This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Obama Vs Romney National Security Policies In A Nutshell
Mitt Romney's policy statements have this far been quite hawkish on both the approach to 'dealling' with adversaries and on the funding of the military (growing DoD by 2,5% per year). President Obama on the other hand wants to build consensus and have us move in tandem with our allies. As such, he wants to keep our military spending relatively flat and encourage our allies to spend more. As Citi notes, this would suggest a Romney win is better for sentiment (on defense stocks) in the short-term, though since change occurs very slowly in Washington, even an Obama win would leave the status quo; implying no material change in the outlook for defense industry revenue and earnings power over the next several years no matter the winner. For everything you wanted to know about their policy and budget differences, but were afraid to even contemplate, as well as fiscal and threat realities, these four charts are critical.
Via Citi:
Romney vs Obama In A Nutshell
Governor Romney’s rhetoric clearly fulfills the typical role of the conservative in the election promising more vs. the democratic challenger. His 4% GDP target is especially ambitious as it would have the US spend more in peace-time than it ever has in war-time
On the surface, a Romney administration would clearly be more constructive for defense spending given the candidate’s commitment to various defense budget targets higher than the Obama plan, ranging from a 2-year old budget baseline to 4% of GDP. Obama’s long-term plan is roughly equivalent to status quo as reflected in his FY13 budget proposal. We note that both candidates’ plans reflect long-term growth in defense budgets.
It shouldn’t come as a surprise that Romney’s national security policies are bit more aggressive vs. Obama’s, including taking stronger stances against China and Russia. However, we don’t consider their Middle East or Afghanistan policies to be far off. More notable is Romney’s commitment to bolster shipbuilding.
The Tough Fiscal and Threat Realities
It shouldn’t come as a surprise that Romney’s national security policies are bit more aggressive vs. Obama’s, including taking stronger stances against China and Russia. However, we don’t consider their Middle East or Afghanistan policies to be far off. More notable is Romney’s commitment to bolster shipbuilding.
There are a variety of defense budget plans floating around. We note that our est. is materially lower vs. both candidates’ plans.
No matter the winner, the next President faces difficult fiscal realities given the $1T+ deficits of the day. He’ll also face a threat environment that includes a potentially “nuclear” Iran, an emerging China, an unstable middle-East, a frosty Russia, and a growing concern over cyber security. In our view, all this will make it difficult to place radical pressure on defense budgets in either direction lest the country returns to armed conflict or world peace breaks out. At this point, we expect a flat base budget outlook to emerge post the election (ex-sequester implementation).
Source: Citi
»
- 11177 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Whoever wins
the dread in America will soon set in
I don't know why they're screaming bloody murder about the fiscal cliff on TV news.
I think the best thing for America is jumping off the fiscal cliff head first.
I will be dancing and singing as we fly off the fiscal cliff at ramming speed.
I agree with Ron Paul.
Declare victory, go home and let everybody else fight their own fights.
Nobody elected US the world police.
Waste of life and treasure
It's the obvious answer. But this would do two things that will never be allowed to happen:
1) Castrate the military industrial complex
2) Force the US to become more energy independent
Both of those things are completely unacceptable to various corporate-political-globalist interests.
As you're probably aware: infinite growth on a finite planet is mathematically impossible...time to leave the cradle.
Let me get this article back on track...
Obama: Banks
Romney: Banks
The End.
The choice is Left Wing Style Totalitarianism Vs Right Wing Style Totalitarianism.
Either way we're all fucked.
Hey, at least Israel will be safe! /sarc
Let's put a foreign policy spin on this.
Obama: Muslim terrorists
Romney: ????
Not a Romney supporter, and won't vote for him, but when it comes to foreign policy, we know exactly where Obama stands. There are a couple of dead SEAL heroes who know this in the most profound way.
The dead know nothing, shithead.
'The dead know nothing, shithead.
Et tu, brute?
True but under Obama we're still not at war with Iran, now are we?
Think that would cost a few more American lives than 2 SEALS Bucky?
Do we think Benny Yidfuckyahoo or Shel Adelson would give a shit?
