2012 Elections in the USA [Archive] - Page 5

Toymann

08-11-12, 03:10

My only concern is you not paying up.You really dissapoint me Esten! Unlike you and your precious vacation, I am self employed, and can come to Argentina whenever I want. Thought this was a friendly bet! Ok. Game on. You are sadly a classless jerk! I have only met you once and thought that you were an ok guy. Ooops. My bad! We are ON B*TCH! Let me make it really simple for you! You are supposedly coming to BA in the fall. I am coming at the end of September. We are both coming to BA before the election. I suggest we both give either Jackson or El Queso 2000 pesos when in BA. I would hate you to think that I don't have the means of paying or the credibility of following through on my word. I will be in BA first, so you can determine that I have fullfilled my part of the deal before you cough up your stake in the bet. You pick the money holder (El Queso or Jackson). Does this make you happy? After your last comments I wouldn't have dinner with you if you were the last american left in Argentina. Hope this makes you happy. You really dissapoint me dude. BUT we are on like Donkey Kong. Just pick the stake holder (El Queso or Jackson). I assume we are ON you sad socialist fool. Taking your pesos is like taking candy from a baby! I hope this now clears up any concerns you might have! Toymann

Toymann

08-11-12, 03:14

No, he is just an immigrant from a former socialist country. If you ever had to queue alongside them at the airport, you know what I mean!

Just joking, Toymann, don't get a seizure.That was funny BS. Us republicans do have a sense of humor. Wish the prickly wild-ass liberals followed suit. Monger On BS. Toymann

SnakeOilSales

08-11-12, 06:50

You really dissapoint me Esten! Unlike you and your precious vacation, I am self employed, and can come to Argentina whenever I want. Thought this was a friendly bet! Ok. Game on. You are sadly a classless jerk! I have only met you once and thought that you were an ok guy. Ooops. My bad! We are ON B*TCH! Let me make it really simple for you! You are supposedly coming to BA in the fall. I am coming at the end of September. We are both coming to BA before the election. I suggest we both give either Jackson or El Queso 2000 pesos when in BA. I would hate you to think that I don't have the means of paying or the credibility of following through on my word. I will be in BA first, so you can determine that I have fullfilled my part of the deal before you cough up your stake in the bet. You pick the money holder (El Queso or Jackson). Does this make you happy? After your last comments I wouldn't have dinner with you if you were the last american left in Argentina. Hope this makes you happy. You really dissapoint me dude. BUT we are on like Donkey Kong. Just pick the stake holder (El Queso or Jackson). I assume we are ON you sad socialist fool. Taking your pesos is like taking candy from a baby! I hope this now clears up any concerns you might have! ToymannIt looks like undiagnosed Aspergers Syndrome AND complete disconnect from reality!

SnakeOilSales

08-11-12, 06:58

A poll of "adults" (not likely voters, not even registered voters, adults?) which over sampled democrats by 9.

You can believe whatever you want.

OK, I'll face it. On November 7th.

Meet you at Archibald's for a drink, after you get out of work. I imagine your cubicle isn't too far from there.I don't know of any place called Archibald's in Buenos Aires, but you can easily find me while I'm working at the Burger King on the corner of Santa Fe and Ayacucho (usually the first shift). There is a bar a block and a half down the street called The Spot where you can buy me a drink after my shift is over. I might be a little greasy and smell of fast food but I'll be more than happy to let you tell me how wrong you were about your anticipated results of the election.

Wild Walleye

08-11-12, 09:18

Toymann, do you have an undiagnosed case of Aspergers Syndrome?Just what is the point that you are trying to make with this question? One of my family members has Aspergers and I don't see how it could possibly be relevant to the discussion. If you mean that as an insult to Toymann, it is further confirmation of your intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy. I guess I would have to hope that people like you are not appointed to Obama's death squads, I mean death panels.

Wild Walleye

08-11-12, 09:40

Walleye, I hope you don't get pissed. I actually do get a kick out of your posts and agree with you most of the time. But this was too good to pass up.It takes a lot to get me pissed. You're not even remotely close, yet.

I understand now. Actually I always understood, honestly, that capital gains and dividends from businesses, including public corporations, should be subject to no or low rates of tax, for reasons of fairness and so capital will be allocated efficiently. But now I understand that the work of hedge funds and private equity funds is so important that part of the fees they charge should be taxed at lower rates than landlords, utility companies, administrative assistants, computer networking companies, and all other vendors.You seem like a decent fellow, however, you seem to have blinders on. Why should the capital gains be different (higher) for hedge fund managers than for people from other walks of life?

This is fantastic financial engineering! I don't think even old Bernie* could have come up with something like this. It's money for nothing! Now if we can only get the chicks for free.Are you nuts? How could the starting point for a newly formed corporation be anything else? Have you ever started a company? Essentially, you file with the state (first), then get a TIN (from the Feds) and off you go. The entity has zero value on day one, I am at risk for $450, basically my 'paid in capital' for my stock. If, after the allotted time period, that company becomes worth $10MM and I sell 100%, I owe long-term capital gains taxes on $10MM of capital gains.

Can I do this too? If I pay off a few Congressmen, will they change the law so that part of the income generated from the sweat equity I'm putting into my new business will be treated as capital gains?No need to pay off anyone, it is the law of the land. When I set up a new corporation (like I did recently) , I own 100% (unless I have partners). What am I supposed to do? Give the government a carried interest? They already have one.

This is so true. Loopholes, government subsidies, different tax rates applied to different businesses, these are the sorts of things that drive the economy and help all the tax lawyers and accountants working for the large corporations that know how to take advantage of these things.

*Pick your Bernie, Madoff, Cornfield or Sanders. Assets = Liabilities + Equity. You can't create an entity with +$450 in equity and no assets. FYI, if you've been waiting 18 months for long term capital gains treatment you don't need to. You only have to hold for 12 months and one day.It costs me about $450 to set up a new LLC (I can do it cheaper, but that isn't important) out of pocket (not out of the corporate coffers, because there are none, at first). You have to incorporate before you can open a bank account (need both a TIN and a corporate resolution, typically). So on "day one" you have zero assets. Unless you count the out of pocket expense to be an IOU, which then would be offset 100% by the contra-asset (-$450) , since the money has been paid and is not available to be of benefit to the corporation. Further, you could argue that there is some de minimus value to the corporate entity, however, at this stage of development, the act of incorporating is as much a compulsory regulatory act and the $450 a cost of doing business as opposed to the purchase of a good or service with actual fungible value, therefore, it has an accounting value of zero. I don't recall seeing too many balance sheets carrying "Legal corporate entity" as an asset. So yes, you have zero assets.

Assets = Liabilities + Shareholders' equity $0 = ($450) + $450

Wild Walleye

08-11-12, 09:56

I don't know of any place called Archibald's in Buenos Aires, but you can easily find me while I'm working at the Burger King on the corner of Santa Fe and Ayacucho (usually the first shift). There is a bar a block and a half down the street called The Spot where you can buy me a drink after my shift is over. I might be a little greasy and smell of fast food but I'll be more than happy to let you tell me how wrong you were about your anticipated results of the election.I am certain that Archibald's is much closer to your proximity than Sante Fe and Ayacucho. Seeing as you're in that neighborhood, what is the color of the front door of the closest privado? Which side of the street is it on, when you are facing west? What is the name of the handbag store one block east of your Burger King? Would you go east or west, from your Burger King, to get to the big, sidewalk flower stand?

Toymann

08-11-12, 12:11

I like this ticket for what it says! Romney-Ryan = the Romney crowd must figure Florida is in the bag (I also agree with this) , no need for Rubio (he's too green anyway and the latino vote is meanless anyway). Wisconsin is now in the bag. I am liking what I see. BIG TIME. Monger On All ToymannI repeat. Really like this ticket! Happy Mongering All. Toymann

Big Boss Man

08-11-12, 13:54

I repeat. Really like this ticket! Happy Mongering All. ToymannGreat pick in my opinion. I always admired Ryan for actually putting on a paper an actual plan. Now we can have a thoughtful discussion. It immediately shifts the debate from Romney's 2009 tax return and Obama being born in Indonesia and onto what kind of America do we want. I have always anticipated the medicare cuts. In my retirement planning I budget $10k for medical costs and inflate it at 3% a year. I do believe that Ryan's plan will raise my taxes either by making me pay tax on my medical insurance, reducing the mortgage interest deduction, reducing the state and and local income tax reduction. However if the Ryan's deficit plan reduces the deficit after the austerity period I think I will make a shit load on money in the financial markets which is my primary income source. The capital gains and dividend reduction does not help me as much because half of my investment portfolio is in tax-deferred accounts and in ten years I will be subject to RMD.

I am definitely to the left of Ryan but I believe working on a plan is better than what we have now which is no plan. As Branch Rickey said,"Luck is the residue of design." In 1998, my company was in trouble. A new leader was hired and we put together a plan. Our assumptions and forecast turned out to be wrong but we came out smelling like a rose anyway

I will be able to adapt to the tax changes and minimize my tax burden. For example, if the mortgage interest deduction goes I have the flexibility to pay off my mortgage which will lower my income and lower my tax.

I will vote for Romney-Ryan but I do not think it will make a difference in California. I do not think Romney is even campaigning here. I have not seen one ad that I can recall. If Romney wins California the Ryan budget is a done deal and I would advise seeing your tax advisor in the next few months to get your strategies aligned. We now know the tax code is changing either way the election goes which is great piece of information.

Canitasguy

08-11-12, 15:07

Now we can have a thoughtful discussion. It immediately shifts the debate onto what kind of America do we want.Mitt's team, within minutes of the Ryan announcement, stated that Romney will NOT run supporting the Ryan's economic plan! Guess the first thoughtful discussion on what kind of America we want will be between Mitt and Paul! Too funny. Ryan may do for Romney what Palin did for McCain!

Esten

08-11-12, 16:47

Toymann

08-11-12, 16:53

Very good Toymann. The bet is on. It's a friendly bet, but it's no fun if it doesn't have some teeth. I had to get you to agree the winner can collect whether or not we are in town at the same time. Now that you've agreed, I trust you. I don't care how / who you leave the money with.

As I said before my plan is to come down end of November. Since you are so free to travel, why don't you come down then? If not, your idea to leave the funds in BA in September is a good one, so I can use them in November.

Of all the names you called me (idiot, be*tch, socialist fool, home boy, tight-ass) , I liked the "classless jerk" one best. Yes, I am sure based on your posting history on this board you are widely regarded as a classy gentleman yourself. LMAO!Very Good, going forward I will refer to you on the board as "classless jerk". We are agreed. Leave your 2000 pesos with El Queso the end of November. I will enjoy them when I return in March. Can't come in novemeber as thats my college football sec vacation time. God it's great to be a 1%er! No comment on the future US VP? My cheesehead buddy? Monger on Dude. Toymann

Esten

08-11-12, 17:15

Good Point Esten. Federal revenues in 2009 were only 2. 1 trillion though. And the top 10% do pay payroll taxes too.

Without going into detail, the top 10% actually only paid about $830 billion to the federal government, instead of the $1. 5 trillion you calculated. The federal deficit in 2009 was 3. 5 trillion. 2.1 trillion = 1. 4 trillion, which you can confirm on the usgovernmentrevenue. Com web site.No no no. The $1.5T I calculated was how much income tax revenue would be needed (assuming it is 42% of all tax revenue) to generate a grand total of $3.5T which would match spending and balance the budget. If total revenues were only $2.1T, then I agree with your number of the top 10% paying about $830B. BTW, that's a 0.8/3.3 = 24% tax rate. That's very low, it should be more like 35-40%.

Your point about picking up the slack to balance the budget is a separate question. I have never said all the burden of balancing the budget should fall on the wealthy. My formula to balance the budget would be:

(1) Allow payroll tax deductions to expire.
(2) Go back to the Clinton tax rates (perhaps in steps).
(3) Implement the Buffet Rule.
(4) Cut Defense.
(5) Other spending cuts as needed (should be minimal after #1-4).

Wild Walleye

08-11-12, 18:40

Walleye, I hope you don't get pissed. I actually do get a kick out of your posts and agree with you most of the time. But this was too good to pass up.If I got pissed at you for expressing your opinions, that would mean that I am a liberal.

Jackson

08-12-12, 02:50

I always admired Ryan for actually putting on a paper an actual plan.It's called "Leadership", something that BO has demonstrated he sorely lacks.

Wild Walleye

08-12-12, 10:52

No no no. The $1. 5T I calculated was how much income tax revenue would be needed (assuming it is 42% of all tax revenue) to generate a grand total of $3. 5T which would match spending and balance the budget. If total revenues were only $2. 1T, then I agree with your number of the top 10% paying about $830B. BTW, that's a 0. 8/3. 3 = 24% tax rate. That's very low, it should be more like 35-40.

Your point about picking up the slack to balance the budget is a separate question. I have never said all the burden of balancing the budget should fall on the wealthy. My formula to balance the budget would be:

(1) Allow payroll tax deductions to expire.So far, bleating sheep.

(2) Go back to the Clinton tax rates (perhaps in steps).Then you should have no problem going back to the Clinton spending levels, too. We can adjust them upward for the nominal increase in the population.

(3) Implement the Buffet Rule.Right after BO implements Simpson Bowles.

(4) Cut Defense.Have you been keeping up with current events? Any idea what has been happening to defense spending? Considering that defending the nation is one of the few federal powers explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, I think that there are plenty of other programs to cut, prior to doing more damage to our national security.

(5) Other spending cuts as needed (should be minimal after #1-4).Why should they be minimal? Eliminate the Dept of Energy, Dept of Commerce and Dept of Eduction and every czar, and their related bureaucracies, created by Clinton, Bush & Obama. Cut EPA funding by 50. That ought to get things rolling.

Wild Walleye

08-12-12, 11:49

Dccpa

08-12-12, 13:36

Very Good, going forward I will refer to you on the board as "classless jerk". We are agreed. Leave your 2000 pesos with El Queso the end of November. I will enjoy them when I return in March. Can't come in novemeber as thats my college football sec vacation time. God it's great to be a 1%er! No comment on the future US VP? My cheesehead buddy? Monger on Dude. ToymannToymann, what is your sec school? My school is the one that just fired the best coach we ever had because the AD got his panties in a wad about be lied to.

Toymann

08-12-12, 14:49

Toymann, what is your sec school? My school is the one that just fired the best coach we ever had because the AD got his panties in a wad about be lied to.The Razorback firing was a classic example of horsesh$t liberalism driven by feminazi media bitchs. Clinton didn't lose his job for lying about a trist (IN THE OVAL OFFICE NO LESS). That said, as a cocks fan I couldn't help a rye smile as your program has given us fits the last couple of years. It's a shame your teams' administration bowed to liberal media pressure. Since when does being a bad husband, mean you should be fired from your job (that he was doing an amazing job at, I might add). The whole incident fell under the "no harm no foul" approach as far as I was concerned. Us cocks fans will take it any way we can in the hyper-competitive SEC though. I do send my condolences out to RazerBack fans. I just HATe feminazis and the ***** driven culture they have instilled in the US over the past 30 years. GO SEC DUDE. Toymann

Esten

08-12-12, 15:29

Us cocks fans will take it any way we canvery interesting....

Esten

08-12-12, 15:34

I predicted awhile back that Romney would pick Ryan or Rubio. The selection of Ryan is being described by some as both bold and risky. I would agree. He's a smart guy and is to be commended for fighting for what he believes in. The problem is that his budget proposals are on the wrong side of the polls, by wide margins. Poll after poll has shown that most Americans support raising taxes on higher incomes, support cuts to defense over social programs, and will support minor but not major cuts to social programs.

Simpson-Bowles had a balanced approach to addressing the deficit, both raising revenues and cutting spending. While Obama didn't endorse it, neither did Congress. Paul Ryan was on the committee and actually voted against it. But at a high level, Obama favors a balanced approach and most Americans do as well. The Republican approach is unbalanced and relies on deep spending cuts. When you get to the specifics of the Republican approach, even Tea Party supporters reject it.

Republicans gave away Trillions to the wealthiest Americans. Now they say the only option to avoid a debt crisis is to accept drastic cuts to programs that benefit the poor and middle class. You have to be a sucker to accept this argument. And that is why Romney selected the slickest proponent of this false argument to be his VP.

Big Boss Man

08-12-12, 15:35

Then you should have no problem going back to the Clinton spending levels, too. We can adjust them upward for the nominal increase in the population.So we do acknowledge that the last time Republicans and Romney's economic team where in command they fucke3d up even if Hubbard is your best friend.

Have you been keeping up with current events? Any idea what has been happening to defense spending? Considering that defending the nation is one of the few federal powers explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, I think that there are plenty of other programs to cut, prior to doing more damage to our national security.I think reversing the Defense cuts is the dumbest thing in Romney's plan. Obama actually used a Republican thinker Robert Gates to make the decisions on where the military should be cut. Then he sent Panetta, the Democrats budget cutter, to do the work. I also think he should keep the 2014 date for withdrawing from Afghanistan just like Bush gave Obama cover for retreating from Iraq. Romney and Ryan have no military experience even though they would have been of age during Vietnam and Desert Storm respectively.

The reason we need change is that Obama has underperformed relative to expectations. Many of Romney's and other Republican policies are screwy. Luckily we all know how to adapt to bad government.

Toymann

08-12-12, 15:45

very interesting.You did truncate my words. Why did you leave out "in the hyper-competitive SEC". Please elaborate. Inquiring minds want to know. Toymann.

Ps. Just so we can be clear we are talking about college football. Just in case you didn't notice. LMAO

Esten

08-12-12, 15:55

I couldn't resist Toymann, I guess conservatives just don't have any sense of humor.... ;)

Jackson

08-12-12, 16:36

Poll after poll has shown that most Americans support raising taxes on higher incomes.Smart liberals like Esten know that this is a specious argument. Given that 50% of the poll respondents don't pay any income taxes, what they hear is the pollster asking them "Do you support taxing other people so the government can give the money to you?", and so of course they answer "Yes, I support raising taxes on the other guy".

Try taking a poll of people who actually pay income taxes and see if you get the same results.

Republicans gave away Trillions to the wealthiest Americans.Once again you're turned it around backwards. The Republicans didn't give away trillions to anyone because it was in fact the individual citizen's money to begin with. Only in liberal la-la land does a decision not to take somebody's money from them by force equal giving them money.

SnakeOilSales

08-12-12, 16:39

He's burnishing his AP creds with generic, non-chica-specific posts. I guess he is hoping that my post, requesting specific corroborating information. Which should be extremely easy for him to obtain (given his location in Recoleta). Will fall off the first page and he can try to return without anyone noticing.

According to his own posts, he's been mongering in Bs As since '04/'05, so he shouldn't have any trouble getting the rest of us comfortable with that issue.

