Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (54349)	11/3/2008 7:58:05 PM
From: tonto	Respond to of 224704

After so many years of an expanding economy, who here is not better off financially than in 2000? Just curious.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (54349)	11/3/2008 8:37:51 PM
From: Ann Corrigan	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 224704

AP: John McCain Could Win Electoral College Victory Monday, November 3, 2008 WASHINGTON — It's a nightmare scenario for Democrats — their nominee Barack Obama winning the popular vote while Republican John McCain ekes out an Electoral College victory. Sure, McCain trails in every recent national poll. Sure, surveys show that Obama leads in the race to reach the requisite 270 electoral votes to win the presidency. Sure, chances of Republicans retaining the White House are remote. But some last-minute state polls show the GOP nominee closing the gap in key states — Republican turf of Virginia, Florida and Ohio among them, and Democratic-leaning Pennsylvania, too. If the tightening polls are correct and undecided voters in those states break McCain's way that could make for a repeat of the 2000 heartbreaker for Democrats that gave Republicans the White House. In 2000, Democrat Al Gore narrowly won the popular vote by 537,179 votes. But George W. Bush won the state-by-state electoral balloting that determines the presidency, 271 to 266. The outcome wasn't clear until a 36-day recount awarded Florida, then worth 25 electoral votes, to Bush by just a 537-vote margin. Before the 2000 election, political insiders had speculated just the opposite, that perhaps Bush would win the popular vote but lose the presidency to Gore. Enthusiastic by all measures, the Illinois senator's Democratic base was expected to run up the score in liberal bastions of party strongholds such as New York and California. But the race appeared to be naturally tightening in top battlegrounds that each candidate likely will need to help them reach the magic number in the Electoral College, electoral-rich Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia among them. To win, McCain must hold on to most states that went to Bush in 2004, or pick up one or more that went to Democrat John Kerry four years ago to make up for any losses. McCain's biggest target for a pickup is Pennsylvania, which offers 21 votes and where several public polls show Obama's lead shrinking from double digits to single digits. McCain faces a steep hurdle. Obama leads or is tied in a dozen or so Bush-won states, and has the advantage in most Kerry-won states. The Republican's campaign argues that as national surveys tighten, McCain's standing in key states also rises and that, combined with get-out-the-vote efforts, will lift McCain to victory in Bush states and, perhaps, others. "What we're in for is a slam-bang finish. ... He's been counted out before and won these kinds of states, and we're in the process of winning them right now," Rick Davis, McCain's campaign manager, said Sunday. Obama and McCain have been faring about even among independent voters. But there are signs that the GOP's conservative base has rallied in the final stretch and these voters usually turn out in droves, even if lukewarm on the candidate. Then there's the question of a tie in the Electoral College. In that case, members of the next House would select the winner. If Obama carries every state that Democrat John Kerry won in 2004, plus Iowa, New Mexico and Nevada, then he and McCain each would have 269 electoral votes. A tie also would result if McCain takes New Hampshire from the Democrats' column but loses Iowa, New Mexico and another state that Bush won, Colorado. In an election year that's defied conventional wisdom time and again, anything can happen.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (54349)	11/3/2008 10:15:39 PM
From: Catfish	1 Recommendation Respond to of 224704

Obama's Mine Shaft By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY \| Posted Monday, November 03, 2008 4:20 PM PT Election '08: Barack Obama's plan to bankrupt anyone building a new coal plant prioritizes global warming myths over U.S. energy independence. It also wields government power punitively and will hurt the economy. Speaking to the San Francisco Chronicle on Jan. 17, Barack Obama singled out new coal plant construction for big taxes. The scheme, part of the cap-and-trade energy policy he wants to implement as president, is meant to tax coal producers straight out of business. "So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can," Obama said. "It's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted." Isolated gaffe? No. On his own Web site, Obama declares: "Once we make dirty energy expensive, the second step in my plan is to invest $150 billion over the next decade to ensure the development and deployment of clean, affordable energy." In other words, Obama's plan is confiscatory taxes to first destroy America's domestic energy producers, and once that bridge is burned, force the U.S. to rely on alternative energies that haven't been developed. The big-government plan might make ideologues happy, but in the real world, it won't work. History shows that centrally planned industries fail, and when there's an energy shortage, the private sector works best when it's left alone. We aren't just talking Cuba, where the agricultural base was destroyed after Fidel Castro decreed that it would produce only sugar, or Russia, where farms were devastated in the 1930s after collectivization. In the 1970s, Jimmy Carter splashed out billions to develop shale oil and created a vast boondoggle with no new energy produced. In Brazil, the military-financed ethanol project also was a money-pit until the 1990s when the government ended all involvement. Obama's $150 billion plan would be no different. But it's worse than just burning money because its punitive element destroys one of America's best competitive advantages: its treasure trove of coal and the companies that produce it. America is the Saudi Arabia of coal, with the world's largest demonstrated reserve base of 489 billion short tons, the Energy Department says. About 93% of it is used to produce electricity, and it provides about half of U.S. electricity needs. As the nation's economy expands, that need for coal is projected to grow about 20% by 2030. If that need can't be met, consumers will be hit with high prices brought on by shortages. Meanwhile, America's 80,000 miners and 1.6 million workers in coal-related and coal-dependent industries would suffer from Obama's taxes on new plants. "Under my plan of a cap and trade system," Obama said in another interview, "electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." He added that because "I'm capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to the consumers." The biggest problem with Obama's plan is that it taxes productive companies, and offers nothing but "hope" to replace the missing energy. He does not propose using our current resources as a bridge to cleaner energy. He'd rather stop their use cold. No nuclear power, no offshore drilling, no new coal plants, and if consumers have to pay more, too bad. Obama's attack on coal use surely will leave us poorer. ibdeditorials.com