Obama has declared complete economic warfare aginst Iran . Due to economic war conducted by the Obama adminstration inflation has skyrocketed . More people are killed by economic warfare and econimic disruption than any military attacks . Iran is the country that is under threat not the USA the way the fascist media propaganda would have you belive .
I am extremely concerned about Iranian nuclear weapons and Muslim terrorists. Every night before I go to bed I search the attic and garage looking for hidden Iranians.
Say, SoCal Beach, could you at least push a broom whilst in the attic? At least it'll be tidier iffen you'se find them Eyerainians. And that's complete bullshit about your garage. You got so much crap in there a man can't even walk about in it.
Russia and China are holding up One World Government plans.
Iran and Turkey are jockeying to be the US of the Middle East.
Russia and China back Iran.
The nonaligned nations back Iran, but they are pretty wishy washy and powerless.
China backs the nonaligned nations because they have rescources.
Russia, China, nonaligned nations, Iran so on do not want a OWG run by the US and Europe.
Parts of Europe don't want a OWG run by the US and other parts of Europe.
US, and European, power and influence is dwindling rapidly. But they have bombs, big assed bombs.
Russia has oil and gas, and China has bought up a lot of African rescources. And has manufacturing.
In the long run Russia and China win because they have the iron fist in the velvet glove. They allow their partners enough rope to give them the illusion of freedom, but know when to yank the rope and send a message.
US and Europe hoped India would rise as a counterbalance to China, but that fell apart. We did get call centers.
Russia has had their collapse, China has had centuries of collapses.
The US hasn't taken a major hit yet.
And Europe is still stinging from the twentieth century.
China is amuch more honest partner than Europe or the US when it comes to Africa.
If China wants to do business, they make you an offer. Sometimes these are awful offers that do little but deplete the African country's resources and make a few government ministers rich BUT if they say no it's no hard feelings and maybe we can do business next time.
If US or Europe wants to do business, they make you an offer. Sometimes these are awful offers that do little but deplete the African country's resources and make a few government ministers rich BUT if they say no it's fuck you commie. We're gonna zap you, depose your government, bomb your women and kids, arm your terrorists and feed your population poison till they beg us to take it easy by fucking them up the ass with a broken bottle.
Thats the Anglo way.
The Unabonger
If I understand it correctly when China invests in Africa they attach no riders, no green energy,no equality, no unionism so on.
The US and Europe do the opposite.
I'll use this as an example of Africans dissing Europeans
http://www.nme.com/news/bono/32704
Bono and Bob Geldof increase Africa's problems say charityAIDS charity boss attacks celebrities' campaigns
The head of an African AIDS charity has slammed campaigns by the likes of Bono and Bob Geldof, including Band Aid, Live Aid and Live 8, claiming that they actually increase problems in Africa.
Jobs Selasie, head of charity African Aid Action, claimed that such campaigns increase corruption and dependency on the continent.
Selasie explained that he believed that the western media had an obsession with political correctness which diverted from what he believes are the real causes of poverty in Africa.
The charity says since the original Band Aid campaign, the number of Africans living on handouts has increased by 500 per cent and African governments who used to rely on only 20 per cent of their annual budget from overseas aid are now dependent on a 70 per cent contribution.
“Aid has failed because campaigners, charities and governments do not have the right plan and excluded African entrepreneurs and grassroots organisations from being part of the solution,” said Selasie.
“You can’t impose change from without,” he continued. “It has to come from within and we won’t end poverty with handouts. Africans need to fight corruption and work hard.
"Russia and China are holding up One World Government plans."
Well, at least you got this much right.
Bigger tax cuts and a larger military?!? How's that work again if you are fiscally conservative? Who pays for it? No thanks, bring on the system reset and let's rebuild a new republic.
The soupline is correct. One party, for the banks and financial houses, by the banks and financial houses.
Wake me when the guillotine is put to use, nothing changes otherwise.