Maybe he just isn't big enough to admit the error in his ways in making fun of disabled people.It was pouring rain here (in Buenos Aires, where I live, and YOU DON"T) all day and night yesterday so it wasn't particularly convenient for me to walk / drive over to the corner of Ayacucho and Santa Fe just to look at the location of a flower stand. How about this: if you are standing outside of the "monger mansion" looking at the street there is a Colombian restaurant "Los recuerdos" (as you enter "los recuerdos" the bar is on the right and the tables are on the left) to your right, a university directly in front and to the left, and a Subway directly to the left and on the corner. A half a block down to the right on the corner there is a new coffee place opening up where "drink stop" used to be. Any more irrelevant questions?

I certainly was not making fun of disabled people; Toymann appears to have an undiagnosed case of Asperger's Syndrome and if it is indeed the case it would explain his repetitive personal attacks and borderline erratic behavior.

Dccpa

08-12-12, 19:46

The Razorback firing was a classic example of horsesh$t liberalism driven by feminazi media bitchs. Clinton didn't lose his job for lying about a trist (IN THE OVAL OFFICE NO LESS). That said, as a cocks fan I couldn't help a rye smile as your program has given us fits the last couple of years. It's a shame your teams' administration bowed to liberal media pressure. Since when does being a bad husband, mean you should be fired from your job (that he was doing an amazing job at, I might add). The whole incident fell under the "no harm no foul" approach as far as I was concerned. Us cocks fans will take it any way we can in the hyper-competitive SEC though. I do send my condolences out to RazerBack fans. I just HATe feminazis and the ***** driven culture they have instilled in the US over the past 30 years. GO SEC DUDE. ToymannLong has been busy bending over so that A&M could screw Arkansas. My understanding is that A&M will replace Arkansas as your permanent SEC West opponent. A&M will replace Arkansas against LSU for the Black Friday game. And A&M has apparently gotten out of its 10 game commitment vs. Arkansas at Jerry World. This year or next is the last one between our 2 teams until they meet on a rotating basis. So, Long probably fired Petrino because he was feeling emasculated by A&M and needed to feel like a big boy again.

It's too bad I have enjoyed our rivalry.

Dccpa

08-12-12, 19:57

Smart liberals like Esten know that this is a specious argument. Given that 50% of the poll respondents don't pay any income taxes, what they hear is the pollster asking them "Do you support taxing other people so they government can give the money to you?", and so of course they answer "Yes, I support raising taxes on the other guy".

Try taking a poll of people who actually pay income taxes and see if you get the same results.

Once again you're turned it around backwards. The Republicans didn't give away trillions to anyone because it was in fact the individual citizen's money to begin with. Only in liberal la-la land does a decision not to take somebody's money from them by force equal giving them money.What liberals seem to forget is how well our economy functioned when government was smaller and people were more self-sufficient. It would have been nice to see what our country could have been like if you took the government of Thomas Jefferson and added in the technology improvements of today. But Roosevelt started the government dependency trend and we have been living beyond our collective means ever since. And the Federal Reserve has hidden the decline in our standard of living through inflation.

Toymann

08-12-12, 20:21

It's too bad I have enjoyed our rivalry.You not lying fella. Been some killer games over the years. Damn Feminazi's! Hate them all. Good luck with the new coach, you'll be good next year with those players coming back. Monger On Dude. Toymann

Rev BS

08-13-12, 13:10

What liberals seem to forget is how well our economy functioned when government was smaller and people were more self-sufficient. It would have been nice to see what our country could have been like if you took the government of Thomas Jefferson and added in the technology improvements of today. But Roosevelt started the government dependency trend and we have been living beyond our collective means ever since. And the Federal Reserve has hidden the decline in our standard of living through inflation.Your statement about the decline in the standard of living going as far back as Roosevelt is intriguing. You also alluded to the possiblity of "utopia" had Jeffersonian governments continued. Please elaborate given human nature's tendency to self-destruct.

Wild Walleye

08-13-12, 16:30

Esten

08-13-12, 22:41

What liberals seem to forget is how well our economy functioned when government was smaller and people were more self-sufficient.
What time period are you talking about ?
How were standard of living metrics better then, vs. more recently (eg. under Clinton) ?
How were seniors better off without Social Security and Medicare ?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Thanks

Esten

08-13-12, 23:37

The Republicans didn't give away trillions to anyone because it was in fact the individual citizen's money to begin with. Only in liberal la-la land does a decision not to take somebody's money from them by force equal giving them money.Your ideological arguments are always entertaining Jackson, but make little sense in the real world.

There is a legal obligation to pay for services rendered, whether services are provided by a company or a government. In the case of a government, the services and obligations are ultimately determined by the people themselves, through our democratic election process. A government must be paid for. The Bush Tax Cuts contributed to subsequent deficits, meaning the government was not paid for.

What do you want, free government?

Esten

08-14-12, 00:08

Tiny12

08-14-12, 01:39

There is a legal obligation to pay for services rendered, whether services are provided by a company or a government. In the case of a government, the services and obligations are ultimately determined by the people themselves, through our democratic election process. hat do you want, free government?You wrote "Republicans gave away trillions to the wealthiest Americans." You're starting to sound like Walleye on carried interest. Not only is the logic in your first post nonsensical, as Jackson pointed out, but the Bush tax cuts made the income tax system more progressive, according to the Congressional Budget Office and even the Citizens for Tax Justice.

Toymann

08-14-12, 01:54

With the Ryan pick to boost his struggling campaign, Romney is hoping for a boost in the polls. People will be watching the polls, especially the electoral college to detect any shifts. If they shift in Obama's favor, it's all but over.

I am really shaking my head at what Romney has done. Lagging in the polls, what does he do? He makes scaling back Medicare an election focus. I thought the plan was to make it a referendum on Obama? This could turn quite badly for Republicans. We will see.

Electoral College 8/13/2012 (realclearpolitics) (270 to win)

Obama 237.

Romney 191.

Toss Ups 110.

Toss Up States (Electoral Votes) :

Colorado (9) Obama +1. 2.

Florida (29) Obama +1. 4.

Iowa (6) Obama +1. 0.

Nevada (6) Obama +5. 3.

New Hampshire (4) Obama +2. 6.

North Carolina (15) Romney +1. 0.

Ohio (18) Obama +4. 8.

Virgina (13) Obama +3. 2.

Wisconsin (10) Obama +5. 4Romney will easily win Florida (29) , Iowa (6) , Nevada (6) , North carolina (15). Wisconsin (10) and Ohio (18). Game Over. Look forward to enjoying your pesos dude. I also expect at least three more states you didn't mention (like virginia and new hampshire at the least). Like taking candy from a baby! Make sure those pesos are in Argentina when I arrive in March dude. Toymann

SnakeOilSales

08-14-12, 02:39

Romney will easily win Florida (29) , Iowa (6) , Nevada (6) , North carolina (15). Wisconsin (10) and Ohio (18). Game Over. Look forward to enjoying your pesos dude. I also expect at least three more states you didn't mention (like virginia and new hampshire at the least). Like taking candy from a baby! Make sure those pesos are in Argentina when I arrive in March dude. ToymannOn what grounds could you possibly come to this conclusion? Ohio and Florida are full of registered voters who are dependent upon the very programs that Ryan is promising to decimate; Romney choosing Ryan as his running mate was like an early Christmas present for the Obama campaign. Your analysis just goes to show that a self-described "1%er" such as yourself is so completely out of touch with the US voting public as to make any predictions you come up with totally irrelevant.

Rocky2

08-14-12, 02:39

Jackson

08-14-12, 02:55

What do you want, free government?No, a smaller government.

Rocky2

08-14-12, 03:08

Wild Walleye

08-14-12, 03:57

SnakeOilSales

08-14-12, 05:38

Show me a constituency with which our commie-in-chief has increased his popularity. Now, show me a swing state where that might make a difference.

Show me a constituency with which our commie-in-chief has decreased his popularity. Now, show me a swing state where that might make a difference.

'nuff said. America-hating marxist pinko goes back to Chicago. Too bad we can't exile him to France.Obama has increased (directly and / or indirectly, or more accurately, relative to Romney / Ryan) his popularity among Hispanics, Homosexuals, Women, Blacks, and now with the edition of the Medicare killer himself, Senior Citizens. White working class and some 1%ers have withdrawn their support for Obama, that is true. Obama does not need to win by the electoral vote margin that he won by in the previous election; he only needs 270, and barring catastrophic event (European debt default, Israel attacks Iran, something of that nature) he will easily get past the 270 vote post.

Toymann

08-14-12, 12:08

Obama has increased (directly and / or indirectly, or more accurately, relative to Romney / Ryan) his popularity among Hispanics, Homosexuals, Women, Blacks, and now with the edition of the Medicare killer himself, Senior Citizens. White working class and some 1%ers have withdrawn their support for Obama, that is true. Obama does not need to win by the electoral vote margin that he won by in the previous election; he only needs 270, and barring catastrophic event (European debt default, Israel attacks Iran, something of that nature) he will easily get past the 270 vote post.

Why would any current medicare recipient or US citizen over the age of 55 (most likely 53 actually) be concerned about the current version of medicare pertaining to the Ryan plan idiot? Ryan's plan has no impact on this benifit for these people. It's all about trying to fix medicare before it goes under. Get informed and stop spouting lies and misinformation. You are the one who is out of touch and uninformed dude. You do provide entertaining commentary, right off of MSNBC. IALOTFLMAO. Happy Mongering All. Toymann

Wild Walleye

08-14-12, 12:25

Obama has increased (directly and / or indirectly, or more accurately, relative to Romney / Ryan) his popularity amongRelative to Romney / Ryan? He just announced the Ryan pick three days ago. Upon what data do you base this foolish statement?

Hispanics,Despite going against the Constitution with his dream act executive order, Hispanics are mixed on the Commie in chief. Many Hispanic Americans and legal (I. E. The kind that can actually vote) immigrants find his pandering to their constituency offensive. So, you're not right on this one.

Homosexuals,Agreed. That is somewhere around 1% of the US population. He did this solely for the money. The gay population probably realizes this but, getting the attention of the president, they are willing to be used.

Women,Not true. Please support this with some facts.

Blacks,You could not be more wrong. He has lost a great deal of support within the black community. Beside contributing to record black unemployment, blacks feel that they were sold out for money on the gay marriage issue.

and now with the edition of the Medicare killer himself, Senior Citizens. White working class and some 1%ers have withdrawn their support for Obama, that is true.I don't get it. You can obviously type, why is it that you can't read? Do you have any idea how ridiculously uninformed you sound?

Obama does not need to win by the electoral vote margin that he won by in the previous election; he only needs 270,So show me the math how he gets to 270.

and barring catastrophic event (European debt default, Israel attacks Iran, something of that nature) he will easily get past the 270 vote post.I think the destruction of the US economy might get in his way of reelection.

El Alamo

08-14-12, 13:07

Ryan is Obama's worst nightmare. Ryan is intelligent and understands math while Obama is not intelligent and does not understand math.

It has been estimated that the combined IQ of Obama and Biden is a tiny fraction of Ryan's IQ. Obama's and Biden's lack of intelligence is obvious to any nitwit, even the voting public.

The ease in which Obama and biden have effortlessly destroyed the economy is an everyday reminder of Obama's and Biden's mental deficiencies.

Member #4112

08-14-12, 17:03

El Alamo

08-14-12, 19:26

Donnie Box, a former employee at Kansas City's GST Steel, the steel plant closed by Bain capitol in 2001 during Romney's tenure with the company, appears in a pro-Obama super PAC ad in high circulation in swing states.

"I could really care less about Obama," Box said."I think Obama is a jerk, a pantywaist, a lightweight, a blowhard. He hasn't done a goddamn thing that he said he would do. When he had a Democratic Senate and Democratic Congress, he didn't do a damn thing. He doesn't have the guts to say what's on his mind."

Could not have said it better myself

Esten

08-15-12, 01:17

Here's the video of Donnie Box:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fg0FW8N_8_Y

Another worker negatively affected by Bain Capital was Randy Johnson. He lost his job when Ampad, an office supply company controlled by Bain Capital, closed his plant in Indiana, in 1995. He says he will be voting for Obama.

"We all want things to go faster, we want instant gratification," says Johnson. "I feel like he has done the right things for the economy. I think if the economy starts growing, we will be talking about insourcing of jobs. Personally, I try to compare Romney to the president. Obama sticks up for jobs and what we do in the labor movement and Mitt Romney just sticks it to you. I just don't see how Romney has done anything to help the average American person out there."

Esten

08-15-12, 02:15

I was just wondering with the Democrats ranting, raving and trying to lynch Ryan over his 'Slash & Burn' budget proposal just how they are going to square that with the facts since the government budget is going to continue to grow under Ryan's budget proposal but at a much slower pace?Democrats are not lynching Ryan. We are explaining what the Ryan budget is all about. The right wing media is trying to portray all explanation and criticism as attacks, in an attempt to dismiss it. I wonder why? Even R / R themselves aren't saying much about their plan. In today's interview with Brit Hume, Ryan avoids direct questions about cuts in his plan, and just replies Obama did this, Obama did that. Romney says his plan is different but won't give straight answers on what's different. What gives?

You bring up a good point Doppel. Obama's plan reduces deficits by $4 Trillion over 12 years. Ryan's plan reduces deficits by $5. 3 Trillion over 10 years. So Ryan's plan cuts deeper. Obama has more work to do, but Democrats know he will approach it in a balanced way, with shared sacrifice. Ryan wants the poor and middle class to make most of the sacrifice, which is basically class warfare.

R / R are spouting more deception in their new TV ad about Obama taking $716 Billion from Medicare. Those savings don't affect any Medicare benefits whatsoever. The savings are largely from unwarranted subsidies to insurance companies, and in fact extend the life of Medicare by nearly a decade. Ryan has those same savings in his plan! This is pure desperation on their part, and when the truth comes out (which it will) , it will only reinforce the perception that the Republican ticket can't be trusted.

El Alamo

08-15-12, 06:02

Esten.

I understand what Donnie Box means when he correctly describes Obama as a jerk, a lightlight and a blowhard. However, Donnie Box also describes Obama as a pantywaist. What is a pantywaist?

Jackson

08-15-12, 07:54

Ryan wants the poor and middle class to make most of the sacrifice, which is basically class warfare.Once again, only in liberal la-la land does not giving somebody free money constitute a sacrifice on the part of the recipient.

El Alamo

08-15-12, 08:36

" I've never seen a vice president that has made as many mistakes, said as many stupid things. I mean, there's a real fear if, God forbid, he ever had to be entrusted with the presidency, whether he really has the mental capacity to handle it. I mean, this guy just isn't bright. He's never been bright. He isn't bright. And people think, 'Well, he just talks a little too much. ' Actually he's just not very smart. "

It just keeps getting better and better. And of these two knuckleheads, Obama and Biden, Biden is considered to be the smart one. A moron IQ compared to Obama's idiot IQ

By the way, the Obama camp is already stating that they are not worried that Ryan is going to clean Biden's clock in the upcoming VP debate. This without anyone asking them. The Obama camp must be terrified of the VP debate. Probably why Obama is looking to replace Biden.

Member #4112

08-15-12, 10:20

Esten, please read the post you quoted. The Democrats are calling the Ryan budget "slash and burn" while it is nothing of the kind. At least Ryan put something on paper that attempts to address the problems rather than the pie in the sky budget Obama put forward which even his OWN PARTY did not support.

Romney and Ryan have not publicly presented their plan as of this date, I am sure it is due to wishing to refine it further before releasing it.

Esten, I don't know what your problem is here; Obama commissioned the Bowels blue ribbon panel for recommendations for debt reduction and promptly ignored the findings once they were presented. Ryan's plan embraces many of their recommendations.

While we are on the topic of commissioning panels and commissions, what about the Jobs group Obama cranked up but never interacts with or acknowledges its existence since its formation.

Dccpa

08-15-12, 13:03

Your statement about the decline in the standard of living going as far back as Roosevelt is intriguing. You also alluded to the possiblity of "utopia" had Jeffersonian governments continued. Please elaborate given human nature's tendency to self-destruct.Utopia is either a strip joint or a privado, I forget.

Smaller government is better government. The self destruct you talk about happens when government becomes large and government employees believe that the citizens are there to serve the government. The self destruction goes hand-in-hand with fiat currency. Most of the world is being run this way now and the end will be same as it has 100% of the time in history.

The US thrived long before social security, medicare, welfare, and a large military. And aside from Lincoln, there was no income tax until 1913. Yet as technology improved, so did our standards of living. The majority of taxes should be collected at the local level and spent as determined by those citizens. There would still be some corruption, waste and fraud. But there wouldn't be a federal reserve handing out trillions of dollars to the banks. We wouldn't have spent a trillion dollars in Iraq. We wouldn't have generations of people growing up dependent upon government.

With government, less is more. Of course that is the same thing I tell the chicas.

Dccpa

08-15-12, 13:07

Romney will easily win Florida (29) , Iowa (6) , Nevada (6) , North carolina (15). Wisconsin (10) and Ohio (18). Game Over. Look forward to enjoying your pesos dude. I also expect at least three more states you didn't mention (like virginia and new hampshire at the least). Like taking candy from a baby! Make sure those pesos are in Argentina when I arrive in March dude. ToymannToymann, I was at the real clear politics web site the other day and it has an area where you can choose which swing states go to each candidate. I put in my choices and it was a tie at 269 each. You and Esten need to clarify what happens in that eventuality. I am sure there is a tie breaker, but I would call that a tie for betting purposes.

SnakeOilSales

08-15-12, 15:24

Move another state over to the Obama win column. Good thing he didn't let GM and Chrysler fail like that Wall Street Weasel Romney would have done.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-15/michigan-begs-for-100-000-engineers-after-auto-rebound.html

Toymann

08-15-12, 15:37

Toymann, I was at the real clear politics web site the other day and it has an area where you can choose which swing states go to each candidate. I put in my choices and it was a tie at 269 each. You and Esten need to clarify what happens in that eventuality. I am sure there is a tie breaker, but I would call that a tie for betting purposes.There will be NO ties in our bet. Whoever becomes the next president determines the winner. I actually don't know how the tie is broken, or if a tie is actually possible. Maybe someone else can chime in. Monger On Dude. Toymann

SnakeOilSales

08-15-12, 19:48

If there is a 269-269 electoral vote tie, and all the electors actually vote for the candidate they are pledged to, the President will be elected by the new Congress in the beginning of January. Each state's House of Representative delegation gets 1 (one) vote, which is to say that Rhode Island has the same voting power as Texas, etc etc. In this were to occur, it is highly likely that Romney would be chosen as the new POTUS because there are more (in terms of pure quantity, irregardless of population)"red" states than "blue" states assuming recent voting trends continue.

