preserve us!

(V): [ Now.. what regulations were you referring to in this...
"Technically, it's illegal to have an underground economy that avoids regulations paperwork and taxation, but when government makes it impractical to do business legally then underground economies will thrive" ]

You really do have a one track mind. I wasn't referring to regulations nor rules nor off shore accounts nor anything else you seem to wish limiting the conversation to.

I was merely referring to a fact of life. Underground economies can and do exist, either because they deal in illegal activities (theft, drug and gun running, prostitution, extortion, etc.) or because their existence is a natural reaction to over taxation and over regulation that restrict rather than encourage otherwise acceptable free trade practices. My focus is NOT on what are generally accepted to be illegal activities, but rather on naturally emergent underground economies that come about due to heavy handed governmental interference in day to day LEGITIMATE business activities.

If this is confusing, then all you really need to take from this is (and here I go quoting myself again) --->

---> "...when government makes it impractical to do business legally then underground economies will thrive."

Again, I am NOT referring to any particular rule or regulation. All I am saying is "...when government (any government) makes it impractical (for private citizens) to do business legally (and by impractical I mean difficult to the point of not being able to effectively engage in business) then underground economies will thrive."

If there is a need that cannot be supplied, or supplied well, through a government sanctioned (government approved) economy, then usually what happens is an underground (not government approved) economy will naturally emerge.

That was my point. It had nothing to do with any particular rule or regulation... nor did it have anything to do with aliens from outer space, nor the Easter Bunny nor Santa Claus nor the one religion on this planet that bothers you so much you feel compeled to rag endlessly on and on about it even though but especially if it has nothing at all to do with what is being discussed.

This could be from lack of sleep, but I could swear I'm seeing before me very eyes a shift in "ideology" from some who not long ago were approving of voter fraud, but now seem to be disapproving of voter fraud. There must a reason for this dramatic shift in attitude... whatever could that reason be?



Okay, yes, I admit it... that WAS a rhetorical question.

*</:op

We should leave what is left of the earth's oil where it is. At the same time, we should be looking at technologies that may enable us to replace the missing oil with a syntheic whale-like blubber substitute because we can't afford to kill any more whales if they are needed for other things in the future.

Don't conservatives know anything about science? Underground reserviors of crude oil lubricate the earth's crust and keep earthquake/volcanic activity to a minimum. The reason for startling increases of both earthquake and volcanic activity over the past 50 years can be directly linked to how much oil we have already sucked up from under the earth's crust.

The natural lubricating properties of oil over the past 5 gazillion years has stabilized the earth's crust by minimizing friction between tectonic plates, causing the surface of the earth (where most of us live) to become less volcanic and gassy than it was many eons ago before we was here. If we remove most or all of that oil, we will wish we only had to worry about global warming... followed by global cooling, with intermittent periods of mild temperatures and occasional precipitation.

(V): re: Limits on campaign funds."

And donate 10% of every dollar spent on the campaign to paying down the deficit.It won't make much of an impact, but at least it would be money well spent

The Col: Limits on campaign funds.

(V): The influence on these politiciens by lobbyists is a MAJOR issue, toss them all out along with the nameless SUPERPACS

Bwild: [ I really dont think anyone has the answers...but big business funded dems and repubs....got to go!!! ]

I hate to say this, especially right after you backed me up (I did appreciate that) but I don't believe we would be better off with a third party alternative to Democrats and Republicans. When I was thinking of switching parties I first considered registering as an Independent, so I wouldn't feel I was limiting myself to supporting any particular party. I decided to switch to registering as a Republican not because it was perfect, but because it was the party that came the closest to representing my point of view. But as far as big business or any other group (or individual) who gives money to one side or the other is concerned, if the Independent party grew to the point where it could become a serious contender then it would have to accept money as well just to stay in the game. I'm not going to say "sad but true", because to my way of thinking it's just a fact of life... like paying for groceries or anything else you want to have. Actually, it's more like an investment, because it's not perfectly clear even to the investor how it might benefit him or not. Not everyone gives in the hope of a personal kickback, and it's not always some plus/minus game these people are playing when they donate to a campaign. The benefits many contributors are hoping for are intangible rather than tangible... benefits like a better economic environment for working families and individuals, where they have a chance to get ahead instead of only working to not lose what they have.