“Barack Obama has done more for the banks and the people who control them than any sitting president in the history of the United States. So, basically, Barack Obama was used to engineer the bailouts - depending on how you what to count them, 12 trillion to 27 trillion - and the banks have been richly rewarded for doing what they were asked to do which is the fraudulent inducement of America. Barack Obama is here to help the banks, not here to control or stop them. Now the question facing the American population is that that’s how it’s turned out, what do they do?” – Catherine Austin Fitts - Euro Zone - The Centralization Battle Rages On
You're preaching to the choir with that meme. Yup, the banksters got a hell of a return on their investment on contributions and lobbying with Obama. Now, look at Romney's 2012 top contributors and tell us why we can expect any different.
This is an apples-to-oranges comparison.
Obama was Bob Rubin’s president from the beginning; he has never denied the international bankers any significant move. And with this four years of proven performance, you would equate that with what contributors WANT Romney to do, i.e., performance versus contributions?
In short, Obama delivered and now they want Romney to deliver if he wins. But, we do not have Romney delivering yet.
And, by the way, what is at the root of your argument? Do you propose not voting? Third party? Or Romney? Or Obama? Because the clear implication of your post fits precisely with the strategy of the Obama campaign two days before election!
The only way the financial sector can lose is if Romney wins and he doesn’t support them. With Obama, what more can they get? They’ve have him and if he’s reelected they ain’t gonna lose him.
To paraphrase Gerald Celente on the presidential election:
Whoever wins, Americans lose.
Not voting is the best revenge!
Robert Rubin wouldn’t say that.
Perhaps the NY Times said it best: “It is a testament to the star power of former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin among Democrats that as Barack Obama fills out his economic team, a virtual Rubin constellation is taking shape.”
Did Bob Rubin, famous Citi alum, put his seal of approval on this Obama vs. Romney ZH “nutshell”?
After all, Rubin is vitally interested in seeing the president reelected. By breaking Glass-Steagall in the Clinton Administration, he became the creator of the Leviathan Bank, the too-big-to-fail global banking system with tentacles reaching around the world and operated from central control – the Fed.
He and Bernanke have a large investment in Obama.
Rubin should be in jail.
I heard that buster.
JR, dont let the facts get in your way on the partisan bullshit. You conveniently forget the three Republicans who sponsored the bill and pushed it through the House and Senate.
"The House passed its version of the Financial Services Act of 1999 on July 1, 1999, by a bipartisan vote of 343-86 (Republicans 205–16; Democrats 138–69), two months after the Senate had already passed its version of the bill on May 6 by a much-narrower 54–44 vote along basically-partisan lines (53 Republicans and 1 Democrat in favor; 44 Democrats opposed."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act
Wake up. It's a one party system. Bush and Obama did nothing to address Wall St fraud and corruption the last 12 years, and neither will Mitt Romney.
Well said BoP.
We're on a global plantation and both "parties" are but slaves to the same Massa.
There’s no doubt that Obama is Rubin’s man. And when Hillary Clinton runs, she’ll be Rubin’s and Goldman's. I am not fighting for Romney; I am fighting to stop Obama and his war on the American culture. The Clintons gave Bob Rubin a position of official power and few international bankers have ever had access to the kind of leverage that Bob Rubin carries, from Social Security legislation to NAFTA to Obama tax policy, leverage that can force congressmen from both parties to toe the line - or else.
And this very Bob Rubin is not campaigning for Romney; he’s campaigning for Obama.
Here’s more on Rubin and Glass-Steagall from NetRootsMass’ Financial Regulation Timeline:
March 1995 – Less than 2 months after becoming Secretary of the Treasury, Rubin asked Congress to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act and to change the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956.
And the NY Times: White House Is Joining in Efforts To Loosen the Limits on Banking
“The Clinton Administration plans to call this week for legislation that would allow commercial banks, securities firms and insurance companies to merge, forming giant financial services companies that would offer everything from checking accounts to mutual funds and life insurance, Federal officials say.
“In a speech prepared for delivery in New York on Monday and in Congressional testimony scheduled for Wednesday, Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin will urge Congress to repeal the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act, the officials said. For more than 60 years, the law has forced financial concerns to choose between owning commercial banks or owning securities companies like brokerage firms and investment banks, but not both.
