Obama or McCain?

Saturday, June 14. 2008

Posted by Karl Denninger at 21:30 | Comments (2) | Trackbacks (0)

Ok, so let's see here, which choice would you like?

"Obama promised to cut taxes for the middle class, raise taxes on the wealthy, pour money into "green energy," and require employers to set up retirement savings plans for their workers as he campaigned Saturday in Pennsylvania, a key battleground in the November election."

That's nice. How are you going to pay for all that?

Speaking of paying, how do you think McCain would do handling our economy? Better than he does handling his own debt?

"The bulk of the McCains’ obligations stemmed from a pair of American Express credit cards that are held in Cindy McCain’s name. According to the disclosure reports, which present information on debts in a range rather than providing a precise figure, Mrs. McCain owed $100,000 to $250,000 on each card.
Another charge card, held by what was described as a “dependent child,” had also accumulated debts of $15,000 to $50,000. In addition, a credit card held jointly by the couple was carrying $10,000 to $15,000 in debt, the filing indicated, at a stiff 25.99 percent interest rate. "

Why do I feel like I'm gonna get fucked from an economic perspective no matter who I vote for?

Talk about a Hobson's Choice.....

View as PDF: This entry | This month | Full blog

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

A friend referred me to your site, and since yesterday I have enjoyed sifting through your various "musings." Thank you for taking the time and effort to provide your insights. I am on the same page with you economically. Americans will essentially be relegated to a life of servitude in the form of serfdom if we continue down this economic path. It angers me to no end that I live my life prudently, save, and now watch by capital depreciate due to horrible economic policies and a government that disincentiveses saving. In terms of political choice, I have to go with Obama. His ability to beef-up our intangible assets such as "good-will" is immeasurable, along with a cost effective-workable foreign policy. See, Democrats are known as "tax and spend liberals." Republicans have just become "tax-deferring, spending and killing liberals." What do you believe the limit, if any, should be in terms of an individual's right to bear arms? By this I mean should any type of weaponry be allowed or some outlawed?

#1 Sanjay Bansal on 2008-09-08 21:03 (Reply)

I believe that The Second Amendment recognizes an individual right to keep and bear any infantry armament, since its purpose is to prevent tyranny by the government (this is clear if you read The Federalist); self-defense and hunting purposes are "beneficial side effects."

#1.1 Karl on 2008-09-09 09:02 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. Standard emoticons like :-) and ;-) are converted to images. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above:
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry
Submitted comments will be subject to moderation before being displayed.