Personally, I won't throw millions of dollars to anyones campaign because I don't have millions of dollars to spare... if a bum walks up to me on the street and asks for spare change, all I can do is to tell him...
"Well gosh, if I just had a few more million dollars to my name I could spare a little change, but I don't know how long I'll be able to hang on to what I have. Look me up after the election, then I'll know if I can help you out or not."


I've been up all night, so if there is a point I'm trying to make then I'm afraid it's up to you to figure out what it is... because I've already distracted myself into wandering into some other area of the Twilight Zone...

On the up side though, I believe I now know what Darth Evaders problem has been all this time. He just needs to get more sleep, a LOT more sleep... a hibernation type ultra REM sleep.

The Col: Voter ID soon.. regardless, is a lame duck.

Bwild: Is to limit lobbying.

Bwild: Hey.. It's been known to be a joke this side of the pond since the 80's

Don't worry dude, we have the problem of what are the losers going to do every election.. Most of the time it's to slag off the party in power, while not really having a clue what to do. Half the promises get dropped being "too expensive" or suddenly 'complicated'.

Actually Obamacare for all your perceived faults in it, had one good point. The end of most uninsured people only getting treated via A&E (ER to you) ..... a rather costly system. Preventive care being cheaper you know.

"you nor the Col. really have no clue as to what is really happening in the U.S.
Lamon hit the nail on the head...but like most sheep...you two follow the media to slaughter."

Dude.. You are a young country.. we've been there ... had our civil wars.. decades of unrest before and after.. industrial revolution.. we started it.. had to give up an empire. Lived under a cold war, been told "they" are the enemy.. when all "they" were.. just poor souls like everyone else trying to live. Puritans.. we had em' Oliver Cromwell is famous for leading the above mentioned civil war... They didn't last.

Here in the UK.. I'm a moderate.

(V): Well, Americans have surrendered the right to walk the high road in regards to voters rights IMO.The fraud excuse is a joke, as the video where the Republican stating the id laws will give Romney Ohio points out.

The Col: So did many women from the era of suffragettes.

Bwild: I agree with you to a degree.How Obama was expected to turn things around in 4 after an unprecedented collapse is unreasonable, but understandably seized upon by the Republicans for political purposes.Many of the issues you mention are under state administration, Presidents have less control than people think.Is Obama the answer? I am less sure of that now than I was last election , but frankly my support of Obama is based more on my dislike of Romney than it is support of Obama.I don't like people(or candidates) who will say whatever suits the audience, that shows a lack of character, and character matters.I also see who Romney is in bed with politically, and it scares the maple syrup out of me.I could see myself supporting a Republican one day, if they come back from the cliff of extremism, hell, I vote conservative in Canada, but this is not the Republican party of years gone by, they cheer against the country in hopes of re election, and that stinks like treason.

is Statesmen not politicians

The Col: you wouldnt listen if I told you.
but in case you do...
people are starving. no jobs..no unemployment..banks stealing homes by the thousands every day.
food pantry's swamped with fat people..standing in line for their weekly hand-out.
crime is out of control. best business going is the penal system. politicians write more stupid laws...more people going to prisons...
food,insurance,housing,fuel,etc...all on the rise.
these things have gotten WORSE not better,over the last 4 years.
romney is not the answer...but a better choice than obama. Gary Johnson is really the best choice imo...but his stand on letting immigrants over-run us is just crazy.

I really dont think anyone has the answers...but big business funded dems and repubs....got to go!!!

