Advisers doubt Obama

The majority of financial advisers have little faith in President-elect Barack Obama’s ability to put the nation back on sound economic footing.

An exclusive InvestmentNews survey of 968 advisers last week found that 61% lacked confidence in the new commander-in-chief’s ability to resolve the country’s economic woes.

After last Tuesday’s historic vote in which Mr. Obama was elected the nation’s first black president, advisers across the country began considering ways to protect client assets from changes that could go into effect under the incoming new Democratic-controlled government.

That’s not encouraging. Investment advisors are already advising their clients on ways to protect their assets from the President and his Economic Geniuses?

…and it might be too late to escape? (emphasis mine)

“Very possibly, we’ll be looking at a retroactive tax increase for upper-income people to Jan. 1, 2009,” Federal Policy Group managing director Ken Kies told more than 1,000 advisers who participated in InvestmentNews’ post-election webcast last Wednesday.

“the tax increase will be significant, and it’s going to be a lot more than anything he campaigned on.”

Before you dismiss this because you don’t count yourself among upper-income earners, remember, Obama’s standard for this distinction has and could fall further.

The Community Organizer was made famous by our President-Elect as his sole “qualification” for the job – save running a successful but financially corrupt Presidential Campaign. Credit is due; Obama changed politics and campaigns forever.

Obama’s success underscores the failure of Republicans to enlist the same level of grass-roots participation among conservatives and centrists that could (and that’s a probably a stretch) have swung the 2008 Presidential Race in John McCain’s favor.

John McCain lost the election not because he was a conservative. He lost because he wasn’t conservative enough. In any case, this election probably wasn’t lost in 2008, rather over the last eight to fourteen years.

The election of 2008 was probably over before it began as the conservative movement ended with George W. Bush’s first State Of The Union address. Republicans have failed to show Americans how they can best serve the interests of middle Americans, moving to the center and leaving the right unoccupied, sometimes desperately adopting quasi-liberal positions in the interest of political expediency.

For naught it turns out.

America hasn’t ceased to be Center Right but Republicans made the fatal mistake that Center-Right is where they should camp out to wait for them. The GOP has failed to make the case to the American people that conservatism represents the best hope for the values that the majority of Americans still hold to be true. Worse yet, Republicans have failed in their leadership by not notifying Americans that this crisis calls for sacrifice and discipline – not another government bailout. A bailout that in retrospect, John McCain should have voted against.

The promotion of Universal Health Care (albeit a “conservative” version), No Child Left Behind, buying ill-gotten mortgages and the most fiscally liberal Republican in modern history have left conservatives without a candidate – or a party.

The result? Kamikaze conservatives actually voted for Barack Obama to hatch another Jimmy Carter backlash.

…but many more stayed home.

Liberals have overrun conservative strongholds by gathering legions of new voters under the banner of esoterica, lead by “Community Organizers.” These Pied Pipers, heretofore dismissed, armed with the internet and credit card terminals are the new tools of political power aggregation and management. The meteoric and unsubstantiated rise of Barack Obama is the ignoble manifestation of this grass-roots groundswell. It bolstered voter turnout (although not as much as expected) among liberal constituents during a contest that concurrently exhibited a mediocre turnout among conservatives.

Lesson learned.

For ’12 -nay ’10- it behooves conservative Republicans (sadly, there is a distinction) to steal Obama’s playbook, rend the chapters on “How to Garner Fraudulent Contributions via Anonymous Credit Card Donations”, “Deflection and Projection”, and “How to Hypnotize the Electorate by Saying Nothing At All” and enlist their own “Community Organizers” to educate, motivate and mobilize the would-be conservative base for the next go-around.

The cause? A new Contract with America? A renewal of unabashed conservatism among Republicans. A rejection of the notion that our federal government is the solution to all ills personal and national. An acknowledgment that our government has become bloated, corrupt, and insolvent.

