November 8, 2012

Thursday Off-Topic (Moderated) Open Thread (110812)

Filed under: Lucid Links — Tom @ 6:00 am

Rules are here. Possible comment fodder may follow later. Other topics are also fair game.




  1. California Votes to Raise Taxes… And a Super Majority in Senate to Raise More Taxes

    The death spiral continues, ever higher taxes -> more of the producers vote with their feet -> more businesses close -> less jobs -> less tax revenue to hand out to the constituency -> more resentment over a diminishing pie. Now you understand why the Communists wouldn’t allow people to leave and used travel restrictions to keep the population hostage. I predict the liberals via AGW will contrive some excuse/method to accomplish the same travel restrictions such as $8/gallon gas. If you saw the absurd $100 carry on baggage fees being talked about by some airlines like Spirit travel in the US will become economically prohibitive. Economic barriers are just as effective as guards on the borders with guns, the risk takers will run the border, the sheep will stay in place waiting to be sheered.

    Democrats will be the victims of their own success, having lured millions of poor people with freebes to obtain & maintain power they now have to rob more and more of the net positive tax payers to keep that power. They obviously have the 50% plus one majority now it remains to be seen if they can force enough people to willingly stay to pay for their unsustainable skimming of the economy. What happens in CA is just a preview of what will happen in the US at large. All the tactics you see right now in CA to extract the last penny from the producers is what you will be seeing from Obama and Harry Reid in the next four years.

    Comment by dscott — November 8, 2012 @ 7:45 am

  2. Boeing Announces Big Layoffs in Defense Division

    Boeing announced a major restructuring of its defense division on Wednesday that will cut 30 percent of management jobs from 2010 levels, close facilities in California and consolidate several business units to cut costs.

    The rush for the exits continues at a greater pace.

    Comment by dscott — November 8, 2012 @ 7:50 am

  3. Bahaha, so it has begun… the first of many, “now you tell us,” moments.

    Triumphant Obama Faces New Foe in ‘Second-Term Curse’

    It is almost a truism that second terms are less successful than first terms, especially domestically.

    So we have the NYT admitting that Obama will be a failure because that’s the normal outcome historically!!!! Liberals are laying the groundwork for why none if any of Obama’s promises will be fulfilled. Let the blameshifting and excuses of the last 4 years continue. Now that’s leadership! /sarcasm/

    IF the NYT knew of the Second Term Curse then why did they endorse Barack Obama for President only to fail and just let Mitt Romney win? That Tom is the headline of today.

    Comment by dscott — November 8, 2012 @ 8:47 am


    I can see only one good outcome from yesterday’s election: the fact that Barack Obama will be the president who inherits the mess left by Barack Obama. The economy is in awful shape; it won’t get much better given Obama’s policies, and may get worse. Many billions of dollars in capital that have been sitting on the sidelines, awaiting the outcome of this year’s election, will now give up on the United States and go elsewhere. Plants will be built in Korea and Brazil that would have been built here if the election had gone differently. The chronically unemployed–a group that is larger now than at any time since the Great Depression–aren’t going back to work. …

    …Obama will now have to reveal his agenda for a second term, heretofore a closely-guarded secret. In particular, what is he going to do about the nation’s $16 trillion debt? Obama’s answer during his first term was “nothing.” His budget, incorporating any number of optimistic assumptions, called for the debt to rise to $20 trillion. I don’t see how Obama can get through his second term without articulating some plan, however half-baked, for dealing with the debt. Ben Bernanke can’t keep interest rates at zero for another four years; at least, I don’t think he can. …

    …Now for the conundrum. Turnout this year was 14 million voters fewer than 2008. Obama’s total was down around 9 million votes, and Romney got about 5 million votes fewer than John McCain. I can understand why Obama’s vote total was down sharply, but how in the world did Romney, with a well-run, well-financed campaign and an energized Republican base, get 5 million fewer votes than McCain?

    3 important points:

    Obama is on the hook for his failures and despite all the current hand wringing in the GOP about why they lost this will destroy the liberal party. Every excuse for failure must be turned as an admission of failure. There is only so much failure a person receiving endless handouts can accept before they recognize they stuck at the bottom of a deep well with no way out unless they truly believe that is the destination they want.

    The world’s investors can not and will accept their money being devalued with zero interest forever. At some point, they will realize if any money is to be made it will not be in the US but elsewhere. IF not the US and Europe, then South America. This means the Fed will have to increasingly finance Treasury bonds with more imaginary ones and zeros thus finally resulting in either Zimbabwe/Argentina style hyper-inflation or allow interest rates to go up to attract real money. Either way, inflation is a given and won’t be hidden anymore by the false metrics of government bureaucrats spinning numbers that don’t make sense.

    The fact that Obama got 9 million FEWER votes than in 2008 leads me to conclude that a combination of: a) election fraud was less due to the efforts of State voter ID requirements and b) many moderates and Democrats accepted the 3rd choice in voting, vote for neither candidate instead of the false dichotomy fallacy of either-or. I would assert that most of those who voted for Obama the last time and didn’t for him in 2012 and could not accept Romney as a betrayal of their Party affiliation. E.g. the UMW refused to endorse Obama due to his anti-coal policies but refused to endorse Romney because he was a Republican. I would believe it would be more acceptable to not vote at all then to be forced to vote for someone you disagree with as a matter of belief. I don’t agree with the article on their suggested reason, though someone would need to do the research on a State by State basis to prove such an assertion statistically.

    Comment by dscott — November 8, 2012 @ 9:39 am

  5. Here is why the liberal MSM is rapidly turned to dissembling about the fiscal cliff causing a recession:

    A Rising Probability of Recession in the U.S.

    Because it is here… It can’t be because of Obama’s policies, i.e. liberal policies, it has to be because we didn’t spend enough money we didn’t have or taxed the rich enough. Cut it off of the MSM meme, expose the truth, WE ARE IN A RECESSION NOW.

    Comment by dscott — November 8, 2012 @ 10:54 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.