Your Complete, One-Stop Presidential Election Guide

Tyler Durden's picture

With less than three months to go, the outcome of the November election remains highly uncertain. SocGen notes that, as always, economic performance over the coming months will be a key determinant of who wins and who loses. If the elections were held today, the most likely outcome would be a Republican win in both Congressional races and a Democratic win in the race for the White House. This means that any new significant legislation will almost certainly have to be a product of compromise. In this sense, we may very well be looking at a status quo in terms of bipartisanship and gridlock which have dominated Washington politics over the past few years. This would be bad news at a time when the country faces a number of serious challenges with significant long-term implications. From the economy to long-term fiscal health, and from the debt-ceiling to Housing, Healthcare, and energy policy differences, the following provides a succinct review.


Societe Generale: American Themes - US Elections

There is a strong need for leadership in Washington. The economy is performing poorly and monetary policy options have been nearly exhausted. Unfortunately, the ongoing split promises more of the same from Washington: politics instead of leadership.

A close race for president, coupled with uncertain congressional power. A split in the Congress can inhibit the agenda no matter who wins the presidential race. Unless the president’s party makes gains in Congress, it will be difficult to agree on any changes. The healthcare overhaul was achieved with a Democratic congress during President Obama’s first year in office. Reversing course requires not just a Republican president but a cooperative Senate. Sadly, gridlock is likely to prevail.

In Washington, there is widespread support for fiscal stimulus, at least for immediate support within the context of long-term discipline. Specifically, there is support to reduce the anticipated fiscal drag of higher tax rates and spending cuts that are set for 1 January 2013.

Election-year politics prevent current action. Congress may take action immediately after the election to reduce onerous tax rate increases or may wait until the new government takes office in January before acting. This uncertainty comes at a cost to markets and indeed to the economy in the short-term.

Key main assumptions and potential for surprises:

  • President Obama expected to win re-election but faces a Republican Congress.
  • Challenger Governor Romney victory would be a surprise. Narrow Republican control of Senate would be an obstacle.
  • Choice of vice presidential candidate, Congressman Paul Ryan, hints at a more aggressive entitlement spending overhaul. The differences between President Obama and Ryan are fundamentally ideological and represent a serious choice for voters. Yet, it should not be forgotten that it is Governor Romney who is running for president, and the agenda of the presidential candidate is what will be focused on, no doubt. Moreover, Romney is the underdog.
  • Quantitative approaches for determining whether a Republican or Democratic president are better for the equity market are somewhat flawed by a low sample size. Only 13 presidents have held office since the late 1920s when many current equity indices start with continuous data. Democrats have faired better according to the S&P500. The timing of bubbles, inflation and wars are key drivers, rather than coincidental party affiliation. Simple party alliance is not a driver for fundamental analysis.

Election scenarios – latest odds

Much could still change between now and the 6 November election. However, based on the latest indications from online prediction markets, the Republican Party is seen as the likely winner of both Congressional races.

Democrats are still seen as the favorite in the race for the White House, with President Obama winning re-election. In any case, it is unlikely that one party will control all three institutions. Moreover, any one party in the Senate is unlikely to hold the 60 seats (out of 100) needed to avoid filibusters. Therefore, in the absence of the majority needed for any post-election scenario, significant new legislation will require bipartisanship and compromise. In this context, the risk of gridlock remains high.


With less than three months to go, the outcome of the November election remains highly uncertain. As always, economic performance over the coming months will be a key determinant of who wins and who loses. If the elections were held today, the most likely outcome would be a Republican win in both Congressional races and a Democratic win in the race for the White House (see Charts 1a-c above ). This would give Republicans an improved standing relative to the current configuration (in which they only control the House), but it would nonetheless leave power divided. The latest indications from online prediction markets suggest only a 40% probability that any one party will end up controlling both houses of Congress and the White House, leaving a 60% probability of a split scenario (see Chart 2 below).


It is also very unlikely that any party will win a filibuster-proof super-majority. This means that any new significant legislation will almost certainly have to be a product of compromise. In this sense, we may very well be looking at a status quo in terms of bipartisanship and gridlock which have dominated Washington politics over the past few years. This would be bad news at a time when the country faces a number of serious challenges with significant long-term implications.

