Chief Justice Roberts Reelected Barack Obama On Thursday

I know many of you may be upset at this article, but I think the election is now over. Obama will get a second term. I don’t say this happily, but barring any really controversial incident that makes Obama look bad — or worse than he is, I should say — it looks to me that he’s now unbeatable, especially by a Mitt Romney.

Now, before you get your undies in a bunch, no this doesn’t mean we should throw in the towel and quit. It always amazes me that people go stampeding directly for the “oh, so you think we should quit” nonsense. I am not saying that, so stow your whining.

To me, the stars seem to be lining up for another Obama win, though certainly one not close to his numbers the first time ’round. Infuriatingly, it is Supreme Court Justice John Roberts that tipped it in for Obama. His giving Obama the supreme win on his socialist takeover of our healthcare system is the win Obama needed to show that he is “on the right track” as far as too many voters will be concerned.

If the Court would have invalidated Obamacare as it should have, Obama would have looked weak. He would have looked the loser. This would have been enough to keep some of his most freebie-loving voters from the polls on voting day and given Romney a fighting chance. But now that “free” healthcare is a big win, the “gimme” set will come out to vote for neo socialist Obama in hopes that in a second term he’ll pay their mortgage and give them a no-work government job.

But even beyond these freebie-grasping, lowlives that will now vote for Obama when many wouldn’t have been excited enough to come out were it a “free” healthcare loss, other Democrat voters who were down on Obama because he seemed to be losing everything lately will now feel energized to come out and vote.

The polls are showing that the country is fairly split down the middle on “free” healthcare and the Democrats have almost five months to bring those percentages up enough to tip the scale in their favor on the issue. This will also mean votes.

Let’s be sure to note that it is very likely that the Democrats will be able to tip that scale, too. The fact is they will continue to lie about everything that this “free” healthcare law is. Even though the only reason they were able to get this past the SCOTUS is because Roberts construed the whole thing as the biggest tax hike in America history, the Democrats will continue to lie and say it isn’t a tax hike.

Further, their main supporters for this socialist government takeover of our healthcare system will say it doesn’t matter if it is a tax, anyway. It will be “the right thing to do” as far as they are concerned and they simply don’t care if it is really just a massive tax levied to pay for “free” healthcare. The fact that it is a giant tax will only be concerning to a small segment of the voting public.

On top of that we will have the Old Media establishment cheer leading for Obama for the next five months. They will not report Obamacare as a giant tax, they will push every narrative and lie the Democrats concoct to justify this law, and they will daily portray Obama as the great victor in Washington. Enough people that pay little attention to political reality will be infused with this message that they will see little reason to vote for Obama’s opponent.

Then there is Mitt Romney, the Democrat’s ace-in-the-hole.

During the coming “free” healthcare victory laps the media will give Obama all the way until November, more people will come to discover that Mitt Romney implemented Obamacare before it was called Obamacare when he was governor in Massachusetts.

Voters will not understand how a guy that said Obamacare was a great idea only a few years ago can be the same guy claiming he’ll repeal it if he becomes President. Left with the choice of the guy that stands behind his Obamacare decision — that would be Obama — and one that made the decision once but now seems to just be playing politics with it — that would be Romney — many uninformed voters will just go with the guy the media says is telling the truth — that would be Obama.

Finally, you add in the fact that some segments of our economy have shown modest recovery and the Republicans will have lost their other main avenue of attack on Obama. The Old Media establishment will also portray this as a robust, soaring economic recovery — even though it isn’t — and the barely aware voters will choose Obama again.

So, it seems to me that Chief Justice John Roberts and the Old Media have done and will do enough to get Obama his razor thin margin of victory in November.

Now, what can we do? We can pound home that this Obamacare Tax hike will ruin the country. That will sway many voters. Will it be enough? I doubt it, but we must try.

As to Romney, I believe him when he says he’ll work to repeal it. He’s made this a central part of his campaign and if he were to ignore that once in office he’ll have not only destroyed his presidency but irrevocably ruined what little credibility the Republican Party had left. Romney will be 100% tied to trying to get rid of Obamacare should he win the White House. This is another message we must push. We must try to deter skeptics who imagine he is just lying about repeal to get elected (especially considering the fact he was an Obamacare booster in the past).

We must also continually highlight the poor economy and pin that to Obama.

Lastly we must hope that some other disaster hits Obama that we can take advantage of.

Yes, it does seem like a forlorn hope. But it’s all we’ve got. Believe me. I wish I saw things differently. Obama has been the most destructive president in American history and he needs to be fired. Sadly, I just don’t think it will happen.

