• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

United States Election: Nov 6, 2012 |OT| - Barack Obama Re-elected

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jackben

bitch I'm taking calls.
the Blaze has an article chronicling the biggest Democratic party freakouts post the 2004 election
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/sta...eak-outs-from-bushs-2004-re-election-victory/

it doesn't help their cause.
Just so everyone else can avoid giving Glen Beck ad impressions, the list is stupid and not worth your time. Some of the "biggest freakouts" including a magazine cover calling Americans stupid, people blaming terrorism for Bush getting re-elected and billboards with Bush's face on them along with cheeky taglines.

Basically nothing remotely close to the kind of shit we're seeing this election cycle.
 
the Blaze has an article chronicling the biggest Democratic party freakouts post the 2004 election
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/sta...eak-outs-from-bushs-2004-re-election-victory/

it doesn't help their cause.

This, so much. Thanks for reminding everyone that liberals can take a loss better than conservatives. Was that the point of their article? I honestly can't tell, but they're not doing themselves any favors.

And the funny thing: All the people who wanted to leave the US after Bush won re-election wanted to relocate to liberal havens. All the people who wanted to leave the US after Obama won re-election have nowhere else to go except Singapore or Israel. Neither stance is particularly patriotic, but only the former is ideologically consistent.
 

Link

The Autumn Wind
Just so everyone else can avoid giving Glen Beck ad impressions, the list is stupid and not worth your time. Some of the "biggest freakouts" including a magazine cover calling Americans stupid, people blaming terrorism for Bush getting re-elected and billboards with Bush's face on them along with cheeky taglines.

Basically nothing remotely close to the kind of shit we're seeing this election cycle.
That "magazine" is a UK tabloid, btw.
 

RDreamer

Member
This, so much. Thanks for reminding everyone that liberals can take a loss better than conservatives. Was that the point of their article? I honestly can't tell, but they're not doing themselves any favors.

And the funny thing: All the people who wanted to leave the US after Bush won re-election wanted to relocate to liberal havens. All the people who wanted to leave the US after Obama won re-election have nowhere else to go except Singapore or Israel. Neither stance is particularly patriotic, but only the former is ideologically consistent.

Israel? They have mandates for healthcare, mang.
 
Just so everyone else can avoid giving Glen Beck ad impressions, the list is stupid and not worth your time. Some of the "biggest freakouts" including a magazine cover calling Americans stupid, people blaming terrorism for Bush getting re-elected and billboards with Bush's face on them along with cheeky taglines.

Basically nothing remotely close to the kind of shit we're seeing this election cycle.

lol, #8 is all "People protested the Bush Tax Cuts that helped drive our country deeper into debt and didn't do anything for the economy! What a crazy liberal freakout!"
 
I really do hope the tax cuts expire for the rich. If not, then I'm severely going to be disappointed with Obama and DEMS. Hopefully he vetoes tax cuts for everyone to show he's not messing around, and blame the GOP for not compromising.
 

Guileless

Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
I remember reading an article in 04 about a woman who actually applied for political asylum in Canada after Pres. Bush won. The Canadian gov. actually had a spokesman go on the record that Americans didn't quality. High comedy.
 
It's a mormon word, and fairly misused in this case. Eastern Washington is not Utah.

Haha! Oh, man, I had no idea. Yeah, E. WA and E. OR are not Utah, that's for sure.

LOL This, though... fairly accurate:

5ttIu.jpg
 

dabig2

Member
So a question about that video. Early in the video he states Social Security bought US bonds and thus we just owe ourselves.

But I thought the general critique of Soc Sec was that it was funded, but that money was spent on non Soc Sec related items. So we have the liability of paying Soc Sec, but we have already spent the funds that were reserved to pay for it. So yes we owe ourselves the money, but we are going to have to fund it out of the future income ( lack of a better word ) instead of just pulling it out of Soc Sec trusts ( ... I think they are trusts.. ).

I apologize if I am grossly incorrect.

Thanks.

Social security isn't a really known area for me, but I do know the trust fund is still at a surplus of near $3 trillion. While it appears FICA taxes have now, since the recession, decreased and now the trust fund receives less revenue than it pays out, the interest rates will still continue to accumulate on the present surplus year after year after year. This means worrying about paying back SS when that surplus hits $0 should not be a problem in the immediate future (i.e. decades from now). We will continue to buy treasury bonds at hilariously low rates with the surplus money for another decade and then those bonds will help with SS payouts for another decade or two.

And there's really no problem with taking money from the trust itself. It's just like a bond or stock. It's just that social security is quite special - it has its own dedicated tax system to inflate it every year.

