This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Your Complete, One-Stop Presidential Election Guide
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.
Conclusion
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.
»
- 19611 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Fear not! Regardless who wins what, our courageous leaders will be able to find common ground on the issues that matter most - most important among them continued bailouts to the entities really in control, continued stripping of the remaining financial meat on the bones of the middle class, and enhanced NDAA, Patriot Act/FEMA/DHS type legislation to handle you if you object.
Walk forward with CONfidence comrades.
You forgot raining death on various parts of the world.
Well, they do deserve it. Take that you're not married.
I think you would be more at home with World Net Daily, sir.
What does being married have to do with it? Creepy....
Here's hoping you bred some cannon fodder.
It doesn't matter what reality is, what matters is who controls the message and perception. Incumbants have a huge advantage from the position, which is why they have a re-election rate in the US of 90%+.
Close race! LOL! Obama will destroy Romney like there's no tomorrow.
Obama, Romney, same thing.
The delegates at the RNC need to revolt and nominate Ron Paul.
That's unlikely... but I believe Ron Paul may be INSTALLED temporarily as President after the MASS ARRESTS occur... http://tinyurl.com/cd5cyjo/
You people under 53 need to suck it up, eat your peas, and plan for your future. Your mommy isn't here to help you anymore.
Crying doesn't help. It can't be fixed - get it?
Fricking exponents....
Ok I have an idea to resolve this.
Listen.
I looked at Romney. I looked at Obama. I came to only one conclusion. We need to Angelina Jolie this. Instead of an "election" we should, as a country, perform an "adoption" Instead of adopting a child from Africa, we should adopt the President from Venezuela as our own and just be done with it.
In the end isn't that what everyone wants?
100 million Americans on welfare tells me we want a nice, brown, socialist leader who is adoptable.
I prefer abortion, of the retro-active type. You're #1!
I still have Change to Restore Hope foremost.
You, being a moron, have no clue about the Tea Party. I suggest you put some pants on and leave your mom's basement once in a while.
Just vote for RP, ok? Or stay home.
I see that you've changed your comment 6 or 7 times since your original post. Trying to get your insult just right?
That's ok, I understand, you've only been registered for 2 weeks. Most likely you're just trolling, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Nice avatar. Is that My Little Pony?
Nah, just bored while y'all had mommy's dinner. Never believe registered dates. ZH bounces too.
If you've been bounced once maybe you should exit stage left and join the peanut gallery.
Try 9 that I can remember. It was that UTube shit.
So, you love Chavez because you are incapable of running your own life?
As an aside, is this an interlude to FX? Just wondering.
The Pussy seems to be gone. Nice #13!
ww.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-08-13/15-rules-web-disruption
In the red corner we have what appears to be a Gordon Gekko.
In the blue corner we have what might be an illegal alien who might also be an undeclared muslim.
Oh joy!!!!
Gekkos eat muslims, how do you think they survive?
If it's a 3 candidate race, and Obama got 33% of the vote and Romney got 33%, then Ron Paul could win with only 34%. Write In Ron Paul 2012!
Well, it ain't. Eat your peas.
This report has such a singular major flaw that it would be difficult to accept any of it as useful.
The flaw is that no political expert would predict or expect that if the Republicans took the Senate that they would be denied the White House. That’s ludicrous. Likewise, it’s almost a certainty if Obama is elected he is not going to have a Republican Senate.
Party faithfuls do not split their tickets like this when there is such a division of animosity on both sides. Obviously, the White House will be won based on the swing states and with the election nearly three months, away judging the outcome in these swing states before daily pounding with television, direct mail and phone calls have had enough effect for a prediction, is foolish.
BTW, it’s bad enough to hear regular analysis of our lives from the banks based in the United States and their accomplices in the financial media, but where does SocGen get off telling us what they believe? Could it be that this is wishful thinking that they can retain the model presidential puppet that we have now and perhaps shoo in a few Republicans to push the war agenda, always good for the big banks?
What’s next, the Bank of Japan is going to rate the congressional candidates on their chances for victory? Or couldn’t we have the Bank of Israel’s opinion on who would be the best civic leader for the American people?
did some one say President?
YouTube - "Howard Roark, You Didn't Build That!" says President Obama
a re-run, yes... but still worth it! (unless you love our Prez and hate Ayn Rand)
a Clintonian two-fer:
YouTube - MIDGET v. GIANT: You Didn't Build That, James Dean! says President Obama
'Obi-Wan Kenobi... You Didn't Build That!' sez President Obama.