Do I hope I’m wrong? You bet I do. A second Obama term will thoroughly destroy this country. We’ll already have a devil of a time trying to come back from Obamaism as it is. But four more years will forever end the great experiment that was the American Republic. We will officially be a socialist nation in 2016 if Obama wins a second term. We need to avoid that wretched, European fate and eliminating Obama at the ballot box is the first step in doing that.

NBC Uses Che Guevara-Loving Illegal Immigration Activist to Denounce Arizona
VIDEO: Democrats Next to Move to Unionize Obamacare Doctors
  • GarandFan

    We shall see. Personally I don’t think the public will be that stupid twice. What it’s going to come down to is the state of the economy. And right now it’s staggering along. Given the policies of the current administration, things will only get worse. As for ObamaCare – that farce was designed to fail; and the Democrats were prepared to roll right into a single payer system. They never saw the 2010 elections coming. As long as Nancy Pelosi is running things for her party, they won’t be getting the House back any time soon.

    • arcman46

      Never underestimate the stupidity of the American people. That’s what got Obama elected the first time around, when he had no accomplishments, had never worked in the private sector, and had managed to hide everything about his past.

      • Vagabond661

        And still is hiding his past. Anybody seen his transcripts from college?

  • jim_m

    Sure the court upheld obamacare, but not on the argument that obama wanted. He argued that the government was allowed to impose this sort of regulation upon the people and the court said no he can’t. He argued that this was not a tax and the court said, “oh yes it is.”

    You think that an act that is deeply unpopular and one that has not gained in popularity over time but has lost popularity is going to boost him to a victory? Polls are already showing that he is not gaining at all from this and even some dem polls are showing that people are not happy.

    What this has done is energize his opposition. It will make his support sit back and act like a-holes (just look at grumpy and the unseemly spiking of the football by dem operatives: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/06/dnc-executive-director-taunts-conservatives-on-obamacare-decision-its-constitutional-bitches/ ).

    This actually makes Romney’s job easier as it does not energize the left. The money is now flowing into his campaign and the dems are pulling back on their planned spending because they can’t get the money.

    No it does not make Romney a shoo in, but it makes the road easier. obama will spend the next 4 months explaining why he has taxed the American middle class and why he lied about it. Romney will simply be able to say “repeal” and not have to offer the concrete alternatives that would have been demanded if the act were ruled unconstitutional.

    • Guest

      Nice whistling through the graveyard.

      Romney can explain why he lied to the American people repeatedly by saying the law was Unconstitutional.

      What Romney has proven is that he doesn’t know what’s constitutional and what isn’t.. which makes the putz look even putzier.

      After all, if the mandate in the ACA wasn’t constitutional neither was the mandate Romney put into the Massachusetts health care law.

      Your candidate is looking like a real idiot here, Jim, but not to worry, other idiots won’t notice the difference and will vote for him anyway.

      I’d go so far as to predict that Romney has the idiot base all locked up and on his side, judging from the support he receives on this blog ftom conservative commenters.

      • jim_m

        Romney can explain why he lied to the American people repeatedly by saying the law was Unconstitutional.

        I guess he could point to 4 members of the Supreme Court that agree with him dumbass.. I guess we should impeach those members because they clearly do not understand what is constitutional and what is not.

        We might also include Barack obama in there since his argument was rejected by a majority of the court. 0bama argued that it was constitutional under the commerce clause and that was resoundingly rejected. The law was upheld under the congress’s power to tax and nothing else. 0bama therefore by your own argument is unfit for office since he does not know what is constitutional and what is not. And he claims to be a constitutional scholar. (please!)

        0bama lied about it being a penalty. The court said that in order to be constitutional it must be construed as a tax. Few Americans wil be stupid enough to fall for your spin.

        • Perfectly said!!! There is nothing else to say!!!

      • 914

        I think I’ll call you ‘Shirley!’

      • jim_m

        if the mandate in the ACA wasn’t constitutional neither was the mandate Romney put into the Massachusetts health care law.

        Really? So Mr Constitutional scholar, please explain why the Massachusetts state constitution is not the controlling document for what the state may do? You just make yourself sound like an idiot. (of course you do that every time you comment but this time was exceptionally stupid.)

        • Guest

          So Mr Constitutional scholar, please explain why the Massachusetts state constitution is not the controlling document for what the state may do?

          Because states can’t pass laws that are Unconstitutional, regardless of their state constitution, you idiot.

