Sarah Palin Is A Fucking Retard

[Mr. Blonde]

Sarah Palin is a fucking retard! .com

[Fruitacious B]

thumbs up

[Mr. Blonde]

This bitch is going to run for president, or vice president again. hands down, there is no other reason why she's getting so involved with the faux-teabaggers and local town halls when she isn't even officially a politician right now.

[Beebs]

She is rather stupid; god I hope she turns into the Howard Dean of the next election, a huge favorite in the beginning only to fade away. I really don't want to vote for her, but I will not vote for Obama. A stupid person with smart people telling them what to do is far better than a relatively intelligent person who is just flat out wrong.

[Mr. Blonde]

If the presidential race turns out to be Obama vs. Palin:

Blonde: Obama
Beebs: Palin

[DDTempest]

I would vote for government issued buttsex daily over Sarah Palin.

Thankfully I still have the option of just not voting.

[Beebs]

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

If the presidential race turns out to be Obama vs. Palin:

Blonde: Obama
Beebs: Palin

Options of last resort are not usually very appealing.

[DJ FC]

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

If the presidential race turns out to be Obama vs. Palin:

Blonde: Obama
Beebs: Palin

Obama:
Blonde


Palin:
Beebs
DJ FC


Edit: Fuck it I'm making a thread.

[BigDongedHoe]

I'd vote for an amputated penis to sit in the oval office daily and not make any decisions at all then have Obama be President again.

Soooo

Obama:
Blonde

Palin:
Beebs
DJ FC
BDH

[Mr. Blonde]

Palin On Her Palm Notes: God Did It Too (VIDEO) | TPM LiveWire


When Sarah Palin wrote a few notes on her hand during her speech to a tea party convention last month, she was ridiculed by bloggers, comedians and White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. This weekend, she defended the notes at an Ohio pro-life fund-raiser, saying she was in good company.

A fan, she said, had sent her a biblical passage. Isaiah 49:16 reads: "See, I have engraved you on the palms of my hands; your walls are ever before me."

"Hey, if it was good enough for God, scribbling on the palm of his hand, it's good enough for me, for us. He says, in that passage he says, I wrote your name on the palm of my hand to remember you. And I'm like OK, I'm in good company," Palin said to laughter.

During her tea party convention speech, Palin had dismissed President Obama as a "charismatic guy with a teleprompter."

Un-fucking believable.

[Der Fuhrer]

Although I'm extremely confident that Palin will never get the nomination to run for president, I'd still vote for her over a talking monkey. Obama has so many flaws that, if he weren't black, would have ended any fucking chance of becoming president. Here are a few such things:

1. Reverend White's god damn America speech. This is the guy who Obama went and heard speak every Sunday for twenty some odd years. He fucking married him for Christ's sake.
2. Obama "paid his way through Harvard law school". BULLSHIT. You don't pay your way through Harvard law school. It's not fucking feasible, the university is too expensive. What actually happened is that, being a poor minority, the government (aka tax money from you and me) paid his bitch ass way through law school at harvard.
3. He's half-black
4. His family is black
5. He is a socialist who has no understanding of business or the struggle to earn a profit

I'd like to thank my dumbass generation for electing him. You allowed him to play on your emotions, to use catchy slogans and celebrity endorsements to wet your vaginas. You believed promises that could never have been kept. You are fools.

Obviously there is more to it than just the above things, but I'm really too lazy to get into it right now. The only hope for an economic turnaround in the next few years is a republican congress. I have a strong feeling that the democrats will pay for their ignorance in the upcomming elections, and there is a good chane we will have a republican congress. Unfortunately, the only hope for the US is also the only hope for Obama's reelection, a republican congress. It's just like when Clinton was president. During his first term, the economic situation was shitty. Then in the following elections a republican congress was elected, and the econnomy started to boom. Of course, everyone credits Clinton, but the fact is Clinton was a dumbass, and we are paying for much of the stupid shit he put into effect during his reign.

So...

Obama:
Blonde

Palin:
Beebs
DJ FC
BDH
Der Fuhrer

[Fruitacious B]

Obama:
Blonde
Fruitacious


Palin:
Beebs
DJ FC
BDH
Der Fuhrer

[Mr. Blonde]

Der, it's really hard for me to take a post like that seriously when you include things like:

Originally Posted by Der Fuhrer

3. He's half-black
4. His family is black
5. He is a socialist

[DDTempest]

Obama:
Blonde
Fruitacious
DDTempest

Palin:
Beebs
DJ FC
BDH
Der Fuhrer

Pretty sure Obama could accidentally carpet bomb the United States with our own nukes and piss on the lap of the Lincoln memorial while sucking off the devil himself and be a better president than Sarah Palin.

