Trending Content
| +76 | BBs With The Hottest Girls | 36 | 3s | |
| +43 | Equinox Membership worth it? | 39 | 2d | |
| +38 | I want a puppy - talk me out of it | 26 | 1h | |
| +23 | PIF and Riyadh | 7 | 2d | |
| +19 | RENT MEGATHREAD: How much do you pay for rent? | 23 | 2d | |
| +19 | What was the most critical thinking you have done in a role? | 8 | 1d | |
| +19 | Am I a possible victim of identity theft (United Kingdom)??? I'm PARANOID | 8 | 6d | |
| +18 | Help: Three statement modeling for non-profits | 4 | 2h | |
| +18 | IB Analyst Creed (must repeat every morning) | 5 | 3d | |
| +14 | Advice to get into Whiskey | 16 | 1d |
Career Resources
Someone had to say it.
I honestly don't know what the GOP wanted out of this. If anything, Obama gave them more than he ever had to. The tax rate increases on income are minimal with an incredibly high ceiling relative to the income of virtually all working Americans (incuding the vast majority of folks in finance), cap gains and dividend tax rates are only at 20%...and that's locked in from here on out.
The GOP had zero leverage and still got things it wanted. To hear random GOP reps whining about the bill makes me laugh. Do these clowns not know how a negotiation works? Were they aware of the sorts of tax rate increases we were looking at if no deal was made?
Let's just say no deal had been made. Obama has his inauguration speech coming up. He could literally use a speech that has more viewers than any State of the Union speech and gets TONS of coverage to blame huge tax hikes on the GOP. He honestly gave the House Republicans a gift.
Zero leverage? They could have allowed us to go off the "cliff" which probably would have benefited the country in the long term.
Dems fucked up. Tax increases were de minimis. And they still have the Dems hostage with the debt ceiling.
They should just demand serious cuts to entitlements and if they don't get it do not raise the ceiling.
The rich are paying their "fair share" or whatever that childish and nebulous statement means. Now it is time to tackle the real issue, over spending on entitlements by a nanny state government.
And Fuck you Harry Reid. Asshole.
I wanted us to go off the cliff, it would basically force us to fix the problems we've brought upon ourselves.
re: the debt ceiling. Isn't it a little ridiculous because:
1.) They already passed the bills that require the debt ceiling to be lifted. If anything, they should pull this shit during debates on bills and just shut down the government. Instead, they are passing bills on credit and then refusing to pay the bills after they've already gotten their goodies.
2.) Entitlements play a role, but so does absurd defense spending. These assclowns rant and rave against stimulus spending to create jobs, but won't touch defense spending, which is insanely bloated stimulus spending.
Ah, but see that's the beauty of the "fair share" argument. The rich will never really pay their "fair share", because that "share" just keeps changing. I guarantee you Obama or other Dems are going to continue to say that the rich still aren't paying their "fair share", since they didn't get all they wanted out of them this time around. It's the perfect argument, as most of the their base will never be classified as "rich", and thus won't see their "fair share" go up, will continue to vote for it.
I agree that alot of the "defense" spending is wasteful, but I don't see it going away soon. During these times of economic distress, political tensions rise for very little reason. Iran/Isreal, China/Japan, hopefully these don't escalate but if they do, daddy America will step in. Not that I think we should be world police, but it's likely that we would intervene, and you can't do that with a gutted defense budget.
Besides, defense spending is $700 billion a year, and to an extent has controllable future spending levels. Spending on social welfare programs is twice that much, and we have an estimated future liability in the tens of trillions. It's far easier to make small to moderate changes to those than to slice the defense budget in half.
I just absolutely love Boehner. Whenever I unfortunately catch a glimpse of Obama, which I avoid at all costs, sadness washes over me. But then I see Boehner and I feel better.
Such a dominate Republican.
Well I think you will see the Dems counter with some defense cuts, which will be the political cover for social spending cuts.
You could do $50B off defense and $50B off social spending. Not enough, but $1T over a decade sounds sizable in the news.
All I want is some spending cuts. I'd even settle for deduction elimination since the tax code spends nearly what we pay and frankly, is why only 50% pay Fed taxes.
Just make the 1st $30K in income tax exempt and have maybe child tax credits for one/two kids for lower income people. Everyone else pays a progressive income tax with no deductions.
Yes!
I'm even open to it being phased in so that people who have had a certain level of deductions all their lives can continue to have them.