- YouTube
Money Back Guaranteed - unless of course you Love our Prez and hate James Dean and Obi-wan Kenobi!
you know, it just doesn't feel right without old Adolf here on ZH!
'Nazi Party? Adolf Hitler... You Didn't Build That!' sez President Obama
- YouTube
"You'll like the way this looks, I guarantee it" the Men's Warehouse. (Unless of course, you love Obama, Karl and Rush and hate Hitler. )
Missing in the video is that Goebbel’s main point was that Bolshevism is of the Jews; that Communism is of the Jews.
In 1920, Churchill wrote a full page article for the Illustrated Sunday Herald on 8 February detailing the Jewish involvement in the Communist revolution in Russia:
"This movement amongst the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kuhn (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany) and Emma Goldman (United States), this world wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and the reconstruction of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Nesta Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities has gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire. There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistic Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from Jewish leaders."
Churchill also pointedly accused Leon Trotsky (Bronstein) of wanting to establish a "world wide Communistic state under Jewish domination."
And, if we’re going to have a Nazi Party with “old Adolph here on ZH” we need to have the principles of Goebbels, ruthless as he was.
Here in a speech by Goebbels is an example of how the National Socialists used an appeal to the German people by revealing the truths of communism as Russian Communism was poised to hit the German border with a battering ram -- delivered in Nurnberg on September 13, 1935, at the Seventh National-Socialist Party Congress, entitled Communism With the Mask Off.
Goebbels:
“International communism would entirely do away with all national and racial qualities which are founded in human nature itself; in property it sees the most primary cause of the break-down of world trade in the capitalist system.
“Accordingly it exploits this through an extensive and carefully organized and brutal system of action, setting aside personal values and sacrificing the individual to a hollow mass-idol that is only a travesty of actual life itself.
“At the same time it ignores and destroys all the idealistic and higher strivings of men and nations, through its own crass and empty materialistic principles. On the other hand, National Socialism sees in all these things—in property, in personal values and in nation and race and the principles of idealism—these forces which carry on every human civilization and fundamentally determine its worth.
“Bolshevism is explicitly determined on bringing about a revolution among all the nations…the Bolsheviks carry on a campaign, directed by the Jews, with the international underworld, against culture as such. Bolshevism is not merely anti-bourgeois; it is against human civilization itself…”
Violent revolutionary movements have consequences, eh?
Thanks, JR. That was a good one. I have read it before, as well as much of Nesta Webster. Too bad Churchill gave in in the end. They must have threatened to withhold his bourbon (or whatever) if he didn't fall into line with the wishes of the Zionists.
If anyone is interested in reading some REAL truth regarding WWII, I would suggest two books by historian David Irving, called "Hitler's War", and "Churchill's War". Deeper authentic research has not been done.
Dreamer... I dream my life away ... better days,,,,,, we need us to stand together as one....
There is a strong need to get rid of the banksters, gangsters who work at Societe Generale along with all the other blood sucking primary dealers.
"....the outcome of the November election remains highly uncertain...."
horse shit....the bildebergers have already made their decision and couldn't give a rat's ass what anyone else thinks even though they think exactly what the bildebergers want them to think....
vbone no lie, vbone no read that, but vbone think waste of time voting between 2 crooks
Thanks hitler we don't have jews in the eu..
When a government is broken (not to be confused with broke), analyzing politics leads nowhere.
Organizations do become "sick."
Sick organizations are the result of involved personalities not giving a shit about the mission.
he did us the favour of kill them off and sending them to the usd
Breaking...
Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney's vice-presidential running mate, sold stock in US banks on the same day he attended a confidential meeting where top level officials disclosed the sector was heading for a deep crisis.
The congressman is facing questions about whether he profited from information gleaned from the meeting on 18 September 2008 when Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke, then treasury secretary Hank Paulson and others outlined their fears for the banking sector.
Public records show that on the same day, Ryan sold stock in troubled banks including Wachovia and Citigroup and bought shares in Goldman Sachs, Paulson's old employer and a bank that had been disclosed to be stronger than many of its rivals. The sale was not illegal at the time.
Not long after the meeting, Wachovia's already troubled share price went into free fall. It plunged 39% on the afternoon of 26 September alone as investors worried the bank would collapse. It was eventually taken over by Wells Fargo for $15bn, a fraction of its former value.
Citigroup's share price fell soon after the meeting. In October 2008 Citigroup was among the largest beneficiary of the troubled asset relief program (Tarp), the taxpayer-funded bailout of the banking sector.
Ryan was a supporter of the Tarp bailout – a position that has put him at odds with the right wing of his party despite his otherwise conservative credentials. Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo are now among his largest financial supporters, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/13/paul-ryan-sold-shares-banking-crisis
the us of a is owned by the the stinking jews
Axelrod, Blabbermouth-Schultz, Schumer, Blumenthal....crap, nothing but Dims!
Vote the Kenyan?
HERE COMES THE WISCONSIN BADGER PHUCKERS!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCI18qAoKq4
"leaders" don't do things
bankers do
Cultist and a Catholic vs. a Coon. You're going to see how strong racism still is in the south when the Baptist crackers hold their nose and vote for Romney/Ryan!
Think I'm wrong? Try having a brain and living under the Mason-Dixon Line....you'll see.
You certainly proved your first point.
Definitely not the second.
The sovereign debt crisis and money printing crisis... (shakes head)
A perplexing time in human history, indeed...we can design advanced supercomputers and drones the size of insects....
but we still can't balance a checkbook...or figure out that the "debts" are imaginary...and that you can't lend to everybody...even if they want a house really really badly and can't afford it...
we (the US taxpayers) are insolvent...debt is meaningless...Everything must go...start the sale NOW!!!
We have the opportunity and freedom to start over...right?
Didn't smart white guys figure this out in the 1700s? People always screw up (don't pay) and you have to have a plan to deal with it...its called bankruptcy...and the US Constitution...follow it...
All I can say is....thank God for a place like Zero Hedge...
Romney-Ryan will win in a landslide. Tea Party Reps will take the Senate
in convincing fashion. The last of the Reps accustomed to being in the minority
where they never expected to win, therefore only serving to feather their own
nests will be swept away.
Destrier is right on! and Campaign for Liberty will continue to accumulate preciect delegates for the eventual control of the party process.
Another Obama bald faced lie... I wonder how many before the people wake up... passport records? College admission records and transcripts? Still have not seen a valid BC... this one is wild, as his father and stepfather were both younger than 11 years old when WWII ended...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fv4jnlkxOaw
You are a freak.
Of course there is no point trying to argue with conspiracy nutjobs like you. It's like trying to argue with a religioius fundamentalist. You just happen to know the 'real truth' and no rational discussion will change your mind. If a time machine existed that allowed people like you to actually go back and witness Barack Obama emerging from his mother's womb in Hawaii, you wouldn't believe your lying eyes - because the Elders of Zion have interfered with the space-time continuum, dontcha know.
The paradox, of course, is that consipiracy freaks usually ask us to accept an explanation that is vastly more improbable than the simple truth.
Barack Obama was born in Hawaii - deal with it.
let the Fuhrer feel the love!
'Nazi Party? Adolf Hitler... You Didn't Build That!' sez President Obama
- YouTube
"You'll like the way this looks, I guarantee it" says Murray of the Men's Warehouse.
(Unless of course, you love Barry and hate Hitler. )
I was very involved in Ross Perot's 1992 campaign and United We Stand America. What that little big man with big ears and big charts and a huge heart said was true and I think that was our last chance to fix things. Now it's too late and whomever gets elected makes no difference. As Gereld Celente says, the banks have taken over. If you took 100% of everyones income in the US, the budget wouldn't be balanced and the only thing keeping this ponzi system afloat is money printing. It's so damn clear like Jim Sinclair says, QE to infinity until the whole paper money thing collapses. So Obama is leading Romney by x poll points? One of the captains in charge of the deck chairs on the Titanic is leading the other one? Oh please bore me with the US presidential reality show crap. Can they dance and be an American Idol? Gag me with a spoon.....
You didn't build that abomination. Someone else re-animated that flesh for you!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nAhnhJgPPo
(Bolts not included)
Spend the time you would vote either:
1) Putting cash under the mattress
2) Buying PM
3) Buying ammo
4) Buying food
Why vote for the same old shit?
Same fuck, different cluster.
Same bag, different douche.
Why even have the election? Obama is a lock.
