~Sophia~ Posted November 9, 2008 Report Share Posted November 9, 2008 (edited) I agree with Rand's characterization entirely, and I look back upon the last 8 yrs of confiscatory spending, perpetrated under the same system that Obama will do so, and know that there is no way he can accomplish even near the same sort of economic disaster in the name of altruism than this which has already been done to us. First, regardless of who would get into office in this election the same thing would not have been repeated in terms of overspending. In terms of a magnitude of an economic disaster - yes he can and if he can get his way he will. Just not in the way you think. The reason why he wants to cut your defense spending is to free the money for his programs. He wants your country to become dependent on government involvement in the energy industry in order to meet your energy needs. He wants to collapse self sustainable programs based on ideology (I think it is even possible that he does not care about environmentalism - it is just a "God send" (excuse the term) for his goal) and replace them with those which won't be able to surive without government handouts (which as we have seen with financial markets means under increased government control). He won't put the country into the next Great Depression, especially not under his administration and not after if he can help it - he is after greater control over industry (but not full only enough so that he can make things "more equal") for now and future. Economic collapse does not suit his goal of economic equality (it would be like shutting yourself in a foot). Someone has to be producing in order to have something to redistribute. He will cook you slowly like you do a frog leaving you just enough so you don't jump out. I worry about his tax cuts the least. The real reformation (if he is smart and he is) is going to be done with much more subtley. Edited November 9, 2008 by ~Sophia~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dadmonson Posted November 9, 2008 Report Share Posted November 9, 2008 I think one of the things to keep in mind is that Obama is not likely to go whole hog and try to get everything he wants, because then there would be rebellion. Witness the recent altering of his website on service where it said service would be "required". He got rid of the word "required". I'm sure he was experiencing a huge backlash to that, so he simply changed some wording around to make the move more palatable to more people. You can see this here: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/31...lan_for_a_Draft That's the approach leftists use. They aren't going to be stopped. Instead, they’ll just find a way to implement their ideas by more sneaky means. Btw, I recommend people listen to this lecture by Craig Biddle, McBama versus America. It seems religion is being used by the left now. http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pag...bama_vs_america Obama is religious and is using religion to bring a moral component to his message. For example, “I am my brother’s keeper” was a central message of his campaign. Given this, maybe we haven’t gotten rid of religion. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3CpEj2umcw .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinDW78 Posted November 9, 2008 Report Share Posted November 9, 2008 Why it is okay for Kendall to say it, but not me? Kendall has been very clear as to his reasons. You have not Mammon and continue to evade the question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thales Posted November 9, 2008 Report Share Posted November 9, 2008 Why it is okay for Kendall to say it, but not me? What, Kendall, you don't believe these things!? ARE YOU AN OBAMA SUPPORTER!? Why do you think Obama is best president ever, you obviously do! I bet you were there at his speech you quasi-Objectivist! I think Kendall is under estimating Obama's devotion to bad ideas. I mean, the people he chooses for friends are not minor details, especially when they appear to be on his ideological wavelength. In fact, he's chosen them in line with his ideology. They aren't his golfing buddies. His actions against people like Joe the Plumber are not minor points. He clearly had no compunction about attacking a private citizen who asked a good question. And, note, even Peikoff said that he's the first serious "anti-American" presidential candidate we've had. I take his associations and ideas very seriously, because ideas are what lead to policies and to actions. Anyway, I say better safe than sorry. We need to be vigilant about this guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dadmonson Posted November 9, 2008 Report Share Posted November 9, 2008 (edited) First, regardless of who would get into office in this election the same thing would not have been repeated in terms of overspending. In terms of a magnitude of an economic disaster - yes he can and if he can get his way he will. The reason why he wants to cut your defense spending is to free the money for his programs. He wants your country to become dependent on government involvement in the energy industry in order to meet your energy needs. He wants to collapse self sustainable programs based on ideology and replace them with those which won't be able to surive without government handouts (which means under government control). He won't put the country into the next Great Depression, especially not under his administration and not after if he can help it - he is after greater control over industry for now and future. Economic collapse does not suit his goal of economic equality. Some has to be producing and so he will cook you slowly like you do a frog. I worry about his tax cuts the least. The real reformation (if he is smart and he is) is going to be done with much more subtley. You shouldn't fear Obama. You should fear the colleges that are preaching the Kant/Leftist philosophy to the young people. Obama is just a product of it. There are some very smart people who are leftist. Edited November 9, 2008 by dadmonson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~Sophia~ Posted November 9, 2008 Report Share Posted November 9, 2008 You shouldn't fear Obama. You should fear the colleges that are preaching the Kant/Leftist philosophy to the young people. Obama is just a product of