Moving to the center seemed like a good idea at the time. Average Americans however, are less ideological and more pragmatic. They just want to know who will help them keep their job, keep their taxes low, protect them from evil and share their values of family, freedom, and independence.

Republicans need to sell true conservatism as the only way to serve the long-term needs of the greatest number of Americans. True conservatism is good for the economy and our national security. True conservatism creates real wealth, real jobs and real charity. True conservatism promotes accountability and self reliance; still core values of America to this day. True conservatism promotes democracy and protects the world from tyranny while at the same time champions the rights of the smallest lives. True conservatism recognizes that some traditions got that way because they work.

Republicans have failed to close the sale that Ronald Reagan teed up for them. There’s a good chance Barack Obama and his cortege will meet them half way, but Conservatives need to make Liberal a bad word again. One voter at a time.

…we have two years.

…(we) must make this January to begin an emergency rescue of human civilization from the imminent and rapidly growing threat posed by the climate crisis – Al Gore

…and

This here map.

Dork.

My name is JRoosh, and I’m a Houseaholic. 

[Cliff Clavin] “Ahhhh, it’s a little know fact Nawm, that uh, America does not have a two party system. There is actually to date quite a few political parties. Truth be told, this year I voted for the Cool Moose candidate, a Mr. Bill Winkle.”[end Cliff Clavin]

To wit:

Car and Driver tests several Bond cars and is left underwhelmed. It turns out they may have actually used special effects in the production of these films! 

There are two ways James Bond’s cars are portrayed in film: seductively sitting still (often draped with beautiful women) or blazing across the screen in some of the most exciting car-chase sequences ever made for the big screen. But in many cases, there’s got to be some serious lens trickery going on: upon reviewing our test data for some of James Bond’s coolest cars, we found that not only are Bond’s rides seldom the fastest cars of their time, some of them couldn’t catch a bad guy on a bicycle. This could explain why some of those chase scenes take so long.

In any case, enjoy some of my favorites. The rest can be found here.

Aston Martin DB5 – Goldfinger (1964)

• 4.0-liter inline-6 (282 hp, 288 lb-ft)
• 0–60 mph: 8.1 seconds
• Quarter-mile: N/A

BMW 750iL – Tomorrow Never Dies (1997)

• 5.4-liter V-12 (322 hp, 361 lb-ft)
• 0–60 mph: 6.3 seconds
• Quarter-mile: 14.8 @ 98 mph

BMW Z8 – The World is Not Enough (1999)

• 4.9-liter V-8 (394 hp, 369 lb-ft)
• 0–60 mph: 4.5 seconds
• Quarter-mile: 13.0 @ 111 mph

Aston Martin Vanquish – Die Another Day (2002)

• 5.9-liter V-12 (460 hp, 400 lb-ft)
• 0–60 mph: 4.4 seconds
• Quarter-mile: 12.9 @ 115 mph

Caribou and Starbucks apparently think we’ve breached the Holiday season already.

The barista behind the counter this morning offered me a sample of their holiday cookies. I inquired as to how they would be keeping them fresh until the holidays actually arrived…

…well, I thought it was funny.

He…not so much.

I haven’t been to the mall of late, but I can only assume they are stringing popcorn, blinking lights and tinsel all over their stores as well.

Querry: Is this too much too soon or more of a good thing?

Discuss.

That’s right Mitch, the Market didn’t exactly endorse Obama’s victory. In fact, Barack Obama made history two days in a row: the largest post-election stock market plunge in history.

Nov. 5 (Bloomberg) — The stock market posted its biggest plunge following a presidential election as reports on jobs and service industries stoked concern the economy will worsen even as President-elect Barack Obama tries to stimulate growth.

Apparently the market has a different idea as to what will stimulate growth. Does the market not think that raising taxes and expanding government are good things? Is the market wondering why Liberals and their followers haven’t learned their lesson yet?

