Obama Wins 2012 elections, Implications for India and the World

[W.G.Ewald]

No, not really. Only 538 of them really matter.

Yes, the USA is a representative republic.

 

[spikey360]

This wall street "drama" is temporary. Soon market forces will take over and bring the market up (the US economy is already on an upward trend, albeit slow).

Kid, wall street is not in the business of performing arts. It is raw and cold indicator of the outlook of the American economy. They already know how the last 4 years have been. So they are re orienting themselves for another 4 years of wealth destruction.

It is lamentable, the way Obama has won. I do get an idea how the whites who voted overwhelmingly for Romney are feeling right now. It wouldn't be surprising if racism becomes more extreme in America because block voting of the black people and their sympathisers is electing a President who will pull down the economy further. The same economy which took many generations of white entrepeneurial skills is all going to fall apart in an orgy of love towards the undeserving. My thoughts also with those enterprising Americans of Indian origin who made it big in America with qualities the Republicans value and worship. You should seriously think of coming back to the motherland now that it has been made clear which path the US has decided to head.
This election was a shame for everything America actually stands for. WHITE, CHRISTIAN, CAPITALISM. A great shame these influences will be dipping from now on.

From an Indian perspective, nothing changes. As long as America struggles, it is to the advantage of everyone. Period.

 

[pmaitra]

Kid, wall street is not in the business of performing arts.

Well said.

It is raw and cold indicator of the outlook of the American economy. They already know how the last 4 years have been. So they are re orienting themselves for another 4 years of wealth destruction.

The fact is that this time around, either Obama will toe the line of businesses, and we will see more unfulfilled promises, like the last 4 years, or he will do all he can to pursue his policy that brings the economy into severe damage. Remember, he cannot be a President for the third time, so he might as well do whatever he wants to.

It is lamentable, the way Obama has won. I do get an idea how the whites who voted overwhelmingly for Romney are feeling right now. It wouldn't be surprising if racism becomes more extreme in America because block voting of the black people and their sympathisers is electing a President who will pull down the economy further. The same economy which took many generations of white entrepeneurial skills is all going to fall apart in an orgy of love towards the undeserving. My thoughts also with those enterprising Americans of Indian origin who made it big in America with qualities the Republicans value and worship. You should seriously think of coming back to the motherland now that it has been made clear which path the US has decided to head.

Actually, immigrants from Africa are usually very responsible and progressive.

This election was a shame for everything America actually stands for. WHITE, CHRISTIAN, CAPITALISM. A great shame these influences will be dipping from now on.

I don't agree with this part. America stands for hard work and creating your opportunities.

From an Indian perspective, nothing changes. As long as America struggles, it is to the advantage of everyone. Period.

If America struggles, it might be willing to offer more concessions to India w.r.t. technology transfer, but overall, it is going to hurt business, in America, and consequently, the world over.

 

[aeroblogger]

This election was a shame for everything America actually stands for. WHITE, CHRISTIAN, CAPITALISM. A great shame these influences will be dipping from now on.

What? We should be celebrating the decline of WHITE, CHRISTIAN influences. Might I remind you that we are BROWN, (largely) NON-CHRISTIAN people?

 

[civfanatic]

Yes, the USA is a representative republic.

Yes, which means that not everyone's vote matters.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

Mark Levin passionately defends conservatism and analyzes last night's election in the opening monologue of the Wednesday broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio program. Here's a partial transcript of Levin's opening remarks:

MARK LEVIN: We conservatives, we do not accept bipartisanship in the pursuit of tyranny. Period. We will not negotiate the terms of our economic and political servitude. Period. We will not abandon our child to a dark and bleak future. We will not accept a fate that is alien to the legacy we inherited from every single future generation in this country. We will not accept social engineering by politicians and bureaucrats who treat us like lab rats, rather than self-sufficient human beings. There are those in this country who choose tyranny over liberty. They do not speak for us, 57 million of us who voted against this yesterday, and they do not get to dictate to us under our Constitution.

We are the alternative. We will resist. We're not going to surrender to this. We will not be passive, we will not be compliant in our demise. We're not good losers, you better believe we're sore losers! A good loser is a loser forever. Now I hear we're called 'purists.' Conservatives are called purists. The very people who keep nominating moderates, now call us purists the way the left calls us purists. Yeah, things like liberty, and property rights, individual sovereignty, and the Constitution, and capitalism. We're purists now. And we have to hear this crap from conservatives, or pseudo-conservatives, Republicans.

Mark Levin Gives "Unvarnished Truth" On Romney Loss | RealClearPolitics

Audio embedded at link.

Mark Levin is the man conservatives should listen to, not Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity.

