Make sure Obama supporters get what they voted for [Reader Post]

Latest chart shows our ”recovery” has stalled.
Will we double-dip?
I guess revenge is not so sweet.
Lots more folks will be going Galt in the next year as ObamaCare kicks in more and more.

RETIREO5 My comment re b. m. was directed to a T.P advocate here at F.A.
I’m married to a beautiful,intelligent and compassionate Latina. She proudly voted for Obama as did her family and friends. She doesn’t understand how Mitt even got 29% of the vote.

Skooks The miserable treatment afforded Obama here at F.A was much worse than any he dished out.

@Richard Wheeler:

As I look out the window at snow pouring down, I gotta say, life in Southern California with an intelligent, beautiful wife sounds pretty good, Rich! One thing I wanted to mention is that you’ve been way too modest about your predictions. From what I’ve seen, you’ve been nailing it since the primaries.

@Liberal1 (Objectivity): #13
I guess we’ll see come the 2014 elections, won’t we?
Tea Party’s not quitting just because they didn’t get one thing that they wanted. There’s plenty more to go for, especially after two more years of Obama.

Wall Street Wallows in After-Election Gloom: The Dow Jones Industrial Average sagged 312.95 points, or 2.36%, as investors pondered the fiscal cliff and other challenges.

Wall Street’s hopes for lighter regulation and a better rapport with the White House were hurt by President Barack Obama’s win in the presidential race.

The result left bankers, traders and private-equity executives facing the prospect of higher taxes, tougher rules on their activities and more aggressive regulators. Bank-stock investors were handed their biggest single-day loss in a year.

Fitch Ratings warns of U.S. credit downgrade from fiscal cliff: Moody’s warned in September that failure to reach a deficit-reduction deal probably would lead it to downgrade the U.S. rating. And Fitch echoed that Wednesday.

WASHINGTON — Fitch Ratings said that there would be “no fiscal honeymoon” for President Obama, warning early Wednesday that the U.S. probably would lose its AAA credit rating if the White House and Congress don’t address looming tax increases, spending cuts and the fast-approaching debt ceiling.

“The economic policy challenge facing the president is to put in place a credible deficit-reduction plan necessary to underpin economic recovery and confidence in the full faith and credit of the U.S.,” said Fitch, one of the three major credit rating companies.

The expiration of the George W. Bush-era tax cuts and the start of automatic spending cuts to reduce the deficit — a combination known as the fiscal cliff — will take place Jan. 1. Most economists believe it will trigger another recession.

In addition, the government will hit its $16.4-trillion debt limit near the end of the year. Treasury officials said they can take steps to allow continued borrowing, but the nation would face a possible default early in 2013 if the limit isn’t increased.

@Richard Wheeler:

Skooks The miserable treatment afforded Obama here at F.A was much worse than any he dished out.

When you put your hand out and someone spits in it, what do you expect Rich. Obama called the leaders together that first week and said bring ideas. When Cantor offered up some ideas, Obama said, “elections have consequences Eric, I won.” That is when the war broke out and McConnell and the others declared their goal to make Obama a one term president. I would have done the same, and I’m betting you would have as well. The hand has been extended again, do we go through four more years like the last two?

John says “Liberals have Zero long term memory”
I’m 68 but can remember quite clearly the hatred and disrespect you personally have rained down on President Obama the last 3 years . I repeat– It’s people like you that cost Romney The Presidency. Live with it.

Semper Fi

RE: “Are you saying that democrats signed off a law that would be disastrous for the country?”

Short answer: YES.
Long answer: I’m shocked — SHOCKED — that Democrats would support legislation that would be disastrous for the country. Casino floor manager comes by, “Sir, your copy of ObamaCare is on the pallet over there. Shall I wheel it to your car?” “Thank you.”

@Richard Wheeler:
“I’m married to a beautiful,intelligent and compassionate Latina.”
She may be beautiful, but if she voted for Obama the other two are non-starters.

@Richard Wheeler:
And yet, you’ve managed to forget the GWB years completely…you’re an idiot and a liar.

@Richard Wheeler:

John Obama attempted to put the fear of far right zealots running the country, into the psyche of the moderates, indies and Latinos who decided the election. You assisted him.

No, Rich, the media assisted Obama. You can deny it all you want, but I highly doubt that you are objective about it.