US election issues – what’s at stake

There is a lot at stake as we look to 2013. Immediately after the new Congress and/or administration take over, they will have to deal with the fiscal cliff as well as the long-term fiscal challenges, healthcare and financial regulation, and lastly, with energy policy, which is also crucial for long-term economic sustainability. We discuss these issues in greater detail in the following sections.

1. Economy

The first and perhaps the most important decision to be made by the incoming Congress and/or administration will be resolving the fiscal cliff in a way that does not undermine the still fragile economic recovery. If all of the planned spending cuts and tax increases go into effect as scheduled, the economy will experience a reverse stimulus of $600bn next year, or about 3.5% of GDP. A shock of this magnitude would almost certainly lead to a contraction in activity in the first half of 2013, which in turn could push unemployment toward 9.5-10%. The alternative, which is to extend all expiring tax provisions and do away with planned spending cuts, is unfortunately not viable. Maintaining the status quo on fiscal policy would result in a continuation of large deficits which would push the debt/GDP ratio above 90% by the end of the decade. Without addressing entitlements, the ratio would start rising even more rapidly after 2020, largely due to the effects of the aging population.

The ideal outcome is one that addresses long-term fiscal challenges, while recognizing the near-term fragility of the economy. This could be accomplished via a plan which phases in gradual tax increases and spending cuts over the next 10 years. The risk is that a post-election gridlock may lead to a more rapid fiscal consolidation, with adverse implications for the US economy. Given the high odds of a split government, as highlighted above, this is not a non-negligible risk. The most likely scenario is that some portion of the planned fiscal contraction will be delayed. But it is very unlikely that all of it will be legislated away. For example, payroll tax cuts look unlikely to be extended, which by itself could shave about 0.7% from next year’s growth. In our central forecast for the US economy, we have discounted a fiscal drag of about 1.3% in 2013.

Our central economic forecast does not rely on any specific assumption about the outcome of the November election. Indeed, we can envisage our economic scenario under a number of post-election configurations. First, it must be noted that both presidential candidates recognize the need for fiscal reform, and at the same time, neither wants to do consolidation in a way that would significantly undermine the US economy. And, although there are significant distributional differences between their prospective fiscal plans, both will most likely have to work with the opposing party in order to pass any significant legislation. This, then, leads us to two key conclusions. First, the early phases of post-election negotiations may prove highly disruptive, with a non-negligible risk of a gridlock scenario resulting in greater fiscal restraint than is desirable. Second, after all the dust settles, the ultimate fiscal deal could well end up resembling the Simpson-Bowles blueprint which itself was a product of compromise and bipartisanship.


2. Long-term fiscal health

In the tables below, we offer a summary of where the two candidates stand on key issues with respect to fiscal finances and the economy. We also include the Simpson-Bowles recommendations which we consider to be a benchmark for a balanced and pragmatic approach to fiscal reform.


There are significant differences in how the two candidates plan to achieve fiscal balance. President Obama’s plan relies on a combination of revenue increases (to 19.7% of GDP by 2020) and spending cuts (to 22.5% of GDP by 2020), with spending cuts spread across both defense and non-defense budgets. In contrast, Governor Romney’s plan aims to cut taxes further, increase defense spending relative to the baseline and offset the budgetary impact by very large cuts to discretionary spending (see Table 1 for details). Under his plan, federal spending would eventually be capped at 20% of GDP. These ambitious cuts would bring spending below the long-term average despite the aging population and the projected growth in mandatory spending. As a benchmark, the Simpson-Bowles proposal aimed to stabilize federal spending at 22% while bringing revenues to 20.5% by 2020.


Tax Policies Under Competing Proposals


Discretionary Spending Policies Under Competing Proposals


Mandatory Spending Policies Under Competing Proposals


3. Debt ceiling

The debt limit will soon rear its ugly head, but only after the 6 November elections. Fortunately US Treasury debt limits do not overlap the immediate election calendar. In August 2011, politics intertwined with debt ceilings and Congress appeared near the brink of a technical default. The rising risk of dysfunction and the impact it would have had on debt was partly the reason for Standard & Poor’s downgrade of the US’ long-term debt.

The US Statutory Debt Limit is $16.394 trillion. At the end of July 2012, the Treasury had just under $500bn of borrowing authority. Further, Treasury estimates its borrowing need in the second half of 2012 at nearly $600bn – calling it close. Treasury already indicated it could hit debt limit at the end of the year. Importantly, hitting the debt limit and the need for Congress to approve an increase will not occur until after the elections. The US Treasury is very likely to temporarily suspend certain debt transactions and could delay hitting the debt limit until Spring 2013. At that point a new Congress can consider legislation that is free of an immediate election. Congress can tie in the debt limit to legislation to reduce the “Fiscal cliff.”

