Posted by Pam Spaulding January 14, 2008 in Uncategorized, Conservatives Sure Are Funny, Economy, Military, Crazies
This WingNutDaily crowd is really consuming some serious-*ss Kool-Aid.
Wait, which party ran the country into the ground and exploded the deficit? Which party rubber-stamped Dear Leader’s Big Military Mi$adventure? Man, the list could go on and on…feel free to add your own.
The hyped poll it cites, btw, says only 22% of those surveyed “indicated having a Democrat president worried them more than concerns such as global unrest, a terrorist attack or a recession.”
19 Responses to “Spew-worthy headline of the day”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Wow. So the death of Americans by terrorists and widespread, worldwide suffering is less threatening than President Obama or President Clinton!?!?
22% of investors questioned for this poll are completely and totally nuts and should have all of their money taken from them by the Great Big Karma Fairy.
Amanda:
Amanda, Amanda, Amanda.
This is a feature, not a bug.
Yes, corporate lackey’s will do worse under the coming Gore regime (It’s gonna be a brokered convention).
Oops, sorry,
Amanda, Amanda, Amanda=Pam, Pam Pam.
Sorry.
OK lackey’s=lackeys
Where is my editor?
I don’t see what the fuss is about. The ‘Neuvo Democrats’ don’t represent the ‘little guy’ anymore so the thought that a ‘democrat’ in the white house would mean that the rich would all of the sudden have to start paying for the privilege to rape the US Treasury rather unlikely.
Maybe the only thing that a ‘democrat’ could do in the blight house is remove a few troops from the continuing war on terra.
We all assume that Bushistas don’t attack Iran in the final days of the Bushist Junta’s grip on the throat of the nation.
22% of investors questioned for this poll hope to be hedge fund managers when they grow up.
Pop quiz: how many of those 22% are picturing someone like Elliott Spitzer as Attorney General, and aggressive enforcement of anti-stock fraud laws.
They aren’t worried about terrorists because they know the threat is overhyped. Club Fed, now - that, they worry about.
Remember, these are the people who saw a 50.000001 percent majority as a “mandate by the people” for Bush to do whatever the hell he wanted.
And who look at free market forces in TV programming as a culture war imposed by the tiny percentage of godless heathens on the vast majority of clean-minded, family-oriented good people who are helpless in the tsunami of filth and sensuality paraded by them daily - even if they have to go far, far out of their way to see the parade.
Besides, you have to read it right. it’s like Christians - only the ones with the right opinions count anyway. For these people, it might be 22% of financial advisors, but it is clearly 99% of “right thinking people.”
They could (and God willing, someday soon will be) a tiny minority, but since they will always be completely right, nobody else’s opinion matters at all.
Get with it. Or don’t. Your opinion doesn’t count. Nor does mine. Ah well. Guess we’ll just have to get back to having some of that hot sex we get to have as a consolation prize.
Where did this 22% come from? How many were actually employed with large firms? How many were employed at the local nursing home in a wheelchair most of their day? And what percentage were day traders and MLM suckers living in mom’s basement?
I’d be inclined to believe that the demographic of the wingnut daily is not necessarily the same as the average American demographic.
They’re bedwetters. This is not news. “Omigod, if the Democrats are elected the terrorists win!”
Roughly a quarter of the populace can’t go to sleep without a boogeyman under the bed. Having a definite threat helps keep them centered.
If they didn’t vote, I’d probably object to making fun of them, poor things.
Actually, that’s not all that bad if only 22% are nutty enough to think a Dem president would be teh apocalypse. Isn’t that the contingency that would still vote for Bush today, no matter what?
I was watching some financial show on MSNBC and they brought up the elections - their only concerns were that a Dem prez would cut on defense spending and cut into health insurer profits by making some type of healthcare plan. To which I say: boo-fucking-hoo. Honestly, if that’s the worst, I’ll take it.
I thought Wall Street did fairly well under Bill Clinton’s regime.
Well, duh. The population of financial advisors is disproportionately skewed toward the “greed is good” crowd. And toward people who worry that the “profession” of financial advisor might end up being regulated so that advisors who get kickbacks from the investment vehicles they tout might have a harder time doing business.
indicated having a Democrat president
grrrrr….it’s Democratic president!
(sorry for the OT mini rant, but that just drives me crazy.)
Of course it’s their number one worry. Democrats raise taxes on rich people. Financial advisors target wealthy clients for retail products. If their potential client base is paying more of their income in taxes there’s less to spend on mutual funds and other securities. That means fewer commission dollars to rack up. Democrats will also likely raise capital gains taxes and income tax on dividend income and bond interest.
At least, I hope they do all this.
I was watching some financial show on MSNBC and they brought up the elections - their only concerns were that a Dem prez would cut on defense spending and cut into health insurer profits by making some type of healthcare plan. To which I say: boo-fucking-hoo. Honestly, if that’s the worst, I’ll take it.
It’s brilliant, isn’t it? On the one hand Democratic administrations will tax and spend, and on the other, they won’t spend enough on the white elephants WE favour.
Presumably a Democratic President will just burn all that money rather than return it to the economy…
“Presumably a Democratic President will just burn all that money rather than return it to the economy…”
Nah, they’ll just do something really lame with it, like balance the budget or something…
A local (New Orleans) blogger put together some data on the performance of the stock market under Democratic vs. Republican administrations a few years back. He found, among other things, 42% better market performance annually under Democratic administrations, and a 9% greater annual performance in returns under Democratic institutions over 72 years!
Even outside of the stock market, the economy performed better on nearly all measures under Democratic administrations. These numbers are from a 2004 article in the WaPo by Michael Kinsley:
Real GDP Growth:
Democrat: 4.09%
Republican: 2.75%
Unemployment:
Democrat: 5.33%
Republican: 6.44%
Government Spending:
Democrat: 19.58% of GDP
Republican: 20.87% of GDP
But the Republicans spend a lot on defense, so let’s remove that…
Government Spending Without Defense:
Democrat: 13.76% of GDP
Republican: 14.97% of GDP
And it follows…
Deficit Spending:
Democrat: 1.21% of GDP
Republican: 2.74% of GDP
Taxation:
Democrat: 18.39% of GDP
Republican: 18.12% of GDP
Inflation:
Democrat: 3.81%
Republican: 4.85%
You can read the post in full here . The WaPo article is here.
Don’t be silly, Mike. They’ll waste it on things like care for the elderly or families with children rather than creating jobs.
Because, you know, the elderly and the families with children will just put the cash under the matress and remove it from circulation, unlike defence companies CEOs and shareholders which are a vital part of any modern economy.
Okay - sarcasm off. This is a classic case of political rent-seeking - the screaming of a concentrated special interest to the detriment of the general good. Almost anything a government can do would be better to spend money on than defence, except in the special case where you actually need the weapons to hold off the slavering hordes waiting to cross the border.