As for demographics, do you realize that Obama only large gains were amongst Latinos, particularly the Latino women, and Asians (who make up a very small percentage of he voting block)? Blacks? Obama lost votes. Whites? Obama lost votes. Other, non-black, non-Latino, non-Asians? Obama lost votes. The most surprising, of course, is the loss amongst black voters, which dropped 8% points for black men alone.

And overall? Obama lost 9.2% of the votes he garnered in 2008, while the GOP only lost .8%(that’s POINT EIGHT, Rich). I’d say that Romney’s campaign was, overall, more successful than McCain’s. And that is with his right turn in the primaries and left turn in the general.

Your assertion, that Romney lost because he couldn’t convince voters he was the moderate he was, is faulty. I’d say it’s because he never convinced the conservatives, in the primary, that he was one of them. Which he isn’t. That is what Mata said at the point Romney became the presumptive nominee. As well as me. As well as any number of other conservatives here, Rich. Kinda hard to get excited about a guy you just don’t picture as a conservative. And if conservatives couldn’t get all that excited over him, independents certainly weren’t going to. Although, funnily enough, Romney gained big amongst independents compared to what McCain garnered in 2008. And that right there dispells your myth that Romney didn’t seem moderate enough.

Liberals seem more than willing to break/avoid most laws, yet wish to subjugate and enslave Conservatives with them. What I don’t think that they realize is when we decide the laws are not worth following either, there will be hell to pay.

I’m all for it. I’m tired of paying for a bunch of deadbeats to have ebt cards, section 8 housing, cell phones, free medical and whatever else these worthless freeloaders can get for free. Let them starve and live under the overpass at the nearest interstate.

Update:

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.

Mine Owner Blames Obama Administration for Layoffs

Vegas Employer: Obama Won, So I Fired 22 Employees

Election Consequences: Decline of Doctor-Owned Practices

Energizer Holdings Inc – 1,500
Update: Exide Technologies in Laureldale – 150 layoffs
Southeastern Container – 15
Yakima Regional Medical Center Washington – 10+ layoffs
Crouse Hospital Syracuse NY – 70 Jobs
Eagle-Tribune in North Andover – 21
Ameridose LLC – up to 650 Layoffs
EMD Millipore St. Charles – Some Layoffs
Groupon – 80
Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne – 100
Slidell La. – Warns of Possible Layoffs
Westinghouse Anniston – 50
Research in Motion Ltd. HQ – 200
Lightyear Network Solutions – 12+
The Providence Journal Co. – 23
Hawker Beechcraft – 240 Layoffs + Facility Closings
CVPH Medical Center – 17 Pink Slips
U.S. Cellular – 980
Momentive Performance Materials – 150 Temp, Layoffs
Brake Parts LLC – 75
Gameforge Berlin – 20
Vestas Wind Systems – 3,000 More Job Cuts
Husqvarna AB – 600
ING – 2,350
Ericsson ( Sweden) – 1,550
SRA International Inc – 222 in Arlington Va.
Majestic Star Casino and Hotel – About 80
Center for Hospice / Palliative Care NY – 40 Temp. Layoffs

All in the last three days.

In the “irony is a b*tch” department: Post-Election News Business Layoffs Begin; Time and Current Lead the Charge

The point of contention is tax increases.

Democrats want to extend the Bush tax cuts on taxable earnings up to $250,000 per year. The Bush tax cuts would expire on any amounts that exceed $250,000, with rates on that additional amount reverting to what they were during the Clinton era. (Note that the first $250,000 of annual taxable earnings would be treated the same for everyone. Even those with the highest income would still get the Bush tax cut rates on their first taxable $250,000.)

Republicans wanted a further 25 percent cuts across the board. That’s obviously not going to happen. So now they’re back to their insistence that taxable earnings over $250,000 must also be subject to Bush tax cut extensions, or nobody will get extensions.

In 2008, less than 2 percent of all households had income of over $250,000 per year.

These are the facts, so far as I know them. Please feel free to point out anything I’ve got wrong.

Democrats tend to be more attentive to information like this: American Pie: Wealth and Income Inequality in America

@johngalt, #91:

When you take away larger portions of their earnings, you hamper their ability to create those jobs. As well as their ability to create the higher paying jobs, that eventually lead to others starting on their own path as job creators.

For most of the 20th Century—and certainly during the periods of the most rapid economic expansion and the widest reaching national prosperity—high end tax rates were much higher than they are now, and much higher than the rates that prevailed during the Clinton years.

