Log in

No account? Create an account
Hope for Change -- No Bama Nation - Multiplayer vi [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Tomas Gallucci

counter customisable

[ flavors | Meta Profile ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

[Links:| Value for Value Politics Tech Reads ]

Hope for Change -- No Bama Nation [Nov. 7th, 2008|08:37 am]
Tomas Gallucci
[Tags|, , , , , , ]
[music |Clint Eastwood - Changeling]

The election is over and the people have chosen. They have chosen to punish the current administration even though that administration wasn't even on the ballot. We the people have chosen a man that we do not know and do not understand because he feels good, not because we agree with his principles. Now that we have made our bed hard, we must lie in it.

Here are my predictions for the Obama administration should he actually stick to his campaign promises:

1. We'll have a strong 4th quarter this year because people will be willing to spend money for Christmas because they know there will be a new resident at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

2. Obama will only have one term.

3. We will be in a full-blown recession by midterm elections.

4. Every negative thing that happens in the next four years will be blamed on the Bush administration while Obama will take the credit for anything positive.

5. No gas at the pumps nation-wide due to oil shortages due to non-production thanks to Obama's plan to tax the oil companies at 50%.

6. The middle class will be impoverished within a year and will become fully dependent on government.

7. There will be an assassination attempt within the first 6 months of Obama's administration.

8. There will be an attack whether terrorist or by a country's army within the first 9 months.

Times may very well be changing. It used to be a rule of thumb that college kids didn't vote, but this year the "Why?" generation came out in force. They asked, "Why do I have to know what a candidate believes? Why should we put another candidate with an 'R' behind his name in office? Why will I be thought a racist if I don't vote for Obama?" (Curiously, that last question is applicable to both whites and blacks. Racists if you vote for him and racists if you vote against him. Ouch!)

We live in a nation of such prosperity that Generation "Why?" has the luxury of attempting text-book solutions to social problems. Despite the repeated failure of communism and because of the freedom in this nation paid for by the lives of so many brave men and women who fought such evils, "Why?"ers have been given a chance to take part in a social experiment. "Why?"ers have been able to try their wings in the world by employing the scientific method via the polls. They chose to elect a man who has promised to bring all the necessary ingredients to the table to perform this social experiment for their direct observation.

"Why?"ers think that fairness is defined by stealing from the rich to give to the poor. They think that Obama is Robin Hood even though they don't have a clue what Robin Hood was all about. "Why?"ers think that Robin Hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor—but that simply is not true. Robin Hood didn't steal from the so-called "rich." Robin Hood stole the oppressive taxes that the king levied against his subjects. Thus, Robin Hood gave back to the people back what was rightfully theirs to begin with.

Do you know how "Why?"ers define "The Rich"? They define the rich to be anyone who makes a dollar more a year than they do.

Instead of spewing rhetoric and talking points to woo a pimple-faced member of the opposite sex, instead of being indifferent and apathetic, instead of using election day as an excuse to screw a significant other shirking their patriotic chore, "Why?"ers chose to save the sex for the after party and voted for the donkey Democrat ass of their idolatry, perhaps due in part to celebrity endorsement and coercion, even if those celebrities were not Americans!

But Obama's win may not be all bad. Perhaps within the next four years the "yute of America" will learn that without competition, individuals have no incentive to produce for themselves. This is doubly true if there is a common resource paid for by the community. Known as the Tragedy of the Commons, the argument states that it is better for the individual to consume as much of the community resource as possible because the benefit is the individual's while the cost is the community's.

Take health care for instance. If universal healthcare finally comes to pass under Obama's administration—a proposition fundamental to the Democrat's party platform since 1948 yet to be realized—it would behoove the individual to use the health insurance as often as possible. Qui Bono? Who benefits? The only beneficiary here is the bum who cashes in on the insurance. Who foots the bill? The rest of the country. Those who don't get sick as often as well as those who can afford to pay their way are punished for their good health and hard work.

Under the Obama tax plan, hard work and achievement will be severely punished. His confiscatory tax plan calls for raising taxes on those making more the $250,000. "Why?"ers who have never had to work a day in their life and who don't know the value of money may think that this is a staggering income, but those in the business world know this isn't even a drop in the bucket. A restaurant that grosses an average of $5000/day will have $250,000 passed over the counter in just 7 weeks. At this rate, there will be an additional $1.6 million that the restaurant will pull in over the rest of the year for a grand total of $1.29 million a year.

Because under the current tax law small businesses can be formed as S-chapter and Limited Liability Corporations which are passed-through entities filed with the owner's personal taxes, the owner will have to pay taxes on $300,000 assuming an operating cost of 75%. Obama thinks that owner in our scenario is Mr. Rich Bastard when in fact, he's the backbone of our country. The rich are the celebrities that helped to get Obama elected. What they don't tell you is that once you have earned your money, the government can't tax it again. In other words, those celebrities who have made money the past eight years under the Bush administration already have their money invested. Since they have money, it doesn't matter to them who pays for what because they still have a nest-egg to draw upon unlike good ol'e Joe Plumber.