Having said that, regardless of his ideas, policies, agenda, etc his presidency was effectively over the second Ted Kennedy died because the Republican party is absolutely dedicated to making themselves look good by making him look bad, and it's working quite marvelously.

Washington has become such an incredibly complicated machine with so many moving parts that it only takes a couple fuckasses loosening a couple bolts here or snipping a couple wires there to grind the whole thing to a fucking halt.

[Mr. Mistoffelees]

I haven't been watching the news lately, but is Palin seriously a potential presidential candidate?

[Mr. Blonde]

From overseas it certainly seems like the GOP is grooming the fuck out of her.

[f3lix]

The CPAC straw poll (which the GOP has used for decades to determine who realistically will represent them for the next Presidential bid) had the following results. 11 candidates plus other and none of the above as options.

31% Ron Paul
22% Mitt Romney
7% Sarah Palin

That's your top 3. Doesn't look good for Palin.

[Mr. Blonde]

I would have very little problem voting for Ron Paul.

[Ugly Bastard]

Originally Posted by Mr. Mistoffelees

I haven't been watching the news lately, but is Palin seriously a potential presidential candidate?

No. Sarah Palin is a huge bubble right now. She has no chance of even winning the nomination. In a few years people will look back on Sarah Palin and say "lol oh yea... I remember her!"

[Der Fuhrer]

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

Der, it's really hard for me to take a post like that seriously when you include things like:

Maybe you should change your name to Mr. Serious. Seriously, no one wants to read nothing but serious shit, it's fucking lame and boring. If you do, then you're probably lame and boring. I add things like that for some comedy relief, if not for you then for myself because it makes me laugh.

Obviously I know a lot more than you, though, Mr. Blonde. Although I don’t know what your educational background is, I’m sure most of your time at college was spent butt fucking your fraternity brothers. I do, however, respect your opinions on most subjects because you do not appear to be a dumbass. As I said before, I could go into more details, but that's boring. However, to humor you I will now give you an in-depth analysis on one reason why Obama is a terrible president.

He has the largest government deficit EVER. Yes, I know Bush also ran a deficit, but Obama took Bush's budget and went BLING BLING on that shit. What happens when a government runs a deficit, and how does a government pay for this deficit? There are two options, raise taxes or borrow more. Obviously Obama's deficit is so large he's likely going to have to do both. Look at this chart comparing Bush's and Obama's spending.



When he taxes the "rich" (apparently over $200K is rich, maybe he hit the crack pipe too much living on the south side) and corporations even more (corporations already pay more tax in America than any other country in the world), the actual rich people will hide their money where the government can't take it or they will leave the country altogether, and corporations will continue to flee to other countries with pro-business governments (i.e. ones that don't have any corporate tax) as they already are. This will result in less employment and will likely have the unintended consequence of actually lowering tax revenues. The solution will be to print more money and this will create inflation. It is called seigniorage and it's just another tax.

The other option is to borrow more money. The problem is that there is not an inexhaustible amount of funds available for lending. The amount of lending that can occur is basically equal to the amount of savings minus currency on hand and banks' required reserve ratios. When the government needs to borrow more money, it increases the demand for loanable funds. Private investment gets "crowded out" when this happens because there is only a limited amount of loanable funds. Crowding out has potentially serious implications for economic growth because capital investment in the private sector is, on average, more efficient than that of the government. This is true because private firms are profit maximizers whereas public spenders are utility maximizers. Efficient capital investment is a staple of persistent economic growth. Therefore less private investment leads to less efficient capital investment which leads to less economic growth.

How much crowding out occurs depends on the elasticity of the supply of loanable funds, which in this market, I would say is fairly inelastic. I have poorly drawn two graphs below to illustrate how this occurs.

In graph one, the supply of loanable funds is quite elastic, which is shown by its relatively flat slope. In other words, ΔQ/Δr, where r is the interest rate, is fairly large. In this example, let's assume that Q1 is $5 billion. Let's also assume that of this $5 billion, $2 billion is private borrowing and $3 billion is government borrowing. Now let’s suppose the government wants to increase its deficit by an additional $5 billion, and it finances this deficit through increased borrowing. So Demand + has shifted to the right by $5 billion. However, when we have non-vertical, non-horizontal curves, the vertical and horizontal shifts in one curve will be greater than the change in the variables. In this case, Demand doubled, which means Q will less than double. The result will be that Q2 has only increased by $4 billion. Thus at Q2 we have a situation where the government wants to borrow $8 billion, the private sector wants to borrow $2 billion, but only $9 billion of loanable funds are willing to be supplied to the market. So what happens? Because the government has absolutely zero risk of defaulting on its debt, lenders will always prefer to lend to the government rather than the private sector. The result in this example will be that $8 billion in loanable funds will be supplied to the government and the private sector will only be able to borrow $1 billion in the market instead of the $2 billion that it would like. Thus $1 billion of private investment has been crowded out by the increased government deficit of $8 billion.