“Mr. Rubin also plans to call for broad changes in the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, which has effectively barred most financial concerns from owning both commercial banks and insurance companies, said the Federal officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity. Mr. Rubin’s speech will represent the first time that the Administration has taken a position on eliminating the legal and regulatory barriers among financial industries.
“Regulatory changes in recent years have already allowed commercial banks, like Citibank, to begin selling stocks and mutual funds on a limited basis. But the Glass-Steagall Act still bars Citibank, for example, from merging with a brokerage firm like Merrill Lynch or an investment bank like Goldman, Sachs, which provides corporate investment advice and helps companies issue stock. The Bank Holding Company Act bars Citibank from merging with a big insurance company like Prudential.”
Rubin stayed at Treasury until his retirement in 1999. He was the “greatest secretary of the Treasury since Alexander Hamilton,” according to Clinton. Also in 1999, Rubin joined Citigroup. From wikipedia: Of note, the supermerger between Travelers Group and Citicorp was facilitated by the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act (Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act).
In 1998, it was Rubin who moved to oppose Brooksley Born and derivatives regulation… “where a different approach to derivatives regulation would have helped avert the worst of today’s credit crisis."
http://www.netrootsmass.net/selise/financial-regulation-timeline/
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/02/27/business/white-house-is-joining-in-efforts-to-loosen-the-limits-on-banking.html
Yes, I am well aware of Bob Rubin.
But you keep dogding the questions on Republicans. Why is that?
When Murray Rothbard was asked why he would rather have Bush win than Clinton, Mr. Rothbard said, Because Bush is not Clinton. And that is a primary reason many people will be voting for Romney, Romney is not Obama. Obama is the known quanity. He has proven what he is; he's a given.
Romney at least has an open mind and is capable of changing his mind; he takes many cautious positions because of an extremely vituperative and predatory media. Obama and the media are one.
Here again are some of the significant differences I see between Romney and Obama, i.e, differences between Republicans and Democrats this election:
Romney says he will work to end the inheritance tax, repeal the alternative minimum tax and retain the Bush-era tax cuts on all incomes. He would work for fewer income tax deductions, primarily on the wealthy, but reduce rates in all categories: 35% down to 28%, 10% down to 8%, etc.
Romney opposes cap & trade legislation, and says he will be less restrictive on energy development: oil drilling, natural gas, coal, and nuclear. He would work to repeal the health care legislation; would cap federal spending at 20% of GDP. He opposes the Fed’s current bond buying program and has said he would replace Fed Chairman Bernanke.
Romney would push back stronger against illegal immigration: with the border fence, no benefits for illegal students in college and punishment for employers who hire illegals after a verification program is in place.
On social issues, Romney’s positions differ sharply from Obama’s. He favors a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage, opposes civil union benefits if they are the same as marriage benefits, favors repeal of Roe versus Wade, would allow states to ban abortions, and favors a ban federal funds being given to Planned Parenthood.
Yeah, keep clingling to that false paradigm blanket of yours. All it will do is cause you more frustration.
Significant differences? Romney would have almost zero chance of enacting any of that legislation. Why? because the Banksters and lobbyists who own those Congress critters wont let them, thats why.
Good grief man. I have no idea how you cant see it, but I'm done trying to convince you.
Obamatron made lots of "promises" too...
First problem: Romney will need to get things he "says" he wants through Congress unchanged.
"Romney at least has an open mind..." Second problem: Romney is about as closed-minded as one can get. He is what people see him to be, not what he is.
Third problem: the differences you see make not one bit of difference when the economy crashes.
In many ways it comes down to the poison that you know Vs. the poison you don't.
Got or know any kids who'll be Netanyahu meat age in the next 4 to 8 years? Want to risk them, their lives, limbs and/or sanity to a guy who Shel Adelson walks on a leash and says Benny Yidfuckyahoo will determine our Middle East policy?
Not me. Over the past 4 years Obama woke us up to his war on White culture. In the next 4 years, we push back bigtime. With our kids here, not dying in Iran.
Easy math.