I honestly believe that people under the age of 30 are far more willing to make sacrifices and live within our means than any of the baby boomer clowns that fill most of Congress.
Agree. Never happen though since politics is about being elected, not serving this country. Deductions get you votes and a simple system, while fair and easy to understand, won't get votes.
Hey Boner, that's you're fucking name, right? How about you GO FUCK YOURSELF
You heard me.
Pull a disaster relief bill under cover of this negotiation? $80B is chump change for you guys and you yanked it? Disaster relief is the FUCKING POINT of an agency like FEMA, and we bailed out the fucking morons in New Orleans when they needed it. Hate the NorthEast or not, this was a dick move where discretionary spending really would be a good long term move. Period. I personally came out ok through the hurricane, but A LOT of people I know got fucked, hard. I WANT MY TAXES TO GO TO THIS AND I'M PUTTING UP MY OWN AFTER TAX MONEY TO FUND RECONSTRUCTION FOR FAMILY AND FRIENDS. DO YOUR FUCKING PART. Even Cris Christie, who I like, is calling this a mistake. When he becomes president next cycle, I hope he burns clean the GOP of such scumbaggery.
When you gonna be on TV crying again, you fucking wuss. I hope you read this: big man telling a senior citizen to get fucked, how about we go toe to toe so I can make you my bitch. Fucker.
....if you can't tell, I'm out of my mind with anger right now and just broke another phone when I read this in the news.
Hey, Boner, I said GO FUCK YOURSELF
punching wall
/endrant /going boozing
Bro, that fucking bill is a JOKE! Filled with pork that has nothing to do with Sandy. Furthermore, fuck all those gamblers who didn't have insurance. You take a risk by not having any, you reap what you sow.
Insurance for a once in a lifetime storm? Literally a storm more powerful, by far, than anything that's ever come before it. You serious?
Christie is a traitor. I'd dick him on disaster relief also. Nothing like blowing Obama in the last leg of a Presidential election.
And the last fat man elected President was Taft. Image is everything.
If you want to start electing winners you need to cut this attitude. Christie is gonna roll in 2013 all the way to 2016 contention and you're angry because he doesn't have a life size Barack Obama doll hanging from the ceiling of his basement. Remember, Rick Santorum vs the democratic nominee will be an even bigger rout than 2008. If that's what you want, keep thinking the way you're thinking.
And if it makes you feel better, Romney would have lost without Hurricane Sandy.
L O L at the thought of Christie winning a Presidential election. Sorry man, but ain't happening.
Christie completely dicked the RNC. You need to be a loyal foot soldier to get the nomination and tons of fun wasn't that.
And Romney didn't lose the election. This country lost.
I agree about the insurance, everybody should get covered. As a semi-side note, all of you guys should get disability insurance to provide you with income in case of a long-term disability. It's super cheap. If you have kids or are married with a mortgage, you need life insurance as well. You can usually save money by getting it away from work or supplementing it with a bigger policy. You will need to get a hysical and get your blood tested for cholesterol/drugs/nicotine, but getting a policy this way will save you a lot of money compared to an equivalent dollar amount when the average employee at your company is older than you.
Christie was a speaker who talked about his damn self the entire time. They he started sucking Obama's knee caps. Christie was probably in the pipeline, but not anymore. Either way, Romney didn't win and he was a very, very moderate, North Eastern Republican. Not going to make that mistake twice, especially with a guy who has the political baggage as Christie.
And FEMA, that wonderful Cater agency, has funds to cover NJ until Congress can revisit it. That unrelated bill had nothing to do with the Fiscal Cliff and Boehner simply didn't have time for it. Or maybe he wanted to show Christie that being a turn coat isn't going to get him any favors, whatever.
Either way NJ will get the aid they need in due time. Regretfully, it would make far too much sense for a state with nothing but coastal exposure to plan for this, insure for this or a combination of the above. FEMA is helping out, but the Federal Government isn't the end all be all.
I am glad Boehner and the Republicans focused on the important issue at hand, that is adverting this bullshit cliff. Thankfully they fought Obama and managed to get the smallest tax increase possible. Now, with the debt ceiling needing to be raised, I hope they dig their heals in the sand and demand large cuts to entitlements or else let the ceiling stand and Obama figure out which bills to not pay. We have a massive spending problem that needs to be addressed, which will get addressed one way or another.