History…

Year Dow President-Elect

2008 -5.05% Barack Obama

2004 +1.01% George W. Bush

2000 -0.41% No decision: G.W. Bush v Al Gore*

1996 +1.59% William Clinton

1992 -0.91% William Clinton

1988 -0.43% George H. W. Bush

1984 -0.88% Ronald Reagan

1980 +1.70% Ronald Reagan

1976 -0.99% James Carter

1972 -0.11% Richard Nixon

1968 +0.34% Richard Nixon

1964 -0.19% Lyndon Johnson

1960 +0.77% John Kennedy

Draw your own conclusions…

From another Financial Advisor and close friend of mine “Casey R.”:

A few very important things occurred to me as I was watching predictable election results unfold last night.  An obvious fact remains based on the votes received by each candidate – we are still very much divided in this country, very evenly divided.

Obama won the majority vote and a delivered a corresponding “pounding” in what both parties recognize as a “quirky” electoral college.  Even though I was more comfortable with the experience of McCain, I understand and appreciate the rationale that lead so many to look to a motivational and charismatic man as an impetus for change.

I became very worried throughout the campaign as I learned more about Obama’s liberal voting history and limited efforts to vote outside his party. Democrats held McCain to the same standard and found that, although he did tackle non-partisan issues in Washington, he sided too often with a misguided President during his first term for their comfort.

Obama earned respect from me with his moment of candid humility last night.  It came with the admittance that for the nearly 50% of the country that didn’t vote for him, he needed to do his best to earn their support and confidence and he knew he couldn’t simply assume it.

(more…)

No need. We just became Canada.

The line forms here.

Am I a sore loser? Show me a good loser and I’ll show you a loser.

The Big Stink captures the essence for me…

Last night does not mean that my side is wrong – we were merely outnumbered.  …I’m going to be much more selective about whom I fight alongside in the future.  The old allies of “moderate” conservatives, I believe, led us to this dead end.  I no longer have a stomach for them.  They can pack sand.  If the party wants me to hitch my wagon to anything less than a Palin/Reagan conservative – get lost.  I’d rather go down in flames with my principles intact than ally myself with a bunch of rodents who believe conservatism means destroying just a few less liberties than liberalism.

As for me, I am going to work hard as always; not look to the government to solve my problems or pay my mortgage. I am going to enjoy watching Obama’s minions try to cash in the lottery tickets he’s given them, rhetorically speaking. You promised Obammy! -er, I mean Mr. President, sir.

Ah, the perils of high expectations.

Today begins the campaign of ’12.

Barack Obama discovers a leak under his sink, so he calls Joe the Plumber to come and fix it. Joe drives to Obama’s house, which is located in a very nice neighborhood and where it’s clear that all the residents make more than $250,000 per year.

Joe arrives and takes his tools into the house. Joe is led to the room that contains the leaky pipe under a sink. Joe assesses the problem and tells Obama, who is standing near the door, that it’s an easy repair that will take less than 10 minutes.

Obama asks Joe how much it will cost.

Joe immediately says, “$9,500.”

“$9,500?” Obama asks, stunned. “But you said it’s an easy repair!”

“Yes, but what I do is charge a lot more to my clients who make more than $250,000 per year so I can fix the plumbing of everybody who makes less than that for free,” explains Joe. “It’s always been my philosophy. As a matter of fact, I lobbied government to pass this philosophy as law, and it did pass earlier this year, so now all plumbers have to do business this way. It’s known as ‘Joe’s Fair Plumbing Act of 2008.’ Surprised you haven’t heard of it, Senator.”

In spite of that, Obama tells Joe there’s no way he’s paying that much for a small plumbing repair, so Joe leaves.

Obama spends the next hour flipping through the phone book looking for another plumber, but he finds that all other plumbing businesses listed have gone out of business. Not wanting to pay Joe’s price, Obama does nothing.

The leak under Obama’s sink goes unrepaired for the next several days.