Bwild: I bet I am more informed of what's going on in the USA than half the voters, at least.Very few pay attention, I do.So what is "really happening" in the USA?

(V): it was a joke. I'm none of the above. the independent party almost got my vote,but for immigration issues I disagree with.
you nor the Col. really have no clue as to what is really happening in the U.S.
Lamon hit the nail on the head...but like most sheep...you two follow the media to slaughter. it is a sad day in American history imo...the only upside will be the deletion of obamacare.

(V): Soldiers are rolling in their graves , they gave their lives for the right to vote

The Col: Aye. Some weird manure happening from some reports I've read.

(V): I wonder if other countries should send people to the USA to monitor voter suppression

sad, but true

Bwild: Oh noooo they get the job of representing the tea party .. !! .. sorry Republicans when it comes to blocking the Democrats.

.. payments for services going offshore to hide the money trail

polls are showing the democrats taking an early lead......well at least until the republicans get off work! lol

Iamon lyme: so is this the giant pot calling a small kettle black thing? Because you seem to have many preconceptions about what people who don't think like you think. ... stereotyping it's called.

Now.. what regulations were you referring to in this...

"Technically, it's illegal to have an underground economy that avoids regulations paperwork and taxation, but when government makes it impractical to do business legally then underground economies will thrive"

"The US has over the years discovered enough untapped oil to live very comfortably and for a very long time, without needing to import oil from anwhere else."

Ok.. recent developments (since I last saw the figures) in oil drilling (fracking) are going to increase production. Yet... you still have a shortfall now of over 7 million barrels per day, estimates for production increase (Citibank forecast) say that by 2020 you could be producing 13-15 million barrels a day. Still at current usage levels far below what your country consumes.

.... if it wasn't for the cost of crude going up, it wouldn't be profitable to use fracking.. crude must stay over $75 a barrel to make it worthwhile. Yet one concern is mentioned.. will it cause contaminated water from the fracking to enter the ground water that ends up in your taps?

Is this ok? Do you concur?? Or are liberals (whatever that means to you) going to get blamed for everything?

(V): [ the story is that if your country relied purely on internal stocks you'd run out of cheap oil quickly. Your country consumes more than it can provide itself on a reasonably sustainable level. Everyone knows that I thought.. maybe you are an exception ]

If I was a liberal then yes, I would be an exception to the rule of not telling anyone about how much oil we could be getting from our own sources.

And yes, all of the oil (every bit of it) in the whole wide world would eventually run out sometime in the future, but not nearly as soon as we have been told. After liberals restricted the drilling of oil and the building of new oil refineries in MY country, they then pointed to dependence on foreign oil as their reason for promoting other energy sources... many of which would be coming online in the future anyway as technology continues to naturally progress. But instead of letting free market forces and the natural progression of technology run it's course, liberals want to be in control of that process themselves.

However, in the process of gaining control over this for themselves, they have managed (as they always seem to do) to gum up the works and slow down that very progress they wish to take credit for. They can't be content with simply letting it happen, they feel they must make it happen.

I don't know where you get your information, but I suspect it's from sources commited to not telling the whole story and for reasons I've already explained. The US has over the years discovered enough untapped oil to live very comfortably and for a very long time, without needing to import oil from anwhere else. The reason we are as dependent as we are on foreign oil are the roadblocks and restrictions liberals have put into place. If those restrictions are lifted, along with restrictions against building new oil refineries, we could become just as independent as any other country that does not restrict itself from tapping into oil in areas that belong to them.

(V): "Other than yourself, no one said anything about free enterprise with no rules."

[ So.. what regulations would you keep? Be clear for once if you can. ]

Very well, I will clearly state for you here and now that I said nothing about "free interprise with no rules". You added that bit about "with no rules" to it... that did not come from me, it came from you. Do not expect me to continue commenting on your responses to straw men. When you are able to read without adding your own bits here and removing things there, maybe then we can have an adult conversation.
Maybe...