          If Arizona’s constitution permitted discrimination against people of color, and Governor Brewer listened to racist interests in her state and signed a law that discriminated against blacks and Hispanics, if that Arizona law was challenged in federal courts as being unconstitutional the law would be struck down as not complying with the US Constitution, regardless of what the Arizona constitution says.

          States can pass laws only if they are legal in terms of the US Constitution.

          You’ve shown you’re an idiot again, Jim.

          And you see, nobody challenged the Massachusetts health insurance mandate as being unconstitutional – it wasn’t until Obama signed an almost identical law which included a mandate that the racists rose up and declared a mandate unconstitutional.

          Wow, I can’t believe you didn’t know that state laws must me a test of the federal Constitution, jim.

          But then I keep telling people that you just make up bullshit and declare it as fact, and fortunately you keep stepping up to the plate and proving me right.

          Jim_M: ” So Mr Constitutional scholar, please explain why the Massachusetts state constitution is not the controlling document for what the state may do? You just make yourself sound like an idiot. (of course you do that every time you comment but this time was exceptionally stupid.)”

          Because no state can pass a law that is against the terms of the US Constitution, you ignorant moron.

          What a blooming idiot… do you people see why I ride Jim_m so much? He speaks out of his ass and hasn’t a clue as to what he’s talking about, at the same time he pisses on people who DO know what they are talking about

          • jim_m

            States can pass laws governing what happens inside that state because states have different authority granted to them under the US constitution dumbass.

            Read the 10th Amendment:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

            That’s why a state can enforce a mandate in ways that the federal government cannot. That is why 0bama tried to justify obamacare under the commerce clause. You are such a fucking idiot.

            You are such a dumbass to think that states do not have different and sometimes greater authority than the federal government. What kind of idiot are you? Have you NEVER read the constitution? Or do you get all your information from The DU and Daily Kos?

          • Guest

            Oh, look at the idiot paddle… lol.

            States have the authority to do many things, but they can’t pass laws that don’t meet a test of the US Constitution. Period.

            Bloviate all you want, but that’s a fact.

            “So Mr Constitutional scholar, please explain why the Massachusetts
            state constitution is not the controlling document for what the state
            may do?”

            Because any state law must pass a test of the US Constitution.

            Any more questions?

          • jim_m

            And the point I made in reply was that a state can make laws that would otherwise be unconstitutional for the Federal Government. You don’t understand that so you try to laugh at it in your ignorance.

            Others have stated that Romneycare can push a mandate on the public where the Federal Government cannot and the reason for that is the fact hat the Federal government does not have the power to regulate like a state does within its own borders.

            If you cannot read and cannot understand you are better off not displaying what a dumbass you are.

            Yes, State laws must also follow the constitution but the constitutional restrictions on the federal government do not apply to the states. You are obviously ignorant of this distinction and you obviously glory in your ignorance.

          • Joe Lagle

            You really should stop feeding the troll. Even though you are correct, he wont admit it.

      • LiberalNitemare

        >>Romney can explain why he lied to the American people repeatedly by saying the law was Unconstitutional.

        If Romney was lying when he said the law was unconstitutional, was Obama lying when he said it wasn’t a tax?

        • Guest

          That was jim’s point – that Obama lied.

          Pretty silly, isn’t it….

          • 914

            Every time his lips move..

  • retired.military

    I think Romney will win 55-45 popular vote and 330+ electoral votes. If you dont believe me then look at Chickenshit Grumpy aka Mr Obama supporter who refuses to bet.
    Even with a Romney win the country will be hard pressed to get out from under the morass of the Obama legacy. Possibly if they overturn Obamacare it will help but I honestly dont feel that that will happen.

    • Guest

      lol – yes, the fact that I don’t bet with assholes who would welch on the bet anyway proves Romney will win 55-45

      You can’t bust Tea Party logic All you can do is shake your head and laugh at the stupid things people like RM say – but then, he’s desperate for attention, so even mockery feeds his ego.

      • Vagabond661

        Liberals laughed until 2010 mid terms too.

      • retired.military

        Hey Chickenshit.
        I dont welch for one.
        For two at least 2 folks on the left have taken my bet. One of which is BruceHenry.
        For three why not take the bet and see if I welch If I lose. Than you can at least say something bad about me that would be true IF I WELCHED which I will not.
        If I welched you would have lost nothing. If I did than you would gain something.
        Instead you stand there with made up excuses like the ballless clown you are. That is why you wont bet because you know you are takling out of your ass
        As for desperate for attention. I barely post on this blog anymore. Whereas you, who are not welcome here thanks to your bullshit contually come here to not to engage in conversation but to fling poo. That at least you are good at but considering you are so full of it dont consider it a great accomplishment.

