Howard Davidowitz: “We’re now in Barack Obama’s world where money goes into the most inefficient parts of the economy…”

Not to be toooo nit-picky, but he was actually in “Rio Rancho”, not Albuquerque.
-Wasteland Man.

WastelandMan on May 15, 2009 at 12:05 PM

Those of us in the Southwest call it “Rio Raunchy”. It was a planned community, built near some large businesses that moved into the area outside of Albuquerque. Most of the houses were originally built in the same ugly style, thus the name “Rio Raunchy”. They remind me of the old song “Little Boxes of Ticky Tacky”.

I suspect the commies will soon wisen up and start blocking economic data. The media will go along and the Mr Hussein O will say the numbers mean nothing. He has all under control and we aren’t ready to understand the facts anyhow.

How can you physically drive a bus over yourself?

JeffWeimer on May 15, 2009 at 12:17 PM

Drone bus.

How can you physically drive a bus over yourself?

But The One can make it happen!

He’s right, of course. Those of us “waving teabags around” knew it MONTHS ago. Glad to see he’s on board. Anyone care to invite him to a tea-party?

but then he repeated himself in Albuquerque yesterday.

Not to be toooo nit-picky, but he was actually in “Rio Rancho”, not Albuquerque.
This is like how South Park Colorado is really a suburb of Denver but they call it a city. Rio Rancho has its own mayor, and everything…

I for one is glad he wasn’t in MY city LOL (He was still too close. quoting Chavez the stench of sulfur is steeeel here.

-Wasteland Man.

Y-not on May 15, 2009 at 11:10 AM

It doesn’t hurt, that they had influential acquaintences either. I’m pretty sure they didn’t get where they are…..alone! Obama is far from a self made man.

Did anyone else see this yesterday (found at Ace of Spades’ headlines section):

President Obama’s troubling mantra: In debt, we trust
BY RICHARD HENRY LEE
Saturday, May 2nd 2009, 4:00 AM

It is no surprise that President Obama supports unprecedented spending and borrowing in the federal budget since he has never suffered any consequences from the excessive spending and borrowing in his private life.
And I’m not just talking about the First Lady’s $540 sneakers.

A close examination of their finances shows that the Obamas were living off lines of credit along with other income for several years until 2005, when Obama’s book royalties came through and Michelle received her 260% pay raise at the University of Chicago. This was also the year Obama started serving in the U.S. Senate.

During the presidential primary campaign, Michelle Obama complained how tough it was to make ends meet.

…snip…

Let’s examine how tough things were for this couple using various public records.

In April 1999, they purchased a Chicago condo and obtained a mortgage for $159,250. In May 1999, they took out a line of credit for $20,750. Then, in 2002, they refinanced the condo with a $210,000 mortgage, which means they took out about $50,000 in equity. Finally, in 2004, they took out another line of credit for $100,000 on top of the mortgage.

Tax returns for 2004 reveal $14,395 in mortgage deductions. If we assume an effective interest rate of 6%, then they owed about $240,000 on a home they purchased for about $159,250.

This means they spent perhaps $80,000 beyond their income from 1999 to 2004.

…snip…

These numbers clearly show the Obamas were living beyond their means and they might have suffered financially during the decline in housing prices had they relied on taking ever larger amounts of equity from their home to pay the bills.

But in 2005, Obama’s book sales soared and the royalties poured in. Michelle explained, “It was like Jack and his magic beans.”

Without those magic beans, the Obama family would have eventually suffered the consequences of too much debt.

Actually, I’m pretty sure those “magic beans” were Skittles…

I would say not. We’ve discussed this before. The problem is universal suffrage and allowing people to vote who have no idea what they are voting for and have no stake. Requirements of holding land/paying taxes for whatever level of government the vote is for, along with proving one is qualified to make an informed decision (knowing the bare minimum about our nation and its governance) is a must. Universal suffrage, without any requirements is a sure recipe for disaster.

progressoverpeace on May 15, 2009 at 10:02 AM

Generally, only the motivated vote in our system, anyway. In some respects, it is important that anyone that really wants to vote be allowed to. Otherwise, you get revolutionary tendencies.

The problem is that, in the last election, we had people trying to break that by going out and pressuring all of the disinterested into voting (for their guy).

Universal suffrage is fine, just so long as you don’t have people trying to game the system with “Rock the Vote” efforts.

This is exactly what we’ve been saying at the Tea Parties.

He’s positioning for massive tax increases and nationalization of industry.

mr.blacksheep on May 15, 2009 at 9:09 AM

That might be it. We’ve all being working in the framework of the knowledge that increased tax rates will not increase tax revenues, a la Laugher curve. He doesn’t believe that, so this all a drive to up the tax rates.

I think I would have got up, and walked out, or hollared out….then why did you do this to us???

Again. Not amateur.

He’s simply a charlatan.

bluelightbrigade on May 15, 2009 at 8:18 AM

We are dealing with a sociopathic charlatan who has no values other than narcissism. Fixated on polls each night, he bounces from bullet point to bullet point like the desperate salesman driven to make the sale by any means.

His popularity matters. Nothing else does. Spending is good, spending is bad. Which would you like to hear?

At Notre Dame he will actually defend the unborn and decry the use of abortion as ‘morally objectionable’.

Does this dolt realize in 1 major move – China can crush the purchase rate, dollar value and T-Bill auction within a week?

And note to dopey students and liberals eating this liar up – no one from America borrows from China – it is the government who borrows from China. The fact the Menatal Midget in Office even brought up China lets us know how dumb he really is and gullible the masses are.

And a nice foreign relations touch also… make China, the key financier – the “boogeyman”

mr.blacksheep on May 15, 2009 at 10:21 AM

And that system has the added advantage of forcing Congress to think three times before just raising tax rates on anyone.

progressoverpeace on May 15, 2009 at 10:11 AM

There are those who would claim that such a system is “undemocratic”. I would respond with “exactly: that’s the point”.

Money buying votes? It already happens, so let’s just formalize it so that everyone plays by the same rules.

Does it disenfranchise the “poor”? Probably no more than they are under the status quo, and, if they really are motivated, it provides an additional incentive for them to move up the ladder.

There are many advantages to the Taxation/Representation formula; unfortunately I don’t think we’ll live to see it.

mr.blacksheep on May 15, 2009 at 10:04 AM

Great minds :)

I’ve been a proponent of basing votes on taxes paid and the percentage charged for a long time. If people want a progressive tax system, then there must be a progressive voting system to go along with it. I termed this, “No Taxation Without Commensurate Representation”.

The idea of competency tests for voters is a no-brainer, to me. What use is an uninformed vote to anyone?

***Spoiler Alert****

You remember, in the end, the American people are led out of the gambling house, shell shocked from their losses, screaming “My Money is in there!” while the grifters who played the “Big Con” make off with the fortune.