Mark Levin

 

[average american]

Americans rejected Romeny and the republicans and what they stand for,, and if they cant adapt to the changing america then they willl end up in the dust bin of history.

 

[pmaitra]

Americans rejected Romeny and the republicans and what they stand for,, and if they cant adapt to the changing america then they willl end up in the dust bin of history.

Half of America rejected Romney, and the other half rejected Obama.

The thriving American economy is half way into the dustbin, anyway.

 

[cloud_9]

Ami Bera becomes first Hindu to enter US House

Washington: Dr Ami Bera was on the cusp of creating history by becoming only the third Indian-American ever to be elected to the US House of Representatives, as five others from the community bit the dust in the polls.

Bera, 45, had a lead of just 184 votes against his Republican rival and incumbent Dan Lungren, when all the votes were counted for the Seventh Congressional District in California.

But the Secretary of State, California put the results in the category of "Close Contest", in which there is less than a two per cent difference between the first and second place for candidates or between yes and no votes for ballot measures.

According to the Office of the Secretary of State, California, Bera had received 50.1 per cent of the total votes counted, while Lungren had received 49.9 per cent of the votes.

Bera received 88,406 votes, while Lungren got 88,222 votes.

So far only two Indian-Americans have been elected to the US House of Representatives.

Dalip Singh Saund, was the first Indian-American elected to the US Congress in 1950s, while Bobby Jindal, was a House member from 2005 to 2008 before being elected as the Governor of Louisiana.

Bera whose parents migrated to the US some 50 years ago was endorsed by charismatic Bill Clinton, the former US president, last month and he campaigned in his favour twice. He had outraised his opponent in fund raising.

In neighbouring Ninth Congressional District of California, "young gun" Republican Ricky Gill lost by more than 10,000 votes (nearly seven percent votes) to incumbent Democrat Jerry McNerney.

Gill, 25, was endorsed by top Republican leaders, including Louisiana Governor Nikki Haley, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and former Governor of Florida Jeb Bush.

Rest of the four Indian American candidates -- Dr Syed Taj, Dr Manan Trivedi, Upendra Chivukula and Jack Uppal -- also lost the Congressional elections.

Except for Gill who represents the Republican Party, the other five candidates were from the Democratic Party.

Three of them were physicians by profession.

In Michigan's 11th Congressional District, considered to be a Republican stronghold, Democratic Dr Syed Taj, who originally hails from Bihar and is the younger brother of Syed Shahbuddin, gave a tough fight to his opponent K Bentivolio.

Pollsters were having a tough time in making any projection even when 90 per cent of the votes were counted, when Dr Taj was trailing behind by nearly 20,000 votes.

Upendra Chivukula, who is the Deputy Speaker of the New Jersey Assembly, lost to incumbent L Lance by a huge margin of more than 50,000 votes (about 18 percentages). The Seventh Congressional District in New Jersey has been a traditional Republican seat.

For Iraq war veteran, Dr Manan Trivedi, from the Democratic Party this was his second consecutive loss to the seating Republican Congressman J Geralch. In the Sixth Congressional District in Pennsylvania, Trivedi was defeated by more than 46,000 votes.

In California's Fourth Congressional District, Jack Uppal of Democratic Party was defeated handsomely by Republican opponent Congressman T McClintock. He lost by a margin of more than 20 per cent.

Obama won because of People like Todd Akins (& their Immigration Policy)

@2:00
[video=youtube_share;M09iWwKiDsA]http://youtu.be/M09iWwKiDsA[/video]

 

[asianobserve]

Kid, wall street is not in the business of performing arts. It is raw and cold indicator of the outlook of the American economy. They already know how the last 4 years have been. So they are re orienting themselves for another 4 years of wealth destruction.

Old man, I know what I'am talking about since I am in that business. Not in wall street of course. But yes, the market can be manipulated on the short term but not on the medium to long term. It is well established that in wall street a lot of big funds, traders and billionaires do not like this administration and they are vocal about it. This lack of enthusiasm in the short term reflects their deep disappointment (a lot of them are selling off purely on emotions).

Of course there's the legitimate issue of fiscal cliff. But any investor worth his weight in salt should know that there's no way the US is going to default (that would certainly be the end of the US as we know it). We can expect however an increase in taxes for Americans and those working there like my friend Pmaitra (who is already lashing at at that prospect).

 

[asianobserve]

Kid, wall street is not in the business of performing arts. It is raw and cold indicator of the outlook of the American economy. They already know how the last 4 years have been. So they are re orienting themselves for another 4 years of wealth destruction.

White people (mostly white women) also voted for Obama just as some minorities voted for Romney.