Artful Dodger: they were all at the cannabis rally!!

Iamon lyme: the story is that if your country relied purely on internal stocks you'd run out of cheap oil quickly. Your country consumes more than it can provide itself on a reasonably sustainable level. Everyone knows that I thought.. maybe you are an exception

"So Castro was actually revolting against US companies."

Who were using Cuba as a virtual slave state.. I presume you don't want to face upto that fact by your reply.

"So I guess that means you are for gun control, to limit individual gun ownership so as to insure foreign forces will meet with no significant resistance from the locals."

No..... I was commentating on how much of the 18-19th century land gains were gained through taking lands. Especially in Africa.

"The ordinary man isn't required to pay 40% to 70% of his income in taxes."

wow... you really think people at the top do that... if you do, I'd have to say you are very naive.

"Other than yourself, no one said anything about free enterprise with no rules."

So.. what regulations would you keep? Be clear for once if you can.

"What safeties did you have in mind, or are you asking because you don't know?"

Not being sold products that are underweight, false advertising, knowing that the goods we buy are upto standard... simple things like that.

"I weary of my own ramblings"

ditto, it'd be nice if you dropped some of the ham acting

(V): "...various ways to escape paying taxes. Legal one... that's the joke. It's legal to avoid paying taxes if you are rich.. something a ordinary man does not have the ability to do."

The ordinary man isn't required to pay 40% to 70% of his income in taxes. The ordinary man can escape paying this higher tax rate by simply not being wealthy. So one way to look at this is that NOT being wealthy is in effect a tax break for the ordinary man, because he is soaked at a lower rate than his wealthy counterpart.

"But please tell me how this free enterprise with no rules works?"

Other than yourself, no one said anything about free enterprise with no rules.

"What safeties are there to protect us from fraud, lies, death in your world?"

What safeties did you have in mind, or are you asking because you don't know? As far as safeties to protect you from death... well, don't be a klutz and watch where you are going, avoid fatty foods and don't drink too much alcohol or smoke too much weed or watch too much porno or tell ANY woman those pants make your butt look fat. Also, you should occasionally look up and watch out for falling anvils and pianos, drink plenty of fluids before going to bed at night and throw salt over your shoulder if you spill any and try not to break any mirrors (that one actually falls under the heading of don't be a klutz) and take two aspirin but don't call me in the morning... there are many other precautions you should take, but you are going to die someday anyway, and your chances of being raptured away grow slimmer by the day, so seeing as how I weary of my own ramblings I'll see you tomorrow if you live long enough to get there...

(V): "So why has our nations supported so many in return for ore and crude oil?"

If dependence on foreign oil is so bad then why do liberals want us to remain dependent? We have enough untapped oil here to become independent of any foreign oil. So what's the story here (V), are you for the liberal agenda or against it?

"If the companies exploiting Cuba had not done so with such disregard for the locals... Would Castro have risen to power so dramatically?"

So Castro was actually revolting against US companies... but if aliens from outer space had gotten involved to protect US companies like Hasbro and Pepsi Cola then Castro would have still revolted and taken over the US securities and exchange commission's oversight committee chairmanship and positioned himself to go on from there to rule Cuba.

"... It's recorded in records.. Resources to the civilised world... guns and bullets to keep control in foreign lands."

So I guess that means you are for gun control, to limit individual gun ownership so as to insure foreign forces will meet with no significant resistance from the locals. What do you care if the locals are armed and able to protect themselves? How does that impact you, or in any way create for you an intolerable impaction with no relief in sight?

Iamon lyme: So if a company through lack of regulation supplied you with contaminated water you'd be ok with it? It's happened in the past in the USA!!!

"The only reason our nation (as well as yours) was able to become very prosperous as quickly as it did was because there were enough people acting on solid moral principles."