it. There are some very smart people who are leftist. O ... I know. But now they also have him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clawg Posted November 9, 2008 Report Share Posted November 9, 2008 O ... I know. But now they also have him. Now their ideas can be tested against reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~Sophia~ Posted November 9, 2008 Report Share Posted November 9, 2008 Now their ideas can be tested against reality. They have been but it is not like the facts will stop a leftist idealist. If they strike a good balance between producers and looters (and don't get greedy going after too much) they can keep it up for a long time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KendallJ Posted November 9, 2008 Report Share Posted November 9, 2008 Why it is okay for Kendall to say it, but not me? Here's one reason. When asked to provide my reasoning behind such assertions I do. When asked what I think of Obama's election I dont' say things like "I love it." No rational person would say such a thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maarten Posted November 9, 2008 Report Share Posted November 9, 2008 Rahm Emanuel's idea of service It's time for a real Patriot Act that brings out the patriot in all of us. We propose universal civilian service for every young American. Under this plan, All Americans between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five will be asked to serve their country by going through three months of basic training, civil defense preparation and community service. ... Here's how it would work. Young people will know that between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five, the nation will enlist them for three months of civilian service. They'll be asked to report for three months of basic civil defense training in their state or community, where they will learn what to do in the event of biochemical, nuclear or conventional attack; how to assist others in an evacuation; how to respond when a levee breaks or we're hit by a natural disaster. These young people will be available to address their communities' most pressing needs. Nice, isn't it? That's from 2006, but I somehow doubt the guy has significantly changed his mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clawg Posted November 9, 2008 Report Share Posted November 9, 2008 http://change.gov/americaserves/ "Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by setting a goal that all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year and by developing a plan so that all college students who conduct 100 hours of community service receive a universal and fully refundable tax credit ensuring that the first $4,000 of their college education is completely free. Obama will encourage retiring Americans to serve by improving programs available for individuals over age 55, while at the same time promoting youth programs such as Youth Build and Head Start." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas M. Miovas Jr. Posted November 11, 2008 Report Share Posted November 11, 2008 This was to be expected if the pro-environmentalist Leftists got the power, but Obama is seriously considering reversing the permission to drill for oil in the United States off-shore and wilderness areas. Gasoline prices are finally coming down, but expect them to go higher over the next several years once Obama has his way. WASHINGTON — Environmentalists on Monday applauded an announcement that U.S. President-Elect Barack Obama would consider curtailing oil and gas drilling in some areas, and expressed hope future energy policy decisions would contain more environmental protections. Basically, it is OK for polar bears, seals, and whales to live their lives, but not humans. Environmental groups urged Obama to reconsider allowing drilling in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas off Alaska's coast, home to whales, polar bears and other Arctic animals. They also said they hoped Obama will restrict development in certain lands open to drilling in New Mexico and Colorado. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zip Posted November 11, 2008 Report Share Posted November 11, 2008 Things that make you go Hmmmmm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haemp Posted November 11, 2008 Report Share Posted November 11, 2008 Some of you all act arrogant about african americans and slavery. It's troublesome too me. Michael Moore's whole point was that the wealth from the US came from slaves working unjustly. The US was built on the backs of slaves and that is where the US's wealth came from. The big leap in the American economy came from capital intense industries NOT slave labor. The US was built on the backs of the great industrial minds who took productivity to levels no one ever could have imagined. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve D'Ippolito Posted November 12, 2008 Report Share Posted November 12, 2008 Belive me plenty (i.e. all) of countries before 1700 had slavery. Why did we not put men on the moon in 2000BC then? It is fair to say our wealth was built in spite of slavery, not on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fletch Posted November 12, 2008 Report Share Posted November 12, 2008 Gasoline prices are finally coming down, but expect them to go higher over the next several years once Obama has his way. There are two things we know for certain about Obama: 1) He hangs around some unsavory characters. 