The second graph shows the exact same situation, except that the supply curve of loanable funds is much more inelastic, meaning that ΔQ/Δr is quite small. In this case even more crowding out occurs because the ΔQ resulting from a ΔDemand is even less than the ΔDemand. In this situation, using the above example, Q might only increase by $3 billion and thus the private sector would be crowded out by the government entirely. $8 billion in loanable funds would be supplied to the government and there would be no credit available in the private sector.



We can also show this effect mathematically. However, unless you have studied economics to at least an intermediate level, it is unlikely that you will understand this analysis. But since we're all about being serious and proving our points with facts, I'll try my best to explain it clearly.

In order to simplify our model, we will start with a few simplifying assumptions to make life easier.

1. There is only one interest rate. This makes the analysis easier since we don't have to consider simultaneously the several different interest rates in the economy. This assumption is reasonable because the different interest rates generally move in the same direction.
2. Assume the interest rate is flexible.
3. Assume that variables change instantaneously. Although unrealistic, we're using this assumption because we are only concerned with the magnitude of changes rather than the path of the change
4. Assume borrowers and lenders act independently. This allows us to neglect those who act as both borrowers and lenders and the same time.

In terms of definitions, we only have the simple one that the interest rate is the price paid for the loan and the price received by making the loan. This is basically a supply and demand model, where the equilibrium occurs at Qs=Qd. Therefore we need to derive these behavioral relationships of demand and supply. We have three main borrowers in the credit market: households, firms, and the government.

Households borrow to spend more today than what they earn. The higher the interest rate, the worse a trade-off it is.

Firms borrow for investment purposes. This will be affected by the expectation of the future strength of the economy. Let X equal this value. It is an expected value derived using statistical techniques which are beyond the scope of this discussion. X is positively related to the demand for credit. Also, the interest rate increases the cost of borrowing and is therefore negatively related to demand.

The government will borrow funds to finance its deficit which occurs when it spends more than it taxes. Let G equal government spending and T equal taxes. Therefore the deficit equals G-T. G-T is positively related to the demand for credit.

Now let's put this all together to construct the demand side equation. Please note that lower case letters denote subscripts and capital letters denote variables.

Qd = f(R, X, G-T) = Do - DrR + DxXo + DzZo

Where Do is exogenous demand for credit. This is to indicate that there are probably other variables outside this model which affect demand. DrR is the portion of demand affected by the interest rate, denoted as R. The Dr in front of R is used to show that it is part of the demand equation in reference to the interest rate. It is also to show that the ΔQd/ΔR is not a 1 to 1 ratio, thus DrR. I will do this for all of the variables. A 'o' subscript reflects those forces determined outside the system which have an impact, thus Do is exogenous demand.

Also note that I have changed G-T into Z, just for simplicity. I have also included that X and Z are exogenous (determined outside of the model) thus we have DxXo and DzZo.

Now let's consider the supply side to the credit market. We need to know how banks obtain the funds to make these loans, and why they make them in the first place.

Banks get these funds from demand deposits (DD) and time deposits (TD). The definitions of these types of accounts are not relevant; you only need to know that the greater the amount of these deposits, the more loans can be made. Thus they are positively related to the supply of credit.

Banks make these loans in order to make a profit. The profit is determined by the interest rate paid for the loan. Therefore the supply of credit is positively related to the interest rate, R.

Now we can form the supply side equation.

Qs = f(R, DD, TD) = So + SrR + SddDDo + StdTDo

Also please note that the supply of time deposits has a sexually transmitted disease, denoted Std. Just kidding, it just got tested and it's clean.

Finally we have the equilibrium condition, Qs = Qd. So let's show the model completely.

1.) Qd = Do - DrR + DxXo + DzZo
2.) Qs = So + SrR + SddDDo + StdTDo
3.) Qs = Qd

I will solve for R first, because it is the only endogenous variable to solve. I want to solve for the endogenous variable because it is the only one which is determined within the model we have constructed. To solve for R, substitute 1 and 2 into 3. This gives you:

Do - DrR + DxXo +DzZo = So + SrR + SddDDo + StdTDo

Now we want to solve for R and find the reduced form equation. I'm not going to show the algebra and if you cannot do this simple algebra you should probably just kill yourself unless you are 15 years old or younger.