Obama’s constituency is against war in Iran; therefore, Obama, if he incites WWIII, will not attack Iran until after the election.
The Mainstream Media that supports Obama also supports Israel and supports war with Iran. You go figure.
The media, Obama’s media, reports every single rocket attack from Palestine, but from the Israeli viewpoint; often minus the explanations that it was in response to Israeli aggression. In short, it supports the genocide of the Palestinian people.
It’s become a puzzle for the world on just why enemies of Israel seem constantly to multiply under US/Israeli foreign policy and how this aggressive small nation armed with military might far beyond all of the resources of the Middle East combined, needs as well the world’s superpower, the United States, to constantly veto the world’s resolutions which might keep Israel in check - or to come to tiny Israel’s aid if one of its many enemies happens to shoot back.
Obama has given Netanyahu his full support - on all issues. American foreign policy is totally a function of Jewish money. Obama is supported by A.I.P.A.C., the Israel Lobby. 78 percent of Jewish voters who exited polls in 2008 said they cast ballots for Obama. “A significant shift from Democrat to Republican among Jewish voters clearly is not in the cards this year,” according to Fox News on October 9.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/10/09/why-american-jews-will-stick-with-tradition-on-election-day/#ixzz2BIsCsKrR
Vice President Joe Biden enlightened the world on DC diplomacy and the Obama Administration’s partnership between lobbyist-bought politicians and Israel, with these words…
"Throughout my career, Israel has not only remained close to my heart but it has been the center of my work as a United States Senator and now as Vice President of the United States…were I a Jew, I would be a Zionist… you need not be a Jew to be a Zionist.”
And, yes, Obama is sacrificing the American people for the greater glory of Israel as their nation, once the shining beacon upon the hill, becomes the world’s pariah as fitting its lockstep in war with Israel.
Welcome to the Age of Hell: Entrenching Murder as the American Way by Chris Floyd
The Washington Post has just laid out, in horrifying, soul-slaughtering detail, the Obama Administration's ongoing effort to expand, entrench and "codify" the practice of murder and terrorism by the United States government. The avowed, deliberate intent of these sinister machinations is to embed the use of death squads and drone terror attacks into the policy apparatus of future administrations, so that the killing of human beings outside all pretense of legal process will go on, year after year after year, even when the Nobel Peace Laureate has left office.
They have even come up with a new euphemism for state murder: "disposition." The new "counterterrorism matrix" is "designed to go beyond existing kill lists, mapping plans for the 'disposition' of suspects beyond the reach of American drones," the Post reports.
In other words, it involves expanding and varying the menu of arbitrary murder, mixing the blunderbuss of drone blasts and night raids with more selective "bullet-in-the-brain," "bomb-in-the-car-engine," "polonium-in-the-pea-soup," and "doping-and-defenestration" approaches. Arbitrary murder by unaccountable elites and their spies, paid for by money taken from ordinary citizens who have no say in and no knowledge of what is being done in their names (and who will be the victims of the inevitable blowback from the state terror and murder campaign): this is now being "codified," officially, formally, as the American way…
http://chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/2291-welcome-to-the-age-of-hell-entrenching-murder-as-the-american-way.html
Economic warfare has already started on Iran . Economic warfare first and then military warfare just like Iraq. Should be another mssacre .
one correction: "we are at war." i know this is tough for people to understand because nobody in the media really cares about those folks...but hey, facts are facts. Second neither candidate has offered up a change in our security relationships relative to East Asia and Europe. We have defended the entire Continent of Europe going on seven decades now...and with the collapse of the EU it would appear we're supposed to defend them "while they restructure so they can compete with us better" going on 8 decades. Relative to Japan, Korea and Taiwan...we appear to have added Vietnam to the list...thus expanding that area as part of some type of "open sea lanes" thingy. In short "not only do either candidate offered up fundamental changes to the USA's approach to security...they don't even offer up any fundamental differences in rhetoric." How each goes about PAYING for said relationships on the other hand....
"...move in tandem with our allies..."
Seriously??