Anyone who thinks that Christie screwed over Romney is a fool that believes in whatever Romney-mentum Hannity and friends were talking about. The math is the math and it was clear - Romney did not have any sort of real momentum to overtake Obama. Storm or no storm, Romney was going to lose. Don't let talk radio assclowns convince you otherwise.
The sheer fact that people on the right are trying to tear down Christie shows just how fucked the GOP is at this point. This guy is a leader with actual, measurable, conservative accomplishments under his belt. But, he didn't trash Obama while his state was being completely obliterated by a storm. The people of NJ seem to appreciate what Christie did.
Let's flip things. Let's say NJ had a Democratic Governor and the President had been a Republican. If the Democratic Governor of NJ had trashed the Republican President during the aftermath of Sandy, you'd all be calling him a partisan hack with no respect for the President.
Obama can't win with some of you. Literally no matter what he does. The man is obviously not perfect, or even close. But, he could send a harem of dime-piece hookers to your house, free of charge, and you'd still find reason to complain.
Christie did way more than just pal around with Obama. And while it didn't lose the election for Romney, politics is a team sport. Fact is Christie isn't going to be a solid Presidential nomination. He blabbed about himself during the damn convention and didn't put the team on his back after the storm. He probably knew Romney wasn't going to win and wanted to hedge his bets, which is fine, but don't expect the RNC to go to bat for you.
Tear down Christie? LOL. He is pissing and moaning, further showing the none RNC team player he is, because his bail out didn't get passed. Boooooo fucking hoooo man. Sorry is Congress had this little thing called the Cliff to deal with and didn't get time to send $60B his way, which Boehner said he would take up right after the New Year.
So instead of quietly pulling the levers of power, he gets on the air and shits on Republicans again. So yes fat man, you will get your cash, but good luck with that 2016 nomination. And while I like him gutting public unions and other strong armed, Republican measures, that isn't going to sit well with the hand out sheep we have electing people nowadays.
If a great man, the likes of Romney, lost to Obama of all people, Christie has no chance in hell. Friggin' nominate Scott Walker if we are going to look at Christie. While I might like breaking union backs, it isn't going to win you Ohio, Michigan, or other swing states.
I'll take someone who thinks for themselves over a party-line drone anyway.
Also, somewhat funny that you're calling a large portion of the electorate "hand out sheep" while simultaneously complaining that Christie isn't a GOP party-line sheep.
And come on dude. Romney as a "great man" who lost? No, he lost because people didn't like his ideas. His budget plans didn't add up and would've exploded the deficit. I wasn't going to take him at his word that he'd figure it out when he got there, that's bullshit, and you'd never let anyone on the left get away with it. Not to mention, he's a social dinosaur whose ideas on things like marriage and pot will die along with his generation.
All I ask is Christie, who says he is a Republican, who was asked to speak at the convention (and droned on about himself) be a team player. That isn't a drone. Disaster hits, fine, respect the president. Don't blow him.
And don't slam your aid package into a serious Congressional issue which came down to the final hour and then bitch and moan about Republicans when it didn't get passed. I am sure the people of this country would rather have had Boehner focus on bail out money for NJ instead of adverting the cliff.
Christie will get his money and could have done so while not shitting on Republicans, his damn party and the one he needs to be nominated from. Be a fucking team player.
Yeah, voting based on race = what I am discussing.
Obama is going to leave office with $20T in debt. Fact. White House figures. This tax increase isn't anything fluff and Obama is going to be against any serious cuts. So please tell me how 4 more years of Obama is somehow any better than the worst Romney can provide.
Social dinosaur, yeah right. Married guy with morals makes him a dinosaur. Yeah, love where this country is going. Unwed mothers shitting out kids, fathers with no obligation to their children. I can't wait for our morals to finally die so utopia can descend upon us in all of its glory. If we could only just kill religion and replace it with government and the gang bang, Jersey Shore culture we currently have things will just be all right.
Obama to TNA:
http://images.firstcovers.com/covers/flash/o/obama_swag-68692.jpg
If I voted, I would probably vote for Christie. I don't think he'll win because the evangelicals probably won't support him for nomination (Republicans shooting themselves in the foot again) and because of his weight. A lot of people wouldn't vote for McCain because of his age and fat is just a huge stigma for President, even though this country is fatter than ever.
Also, nobody I know in real life voted 'for' Romney....although I know plenty who voted against Obama.