Rev BS

08-15-12, 20:52

Utopia is either a strip joint or a privado, I forget.

Smaller government is better government. The self destruct you talk about happens when government becomes large and government employees believe that the citizens are there to serve the government. The self destruction goes hand-in-hand with fiat currency. Most of the world is being run this way now and the end will be same as it has 100% of the time in history.

The US thrived long before social security, medicare, welfare, and a large military. And aside from Lincoln, there was no income tax until 1913. Yet as technology improved, so did our standards of living. The majority of taxes should be collected at the local level and spent as determined by those citizens. There would still be some corruption, waste and fraud. But there wouldn't be a federal reserve handing out trillions of dollars to the banks. We wouldn't have spent a trillion dollars in Iraq. We wouldn't have generations of people growing up dependent upon government.

With government, less is more. Of course that is the same thing I tell the chicas.Is the toilet where I sit and read the papers w coffee every morning!

I agree with you on smaller governments, but small governments does not always translate into good governments. More crucial is the quality of the people in government and the culture of the eras. You are harking back to eras where populations were smaller and urbanization is not as dense as it is now. Let's just say, things were more simple then. Is the wild, wild West more to your liking?

So America is not the America of yesterday anymore. Can we go back? Really? What defines American culture today will give a better picture of why we are where we are. Not so difficult, just turn on your mainstream tv for a few hours and you will get the picture. Reality comes to your living room, but what is amazing, it sells! Are you surprised government can be dysfunctional, too? Also, just see where the college football landscape is heading and perhaps, you will know what I mean.

We need to look in the mirror and ask of ourselves, "what do you see?"

El Alamo

08-15-12, 21:47

Ok, I have conducted a poll on what younger women are thinking about this election. As a sugar daddy who has one or two 18-22 year old visitors a week, and an occasional 25-30 year old I have had the opportunity to ask them what they think of the upcoming election.

The 18-22 year group: Half are air heads and don't know we have an election this year. The common thread with the ones with an opinion is "whoever voted Obama into office should be lined up and shot."

The 25-30 age group which consists of one person who is with me now: Quote "I hate republicans more than you can ever imagine. However Obama is like someone trying to play baseball or football without knowing the rules. And this Ryan guy is way better than Romney. Anyway, Obama is a disaster and I am not voting for Obama"

There you have it. The CGWNF (college graduates with no future) have definitely abandoned Obama. I expect this to show up in polling data soon.

Esten

08-15-12, 23:42

There you have it. The CGWNF (college graduates with no future) have definitely abandoned Obama. I expect this to show up in polling data soon.I just spoke with Dennis Miller, and he thinks his protege El Alamo's latest joke fell flat. He's very disappointed.

I understand what Donnie Box means when he correctly describes Obama as a jerk, a lightlight and a blowhard. However, Donnie Box also describes Obama as a pantywaist. What is a pantywaist?Let me know if this video answers your question:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=414qXn66t3I

Esten

08-15-12, 23:59

Once again, only in liberal la-la land does not giving somebody free money constitute a sacrifice on the part of the recipient.It's not all "free money".

And when that money is part of a safety net that people depend on, people like Donnie Box who've been left in the dust by free market capitalism, you bet it's a sacrifice.

Rev BS

08-16-12, 04:27

These days, banks are covering themselves in glory.

Once upon a time, as you walked down Main St, you were comforted by the solid brownstone facades of banks. They gave off soothing and assuring vibes that here, someone would take care of your money in a responsible manner and would reward you if you were a good saver. What happen? You tell me. And the banking lobby in AP say we need more de-regulation.

El Alamo

08-16-12, 07:47

I get the sense that big government lovers are worried. The mule train team of Obama / biden is running against a couple of racehorses. The Obama / biden logo of hope and change has been removed and the Obama/Biden mule wagon is now sporting a logo of anger and hatred.

Tiny12

08-16-12, 12:41

The majority of taxes should be collected at the local level and spent as determined by those citizens.Dccpa, Thanks for a thought provoking post. I always realized that the only countries with economies and standards of living that historically have outperformed the USA are small. Singapore, Hong Kong, Cayman Islands, Monaco, Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Norway, certain Gulf States and Luxembourg for example. I'd attributed that primarily to low rates of taxation, efficient / intelligent government, and / or oil production. I hadn't thought about taxes being collected and spent locally. That's probably just as important as anything else. And explains why, in my community at least, we get good value for our taxes from local and state government, while much of the money that we send to Washington is squandered.

To Black Shirt, who initiated this, I'd ask what's wrong with returning to what the founders of the country envisioned, where the federal government just provides for what the states cannot, like common defense. I realize that will never happen though, so I guess it's a moot point.

Dccpa

08-16-12, 17:50

Is the toilet where I sit and read the papers w coffee every morning!

I agree with you on smaller governments, but small governments does not always translate into good governments. More crucial is the quality of the people in government and the culture of the eras. You are harking back to eras where populations were smaller and urbanization is not as dense as it is now. Let's just say, things were more simple then. Is the wild, wild West more to your liking?

So America is not the America of yesterday anymore. Can we go back? Really? What defines American culture today will give a better picture of why we are where we are. Not so difficult, just turn on your mainstream tv for a few hours and you will get the picture. Reality comes to your living room, but what is amazing, it sells! Are you surprised government can be dysfunctional, too? Also, just see where the college football landscape is heading and perhaps, you will know what I mean.

We need to look in the mirror and ask of ourselves,"what do you see?"All I have to say about your opening line is what happens in the bathroom stays in the bathroom!

Urbanization would have happened with the technological improvements in agriculture. However, the size of the federal government should not be dependent upon population size. Remove social security, medicare, medicaid, the majority of the DOD, Dept of Education, HUD, etc, etc, etc. And look at how small the federal government is. Those programs were not intended by our founders nor are they necessary for the functioning of our country. Those agencies are the product of a socialist agenda that may have originally had good intent, but they have been perverted by irresponsible government officials pandering to the masses. With a much smaller federal government, there would be far less they could screw up and the screw ups would have a much smaller impact on our economy. Although I suspect that world economics will force a change to smaller government within the next 3 years, the change should happen this decade. The younger taxpayers are not going to pay for the massive tax increases that will be required for current funding levels of social security, government pensions, etc.

Reality TV involves non professional actors, but it is far from reality.

In general I find the following subject doesn't have interest to people, so I will only post about it if there is interest on this board. But within the next few years, most of the people reading this board will wish they put a decent amount of their net worth into real assets, specifically including gold.

Tiny12

08-16-12, 19:32

In general I find the following subject doesn't have interest to people, so I will only post about it if there is interest on this board. But within the next few years, most of the people reading this board will wish they put a decent amount of their net worth into real assets, specifically including gold.O. K, Why? Gold doesn't produce an income stream. Why wouldn't you rather own a business, dividend-paying common stocks, or real property that throws off good cash flow? Why is gold a better store of value than any other nonpersishable commodity? "Because it has always been" isn't a good answer. After adjusting for inflation the price fell 80% from 1980 to 2001, and 36% from 1950 to 1970. There were spikes from 1973 to 1981 from 2005 to present coinciding with commodity price booms. Right now could be the worst time to buy gold since the early 1980's.

No offense Dccpa, your thoughts are the same as several business acquaintances that I respect highly. I've never been been one to argue with people I do business with though, and would be interested in your response to the points above. If you respond you might want to create a new thread, as I guess this is off topic.

El Alamo

08-16-12, 19:55

Obama is sticking with Biden. Obama either has some loyalty to biden or Obama cannot tolerate Hilary or, most likely, Obama is demonstrating again that he has the IQ of an idiot. What would an Obama / Clinton ticket have done? We will never know. All we know is that we are left with Obama / biden and Obama / Biden looks like yesterdays news. 4 years of tired, failed policies. Obama and Biden have lowered themselves to campaigning on a platform of anger and hatred. The new studs in town are running circles arround the Obama/Biden couch potatoes.

Silver Star

08-16-12, 21:09

All I have to say about your opening line is what happens in the bathroom stays in the bathroom!

Urbanization would have happened with the technological improvements in agriculture. However, the size of the federal government should not be dependent upon population size. Remove social security, medicare, medicaid, the majority of the DOD, Dept of Education, HUD, etc, etc, etc. And look at how small the federal government is. Those programs were not intended by our founders nor are they necessary for the functioning of our country. Those agencies are the product of a socialist agenda that may have originally had good intent, but they have been perverted by irresponsible government officials pandering to the masses. With a much smaller federal government, there would be far less they could screw up and the screw ups would have a much smaller impact on our economy. Although I suspect that world economics will force a change to smaller government within the next 3 years, the change should happen this decade. The younger taxpayers are not going to pay for the massive tax increases that will be required for current funding levels of social security, government pensions, etc.

Reality TV involves non professional actors, but it is far from reality.

In general I find the following subject doesn't have interest to people, so I will only post about it if there is interest on this board. But within the next few years, most of the people reading this board will wish they put a decent amount of their net worth into real assets, specifically including gold.Are you voting Libertarian this time DCCPA? What you are calling for is basically what Libertarians want. Government will basically have the same intrusive and bloated size and scope no matter which major party wins.

El Alamo

08-16-12, 22:20

It's not all "free money".

And when that money is part of a safety net that people depend on, people like Donnie Box who've been left in the dust by free market capitalism, you bet it's a sacrifice.Esten, bless your lost soul, won't you ever get it. We only need a safety net when we have someone like Obama who who is great at destroying jobs but not so good at creating jobs. What we need is someone like romney who can create jobs.

Tequila Tim

08-17-12, 00:00

O. K, Why? Gold doesn't produce an income stream. Why wouldn't you rather own a business, dividend-paying common stocks, or real property that throws off good cash flow? Why is gold a better store of value than any other nonpersishable commodity?"Because it has always been" isn't a good answer. After adjusting for inflation the price fell 80% from 1980 to 2001, and 36% from 1950 to 1970. There were spikes from 1973 to 1981 from 2005 to present coinciding with commodity price booms. Right now could be the worst time to buy gold since the early 1980's.

No offense Dccpa, your thoughts are the same as several business acquaintances that I respect highly. I've never been been one to argue with people I do business with though, and would be interested in your response to the points above. If you respond you might want to create a new thread, as I guess this is off topic.Hmmm. So you'd rather hold a fiat currency that costs nothing to print in infinite quantities from an entity with 64 trillion in unfunded liabilities and no plan to correct the inbalance. I might not get a dividend from my gold and silver, but I'll still be able to buy groceries and medicine when the shit hits the fan.

SnakeOilSales

08-17-12, 00:12

O. K, Why? Gold doesn't produce an income stream. Why wouldn't you rather own a business, dividend-paying common stocks, or real property that throws off good cash flow? Why is gold a better store of value than any other nonpersishable commodity?"Because it has always been" isn't a good answer. After adjusting for inflation the price fell 80% from 1980 to 2001, and 36% from 1950 to 1970. There were spikes from 1973 to 1981 from 2005 to present coinciding with commodity price booms. Right now could be the worst time to buy gold since the early 1980's.

No offense Dccpa, your thoughts are the same as several business acquaintances that I respect highly. I've never been been one to argue with people I do business with though, and would be interested in your response to the points above. If you respond you might want to create a new thread, as I guess this is off topic.I disagree completely with Tiny. I would say that now is as good a time as any to buy gold. Look at how far the US Dollar has fallen against the two standard-bearer commodities since January 2001 (when Bush came into office, and the deficits began) ; gold was $266 USD per ounce and oil was $28 USD per barrel. The continual relative strength of the USD is the result of smoke and mirrors and lack of a better alternative for facilitating international commerce.

Silver Star

08-17-12, 00:19

Hmmm. So you'd rather hold a fiat currency that costs nothing to print in infinite quantities from an entity with 64 trillion in unfunded liabilities and no plan to correct the inbalance. I might not get a dividend from my gold and silver, but I'll still be able to buy groceries and medicine when the shit hits the fan.When the "S*t hits the fan you may want to have some lead too! It will happen if we keep on electing the same parties that got us in this mess they created together in the 1st place.

Esten

08-17-12, 00:43

At least Ryan put something on paper that attempts to address the problems rather than the pie in the sky budget Obama put forward which even his OWN PARTY did not support.It is very odd that "Obama's budget" failed 414-0 in the House, and 99-0 in the Senate. Not a single vote! A Fox News watcher would probably go no further and immediately conclude it was an awful budget. But a critical thinker would immediately suspect something was fishy.

Turns out, both the House and Senate bills of "Obama's budget" were introduced by Republicans. And when you look at the bills, neither of them was actually Obama's budget. Turns out it was all a gimmick for headlines.

As I keep saying, the Republican party relies on mass deception, and will say and do anything to win an election.

Tiny12

08-17-12, 02:50

As I keep saying, the Republican party relies on mass deception, and will say and do anything to win an election.Hahahahahaha! And the Democrat Party doesn't do the same thing, only worse? But I forget, it's okay because the ends justify the means.

I disagree completely with Tiny.

Hmmm. So you'd rather hold a fiat currency that costs nothing to print in infinite quantities from an entity with 64 trillion in unfunded liabilities and no plan to correct the inbalance.

Snake and Tim, I don't like the dollar either, and probably have much less exposure to it than you do. I don't subscribe to the "inevitable collapse of fiat currency" thing though. IMHO, with gold north of $1600 per ounce, you'd be wise to view precious metals as just another asset class, and diversify. If you like to think in terms of how many loaves of bread or gallons of milk that an ounce of gold will buy, gold looks historically expensive. I could only get about 3 pokes at Newport for an ounce of gold back in 2001. Now from what I read here I could get 20. Buy hookers, not gold.

Silver Star

08-17-12, 03:03

Dccpa

08-17-12, 08:57

It is very odd that "Obama's budget" failed 414-0 in the House, and 99-0 in the Senate. Not a single vote! A Fox News watcher would probably go no further and immediately conclude it was an awful budget. But a critical thinker would immediately suspect something was fishy.

Turns out, both the House and Senate bills of "Obama's budget" were introduced by Republicans. And when you look at the bills, neither of them was actually Obama's budget. Turns out it was all a gimmick for headlines.

As I keep saying, the Republican party relies on mass deception, and will say and do anything to win an election.Esten you seem to have left out this one critical fact:

"The White House faced harsh criticism from conservatives and liberals after the vote on the budget, which was put forth by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and used spending targets from Obama's budget proposal offered earlier this year. A similar bill by Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-SC) failed 414-0 in the House."

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/05/senate-republicans-barack-obama-budget-jeff-sessions-mick-mulvaney.php

For a vote like this to happen, each political party must believe they can gain from it. If BO didn't want this vote to happen, Harry Reid would not have allowed the budget up for a vote. Either that or BO has lost control of his party.

Dccpa

08-17-12, 11:11

Tiny, I deleted your quote as my post is way too long and I was trying to shorten the post. There isn't an investment or world economic forum on this web site, so Jackson can move or delete this post.

Unless someone can accept that our economic environment for the next several years is either going to be one of deflation (1930s US) , stagflation (1970s US) or hyperinflation (1930s Germany) , then reading this post is a waste of time.

During the deflationary period of the 1930s, Homestake Mining (the largest gold miner) was the top investment returning several hundred percent, plus dividends. Even if you only held gold, Roosevelt devalued the USD against gold by about 65-70. Most other investments classes were crushed.

During the stagflation of the 1970s, gold and all other commodities increased. Stocks and bonds were crushed.

During the Weimer hyperinflation of the 1930s, farmers got rich, most everyone else got poor. Gold held its value and stocks eventually recovered, but still lost value on an inflation adjusted basis.

So, gold is the one asset that has held or increased its value under all the likely economic scenarios.

Why gold vs. Other investments? Gold is money which technically is an investment, but is usually considered an asset class. A gold mining stock is an investment and in the future, many gold and silver miners will likely pay significant dividends. Gold is also very portable. Many Jews smuggled their wealth out of Germany by hiding gold coins in the linings of their coats. Try putting an apartment complex in your backpack.

I didn't write put all your wealth into gold, but I would definitely put some of my wealth into gold. The other investments you mentioned are good choices too. Let's look at each asset class.

1. A business. Most of my clients started their own businesses. But unless the business is capital intensive, it is not an either or choice between the business and gold. If the business is capital intensive, then it is likely tied to a specific location and is therefore subject to the whims of government (taxation and seizure). If you are comparing buying a business to owning gold, buying a business is way too complex to discuss on a forum.

2. Same governmental risk for real estate.

3. Dividend paying stocks. Unless you have directly registered your shares, you don't own them. The brokerages keep the stocks in street name. If cases of MF Global, PFG Best and Sentinal have taught us anything, it is that the bankers feel free to steal from their customers. Of course SIPC or FDIC insurance will likely cover your losses? But if theft on that scale occurs, the USD has likely suffered a large decrease in value and you will lose. In addition, there is a significant amount of naked shorting that has been occurring in our markets which you see on the failure to deliver list. In this current environment you don't know if the shares you purchased ever existed.

When governments return to spending within their means, gold will no longer be a preferred asset class. So what would cause the price of gold to drop? Higher interest rates. Gold prospers during periods of negative real interest rates (nominal interest rates are below the true inflation rate). So if 10 year bonds are yielding 2% and real inflation is 5, real interest rates are a negative 3. When Volcker raised nominal interest rates above the rate of inflation gold was no longer a preferred asset class. The US currently has as. 0% interest rate policy and Rubin moved most of our debt to short term from long term. Does anyone believe that our current group of politicians will willingly raise interest rates and add more trillions to the deficit?

I agree that no asset class is always a good place to put your wealth. Commodities and stocks run in long cyclical waves that often last for around 36 years. Normally commodities will be up for 18 years and stocks down. Then things reverse for the next 18 years.

In the previous cycle (1966-2000) , stocks peaked in 1966 and made a price low in 1974 (8 years). Stocks then made a value low in 1982. During this time period commodities increased in value and peaked about the same time stocks bottomed in value.

Current cycle (2000?) stocks peaked in 2000 and made a price low in 2008 (8 years). My guess is that stocks make a value low around 2015-2016. At that point commodities would normally be fully valued. Due to the increasing consumption of meat in Asian societies, agricultural commodities may extend their cycle.

The charts that I am linking below tell me a lot about the future of the Dow and Gold and our economy.

http://www.sharelynx.com/chartstemp/DowGoldRatio.php

Look at the first 100 years. Notice that stocks were slowly gaining against gold. The most likely reason for the increase is the higher standards of living from technological improvements. Now look at the second 100 years.