But again, there may just be a silver lining in the Obama tax plan's little black rain cloud: businesses will have to compete for what few hard-earned dollars consumers will have left. Competition always makes for a more robust economy because companies have to figure out how to more efficiently offer their good or service and must be in tune with consumer's wants and needs. The net result will be that superfluous products will be removed from the market as they will no longer be demanded. The corollary to this is that goods and services produced will have to be of a higher quality in order to win the consumer's wallet's vote.

That's not the only thing that will have to become more competitive. Politicians too will have to compete, specifically on the Hill. Democrats do not have a super-majority on the Hill and so they will have to work to get the additional votes they need from Republicans on key issues rather then sit on their laurels and manufacture laws to suit their party's agenda and totally shut out the opposition's voice.

Conservatives too will have to compete. Having lost the White House and a thin majority in Congress, Conservative leadership will be required for Republicans to make their constituents' voices heard. Each vote and speech will count as Conservatives fight to bring balance to the Democrat's majority in the Capitol and in the White House. There has been no Conservative leadership in Washington for the last six years. Bush has greatly hurt the cause of Conservatism.

Perhaps Obama will make America hope for change and not just change left in their wallets after being put through his confiscatory tax plan's wringer. Despite what some may read into the election results, the only mandate that Barack Obama has was to remove someone from power that wasn't on the ballot—George W. Bush. America is still a financially conservative country. When "Why?"ers that don't have an inheritance waiting for them built by their parent's hard work discover that it's not Mr. Rich Bastard that's being screwed by the Obama tax plan but rather their own wallets, they will hopefully snap out of their dreamy, delusional social experiment having received education through experience.

"What doesn't kill us, makes us stronger" someone once wrote. Truly, if people are affected negatively enough under Obama's administration, leaders will rise up from among us and put us back on the path to success and stability. These are the forces that our Founding Fathers are so highly praised for having built into America. No matter what transpires, no one group of people can have absolute power. The people's voices can be heard and this country affords individuals the opportunity to see a need and rise to the challenge of meeting that need by fighting for what they believe is right. Ours is a government "of the people, for the people, by the people." Though the Obama administration may be a painful one, a new generation will get to see first hand what is at stake—their future—and will hopefully value it enough to defend it against anything that threatens it, no matter what the cost.

[User Picture]From: ehowton
2008-11-07 11:46 am (UTC)
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: ehowton
2008-11-07 11:48 am (UTC)
9197 words. Whoa.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: schpydurx
2008-11-07 01:03 pm (UTC)
Your word count is broken. It's just shy of 1600.

P.S. No more whining about how I never write, k?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: ehowton
2008-11-07 01:34 pm (UTC)
My bad - that was the character count.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: schpydurx
2008-11-07 01:45 pm (UTC)
wc -w
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: hiro_antagonist
2008-11-08 05:19 am (UTC)
On a sort of point by point basis:

One, candidate A won over candidate B primarily because of the perceived strength of his positions (and not the lack thereof) on the economy, if you happened to pay any amount of attention to what pretty much every single exit poll said. Had the dominant issue been the war in Iraq rather than the economy, candidate B would have won. It was 50/50 gamble either way, and "Bush sux" wasn't even a blip on the exit polls.

College kids voted because they thought it might make a difference for once. One campaign courted the youth vote massively, the other didn't. Guess what happened? Most college kids knew more about the issues than adults 25-65, as shown by polls as early as January and laughed at on the Daily Show at length. They ain't stupid son. Just naive enough to still do silly things like researching.

In a democracy, even in a Federal Representative Democracy, voting percentages still matter. The rich make up a very small percentage. The middle class and poor make up a much larger one. Sometimes even the most well-paid lobbyists can't make up the difference. Of course, there's always the position of 'if they're too stupid to bank offshore, think of it as a stupidity tax'.

People have long demonstrated that more taxes is the equivalent of slowly boiling a frog in a pot of water. The ones that care no longer live here. It's self-solving problem, no?

But to be realistic, a person from any other first world country would say that the taxes here are laughably low and proceed to ask how we're enjoying our crumbling infrastructure.

Of course, some of us deem that certain things aren't worth shelling out for, not realizing that they'd be saving money in the long term. Like roads that don't require being re-paved every single year. Or twice a year. Or skyrocketing insurance costs due to people who don't have insurance costing the nation out the wazoo for the simplest things that could be easily prevented but end up taking time out of an ER doc's day. Which costs a lot.
(Reply) (Thread)
From: snapper521
2008-11-09 11:24 pm (UTC)
All of that is well and good I just question if we, the ones who already know what will happen in a general sense of the word, will be able to survive their stupidity...

Realistically though, neither presidential candidates was a very good "fit' for the role of our countries "next pres.".

Don't know... my grandma says we need to find a big rock to hide under... and that we that have money enough should move to another country (new zealand or australia for example). Don't plan on it but... the saying does go that rats will flea a sinking ship...
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: schpydurx
2008-11-10 12:49 am (UTC)
So you admit to being a rat?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: snapper521
2008-11-10 09:39 pm (UTC)
Eh... if the saying fits... but not under any normal circumstances.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: schpydurx
2008-11-10 09:41 pm (UTC)
You'd make a big rat.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: snapper521
2008-11-10 10:03 pm (UTC)
Just as you would were you to be transformed into a rodent.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)