A week later the leak is so bad that Obama has had to put a bucket under the sink. The bucket fills up quickly and has to be emptied every hour, and there’s a risk that the room will flood, so Obama calls Joe and pleads with him to return.

Joe goes back to Obama’s house, looks at the leaky pipe, and says “Let’s see – this will cost you about $21,000.”

“A few days ago you told me it would cost $9,500!” Obama quickly fires back.

Joe explains the reason for the dramatic increase. “Well, because of the ‘Joe’s Fair Plumbing Act,’ a lot of rich people are learning how to fix their own plumbing, so there are fewer of you paying for all the free plumbing I’m doing for the people who make less than $250,000. As a result, the rate I have to charge my wealthy paying customers rises every day.

“Not only that, but for some reason the demand for plumbing work from the group of people who get it for free has skyrocketed, and there’s a long waiting list of those who need repairs. This has put a lot of my fellow plumbers out of business, and they’re not being replaced – nobody is going into the plumbing business because they know they won’t make any money. I’m hurting now too – all thanks to greedy rich people like you who won’t pay their fair share.”

Obama tries to straighten out the plumber : “Of course you’re hurting, Joe! Don’t you get it? If all the rich people learn how to fix their own plumbing and you refuse to charge the poorer people for your services, you’ll be broke, and then what will you do?”

Joe immediately replies, “Run for president, apparently.”

HT “Uncle Dave”

7:07 AM Today

When voters enter the booth tomorrow, Iraq won’t be much on their mind as a whole. Iraq is going so well (as wars go) that the media has turned a blind eye. Covering it after all would only benefit John McCain whose criticism of George Bush and promotion of the surge proved to be dead on.

In the days, hours and moments leading up to the moment of truth in the booth, it will be the economy, once again.

I have heard numerous comparisons of Barack Obama to Jimmy Carter in the sense that like Carter’s administration, an Obama era will create such an economic disaster that Americans’ short memories will be restored and an era of fiscal conservatism will be ushered in once again.

It’s a sad day when the upside is how bad things will be.

Then again, is this a lesson America needs to learn once and for all?

Chances are, our economy is going to get a lot worse before it gets better no matter who ends up in the White House. Even Ronald Regan, if elected on Tuesday, wouldn’t be able foster an economic turnaround for at least a year if his presidency is any measure.

There is great cause for concern however that a President that has among his many ambitions a desire to further the Socialism experiment that has weaved its way through our history as a nation.

Raising taxes on the wealthy and giving it to the less-so, isn’t Socialism; but it is one of it’s major tenets. Forcing lenders to lend to borrowers not qualified to do so isn’t either but it it also smacks of Socialism and social engineering.

If Obama’s platform was to raise taxes for everyone and pay off the national debt, I would consider it but even then, he’d have to cut them first to stimulate the economy and stimulate job growth, wait for the result, and then raise taxes. This assumes that raising taxes is the means by which to pay down our debt – and that’s a stretch at best.

Then again, if he cut taxes, revenue to the government would increase dramatically, as has been proven time and again, and those dollars could then be funneled to pay down our debt. In order to stimulate our economy and pay down our national debt, it’s magnitude having become a national security issue, our nation faces the inevitable pain of our government cutting spending dramatically while at the same time cutting taxes to stimulate the economy.

This will happen by choice, if sooner; by force if later, under the weight of simple economics and mathematics. It’s coming friends, whether we like it or not.

Barack Obama lacks the character, leadership, experience and political inclination to make these tough choices, encourage temporary sacrifice and guide our nation through the most dire and precarious economic conditions in modern times.

John McCain on the other hand has the all of the above and a record to prove it. I will be voting for him because of the two, I think he has the best chance of steering us clear.

Obama’s euphoric groupies need to be reeled in a bit. Apparently their expectations of Obama exceed him.

Barack Obama’s senior advisers have drawn up plans to lower expectations for his presidency if he wins next week’s election, amid concerns that many of his euphoric supporters are harbouring unrealistic hopes of what he can achieve.