Notice the increased volatility of the Dow gold ratio. This volatility is due to governmental interference in the markets. But the most important aspect of this chart is the wolf wave or megaphone pattern. A 100 chart pattern is a very strong one. My guestimation is that around 2015 it will take less than one ounce of gold to buy a mythical share of the Dow Jones Industrial. Of course both the Dow and gold could be at $1000 and the ratio would be 1:1. However, Helicopter Bernanke has made it clear that he fears deflation and will do whatever it takes to prevent this scenario. So, I am left with the conclusion that gold is going much, much higher in nominal price.

Gold has been the second best performing asset of the last decade (ammunition is #1) , but it has a long way to go in terms of USD pricing. Just to reach the inflation adjusted equivalent of $850 in 1980 would take about $9000 in today's USD. The original inflation numbers are still kept by john williams at shadowstats. Com.

That is enough rambling from someone who woke up at 4:30 the last two mornings.

Tiny12

08-17-12, 16:38

Thanks for another good post Dccpa, that had me checking my stockbroker's balance sheet and private (non SIPC) insurance today. On that topic BTW, if you have a cash securities account (not a margin or commodity account) with a large reputable broker and keep your cash under the SIPC limit, the chances of losing money are slim. As you say, you can get the securities registered in your name.

I'd come to the opposite conclusion looking at your graph. It makes gold look expensive compared to shares. It also shows that shares have far outperformed gold in the long term, although admittedly that's largely because the USA stock market has had an extraordinary run, unlikely to be duplicated over the next 200 years.

Adjusting for inflation using government numbers, the $850/oz. Price spike in 1980 would be $2300/oz. today, not $9000. And if prices were to go down to the level of March. 2001, adjusted for inflation gold would only be selling for $330/oz. I doubt it will go that low though, as production costs must be much higher. And I do admit that long term, as the metal becomes scarcer and there are more people, it's logical to expect the price to go up from the long term, inflation-adjusted trend. But $1600 seems like an awful lot to pay.

Dccpa

08-17-12, 18:41

"Thanks for another good post Dccpa, that had me checking my stockbroker's balance sheet and private (non SIPC) insurance today. On that topic BTW, if you have a cash securities account (not a margin or commodity account) with a large reputable broker and keep your cash under the SIPC limit, the chances of losing money are slim. As you say, you can get the securities registered in your name."

The investors in MF Global, PFG Best and Sentinel are losing money that was in customer segregated accounts. That money was supposed to be sacred. But if the theft happens at places like Charles Schwab & TD Ameritrade, you can also figure the USD is toast and your stolen worthless funds will be replaced by other worthless USD funds. Either way you lose. Other than keeping a broker from loaning out your shares, I don't see any added protection in having a cash account. BTW. Schwab is raising the fees on September 1 for direct registration from $50 to $500. That should tell you how afraid the brokerages are of having shares taken out of street name. Looking at the balance sheet of the broker is worthless. PFG Best submitted fraudulent bank statements for 20 years and never got caught. Early in my career, I was an auditor. Audits are put out for bids by companies and the auditors are under pressure to get the reports done quickly. Also, if you give a company a bad report, you will likely be terminated as their auditor. Both the auditors and the company want an unqualified opinion.

"I'd come to the opposite conclusion looking at your graph. It makes gold look expensive compared to shares. It also shows that shares have far outperformed gold in the long term, although admittedly that's largely because the USA stock market has had an extraordinary run, unlikely to be duplicated over the next 200 years."

I am not sure how you come to the conclusion that gold is expensive compared to stocks. The chart pattern shows a trend that gold is going to increase in value vs. The Dow. If you look at the second chart, you will notice that once the ratio crosses 10 (in either direction) , it never crosses the 10 again, until after it reaches the edge of the megaphone pattern. Right now, the ratio has crossed 10 to the downside and the bottom of the megaphone pattern would be a ratio of about. 8 / oz of gold = the Dow. Currently, that would put gold at about $16, 500oz. If gold goes to $16, 500oz, a loaf of bread will cost more than $2-3. Will gold have gained against food? Who knows? Either way, the USD will have definitely lost ground vs. Other asset classes and that will be the continuation of a trend that started with the founding of the Federal Reserve in 1913.

"Adjusting for inflation using government numbers, the $850 / oz. Price spike in 1980 would be $2300 / oz. Today, not $9000. And if prices were to go down to the level of March. 2001, adjusted for inflation gold would only be selling for $330 / oz. I doubt it will go that low though, as production costs must be much higher. And I do admit that long term, as the metal becomes scarcer and there are more people, it's logical to expect the price to go up from the long term, inflation-adjusted trend. But $1600 seems like an awful lot to pay."

You are using the government provided inflation numbers which are garbage. Almost every single President since Kennedy has changed the way inflation is calculated and each time the calculation lowered the rate of inflation. John Williams at shadowstats. Com uses the original government inflation measurement numbers. Per the original government inflation formula, gold needs to be about $9000 / oz to equal $850 in 1980. Also, see my link to the crash course videos in the next paragraph.

The government has also manipulated the unemployment calculation. What used to be reported as unemployment is now called U6 and is around 16-17. But the government now reports U3 which is only 8. What is the difference? A lot of unemployed people that are in the U6 rate are excluded from the U3 rate. Can't have those pesky unemployed people making a President look bad. If you want to understand what has happened go to peakprosperity. Com and watch Chris Martenson's crash course videos. For example, when steak went up in price, they took steak out of the calculation and added hamburger. When hamburger went up in price, they added hamburger helper. I will let you watch the course and you can see how the rent you don't pay yourself for your own house is added to the US GDP number. Starting with July, they are now manipulating the retail sales number. This stuff is like a fairly tale.

Rev BS

08-17-12, 20:00

He exudes intelligence, he looks good, but is that going to increase Romney's base?

Now that Sarah Palin has lost her defenders, even Cheney said that she was a poor choice, it seems Ryan's pick was to conolidate the right wing base. Of course, it is a moot point since Romney is going to win by a landslide, right?

El Alamo

08-17-12, 20:51

The only pollster to get the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections exactly right was Rasmussen.

Rasmussen commented that in 2004 before the national conventions he had Bush ahead by 3. Nothing changed. Bush won by 3. In 2008 at the same time he had Obama ahead by 5. Nothing changed. Obama won by 5-7%. Now he has romney ahead by 4. Likely nothing will change, especially because romney, as opposed to Mccain, will not be outspent 10:1. And, by the way, for the first time in my life, I will make a campaign contribution to end the tired, failed and devisive policies of Obama.

Esten

08-17-12, 23:53

Esten you seem to have left out this one critical fact:

"The White House faced harsh criticism from conservatives and liberals after the vote on the budget, which was put forth by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and used spending targets from Obama's budget proposal offered earlier this year. A similar bill by Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-SC) failed 414-0 in the House."

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/05/senate-republicans-barack-obama-budget-jeff-sessions-mick-mulvaney.phpAnd you have omitted a critical fact.

The budget introduced by Republican Senator Jeff Sessions was a a small 56-page document with the same topline numbers as Obama, but no specifics. So it had a connection, giving some cover to call it Obama's budget. But without specifics it was just an empty shell. From the White House: "For example, rather than ending tax breaks for millionaires his budget could hit the revenue target by raising taxes on the middle class and rather than ending wasteful programs, his budget could hit its spending target with severe cuts to important programs."

Predictably, nobody voted for this perverse gimmick.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/house-and-senate-unanimously-reject-obama-budgets-or-do-they/

For a vote like this to happen, each political party must believe they can gain from it. If BO didn't want this vote to happen, Harry Reid would not have allowed the budget up for a vote. Either that or BO has lost control of his party.Wrong. Republicans used a Senate rule allowing any lawmaker to require votes on a budget if the chamber's Budget Committee hasn't produced one by April 1. Senate Dems did not produce one because they considered the Budget Control Act the de facto budget.

When you dig into the details, you learn this was nothing but a Republican stunt for headlines. Anyone who believes Congress voted on Obama's budget, has been duped by the Republican party.

Silver Star

08-18-12, 02:42

And you have omitted a critical fact.

The budget introduced by Republican Senator Jeff Sessions was a a small 56-page document with the same topline numbers as Obama, but no specifics. So it had a connection, giving some cover to call it Obama's budget. But without specifics it was just an empty shell. From the White House: "For example, rather than ending tax breaks for millionaires his budget could hit the revenue target by raising taxes on the middle class and rather than ending wasteful programs, his budget could hit its spending target with severe cuts to important programs."

Predictably, nobody voted for this perverse gimmick.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/house-and-senate-unanimously-reject-obama-budgets-or-do-they/

Wrong. Republicans used a Senate rule allowing any lawmaker to require votes on a budget if the chamber's Budget Committee hasn't produced one by April 1. Senate Dems did not produce one because they considered the Budget Control Act the de facto budget.

When you dig into the details, you learn this was nothing but a Republican stunt for headlines. Anyone who believes Congress voted on Obama's budget, has been duped by the Republican party.When do the Democrats plan to submit a balanced budget, same for Republicans, when does the Ryan budget balance? I think both plans continue pouring on the red ink for a long time to come, making it much harder to dig out of the hole. Better to bite the bullet and balance the budget now, not in 10 years, Gary Johnson (Libertarian) plans to submit a balanced budget in year one. Democrats and Republicans in power means perpetual, endless debt that will eventually lead to a major financial crisis. Barak Obama ran on fiscal responsibilty in 08 and then did the opposite by making the enormous Bush deficits look pale in comparison. Democrats and Republicans alike spend our hard earned money like drunken sailors. It's time for change and that change is Libertarian.

Tequila Tim

08-18-12, 10:15

Wrong. Republicans used a Senate rule allowing any lawmaker to require votes on a budget if the chamber's Budget Committee hasn't produced one by April 1. Senate Dems did not produce one because they considered the Budget Control Act the de facto budget.Hmmmm, a plan to outline spending for the next fiscal year. Obviously a plan too radical for Harry. How many head shots did he receive during his boxing career?

Silver Star

08-18-12, 13:52

Hmmmm, a plan to outline spending for the next fiscal year. Obviously a plan too radical for Harry. How many head shots did he receive during his boxing career?Harry Reid also wants the brothels to be shut down in his home state of Nevada (how idoitic is that!) , that's something I'd expect from social conservatives like Mitt Romney, not a Democrat, go figure. Of course, Libertarians want prostitution to be legal.

Conclusion: Harry Reid wants to cut jobs in his home state and impose his morals on others. Isn't is time go Libertarian and choose freedom vs government control?

El Alamo

08-18-12, 13:57

Silver Star

08-18-12, 14:08

The reason that Obama, Reid, Pelsosi etc were never worried about a budget is because Obama, Reid, Pelosi were spending somebody elses money. The idea that we would eventually have to pay every cent of their spending sprees never crossed the peabrain minds of Obama, Reid or Pelosi. As Margaret Thatcher said, the problem with liberals is that eventually they run out of other peoples money to spend.

Starting Jan 20 or 21 of next year with the new Romeny / Ryan administration we have something we have not had for a long time. A budget. And a team that will be good stewards of the money we send them.My understanding of the Ryan budget is that it doesn't balance for years to come, help me out, WHEN does the Ryan budget balance, or was Dick Cheney right when he said that deficits don't matter? Libertarian Gary Johnson's budget will balance in year one, like it is supposed to, not years down the road when they are out of office anyway.

El Alamo

08-18-12, 14:12

Silver Star

08-18-12, 14:45

Silver star.

The answer to that is easy. The romney / Ryan administration will balance the budget a lot sooner than an Obama / Biden administration. Which is not saying much considering that Obama / biden have no idea what a budget is.

The reason Romney was asked to salvage the 1998 Winter Olympics was not only because corruption was rampant. The cost overruns in Salt Lake city were reaching federal deficit levels. Romney stopped the corruption and brought the games in on schedule. No deficits.

I have nothing against Gary johnson. But at this junction in our history we are fortunate to have someone as capable and intelligent as Romney to get us back on track.I pulled up this article on Ryan's budget and his past votes in Congress to expand government and the socialistic welfare state in big ways. (see below) Looks like the Ryan budget balances in the year 2040, so I'll probably be dead before we see a balanced budget! Romney did a great job in the Olympics, thumbs up, but his record and past policy statements in the 90's lead me to believe he is a believer in big government, especially since he fathered RomneyCare, essentially a carbon copy and a blueprint for Obamacare. If that isn't a warning sign of what is to come, then I don't know what is.

Governor Gary Johnson got his state what was run by Democrats in a mess, amd left it with a surplus, by getting government out of the way, and letting the free market work its wonders, that's why he was reelected by a bigger majority than what he was elected with to start in an overwhelingly Democratic state. He also balanced the budget by not raising taxes. (The correct way) Mitt Romney was too chicken to face the voters again in MASS and was not reelected.

Mitt Romney has also flipped flopped on way to many issues to have credibility, and his "get tough" policy with China risks a very dangerous trade war. Free trade and markets work better, Gary Johnson understands that.

Don't Believe the Hype About Paul Ryan.

Gene Healy | August 14, 2012 |* Reason Magazine.

*

http://reason.com/archives/2012/08/14/dont-believe-the-hype-about-paul-ryan

*

Paul Ryan was a loyal soldier throughout the free-spending George W. Bush years, and a big government conservative under Obama.

*

If nothing else, Mitt Romney's selection of Rep. Paul Ryan, (R-Wis.) , as his running mate has made a dull and joyless campaign a little more interesting.

*

When I heard the news, my internal monologue went something like this:

*

"Are wonks suddenly cool?"

*

"Why is a guy my age potentially a heartbeat away from the presidency?"

*

"Does that he really only have 6 to 8 percent body fat?"

*

"Why do I know that?"

*

"Will someone please buy Ryan a suit that fits?"

*

Some conservatives are considerably more exuberant, viewing Ryan as the budget-slashing paladin we've long been waiting for. As a curmudgeonly libertarian, it's my job to pour cold water on the flames of political passion. So—hey girl: If you're over the moon about the Ryan pick, let me confess: I'm not so excited. And I just can't hide it.

*

Ryan was a loyal soldier throughout the free-spending George W. Bush years, voting for No Child Left Behind and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, among other debacles. At the dawn of the Tea Party, Ryan lent his support to the auto and bank bailouts. He voted for TARP and gave "one of the most hysterical speeches" demanding others do the same, as Michelle Malkin observed in 2009.

*

In a newly popular YouTube video, the articulate congressman lambastes Barack Obama for creating, in Obamacare, yet another entitlement we can't afford. *It's an impressive performance, but in 2003, Ryan voted for Bush's prescription-drug entitlement, adding over $16 trillion in unfunded liabilities to the national tab.

*

Ryan's much-hyped budget plan would eliminate the deficit,"but not until 2040 or so," my colleague Mike Tanner explains, and his cuts in domestic discretionary spending amount to an average of just $35. 2 billion per year below what Obama himself has proposed.

*

In May, FreedomWorks' Dean Clancy usefully compared Ryan's budget to the much bolder plan introduced by Sen. Rand Paul, (R-Ky). *Paul Ryan's budget "would achieve balance in 26 years;" *Rand Paul's,"in five." *Paul Ryan's plan is short on specific cuts, whereas "Mr. Paul eliminates four Cabinet agencies—Commerce, HUD, Energy and Education." *Tellingly,"Mr. Ryan increases defense spending. Mr. Paul does not spare the Pentagon from scrutiny."

*

As Newsweek's Eli Lake explains, Ryan "tilts the ticket closer to the neoconservatives" on defense policy. *Indeed, Ryan voted for the Iraq War in 2002—and against winding down the endless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2007 and 2011.

*

Last summer, he gave a foreign policy speech suggesting that the most pressing reason we need to solve our budget problems is so we can continue being the world's policeman."We can and we must remain committed to the promotion of stable governments that respect the rights of their citizens" in Iraq and Afghanistan, Ryan insisted. It seems he's learned absolutely nothing from a decade spent wasting American blood and treasure making the world safe for democracy abroad.

*

Wars aren't free: We've spent over $1. 3 trillion in direct outlays on the War on Terror abroad, with the true cost much higher. The Pentagon makes up about 19 percent of the federal budget. If you leave it off the table, as Ryan does, you're just not serious about staving off fiscal Armageddon.

*

I've been in D. C. Nearly as long as Ryan has. And since this is a town where Bethesda's Tom Friedman passes for a deep thinker, I probably shouldn't be surprised that Ryan has developed a reputation as a serious fiscal conservative.

*

He's not. But there's a silver lining here: his selection means that the 2012 campaign just might bring us a serious discussion of these issues.

==========

Dccpa

08-18-12, 20:05

Wrong. Republicans used a Senate rule allowing any lawmaker to require votes on a budget if the chamber's Budget Committee hasn't produced one by April 1. Senate Dems did not produce one because they considered the Budget Control Act the de facto budget.So were the Democrats arrogantly stupid in their interpretation of the rules or were they simply outsmarted by the Republicans?

Dccpa

08-18-12, 20:07

The only pollster to get the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections exactly right was Rasmussen.

Rasmussen commented that in 2004 before the national conventions he had Bush ahead by 3. Nothing changed. Bush won by 3. In 2008 at the same time he had Obama ahead by 5. Nothing changed. Obama won by 5-7. Now he has romney ahead by 4. Likely nothing will change, especially because romney, as opposed to Mccain, will not be outspent 10:1. And, by the way, for the first time in my life, I will make a campaign contribution to end the tired, failed and devisive policies of Obama.Where are you seeing Romney up by 4. At RCP they have the Rasmussen poll with Obama up by 2.

El Alamo

08-18-12, 21:27

Dccpa.

The rasmussen poll is a daily poll. The daily average for the last month is 4% for Romney. There are daily fluctutations but the daily average is a 4% edge to romney. I think Obama has been ahead of romney for about 2 days in the last month which is just statistical variance.

Check it out daily and the trend will be obvious. But, who knows, maybe things will change. This poll taken over a period of time is pretty accurate.

Silver Star

08-18-12, 22:02

Rev BS

08-18-12, 23:20

Where are you seeing Romney up by 4. At RCP they have the Rasmussen poll with Obama up by 2.El Alamo was perusing some internet porno sites and forgot to change his glasses. I recommend a glass of carrot juice every morning, things will become more vivid, and less confusing.

Esten

08-19-12, 13:44

So were the Democrats arrogantly stupid in their interpretation of the rules or were they simply outsmarted by the Republicans?After passing the Budget Control Act of 2011, I am sure Democrats anticipated Republicans would make political hay if a budget was not also passed. Nevermind that the BCA is basically a budget. Democrats probably thought Republicans would introduce their own bills and then say look we have a budget, Dems don't.

What Democrats probably didn't anticipate is that Republicans would write a bill that nobody would ever vote for, and call it "Obama's budget". And then perpetuate a massive lie that there was a vote on Obama's budget. Nobody expected Republicans would actually stoop this low.

