Campaign 2008

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

What's going to happen to people like Marvin when Obama wins this thing in a few weeks? Lots of "coughcough2012cough"?

 

Im taking bets on how long it is until people realize what a huge mistake they made in voting for him.

 

The over/under is 12:01 pm 01/20/09

[At Home 0]

http://www.slate.com/id/2202163/

 

Christopher Hitchens tells us to vote for Obama.

[SuperJerk 0]

The New York Post had this piece of wisdom to share today...

 

AN OBAMA PANIC?

MARKETS FEAR HIS POLICIES

 

Barack Obama has re mained cool and confident amid the financial melt down, even as John McCain at times has been embarrassing, lurching from one proposal to the next. But while the polls are reflecting Obama's steady hand, the markets haven't. In fact, they're getting worse by the day as Obama's lead widens.

 

Most investors know the devil is in the details - and the details of Obama's economic plans are anything but reassuring.

 

Of course, the market turmoil is first a reflection of grim reality - the bursting of the housing bubble and the billions upon billions in writedowns and losses that have forced upon the hugely leveraged financial firms companies that had cranked big profits during the bubble years.

 

The resulting credit crunch is hitting Main Street harder than ever before. The country is headed for recession; the only question is: Just how low can the markets and economy go?

 

It could be a lot lower - it all depends on the policies of the next president.

 

And, as it looks increasingly likely that Obama will be that man, the markets are casting a vote of "no confidence."

 

 

Hmmm....good point....

 

**checks financiaL headlines**

 

Oh, look.

 

Dow jumps 936 points and S&P up 104, in the biggest point gains ever. The Dow, S&P and Nasdaq all gain over 11%.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/13/markets/ma...sion=2008101315

 

 

 

HOW COULD THIS BE??????

 

[PUT THAT DICK IN MY MOUTH! 0]

Larry Kudlow should sue that guy for stealing his gimmick.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Oh, look.

 

Dow jumps 936 points and S&P up 104, in the biggest point gains ever. The Dow, S&P and Nasdaq all gain over 11%.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/13/markets/ma...sion=2008101315

 

 

 

HOW COULD THIS BE??????

 

 

Maybe its because of this?

 

I like how originally the Government was going to buy into small banks..

 

The companies are Citigroup Inc., Wells Fargo & Co., JPMorgan Chase & Co., Bank of America Corp., Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Morgan Stanley, State Street Corp., and Bank of New York Mellon Corp., the people said. One of the people also said Merrill Lynch & Co. will receive an investment.

 

Those are some really small banks.

 

and hey..lookie here!

 

None of banks getting government money was given a choice about it, said one of the people familiar with the plans. All of the banks involved will have to submit to compensation restrictions, said the person.

 

Hmm. Say Hello to Socialism!

 

 

[At Home 0]

That article does a stunning job of citing its sources. ", people briefed on the matter said." "people said."

[BUTT 0]

Marvin's Questionable Truthness Blog has a HUGE UPDATE on his TINFOIL HAT CONSPIRACY ALERT! YOU WILL BE SHOCKED!!!..ok..you won't be, but see what craziness has him even more riled up then ever before...only on his infrequently updated blog!"

[Nightwing 0]

None of banks getting government money was given a choice about it, said one of the people familiar with the plans. All of the banks involved will have to submit to compensation restrictions, said the person.

 

Hmm. Say Hello to Socialism!

 

Yes, because giving banks money for non-controlling shares is really upping governmental controls! I mean, that's what I call taking complete control over the banking industry.

 

That article does a stunning job of citing its sources. ", people briefed on the matter said." "people said."

 

Expecting any article Marvin posts to have anything beyond speculation and "anonymous sources" is truly asking too much.

[SuperJerk 0]

Maybe its because of this?

 

I like how originally the Government was going to buy into small banks..

 

Could be.

 

Doesn't prove the theory that the stock market drop is a vote of no-confidence in Obama's economic policies, though, if the stock market is moving radically in the opposite direction.

 

 

Somehow, I'm sure you'll tell me that it is.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

That article does a stunning job of citing its sources. ", people briefed on the matter said." "people said."

 

Blame Michael Bloomberg for not hiring competent people to write articles.

 

And while Im here..