Once you get the terms with R on one side, factor out the R and you have:

R(Dr + Sr) = Do - So + DxXo + DzZo - SddDDo - StdTDo

Then divide both sides by Dr + Sr to obtain the reduced form equation for the equilibrium condition R.

R = Do - So + DxXo + DzZo - SddDDo - StdTDo / (Dr + Sr)

This equation is very useful because we have an endogenous variable on one side and exogenous variables on the other side. Thus you can determine how changes in the exogenous variables affect R. These effects can be seen in the slopes shown below.

ΔR/ΔXo = Dx/(Dr+Sr) ; ΔR/ΔZo = Dz/(Dr+Sr) ; ΔR/ΔTDo = -Std/(Dr+Sr) ; ΔR/ΔDDo = -Sdd/(Dr+Sr)

The last step is to find the reduced form equation for the equilibrium quantity condition. To do this just substitute the equation for R into either the Qd or Qs equation and simplify. It's easier to use the supply equation because the slope of R is positive. Doing so gives you the result:

Q = So + Sr (Do - So + DxXo + DzZo - SddDDo - StdTDo) / (Dr + Sr) + SddDDo +StdTDo

Now you need to put this all over a common denominator and combine like terms. Doing so gives the result:

Q = (SrDo + DrSo + SrDxXo + SrDzZo + DrStdTDo + DrSddDDo) / (Sr + Dr)

Now you can look at the slopes, which by the way, tell you a lot about what effects changes in exogenous variables have on the endogenous variable, Q.

ΔQ/ΔXo = DxSr/(Dr+Sr) ; ΔQ/ΔZo = SrDz/(Dr+Sr) <- most important for our discussion ; ΔQ/ΔDDo = DrSdd/(Dr+Sr) ; ΔQ/ΔTDo = DrStd/(Dr+Sr)

Now with this information we are ready to take a look at what happens to the credit market when the government changes its deficit.

First you must consider Dz, the amount that demand for loans changes with respect to changes in the government deficit. It seems very likely that this parameter will equal 1 because for every dollar increase in the deficit, the government will have to borrow an additional dollar. So looking at the above slope for ΔQ/Zo = SrDz/(Dr+Sr), if Dz = 1, then, ΔQ/ΔZo = Sr/(Dr+Sr) and likewise, ΔR/ΔZo = 1/(Dr+Sr).

Because Dr and Sr are positive it follows that 0 ≤ (Sr/Dr+Sr) ≤ 1

From this you can see that ΔQ/ΔZo ≤ 1 and ΔQ < ΔZo

As you can see this clearly proves what I have stated above with respect to the graphs. The change in the quantity is less than the change in the deficit, which means the quantity of new loans is not enough to cover the increase in funds the government wants to borrow. Because the government is much less risky, the increase in loanable funds will go to the government. As a result, private investment will fall by the amount of ΔZo - ΔQ.

If ΔQ/ΔZo = 1, then there will be no crowding out. Each dollar of deficit increase will be met by a dollar increase in new loans.

If ΔQ/ΔZo = 0, then there will be no new credit forthcoming. For every dollar of increased deficit, one dollar will be sacrificed from the private sector to fulfill the government's borrowing needs.

From this you can see the following conclusions. The larger that ΔQ/ΔZo is, the smaller the crowding out will be and the smaller ΔQ/ΔZo is, the greater the crowding out will be.

You should see that the size of the slope plays a big role in determining the amount of crowding out. You should also see that Sr and Dr play a very important part in determining the size of this slope.

A large amount of crowding out will occur if Sr/Sr+Dr approaches zero. This will occur if Sr approachs zero (supply of credit gets steeper) or if Dr approaches infinity (demand for credit gets flatter). If Sr/Dr+Sr is close to 1 then there is little crowding out. This will occur if Dr approaches zero (demand for credit gets steeper) or if Sr approaches infinity (supply of credit gets flatter).

If you actually took the time to read all of this, congratulations to you! You now have a basic understanding of credit markets and the effects of government spending on this market! You are awesome! Seriously, I took a lot of time to make this post. It included research, formulations, and I have two whole pages of scrap paper devoted to constructing this post. I sincerely thank you for reading it, and if you have any questions at all, please feel free to ask about them I’d be happy to answer them.