Dccpa, aren't you skeeved out by supporting a group that engages in such mass deception?

Tiny12

08-19-12, 15:03

Silver Star

08-19-12, 21:14

Silver Star, The New Yorker profiled Ryan in its August 6 edition, before he became a Vice Presidential candidate. The New Yorker, which is to the left of the New York Times, would dispute your characterization of Ryan. He's always been a Libertarian thinker as far as economic issues go. He makes Ayn Rand mandatory reading for his staff, and is a big admirer of Friedman, Hayek and Von Mises. The federal handouts he's gotten for his congressional district have been small, and since 2008 he's rejected earmarks entirely.

Prior to 2008, he did indeed "go along to get along". The result was that he became chairman of the House Budget Committee. If he hadn't voted the party line, in accordance with Bush's arm-twisting, he probably wouldn't have gotten there. But since 2008 he's been a thorn in the side of some Republican leaders and has been instrumental in shifting the House in the direction of the tea party.

I do not like the statements that Ryan has come out with though on Medicare recently and view them as deceptive. But the problem isn't what Ryan believes, the problem is the American public. They spend more than they make and expect their government to do the same. They expect handouts. The majority of the public wants to screw minorities, like the wealthy, pot smokers, and prostitutes and their customers. Gary Johnson would be by far my favorite candidate, if he had a snowball's chance in hell of winning. He combines what Ryan believes regarding economic policies with what you and I and most of the other people on this board believe about social policies. Before Romney picked Ryan, I was leaning towards voting for Johnson, for reasons I explained to you before. Now though I'll probably vote for Romney / Ryan.

My question for you, there are two ways that Libertarians can have more influence. The first way would be if we can elect people like Johnson on the Libertarian ticket. The chances of success are virtually "0". The second way is if we can infiltrate the Republican party, like Ron Paul, Rand Paul and Jeff Flake did in Congress and like Gary Johnson did in New Mexico. Why do you prefer the first way?

An interesting statistic I ran across today. During his time as governor of New Mexico, Johnson vetoed more legislation than all 49 other governors put together. I'd like to see that in a USA president. But it's not going to happen if people like Johnson run on third party tickets.Great points Tiny12.

I guess the best outcome would have been GJ winning the Republican nomination, but he was excluded by the big media in the debates and wasn't the best campaigner. I don't expect the American public to elect GJ (which sucks) but Paul Ryan is not even close to Libertarian. He voted to ban online poker (strike one) he voted for No Child left behind (strike 2) he voted for Medicare part D (a huge expansion of Govt with no way to pay for it) (strike 3) and his so called budget reform won't balance the budget for years to come. So I'm going to vote for the ticket I think will be best for America and closest to my views, Romney / Ryan are wrong on too many issues for me to give them my vote. I can understand completely why you want something other than BO, but I see Romney / Ryan as going back to the same thing as Bush, who couldn't balance the budget, and were social conservatives also who want to impose their moral fantasies upon the rest of us. Romney / Ryan? Wrong on way too many issues to be supported. I think the lions share of the Romney supporters are biting their teeth and just will take anything but Obama, even though there are better choices on the ballot. There are more anti Obama than pro Romney. Don't be fooled by all the Ryan hype, he is more neocon than Libertarian, oh yeah Ryan also supported extending the intrusive Patriot Act, and the latest defense bill that gives government new powers that surpass the constitution. Another kicker is Romney supported 100% and was proud of RomneyCare, which his is now running against. Oh yeah, Ryan also supported TARP too! (just like Romney)

Dccpa

08-19-12, 21:47

Dccpa, aren't you skeeved out by supporting a group that engages in such mass deception?And Democrats don't participate in mass deception? Besides, what makes you think I support any group? I have stated multiple times that I dislike both parties. I supported Ron Paul, but the Republicans screwed him over in Iowa and he had to win Iowa to have any chance. My position is that Wall Street is more dangerous than Al Queda and that a monkey with a hat will do less damage to the economy than BO. MR knows where the bodies are buried on Wall Street and if he decides to do so, he can take out the Wall Street Mafia. Considering how Wall Street is contributing to his campgaign, they don't expect MR to go after them. But BO has proven he will protect Wall Street, so the 10% chance with MR is better than the. 0% chance with BO.

The vote is already decided in my state, so I probably won't vote. If I did vote, it would be for MR. While my philosophy is Libertarian, a vote for the Libertarian candidate helps BO. I believe Ron Paul recognized years ago that he would have to effect change from within a mainstream political party. The Republican convention will showcase whether Ron Paul has been successful. Edit, I just noticed Tiny posted something very similar. Great minds think alike.

Unless MR wins and turns the economy, the next election may see a third party president.

El Alamo

08-20-12, 17:14

Ok, here it is.

" The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows Mitt Romney attracting support from 44% of voters nationwide, while President Obama earns the vote from 43. Six percent (6%) prefer some other candidate, and six percent (6%) are undecided.

Today's update matches the president's lowest level of support since May. Yesterday was the lowest level of support for Romney since March. On a combined basis, today shows the lowest level of combined support for the two major party candidates since January 27. See daily tracking history.

Sometimes it is helpful to look at the numbers on a full-week basis rather than day-to-day basis. This eliminates some statistical noise and gives a broader perspective on the race. Doing so gives a sense of how little the race has changed over the past two months. In six of the past eight weeks, Romney has been ahead by one or two points. Once he had a larger lead, and once the candidates were tied." end of quote

What I find interesting is that Rasmussen, at this time in 2008, had Obama ahead by 5. Obama won by about 5. However, Obama should have won by 15% considering Obama outspent McCain 10:1 and the country went through a stock market crash and a liquidity crisis days or weeks prior to the election.

What people do not realize is that Obama is and always has been an election day disaster. Clinton regularly put a pitchfork up Obama ass in the final primaries of 2008. This year a convicted incarcerated felon beat Obama in the primaries.

My prediction is that Obama will be increasingly ostracized by the mainstream and as the election nears Obama will draw closer to his base. Look for Obama going trailer to trailer offering twinkies and oreo cookies.

Silver Star

08-20-12, 17:52

And Democrats don't participate in mass deception? Besides, what makes you think I support any group? I have stated multiple times that I dislike both parties. I supported Ron Paul, but the Republicans screwed him over in Iowa and he had to win Iowa to have any chance. My position is that Wall Street is more dangerous than Al Queda and that a monkey with a hat will do less damage to the economy than BO. MR knows where the bodies are buried on Wall Street and if he decides to do so, he can take out the Wall Street Mafia. Considering how Wall Street is contributing to his campgaign, they don't expect MR to go after them. But BO has proven he will protect Wall Street, so the 10% chance with MR is better than the. 0% chance with BO.

The vote is already decided in my state, so I probably won't vote. If I did vote, it would be for MR. While my philosophy is Libertarian, a vote for the Libertarian candidate helps BO. I believe Ron Paul recognized years ago that he would have to effect change from within a mainstream political party. The Republican convention will showcase whether Ron Paul has been successful. Edit, I just noticed Tiny posted something very similar. Great minds think alike.

Unless MR wins and turns the economy, the next election may see a third party president.DCCPA if you are Libertarian, then why not vote that way? It will hurt BO, who never had your vote in the 1st place. (Cuts down their percentages and sends a strong and clear message) Also, there are probably good Libertarian candidates down ballot that could use your vote. Gary Johnson is counting on the Ron Paul folks like you for your support, and remember this is all much bigger than Gary Johnson or Ron Paul, it is a movement and a set of principles and core values that America should revert back to. The only wasted vote is a vote not cast.

Silver Star

08-20-12, 17:57

Ok, here it is.

" The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows Mitt Romney attracting support from 44% of voters nationwide, while President Obama earns the vote from 43. Six percent (6%) prefer some other candidate, and six percent (6%) are undecided.

Today's update matches the president's lowest level of support since May. Yesterday was the lowest level of support for Romney since March. On a combined basis, today shows the lowest level of combined support for the two major party candidates since January 27. See daily tracking history.

Sometimes it is helpful to look at the numbers on a full-week basis rather than day-to-day basis. This eliminates some statistical noise and gives a broader perspective on the race. Doing so gives a sense of how little the race has changed over the past two months. In six of the past eight weeks, Romney has been ahead by one or two points. Once he had a larger lead, and once the candidates were tied." end of quote.

What I find interesting is that Rasmussen, at this time in 2008, had Obama ahead by 5. Obama won by about 5. However, Obama should have won by 15% considering Obama outspent McCain 10:1 and the country went through a stock market crash and a liquidity crash days or weeks prior to the election.

What people do not realize is that Obama is and always has been an election day disaster. Clinton regularly put a pitchfork up Obama ass in the final primaries of 2008. This year a convicted incarcerated felon beat Obama in the primaries.

My prediction is that Obama will be increasingly ostracized by the mainstream and as the election nears Obama will draw closer to his base. Look for Obama going trailer to trailer offering twinkies and oreo cookies.The Oreo cookie strategy will work on my nephew, although he is Libertarian on many issues, he is addicted to food stamps and doesn't want his gravy train to end, so he is voting BO. I'm sure many others that are in a similar situation are going to vote Obama to keep the goodies they are getting now. ¨Those that rob Peter to pay Paul will always have the support of Paul.

El Alamo

08-20-12, 18:33

Hate to bring up a sore a sore subject, but, where is biden? Probably squirming in a straight jacket with duct tape over his mouth. Obama has a tar baby and Obama may not be able to extradite himself from that tar baby. hillary probably does not want her reputation ruined by joining slime-ball Obama.

Anyway, Obama does not need biden to lose this election. Obama is a chicago slime-ball and Obama is the reason the Obama / Biden ticket is doomed.

WorldTravel69

08-21-12, 02:39

BBC's Historical story about the U.S. in the late 1880's.
This is about Politics and Cops.

They were up front sort of.

They Cheated. This story is about an honest cop, an American citizen and corrupt Politicians.

Not You, that only want your truths to only make you Money..

They just LIED! then and Now!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2006374/

As the Republicans Do.

Vote for dumb fucks like AKINS.
Rape, Rape in Certain times are Bad.

Jackson

08-21-12, 11:21

BBC's Historical story about the USA in the late 1880's.

This is about Politics and Cops.

They were up front sort of.

They Cheated. This story is about an honest cop, an American citizen and corrupt Politicians.

Not You, that only want your truths to only make you Money.

They just LIED! Then and Now!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2006374/

As the Republicans Do.

Vote for dumb fucks like AKINS.

Rape, Rape in Certain times are Bad.Hey WorldTravel,

So now your're going back to issues in the 1880's to support your hatred for today's conservatives?

And what does this have to do with the title of this thread "2012 Elections in the USA"?

But let's look at the good side, at least you're not quoting some fantasy TV drama to make your points.

Thanks,

Jackson

WorldTravel69

08-21-12, 11:44

Jackson:

You can't see it. That's too bad.

It is the same Old shit as today.

Greed and corruption.

Hey WorldTravel,

So now your're going back to issues in the 1880's to support your hatred for today's conservatives?

And what does this have to do with the title of this thread "2012 Elections in the USA"?

But let's look at the good side, at least you're not quoting some fantasy TV drama to make your points.

Thanks,

Jackson

Dccpa

08-21-12, 16:21

Jackson:

You can't see it. That's too bad.

It is the same Old shit as today.

Greed and corruption.WT, you write a great travel report, but your are missing the most important thing about this election. Both sides are corrupt and they are controlled by the bankers.

BTW. USD took a hit today and broke below a support level. The way the grains, oil, gold and silver are acting, this could be the start of a another downward leg in the dollar.

Silver Star

08-21-12, 16:48

WT, you write a great travel report, but your are missing the most important thing about this election. Both sides are corrupt and they are controlled by the bankers.

BTW. USD took a hit today and broke below a support level. The way the grains, oil, gold and silver are acting, this could be the start of a another downward leg in the dollar.If the D'the are R's are both corrupt, why reward them with our votes? (or by not voting) instead punish them by voting Libertarian, and watch how fast things will change for the better.

Rev BS

08-21-12, 18:59

I really do not know what he meant to say. My guess, he was articulating about the sanctity of life. Instead of further explanation and discussion, he succumb to the survival of his political life. He apologizes.

We are taught by the highest order,"to love our enemies as ourselves", and "to turn the other cheek","to forgive is to be divine". Right, such stupid and impossible aspirations! On occasions, we read about instances of women deciding to continue pregnacies of rape. In cases like these, the perpetrator of rape could be someone that is known to the victim. Where rapes occured most randomly and violently is during wars and conquests. It is very inspiring to read stories about women who were able to love and raise their babies of rape in these instances. Sometimes, they had a choice to continue the pregnacy, most times, they probably did not. I read such a story based on the ethnic cleasing war in Bosnia. Personally, I have a blond friend from Romania who I teased about the origin of his forefathers.

As far as I know, the US is the leading advocate of disabled people in terms of laws and benefits. It is amazing to me to see how some parents can take up the challenge of their burden of having disabled children. Abortion is a convenient solution to people who cannot cope with such a inconvenience. On a transatlanctic cruise, I saw a Brazilian family with a Down's Syndrome son. He was very happy and normal among his loving brothers and parents. I learned alot about patience and kindness just observing the interaction among them.

So with all this furor among the idealogues, they are forgetting just one thing. As Rodney King, like everyone of us, an imperfect man said,"why can't we just get along". And perhaps, getting a few things done at the same time.

Dccpa

08-21-12, 19:10

If the D'the are R's are both corrupt, why reward them with our votes? (or by not voting) instead punish them by voting Libertarian, and watch how fast things will change for the better.SS, My state will vote for MR whether or not I vote. If I was in a swing state, I would vote Libertarian if either major party candidate had a large lead or if the Libertarian candidate had a chance. But this election is close and there is a huge difference between the capabilities of BO & MR. Although I have doubts that he will do the right thing, at least MR has the capability of fixing things. BO has no clue or desire on how to fix things.

My personal opinion is that things are too far down the road to be fixed. But a MR Presidency would buy me more time to get all my assets properly positioned. And with MR, I would only have to worry about my 401k being stolen through inflation and not through outright confiscation of assets.

Silver Star

08-21-12, 22:04

SS, My state will vote for MR whether or not I vote. If I was in a swing state, I would vote Libertarian if either major party candidate had a large lead or if the Libertarian candidate had a chance. But this election is close and there is a huge difference between the capabilities of BO & MR. Although I have doubts that he will do the right thing, at least MR has the capability of fixing things. BO has no clue or desire on how to fix things.

My personal opinion is that things are too far down the road to be fixed. But a MR Presidency would buy me more time to get all my assets properly positioned. And with MR, I would only have to worry about my 401k being stolen through inflation and not through outright confiscation of assets.DCCPA.

I see how things are going just like you, but I'm going to actually vote Libertarian instead of wasting it by staying home, D's and R's love that the most, having a demoralized opposition that won't even vote for candidates they believe in. Also, voting Libertarian helps for ballot status. (The big parties don't like competition and make it very hard for small parties to get on the ballot) But I can totally understand where you are coming from. Libertarians need critical mass, and it looks like that is not going to happen, especially if those that support the principles won't even bother going to the polls.

Big Boss Man

08-21-12, 22:48

I really do not know what he meant to say.Actually I think Akins said exactly what he meant the first time. I think the apology is BS. I think abortion should be legal. I think the people of my generation used abortion as birth control when there were better methods available. I think the use of abortion as birth control has ended for the most part.

Akins is against gambling also. There are just too many people like him in the Conservative movement that I do not want to be identified with them.

Punter 127

08-22-12, 00:55

There are just too many people like him in the Conservative movement that I do not want to be identified with them.That's kind of the way I feel about communist , socialist, 'strong government' supporters like Pelosi, Reid, and Obama. I do not want to be identified with them.

Big Boss Man

08-22-12, 01:27

That's kind of the way I feel about communist , socialist, 'strong government' supporters like Pelosi, Reid, and Obama. I do not want to be identified with them.I said on Facebook the other day that I think I am really the reactionary because I want the Republican party of Eisenhower, Kuchel, Warren and Dirksen to name a few. The Conservatives basically pushed all the people with these views out of the Party. In California now, the Republicans aren't really players anymore they are so far right. If we could build a fiscally conservative limited government socially liberal party then I think we could win the majority. Many of the laws that Conservatives passed especially on crime like "Three Strikes" and "Use a gun, go to jail" have led to California building the biggest prison system (I think) in the world. Romney's inflexibility with cutting military spending is just insane. It's like writing a blank check. What kind of management is that if he is so much smarter then the "community organizer"?

Silver Star

08-22-12, 03:22

I said on Facebook the other day that I think I am really the reactionary because I want the Republican party of Eisenhower, Kuchel, Warren and Dirksen to name a few. The Conservatives basically pushed all the people with these views out of the Party. In California now, the Republicans aren't really players anymore they are so far right. If we could build a fiscally conservative limited government socially liberal party then I think we could win the majority. Many of the laws that Conservatives passed especially on crime like "Three Strikes" and "Use a gun, go to jail" have led to California building the biggest prison system (I think) in the world. Romney's inflexibility with cutting military spending is just insane. It's like writing a blank check. What kind of management is that if he is so much smarter then the "community organizer"?Have you checked out Gary Johnson's record, he is good on pocketbook issues, but without the social conservative stuff we hate so much. I think if you are an issues voter, Gary Johnson is clearly the best choice this election season. www.garyjohnson2012.com Live Free

Punter 127

08-22-12, 07:33

In California now, the Republicans aren't really players anymore they are so far right. If we could build a fiscally conservative limited government socially liberal party then I think we could win the majority.You need to define 'socially liberal' before I can agree or disagree.

Many of the laws that Conservatives passed especially on crime like "Three Strikes" and "Use a gun, go to jail" have led to California building the biggest prison system (I think) in the world.This is a little off topic because it's really a states issue, but what's your solution, allow repeat violent criminals to walk the street?

California has some of the strongest gun laws in the nation, laws that encumber your citizenry from owning guns, yet you apparently don't support penalizing criminals for using a gun in a crime!

Romney's inflexibility with cutting military spending is just insane. It's like writing a blank check. What kind of management is that if he is so much smarter then the "community organizer"?I don't think we have to worry about Romney adding 5 trillion to the national debt like Obama has.

Defense is one area that the federal government is required to be involved in and considering the current world condition I would prefer to deal with over spending on the military than face the potential consequences of under spending.

If you and your ilk don't think we're under any kind of threat than why hasn't Obama set the detainees at Guantanamo Bay free and shut the facility down?

Why haven't they even tried to repealed the patriot act?

Why hasn't he put a stop to the TSA shenanigans?

Big Boss Man

08-22-12, 23:15

You need to define 'socially liberal' before I can agree or disagree.