 

[pmaitra]

Old man, I know what I'am talking about since I am in that business.

Excellent comeback. :thumb:

Not in wall street of course. But yes, the market can be manipulated on the short term but not on the medium to long term. It is well established that in wall street a lot of big funds, traders and billionaires do not like this administration and they are vocal about it. This lack of enthusiasm in the short term reflects their deep disappointment (a lot of them are selling off purely on emotions).

In a nutshell, people are not feeling that their money is secure. While I am not virulently against tax slabs, there should be a limit to how much you can leech off those that make more money. Many who make more money actually spent more money in education, while their poorer counterparts fooled around when they should have been studying hard. The majority of the top 25% of Americans are not bankers, FYI.

 

[asianobserve]

In a nutshell, people are not feeling that their money is secure.

This is entirely subjective. This feeling is now more acute in people like -

Koch brothers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sheldon Adelson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And many more like them, a lot of them give millions to the Romney campaign to unseat Obama.

 

[asianobserve]

While I am not virulently against tax slabs, there should be a limit to how much you can leech off those that make more money. Many who make more money actually spent more money in education, while their poorer counterparts fooled around when they should have been studying hard. The majority of the top 25% of Americans are not bankers, FYI.

CNBC Transcript Part 2: Warren Buffett on Taxing the Rich - US Business News - CNBC
CNBC Transcript Part 3: Warren Buffett Defends His 'Tax the Rich' Call - US Business News - CNBC
CNBC Transcript Part 4: Warren Buffett on the 'Buffett Rule' - US Business News - CNBC

 

[pmaitra]

CNBC Transcript Part 2: Warren Buffett on Taxing the Rich - US Business News - CNBC
CNBC Transcript Part 3: Warren Buffett Defends His 'Tax the Rich' Call - US Business News - CNBC
CNBC Transcript Part 4: Warren Buffett on the 'Buffett Rule' - US Business News - CNBC

Should the last 4 years be taken into consideration?

 

[asianobserve]

Should the last 4 years be taken into consideration?

What do you mean?

 

[asianobserve]

Note this -

ANDREW: I don't want to go there. Let's get back to Warren Buffett and Becky, who's in Omaha this mooning. I got a question if you'd indulge me, Warren. I've been doing a little bit of research while you've been talking. Now just about the tax rate, which you've talked about the tax rate — higher tax rate in the '50s and '60s being 52 percent, but the effective tax rate during that period on the .01 percent, and there's a study — I'll send it to you — says the effective tax rate on a .01 percent back then was actually 71.4 percent in the 1960s and 74.6 percent in the 1970s. And my question is, would those rates fly today and what would the impact on the economy be. And I ask that in the context that in the '50s and '60s some people would argue — and we had a number of people emailing already — suggesting that the wind was at our backs, if you will when you think about the economy during that period.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/46543864/


In the boom years of America in the 50s the richest .01% were actually being taxed @ 52%! This is something. Yet America kept on growing until the oil shock of the 70s.

 

[pmaitra]

What do you mean?

Should we see whether 'taxing the rich' in the past 4 years have yielded the desired results?

 

[pmaitra]

Note this -

ANDREW: I don't want to go there. Let's get back to Warren Buffett and Becky, who's in Omaha this mooning. I got a question if you'd indulge me, Warren. I've been doing a little bit of research while you've been talking. Now just about the tax rate, which you've talked about the tax rate — higher tax rate in the '50s and '60s being 52 percent, but the effective tax rate during that period on the .01 percent, and there's a study — I'll send it to you — says the effective tax rate on a .01 percent back then was actually 71.4 percent in the 1960s and 74.6 percent in the 1970s. And my question is, would those rates fly today and what would the impact on the economy be. And I ask that in the context that in the '50s and '60s some people would argue — and we had a number of people emailing already — suggesting that the wind was at our backs, if you will when you think about the economy during that period.

CNBC Transcript Part 4: Warren Buffett on the 'Buffett Rule' - US Business News - CNBC


In the boom years of America in the 50s the richest .01% were actually being taxed @ 52%! This is something. Yet America kept on growing until the oil shock of the 70s.

So what happened right after the boom time?

America was not growing as much as it is shown. America's growth looked better because they were inflating the US Dollar. The Dollar started declining way before that.

The following promise was not made after 1963, and not honoured after 1968.

Read fine print under "One Dollar."

 

[asianobserve]

Should we see whether 'taxing the rich' in the past 4 years have yielded the desired results?

Nobody taxed them yet. Unless there's a different reality in the US. But from what I know in 2010 the Bushe-era tax cuts were extended by 2 years. So it will end this December.