4. Dodd–Frank Regulation

Reversing elements of the Dodd-Frank financial regulation has been a talking point among many Republican candidates. Yet concrete plans are thin. Romney calls for replacing Dodd-Frank with a streamlined, modern regulatory framework. Streamlining may be hard to differentiate from normal evolutions that would occur in the aftermath of such a major overhaul in financial regulations.

Regulation of financial institutions following the crisis is a force influencing global markets, regulators and economies. Voter sentiment against financial institutions is too strong at the moment. The best scenario may be no more than to dial down the anti-“fat cat” rhetoric. The Republican party may have differing views. The essence of the Tea Party is a grassroots, main-street effort to change the business-as-usual practices of both Washington and New York. Dodd-Frank legislation is already two years underway. Many important provisions, regulatory bodies and market exchanges have yet to be implemented. Nonetheless, considerable progress has been achieved in defining these functions, rules, markets, etc. Re-steering at the margins rather than any major repeal would be a more likely scenario with a Romney presidency. Even the current government, that passed Dodd-Frank legislation, would find needs to modify elements at the margins during a second term. Chances for a major reform is low.

5. Healthcare

The Republican party is more uniform on its healthcare positions, relative to financial regulations. Futile repeals of Obama’s healthcare law (Affordable Care Act) were passed in the Republican controlled House of Representatives, but progressed no further. Repealing what is now termed Obama-care would require a Republican President and Congress. A simple majority in the Senate might not be enough.

Healthcare would be the biggest game in play with a Republican president. Assuming also a Republican Congress in 2013, efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act would gain momentum. The US Supreme Court only narrowly upheld key portions of the heathcare reforms. Taxation and choice are unifying elements to counter the government-led widespread health insurance coverage advocated.

By the next election, 2016, Obama-care, or Affordable-care will be far more deeply ingrained in the US economy. Modifications rather than a reversal would be more likely. This election is most likely the last chance on a major reversal of the 2009 legislation. Yet the voter interest is not there. Governor Romney has not succeeded in capitalizing on healthcare repeal as a significant campaign issue.

6. Energy policy - no fracking difference

Broadly speaking, the US has not historically had a strong energy policy, in terms of market impact – that is, in terms of the fundamentals and pricing of energy, especially petroleum and natural gas. This has been true since the twin oil crises of the 1970s and it remains true today.

For Obama and Romney, the common ground on energy far outweighs the differences. The bottom line is that growing US natural gas and oil  roduction is good for the economy. It should directly boost GDP, it will narrow the trade deficit and it should be supportive for the dollar.

In conclusion, no matter who wins the election, we believe that energy policy will not be dramatically different, especially given the likelihood of some sort of divided government in Washington. The emphasis will be on encouraging growth in US oil and natural gas production. This pretty much means getting fracking regulations resolved, in coordination with states and industry, and then getting out of the way. We do not expect the election results to have any impact on oil and natural gas prices.

7. Housing—GSE reform

Although not included in the debt figures reported by the government, the US government has moved to more explicitly to support the soundness of obligations of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, starting in July 2008 via the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, and the 7 September 2008 Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) conservatorship of both government sponsored enterprises (GSEs). The on- or off-balance sheet obligations of those two independent GSEs was just over $5tr at the time the conservatorship was put in place, consisting mainly of mortgage payment guarantees. The extent to which the government will be required to pay these obligations depends on a variety of economic and housing market factors. The federal government provided over $110bn to Fannie and Freddie by 2010.

8. President without re-election

President Obama is a known commodity, at least he is perceived that way. As a second-term President, Obama may take a different turn. Without pressures of re-election, President Obama could return to early promises to move beyond partisan politics and build the future by taking steps to control long-term fiscal trends. Tackling long-term deficit trends was too dangerous for the president seeking re-election. Simpson-Bowles offers a blue-print for bipartisan support. This is hopeful – but may be unrealistic. Pressures to take action on the deficit, however are building. The bi-partisan groups in Congress offer some reflection on this. Grassroot efforts are also building and the Tea Party owes its start to one extreme effort to control deficits.