So after that? Then you can worry a little more. But even then, not really. Here's an "old" piece from Krugman that's still relevant to the discussion:
...
There's nothing strange or mysterious about how Social Security works: it's just a government program supported by a dedicated tax on payroll earnings, just as highway maintenance is supported by a dedicated tax on gasoline.

Right now the revenues from the payroll tax exceed the amount paid out in benefits. This is deliberate, the result of a payroll tax increase - recommended by none other than Alan Greenspan - two decades ago. His justification at the time for raising a tax that falls mainly on lower- and middle-income families, even though Ronald Reagan had just cut the taxes that fall mainly on the very well-off, was that the extra revenue was needed to build up a trust fund. This could be drawn on to pay benefits once the baby boomers began to retire.

The grain of truth in claims of a Social Security crisis is that this tax increase wasn't quite big enough. Projections in a recent report by the Congressional Budget Office (which are probably more realistic than the very cautious projections of the Social Security Administration) say that the trust fund will run out in 2052. The system won't become "bankrupt" at that point; even after the trust fund is gone, Social Security revenues will cover 81 percent of the promised benefits. Still, there is a long-run financing problem.

But it's a problem of modest size. The report finds that extending the life of the trust fund into the 22nd century, with no change in benefits, would require additional revenues equal to only 0.54 percent of G.D.P. That's less than 3 percent of federal spending - less than we're currently spending in Iraq. And it's only about one-quarter of the revenue lost each year because of President Bush's tax cuts - roughly equal to the fraction of those cuts that goes to people with incomes over $500,000 a year.

...

So basically, yes, we will need to use something like taxes to prop up the trust fund in a few decades or else social security's impact on the deficit is going to look real bad. But really, that's not a problem as outlined above. Get rid of the payroll tax limit while extending medicare for everyone. Boom. I just solved the "problem" of financing social security which will also have the added bonus of reducing our deficit.
 
It's a mormon word, and fairly misused in this case. Eastern Washington is not Utah.

I think the user was using it in regards to how part of eastern Oregon was suppose to be part of the once-proposed state called Deseret (proto-Utah, but much bigger). But I might be thinking too hard on this one.
 

dyls

Member
This is a really cool interactive map of how LA County voted for Obama:

http://graphics.latimes.com/how-la-voted-2012/#10/34.2146/-118.6118

Obama won my precinct by 80 points!

Obama
87.5%
357 votes
Romney
9.1%
37 votes

lol South Central is hilarious. All over 90%. Found one precinct with Obama winning 99.6% of the vote.

That is very cool.

416 to 78 in my area. It's nice to see my vote in a scale where it actually represents a viable percentage.

Edit: Now I wish I had voted for one of the more outlandish third parties. Then I could see my exact vote.
 
CHEEZMO™;44173491 said:
So why do all these nuts keep mentioning Singapore of all places?

Flat taxes, no corporate gains tax, very stingy with their social welfare. They don't allow guns though, period, so American conservatives might have a tough time coming to terms with that.
 

Mifune

Mehmber

midonnay

Member
CHEEZMO™;44173491 said:
So why do all these nuts keep mentioning Singapore of all places?

shitty weather, government control over the economy, universal healthcare and limited free speech?, government censorship?

Canada is a better choice for irrate ideological nutters....and closer :p
 

Durask

Member
shitty weather, government control over the economy, universal healthcare and limited free speech?, government censorship?

Canada is a better choice for irrate ideological nutters....and closer :p

Singapore:

Personal tax capped at 20%
No capital gains tax.
GST is 7%

Canada:

Personal tax capped at 29%
Provincial tax 10% up to whopping 24%
Capital gains tax = capital gain x 50.00% x marginal tax rate (is it personal or personal + provincial?)
GST 7% - 15%

Where's the nuttery?
 
So did Michelle really want a divorce from Bamz all those years back? I'm not judging, just curious. It makes their story quite the more interesting.
 
You guys should just do what the republicans are asking for, and split the United States into conservative and liberal america - then we'll see which ideology will result in more prosperity.
Hint: It'll be the blue states which are currently paying for the red states.

You mean the ones losing their populations to the southern states? Not very fair to leave the liberals with the shitty cold states
 

Durask

Member
because they're leaving their country for one less free? pretty much the anathema to much of their ideological beliefs.

if its all about low taxes, there are better places to hide in.

Dubai and HK. Dubai is essentially tax free and HK is lower than Singapore.
Dubai is a really depressing place.
Hong Kong is quite nice and as you can see, highly rated by the Heritage foundation.

http://www.heritage.org/index/country/hongkong

On their scale of economic freedom, HK is #1 and Singapore is #2.

Of note, though - in Singapore you can get by with English quite well, in HK - not so well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom