[jficquette]

[quote=svelte]The labels conservative and liberals have been pretty back-asswards for awhile in several ways.

An example: though people think of “conservatives” as being more financially prudent and cautious, the Republican party for some time now has given out tax cuts at the expense of the deficit. This is not financially prudent or cautious. Really, what “conservative” Republicans want is as much money in their pockets as they can get, to hell with whether it is borrowed money or not.

“Liberal” Democrats, on the other hand, were able to balance the budget (under Clinton anyway) even if it did mean higher taxes. This is a more financially prudent and cautious approach.

There are other examples, but I don’t want to write a book here. [/quote]

It was the Republicans who balanced the budget with their “Contract with America” Clinton just went along for the ride.

[jficquette]

[quote=svelte]The labels conservative and liberals have been pretty back-asswards for awhile in several ways.

An example: though people think of “conservatives” as being more financially prudent and cautious, the Republican party for some time now has given out tax cuts at the expense of the deficit. This is not financially prudent or cautious. Really, what “conservative” Republicans want is as much money in their pockets as they can get, to hell with whether it is borrowed money or not.

“Liberal” Democrats, on the other hand, were able to balance the budget (under Clinton anyway) even if it did mean higher taxes. This is a more financially prudent and cautious approach.

There are other examples, but I don’t want to write a book here. [/quote]

It was the Republicans who balanced the budget with their “Contract with America” Clinton just went along for the ride.

[jficquette]

[quote=svelte]The labels conservative and liberals have been pretty back-asswards for awhile in several ways.

An example: though people think of “conservatives” as being more financially prudent and cautious, the Republican party for some time now has given out tax cuts at the expense of the deficit. This is not financially prudent or cautious. Really, what “conservative” Republicans want is as much money in their pockets as they can get, to hell with whether it is borrowed money or not.

“Liberal” Democrats, on the other hand, were able to balance the budget (under Clinton anyway) even if it did mean higher taxes. This is a more financially prudent and cautious approach.

There are other examples, but I don’t want to write a book here. [/quote]

It was the Republicans who balanced the budget with their “Contract with America” Clinton just went along for the ride.

[jficquette]

[quote=svelte]The labels conservative and liberals have been pretty back-asswards for awhile in several ways.

An example: though people think of “conservatives” as being more financially prudent and cautious, the Republican party for some time now has given out tax cuts at the expense of the deficit. This is not financially prudent or cautious. Really, what “conservative” Republicans want is as much money in their pockets as they can get, to hell with whether it is borrowed money or not.

“Liberal” Democrats, on the other hand, were able to balance the budget (under Clinton anyway) even if it did mean higher taxes. This is a more financially prudent and cautious approach.

There are other examples, but I don’t want to write a book here. [/quote]

It was the Republicans who balanced the budget with their “Contract with America” Clinton just went along for the ride.

[jficquette]

[quote=svelte]The labels conservative and liberals have been pretty back-asswards for awhile in several ways.

An example: though people think of “conservatives” as being more financially prudent and cautious, the Republican party for some time now has given out tax cuts at the expense of the deficit. This is not financially prudent or cautious. Really, what “conservative” Republicans want is as much money in their pockets as they can get, to hell with whether it is borrowed money or not.

“Liberal” Democrats, on the other hand, were able to balance the budget (under Clinton anyway) even if it did mean higher taxes. This is a more financially prudent and cautious approach.

There are other examples, but I don’t want to write a book here. [/quote]

It was the Republicans who balanced the budget with their “Contract with America” Clinton just went along for the ride.

[jficquette]

[quote=Casca][quote=gandalf]BTW, I suspect jfiq and Marion are related. Soul mates, cut from the same cloth. Both of them from crazy-land.[/quote]

Comparing the DNA between you and Marion would be a treat. [/quote]

Well, we both have white legs.