      • Brucehenry

        RM wouldn’t welch on a bet.

        • retired.military

          Thank you Bruce.

  • Pretzel__Logic

    I think you’re totally wrong.

    • ackwired

      I agree, Pretzel. I don’t see the election turning on this issue. Romney has not been nominated yet, and I never underestimate the ability of the RNC to demonize a Democratic presidential candidate. I’m sure McCain would have won four years ago had it not been for the economic collapse before the election. I also think that the economy will not improve before the election, and with Europe balanced on the brink, it could get a lot worse. I’m guessing that we have 2 or 3 years left to work thru the massive fraudulent debt that created this mess, whether Europe finds a way to stay afloat or not.
      I think that in the end it will be a vote on Obama’s ability to solve the economy, and the economy is not going to be in good enough shape to re-elect him.

  • Brucehenry

    What “other disaster” do you have in mind, Warner? What disaster do you hope befalls the President of the United States?

    • 914

      I’m not Warner but I will interject…

      Impeachment would be a fitting end to this joke of a president. Of course there is no time for that unless he beats heavy odds and is reselected.

  • Well if the economy keeps going the way it does, I still think Obama can be defeated. Wait till next weeks jobs numbers come out for June. We could see unemployment move to 8.3 or higher soon. Imagine if Unemployment were 8.5 percent come November. Do you really believe that those without jobs will still be voting for Obama? Its not only the economy that can defeat Obama, he had his Hack Eric Holder in the spotlight now and the public is seeing what a socialist liar he is. We just need to keep harping on the negatives of Obama. His connections to the Muslim Brotherhood. His throwing the towel in for the white vote. If enough of us white’s vote for Romney and this time don’t feel like a racist for voting white, then Romney has a good chance of winning. Afterall a Romney President and a GOP controlled Senate is all thats needed to repeal Obamacare. Its worth fighting this one to the end.

  • RestlessLegs

    Once the uproar dies down over the Court’s ruling, people will come back down to earth. Remember, many voters are very short-sighted. Think back to all of the Dems who said Obama’s reelection was assured after Bin Laden’s death. Does that really have any impact now? Miniscule, if any. Romney campaign and others just have to get out the truth about Obamacare. Just because it’s “constitutional” doesn’t mean it’s GOOD. Besides, if the economy continues to sputter, that will drive a lot of votes toward Romney in November.

    • Brucehenry

      With the above two comments, we see the Republicans for who they are — people who are HOPING that the economy will continue to sputter and HOPING for unemployment to go UP so that their candidate has a better chance to win.

      Charming. And patriotic. And very very Christian, too.

      Oh, and they apparently are also “us white’s” who shouldn’t “feel like a racist for voting white” this cycle.

      • Come on, Bruce… Don’t pull that shit.

        I know you’ve got your talking points, but seriously? You’re better than that.

        • No, he’s not.

        • Brucehenry

          Really? Talking points, huh?

          Did these two geniuses say what they said, or didn’t they? Did they get up-voted here, or down-voted? Taking a page from Jim M’s playbook, I’d say you Republicans “assent by your silence” to the sentiments they expressed. And today’s not the first time I’ve read similar quotes — how about you?

          Add the comments from Restlesslegs and Foixmulder to Warner’s fond wish for “some other disaster” to befall the President of the United States, and we’ve got a pretty clear idea of modern Republican “patriotism.”

          I think “us white’s” should maybe be ashamed.

          • As far as ‘Foxmulder’ goes – that looks to be a throwaway profile, irregularly used to toss crap occasionally. Latest post I could find on that particular’s user’s name on Wizbang was last October. Might be others since, but that was the top one I found.

            But you bring up an interesting point. I think ”us whites” need to take a very pointed lesson from the left.

            Dissent is patriotic.

            http://www.libertynewsonline.com/article_301_30563.php

            http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/08/20/media-didnt-care-about-protest-signs-threatening-bush/

            You didn’t say jack shit then – so you approved of the message, right? That seems to be your takeaway idea – too bad it’s such a pathetically lame one. You (being generically on the left) cannot use a tactic gleefully, then object to it later when someone uses it against you.

            Just maybe it shouldn’t have been used in the first place, eh?