As you can see from all of this, Obama's massive deficit is going to have serious negative consequences for economic growth. What will the effects of this be? Well, firms will invest much less in a country will stifled economic growth, and they are far more likely to invest in a country with a high level of growth such as China or India. This is because they are profit maximizers. Obviously this has been occurring for quite some time now, but we’ve also been running a deficit for quite some time. If there is less investment by firms in America, you can count on there being fewer jobs. There are other institutional factors which play a role is suppressing economic growth other than fiscal policy such as the legal system and labor unions to name a few. The bottom line is that Obama sucks, end of story. His government programs will do nothing for the economy except give the poor more welfare and destroy economic growth. If you don't like what I have to say, don't blame me, blame economics.

See how boring serious is???

[Fruitacious B]

I blame Bush.

[Mr. Blonde]

That was a seriously awesome post. I must say, i'm very impressed, as a relatively new member (registered in 2007 you are actually likely a previous member who had this as a novelty account, but whatever) you put a lot of effort into that post and are clearly well educated on the subject.

I read the entire thing, yes. Understood all of it, no, but will probably continue to reference it in my relatively infantile stage of economic understanding...there are quite a few equations to take in at once. That was pretty boring, though. Also I was never in a frat. Why does everyone think I was in a frat?

I can see what you're saying, and while I did vote for Obama I am becoming more open to the Republican side of the spectrum, at least financially (minus our ridiculous military budget, which no sane person can agree with imo).

As you and I both know, Obama walked into the White house with a bad deficit already, and in your long Post, you only gave him two options of salvation, neither of which had positive results. , he certainly made it worse, but is it really constructive or fair to call Obama the devil, a socialist, and the harbinger of economic doom to America? (not that you did, but that seems to be the general consensus of the board). Wouldn't a Republican candidate have to deal with these issues as well?

[Der Fuhrer]

Yes a rupublican would have to deal with such issues. The problem I have is that I would like to see government spending SHRINK as opposed to seeing it get a number of times larger.

As a republican, I was rather disappointed with Bush's performance, especially in the latter years of office. I wanted a president, as I do now, who is fiscally conservative. I want someone reminiscient of Ronald Regan. Someone who will come to the White House and cut government in half. The problem to which I eluded in my long post is that when government gets bigger, private industry loses.

In the context of this thread's discussion, I encourage you all to review the experience Obama has which qualifies him to be President of the United States. It's a little bit weak in my opinion. I don't see how anyone could possibly conclude that he is more fit than Palin to be President. To summarize Obama's background: after law school he worked as a "community organizer". He was basically a lobbyist. I'm not sure if he worked for a law firm or not, but I do know that he never took or passed a bar exam. From his position as a community organizer, he went on to be a state senator in Illinois. I'm not sure how long he served in this position, but 2006 (I think) he became a US senator in Illinois. Fast forward two years and he's president of the United States with only two years experience as a US senator. He is a career politician, he didn't even resign from his seat in the senate until he was elected president. I don't think the US has ever elected a career politician as president. Maybe we did with Jimmy Carter, but we all know how great he was...There is something inherently dangerous with having someone like that in power. He has no experience in business, he's never faced the struggle to make a profit. I have never seen a president lean more towards socialism than Obama.

Am I scared? Absolutely not. America is a very strong country. We have a great system of governmet set up with checks and balances and whatnot. Term limits will be our nation's savior, as they have been before in the past. Will it be a struggle? Certainly. Especially for guys like us who are just getting out there and trying to find jobs and start careers. We will make it though, and everything will be alright. Although, the next president may very well have to exercise damage control.

Let me end by giving you a few facts. In 2008 national unemployment was at a steady 5%. Two years later, national unemployment in Feburary 2010 doubled to a devastating 10%, and that's even with the buffer that the newly created, temporary census jobs have created. In 2008 the Dow Jones Industrial was up to a high of somewhere in the ballpark of 14000. Two years later, March 2010, it's down to about 10500.

[Mr. Blonde]

I'm not arguing that Obama is the best president ever, nor that he is doing a fantastic job. I do think he's trying hard despite all the socialist bashing from the far right, but perhaps that's just naive hope gleaming through. There is no way to say how it would have been with McCain as president, although I don't think it would have been quite as bad, it doesn't seem like the situation would be much better.

I think a lot of the members on this board are just voting for Palin in our little fake vote because she's Republican and they don't seriously consider her as a candidate. I'm saying, that if I HAVE to vote at the next election, if you have a gun to your head and the only two options are Obama or Palin, there is no way in hell I would vote for Palin. For anything, except maybe President of a daycare.

I think most people in on the board want less government, so it should be interesting to see how that plays out in the next election.

[Fruitacious B]

Originally Posted by Der Fuhrer

I want someone reminiscient of Ronald Regan.

He raised taxes.