Obama - Pelosi - Reed regime: Predictions

[surefire]

These are my predictions for the next 4-8 years of the Obama-Pelosi-Reed regime...


Economic goodies we have to look forward to, IMO:

1. Higher taxes. I don't think either the 95% figure or 250k figure will hold once he has keys to the office. Based on his tax and spend agenda and voting record, I predict those making as little as 50k will see their taxes rise eventually.

2. More job loss and higher costs. The higher corporate taxes will create higher job loss, and the companies will pass the taxes on to the consumer with higher prices.

3. Huge amounts of spending

4. Huge government, nanny state


Social goodies under this regime:

1. First admendment will be severely infringed. It's no longer going to be accepted to challenge or ridicule this regime. People will be investigated for any negative opinion of this regime.

2. Second admendment will be toast. It will erode in steps, not all at once.
a. They'll start off creating a Brady Bill II -- this time it will be permanent
b. Next, they'll pass a .50 cent - 1$ per round ammo tax -- which will make legal gun ownership expensive for the poor.
c. Then, Semi-auto ban
d. Then, Revolver ban
e. Then, Complete handgun ban
f. Repeater ban (including pumps, bolt actions, etc)
g. Centerfire ban
h. Rimfire ban

3. Other social rights will be next. An unarmed society are not citizens, but rather subjects.

Global goodies under Obama-Pelosi-Reed
1. Negotiations with Hugo Chavez and friends. These poorly misunderstood folks were probably abused as kids, and just need to be reasoned with. Obama will charm Hugo and friends into submission.
2. Flying a UN flag... we're going to be their bitch

Subdjoe and fellow libertarians, what other goodies have I missed?

[bolverk]

I hope you are wrong, but I fear you are right. And Mink, saunterelle and JMO will all be supporting this crap all the way to the bitter end. I, on the other hand, will follow the example of the founding fathers.

[subdjoe]

You missed the word police, food police, driving police, and association police. Sever restrictions on free expression - mostly in the form of shunning and ridicule for expressing non-p/c ideas. Restrictions on what restaraunts can serve, expect a strong push to limit 'unnecessary' driving with the State deciding what is unnecessary. Also look for any organization that is mostly or all male, or mostly or all white to attract official attention and be harssed because they are not inclusive enough. Meanwhile look for all black and all woman groups to be encouraged and supported.

Your point about the 1st Amendment has precident in the Sedition Act pushed through by Adams and his tame Federalist congress. Look also for the free exercise clause to be swept aside.

The libs on the USSC started the dismateling of property rights with the Kelo decision (remember how Pelosi praised that one? She damn near had an orgasm when she was talking about it).

It is going to take a long, long time to clean up the mess that the libs with their guilt complex leave us. The mess that we have now will look like a hair ball in comparison.

[bolverk]

I think I might consider moving to the Philippines for the rest of my life.

[bolverk]

Or at least until Americans have had their fill of this crap.

[saunterelle]

Bolverk, I think you'd enjoy life in Singapore.


I share some of the same concerns but I really don't think Obama will pull our country too far to the left. He's smarter than that. In his book, The Audacity of Hope, there is a telling chapter where he describes the failing of both extremes. I think he will govern somewhat closer to the middle.

[subdjoe]

Have you looked at his voting record? Have you listened, really listened and understood I mean, to his speeches and interviews? Barry is about half a millimeter to the right of Engles. His constant harping on spreading the wealth by conficatory taxation, his low level push for reparations? If he wins and the Dems gain in both houses of Congress, look for a move to the left almost drastic as the October Revolution.

[bolverk]

If you think for one second that Obama is going to be allowed to govern from the middle when there are super majorities in both houses then you are living in fairy land. Every time the Democrats have had such majorities in the past they have passed laws that have taken more away from the people then it gave. Every time.

1913, income tax laws created.

1968, immigration changes as riders on the civil rights bill, increased illegal immigration was the result and the near bankruptcy of our state.

1977 and 1980, deregulation of the Banking Industry.

1993 a one billion dollar cut in the intelligence agencies, leading to the reliance on outside sources from other nations and the direct cause of 9/11, the first bombing of the twin towers, the bombing of the USS Cole, the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah building, the bombing of our embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya and the Khobar Towers bombing. All the fault of Democrats.