            Now, about the ‘us white’s’ crap – so? Race-based attempts to create community feelings like that is common.

            http://www.topix.com/forum/afam/THE7EJ9S1Q5HDM3FE

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_sJocQ6g74

            And it’s always got to be about race for the left, doesn’t it?

            Is that the last possible excuse you can pull out of the bag of rather slimy garbage that Obama’s managed to leave you with? You REALLY can’t imagine (or dare not say) that it’s Obama policies and actions that a lot of people dislike, and must devolve it down to the color of his skin as a last line of defense?

          • Brucehenry

            Relax, Lawson, I was mostly hoping ol’ Jim would see I was poking at his “assent by your silence” tactic. Didn’t mean to set off a linkstorm from you.

            I wasn’t “objecting to it later” I was turning it around after having it used against me a million times.

            And it was what’s-his-name that brought up “us white’s” ( I love the unnecessary apostrophe, don’t you?) I just riffed on it. It’s always gotta be about race for the right, doesn’t it? Again, relax. It’s hot outside. I’m just passing the time.

            BTW, have you looked at these links yourself? The “Rapper Who Made Lyrics” piece is Warner-worthy in its over-the-top characterizations of Common’s lyrics. The “how us blacks gonna pay” link has a comment section full of white racists taunting “negroes” for their alleged laziness and such.
            If this is the kind of stuff you are perusing all day on the Intertubes it’s no wonder that — despite your grandfatherly, folksy style — you seem to have a rather warped view, in my opinion, of race issues in this country.

            Oh, and that Youtube link is Obama speaking to a black audience at a campaign event, asking them to not be disengaged this year. What’s wrong with that?

          • Why, it’s obviously selected for skin color, Bruce.

            Therefore it’s Raaaaaaaacist.

          • jim_m

            Your comment was of two parts 1) that conservatives are “HOPING that the economy will continue to sputter and HOPING for
            unemployment to go UP so that their candidate has a better chance to
            win.”. I would characterize it not as hoping but rather that we know that these things are going to continue. Our reading of the economic conditions was right when obama was elected when we said that bailouts were a waste and his stimulus was a bogus giveaway to political donors and friends. We aren;t wishing for bad news, we are expecting it. You manage to confuse the two. (But on the other hand the left was very good about wishing evil on Bush and you never said anything so your point is?)

            and 2) that everyone who opposes obama is racist. Frankly I thought you were better than that. What? Did you borrow grumpy’s race card?

          • Brucehenry

            Again, Jim, I was hoping you’d see my comment and recognize how I’m imitating and mocking your tactics. (The “assent by silence” thingie.)

            Sadly., self-awareness isn’t a conservative strong suit.

            BTW, though, Warner DID express an active wish for “some other disaster” to befall the President of the United States. He also grudgingly, regretfully admits that “some segments of the economy have shown modest recovery” because that may help Obama. What did he mean, you reckon?

            LOL. See what I did there?

          • jim_m

            So somehow denouncing the goofy comments of someone here is to be considered equivalent to denouncing the terrorist acts of Bret Kimberlin? And you are the one always going on about false equivalencies.

          • Brucehenry

            You don’t see what you are trying to do there, do you?

            You could at least have down-voted the us-white’s dude, Jim, LOL.

            Anyway, like I told Lawson, it’s hot as hell outside here in Raleigh. I’m just passing the time.

          • jim_m

            I did vote it down. You were the first person to use that term.

            Correction: It was foxmulder who did. You are correct. The first half of his comment is within reason, but the second half descends into tin foil hat territory.

          • Brucehenry

            It’s not showing any down-votes on my screen as of this moment. I’m talking about Foxmulder, above. He was first.

            And I’m still waiting for you to express the hope that no disaster befalls the President of the United States.

          • jim_m

            Absolutely I do not want anything evil to befall the President. However, I fully expect his policies to wreak havoc upon our nation and I do wish electoral disaster upon him and his party in November. But that is the only disaster I wish for.

            I do not think expectation of the failure of his policies amounts to rooting for economic disaster for the US.

          • Brucehenry

            Well, Warner, on the other hand, is wishing for some unnamed disaster to hit the President in advance of the election. He says so, quite plainly, in his article, and I’m the only one who said anything about it.

            BTW, if you want to see a nonsensical comment of the he-who-smelt-it-dealt-it variety, see Rodney’s comment below. Because I brought your attention to the unmistakable whiff of racism in a comment that says “us white’s” should not “feel like a racist for voting white,” I’m “playing the race card.”

          • Nah, he’s just as racist as our other knee jerk players of the race card.