ANT -- I don't know why you think it's a great thing that we have a bunch of politicians who are sheep who just do what their party tells them to do. Frankly, I wish we would see a lot less of that from both parties.
I'm pretty sure that voters elect a nominee and President, not the House GOP. And, if polls are to be believed, the people seem to like independent thinkers and hate Congress. So, if anything, Christie's independent streak helps him.
Let's not get off the Christie boat because he didn't give Romney a reach-around.
The other nominees were good team players? Did you see some of the ads they ran against Romney? Newt Gingrich and Perry were fucking smashing his experience at Bain to pieces. Literally assaulting him. The reason Romney won the nomination was because he outspent his opponents like 20-1 in later primaries. And virtually all of Romney's ads were negative.
And come on now, you don't hate Obama...you hate Democratic party ideas and ideals. Unless a hardcore conservative President was in office, you'd be unhappy with his / her performance. Obama is a "failure" in your eyes who didn't bring "hope and change" and blah blah blah because your standards would never allow it to be otherwise and the entire GOP platform has been to oppose Obama at all costs even when it means opposing their own ideas.
C'mon, Gingrich had zero chance of winning and he knew it. He was on a book tour. And yeah, they laid in to him in a safe environment. People focus on the Presidential election. Republicans give a shit about the nomination process. Gave Romney a chance to internally poll, bring out issues he knew Obama would use in a safer environment and spin the message.
Each one stepped up and were "front runners" and each one took the full brunt of the Democrats and were torn down. Romney was always going to be the nominee. McCain beat him in 2002. He put in the time and buffed up his credentials and when the next time came around, it was his. Just like how GW beat out McCain and how he put in the time and got the nod when 2002 came around.
There was a great write up that I have on my bookshelf at home. I'll find the PDF. Lays out how the RNC nomination cycle goes. Romney always had the massive war chest and was always going to win.
Obama will always be a failure because my idea of governance is pro business, less taxes, smaller government that has a limited role. I don't care about social issues and talk about fairness. Money = Freedom and the better the economy the more money going around.
Democrats made a sloppy strategic move. Hillary should have won the Dem nomination and she would have been in her 2nd term right now. Obama should have taken a cabinet position, cut his teeth and then he could have done another 8 years after Hillary. 1st Woman and 1st Black President. Complete domination. The country would be trash and destroyed, but his team would have won.
Now you have Hillary which will be nearly 70 (un-electable) with blood clots. Better start grooming someone else because no one but Obama would have been re-elected.
Bush 1 has better stats than Obama across the board and lost to Clinton because "it's the economy stupid".
I think you're spinning things a great deal and vastly over-estimating the GOP base (the people that make up the majority of voters in GOP Prez primaries.) You are not the base, the base cares a lot more about bullshit issues and did not trust Romney.
It's also hysterical to me that the GOP, the party of "self-responsibility and individual rights," is all about "falling in line" and having such a structured king-making authoritative approach to who gets to be the nominee.
Spin things how you like, Romney was the best of a shitty pack of nominees (save for Huntsman, who no one in the base liked because he was an Ambassador under Obama) and had to spend millions and millions to bury his rivals. Even after all of that, the shrinking base could only be rallied behind him because he "isn't Obama," even though I'm not convinced that they even understand why they don't like Obama to begin with.
Romney had a lot of money. But, if you tie in Super PACs, so did guys like Santorum. Sheldon Adelson was willing to drop tens of millions on a guy like Santorum. Solely to achieve his dream of making Tel Aviv the new capital of the United States!
I kid and I digress, but there was plenty of big money ready and willing to back the others. And, at the end of the day, votes count more than money, and when guys like Santorum are almost beating you in your home state, you're not a strong candidate. That, or your base is filled with people of questionable intelligence / values.
Lastly - no need for name calling on either side. We can all be adults here.
http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/a-gop-dark-horse
And I don't know why a structured nomination process is contradictory. This is about winning an election and promoting party ideals. A lot of good valuing individual rights and small government does if you can't win elections and promote government policy.
The base is the cannon fodder. Mindless drones who you throw a bone at so they pull the lever. They are by definition unimportant. Just like the Dems who promise a couple freebies to get their shitty base to pull the lever. Unfortunately for the Republicans, we have way more freeloaders in this nation than we have wacky religious conservatives.
Their cannon fodder is highly concentrated, easy to shove on a bus and have push a button. Republicans are spread out in non urban areas and not illegally immigrating like a flood, swelling the voter roles.