[jficquette]

[quote=Casca][quote=gandalf]BTW, I suspect jfiq and Marion are related. Soul mates, cut from the same cloth. Both of them from crazy-land.[/quote]

Comparing the DNA between you and Marion would be a treat. [/quote]

Well, we both have white legs.

[jficquette]

[quote=Casca][quote=gandalf]BTW, I suspect jfiq and Marion are related. Soul mates, cut from the same cloth. Both of them from crazy-land.[/quote]

Comparing the DNA between you and Marion would be a treat. [/quote]

Well, we both have white legs.

[jficquette]

[quote=Casca][quote=gandalf]BTW, I suspect jfiq and Marion are related. Soul mates, cut from the same cloth. Both of them from crazy-land.[/quote]

Comparing the DNA between you and Marion would be a treat. [/quote]

Well, we both have white legs.

[jficquette]

[quote=Casca][quote=gandalf]BTW, I suspect jfiq and Marion are related. Soul mates, cut from the same cloth. Both of them from crazy-land.[/quote]

Comparing the DNA between you and Marion would be a treat. [/quote]

Well, we both have white legs.

[jficquette]

[quote=partypup]” I told friends that only way that Obama would win is if we have major recession, which today means if BofA or maybe even if smaller WaMu get taken over by FDIC. Exec party will do whatever it takes to prevent that because it would mean dem would win. So game over. All you geeks can run your fancy Monte Carlo game theory simulations, but you’ll still come up with my simple answer.”

First off, my apologies to you all for responding to Marion’s thread above. I had been offline for a day and couldn’t resist calling her out.

But I promise not to humor her with another response.

That said, to your point equalizer: I actually think there is a very good chance that Obama could win in November by a sizeable margin. Certainly, if the election were held today he would not win. But there is a high probability that WaMu will go belly-up within the next 30-60 days (I have heard this from two (2) separate and independent sources at banks, one at Indymac). If and when that happens, FDIC will simply be overwhelmed and we will have a systemic failure. Under those circumstances, a three-legged dog with fleas could win. I think an Obama presidency is almost unavoidable, at this point.

Does anyone else on this board have any knowledge to the contrary? I would love to believe that the banks are in better financial health, but all indications now are that most are on deathwatch.[/quote]

The worst things get the better the odds are for McCain. I say that because as the election wears on Obama will be exposed more and more as inept and incapable of leading the country in a time of true crisis. This will cause the people to turn toward a proven leader and not some guy who can’t even produce a birth certificate.

I enjoy your posts.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=partypup]” I told friends that only way that Obama would win is if we have major recession, which today means if BofA or maybe even if smaller WaMu get taken over by FDIC. Exec party will do whatever it takes to prevent that because it would mean dem would win. So game over. All you geeks can run your fancy Monte Carlo game theory simulations, but you’ll still come up with my simple answer.”

First off, my apologies to you all for responding to Marion’s thread above. I had been offline for a day and couldn’t resist calling her out.

But I promise not to humor her with another response.

That said, to your point equalizer: I actually think there is a very good chance that Obama could win in November by a sizeable margin. Certainly, if the election were held today he would not win. But there is a high probability that WaMu will go belly-up within the next 30-60 days (I have heard this from two (2) separate and independent sources at banks, one at Indymac). If and when that happens, FDIC will simply be overwhelmed and we will have a systemic failure. Under those circumstances, a three-legged dog with fleas could win. I think an Obama presidency is almost unavoidable, at this point.

Does anyone else on this board have any knowledge to the contrary? I would love to believe that the banks are in better financial health, but all indications now are that most are on deathwatch.[/quote]

The worst things get the better the odds are for McCain. I say that because as the election wears on Obama will be exposed more and more as inept and incapable of leading the country in a time of true crisis. This will cause the people to turn toward a proven leader and not some guy who can’t even produce a birth certificate.

I enjoy your posts.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=partypup]” I told friends that only way that Obama would win is if we have major recession, which today means if BofA or maybe even if smaller WaMu get taken over by FDIC. Exec party will do whatever it takes to prevent that because it would mean dem would win. So game over. All you geeks can run your fancy Monte Carlo game theory simulations, but you’ll still come up with my simple answer.”