Excessively high tax rates on the highest earners are obviously not the reason for our current economic problems.

Excessively low rates, on the other hand, might be a contributing factor.

Excessively low rates have contributed to rising deficits and growing debt. They have also allowed an unprecedented and still growing concentration of wealth at the top end, which has diminished the buying power of the working and middle classes—otherwise known as consumers.

@Greg:

Excessively low rates have contributed to rising deficits and growing debt.

I disagree, Greg. But, of course, this is the debatable point, isn’t it. Whether or not lower tax rates, particularly on the higher income earners, led to the increased growth and job creation immediately following their implementation, or whether that was just a factor of the economic cycle. I argue in favor of the lower tax rates.

As well, your insistence on the higher tax rates is overshadowed by the numbers involved. When the expected gains, assuming no negative consequences (a BIG assumption to make), are but a pittance in comparison to the overall annual debt we’ve been seeing, the overwhelming factor contributing to the federal government’s budgetary problems then becomes their spending. Fix that, and then talk about tax rates. Otherwise, you are simply prolonging the inevitable.

@johngalt: #91,

What I’m driving at, JG, is that the “sound-bite,” needs to be just that, . . . simple few words that get repeated. That’s not easy to do. Takes work and strategizing.

What you present here is a rational common sense explanation in support of lower taxes. Most people glaze over when the discussion gets into ’cause and effect’ on use of money by those who have any to spare. Sad but reality.

@Smorgasbord:

The flaw in your plan is that it’s not that easy to become a Mexican citizen:

At a time when the Supreme Court and many politicians seek to bring American law in line with foreign legal norms, it’s noteworthy that nobody has argued that the U.S. look at how Mexico deals with immigration and what it might teach us about how best to solve our illegal immigration problem. Mexico has a single, streamlined law that ensures that foreign visitors and immigrants are:
in the country legally;

have the means to sustain themselves economically;

not destined to be burdens on society;

of economic and social benefit to society;

of good character and have no criminal records; and

contributors to the general well-being of the nation.

The law also ensures that:
immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor;

foreign visitors do not violate their visa status;

foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country’s internal politics;

foreign visitors who enter under false pretenses are imprisoned or deported;

foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned or deported;

those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison.

Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society:
Foreigners are admitted into Mexico “according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress.” (Article 32)

Immigration officials must “ensure” that “immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance” and for their dependents. (Article 34)

Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets “the equilibrium of the national demographics,” when foreigners are deemed detrimental to “economic or national interests,” when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when “they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy.” (Article 37)

The Secretary of Governance may “suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest.” (Article 38)

Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country:
Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants. (Article 73)

A National Population Registry keeps track of “every single individual who comprises the population of the country,” and verifies each individual’s identity. (Articles 85 and 86)

A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number (Article 91).

Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be imprisoned:
Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned. (Article 116)

Foreigners who sign government documents “with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses” are subject to fine and imprisonment. (Article 116)

Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons:
Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article 117)

Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118)

Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico — such as working with out a permit — can also be imprisoned.

Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population says,
“A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally.” (Article 123)

Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico instead of being imprisoned. (Article 125)

Foreigners who “attempt against national sovereignty or security” will be deported. (Article 126)

Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered criminals under the law:
A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison. (Article 127)

Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico will be fined. (Article 132)

@Greg:

For most of the 20th Century—and certainly during the periods of the most rapid economic expansion and the widest reaching national prosperity—high end tax rates were much higher than they are now, and much higher than the rates that prevailed during the Clinton years.

What would you say if they could generate the same revenue by adjusting the tax code? If they closed loopholes and pulled the freebies on upper income groups and could generate the same revenue as they would by raising the rates, would you think of that as a good compromise?
Here are my thoughts on this whole tax thing. Do it, raise the taxes on the rich. I believe there is going to be some pain involved and there will be a new normal. But the uncertainty of the current tax situation is much worse than actually raising the taxes.
On a personal note, I don’t believe in raising taxes because the feds are just going to spend the money and cut nothing. Name one government program that has been cut in the last 50 years. The GAO has said we could save billions by “reducing or eliminating duplication, overlap, or fragmentation” in federal government programs. “
http://www.govexec.com/oversight/2011/03/gao-report-eliminating-program-duplication-could-save-billions/33427/