For financial markets, a President intent on building a legacy on long-term deficit reduction would be a positive-risk scenario for financial markets in the medium term. It is doubtful, however, that any immediate market response will occur on deficit reduction.


Following the elections, Washington will focus on the fiscal cliff, that is the currently legislated tax increases and spending cuts that would materially slow the US economy at the start of 2013. Election-year gamesmanship prevents pre-emptive efforts to reduce this fiscal drag on the US economy. A lameduck Senate may not take immediate action on tax cuts, and rapid action may be required in January. This is more timing uncertainty, and path uncertainty, but not eventual outcome uncertainty. At least not for major elements to reduce the threat from a fiscal drag.

The most likely scenario of President Obama and a Republican Congress suggest status quo. Importantly, however, status-quo reduces uncertainty surrounding fiscal policies as well as recently passed legislation on healthcare and regulation. The upside surprise would be a second-term president that wants to build a legacy of long-term deficit control. The downside risk would be a failure to reach compromise on the fiscal cliff despite overwhelming similarities in the party positions.

Within the Congressional elections, the risk versus our scenario would be that the Democrats maintain control of the Senate. This would be more of the status quo. Lack of a super majority in the Senate and a Republican-controlled House of Representatives would still foster gridlock on major economic and financial market legislation. A split Congress would make it difficult for President Obama to reach on a compromise on legacy building.

In the presidential elections, the surprise would be a victory by Governor Romney. With a Republican Congress, there are greater chances to repeal or substantially modify the recent healthcare overhauls. Additionally, reducing fiscal drag in early 2013 would be less complicated. Lastly, with full Republican control, we would expect lower taxes in the medium term and greater efforts on cost control. Drastic changes under a Romney presidency would likely hinge on the degree of control by Republicans in the Senate. Control of the Senate is likely to be razor thin. In the end, the election alone is unlikely to produce major legislative changes. Responses to market, economic and demographic pressures are more likely the triggers for significant legislative action in the next few years.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
ZippyBananaPants's picture

I went to Disney World with the kids this weekend.  After seeing all the people there spending money, I am beginning to think all this does not matter one bit.  I think all this shit could blow up and no one would really care, except those of us that read about it every day.  

Larry Dallas's picture

If you went to Disney World in Orlando, then you've probably seen massive amounts of obese people. To me that is troubling. But it could be the governments way of killing off the fat and weak so that the entitlement spending is less.

ZippyBananaPants's picture

Yes Larry, very true, one guy so fat the blubber folded over the arm rests on his wheelchair and made fenders over the tires.  There was also a nice selection of female foreigners with very short shorts and loose jugs.  So basically, mixed bag of people watching.

Michael's picture

I think this may have sparked Dylan Ratigan's rant today;

Revenge votes for Obama is the solution. Black balling Dr Ron Paul was not a smart move this time.

No self respecting Ron Paul supporter will vote for Mitt Romney since he is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Rothschild's and Rockefeller banksters just as Obama is.

The Presidency is a wholly owned subsidiary of the international banking cartel, multi national corporations, and Goldman Sachs/JP Morgan Chase.

Many millions of Ron Paul supporters like me will be voting directly for Obama in November in a political strategy so we can get a real Liberty candidate on the ballot in 2016.

If you don't like Obama next year, then impeach him for illegally attacking Libya, gun running fast and furious, and being disqualified for his forged birth certificate.

Fox news is an infomercial for the republicans and the GOP. MSNBC is an infomercial for the democrats, ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN are left leaning, brainwashing, social engineering scum. Try not to get your news from them.

What's Romney gonna give me? Will he cancel the TSA/government 1.2 million hollow point bullet order, abolish NDAA, and the anti-Patriot act? Then fuck him.

The war on a Military Tactic(Terrorism) used by The Base(in Arabic Al-Qaeda) is idiotic. The base doesn't even have any tanks or boats.

Dylan Ratigan's Epic Rant on the International Banking Cartel and Political Corruption!

Paul Atreides's picture

Posting the same nonsense on every article today, none of this matters Michael!

There is no republic except what little is left of the people, the states, the militias and the 2nd amendment. The electoral process is a complete fraud, all parties, all branches and all media have been captured by the banking cartel. We are living in a nightmare and we are in the 58th minute of the 11th hour before humanities permanent enslavement.