 

WSJ takes a look at Obama's tax plan

 

 

A Family of four only making $40k a year has a effectvive marginal tax rate of almost 40% under Obama's plan but its 0% now, and they're paying the same % as a family making $100k..awesome. And the entire middle class income spectrum has the same, if not higher tax rate. Thats really helping out the middle class there..

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Maybe its because of this?

 

I like how originally the Government was going to buy into small banks..

 

Could be.

 

Doesn't prove the theory that the stock market drop is a vote of no-confidence in Obama's economic policies, though, if the stock market is moving radically in the opposite direction.

 

 

Somehow, I'm sure you'll tell me that it is.

The stock market going up 11% is a direct result of the money going into the banks, but later in the week (read: tomorrow) when theres no more news of more government bailout money, the stock market will go back down.

[SuperJerk 0]

From that article:

 

In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase "tax credit." In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase "tax credit." Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals:

 

- A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to "make work pay" that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.

 

- A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.

 

- A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies).

 

- A "savings" tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.

 

- An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support.

 

- A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.

 

- A "clean car" tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles.

 

Here's the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability.

 

First of all, whoever wrote the article ignores that payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare are income taxes when talking about how so many people pay no taxes. It looks at marginal income tax rates instead of total taxes paid to determine its figures.

 

Second, the article assumes that shifting the tax burden away from the working poor is "welfare" and thus a negative.

 

Third, the WSJ isn't doing anything in this article but repeating numbers supplied by the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation.

 

The stock market going up 11% is a direct result of the money going into the banks, but later in the week (read: tomorrow) when theres no more news of more government bailout money, the stock market will go back down.

 

So...Obama's poll numbers are causing the stock market to drop, except when the government intervenes in the economy (which Obama favors), because the investors are afraid of his policies, and the market will take another down turn because even though the government put money in the banks, everyone will go back to panicking about Obama's policies even though the economic indicators are just as good as they were the day the government decided to put money into the banks. Does that pretty much sum up your position?

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

oh dear fucking god

 

The financial industry donated more money to Obama than McCain because they just wanted to be on his good side during the inevitable purges and collectivization.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

 

Source: American Enterprise Institute, kthxbye

[Nightwing 0]

Dude, the WSJ article doesn't even get McCain's health credit right; it's $2,500 for individuals, not $5,000. And Jerk already got the "Marginal Taxes suddenly turn into Total Taxes" problem with the deal.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

From that article:

 

In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase "tax credit." In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase "tax credit." Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals:

 

- A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to "make work pay" that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.

 

- A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.

 

- A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies).

 

- A "savings" tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.

 

- An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support.

 

- A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.

 

- A "clean car" tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles.

 

Here's the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability.

 

First of all, whoever wrote the article ignores that payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare are income taxes when talking about how so many people pay no taxes. It looks at marginal income tax rates instead of total taxes paid to determine its figures.

Second, the article assumes that shifting the tax burden away from the working poor is "welfare" and thus a negative.

 

Third, the WSJ isn't doing anything in this article but repeating numbers supplied by the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation.

 

How can you give tax refunds to people who don't pay taxes? The government is basically giving them money because they're poor. If they weren't poor, they would be paying taxes and not getting that money. I think thats the standard fefinition of Welfare.

[SuperJerk 0]

How can you give tax refunds to people who don't pay taxes? The government is basically giving them money because they're poor. If they weren't poor, they would be paying taxes and not getting that money. I think thats the standard definition of Welfare.

 

1. They DO pay taxes.

 

2. Providing more money to the working poor is a good thing for stimulating the economy because they're more likely to spend all of it than the rich people you give a tax cut to will. Also, it evens out the distribution of wealth...too much money in fewer hands (the trend for the last 7 years) leads to a bad economic result.

[Gary Floyd 0]

Now I know how Slayer felt when WP was posting.

[At Home 0]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/100...ugs_McCain.html

 

Awesome.

 

RCP reports that Obama's ratings are now over 50%, and has an insane 190 electoral vote lead, with 364 to McCain's 174.

[BruteSquad_BRODY 0]

Good news... the tinfoil hat crowd is preping for Bush to declare a economic emergency in the next 2-3 weeks, and Bush will then suspend this election til further notice.