Not really.. alot was at the end of a gun and/or bayonet. Taking lands and resources that did not belong to our nations based on the principle that it was their for the taking. Millions of natives died through the march of God fearing Christians out to make as much profit for as little cost as they could.

... It's recorded in records.. Resources to the civilised world... guns and bullets to keep control in foreign lands.

eg.. If the companies exploiting Cuba had not done so with such disregard for the locals... Would Castro have risen to power so dramatically?

"and it's usually not anything good, except maybe for the petty dictator."

So why has our nations supported so many in return for ore and crude oil?

Artful Dodger: 45 people? Did they have to bus people in from other states?

(V): You are moralizing, and not really saying anything about the legality of business practices. Technically, it's illegal to have an underground economy that avoids regulations paperwork and taxation, but when government makes it impractical to do business legally then underground economies will thrive, according to the same principles of supply and demand that have proven to work in sanctioned business practices.

When government limits it's mandate to ONLY governing, and keeps it's hands off business except when laws are violated, then those underground economies shrink to accomodate already established illegal activities such as prostitution and drugs and illegal gun running (Fast and Furious)... in other words, the "thou shalt not steal" sort of laws designed to protect people. But if government gets itself involved in truely illegal activities as we've seen in petty dictatorships, then it's anyones guess what can happen next... and it's usually not anything good, except maybe for the petty dictator.

The only reason our nation (as well as yours) was able to become very prosperous as quickly as it did was because there were enough people acting on solid moral principles. You might want to believe it was for other reasons, but the connection between moral values and a nations safety and prosperity has been proven by history time after time after time... which to my mind means after several years of letting ourselves go, so to speak, we have put ourselves in the position of losing more ground than we have gained.

The last four years has been like a doctor treating a guy with an cut on his finger by breaking his legs and cracking open his skull. I think Obama has easily broken all past records of how much damage one president can do in four short years... and he couldn't have done it without the help of our major news organizations and the Democratic party machine... a puppet cannot stand up and walk around and mouth words all by itself.

Iamon lyme: If you're not a liberal when you're young you have no heart and if you're not a conservative when you're older, you have no brains.

I grew up and got brains.

Apple paid $713m (£445m) in the year to 29 September on foreign pre-tax profits of $36.8bn (£23.0bn), a rate of 1.9%. It is the latest company to be identified as paying low rate of overseas tax, following Starbucks, Facebook and Google in recent weeks. It has not been suggested that any of their tax avoidance schemes are illegal.

All of the companies do pay considerable amounts of other taxes in the UK such as National Insurance and raise large sums of VAT. Apple's figures for foreign tax appear on page 61 of its form 10k filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

It had paid a rate of 2.5% the previous year.

Apple channels much of its business in Europe through a subsidiary in the Republic of Ireland, which has lower corporation tax than Britain.But even Ireland charges 12.5%, compared with Britain's 24%.

Many multinational companies manage to pay substantially below the official corporation tax rates by using tax havens such as Caribbean islands.

So.. there we have it. It's not so much the rates are too high. Just companies want to do as much as possible, to avoid paying set rates .... as low as 12%.

If an individual who was self employed tried that.... They'd be facing fines and charges for defrauding HMRC.

If companies (as Romney says) are people.... Then they should be treated as such.

But I'm told (here) that such an attitude is wrong and that these 'people' are above the law of the land.

Iamon lyme: Oh no.. they might pay an extra few %... far less though than they use to pay. But it's ok.. cause businesses are people The country's balance sheet can goto pot. Schools, healthcare, infrastructure. Meaningless.

That since Raygun cut taxes dramatically the US has gotten deeper and deeper into debt is in no way relevant. One wonders if the cuts (ordered by the puppet masters) were to high.

"A free market benefits everyone, especially the consumer."

Really. When price fixing is part of your free market scenerio.

"since your knickers seem to permantly be in a twist over off shore accounts and people trying to avoid getting screwed by unfair tax laws..."

They are unfair? ....... how?