It is time to finalize your preps and start forming small local groups/militias by verbal face to face communication only.


economics9698's picture

If we grow a pair and kill some central bankers we can solve this problem.

TheFourthStooge-ing's picture


If we grow a pair and kill some central bankers we can solve this problem.

Even if it solves nothing, it is still the right thing to do.

TrainWreck1's picture

ABC/Disney thanks you for your support.


FMR Bankster's picture

Obama won't win this fall. Look for the return of an ugly american tradition to play out. Ever heard of the "Bradley effect"? This is the process where african american candidates don't recieve anywhere near what they were are polling on election day. Obama avoided it 2008 because he was very positive. Not so this time, he's going negative and angry. Lots of excuses. The Bradley effect by the way involves Democrats and a few independents. Republicans have no problem telling pollsters they won't vote for a liberal african american candidate. Democrats on the other hand feel funny about it. Think it won't happen? Check out the results of the Democratic presidential primaries this spring. Who shows up to vote for these? Only the most dedicated Democrats concerned about who their state reps and house members will be. Obama polled less than 70% while unopposed with this group of hard core suppoters. Hell, a prisoner in Texas polled over 40% against him in one state.

Paul Atreides's picture

Doesn't matter who wins, same Tyranny will continue...

GetZeeGold's picture



...and yet you still haven't committed suicide?


Clearly you have done all you can.....apparently that involves a lot of bitching and whining.


neidermeyer's picture

The closest we will get to decorating some streetlamps will be putting them out of jobs ,, Romney might just do that based on his VP pick... this will be a very nasty campaign season because that's the Chicago way... I'm just glad SocGen is helping my Intrade Odds with articles like this..  

Incubus's picture

Yo, bro.  I need a 2nd the FBI hiring?

krispkritter's picture

Agreed to a degree but re-posting and disseminating information; links, articles, blogs, etc. that point out all the conflicting opinions on issues facing the 'masses' today, even if it seems repetitive, is no different than the glowing screens do with the soothing 'sheople, all is well' messages people are bombarded with day in/day out, and it might just wake some of them up. You may have seen it, you may have formed an opinion, but others may not have, for that they need to see it once, twice, whatever, to crack the brain-dead barrier of  'it's OK, Gov't is here to help' that conventional media reinforces over-and-over-and-over every day...Once people get a crack in the Matrix and have a flash of critical thinking, SOME of them may awaken or be open to the otherwise 'radical' thinking you(and I) espouse...

A Nanny Moose's picture

Rather than a nightmare, I refer to it as opportunity.

fockewulf190's picture

Ron Paul 2012.


I'm still writing him in. The hell with these two shleprocks.

GetZeeGold's picture



Obama sez thank're now a communist comrade!


I rely on the stupidity of Ron Paul supporters....and I didn't have to do a damn thing - Obama 2012


fockewulf190's picture

Fuck that.  You think there is a difference between these two?  Maybe in color of skin.  Both of these chumps are not going to do what must be done to save this country from becoming a total basket case.  At least when 2016 comes around, I can show people my cell phone picture of my 2012 ballet for Ron Paul and say I tried. 

Michael's picture

It's not for you Paul A, it's for the lurkers nimrod.

Paul Atreides's picture

Post with truth, honor, conviction, fortitude and humor, anything else is nonsensical troll fodder....I am sure the Tylers and some of the regulars here could appreciate that sentiment. This is (all venomous troll scum aside) a community of awakened and forward thinking individuals, to go in reverse is a detriment to why we are all here.

Michael's picture

From a post on Daily Paul;

Why this Republican will vote for Obama

Dear Republican Party,
I am a Ron Paul republican and a National Delegate. I love everything that Ron Paul says and stands for. If you could choose one word to sum up Ron Paul it would be Liberty. The current President is probably the worst President for liberty since FDR. I know that you think that all you need to do is point that out to me and I'll vote for Romney because Obama is just that bad. It's true that Obama is that bad, but you're just not that much better for me to vote for you. Some may agree with what I have to say, some may not. But, I live in Iowa. A precious swing state where every vote counts. So here's my reasoning:
1. Obama stinks, but so do you. I see little difference.
2. You have treated my hero and our cause very poorly. Can I get over that? Possibly, IF you would treat us better by: 1. Stop screwing us. 2. Treat Ron Paul with the respect he has earned. Treat him like he treats you. 3. Allow, yes allow, Ron Paul to address the convention as a speaker. 4. I'm sure there's more.
3. We need more liberty minded, constitutional candidates to run for President. Unfortunately, I realize that the vehicle we have to use is the Republican party. As such, it does the liberty movement no good to elect Romney. It is better to have another shot in 4 years than settle for Romney.
4. We need more people in the liberty movement. Having Obama in office pushes more people into our movement. I call it "waking up".