Indeed. What fucking allies? Europe is being taken over by Muslims, Russia and China are out maneuvering us everywhere, and Japan is in a state of suspended animation.
I think defense spending is going up rapidly regardless who wins. Once the election is over the Iran issue is going to ramp up. At the same time, the air force needs the F-35 as soon as possible to replace old fighter jets. More over, the nuclear arsenal needs maintainance and modernization and this will cost billions years to come.
Obama wants to cut nuclear arsenal so he can reinvest it into the force. Romney and republicans hate the START project due to the fact that nuclear weapons cost huge money and that can hold Russia in check. It's Titanic either way, it's just that both candidates are hitting two different ice bergs.
Defense spending... the other guy's food stamps.
The "stud" version of redistribution... The other side of make-work programs. Selfishly, I suppose it matters to which corporate GOD sector the money flows. But either way the loans will go out and "growth" will be manufactured. Whether its the War on Poverty, War on Terror, War on Drugs, War on Crime...
Debt and deficits as far as the eye can see, bitchez.
The fact that even 2% would consider voting for Obama means we are circling the drain. You have been warned.
The fact that you'd even consider voting for either of these bankster's whore boys is frightening.
Stay home so you can say you didn't contribute to or participate in the flushing of your country and your future.
Ha, where did we say we were voting for Romney? Stay home? Are you following your own advice?
Look at all those Reds, must be over the target now.
Same shit different Bowl. Mittens is listening to Joseph Smith. Compunds bitchezz.
Whoever wins the election--head for the hills.
We live in a world governed by the aggressive use of Force.
Get used to it.
It hasn't changed since cave man times.
The typical Romney voter with big responsibility:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bzvm7zd4Z-s
Too much peroxide.
Way too many carbohydrates.
Too much.
Typical obama voter (April 4, 2011)... predates yours (Oct 6, 2012). My. My. Dem copycats! And yours has 58,125 dislikes with 4,450 likes – out of a total of more than 2.2 million views. Seeing is believin' > below...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Y5Dck2jiMY
I am European, so I took equal opportunity of kicking both.
And thanks for your link, I do prefer "Christian values" that first lady presented (snicker snicker), but second lady was quite intriguing too.
Now THAT's the makings of a “voter” presidential debate, cast already pre-selected... Thanks! :-)
By my count this is the third HIT PIECE on Romney by Zero Hedge this weekend.
This qualifies as one with just one sentence: ”President Obama on the other hand wants to build consensus and have us move in tandem with our allies (bold face in the original).”
It’s an Obama campaign line!
The other two Romney hit pieces on Zero Hedge this weekend designed to win votes for Obama:
1) A UK article discouraging all voting as useless (an Obama campaign tactic, since the GOP convention, designed to keep libertarians from voting for Romney) and, the most obvious of course:
2) Charles Ferguson’s Glenn Hubbard piece and the Ferguson lead: “Mitt Romney has a credibility problem.” This may be true but used just before the election without balance is Obama campaign rhetoric.
The only real Obama excitement on Zero Hedge this weekend was the obvious visit of scores of Obama campaign workers attaching themselves to the Romney hit pieces to help reelect the president.
Zero Hedge: Please stop using the back door for this. Just tell us why you want Obama.
Why do you care? Are you planning to vote?
Don't mean to call you out, but to be fair you're neglecting several pieces with at least a passive amount of anti-Obama flavor. Think of the number of times POTUS was referred to as TOTUS, for example.
'Zero Hedge: Please stop using the back door for this. Just tell us why you want Obama.'
I hate to be the bearer of bad news for you, but ZH is an equal opportunity offender. The banks and oligarchs own both Robama and Obomney. That is the only view ZH has ever advocated: we are screwed no matter who gets elected.
If you think ZH is putting out hit pieces on Romney: you are correct.
If you think ZH is putting out hit pieces on Obama: you are correct.
I am an enthusiastic Zero Hedge follower. And one of the reasons has been its equal treatment of all subjects, including political subjects. And, yes, ZH has criticized Obama in the past, sometimes severely. But that’s completely beside the point because the hit pieces I’m talking about are this weekend, at a time when every undecided vote is susceptible to political posturing.