2) He will oppose any effort to expand domestic oil production. Everything else is a question mark. What that means is that after 4 or (God forbid) 8 years of Obama we can expect that the US will have an even greater dependency on foreign oil, there will be less of it to go around and we will be paying alot more for it. The global economic slowdown has given us a respite from the high price of gas and an opportunity to increase our own production. Doing so would mean a greater supply of oil when the world economy recovers and the demand for oil and the price begins to rise. Obama, however, will only hamstring the industry guaranteeing that one legacy of the his administration is $200 per barrel oil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gags Posted November 12, 2008 Report Share Posted November 12, 2008 I don't suppose it's a hopeful sign that the congressional Dems are likely to get rid of John Dingell as head of the House Energy and Commerce committee. The plan is to replace him with Henry Waxman, who is a California global warming freak and just about as sleazy as they come. Although Dingell is a crusty old liberal, at least he was able to have his committee consider some of the possible economic and industrial ramifications of carbon reduction legislation. With Waxman in charge, it doesn't appear that there will be any such tendency toward moderation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grant Posted November 12, 2008 Report Share Posted November 12, 2008 The world has gone mad. Front cover of one of our popular magazines here in South Africa says "OBAMA NATION: WORLD HAILS NEW MANDELA". Front cover of the Mail & Guardian features a caricature of Obama dressed in a Superman suit. He hasn't even done anything yet?! People have completely lost the plot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dadmonson Posted November 12, 2008 Report Share Posted November 12, 2008 Gasoline prices are finally coming down, but expect them to go higher over the next several years once Obama has his way. The gas prices are coming down because of deflation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas M. Miovas Jr. Posted November 12, 2008 Report Share Posted November 12, 2008 The gas prices are coming down because of deflation. What do you mean by "deflation"? Are you trying to say that the dollar is worth more now than it was a year ago? If so, I don't think so, unless you can show that. The usual explanation of why gasoline prices are coming down is because there has been a world wide decrease in demand, which means there is a lot more supply out there than there was a year ago, driving down prices. If you have another explanation, I'd like to hear it. And I agree with a previous post that said we could drill our way out of high gas prices almost permanently by permitting US drilling and refining now while supply is high and demand is low. By the time world wide demand began to increase a few years from now, we would already have higher oil supply and refinery capabilities. But I think Obama et all want to block this because they do not want there to be cheap gasoline as they want gas prices to be high in order to spur alternative energy supplies. It's an evil motivation, forcing us into something other than what could be inexpensive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mammon Posted November 12, 2008 Report Share Posted November 12, 2008 What do you mean by "deflation"? Are you trying to say that the dollar is worth more now than it was a year ago? You get a FAIL in economics. Anyways, a Georgia Congressman thinks Obama is going to be a dictator. I think this is cute because, what have the Republicans done to stop dictators? They let the Exectutive Branch get away with whatever they wanted, increased the size of the Federal government and spent most of their time with the public complaining about gay people marrying each other and woman having abortions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinDW78 Posted November 12, 2008 Report Share Posted November 12, 2008 (edited) You get a FAIL in economics. Anyways.... Uh.... "Anyways"? Excuse me? Mind backing your argument up for once? I know that's asking a lot from you. Edited November 12, 2008 by KevinDW78 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gags Posted November 12, 2008 Report Share Posted November 12, 2008 What do you mean by "deflation"? Are you trying to say that the dollar is worth more now than it was a year ago? If so, I don't think so, unless you can show that. The usual explanation of why gasoline prices are coming down is because there has been a world wide decrease in demand, which means there is a lot more supply out there than there was a year ago, driving down prices. If you have another explanation, I'd like to hear it. Relative to other currencies like the Euro, the US$ has risen quite a bit in recent months. See the chart: http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=USDEUR=...DEUR=X;range=2y Of course that makes imported items like oil less expensive. However, you're also correct in saying that the worldwide drop in demand has caused the price of oil to decrease. Both factors are working to reduce oil and gas prices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted November 12, 2008 Report Share Posted November 12, 2008 Currently, the market is predicting deflation lasting at least a couple of years. This is expected mainly from a curtailment of lending. The projection is that the price-level (CPI-U) in 2012 will be lower than it is today. Of course, the market can be wrong about this. Relevant to this topic, I think the deflationary projections could well make the government more willing to spend money. For instance, in addition to sending out stimulus checks, they might decide to spend the same money (typically $100 billion or more) on "public infrastructure projects". That will be a nice boondoggle for politicians all the way down the line; and Joe Plumber will be told that it will help create jobs for him. [some pretty eminent economists are projecting the unemployment rate going to 8% and beyond.] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zip Posted November 12, 2008 Report Share Posted November 12, 2008 Currently, the market is predicting deflation lasting at least a couple of years. This is expected mainly from a curtailment of lending. The projection is that the price-level (CPI-U) in 2012 will be lower than it is today. Of course, the market can be wrong about this. Relevant to this topic, I think the deflationary projections could well make the government more willing to spend money. For instance, in addition to sending out stimulus checks, they might decide to spend the same money (typically $100 billion or more) on "public infrastructure projects". That will be a nice boondoggle for politicians all the way down the line; and Joe Plumber will be told that it will help create jobs for him. [some pretty eminent economists are projecting the unemployment rate going to 8% and beyond.] the call for heavy infrastructure investment has already gone out up here in the Great White North... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.