I know you think I'll either vote for you or maybe for a 3rd party candidate, but it makes more sense to me to vote for a Obama based on my previous comments.
However, it's not to late. Work on #2 as stated above. It's really your only option.

To my fellow DP'ers: I will only vote for Ron Paul in Tampa, period. However, I have little hope that he will win the nomination. I feel like to say otherwise would be dishonest to myself. Hopefully I'm dead wrong. I've never wanted to be so wrong before in my whole life.


Paul Atreides's picture

Facepalm...tyranical government is tyranical, voting only gives the current system approval for the elephants and the donkeys to keep feeding from the public troughery.

Spastica Rex's picture

Simple truth that is too depressing for most to even contemplate. What if everything you've been led to believe is a lie? It would suck. It does suck.

Monedas's picture

Libertarians (and I am one) are like Army scouts and Indian pathfinders .... we are not the main force of the Army .... we don't have the numbers !   We report back to the generals and try to convince them of the right path .... we don't give orders !  

Jay Gould Esq.'s picture

SoGen whooey.

Such nonsense...this election is going down to the wire; even now, it is far, far closer than Democrat-registered-heavy polls may suggest. This election will be determined by the "Independent" voter, who breaks very near the end of the election cycle.

Fifty-fifty, is the only possible "prediction" at this point in time, regarding the contest for the White House.

In terms of Congress, the GOP will hold their considerable majority in the House ( where all legislation pertaining to spending originates ), and look to gain ground in the Senate -- worst-case, a 50-50 deadlock...which would make Biden or Ryan the tiebreaking vote.

Early August...recall that in 1980, at this very same late summer point, incumbent Jimmy Carter held a double-digit lead over conservative "long shot" Ronald Reagan.

dark pools of soros's picture

Is gay marriage legal or not ? None of this other stuff matters

nmewn's picture

lol...and don't forget "free" birth control pills for Georgetown Law students...I mean really, if law students don't understand the consequence of actions, who possibly could?

Clearly, we're in the very best of hands going forward ;-)

TheFourthStooge-ing's picture


I mean really, if law students don't understand the consequence of actions, who possibly could?

The only actions with consequences which are comprehensible to law students are billable hours.

krispkritter's picture

'Billable hours', re: having sex...does that make them prostitutes then? I mean in the literal sense, since having retained many lawyers before I know they are prostituted to the dollars anyways...(and no I don't hate all lawyers, there are plenty of dead ones I'm just fine with...)

TheFourthStooge-ing's picture


'Billable hours', re: having sex...does that make them prostitutes then?

Yes, but as members of the bar, they are degreed and credentialed prostitutes. This makes them both more expensive and less satisfying than the prostitutes who do honest work.

SockPuppetMan's picture

I enjoy expensive hookers the most

nmewn's picture

True dat...the more they can make others pay for their BMW's the better they like fucks are now apparently being taught that a non-client is obligated to pay for their birth control pills while studying "the law".

Its remarkable really...and we're the ones gettin screwed without so much as a kiss ;-)

Goldilocks's picture

Virtual E-kiss for U. Enjoy the screwin'.

Svener's picture

Really? No free birth control but viagra, you bet that has to covered. Birth control is much more a health issue than Viagra. If you can't get it up its mother natures way of saying maybe you don't need to.

nmewn's picture

Why does an old mans Viagra need to be covered by an eighteen year olds taxation again?...somehow I missed that part.

But now that you've "brought it up" does the generational ponzi scheme (commonly referred to as Social Security and brought to us by "socialism") keep "pumping" a benefit (sorry, I got distracted) if there are no babies that will grow up to be taxed?

The whiners paradox.

Now, while you ponder the absurdity of clutching onto a "flacid" system in which every Tom, Dick & Mary attempts to pile on (oops, I did it again) I'll continue to think you're responsible for the actions of yourself.

In "short", I'm not my brothers keeper of Viagra or my sisters keeper of birth control pills...that thought and ridiculous meme was trotted out as a lie from its very "conception" by a murderer.