Interesting that Obama is a socialist and head’s America’s socialist Democrat Party, that France is a socialist government and the French people own a major portion of Societe Generale and the French need to have Greece, a socialist country, bailed out to save their national interest in the bank. And, of course, they all are “united” in making Germany pay.
One wonders what SocGen’s motive is in predicting the election but with a result that would be favorable to SocGen. First off, if Obama is re-elected, there will be no tampering with Troika’s goals and the banks will continue to get support from the Fed. And, what’s more, if there were a Republican Congress, the stalemate would be a bankers’ dream because Big Money can buy either side with a few winning votes when they have opposing positions.
It’s always said that Wall Street likes gridlock; it doesn’t like to deal with a party that has power, i.e., the President and the Congress in the same party.
Could this be SocGen’s dream team?
Romney in a landslide.
Seriously.
Who doesn't want to see the Presidential limosine with a dog carrier strapped to the roof?
America, once again, would be the envy of the world.
Who wouldn't love a guy who wants his dog to be happy?
Jail crooks and repair the balance sheet? Never going to happen. Ever. By anyone.
But one happy dog is better than nothing.
The recent frantic email theme to supporters from Team Obama about Mitt Romney's run-away fundraising successes has been expanded to the crowd size gap between the thousands who rushed out over the weekend to see Romney and new running mate Rep. Paul Ryan and the hundreds who cheered on President Obama.
The big worry expressed in a new email from Obama's Chicago HQ: "The Republican base is energized." The reason: Romney attracted 15,000 at a rally over the weekend.
Do you want the disaster on the rignt, or the catastrophe on the left?
Not voting is likely the most important vote any American can make.
Election ?
Who gives a shit
It's about any "constitution" we have left.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/08/13/obama_in_iowa_michelle_has_told_me_i_cannot_have_a_fried_twinkie.html
...
our Prez can't take a fried Twinkie for the Nation!
plus, the Secret Service won't let him ride the bumper cars... guess that last bumpy ride in Dallas was
too much for them...
"the outcome of the November election remains highly uncertain"
President Barack Obama’s largest campaign donors last month included employees of Wells Fargo & Co., (WFC) JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS)
Romney's top contributors are Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, Credit Suisse Group, Citigroup, Barclays, Kirkland & Ellis, Wells Fargo
which is why the outcome remains so highly uncertain
America needs an Independent Candidate.
Both the Democrats & Republicans are bought and paid for.
If you vote for either of them, it is akin to committing Harakiri
Headlines Nov. 7,2012
You did'nt win the presidency Barry
Somebody else did.
Attention RNC Delegates! Ron Paul beats Obama and Romney with 58% favorability in national poll | Daily Paul |08/13/2012
http://paulvsobamapoll.chipin.com/ron-paul-vs-obama-poll
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 13 August 2012
New Poll: 45% Vote Ron Paul For President With 58% Favorability. In a new poll conducted by Pulse Opinion Research matching up presidential candidates Barack Obama and Ron Paul, 45% of one thousand likely voters across America said they would vote Ron Paul for President.
58% of those surveyed have a favorable view of Ron Paul, while just 36% have an unfavorable view. Compare this to Mitt Romney (50% favorable, 45% unfavorable) and Barack Obama (51% favorable, 48% unfavorable). Ron Paul is viewed in a favorable light by significantly more people than Obama or Romney.
The "likely voters" were asked the following question: "Suppose in this year's Presidential Election you had a choice between Republican Ron Paul and Democrat Barack Obama. If the election were held today would you vote for Republican Ron Paul or Democrat Barack Obama?"
The results are: 45% Ron Paul and 47% Barack Obama. (+/-3%) …
2) If the Presidential Election were held today, would you vote for Republican Mitt Romney or Democrat Barack Obama?
48% Romney
46% Obama
4% Some other candidate
2% Not sure More …
"The national telephone survey of 1000 likely voters was conducted by Pulse Opinion Research on August 5, 2012. Pulse Opinion Research, LLC is an independent public opinion research firm using automated polling methodology and procedures licensed from Rasmussen Reports, LLC."
http://www.dailypaul.com/248818/attention-rnc-delegates-ron-paul-beats-obama-and-romney-with-58-favorability-in-national-poll
Obama will be given the election, it's a foregone conclusion. Mittens just gives the impression of a "real" election. In truth, it's been fixed for a LONG time. Obama has polarized the race issue (planned), the media has been pushing the issue (Trayvon, black Mob Attacks the media doesn't cover, etc...). Look at the Presidental Orders Obama has been using to help circumvent the Constitution and destroy society. The simple truth is, Obama is completely a puppet of the Satanic Tribe.If he deviates from the script he's given...........Kennedy-ization!
