belly up last week. It was their
only source of income.
How exactly is it that Romney can "guarantee" that "he" will repeal Obamacare? I didn't know the president had the power to repeal laws by himself.
Businesses fail everyday, in good times, and in bad. Small business has always been a crapshoot. You know as well as I do, most folks start their businesses either highly underfunded, or deeply in debt. That is their problem that they cannot weather any storms, not mine. And the tax rate has very little to do with it. When I had my small business a couple of years ago (when I first joined the board actually), taxes were by far my lowest expense. Been to a Walmart lately? Every time I go I still have to drive around to find a parking space. Packed! Same at the mall (although I don't go there).
I never understood the correlation between business taxes and hiring, since business pay taxes on profit. Hiring a new employee reduces the amount of taxes owed if all other financials stay the same. When I had a second driver, I was able to deduct his salary and benefits. I only paid taxes on the excess profit he generated for me. Businesses have over 2 trillion dollars doing nothing, I highly doubt that all of that would be taxed.
Quote: AZDuffmanMost people *should* keep doing better. You develop along life. If you are not doing better you had some real bumps. I ask, "is the USA doing better than it was 4 years ago?" Right now the answer is a clear "no."
Duff, I agree with you that America isn't doing better than it was 4 years ago. However, I don't think a new President will turn it around. Way too far gone for that!
Quote: P90
He doesn't have the same business background as Romney,
Obama hasn't got the same business experience as my
daughter when she had a lemonaid stand as a kid. He
has never worked in a business, never owned one,
never met a payroll, never balanced his books, never
paid his taxes quarterly. He was elected for his speaking
ability and because of his race. We got exactly what he
was, an inexperienced black guy who gives a good speech.
Whoopee.
Quote: avargovHow exactly is it that Romney can "guarantee" that "he" will repeal Obamacare? I didn't know the president had the power to repeal laws by himself.
Especially not laws he himself wrote.
Quote: avargov
I never understood the correlation between business taxes and hiring, since business pay taxes on profit. Hiring a new employee reduces the amount of taxes owed if all other financials stay the same. When I had a second driver, I was able to deduct his salary and benefits. I only paid taxes on the excess profit he generated for me. Businesses have over 2 trillion dollars doing nothing, I highly doubt that all of that would be taxed.
It is simple ROI. If a business spends $40,000 to hire someone they expect that person to generate some amount over $40K, much over actually. They probably want them to generate about $120K in revenue, given a cost of labor at 30%.
Lets assume a 10% net profit margin. They will make $12,000 more in revenue (I am ignoring the facts of marginal profit being higher for simplicity.) Lets have two tax rates, 30 and 35%. At the first rate the owner gets to keep $8400. In the second they get to keep only $7800.
Remember, none of this profit is a guarantee. The employee may be a dud or the $120K in revenue may never materialize. So the $600 can and does become a calculation in if the risk is worth the trouble. For some people it will not matter, for others it will, What is not disputable is that more people will take that same risk and expand the business for $8400 than $7800.
And that is the correlation in a very simple example.
Quote: avargovHow exactly is it that Romney can "guarantee" that "he" will repeal Obamacare? I didn't know the president had the power to repeal laws by himself.
That hasn't stopped Obama from effectively repealing the welfare reform act of 1996. Just give waivers and ta-da, the law is gutted.
Quote: AZDuffmanThat hasn't stopped Obama from effectively repealing the welfare reform act of 1996. Just give waivers and ta-da, the law is gutted.
Thats exactly right. There are a hundred different ways a president
can cut funding to key parts of the bill if congress won't do it. This
is where Obama has done the most damage, constantly singing more
and more regualtions on businesses big and small, putting a stranglehold
on growth.
on the house floor and got a standing ovation from both
sides. This isn't allowed and they did it anyway.
"You want to talk about creating jobs in America? When you
want to see a nation that doesn't want to participate but
wants to dominate in the world market, then let them rise!
Take the heavy boot off the throat of America's job creators
and let them breathe!"
Quote: EvenBobObama had that and he was the first
black candidate. If he had more than that, you tell me,
I don't know, and I don't care. What matters is what he had was enough to win, and what Romney and McCain had combined was not.
That is troubling, because I don't see Romney having gained much new strengths since four years ago, nor do I see Obama lose any. Yes, small business owners aren't ecstatic of him, but they never were to begin with. They are not his electorate. Their employees are. And the unemployed. Are you sure they are as outraged by the notion it was them who built all the stuff around as you are?
Quote: weaselmanI don't know, and I don't care. What matters is what he had was enough to win, and what Romney and McCain had combined was not.
That is troubling, because I don't see Romney having gained much new strengths since four years ago, nor do I see Obama lose any. Yes, small business owners aren't ecstatic of him, but they never were to begin with. They are not his electorate. Their employees are. And the unemployed. Are you sure they are as outraged by the notion it was them who built all the stuff around as you are?