That would be Cain, in case you got completely distracted by sex, again ;-) 

AssFire's picture

Why does an old mans Viagra need to be covered by an eighteen year olds taxation again?

So we can fuck them hard?


Maybe the gooberment wants to middle more traffic: expand its power and influence.

I think you know the answer.

Disenchanted's picture



nmewn said:


"don't forget "free" birth control pills for Georgetown Law students"


You're really good at keeping the inconsequential bullshit in the forefront. This, Chik-fil-A, etc....


Lets talk more about who controls our money and who controls us through our national debt, not to mention private debts. Why is it that taxpayer funds were/are handed out to the same entities("bailouts").

Who is it that endlessly pushes us towards more and more militarization and endless wars, which feeds the MIIC(military industrial intelligence complex). Why is it that that complex is heavily taxpayer funded and subsidized, but private entities reap the profits. Don't forget that it is also banksters that profit from the debts incurred by all these wars.

Why is it that a military person or anyone in the Dept. of 'Defense' receiving a check from Big Government is almost automatically viewed as good and promoted as "service to the country" when their actions tied with bad foreign policies are actually providing a disservice to the real interests of the American people. But someone like a SS/Medicaid recepient, SNAP, or the infamous "welfare queens" receiving a check/EBT card from the same Big Government is bad. I see no distinction, as they are all sucking from the teat of Big Government(except for the SS...those who actually paid into it.).

Why is it that our foreign policies(and many domestic policies) continually serve the interests of a select few, and not the real interests of the American people. Why is it that if taxpayer funds are used to help the common man it is viewed as a bad thing(socialism, communism, marxism, etc., you know the drill). No I don't think Obama is a good choice either, he just gives lip service to helping the common man. But if you dig down deeper things like ObamaCare actually benefit corporations in the health care insurance industry, not to mention big pharma.

Lets talk about who it is that makes sure that the above issues I've raised aren't hardly even part of the discussion elsewhere...meaning the 'mainstream media'. We hear a lot about Social Security, Medicaid/Medicare, etc. being the big problems but not much about the above issues I mentioned, is it coincidence that the former are things that affect the common man, and the latter the select few.

In my eyes these things brought up above are the real top priorities...


I've thought for awhile now that the best way to get the SS and Medicare/Medicaid problems fixed would be ending the separate cushy Retirement and Health care plans that the President, Congress, and the entire Federal bureaucracy enjoy, and putting them back under the umbrella of SS, Medicare/Medicaid just as the common man is. I'll bet shit would get serious then, if their decisions on SS, etc. affected them as well as us.


Don't forget that working people and their employers PAY into SS/etc. through FICA taxes. In almost 40 years I and my employers have paid in over $200 grand to my SS 'account'. I'm really doubting now that I'll ever see much of a return on that 'investment'. I was 14 when my first 'contribution' was taken out of my paycheck. I had no idea that I had just voluntarily entered into a contract. No idea how to protest it, or that I even should have. What am I to do 40 years later when I find out that this was socialism according to you...


Here's the so-called 'conservative' savior and Romney's VP choice just a few years ago performing his quisling duties:


Paul Ryan BEGS Congress to Pass TARP ( PATHETIC )
nmewn's picture

"You're really good at keeping the inconsequential bullshit in the forefront. This, Chik-fil-A, etc...."

There is nothing "inconsequential" in permitting government to have more and more control over our lives.

I don't beg totalitarians to grant me permission to buy a Big Gulp (of any size) or go stick a gun in my next door neighbors face to buy my condoms or force hospitals to close and/or stop issuing health insurance to their employees unless they do it a certain way.

And I damned sure don't sign laws that tax or penalize people for not engaging in commerce...for essentialiy doing nothing.

I don't issue meaningless statements about violence while running guns to mexican gangsters. I don't have my AG sue states for crafting laws that mirror existing federal law because I refuse to enforce the existing federal immigration law.

I don't set up shell companies for my friends and donors to loot the public treasury.

As for TARP, both Senator Obama and Senator Biden voted for the only thing we really do know is one man in this race did not. We also know Obama & Biden took special glee in cramming ObamaCare down everyones throat and throwing 780 billion dollars down the "shovel ready jobs" toilet.