 

McCain's "Suspended campaign" or whatever a week or 2 ago was a "test run" of shutting down abruptly

[The Ghost of bps21 0]

”We are sure that the extremists he is trying to get into a froth will be even more excited to learn that John McCain stood shoulder to shoulder with ACORN, at an ACORN co-sponsored event, to promote immigration reform,"

 

Seems to me, the question isn't "Is ACORN standing shoulder to shoulder with McCain?", its "Is McCain still standing shoulder to shoulder with ACORN?"

 

Seriously...according to Marvin's 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon understanding of who you know defining everything about you...John McCain is fixing this election for the democrats!!!!

 

...

 

Actually his campaign would back that up....

[At Home 0]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...om_bailout.html

 

This sounds familiar.

[Markme123 0]

I'm do not have confidence in my writing ability to accurately pen how I feel about this campaign 3 weeks out of election day, so I will borrow the words of another:

 

On Friday, I saw a glimpse of the man I voted for, the man I still admire and like to think never wanted to run such a destructive, negative campaign.

 

After a week filled with hate-filled epithets against Barack Obama at McCain-Palin rallies, a woman told McCain, "I don't trust Obama ... He's an Arab." John McCain took the microphone and shook his head sadly, telling her Obama was a "good family man" and "a citizen." But it was the grave look on his face, the realization that this was the ugliness boiling over among a hopefully limited segment of his supporters.

 

It's like we could see his heart sinking.

 

He also told a man at that same rally who said he was "really scared" of an Obama presidency that his rival was a "decent man you don't have to be afraid of."

 

Liberals have said it's too little too late. Check out all the nutcases who have been sharing the love at McCain-Palin events all week here and here and here and here and here. And a couple folks still haven't gotten the memo from McCain on Friday. There's this racist waste of oxygen and these clever folks.

 

They have a point in that the campaign never put out any statements criticizing any of the wayward fans and it took McCain a week to respond himself. To say that the crowds weren't responding to loaded rhetoric from both Sarah Palin ("Obama pals around with terrorists") and McCain ("Who is Barack Obama?") would just be naive. Nonetheless, I suspect my increasingly irate conservative readers will cry foul and of course, blame the evil elite media. Whatever.

 

It's not a coincidence that the hate mail in my own inbox has increased exponentially as McCain's numbers have tanked. Ditto as Americans' two-week fling with Palin has dissolved into bemusement and disgust. Anger is the first stage of grief in a political campaign. Some right-wingers cannot handle idea of President Obama, any more than diehard liberals could accept a second term for President Bush. Rallies become an outpouring of rage and columnists with opposing views suddenly become Very Important People Who Must Be Stopped.

 

But I don't think any of these people speak for McCain, who is still one of my heroes, in spite of his campaign. And when he was confronted with some of their ignorance and intolerance head on, he did the only thing he knew how to do: He recoiled and set them straight. And he deserves all of our thanks.

MLive.com

[Guest Tzar Lysergic]

I'm do not have confidence in my writing ability

 

[EricMM 0]

''I hope those protesters have the courage and honor to give veterans thanks for their right to protest,''

I swear, this quote makes absolutely no sense.

 

If someone disagrees with Palin, she insinuates that they don't support the troops.

[Shelton Benjamin outta f'in nowhere! 0]

 

Damn, Obama is really sticking it to families that make $40,000 a year with exactly two kids twelve or more years apart.

 

I'm calling magical bullshit on this one. This goes beyond the threshold of purely ordinary bullshit.

[PILLS! PILLS! PILLS! 0]

Anybody hear already cast their vote?

[BUTT 0]

No, I haven't heard "Already Cast Their Vote." Who sings it?

[At Home 0]

Wall Street Journal listed PA and CA as battleground states.

 

Obama is up by 14.5 in CA and 13.4 in PA.

 

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

 

 

[Jobber of the Week 0]

How can you give tax refunds to people who don't pay taxes? The government is basically giving them money because they're poor. If they weren't poor, they would be paying taxes and not getting that money. I think thats the standard fefinition of Welfare.

Okay, this is it.. This the most ignorant post ever made on TSM.

 

Just shut your fucking mouth, Marvin. You clearly have no idea about how the government works and you now also clearly have no idea about what it's like to not have an income, so just shut your mouth before your foot gets any further down it.

 

Wall Street Journal listed PA and CA as battleground states.

CA? Are they high?

 

Oh wait, no. They're Murdoch.

 

Anyway, they're just dreaming that CA is a battleground state because there's a gay marriage ban on the propositions. But that's not going to pass.