Now they tell us. Good thing I haven’t voted yet. Just in time to switch to McCain.

Nonetheless, I wonder what expectations they are referring to?

Here’s one: That he is qualified to be President.

I actually giggled to myself when I read this. The election isn’t even over. Obama’s supporters are actually whipped to such a froth that his handlers feel the need to prepare lowered expectations for delivery to his sycophant disciples once and if he achieves the office of the President.

Let me see if I (or you in the comments) can be of assistance…

Hope will now become Mild Despair

Change will now become Slightly Less of The Same

We Are The People We Have Been Waiting For will now become Please Hold The Line; Calls Will Be Handled In The Order They Were Received

Tax cuts to 95% of Americans will become New Online Access to the Unemployment Benefits Application Process

Spread the Wealth will become Oops. Sorry About Your Job.

Affordable Health Care For Everyone will become Is There A Doctor In The House?

Okay, you give it a try…

Obama has been touting the absurdly transparent notion that 95% of Americans will receive a tax cut under his “plan”.

As long as you make less than $250,000 $200,000 $150,000 $100,000 $50,000 and aren’t a corporation, you’ll be “safe.”

But businesses and employers are too smart for that; you will pay. We all will.

An increased tax burden will become a cost of doing business. A cost that will be passed through and ultimately borne by consumers via higher prices on goods and services that soon they won’t be able to afford any way because so many will have lost their jobs; rendered by the cutbacks (already in progress by the way) necessitated under an Obamanomics regime.

Does Obama really believe that the rich got that way by taking losses or swallowing costs?  When the price of gas or copper or labor or insurance or anything else increases, businesses and the people who own them have two choices: they can lose money or they can raise prices and pass the cost along to their customers.  What do you believe they will do?  If you need a moment to figure this out, you are probably a hardcore Democrat and you can stop reading now.

Anyone else, conservative, moderate, or apathetic, knows the answer: businesses cannot lose money.  They will pass along any increased taxes in the form of price increases.  The taxes they pay, you pay — eventually.  The only difference is that unlike the hated 5 percent of Americans that Obama openly brags of punishing with new taxes, you will not get a bill from the government declaring your new taxes.  You’ll just pay more for milk and gas and credit and clothes and iPods and everything else you buy.  At the end of the month, you will have less money and not know why.  Doubtless, Democrats will tell you to blame the rich for that too.

I heard someone (It wasn’t a wealthy person or a business owner – I can tell you that) say this week “No one believes that the rich will stop making money just because they have to pay higher taxes.”

I agree. The wealthy, business owners, the employers in America won’t stop trying to create wealth. To them, a bad day running their own business is better than a good day working for someone else. It’s their nature. They will innovate and do it with with less. Less employees – the very people that Obama professes to be the messiah champion of. Suckers.

The effect of liberal policies is reflected in the current (or should I say latest) crisis in our domestic automotive industry. Workers “served” so well over the years by their Unions will soon be losing their jobs as GM and Chrysler merge – Chrysler will disappear, only after closing half it’s manufacturing plants. Tens of thousands are about to lose their jobs.

Permanently.

Earlier this week we published a Battle Royale between General Motors and Chrysler in order to determine in a fun way which vehicles from each automaker that compete directly in the marketplace would survive if the two merged. Out of 12 matchups, GM vehicles won eight and Chrysler four. A new report by consulting firm Grant Thornton LLP largely confirms that our experiment was spot on. The report says that if a GM/Chrysler merger happens, only the Dodge Ram, Chrysler and Dodge minivans and a few Jeep models will survive.

…Chrysler’s model lineup across all three brands would largely be wiped out if a merger with GM happens, as well as the plants that build those models and the workers who do the building.