Watauga's picture

You seem to be all over the place here--a frustrated, chaotic, whirlwind of complaints against some vague entity that is not Marxist enough for you.  But here are some points to consider:

(1)  Do you understand the distinction between the standard "welfare queen" and a 20 year old soldier exchanging fire with Taliban fighters in Marjah?  Do you "get" that the "welfare queen," with eight kids by six different fathers contributes NOTHING, while the 20 year old soldier is doing what YOUR elected representaives have, through YOUR accepted processes, ordered him to do?  The "welfare queen" likely brings in more money through taxpayer-funded govt largesse than the 20 year old solider does, yet he is doing what is ordered by YOUR govt to do and is at risk to be killed or maimed 24/7.  Seriously, you see no distinction?

(2) Do you understand that under the Constitution, National Defense is the single most important role of the federal government, and that SS, welfare, Medicare/Medicaid, and so forth are not anywhere within the ENUMERATED (i.e., extraordinarily LIMITED power of the federal government)?  So, those people in the DoD, whether military or civilian, are doing work that is within the power of the federal government to actually do, while none of the other "stuff" is even Constitutionally contemplated?  Seriously, you don't grasp this?

(3) Some 90% of media ADMITS to voting for Obama and being Democrat/Liberal politically.  Of the remaining 10%, how many are media people who simply did not admit their leanings?  Anyone with an OUNCE of brains knows full well that at least 90% of the tripe he reads, sees, or hears in the media is STATIST bullshit designed to put and keep in power STATIST tyrants of the major Parties.  The problem is that these STATISTS are almost all LEFTISTS.  There is no balance.  The media has even gone so far as to conjure up the BIG LIE that even Statists like Romney are "radical right-wing nut jobs."  They have DEFINED the terms and limits of the discussion, and are able to lie and propagandize all the way to victory.  If Paul Ryan's budget is considered "radical," what would Ron Pauls' budget be considered?

Frankly, trying to help you here has worn me out.  Please reflect upon facts carefully, look at alternative points of view, and understand that much of what you wrote above is merely parroting the STATIST LEFT and its MSM lapdogs.

Disenchanted's picture



Neither one of you had one thought about this in your responses:


Lets talk more about who controls our money and who controls us through our national debt, not to mention private debts. Why is it that taxpayer funds were/are handed out to the same entities("bailouts").


If either of you think I like/support Obama or am a Marxist, you are sadly mistaken.

I understand the concept of true National Defense, but what our modern military has been doing since at least 1898 has nothing to do with that.

Smedley Butler(USMC ret) told us that long ago...


tsx500's picture

the turnout for Chick Filet Appreciation Day was 50x > than turnout for Kissey-Kissey Day .  my conclusion :    bye bye Barry !   NOBAMA 2012 !

nmewn's picture

One can't get near the places still...bullish for burgers.

And, of course, freedom of speech and religion...a statement against authoritative government and PC was a very beautiful thing...when the lines go down I'm gonna have to get me some of that "hate chicken"

krispkritter's picture

I thanked my chickens(You built that egg!) on that day and  just to prove a point went out and bought a full Chick-fil-a meal because I could. I had to laugh at the MSM because there were 1000's of posts from Gays that basically said 'If you don't throw your heterosexuality in my face, then I don't need to throw my homosexuality in yours...' and I could care less if you're Gay, but if you bu-fu your BFF in the back of a pickup driving down Main Street, well, you deserve what happens to you, personally, professionally, etc. because I don't do that in a hetero way and you've probably violated the law if not the minds of the children watching. 

nmewn's picture

I'm pretty much the same way.

There's a lot of people who are gay that don't get all pissy about it...they go about their daily lives and don't really give a shit what anyone thinks and most of all don't have the chip on their shoulder about people who disapprove.

The thing with Chick Fillet was a "whoa back the fuck off" moment...politicians & their regulators were going to decide if a business could open in their town based on the owners religious

The left needs to take a step back and look at what they've become.

But I have to that they've set the precedent...I'm really going to enjoy forcing them through the law to buy all sorts of things they don't like...or pay a penalty/ think gun sales are high now...just wait ;-)

Watauga's picture

I would just like to see them picket a mosque because the worshipers in it advocated stoning for a female Muslim accused of adultery.  I wonder why that never happens?

tsx500's picture

just one small problem .... if Owe-blah-ma wins , there will not BE a ballot in 2016 .

chipworley's picture

Then you are responsible for the final destruction of the country.  Four more years of BHO is GAME OVER if it isn't game over already...