And yeah, Huntsman got dicked for being so close to Obama. Hence my statement about Christie being dicked.
You realize how frequently wacky religious conservative types are also "freeloaders," right? The vast majority of people on welfare / food stamps are poor white people. Think about the assclowns who took protest signs to anti-Obamacare rallies that said "Keep your government hands off my medicare." These same fools, who don't want the gov't to change medicare, voted for Romney in droves.
Moral of the story, we have a lot of dumb and misinformed people in this country (and in the world at large, for that matter.)
You had me dying laughing though, reading your line on cannon fodder, hahaha. The only problem, though, is that a lot of the base is getting stupid shit they vote on in the states they live in via flooding their state gov'ts with their kin.
Trust me, I am against dumb people breeding, which unforgettably they are doing more than educated people. Same with their lack of marriage.
@OK
Romney was pro business Obama. He supported gun control in Mass, he supported pro choice in Mass, dude was as moderate as ever was going to be elected. He made the mistake of telling people who freeload that they freeload. You don't anger the retards.
Romney is faulted for not being specific, even though his website has a 100+ page PDF detail many of his plans. The public wants headlines, not details.
Romney vs. Kerry, with the same economic situation we have, Romney wins. Romney vs. Hillary, much closer, probably edge to Hillary. Obama just gets too many votes based on race and economics.
Enough taking cheap shots at everyone. Who's on your short list, since you know better than everyone else?
Short list for what? Republican nominee? Republicans have to pick a minority, most likely a Hispanic. Rubio is doing well, could possibly pull Florida, an important state. Huntsman maybe, if he puts in the time. He would be a logical choice if Republicans follow their old pattern.
A lot will depend on who Democrats nominate.
http://www.oaktreecapital.com/MemoTree/A%20Fresh%20Start%20%28Hopefully…
Read this. Real nice synopsis of the past election.
I don't think they have to choose a minority. My Democratic Pres/VP short list consists of one non-white (Deval Patrick of MA) and two women (Hilary and Kay Hagan from NC). My entire Presidential short list is white men and Hilary.
Gotta love the use of the GAO. If it doesn't agree with the Republicans' arguments, the GAO must be wrong. But, when it does agree with their rhetoric, they'll march it right out.
Asserting that Obamacare will cost more than the GAO without any evidence is not an argument against Obamacare. Get rid of Obamacare and we'd go back to what we had and be even more fucked.
And as for the weak economy, it's a slow recovery but there was NOTHING that could've been done to move it any faster. And, as dumb as we think the people are, they weren't going to run back to policies that helped get us in this mess in the first place.
Cmon man!
I don't use the GAO pro or con. All I am saying is that I have little faith in the government to ever come in under budget. I am sure every government program was sold to the people as being break even or net gain. Yet for some reason they become albatross.
I am sure the GAO means well and given their assumptions things will turn out well, but Congress with tweak things, add some pork, open it up to different groups, all to get votes, which will in turn cause it to cost more than expected. Just look at education spending.
Does a bad job --> we need more money --> gets more money --> does a bad job --> we need more money --> still does a bad job.
Exactly like the word "fair". Nebulous. I'd love government to tell me how much in taxes they absolutely need and how much we need to spend on education to have success. Instead we get "more" and "fair" two words that tell me nothing and can never be held accountable.
Sit non voluptates explicabo ut est cumque. Occaecati vero maxime explicabo voluptatem. Nostrum deleniti optio similique eos.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Reiciendis quo quae ipsum vel quasi quae rerum qui. Nihil eum cupiditate consectetur sunt ratione quia autem provident. Accusamus pariatur soluta doloribus quia voluptatem eveniet. Distinctio ut error maxime est.
Autem itaque esse quod ad eveniet. Sapiente totam voluptas explicabo. Reprehenderit voluptas quas maxime eveniet dolores reiciendis dignissimos id.
Voluptates quia voluptas necessitatibus accusamus nisi et quia. Ad nihil iure sit odit. Rerum pariatur ducimus aliquid earum.
Et corrupti non tempora corporis. Velit quis eaque autem unde dicta nesciunt enim enim. Ut cum deleniti blanditiis tempora commodi.
Saepe distinctio saepe quisquam nostrum mollitia ab quo dolorum. Eos et velit odit. Vel iure minima quas. Dolorum voluptates at fugiat nihil vel beatae illo.