America’s auto unions have “spread the wealth” too, forcing employers to pay an artificially high price for labor, in turn bringing on the demise of the domestic auto makers because they simply can’t compete with higher-quality product produced by people that are willing to work harder for less money. In the end, it is no consolation that the American has had it so much better when his foreign counterpart still has his job.

Try as you may to manipulate our economy with “wealth spreading”, the market will ultimately determine the value of products, services and wages. Liberals decry the evil of outsourcing when it is their very policies that incent American corporations to seek it.

Employers are already running scared and their employees know it – hence the drop in spending and growth. We have one quarter of decline already in hand. One more, and we officially have a recession. And Obama hasn’t even taken the helm yet.

Obama’s economic plans will not “save” anyone. Raising taxes will simply be throwing sand in the gears of our economy and everyone will suffer for it. Exactly the wrong idea at exactly the wrong time.

I am less concerned for Obama’s now obvious ambitions and ideologies, and a liberal Congress doing his bidding. I’m more concerned that if Obama is installed, it will be exactly the other way around. There is a greater chance Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi will see their plans manifest in policy than Obama’s “redistributive change.”

Admittedly John McCain hasn’t been the most charismatic media darling like his smooth-talking Marxist opponent but he represents the closest thing we have to a savior in a time we are about to need one. We need someone that will stands up to a democratic congress to bring some semblance of balance.

…and hope…that things don’t get a whole lot worse…for a whole lot of people.

Barney Frank has been the recent target of conservative attacks and of course the McCain campaign of late because he represents the absolute worst in congress today. Unapologetic liberalism: tax and spend; weaken our military by cutting funding.

Thing is, Barney is trying to turn the tables, and appear the victim; play the minority card; as if anyone cares what he does with his wiener.

“I’m flattered by this,” said Frank, who is gay. “But I don’t think I’m the single most important member of the House after Nancy Pelosi. There are also a lot of straight white men who are committee chairmen.”

McCain’s chief speechwriter, Mark Salter, shook his head when asked to respond. “We’re bringing him up for his quotes,” said Salter. “We’re prejudiced against wasteful spenders and tax hikers.”

Barney, you’re not dangerous to America because you’re Gay. Who the hell cares. You’re dangerous to America because you are morally corrupt. The two aren’t mutually inclusive.

As in Pork that is.

As Congress debated the historic financial rescue package on Oct. 3, the world economy was hanging in the balance. The House already had rejected Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s emergency $700 billion banking bailout plan. The Senate, hoping to get the House to relent, added $110 billion in “sweeteners” and sent the bill back.

One of those sweeteners jumped out at Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio). It would permit Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands to pocket $192 million in federal excise taxes collected from rum-makers in those territories.

“Madam speaker, the Senate’s response to the House rejection of the Paulson plan was to add more spending. So we got tax breaks for rum,” Kaptur said from the well of the House. “You’ve got it right. R-U-M.”

This is an outrage! I rarely drink rum. If this were Brandy or Single-Malt Scotch, I would be in full support. Rum (save 151) is a waste of taxpayer dollars!

Methinks Joe Biden meant that literally.

Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden did not tell the truth Thursday when hit with tough questions about ACORN from a veteran journalist.

“Aren’t you embarrassed by the blatant attempt to register phony voters by ACORN, an organization that Barack Obama has been tied to in the past?” said Orlando, Fla., WFTV anchor Barbara West.

“I am not embarrassed by it,” Biden replied. “We are not tied to them. We have not paid them one single penny to register a single solitary voter . . . We register the voters ourselves, and so there is no relationship.”

A Newsmax Fact Check shows that Obama has had a long relationship with the group, and the Obama campaign did indeed pay an ACORN subsidiary more than $800,000. The radical Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) is a multi-faced creature its founders spun off into about 100 separate legal entities.

The Obama/Biden campaign doesn’t happen to deal in pennies. Dollars, yes. Pennies, no.

A great many Americans are poised to vote against the status quo without regard for whom or what they will get in its stead.

Change? Hope?