This is a little off topic because it's really a states issue, but what's your solution, allow repeat violent criminals to walk the street?

The Fed corollary is determinate sentencing which has lengthened prison terms.

California has some of the strongest gun laws in the nation, laws that encumber your citizenry from owning guns, yet you apparently don't support penalizing criminals for using a gun in a crime!

I think sentences are too long. I sat on a jury and convicted a guy for a $50 stickup. I thought five years was good. He got 15 because it was his second offense and used a gun. Never heard of person in California who could not buy a gun they wanted. Gun laws here do not violate the Second Amendment.

I don't think we have to worry about Romney adding 5 trillion to the national debt like Obama has.

Defense is one area that the federal government is required to be involved in and considering the current world condition I would prefer to deal with over spending on the military than face the potential consequences of under spending.

I think that a healthy economy defeats all forms of terrorism.

If you and your ilk don't think we're under any kind of threat than why hasn't Obama set the detainees at Guantanamo Bay free and shut the facility down?

Why haven't they even tried to repealed the patriot act?

Why hasn't he put a stop to the TSA shenanigans?My biggest surprise is that Patriot Act has not been repealed and the TSA disbanded.

Big Boss Man

08-22-12, 23:28

WorldTravel69

08-23-12, 05:23

Too bad that some of you can not see what is going on in the USA IN the news of each day.

Maddow and Letterman.

El Alamo

08-23-12, 06:07

"How did we get here? If you're under 40, you may not know that the Republican Party wasn't always like this. Gov. Ronald Reagan signed California's liberal abortion law in 1967; George H. W. Bush was a Planned Parenthood supporter, as was his father, Prescott, and his wife, Barbara, was regularly described as pro-choice. But when the culture wars began to rage in the 1970s, Republicans saw political gains in playing up the anxieties of a lot of people that society was changing too fast, and not in a good way."

I definitely believe that the Republican party has been hijacked. I have friends that have turned into walking Christian zombies."Praise the Lord." or something similar comes out every third sentence.The other phrase you might be looking for is "God Bless You ". Heard about as much as " good morning "

Both Republicans and Democrats have changed. In the 1960's we had JFK, who today would be more comfortable as a Republican. Barry Goldwater was considered to be a fringe Republican candidate. Today, Barry goldwater would be mainstream Republican.

Our parties may have changed but I am convinced of one thing. Obama occasionally shows his true colors with 'redistribute the wealth' comments to Joe the plumber and his ridicule of entrapreneurs with 'you didn't build that'. I believe Obama is so far out of the mainstream that in another time Obama would be comfortable joining forces with Karl Marx or the Bolsheviks in russia. Obama should write a book entitled 'My life as an anti-freemarket Marxist'. However, as with everyone that has tried Marxist policies, Obama's policies have failed miserably and hopefully we will get back on track by throwing Obama under the bus in November.

WorldTravel69

08-23-12, 13:03

As Romney has been doing all the time, changing words to fit his needs.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/07/13/remarks-president-campaign-event-roanoke-virginia

The other phrase you might be looking for is "God Bless You ". Heard about as much as " good morning "

Both Republicans and Democrats have changed. In the 1960's we had JFK, who today would be more comfortable as a Republican. Barry Goldwater was considered to be a fringe Republican candidate. Today, Barry Goldwater would be mainstream Republican.

Our parties may have changed but I am convinced of one thing. Obama occasionally shows his true colors with 'redistribute the wealth' comments to Joe the plumber and his ridicule of entrepreneurs with 'you didn't build that'. I believe Obama is so far out of the mainstream that in another time Obama would be comfortable joining forces with Karl Marx or the Bolsheviks in Russia. Obama should write a book entitled 'My life as an anti-free-market Marxist'. However, as with everyone that has tried Marxist policies, Obama's policies have failed miserably and hopefully we will get back on track by throwing Obama under the bus in November.

Tiny12

08-23-12, 14:11

WorldTravel69, Alamo has a point. In the debates in 2008 Charles Gibson asked Barack Obama if he would increase a tax, if that increase would result in LESS revenue to the federal government. Specifically they were discussing the capital gains tax. If you make it too high, people just don't sell things, so they won't have to pay the tax. Obama's response was that whether increasing the rate would increase or decrease federal revenues wasn't important. What was important was that the system would be fairer if rates were increased. So, in other words, it's okay if we're all a little bit worse off, as long as we're more equal economically. This is like socialism on steroids. Esten might approve. The gini coefficient is the be all and end all.

Jackson

08-23-12, 15:41

Too bad that some of you can not see what is going on in the USA IN the news of each day.

Maddow and Letterman.What's sad is your belief that Maddow and Letterman are actual news sources.

Anyway, to you it doesn't make any difference so long as we're not talking about...

8.3% unemployment and $1,000,000,000,000 dollar budget decificts!

Thanks,

Jackson

Tiny12

08-23-12, 17:34

As Romney has been doing all the time, changing words to fit his needs.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/07/13/remarks-president-campaign-event-roanoke-virginiaThis is appropriate for a Barack Hussein Obama campaign web site. But why is it on a government web site? Why are tax dollars being spent for partisan purposes, to support a candidate that 50% of Americans do not support? This should be illegal. I know it's illegal for government employees to work on campaigns while they're on the clock. And that would have been required to transcribe, format and post this, along with the bandwidth, servers, etc. provided by the U.S. government.

Punter 127

08-23-12, 18:29

The Fed corollary is determinate sentencing which has lengthened prison terms.Why didn't you just say it's Bush's fault? The people of California are responsible for state sentencing, it sounds to me like you're the one who's out of step.

I think sentences are too long. I sat on a jury and convicted a guy for a $50 stickup. I thought five years was good. He got 15 because it was his second offense and used a gun.Wow really what would you have given the guy if it was a first offense, probation? Anybody that has the balls to rob people at gun point has the balls to pull the trigger, they need to be off the streets. What you did not mention is how long before the guy is eligible for parole, how much time would he really serve?

Never heard of person in California who could not buy a gun they wanted. Gun laws here do not violate the Second Amendment.There are many guns that are banned in California, these same guns are legal to own in other states, most of these are guns that some liberal classified as 'assault weapons' in order to get them banned. So there are gun that people want and can't own in California. Most of California's gun laws are designed to discourage and encumber gun ownership.

California has gun registration requirements, gun bans, open carry ban, and a discriminatory concealed carry law, just to name a few. I suspect you are incorrect about violating the Second Amendment. To me laws that circumvent the Second Amendment also violate the Second Amendment.

Here's an example of one of California's great gun law debates.

http://www.kpbs.org/news/2012/aug/20/california-senate-debates-bb-gun-bill/

I think that a healthy economy defeats all forms of terrorism.Really, how?

My biggest surprise is that Patriot Act has not been repealed and the TSA disbanded.Why did you think it would be repealed, are you really that naive? Rights are seldom given back once they've been taken.

Big Boss Man

08-24-12, 00:09

Why didn't you just say it's Bush's fault? The people of California are responsible for state sentencing, it sounds to me like you're the one who's out of step.

Wow really what would you have given the guy if it was a first offense, probation? Anybody that has the balls to rob people at gun point has the balls to pull the trigger, they need to be off the streets. What you did not mention is how long before the guy is eligible for parole, how much time would he really serve?

There are many guns that are banned in California, these same guns are legal to own in other states, most of these are guns that some liberal classified as 'assault weapons' in order to get them banned. So there are gun that people want and can't own in California. Most of California's gun laws are designed to discourage and encumber gun ownership.

California has gun registration requirements, gun bans, open carry ban, and a discriminatory concealed carry law, just to name a few. I suspect you are incorrect about violating the Second Amendment. To me laws that circumvent the Second Amendment also violate the Second Amendment.

Here's an example of one of California's great gun law debates.

http://www.kpbs.org/news/2012/aug/20/california-senate-debates-bb-gun-bill/

Really, how?

Why did you think it would be repealed, are you really that naive? Rights are seldom given back once they've been taken.You give me reduced sentencing and a smaller prison system with lower taxes and I will let you own any gun you want. What gun do I need to own (a must have) that I can't buy in California? I remember my Dad buying a gun that was going to be banned so it could be a legacy.

I thought the Patriot Act would be repealed because most Americans are against it. To live in a free society, you have to accept the consequences of that freedom and be prepared to die. It is another reason to vote out Obama. He could have vetoed it.

Big Boss Man

08-24-12, 00:19

The other phrase you might be looking for is "God Bless You ". Heard about as much as " good morning "My best friend growing up always ends his Facebook posts with "God is so good to me." The guy was a superstar. All-city linebacker who went to Ivy league school. Big ladies man. He probably did 33%of the songleaders in high school and those are the ones I know about. Took all the right drugs. Now he takes his cues from some guy from Biola Bible College.

Another guy I went to school with went all the Christianity. We went to Vegas every year. One year he can't go because he does not drink and gamble anymore. I lost touch with him. Some good friends have succumbed to this Christianity thing.

WorldTravel69

08-24-12, 12:02

With Bush!

Read it and Weep.

Why do I have to do all the research?

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2012/06/01/Whos-the-Biggest-Spender-Obama-or-Bush.aspx#page1

What's sad is your belief that Maddow and Letterman are actual news sources.

Anyway, to you it doesn't make any difference so long as we're not talking about.

Thanks,

Jackson

Punter 127

08-25-12, 00:20

You give me reduced sentencing and a smaller prison system with lower taxes and I will let you own any gun you want.I believe in states rights and state sentencing is a state issue, I don't live in California so I don't get a say in the matter, but if I were you I would look to reducing sentencing in nonviolent crimes rather than crimes committed with deadly weapons.

I think we have drifted off topic, I would much prefer to talk about the U6 unemployment rate, or if you think people got the kind of change they were hoping for four years ago.

What gun do I need to own (a must have) that I can't buy in California?It's not about what gun you 'need to own' or want to own and it's not about 'must have' individual guns that have been banned in California. It's about the right to 'keep and bear' it's about freedom.

I thought the Patriot Act would be repealed because most Americans are against it. To live in a free society, you have to accept the consequences of that freedom and be prepared to die. It is another reason to vote out Obama. He could have vetoed it.I agree with your opinion of the Patriot Act but I not convinced most Americans want it repealed, where's the out cry? Sadly I think that many Americans have become so dependent on government that they're willing to give up personal liberty in the name of safety.

WorldTravel69

08-25-12, 03:02

Search Katty Kay, BBC News Anchor, about our what she says about our Health Care System.

Right If You have Medical Problem, You Come To the USA for treatment.
But if you are not one of the the lucky (money) ones that do, and come here for better care, they will help you, but if, because it is not cheap, for US, but only if you can afford it and if not, you are F__Ked..

Funny, Paul Ryan, bought his Mother to Florida, to say that she would not have any problems under his plan for Medicare Valtures (sorry that is what it sounded like to me, he said (Vouchers). She would be taken care, Year after year.
He would take care of her With Your Taxes We Paid Too Him, not His money out of his pocket, if elected You and I Pay for His Mother, Not Your Mother or Father, if care is Needed.

Jackson:
How is the Jackson Brisco doing in Florida? As one of Republican Spots to go to.
I saw it on MSNSC.

Punter 127

08-25-12, 07:38

Here you go WT69 a new movie you need to watch and review for us.

http://www.thehopeandthechange.com/

Jackson

08-25-12, 10:42

With Bush!

Read it and Weep.

Why do I have to do all the research?

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2012/06/01/Whos-the-Biggest-Spender-Obama-or-Bush.aspx#page1Hey WT,

One day you're going to dazzle us with an original thought of your own.

In the mean time, let's not forget about...

8.3% unemployment and $1,000,000,000,000 dollar budget decificts!

Thanks,

Jackson

Big Boss Man

08-25-12, 14:11

I think we have drifted off topic, I would much prefer to talk about the U6 unemployment rate, or if you think people got the kind of change they were hoping for four years ago.The topic header is the 2012 elections in the USA not why we should throw the bum out. Does the bad of the Democrat policies outweigh the good? Does the good of the Republican polices outweigh their bad? Oddly, maybe because I live in California, my net worth has expanded at a faster rate under Obama's 4 year regime than Bush's 8 year regime. So I can survive bad economic policy but can I survive bad social policy? DCCPA probably can teach you how to hedge any economic risk but once abortions become illegal it is gone for a long long time.

Esten

08-25-12, 16:52

Republicans sometimes reference the recession, but rarely talk about the timing and the depth. Some of their lines are "How's that hope and change working?" and "Are you better off than you were 4 years ago?". Well, 4 years ago was 2008, and the pre-election hope and change slogan was prior to the deepest job losses that came in 2009.

- 76,000 jobs lost January 2008
- 76,000 jobs lost February 2008
- 80,000 jobs lost March 2008
- 20,000 jobs lost April 2008
- 62,000 jobs lost May 2008
- 62,000 jobs lost June 2008
- 51,000 jobs lost July 2008
- 84,000 jobs lost August 2008
–280,000 jobs lost September 2008
–240,000 jobs lost October 2008
–333,000 jobs lost November 2008
–632,000 jobs lost December 2008
–741,000 jobs lost January 2009
–681,000 jobs lost February 2009
–652,000 jobs lost March 2009
–519,000 jobs lost April 2009
-303,000 jobs lost May 2009
-463,000 jobs lost June 2009
–276,000 jobs lost July 2009
-201,000 jobs lost August 2009
–263,000 jobs lost September 2009
-111,000 jobs lost October 2009
+ 64,000 jobs created November 2009

The economy was losing 700K jobs a month when Obama took office. That's a huge number. After enacting the Stimulus, which most economists and even the US Chamber of Commerce were all calling for, we resumed positive job growth by the end of 2009 and it's been positive ever since. About 8 million jobs lost in the recession, about 4.5 million gained back.

I guess somehow Repubs think we should have regained all those 8 million jobs by now, in just 2.5 years since the job losses ended. That's absurd, especially given the tightening of lending standards, the millions of homes that went into foreclosure, and that we were exiting a housing construction bubble.

If you remember where we came from since 2009, it's been a good recovery. That's why Repubs want to move the reference point back to 2008, before the deepest part of the recession. It's all deception with these guys.

Tiny12

08-25-12, 17:05

If you remember where we came from since 2009, it's been a good recovery. That's why Repubs want to move the reference point back to 2008, before the deepest part of the recession. It's all deception with these guys.Right, look where we came from since 2009:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303822204577468750027784434.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

A good recovery??? There hasn't been a recovery this slow with the unemployment rate still this high since the Great Depression.

Esten

08-25-12, 17:28

Tiny, we haven't had a recession this deep since the Great Depression. How quickly you guys want to overlook that fact. The graph below, which WT69 posted earlier, shows the recovery on the jobs front:

28456

As far as median income, why don't you make your case how Obama's policies, and not Corporatism, are responsible? Remember to factor in the huge losses in government jobs, which are typically good paying jobs. That's what Republicans wanted, and will continue to do if R / R are elected.

Toymann

08-25-12, 17:40

With Bush!

Read it and Weep.

Why do I have to do all the research?

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2012/06/01/Whos-the-Biggest-Spender-Obama-or-Bush.aspx#page1Virtually every political post you write is complete nonsense from goofy liberal spam sources. Do you have any common sense dude? Your obsession with the last president is virtually clinical. Your after the fact college degree was a waste of time dude. Guessing it must have been in women's studies. Lmao. It's just about time for that intervention el Alamo spoke of. Stupid foolish and uninformed is no way to to through life union boy! Keep howling at the moon dude. Toymann

Toymann

08-25-12, 17:46

Right, look where we came from since 2009:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303822204577468750027784434.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

A good recovery? There hasn't been a recovery this slow with the unemployment rate still this high since the Great Depression.Looking forward to winning our bet esten! You better be good for it after you get through your post election theraphy! Lmao. Happy mongering all. Toymann

Tiny12

08-25-12, 19:16

Tiny, we haven't had a recession this deep Since the Great Depression. How quickly you guys want to overlook that fact. The graph below, which WT69 posted earlier, shows the recovery on the jobs front:

28456

As far as median income, why don't you make your case how Obama's policies, and not Corporatism, are responsible? Remember to factor in the huge losses in government jobs, which are typically good paying jobs. That's what Republicans wanted, and will continue to do if R / R are elected.Esten, In terms of decrease in GDP, the recession of 1945 was worse. In terms of peak unemployment, the recessions of 1973 and 1982 were comparable. In any event, looking not just at the USA but the world, deeper recessions are usually followed by stronger recoveries.

What's holding the USA back? Why are corporations holding onto cash? Why are small businesses not hiring? Why is the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicting a recession next year assuming we go over the fiscal cliff? Why is it looking more likely that this "recovery" will lead to stagnation, with perpetually high unemployment, low GDP growth, and federal government budget deficits as far as the eye can see? Answer: Because people think your candidate is going to win. Specifically compared to the Republican and especially Libertarian candidates, Obama / Biden's policies call for more regulation, higher taxes, more welfare (for corporations and individuals) , no entitlement reform, unsustainable spending, and crowding out the private sector with the public sector.

Would I like to see unproductive spending in the public sector reduced? You're damn right I would. We need more efficiency in government. We need to issue school vouchers in areas where teacher performance is poor. We need to quit running the post office like a charity. We need to stop providing the manpower and dollars to protect Germany from the coming Soviet invastion. And we need to have a business environment so that people who move from government positions to the private sector will have good jobs.

WorldTravel69

08-26-12, 13:01

Here's a thought.

Congress is not doing a fucking thing to help.

They have knocked down every proposal to Create Jobs.

The Millionaire Job Creators, with their tax cuts why are they Not Creating Jobs?
Explain That?

The Pipeline the Republicans want to build to Texas is not going to help the price of Our Gas.

It is wanted by the rich so they can make more money by Exporting it.
If the Oil is in the North, refine it there. Why go to Texas?

Even Mother Nature does not like the Republicans.
I guess they will be hanging out Jackson's Bistro in Florida.
Or at the Doll House..

Hey WT,

One day you're going to dazzle us with an original thought of your own.

In the mean time, let's not forget about..

8.3% unemployment and $1,000,000,000,000 dollar budget decificts!

Thanks,

Jackson

Big Boss Man

08-27-12, 00:05

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-gingrich-obama-condones-killing-of-unborn-children-201208260,3983266.story

Gingrich is another former monger who has gone over the deep end with his conversion to Catholicism.

Although I agree with the economic policy of Republicans the social agenda is out of bounds. Maybe the theme of this election is "It's not the economy Stupid." Republicans seem to want to use the cover of the economy to push their social agenda. I watching Peggy Noonan today on the Sunday news programs and she was trying to assure me that they can control these guys using Akin as the example. I don't know.