This is not to say Republicans are perfect, but why doesn't anyone ever remember what it was like under progressive rule?

Why doesn't anyone pay attention to the fact that this economic crisis has nothing to do with George Walker Bush and everything to do with a Congress that has done absolutely nothing for the last two years, except blame Bush for the economy which was the responsibility of the people pointing their fingers? I mean come on, just how many times are Americans going to be fooled by these people? They shirk their constitutional responsibility and all you Democrats buy their bull shit like you believe them.

The last two years have been a do nothing congress. Pelosi went on vacation, sent the whole House on vacation, rather then put forth a bill on an energy policy because she does not want Republicans to amend the bill? What kind of government is that? It is not government for the people, that much is for sure. Yet, we are about to hand them the keys to the car with no insurance, knowing that they are drunk. What does that say about Americans? That they are to stupid to look beyond the rhetoric of the last two years?

I am highly disappointed that we are about to screw my family and every working family one more time, in the name of equality, or at least some twisted idea of equality. When you hear obvious rhetoric like, "giving the rich tax cuts is redistributing the wealth up," how can people not see through that line of crap? That is just stupid stuff, aimed at people who work hard to get somewhere in life and succeeded.

And I would just like to hear someone explain to me how allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire is not a tax increase? Clinton's tax laws were made on a broken promise that he never was held accountable for and here we go again.

And that half hour ad, man that flies in the face of his very promise to take only public funding for his campaign. He is a liar and then you want to rely on what he says in his book? The man has destroyed any future Presidential Election fairness with that move. What we got was a man who knows that he can buy his way into office with money raised with his golden tongue.

But speeches do not make a President, and I somehow doubt he will last longer then four years. But, I could be wrong. After all, I believed that my fellow Americans knew their history and would vote accordingly.

[bolverk]

And I would love to visit Singapore, but I have relatives in the Philippines. I could live like a King there. Here I am going to have to live like a pauper when the new tax laws take effect.

[saunterelle]

You're saying Obama's tax plan is very extreme but it is the same as Bill Clinton's. Was Bill Clinton THAT extreme?

[jgaffney]

Oct 30, 2008 13:58:16 GMT -5 saunterelle said:

You're saying Obama's tax plan is very extreme but it is the same as Bill Clinton's. Was Bill Clinton THAT extreme?

Once again, Saunterelle, you show your failure to grasp the lessons that history should have taught you. When clinton was elected, he immmediately backed away from his "middle class tax cut" promise that he had made many times during the primaries, and signed into place one of the largest tax increses, in percentage terms, the country has ever had. The economy, still steaming along under the Reagan tax cuts, lost a little momentum, but generally continued steady growth. The electorate, however, was not so forgiving, and swept in a Republican majority in both the House and Senate in the mid-term elections in 1994.

So, go ahead, raise my taxes - make my day.

And, remember, allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire in 2010 is a tax increase.

[jgaffney]

In addition to watching out for future tax increases by a Democrat Whote House and Congress, we also have to keep an eye on our retirement savings. This is from US News:

House Democrats recently invited Teresa Ghilarducci, a professor at the New School of Social Research, to testify before a subcommittee on her idea to eliminate the preferential tax treatment of the popular retirement plans. In place of 401(k) plans, she would have workers transfer their dough into government-created "guaranteed retirement accounts" for every worker. The government would deposit $600 (inflation indexed) every year into the GRAs. Each worker would also have to save 5 percent of pay into the accounts, to which the government would pay a measly 3 percent return. Rep. Jim McDermott, a Democrat from Washington and chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee's Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, said that since "the savings rate isn't going up for the investment of $80 billion [in 401(k) tax breaks], we have to start to think about whether or not we want to continue to invest that $80 billion for a policy that's not generating what we now say it should."

The American Thinker explains the implications of this move:

A tax break for Americans is a bad investment for Democrat Congressman Jim McDermott. He would be much more comfortable if the government controlled our retirement accounts and doled it out to us -- as he deemed necessary.
....
The Democrats have made a political living by scaring older Americans into thinking that the Republicans were going to take away retirement and Social Security from the elderly.

Maybe someone, somewhere, in the Republican Party should point out that the Democrats are planning something even worse.

We're in big trouble.