(V): Have you ever asked yourself why any big business would contribute heavily to a candidate who vows to raise taxes on big business? How can any business benefit from supporting higher taxes on their own business? Are they drunk on the koolaid and now believe giving it all away is the key to more profits? Actually, IMO if you look past the surface it appears to be a smart move and strictly a business calculation... it's not really a sacrafice if it gains you more profits in the long run.

It's because big business knows that in spite of the rhetoric leading peons like you and me to believe ONLY big business will be impacted, in reality all businesses are impacted by higher taxes. Bigger business can absorb the impact while smaller competitors are severly hamstrung or forced out of business, and can be bought out by their larger competitors. The key word here is "competitors". Raising taxes on the rich in effect causes less competition from rivals, which in turn allows prices to remain fixed (not go down). Competition is what leads to greater efficiency, which in turn allows for lower prices... prices become lower because you have various businesses competing in the same markets. Consumers usually don't have a problem with paying lower prices for the same things... only a moron would choose to pay more, but fortunately reasonable people still outnumber the morons. (I hope so)

In the long run a big business can benefit by elimation of competition, but everyone knows (or should) that competition is what causes prices to go down over time. A free market benefits everyone, especially the consumer.

This is basic economics that anyone can understand. Places like your London School of Economics is a great place to go if you want to become proficient in the esoteric art of forcasting, but for gubbers like me (and most other people) it's unnecessary overkill.

I have to say though, when the government can legally take over a business and force it to make bad investments, that is not good for anyone. Our housing crises can be blamed on large part because Democrats in congress put pressure on our banks to make bad loans. The idea was that anyone should be able to own their own home, even if they couldn't afford a down payment or the risk of default was high. Politicians who "feel our pain" and get what they want because of appeals to emotion end up being the biggest pains in our butts. They are long on promises and short on delivery.

By the way, since your knickers seem to permantly be in a twist over off shore accounts and people trying to avoid getting screwed by unfair tax laws, then maybe the government should step in and take over any and all businesses. That would go a long way to solving the unfairness problem. What do you think?

Iamon lyme: Yeah right.. that's what they do all the time. They don't pay any shareholders, or use various ways to escape paying taxes. Legal one... that's the joke. It's legal to avoid paying taxes if you are rich.. something a ordinary man does not have the ability to do.

"More people are out of work, and have stopped drinking the koolaid because now they'd rather know (instead of being told) how our economy actually works."

....??? a tasteless reference to the Jones town massacre??

"They've seen first hand what can happen when someone starts playing around and screwing with the economy, adding obstacles to free market growth rather than removing them."

Yes.. the banking system worldwide nearly collapsed. Trillions is pension funds screwed through people taking risks with normal peoples money they ought not to be doing... actually there was regulation but they choose to ignore it.

"There is plenty of money right now just sitting on the sidelines, ready to be pumped in as soon as investors know they will not be simply throwing their money down an endless tax and spend rat hole."

There was before hand.. in tax havens.

"or watch it go away in higher taxes and more restrictions on how they are allowed to run their business."

If people can't be trusted to be honourable and they are by trade supposed to be honourable.. we are supposed to just let them be cads and get away with it?

"So tell me, does your government over there tell you how to spend your monthly stipend?"

Cos I'm not clergy.. no.

"Why should you enjoy MORE freedom in deciding what to do with YOUR money than someone who works long hours hoping to stratch out a living"

We all enjoy the same rights. But businesses are bound by health and safety.. as I am to a degree. They pay VAT.. so do I. Certain contract rules apply to all.. unless you claim sovereignty... but that is a complicated. Everyone is expected to pay local taxes, and or any corporation tax.. unless you are a multinational cheating every country out of it's fair due by lying... Or like revealed today avoiding paying NI through shell corporations and because of the law... putting various schools, colleges and universities at risk of having to pay what they already thought they had paid.