Esten

08-28-12, 00:40

The Millionaire Job Creators, with their tax cuts why are they Not Creating Jobs? Explain That?They are busy buying $250 Million pieces of art, yachts, mansions, horses, or investing their money in financial products. Yeah it creates a few jobs, but it's a very poor return from an economic standpoint.

It is a far better investment to help the poor and middle class, because their spending almost entirely gets recycled back into the local economy.

An economic policy that strengthens the wealthy (tax cuts) and weakens the poor and middle class (spending cuts) , is simply bad economic policy.

Punter 127

08-28-12, 00:50

Wow, 'Food stamp usage is up 64% in the last four years".

28462

"And the cost is up 114% in the same period.'

28463

Big Boss Man

08-28-12, 01:26

Wow, 'Food stamp usage is up 64% in the last four years".

28462

"And the cost is up 114% in the same period. '

28463I am not clear what the 50k number is. It seems low to me. Here is a link that says there are 22m households on foodstamps with 44m eligible.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/record-number-us-households-foodstamps

Romney pulled ahead in the polls this week as typically the challenger does during the week of the convention. I doubt that Obama comes back. It would be unprecedented for an incumbent to win under these economic conditions. There is some neat econometric work at RealClearPolitics. Com. I hope Romney can control the crazies.

Punter 127

08-28-12, 05:40

I am not clear what the 50k number is. It seems low to me. Here is a link that says there are 22m households on foodstamps with 44m eligible.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/record-number-us-households-foodstamps

Romney pulled ahead in the polls this week as typically the challenger does during the week of the convention. I doubt that Obama comes back. It would be unprecedented for an incumbent to win under these economic conditions. There is some neat econometric work at RealClearPolitics. Com. I hope Romney can control the crazies.Here's where the charts came from.

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2012/08/food-stamp-usage-up-64-in-last-four.html

Here's another link you might like about spending as percent of GDP.

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2012/08/government-spending-as-percentage-of-gdp.html

Canitasguy

08-28-12, 12:59

Here's where the charts came from.

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2012/08/food-stamp-usage-up-64-in-last-four.html

Here's another link you might like about spending as percent of GDP.

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2012/08/government-spending-as-percentage-of-gdp.htmlIn addition, that level is the same as under Reagan. The numerous middle class and small business tax cuts enacted by Obama have taken the level of taxes paid as a share of GDP to the lowest level since 1959. That should make Jackson happy!

Jackson

08-28-12, 13:52

They are busy buying $250 Million pieces of art, yachts, mansions, horses, or investing their money in financial products. Yeah it creates a few jobs, but it's a very poor return from an economic standpoint.Once again completely ignoring the fact that it's their fucking money and they have the right to spend it as they wish.

Dccpa

08-28-12, 16:35

They are busy buying $250 Million pieces of art, yachts, mansions, horses, or investing their money in financial products. Yeah it creates a few jobs, but it's a very poor return from an economic standpoint.

It is a far better investment to help the poor and middle class, because their spending almost entirely gets recycled back into the local economy.

An economic policy that strengthens the wealthy (tax cuts) and weakens the poor and middle class (spending cuts) , is simply bad economic policy.Too bad none of those rich people own businesses and employ Americans. Oh wait, a lot of them do. Some would even expand their businesses if the government would stop this insane level of regulation.

Sure the poor will spend the money you give them. And that will foster even more dependence upon the government. Food rots in the fields because those poor people would rather get a handout from the government rather than work. Time to let them learn that if you don't work, you don't eat. They will adjust quickly.

Esten

08-28-12, 22:39

Once again completely ignoring the fact that it's their fucking money and they have the right to spend it as they wish.Thanks for reminding us your positions are based on ideology, and not on actual economic analysis.

Esten

08-28-12, 23:13

Too bad none of those rich people own businesses and employ Americans. Oh wait, a lot of them do.And a lot of them don't.

Here's an idea. Get rid of tax cuts that help job creators but that are also wasted on wealthy non-job creators. Instead, target policy directly at businesses that actually create jobs.

WorldTravel69

08-29-12, 03:33

There are many cartoon's About the dumb Republicans Politicians.

Here is a start..

Jackson

08-29-12, 11:34

economic analysis.Is that liberal code for "We have the right to take your money because we think we can spend it better than you"?

And you postulate that I'm the one whose "positions are based on ideology"?

In the mean time, let's not forget about..

8.3% unemployment and $1,000,000,000,000 annual budget deficits!

Thanks,

Jackson

Jackson

08-29-12, 11:56

Here's a thought.

Congress is not doing a fucking thing to help.

They have knocked down every proposal to Create Jobs.Actually, it all depends on your definition of a "Jobs Bill".

If your definition of a "Jobs Bill" is legislation that borrows money from China to create make work jobs (pay one guy to dig a ditch and another guy to fill it in), then your statement is correct.

If your definition of a "Jobs Bill" is legislation that encourages (or stops discouraging) private business to hire more employees, then I will respond by telling you that the Republican Congress has passed dozens of "Jobs Bills" that Harry Reid refuses to allow to be voted on in the Senate, and you can put that blame directly at the feet of the asshole Harry Reid.

The Millionaire Job Creators, with their tax cuts why are they Not Creating Jobs? Explain That?What "tax cut" are you referring to? There's been no income tax cut for years. In fact, we've had the same income tax rates for more than 10 years.

The Pipeline the Republicans want to build to Texas is not going to help the price of Our Gas. It is wanted by the rich so they can make more money by Exporting it. If the Oil is in the North, refine it there. Why go to Texas?WT, your lack of business acumen is appalling.

First, the reason to "go to Texas" is because that's where the American oil refineries are located.

Second, it's completely irrelevant if the Canadian oil is eventually shipped to other markets. The pipeline will provide jobs to build and maintain, and the oil will provide additional American jobs as it's refined in Houston refineries and loaded onto ships at Galveston port facilities. Duh!

Even Mother Nature does not like the Republicans. I guess they will be hanging out Jackson's Bistro in Florida. Or at the Doll House.I bet that you really do believe that Hurricane Isaac is an Act of God who is punishing the Republicans, don't you?

I retract my earlier statement. Please do not post your own thoughts. Instead, please return to posting links to fantasy TV shows to bolster your positions.

In the mean time, let's not forget about..

8.3% unemployment and $1,000,000,000,000 annual budget deficits!

Thanks,

Jackson

Tiny12

08-29-12, 12:19

Second, it's completely irrelevant if the Canadian oil is eventually shipped to other markets. The pipeline will provide jobs to build and maintain, the oil will provide additional American jobs as it's refined in American refineries in Texas. Duh!Not only that, the Keystone pipeline would provide more energy security. The Canadians will build an oil pipeline from Alberta to British Columbia if Keystone is not built. Then the oil would be exported to Asia.

We could have a captive source of oil supply, from here in North America. That would make us less dependent on sources like the Middle East and Venezuela. That's a big deal. Look at history, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait for example. And look at the present, Iran's threat to shut off the Straits of Hormuz if their nuclear facilities are destroyed.

If Obama is re-elected he'll likely allow the pipeline to go ahead. He realizes there's no logical reason to stop it. However, just like his tax the rich thing, he's using the issue to appeal to his political base, in this case environmentalists that don't seem to realize whether gasoline is burned in China or the USA, it's going to produce CO2.

The U.S. is a net importer of crude oil, and will continue to be after Keystone is built. Yes, we do import oil, refine it, and export some gasoline. The exports provides jobs to American workers, income to American companies, and taxes to state, local and federal governments. I do not understand WT69's point, at all. We import a lot more oil/petroleum products than we export.

One final point -- Canadian oil is selling for for $10 to $15 per barrel less than West Texas Intermediate (WTI). And WTI in turn is selling for $15 less than the oil we're importing from Nigeria, Venezuela, etc. Gasoline prices would be lower if Keystone were in place.

Mpexy

08-29-12, 14:28

And a lot of them don't.

Here's an idea. Get rid of tax cuts that help job creators but that are also wasted on wealthy non-job creators. Instead, target policy directly at businesses that actually create jobs.

Esten - Other than the singular exception of silver spoon inheritance, so let's leave that aside for now, curious what your take is on how most wealthy non-job creators became wealthy in the first place? Whether they are currently creating new jobs or not at the moment, where do you think that capital came from?

Do you not imagine many created income for others whether having direct employees or not? And do you comsider sitting on wealth to be some sin or unfair somehow?

Last. Really curious whether you've personally created one or more incremental new jobs?

WorldTravel69

08-29-12, 15:07

Yes, that would be a fact, when the Job Creators, with there Tax Breaks are not Creating Jobs.

Wow, 'Food stamp usage is up 64% in the last four years".

28462

"And the cost is up 114% in the same period. '

28463

WorldTravel69

08-29-12, 15:12

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2012/06/01/Whos-the-Biggest-Spender-Obama-or-Bush.aspx#page1

Yes, you are right 8% unemployment and the Job Creators are not creating Jobs.

Is that liberal code for "We have the right to take your money because we think we can spend it better than you"?

And you postulate that I'm the one whose "positions are based on ideology"?

In the mean time, let's not forget about.

Thanks,

Jackson

WorldTravel69

08-29-12, 15:24

Here are a few more Cartoon's.

There are many cartoon's About the dumb Republicans Politicians.

Here is a start.

WorldTravel69

08-29-12, 15:34

I can see it now. Just like the rest of the Republican Politicians.

Here are a few more Cartoon's.

WorldTravel69

08-29-12, 15:36

Still stuck with their heads up you know where.

I can see it now. Just like the rest of the Republican Politicians.

Member #3320

08-29-12, 20:12

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2012/08/24/americas-descent-poverty-paul-craig-roberts/

Jackson

08-29-12, 21:45

I can see it now. Just like the rest of the Republican Politicians.So, one lone Republican candidate makes one remark that is universally condemned by every other Republican, and yet the Democrats continue to ignore these condemnations and pretend that the one lone candidate speaks for every Republican.

Gentlemen, please do not let the Liberals divert your attention from what's really important:

8.3% unemployment and $1,000,000,000,000 annual budget deficits!

Thanks,

Jackson

Esten

08-30-12, 02:49

Esten. Other than the singular exception of silver spoon inheritance, so let's leave that aside for now, curious what your take is on how most wealthy non-job creators became wealthy in the first place? Whether they are currently creating new jobs or not at the moment, where do you think that capital came from?

All sorts of ways. High-paying jobs, entrepreneurs, authors, inventors, real-estate and financial investments come to mind.

Do you not imagine many created income for others whether having direct employees or not? And do you comsider sitting on wealth to be some sin or unfair somehow?No doubt some of the wealth trickles down. But only a fraction, and not necessarily into the local economy. Sitting on wealth is not bad per se. As Jackson says, it's their money. BUT.... that does not exempt them from playing a role in addressing our economic challenges, which includes our $1,000,000,000,000 annual budget deficits. Further, when tax cuts for the wealthy are sold as good for the economy (aka "trickle-down"), and then these people sit on their money, this is evidence of flawed economic policy.

Last. Really curious whether you've personally created one or more incremental new jobs?I have contributed to the consumer spending which is credited with supporting most of the jobs in this country, which would include the 4.5 Million private sector jobs created in the economic recovery. That includes local entrepreneurs who I've hired to do work for me, such as landscaping. The consumer is just as important as the businessman.

Toymann

08-30-12, 03:08

I have contributed to the consumer spending which is credited with supporting most of the jobs in this country, which would include the 4.5 Million private sector jobs created in the economic recovery. That includes local entrepreneurs who I've hired to do work for me, such as landscaping. The consumer is just as important as the businessman.

NO.

What was so hard about Mplexy's question Esten. Being a consumer doesn't create a job, it merely supports an already existing job. Why could you not answer his question? No big deal if you are not a job creator. No big deal at all! You are obviously risk adverse with whatever capital is at your disposal, if any (LOL). Most folks are not cut out to make it happen on their own in this big bad world. Not everyone is destined to be a chief, we need indians. Just say NO, I have never created a job through my own innovation or risk taking business venture. It's all good. I am somewhat surprised by your response though? Are you ashamed of your dependence on others to make a living? Don't be dude! Your kind never seems to give credit where credit is due. We all understand, your position is clear for everyone to see. Tick. Tick. Tick. Dude. Better put away some of your covetted salary starting tomorrow so you can afford our bet. Monger on Dude. Toymann.

Ps. You hired a kid to mow your lawn and you think you are now a job creator? IALOTFLMAO!

Esten

08-30-12, 03:35

Sure the poor will spend the money you give them. And that will foster even more dependence upon the government. Food rots in the fields because those poor people would rather get a handout from the government rather than work. Time to let them learn that if you don't work, you don't eat. They will adjust quickly.If there were some great abundance of jobs available, but people unwilling to take them, you'd figure Romney would be all over this. But Romney tells us there are millions of people looking for work but no jobs.

You probably saw some show on Fox News, and concluded there was some major epidemic of laziness. When in fact it's probably a limited phenomenon, in certain areas, a limited number of jobs involved, and a multitude of reasons the jobs aren't being filled, not just people getting a handout being lazy.

Let's see you back up your post with some facts and data, and see how big this problem really is.

Dccpa

08-30-12, 11:09

If there were some great abundance of jobs available, but people unwilling to take them, you'd figure Romney would be all over this. But Romney tells us there are millions of people looking for work but no jobs.

You probably saw some show on Fox News, and concluded there was some major epidemic of laziness. When in fact it's probably a limited phenomenon, in certain areas, a limited number of jobs involved, and a multitude of reasons the jobs aren't being filled, not just people getting a handout being lazy.

Let's see you back up your post with some facts and data, and see how big this problem really is.Esten you are quite capable of looking up the articles yourself and at a minimum you should find articles on this issue from the US, New Zealand & Germany. Of course the number of jobs are limited, but the true question is why didn't any of those people who are drawing unemployment or welfare take those jobs? There are no multitude of reasons for the failure of those people to work. There were quotes in the articles from people stating that they could make as much by not working, so why work. Why don't you explain why people on welfare should be allowed to continue on welfare when jobs they are qualified to do go unfilled? I have a relative who works in a governmental disability office. Years ago, she was sympathetic to anyone filing a claim. Now she understands that most people applying for disability are quite capable of working.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I don't watch any news shows.

Silver Star

08-30-12, 11:28

Esten you are quite capable of looking up the articles yourself and at a minimum you should find articles on this issue from the US, New Zealand & Germany. Of course the number of jobs are limited, but the true question is why didn't any of those people who are drawing unemployment or welfare take those jobs? There are no multitude of reasons for the failure of those people to work. There were quotes in the articles from people stating that they could make as much by not working, so why work. Why don't you explain why people on welfare should be allowed to continue on welfare when jobs they are qualified to do go unfilled? I have a relative who works in a governmental disability office. Years ago, she was sympathetic to anyone filing a claim. Now she understands that most people applying for disability are quite capable of working.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I don't watch any news shows.Who ever is saying Obama will not be creating any new jobs is totally wrong. There will be 10's of thousands of new IRS agents to be hired to enforce Omaba (Romney) care! That's the type of job creation that we get when we continue to vote for nanny state candidates (Republicans included)

Fred

Jackson

08-30-12, 11:57

.but the true question is why didn't any of those people who are drawing unemployment or welfare take those jobs?Because when you create a safety net, some people will deliberately fall into it.

Unemployment and welfare are two prime examples of why liberal policies will always fail because they're based on completely inaccurate models of human behavior.

Why don't you explain why people on welfare should be allowed to continue on welfare when jobs they are qualified to do go unfilled?Because they vote for Democrats.

Member #4112

08-30-12, 12:50

If there were some great abundance of jobs available, but people unwilling to take them, you'd figure Romney would be all over this. But Romney tells us there are millions of people looking for work but no jobs.

You probably saw some show on Fox News, and concluded there was some major epidemic of laziness. When in fact it's probably a limited phenomenon, in certain areas, a limited number of jobs involved, and a multitude of reasons the jobs aren't being filled, not just people getting a handout being lazy.

Let's see you back up your post with some facts and data, and see how big this problem really is.Esten, you are making it too easy to knock the ball out of the park on this one.

There is an epidemic of laziness and this epidemic is fueled by ever increasing government handouts from Welfare, Food Stamps. 99 Weeks of Unemployment Payments, and now the great scam being perpetrated on Social Security for disability.

You want numbers and facts; they abound on this site with the well documented increases in ALL these pet Democrat projects to generate votes from a permanent underclass created by the Democrat party. Make them dependent and keep them dependent, that's Obama's slogan.

Surely you can not be so blind to not see it is the increase in 'entitlement ' spending which is driving the country under

Matt Psyche

08-30-12, 13:43

Dccpa

08-30-12, 14:28

Please show me statistics indicative of a relationship between the increase (or decrease) in welfare spending and the increase (decrease) in the duration of federal support the recipients had.What is this decrease in welfare spending that you are talking about? That is a strange concept in the world today. Do you know anyone who if given more free money / services doesn't become more dependent upon that money / services? It is called human nature Matt.

Rather than me prove myself to you and Esten, why don't you prove me wrong?

Matt Psyche

08-30-12, 14:38

You are the one who originally and initially stated that the welfare spending makes the poor more dependent on it. Did you just say that without seeing any indicators?

Rather than me prove myself to you and Esten, why don't you prove me wrong?

El Alamo

08-30-12, 19:23

Waste Management is complaining that they are being deluged with untold millions of faded Obama posters in their trash collections. CGWNF (college graduates with no future) have enjoyed Obama about as much as they can.

El Alamo

08-30-12, 21:58

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, as a sitting administration official, does not have any role at the Democratic National Convention next week in Charlotte. But she seems to gone out of her way to avoid the festivities, as she is traveling this week and next to the Cook Islands, Indonesia, China, Timor-Leste, Brunei, and Russia.

Cook Islands. Good choice. Smart girl. Stay as far away from Obama as possible. Obama is a stain on the fabric of America

WorldTravel69

08-30-12, 23:41

The Impossible Dream!

He and his party can not even count, let alone balance the Budget.

Even screwing the Middle Class will not help.

Esten

08-31-12, 01:39

Esten you are quite capable of looking up the articles yourself
Rather than me prove myself to you and Esten, why don't you prove me wrong?Great job convincing us with all those facts and data.

Esten

08-31-12, 01:52

Ps. You hired a kid to mow your lawn and you think you are now a job creator? IALOTFLMAO!Actually it was a guy probably in his 50's, running his own business by himself. I paid him a few hundred bucks to bring some machines to aerate, thatch and seed my lawn in the spring. The lawn is looking good, though I still have some more work to do.

What do you think was a bigger factor for this man deciding to start his own business. Tax cuts on his personal income, or consumer demand for his service?

Rev BS

08-31-12, 02:29

WorldTravel69

08-31-12, 03:30

Sounded Senile.