The problem is, Obama is nearing the end of his usefulness to ZOG. They will probably Kennedy-ize him for several different reasons, depending on the scenario they want. If they want race riots and militarization of the police forces in the USA, a white racist will do the deed. If they decide they need to take out Iran (and anyone else), it will be an insane Moslem radical who does the deed.
The economy will tank, they will default on debt and nationalize gold and silver, will issue new money-at least backed by PM's. Central control of the economy, increased police powers, even more Draconian measures will come on line. It's all coming down the pike, say a thank you to the Satanic Tribe for these changes!
The rest of this year is going to suck.
News about Politics and Greee Economy
http://www.rodacino.gr
FORWARD? Seriously? LOL!
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151985467985324&set=a.10150097...
Bullish.
Egypt 'Refusing All Contact With Israel' Post-Government Shakeup
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/08/13/Egypt-Refusing-All-Contact...
This will end super well, I promise!
Any serious election guide would make some mention of how and where the votes are counted. Any article covering the election would make mention of diebold. There is a discernible difference in the two candidates energy policy. Obama stopped the Keystone XL pipeline. Romney would have lubed US all up for it.
Obongo doesn't need Congress to pass his laws anymore. He just issues unilateral executive orders now like the DREAM Act which grants amnesty to violent Mexcrement criminals.
Romney or Obama doesn't matter they're owned by the same corporate elites that are currently looting the country. It's like blaming Ronald McDonald for your crappy hamberger.
Soc Gen so you say... They're good. Right? They aren't long and wrong a whole boatload of Greek debt. Right? They must be correct.
Took some time to tally up all the assets in the world. Hope you enjoy it. All of these figures have a real basis, except for the value of unlisted companies, I made up a number of 10,000,000 companies average value of $425,000. I could not find anything on the net. Funny about that....well you know entrepreneurs didn't build that anyway now did they?
196 Trillion in World Assets. Now keep in mind that derivative bets are around 700 trillion.
What part of these assets shown below represent actual "Wealth" --- well start stacking up on those, know what I mean?
http://oahutrading.blogspot.com/2012/08/summary-of-all-money-in-world.html
I see some people still actually believe Romney would actually cut spending.
Here's a clue: They only cut spending if they're a minority, as soon as the GOP is in power they spend like a drug addict who won the lottery...just like Bush did...both of them in fact.
What does Wall Street prefer? Gridlock or corporate welfare? Gridlock or "bipartisanship"? Corporate welfare and "bipartianship" for sure. Wall Street and the politicians switch beds so often it is too hard to tell who is the whore and who is the pimp at any given time. They all talk about Wall Street; they all try to villify Wall Street, but they ALL are in bed with Wall Street and the banks both domestic and foreign. Handing out trillions of our money to save their collectivist asses. Bernanke handing out $16 trillion of our dollars. WTF is what people should be shouting from their rooftops.
The sweep in the House was not enough to stop their insane march to full blown socialism, but it was enough to slow it down and expose it for what it is. The VIRTUES of a divided government forces and produces more debate, more transparency, and fewer less 2000+ pages of legislation that no one is reading and will maybe mean less spending which means less they can keep mortgaging our future and more freedoms to pursue success and happiness.
Gridlock is something our founders were fantastic at mainly because they didn't want an efficient government. They wanted a government where there were hurdles towards pushing legislation through. Gridlock is neither the perfect situation nor the solution to the shit storm these dumbasses have created, but it sure as hell will slow it, and them the f'k down. One party control is not the answer as we saw with both Bush and Obama because it is disastrous for spending, but gridlock is a small step towards cutting down the enormous ballooning state of DC.
Neo-"Progressives" go crazy at the concept of gridlock. They like to measure their success, their so-called "progress" by the number of laws enacted. Here's a novel idea: How about we measure progress by the number of freedoms undisturbed? Too radical? It is for people who do not comprehend either the concept or the virtue of gridlock. Freedoms are going to be impunged no matter what because that is what Washington does, and we have 250 years of history of this. But if we can prevent this, if we can slow it down that is the best we can hope for right now.