And if you don’t think major Zero Hedge articles these past 60 hours aren’t very helpful in keeping libertarians from voting for Romney, take a couple of minutes and review. A true appraisal will tell you that this is not the Zero Hedge that you have described in your post.
I also was and am an extremely strong Ron Paul supporter. And it is my opinion that America's incredible wave of Third World immigration means that if Obama is reelected the chance for a candidate such as Ron Paul or even a moderate Republican will be practically zero four years from now.
The reason? Just look at the emphasis on early voting especially for Hispanic voters and the work that the Obama campaign has been continuing for four years in Ohio. The Democrat ground game and the emphasis all over the country in getting out black and Hispanic voters early on, several days before the General Election, is the primary strategy that candidates such as Obama have.
After an Obama victory Tuesday fast forward through four years of developing this widening base of Hispanic voters and you will have a national electorate that resembles present-day California. IOW, it won’t make any difference who the Republicans nominate for president; the election goes to Hillary Clinton.
Remember, that California with its powerful agricultural and business base historically was dependably Republican. No longer. It is now and will be Democrat.
As 2011 Cal Facts reveal, between 2000 and 2008 “white Californians have declined from 47 percent of the population to 41 percent.” Already, 72 percent of California students are of color, says the Center for American Progress. Already, four American states are designated majority-minority as of 2010: Hawaii, California, New Mexico and Texas. Already, Obama is suing Arizona in a continued government effort to dispossess the American majority and expand the Obama culture by blocking the state from enacting its immigration laws.
http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2011/calfacts/calfacts_010511.aspx
China puts out a message to the the world…”Chinese People rule the world so fuck you all”…Gangnam Style (Video)
http://youtu.be/KCnYtKbYusI
Hyperinflation Alert: QE infinity Is The Only Thing Delaying A Complete Systemic Collapse But Now The Fed Is Out Of Short Dated Bonds
http://investmentwatchblog.com/hyperinflation-alert-qe-infinity-is-the-only-thing-delaying-a-complete-systemic-collapse-but-now-the-fed-is-out-of-short-dated-bonds/
Good video! Man, this ain't Mao's China anymore is it?
In this climate of Romney bashing it’s still important to remember what we’ve all witnessed during the Obama Administration. And that is the rush to completely change the nature of the electorate. This article by WarriorClass identifies the problem:
THE most important single issue facing the U.S. is its post-1965 immigration disaster, both legal and illegal. The bipartisan Permanent Government is literally Electing A New People. Among other problems caused by this utterly selfish and irresponsible policy—immiseration of the working class, cultural dispossession, linguistic balkanization, increased crime, overpopulation, etc. —there is the amazing fact that within 30 years, the U.S. will be majority non-white. The U.S., as it has been known to history, will simply cease to exist within the lives of children now born (including my own).
Overall, the Obama years have been disastrous for native-born workers. The deterioration in native-born employment in both absolute terms and, more dramatically, relative to foreign-born employment, is highlighted in the New VDARE.com American Worker Displacement Index (NVDAWDI):
From January 2009 to October 2012:
Foreign-born employment rose 1.635 million, or by 7.6%
Native-born employment fell by 0.472 million, or by 0.4%
Since Obama took office native-born job losses are nearly one-third the immigrant job gains. Put differently, during the Obama era one native-born worker has been displaced per every three foreign-born workers added to the U.S. workforce.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-03/job-creation-under-barack-obama-less-meets-eye
Since when has an election become a National Security?
Watch an event about to unfold, everyone removes assets from the major banks, transfers into charter. The fear resides within, not with the controlling peasant $$$ interests.
Looks like the machine still works. While almost everybody is sucked in this apparently ideological battle, nobody seems to see that the circus is running at full speed because there is no bread left. Heads or tails wins, 99% lose. Not participating in this charade is the only sane thing left to do.
Bill Clinton said that the age of big government is OVER. I would like to know when the age of BAD government will end
The budget that is absolutely out of control is the Homeland Security budget. Why isn't that covered here?
