Your 401K...or theirs?

Bruce, since you've posted "all we are saying is give change a chance" (with all apologies to the late John Lennon, who wrote the word "peace" where you put the word "change") on at least five different threads, I'm beginning to believe that you think that you can make it so.

I'm all for giving the new administration a chance. I've said that from the beginning, but BHO made a TON of promises in order to get elected Bruce and I can assure you that the American people, especially the people who voted for him that are waiting for that "sharing of the wealth" that was promised, won't wait an unreasonable length of time to see movement in the correct direction (I didn't say "right" instead of "correct" 'cause I didn't want you to become apoplectic).

And as a point of order, it's "uncharted" not "unchartered" waters. You can chart them, but I'm not sure that you can charter them.....;-)

kg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruce Loeffelholz

I am not waiting for "sharing the wealth".

---

Nor did I say you were...but there are MILLIONS out there who are. You know it and I know it.

Quote:

---

No presidential candidate has been able to keep all their promises due to the 2 or 3 party system as it should be.

---

So you're saying that we shouldn't expect BHO to keep to the words that got him elected? Aren't YOU the one who said he "connected" with more people than McCain? Does this mean that select of his promises were BS just to get him elected? :eek:

Quote:

---

Yes, I believe that BHO can make positive change and make difference. There are issue right now that the private sector cannot solve alone by just letting the markets handle it......

---

Here are some items on the "short" list......

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/obama

What Podesta says goes regards, :cool:

kg

From KG's article...

Ex-Clinton hack and current BHO fixer John Podesta (more of that change, eh, Barry?) says, "I think that he feels like he has a real mandate for change. We need to get off the course that the Bush administration has set."

Interesting. BHO wins 52% of the popular vote and that's a "real mandate for change." GWB won 51% of the popular vote and it was "a nation divided." :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruce Loeffelholz

"All we are saying is give change a chance"

Einstein was quoted as saying "Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is insanity" or something to that effect. Why would we want to maintain the course we are on?

Regards,


Bruce

---

Good point, per the MBA / MSETM classes, our companies are already over taxed and over regulated compared to foriegn companies. That is why we are losing so many jobs over seas. Taking into account the differences for wages, companies over seas are twice as profitable as those here in the USA. So, we need to cut back on regulations and taxes if we want to become competitive again.

If we want to become a third world country, we can continue on the current path of more taxes and regulations.

I wish I could figure out how to post some of my lecture materials on here from Greg Watson. Like many, he is no longer working in the USA, and I am lucky to have an instructor that consults directly to CEO's thanks to the power of the internet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruce Loeffelholz

I am not waiting for "sharing the wealth". No presidential candidate has been able to keep all their promises due to the 2 or 3 party system as it should be. Yes, I believe that BHO can make positive change and make difference. There are issue right now that the private sector cannot solve alone by just letting the markets handle it......

---

Some of my friends on wall-street believe the healthiest thing to do is let the markets take care of things. IF the banks fail, so be it, others that are more healthy would rise from the ashes. I have already heard of companies taking up the slack of the banks, and creating loans to customers to keep the cashflow and projects rolling.

Innovation and free markets will find a way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hew

Interesting. BHO wins 52% of the popular vote and that's a "real mandate for change." GWB won 51% of the popular vote and it was "a nation divided." :rolleyes:

---

Hummm...

President Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote in 2004 and 47.9% of the popular vote in 2000. Neither a decisive victory yet both a victory still. He clearly assumed office without a mandate, especially in the second term, yet many suggest he was effective.

I think when the election is viewed as a whole, it is clear that the majority of the people that voted indicated they desired a course different than the one set by President Bush. I don't know if that translates to a mandate or not but it is clearly an indicator of desired change.

While 52.6% percent of the popular vote provides only a simple majority for President-elect Obama, compared to Senator McCain's 46.1% of the popular vote it represents a pretty substantial victory given Presidential Elections over the last 20 years.

As significant as the popular vote as a bellweather may be the number of states President-elect Obama carried this year that President Bush carried in 2004. I think the number is eight including Virginia and North Carolina. That hasn't happend in a very long time.

If you consider the above plus the number of conservative House and Senate members that lost their seats, it can point to the majority of the folks that voted indicating they want change. If that is seen as a mandate, OK. If it is not seen as a manadate, that is OK, too.

Time Will Tell Regards,

Joe S.

Speaking for myself only, Joe, in voting for McCain I too was voting for change....just not the same sort of change promoted by the Democratic ticket.

As for the margins of victory, look at the major urban counties in virtually every state that was CLOSELY contested.....you'll see BLUE surrounded by RED in a MAJORITY of those counties. That, combined with ultra-liberal California and New England, made the difference in this election. There were more first-time voters in this election than in any previous Presidential election, and I'm not talking wide-eyed 18 year olds from the suburbs, either...........

The "waves" made by a failed Bush administration washed away any chance of ANY Republican presidential nominee winning this election, unless that Republican was a fence-straddling moderate (in which case they'd have NEVER been the nominee). Same goes for the Congressional races.

Yes, time will tell....6% points/7-8 million votes difference in a country with over 200 million voting-age adults does not a mandate make....but we'll see. He's got both houses of Congress behind him; let's see if that "team" has what it takes. I, and a TON of other folks, pray to God that they do.

kg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joe S.

If you consider the above plus the number of conservative House and Senate members that lost their seats, it can point to the majority of the folks that voted indicating they want change. If that is seen as a mandate, OK. If it is not seen as a manadate, that is OK, too.

Time Will Tell Regards,

Joe S.

---

Joe,

Please post the names of conservative House & Senate members defeated for the rest of us to peruse. Methinks you will struggle to find one name who is truly conservative. Maybe conservative by a lefties standards, but not by those who believe in sound fiscal policy.

I have a list & their voting records, Regards!!!

I would be interested in seeing how actual tax payers voted. I think that would say a lot if we had access to that info. If you don't pay taxes you don't have a vested interest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruce Loeffelholz

"All we are saying is give change a chance"

Einstein was quoted as saying "Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is insanity" or something to that effect. Why would we want to maintain the course we are on?

Regards,


Bruce

---

Yes but he also said "all the experiments over time will never prove me right, but just one may prove me wrong".
BTW- last I checked Einstein was a physicist and not an economist, so I am not sure that applies any more than something Warren Buffet says applies to physics

That is why they call it a theory and not a law regards