Unquantifiable values by design. The deliberate work of a candidate and a campaign to sweep the electorate off its feet with empty promises of a better time and place.

But what of Obama’s Agenda? What designs does Obama have for the Presidency if he wins? That should be the question voters and the media should have asked by now – and haven’t.

When what little detail Barack Obama has selectively, calculatedly seen fit to share with us, coupled with his tactical “present” votes is put in the context of the nature of his associations…The Socialist Party,  Terrorist William Ayers, “God Damn America” Reverend Wright, 2007’s Senator Joe Biden (2007’s Third Most Liberal Senator; Guess who was first), The Corrupt Barney Frank,The Convict Tony Rezko, Demolition Expert and Campaign Adviser Frank Raines…it is clear.

Barack Obama is declaring a War on Capitalism. He wants to redistribute wealth while at the same time punishing those who create it. A shocking level of ignorance of basic economics – heck, even mathematics.

Look at just a few of the things he and congressional Democrats have in mind: Higher taxes on successful entrepreneurs (anyone earning over $250,000), higher taxes on capital gains, higher taxes on dividends, a possible raid on Americans’ 401(k)s, a takeover of America’s private health care industry, strict new limits on what CEOs can make, and the reimposition of the death tax.

Add it up, and Obama will usher in a new era in America — one where capital, the engine of our economic growth and success, is punished severely through the tax code. If Democrats win a filibuster-proof majority in Congress, it’ll be the only form of capital punishment their party will support.

And this is just what we know so far.

From a Chicago Public Radio Interview of Barack Obama in 2001 on the radical Warren Court; a set of ideals and leanings that Barack Obama would never express now, in the throes of a Presidential campaign, but nonetheless reveal the radical leanings of a man America has yet to truly come to know:

…the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and, uh, sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And, uh, to that extent as radical as people try to characterize the Warren Court, uh, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed, uh, uh, by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter if negative liberties-says what the state can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the federal government, the state government must do on your behalf. Uh, and that hasn’t shifted. And one of the, uh, I think, tragedies of the was um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused, uh, I think there was a tendency to lose track the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change [emphasis mine], and uh, in some ways we still suffer from that.

The Stock Market is already factoring it in, but if Obama becomes President, Americans may be in for a surprise. Democrats will be donning “Not My President” bumper stickers, as the true ambitions of an extreme liberal unfold.

Redistribution of Wealth is simply a seemingly innocuous way of saying “raise taxes” and “spend more.” It’s like siphoning the gas out of a car, getting in and turning the key, and Change/Hope-ing it will still take him somewhere.

The effect on our economy could be devastating as legions of economists have already attested. As is it stands, our economy may already need several years to dig out of the challenges we already face, without a liberal super majority making it worse.

Higher taxes lower returns on capital. This means everything — wages, stock prices, real estate — will have to decline further as Obama’s tax hikes take hold. That means fewer jobs.

This reverses what has always been America’s recipe for success: an economy built on low taxes, few regulations, free trade and, in general, letting markets decide winners and losers.

Obama says he’s merely “spreading the wealth” — taking money from those who’ve earned it and giving it to those who haven’t. But we already “spread the wealth.” According to economists Gerald Prante and Andrew Chamberlain, the top 40% of households redistribute $1 trillion each year through the tax code to the bottom 60%. And yes, that includes the middle class.

By the way, the top 5% of earners — those squarely in Obama’s tax-hike cross hairs — already pay 60% of all taxes. Obama’s changes would skew that further.

Worse, many of Obama’s “get the rich” tax hikes are really targeted at successful small businesses that create nearly 90% of all U.S. jobs. Among tax filers with adjusted gross incomes of $200,000 or more, some 67% report small-business income.

This is radical stuff. These are catastrophic positions and beliefs that would otherwise be intolerable to Americans, but that are being advanced part and parcel via the popularity of a candidate, The One, for one simple fact:

He’ s not George Bush.