But please tell me how this free enterprise with no rules works? What safeties are there to protect us from fraud, lies, death in your world?

rod03801: I agree as it seems the majority do. But, a significant proportion of people don't.

"And I'll NEVER understand why it isn't logical that it should be guaranteed that only people who legally can vote, do vote."

We have an electoral roll register system. Everyone has to register... no ID though, just a statement on who is living at a property of who can vote. Voting time... a card is sent out that must be presented before being able to vote.

So we have a very high registered voter base.. over 90%.

"Plus, most of those unregistered voters probably already have ID's. Sadly, many people just don't get involved because they don't think their vote matters."

A percentage, yes. But not all.

Artful Dodger: You were a liberal? When did you change your mind, and what changed your mind?

Iamon lyme: and what's even more surprising is that I got myself to the polling place my first time to vote-all by myself! I mean, I was even poor back then! I defied the odds. I was poor, white, a liberal, but knew how to take care of myself!

Our new and improved progressive economy is the future of "free" trade... light on the supply side and heavy on the demand.

Artful Dodger: "I'm just a white guy with an ID (since I was 16). And here I thought I was stupid back then!"

I was a 16 year old white guy too! We really do have a lot in common, I mean, what are the odds? I'm not 16 anymore, but I'm still white... and still a guy. I suppose that isn't going to change anytime soon. Actually, the liver spots on my hands say otherwise... if I was a horse I'd be a palomino.

At 16 you're not really stupid, just naive. Even smart people are naive at 16. Though after 30 not being any brighter than you were at 16 is... well, it's no longer naivety. Then it really can be called stupid. And the older someone gets after that (without gaining any wisdom) the stupider they become... until one day it can be said "There's no fool like an old fool."

rod03801: Well, you're not black or poor or both. You see, black people have trouble getting ID's (except for those blacks that know how to make fake IDs - but real ones, not so much). And the poor can't possibly get IDs (except if they drink, then they can get IDs easily cuz they love to use their government checks to drink).

Now most white people, even if they are poor, know how to get IDs (unless they are from heavily populated Democratic areas. Then those whites are as stupid as the liberal blacks.

Oddly enough, those blacks who are conservatives have absolutely NO problem getting an ID. But that's because they are conservatives. If they were liberal blacks, they wouldn't understand how to get a TOTALLY FREE government issued ID.

And finally, it helps to be dead. It seems that blacks and poor folk can't get easily attainable IDs but dead people manage to vote in each election. And many of these dead people were/are black! or poor! or both!

But what do I know? I'm just a white guy with an ID (since I was 16). And here I thought I was stupid back then!

(V): "4 more years?? Either way, the GOP is facing having to appeal to a more wider voting base."

The GOP is already appealing to a wider base, including Independents and many people who voted for Obama 4 years ago. And there also are more people who have decided class envy and raising taxes on the rich does nothing to free up money for growth and investment. More people are out of work, and have stopped drinking the koolaid because now they'd rather know (instead of being told) how our economy actually works. They've seen first hand what can happen when someone starts playing around and screwing with the economy, adding obstacles to free market growth rather than removing them. This so called "taxing the rich" ploy ends up raises taxes on all businesses and costs are passed along to consumers... because inevitably that is what happens when "only the rich" are taxed.

There is plenty of money right now just sitting on the sidelines, ready to be pumped in as soon as investors know they will not be simply throwing their money down an endless tax and spend rat hole. 4 more years of Obama means the choices are to continue sitting on their money, or watch it go away in higher taxes and more restrictions on how they are allowed to run their business. So tell me, does your government over there tell you how to spend your monthly stipend? If not, why? Why should you enjoy MORE freedom in deciding what to do with YOUR money than someone who works long hours hoping to stratch out a living?

It's Obama's base that has been dwindling, but he is still trying to appeal to them hoping there are more of them than anyone else can see. Who knows, maybe he really is the magical man. Maybe he can see things the rest of us can't see.