First off, my apologies to you all for responding to Marion’s thread above. I had been offline for a day and couldn’t resist calling her out.

But I promise not to humor her with another response.

That said, to your point equalizer: I actually think there is a very good chance that Obama could win in November by a sizeable margin. Certainly, if the election were held today he would not win. But there is a high probability that WaMu will go belly-up within the next 30-60 days (I have heard this from two (2) separate and independent sources at banks, one at Indymac). If and when that happens, FDIC will simply be overwhelmed and we will have a systemic failure. Under those circumstances, a three-legged dog with fleas could win. I think an Obama presidency is almost unavoidable, at this point.

Does anyone else on this board have any knowledge to the contrary? I would love to believe that the banks are in better financial health, but all indications now are that most are on deathwatch.[/quote]

The worst things get the better the odds are for McCain. I say that because as the election wears on Obama will be exposed more and more as inept and incapable of leading the country in a time of true crisis. This will cause the people to turn toward a proven leader and not some guy who can’t even produce a birth certificate.

I enjoy your posts.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=partypup]” I told friends that only way that Obama would win is if we have major recession, which today means if BofA or maybe even if smaller WaMu get taken over by FDIC. Exec party will do whatever it takes to prevent that because it would mean dem would win. So game over. All you geeks can run your fancy Monte Carlo game theory simulations, but you’ll still come up with my simple answer.”

First off, my apologies to you all for responding to Marion’s thread above. I had been offline for a day and couldn’t resist calling her out.

But I promise not to humor her with another response.

That said, to your point equalizer: I actually think there is a very good chance that Obama could win in November by a sizeable margin. Certainly, if the election were held today he would not win. But there is a high probability that WaMu will go belly-up within the next 30-60 days (I have heard this from two (2) separate and independent sources at banks, one at Indymac). If and when that happens, FDIC will simply be overwhelmed and we will have a systemic failure. Under those circumstances, a three-legged dog with fleas could win. I think an Obama presidency is almost unavoidable, at this point.

Does anyone else on this board have any knowledge to the contrary? I would love to believe that the banks are in better financial health, but all indications now are that most are on deathwatch.[/quote]

The worst things get the better the odds are for McCain. I say that because as the election wears on Obama will be exposed more and more as inept and incapable of leading the country in a time of true crisis. This will cause the people to turn toward a proven leader and not some guy who can’t even produce a birth certificate.

I enjoy your posts.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=partypup]” I told friends that only way that Obama would win is if we have major recession, which today means if BofA or maybe even if smaller WaMu get taken over by FDIC. Exec party will do whatever it takes to prevent that because it would mean dem would win. So game over. All you geeks can run your fancy Monte Carlo game theory simulations, but you’ll still come up with my simple answer.”

First off, my apologies to you all for responding to Marion’s thread above. I had been offline for a day and couldn’t resist calling her out.

But I promise not to humor her with another response.

That said, to your point equalizer: I actually think there is a very good chance that Obama could win in November by a sizeable margin. Certainly, if the election were held today he would not win. But there is a high probability that WaMu will go belly-up within the next 30-60 days (I have heard this from two (2) separate and independent sources at banks, one at Indymac). If and when that happens, FDIC will simply be overwhelmed and we will have a systemic failure. Under those circumstances, a three-legged dog with fleas could win. I think an Obama presidency is almost unavoidable, at this point.

Does anyone else on this board have any knowledge to the contrary? I would love to believe that the banks are in better financial health, but all indications now are that most are on deathwatch.[/quote]

The worst things get the better the odds are for McCain. I say that because as the election wears on Obama will be exposed more and more as inept and incapable of leading the country in a time of true crisis. This will cause the people to turn toward a proven leader and not some guy who can’t even produce a birth certificate.

I enjoy your posts.

John

[Author]

Posts