  • TomInCali

    I love how the setup of this post is that the country is evenly split on the healthcare decision, the primary Republican opposition said it was a great idea just a few years ago, and the economy is improving. Then based on that foundation, the conclusion of this post is that “Obama has been the most destructive president in American history.” It must be quite a convoluted path for you to connect those dots.

  • A second term of Obama (Bush’s 4th term) or two terms of Romney will destroy the country just as badly. Romney will get rid of ObamaCare by tweaking law ever so slightly declare and declare it RomneyCare and fixed..

    Luckily for those of us who pay attention to more than the main stream media know there’s a third party candidate who is currently polling around the 8% mark and if is allowed by the democratic/republican committee on presidential debates will turn this tweedle dee/dumb race on it’s head.

    http://www.GaryJohnson2012.com

    • SCSIwuzzy

      Can I buy pot from you?

  • Commander_Chico

    Scylla and Charybdis, two bullshitters.

  • Since the SCOTUS declared the “mandate” was, in effect, a tax – it could be readdressed and challenged as unconstitutional since it is the House that must initiate tax/approve tax increases, not the Senate. Roberts is essentially Pontius Pilate, washing his hands of this and turning it back to where it belongs, the political arena> Read the majority decision again.

  • Owen007

    I disagree. If it were the case, then the poll numbers wouldn’t be such a mess, Romney wouldn’t have raised $4 million in a day, a number of Obama’s team wouldn’t be ridiculously insisting the tax is a penalty and even more wouldn’t be acting as if the damn thing doesn’t even exist. Couple that with an economy that is not improving and is seen as not improving, plus his “unexpected” fundraising problems, and Obama is in quite the predicament. He could still win, but unlike last time, he has to work for it and his work ethic hasn’t exactly been something to be in awe of.

  • deltamary

    I think this was a smart move by Roberts–All the opinions are out here- just ignore them. Vote for Romney

  • lasveraneras

    This from today’s Zero Hedge blog:

    “While we are still collecting various public
    polling results showing popular sentiment in the aftermath of the
    Supreme Court’s surprising Obamacare ruling last week, the first
    results out of Rasmussen show that if Judge John Roberts’ goal was to
    somehow restore credibility in the supreme judicial entity, following
    his alleged flip flopping on the ACA, whereby he passed the Individual
    Mandate in a format never intended by the Obama administration, he has
    failed. From Rasmussen: “A week ago, 36% said the court was doing a
    good or an excellent job. That’s down to 33% today. However, the big
    change is a rise in negative perceptions. Today, 28% say the Supreme Court is doing a poor job. That’s up 11 points over the past week.”

    I think I’ll hold off on declaring victory for Obama this November. The ObamaCare decision would have “energized the bases” no matter which way it had gone. The political situation is still fluid.

    Although I will add that one can make a case that the global financial fecal matter is likely to hit the fan before 2016, the end of Obama’s potential second term. John Mauldin, a well known international investment and finance advisor, has this to say:

    “The US will soon be faced with that same problem [a country losing its ability to sell bonds at an interest rate that is
    sustainable for its economic and revenue base without severe and
    socially disruptive restructuring] if we do not act soon [on U.S. debt and unfunded liability levels].
    Will it be 2014? 2015? 2016? I think it will be earlier rather than
    later, as the bond market will look at Europe and what will soon be an
    imploding Japan and decide that the US is only different in size and
    scale. The interest on the debt is a growing part of the overall budget,
    and any rise will put severe constraints on spending or force large tax
    increases or require the Federal Reserve to monetize the debt. None of
    those have positive outcomes. Ignored long enough, it will bring about
    another Depression.”

    And both our major parties are managed by Keynesians and thus have no clue about what’s coming and how to stop it. Maybe leaving the Dems holding the bag is a best of a bunch of bad options. Just sayin’.

  • Idahoser

    the idea that anybody is able to make accurate predictions is stupid, so I don’t really care what you think about which candidate will win. If there was a difference between them, I would care what you are doing to affect the outcome, and I would either support or oppose you in those efforts. But the fact is there is no winner of the 2012 presidential election. No candidate I want is in the race. Removing Zero is of course the only thing in the race worth considering, but look what happens if Rudy McRomney pulls it out this time. He will do nothing especially different from Zero, will give the democrats essentially everything they want, and they get to blame the resulting disasters on the other party, ensuring that they will take over again with somebody even worse than Zero.

  • Pingback: Mitt Romney VS. Barack Obama / Barack Obama Daily News RoundUp (7-1-12)()