I think the difference this time around is that many voters now have a true sense of who the President is versus who they *thought* he was- plus the accomplishment of nominating the first African-American president. Many people who researched the situation realized he wouldn't bring people together but would likely have the opposite effect- which is true. How long has it been since there's been such polarizing views in this country?
I really don't think the situation was that complex: right or wrong, people blamed Bush and the Republicans and wanted to try something different and McCain/Palin wasn't a strong pairing. Now there's a history:
1. We've elected the first African-American as president
2. We've had trillion dollar deficits each year of his presidency
3. He did not success in solving the unemployment problem
4. He did not succeed in solving our economic problems
5. He did not success in bringing a new "feel" to Washington- we have more of the same gutter politics
People can make arguments that he tried and that he shouldn't be responsible, but most people in business understand that's just a bunch of excuses.
At the end of the day, he didn't get the job done.
He fails to realize that the "rich" out there have already paid taxes (or not) on their money and they will not being paying any more than the capital gains taxes (less with loopholes) on any significant income they receive. The people he is after are the "up and comers" who make a very good living by working very hard and making sacrifices and/or taking risks. Some of us decide NOT to take any risks and we don't get the rewards that the winners get. Anyone can "go for it" (and some will fail), but many of us just don't.
His party purports to want to work with the Republicans but their idea of a compromise is to say their bill should be passed. It isn't surprising that the Republicans adopt the same stance...and then are lambasted for stonewalling.
This is just not something he should have said. It offers a window to how many already believed he truly felt (they would not vote for him anyway) and will chip away at the belief some people had in his promises (those are the losses he will feel).
Quote: ParadigmYou win........systematic monthly investing in the S&P500 index over a 45 year time frame is equivalent to gambling.
I wish you and your client's well with your no-risk investment plan.
Yes, over the past 45 years the S&P investment plan would have worked very well. If you were to buy an S&P fund now, it would come with the warning "past performance does not guarantee future results". So it is actually gambling, but one could argue leaving your money at the risk of inflation is a worse 'bet' than 'risking' it in a broadly diversified stock market account. I am no stock picker expert, more a 'dart thrower', but constant diversification has worked well for me.
By the way, I don't think anyone has included the taxes you have to pay in the 'race to a million' concept.
You're probably right. But I think I'll get a second opinion from the 30 million people who now have access to Romneycare that didn't before and maybe I'll go ask Osama bin Laden if the President didn't get the job done.Quote: TheBigPaybakAt the end of the day, he didn't get the job done.
Quote: s2dbakerYou're probably right. But I think I'll get a second opinion from the 30 million people who now have access to Romneycare that didn't before and maybe I'll go ask Osama bin Laden if the President didn't get the job done.
I agree, I think the President's decision and execution(no pun intended) on Bin Laden was a very good call- put a few in the positive column for that one!
The answer is, I think, what many here accuse of him of. He's not got the experience in the real world, while his academic study of political systems is probably limited. Thus, he thinks of certain schemes, without studying the history and theory of left-wing (or any flavour) political thought either. So these off-message thoguhts are ill-conceived even to the left.
I don't think Obama is a socialist. I think he's an idealist and an example of the Peter Principle. He may well have been a great president with several more years experience at a lower level.
Quote: TheBigPaybakAnyone want to take a guess when unemployment will be below 8 percent? And then 7%?
Why do you think it necessarily will be?
Obama has no reason to lower unemployment. The unemployed are his crowd, his electorate, his grassroots support. Even those looking for a job - they have to pick between Reps, with which they'll maybe get a job but be worse off if they don't, and Dems, with which they're in the same trouble for getting a job, but better off if they don't get one.
[Big win]/[loss] vs [draw]/[small win]. People in bad situations don't like to risk them getting worse.
Socialism traditionally comes with high unemployment, unless mass employment is enforced. Even among socialists, Obama is all hat, no cattle, he doesn't have the balls to push mass labor like Trotsky or Roosevelt.
Quote: P90Why do you think it necessarily will be?.
Well, I still have faith in our country- although I'm certainly apprehensive about the short-term and believe we are at an inflection point: as you rightly point out, just because things have recovered in the past doesn't mean they will necessarily do so in the future, especially given some of the recent fundamental changes.
Also, it's a thought experiment for our liberal friends: given another 4 years, what do you really think will be so different to propel the economy forward and right the ship? More of the same isn't going to cut it, imho...
Quote: weaselmanI don't know, and I don't care.
Thats because you wracked your brain and can't come
up with more than he was black and gave a good speech.
Pretty pathetic. And thats all he still has for this election,
he sure can't run on his record, even the Dem's see that.
We're tired of his voice and we've gotten over that he's
black, so what he running on. That he's the incumbent,
thats all he's got.