Defence spending?
Defence?
Call it the "War Budget of the Empire". That is what it really is, like who in the fuck are we defending ourselves from? al-Qaeda? Shit, the Jihadis are our allies in both Libya and Syrian wars. We arm al-Qaeda with weapons from the old Libyan army supplies. We transport them from Libya to Turkey where than can enter Syria to create a Jihadi state in Syria.
It used to be the "War Department" in an Orwellian move, they changed it to "Defense Department".
there were 3000+ marines killed in Lebanon in 1983.
So where was the outrage then over lack of security??
74.3% of all numbers are made up.
A gazillion barnacles (bureaucrats, congress...) entrenched will keep the gravy train running until what's in the gravy train is worth less than something else they can get their clutches into. I just don't see that the Prez has all that much to say about the non-passed budgets.
america loses either way, shitibank execs win either way. bring on the collapse bitchez.
a thousand more Sandy Katrinas
All we need is another war monger president like Reagan to get us into a bunch more wars! We can't afford another Grenada!
Obama's defense policy: War
Romney's defense policy: War
Obama's foreign policy: Israel
Romney's foreign policy: Israel
Mitt Romney launching an attack on Iran is extremely bullish for Gold and Silver.
Gold and silver will do just fine without more Jewish commanded genocide of Muslims thank you very much.
The Jewish genocide of the value of the American "dollar" (FRN) and physical ecomomy will see to that, as it has for the past 100 years since the illegitimate birth of their hell spawned Fed.
Maybe you think the genocide ends with Islam? Better think again.
The real War is on You.
National Security? That's a hoot. More like Continuity of Central Banking.
the policy differences simply reflect the 2 major factions who control the presidency....the rockefeller axis of evil appointed obama president in order for him to dismantle american sovereignty - the reason he went on an apology tour, never wore an american flag, and never put his hand over heart during the playing of the national anthem (of course i would never do so either, but for entirely different reasons ). obama is an indonesian citizen, something very lovely to the rockefeller axis of evil who hate america - just as obama does..... www.obamacrimes.com
unfortunately, romney represents the bush crime syndicate and will add even more to the american military to protect us from the alleged vast hordes of loonies flying like bats out of hell to destroy us....why do they want to destroy us? blowback? and romney wants to increase spending at a time when the nation is bankrupt and to rip support of the poor out from under their feet....
in the end obamney will win but it will be the final nail in the american coffin....the totalitarian state will prevail and the bush legacy will continue regardless of the specific candidate....
last year: $2.6 trillion avail, $3.6 trillion spent... 1/5 to military. 1/5 to SS, 1/5 to Medicade/Medicare
so you have $2.1 trillion for those three categories.. leaving just $500 billion for everthing else until you have to borrow/print more.. so we did for $1.3 trillion.
What's the deficit this year?
One of my best friends is an ex-Temple Mormon. His 60+ year old father is lifelong Mormon, fairly high in rank as you'd expect (good lifelong retired civil servant, good tither, etc).
Joseph Smith was an apostate Freemason, and FM are a cult offshoot of Judaism.
My friend asked his dad what is the Mormon opinion of the physical nation of Israel, must we (the USA) protect Israel (as a matter of their religion), and he said, most definitely, the LDS teach we must protect Israel.
Wow, big shock, not!
OBAMA WINS.
...says prediction markets.
http://stks.co/gESo
These daily charts are still breaking down & overdue sell off expected after Obama victory: SPX / CRUDE / COPPER / GOLD / SILVER / EURUSD / AUDUSD
USD will rally.
What chaps my azz about Romney is not all ths political pandering nonsense. But, you kinda know that he's an arrogant douchebag.
For instance, When he was elected Governor of Massachusetts, he didn't like "regular" people riding in the elevator with him. I know we have all heard the story but that really bothers me. I dunno why. Hey, looking on the bright side. At least he was being honest.
Ya gotta feel sorry for these secret service goons that protect them. Day in and day out....douchebaggery...
You gotta be nuts to put yourself in harms way for these two clowns. I don't give a shit what the title of the position or the office is.