That is a big highlight for the republican party.

WorldTravel69

08-31-12, 03:45

He has No Clue about the rest of the World's problems.

Come on Guys, you have been on his side for so long, and he does not have a Clue about you or I, and the rest of the world.

He read a Speech written for him, not his Words, from His Heart.

Come on Guys, I know You, You and I have More Brains, you and I do want is this Dumb Fuck picketing Your Pocket.

This is not Argentina, where you know what is going on, this is home and you can not see the writing On The Wall?

Think for Yourself?

On Twitter they say it is not a good Report.

Toymann

08-31-12, 04:50

Twiter says not a good Report.Glad you are starting to see the writing on the wall WT69. You are now referencing twitter as your source. IALOTFLMAO!

You really lead a goofy and disconnected existance dude. The fact you would prefer Obamanation / Pelosi / Ried to the class act you watched tonight is truely a sad statement. This baby is all over but for the crying. Predicted this long ago. It's just a matter of time till the fat lady sings. Can't wait to see my boy slice and dice Obomanation in the debates. Your boy without telepromter on-board will be quite the show. Sorry you don't get it brother but at your age, sadly you never will! Maybe you'll do better in your next life? You seem pretty confused and sour in this one. As El Alamo put it so eloquently, you aspire to send pee wee herman to the plate in the bottom of the ninth needing a huge rally to win the day. I'm good calling up babe ruth or mickey mantle when the going gets tough! Great convention with some really cool chica speakers (Ann, Condi and Martinez rocked the house). Ryan was exellent and Romney closed the deal "big time". I know what you heard tonight from Romney didn't fit with your self-fullfilled prophecy but sadly thats all about you and nothing to do with Romney. It never fails to amaze me how dems love to howl at the moon, whistle past the cemetary, in spite of what is right in front of them. Tick. Tick. Tick. It's just a matter of time now. Say Hi to Nancy for me Dude. Toymann.

Ps. Bye the way. Just watch the bounce that this convention gives Romney with women voters. Romney has already closed the gap to 10 points. Don't be surprised if he ends up edging your boy with women voters at the ned of the day. Quite a turn around from 3 years ago don't ya think?

WorldTravel69

08-31-12, 04:50

Where is the Truth?

Romney says Obama Wants to cut Medicare, buts the cuts go into the Health Care for you and I, and Jackson, even Toymann, (which I feel he does not need any his friends Help, even mine) , and the rest of Us. This is My True Love or Not.

Why do the lies go on."Romney says tax increases will not happen to the middle class". Lies, Lies. Middle class is around $43,000.

Search Google as to where you Stand, under Rowney's Plan.

Don't listen to Jackson and his uninformed dummies!

I respect his choices, but know he has not traveled to the sites he is judging over. I and an a lot of others have been to. But he want to be the Boss. Like Romney. Romney does not know all the answers. Neither does Jackson.

It is Good that Jackson has turned Peru over to another Moderator.

Sorry, Jackson, but you Need Us.

Some said Reagen's time was Great, Gingrich said he was, but check the history of Reagan and what he said?
He Said "Reagan's Time Will Never come Again."

Not the Greatest for the Working People.

Reagan let all the Nuts out the Mental Hospitals onto the streets, We still have them on Our Streets.

Don't come to San Francisco or you will be hassled by them.

They City's Chamber of Commerce does not care.

The Chamber does not come into the City to have dinner or see the shows,

Toymann

08-31-12, 05:02

Where is the Truth?

Romney says Obama Wants to cut Medicare, buts the cuts go into the Health Care for you and I, and Jackson, even Toymann, (which I field he does not need any us friends Help, even mine) , and the rest of Us. This is My True Love or Not.

Why do the lies go on."Romney says taxes will not happen to the middle class". Lies, Lies. Middle class is $43, 000.

Search Google as to where you Stand, under Rowney's Plan.

Don't listen to Jackson and his uninformed dummies!

I respect his choices, but know he has not traveled to the sites he is judging over. I and an a lot of others have been to. But he want to be the Boss. Like Romney. Romney does not know all the answers. Neither does Jackson.

It is Good that he has turned Peru, over to one that does.

Sorry, Jackson, but you Need Us.

Some said Reagen's time was Great, Gingrich said he was, but check the history of Reagan and what he said?

He Said "Reagan's Will Never come Again."

Not the Greatest for the Working People.

Reagan let all the Nuts of the prisons onto the streets, We still have them on Our Streets.

Don't come to San Francisco or you will hassle by them.

They City of Chamber of Commerce does not care.

They do not come into the City to have dinner or see the shows, You must be either high or drunk buddy. Go sleep it off and reread in the morning. I know you are sad at how well Romney and his crew did tonight. I guess if I was you and started seeing it all slip away I'd be tipped over as well. Get a good nights rest old fella. Monger on All. Toymann

WorldTravel69

08-31-12, 05:19

I would like to hear how you would Make this country Great, without Government Help?

Maybe you can convince your Republicans to Create Jobs on what you say?

Which would not add more to the our Deficit?

FDR asked for help from Business, and they did help to build the Golden Gate Bridge and the rest of the county Prospered. and Grew.

The country Prospered.

Why Can't WE do that Now?

What is Your Proposal?
If you or your other Republicans or indies want to Help Our Country, What is Your Proposal, maybe your can email your congressmen and tell them to get off they're dead asses and Help our brothers and sisters to get a Job.

HAPPY LABOR DAY!
THANK YOUR WORKERS FOR MAKING YOU MONEY.

I Guess that does not apply to Right To Work States, just keep the cash registers working, Cha King, Cha King. Fuck you, no day off.
Or the Labor Workers in your off shore accounts that have to work 15 -20 hours a day for your or Romney's profits.

They are Lie ing to You and Us. Wake Up.
Greed, Greed, Greed.

Glad you are starting to see the writing on the wall WT69. You are now referencing twitter as your source. IALOTFLMAO!

You really lead a goofy and disconnected existance dude. The fact you would prefer Obamanation / Pelosi / Ried to the class act you watched tonight is truely a sad statement. This baby is all over but for the crying. Predicted this long ago. It's just a matter of time till the fat lady sings. Can't wait to see my boy slice and dice Obomanation in the debates. Your boy without telepromter on-board will be quite the show. Sorry you don't get it brother but at your age, sadly you never will! Maybe you'll do better in your next life? You seem pretty confused and sour in this one. As El Alamo put it so eloquently, you aspire to send pee wee herman to the plate in the bottom of the ninth needing a huge rally to win the day. I'm good calling up babe ruth or mickey mantle when the going gets tough! Great convention with some really cool chica speakers (Ann, Condi and Martinez rocked the house). Ryan was exellent and Romney closed the deal "big time". I know what you heard tonight from Romney didn't fit with your self-fullfilled prophecy but sadly thats all about you and nothing to do with Romney. It never fails to amaze me how dems love to howl at the moon, whistle past the cemetary, in spite of what is right in front of them. Tick. Tick. Tick. It's just a matter of time now. Say Hi to Nancy for me Dude. Toymann.

Ps. Bye the way. Just watch the bounce that this convention gives Romney with women voters. Romney has already closed the gap to 10 points. Don't be surprised if he ends up edging your boy with women voters at the ned of the day. Quite a turn around from 3 years ago don't ya think?

Tiny12

08-31-12, 11:49

Where is the Truth?

Romney says Obama Wants to cut Medicare, buts the cuts go into the Health Care for you and I, and Jackson, even Toymann, (which I field he does not need any us friends Help, even mine) , and the rest of Us. This is My True Love or Not, Our government can't afford to pay for the medical expenses of wealthy people like Toymann, in a system where health care is 17% of GDP. The health care system must be reformed to lower costs, via competition or whatever, and Obamacare did not solve that problem. Sorry about that Toymann, you need to pay for your own prostate exams.

Why do the lies go on."Romney says taxes will not happen to the middle class". Lies, Lies. Middle class is $43, 000.,The lies are coming from Obama. I posted some info that came from the IRS's web site here that showed the Democrat plan to only raise taxes on those who make more than $250, 0000 (Obama) or $1, 000, 000 (Pelosi and Schumer) won't do diddly squat. The rich don't make enough money to balance the budget. If you don't cut spending, taxes MUST rise on the middle class, or the country goes bankrupt. My belief is that Romney's plan would lower taxes on the middle class and increase taxes on the wealthy. He's proposing a 20% across the board cut, and paying for it by getting rid of loopholes. The problem is that he hasn't specified the loopholes. The reason I think is because Romney expects people to lose enthusiasm for his campaign if they hear about their special loopholes being cut, be they the oil well percentage depletion allowance or investment tax credits or whatever.

This is a fiction of the Democrat party, that the middle class will get screwed by Republican tax cuts. Bush's tax cuts made the tax system more progressive. At a given level of income for all income groups, the wealthy pay a higher percentage of the taxes after the Bush cuts.

It is Good that he has turned Peru, over to one that does.,This is cryptic. Do you mean God has turned Peru over to Humala, one of Chavez's buddies, and he's going to straighten out Peru? Like Obama was going to straighten out the USA?

Reagan let all the Nuts of the prisons onto the streets, We still have them on Our Streets. Don't come to San Francisco or you will hassle by them.

They City of Chamber of Commerce does not care.

They do not come into the City to have dinner or see the shows, I'm behind Reagan on that. The USA incarcerates a larger percentage of its citizens than any country in the world. We stick people in jail for using drugs, for being prostitutes, and for packing lobster tails in plastic (Honduran law, enforced by the USA Justice Department, required lobster be packaged in cardboard.) If you have to put up with some drug addict on the streets of San Francisco that you'd prefer be in jail, I don't have a lot of compassion for that.

I Guess that does not apply to Right To Work States, just keep the cash registers working, Cha King, Cha King. Fuck you, no day off.

Or the Labor Workers in your off shore accounts that have to work 15. 20 hours a day for your or Romney's profits. , So people should be forced to join unions if they want to work? I agree completely with the offshore laborers. Chinamen and Mexicans aren't real people. They're subhuman. They shouldn't have running water or electricity or more food than they need to survive. They don't need jobs. [WT69, I realize you don't think this way. But that's the effect your policy would have if implemented by developed countries. ]

Ramprat

08-31-12, 14:00

The country and the western world lost the factor job to the 3nd world country. This is good for the world bad for those on the top. There is not a thing anyone can do in 4 years or 8 to change this. Giveing money to small bussiness. With a 2 out of 3 failure rate. We be better off betting on the blackjack table. Much better odds. Americans don't vote for what is best, it votes for more money gets to them. Sad but true. The factores are gone and with them the golden goose. America needs to lose our oversize home, eating out to much and earn lower saleries to mathch the rest of the world. We live way better than our dads did. And we or still not happy. The rest is just bull shit, vote like me. So I get more money.

WorldTravel69

08-31-12, 15:12

Thanks for pointing out my bad grammar. I edited the posts.

Our government can't afford to pay for the medical expenses of wealthy people like Toymann, in a system where health care is 17% of GDP. The health care system must be reformed to lower costs, via competition or whatever, and Obamacare did not solve that problem. Sorry about that Toymann, you need to pay for your own prostate exams.

The lies are coming from Obama. I posted some info that came from the IRS's web site here that showed the Democrat plan to only raise taxes on those who make more than $250, 0000 (Obama) or $1, 000, 000 (Pelosi and Schumer) won't do diddly squat. The rich don't make enough money to balance the budget. If you don't cut spending, taxes MUST rise on the middle class, or the country goes bankrupt. My belief is that Romney's plan would lower taxes on the middle class and increase taxes on the wealthy. He's proposing a 20% across the board cut, and paying for it by getting rid of loopholes. The problem is that he hasn't specified the loopholes. The reason I think is because Romney expects people to lose enthusiasm for his campaign in they hear about their special loopholes being cut, be they the oil well percentage depletion allowance or investment tax credits or whatever.

This is a fiction of the Democrat party, that the middle class will get screwed by Republican tax cuts. Bush's tax cuts made the tax system more progressive. At a given level of income for all income groups, the wealthy pay a higher percentage of the taxes after the Bush cuts.

This is cryptic. Do you mean God has turned Peru over to Humala, one of Chavez's buddies, and he's going to straighten out Peru? Like Obama was going to straighten out the USA?

I'm behind Reagan on that. The USA incarcerates a larger percentage of its citizens than any country in the world. We stick people in jail for using drugs, for being prostitutes, and for packing lobster tails in plastic (Honduran law, enforced by the USA Justice Department, required lobster be packaged in cardboard.) If you have to put up with some drug addict on the streets of San Francisco that you'd prefer be in jail, I don't have a lot of compassion for that.

So people should be forced to join unions if they want to work? I agree completely with the offshore laborers. Chinamen and Mexicans aren't real people. They're subhuman. They shouldn't have running water or electricity or more food than they need to survive. They don't need jobs. [WT69, I realize you don't think this way. But that's the effect your policy would have if implemented by developed countries. ]

Toymann

08-31-12, 15:14

Sorry about that Toymann, you need to pay for your own prostate exams.

If this comes to pass TinyDude, can you recommend a chica specialist in BA? Have never gone there in the past BUT may have to keep an open mind (hope Exon is reading this post. LOL). LMAO. Monger on TinyDude. Toymann

Jackson

08-31-12, 15:36

Greed, Greed, Greed."Greed is good. Greed works."

Gordon Gekko

Mpexy

08-31-12, 19:44

Actually it was a guy probably in his 50's, running his own business by himself. I paid him a few hundred bucks to bring some machines to aerate, thatch and seed my lawn in the spring. The lawn is looking good, though I still have some more work to do.

What do you think was a bigger factor for this man deciding to start his own business. Tax cuts on his personal income, or consumer demand for his service?Having started my own business, I will emphatically say it was because of the personal income I could make. Including tax cuts and other factors determining total income. Not consumer demand. Demand means nothing if the reward you can achieve is too low or far outweighed by the risks and costs you incur.

There is a ton of consumer demand in Canada and Euro countries for elective surgery. But not a lot of suppliers because they are aware the potential personal income they could earn because of tax raises and crushing diminishing return on state reimbursed dollars per services rendered makes the reward for such work a losing proposition regardless of the demand.

Also, regarding prior posts you've made, you seem to disregard not only the risk the job creator made with his / her own personal capital to create that job, But that the personal capital used was already taxed at least once and frequently multiple times before I invested it into creating a business and directly creating net incremental new jobs.

Further, those like you also seem to forget that it is not just the personal capital at risk, but the soul crushing pressure and sometimes despair that real human beings now depend on you. The business owner, job creator, and income provider for your employees.

The happiest day for one of my first employees hired was about 2. 5 years into the birth of my business. She'd been with me since the start, along with a dozen others. She proudly told me she had just completed making offer and going into escrow for her first home purchase ever. In fact the first home anyone in her family had ever owned. Basically the American dream of buying that first home.

It was the worst day of my life. Outwardly happy for her but terrified that I now had people who literally depended on me to succeed not just for my own "greed" and filthy capitalist pursuit of wealth but so they could make mortgage payments.

If you've never created new jobs, can you even comprehend why I and people like me feel we deserve our tax breaks and other incentives to grow real income and productivity for this country? I don't particularly care which political party a person backs, but the day there are more takers than makers, more entitement vs risk takers, and more screaming about taking wealth from those that actually made that wealth plus took a heck of a lot of people upwards with them, is the day our country loses that special ability to constantly generate and regenerate the creativity and drive to fuel the world economy

Tiny12

09-01-12, 00:56

If this comes to pass TinyDude, can you recommend a chica specialist in BA? Have never gone there in the past BUT may have to keep an open mind (hope Exon is reading this post. LOL). LMAO. Monger on TinyDude. ToymannToymann, I'm not into that either. And it's been 5 years since I last visited BA. However, once upon a time in Mexico City, I woke up from a drunken stupor in a puddle of my own puke and had a wine cork stuffed up my ass. It felt really good. I believe it was placed there by a portena, Ayelen, although it's possible I did it to myself. She has since returned to Argentina: http://www.ayelenlove.com/. She's not the prettiest, but if I were blindly looking for something like that she's the first person I'd go to.

TejanoLibre

09-01-12, 01:35

Dirty Harry's speech was awesome!

Try to watch it if you have not seen it!

Deserves an Oscar, should think about being a Stand Up Comedian!

TL

SnakeOilSales

09-01-12, 01:39

Toymann, I'm not into that either. And it's been 5 years since I last visited BA. However, once upon a time in Mexico City, I woke up from a drunken stupor in a puddle of my own puke and had a wine cork stuffed up my ass. It felt really good. I believe it was placed there by a portena, Ayelen, although it's possible I did it to myself. She has since returned to Argentina:

http://www.ayelenlove.com/

She's not the prettiest, but if I were blindly looking for something like that she's the first person I'd go to.It looks like the girl in the link has done multiple cycles of anabolic steroids to go along with an overdose of plastic surgery. Did she have a clitoris the size of a grown man's thumb?

Tiny12

09-01-12, 02:06

She didn't have the body builder physique when I saw her, although she did have the collagen-implanted lips. Anyway I think the thing about anabolic steroids increasing the size of the clitoris is an old wive's tale. I tried it on my dog and it does not work.

TejanoLibre

09-01-12, 22:06

Sic Semper tyrannis!

And all things will become what they were before!

Boot that son of a ***** out!

My specialty is PUTAS not politics but we need a new president!

TL

Esten

09-02-12, 19:21

Good post Mpexy.

Having started my own business, I will emphatically say it was because of the personal income I could make. Including tax cuts and other factors determining total income. Not consumer demand. Demand means nothing if the reward you can achieve is too low or far outweighed by the risks and costs you incur.Of course your net personal income is the motivator. What you take in, minus expenses and taxes.

But demand is the key underlying factor. All your income comes from your customers. How many will buy your product and how much they are willing to pay. Without demand you got nothing.

Some types of businesses have a greater profit potential than others. Some are not sufficiently attractive to incentivize an entrepreneur, as the example you gave. But when it comes to personal income taxes, I don't buy the argument that a change of 5 or 10% is a major factor for most small business owners. In the example of the landscaper I hired, I can assure you that his overwhelming consideration was consumer demand, not his tax burden.

Also, regarding prior posts you've made, you seem to disregard not only the risk the job creator made with his / her own personal capital to create that job, But that the personal capital used was already taxed at least once and frequently multiple times before I invested it into creating a business and directly creating net incremental new jobs.No risk, no reward. That's what they say. I'm all in favor of incentivizing entrepreneurs and businesses to grow, and create wealth and jobs. And we already have plenty of incentives and deductions available to help them. Funny how rarely you hear a business guy acknowledge this. If we need more let's talk about it. But doing so through the personal tax code just isn't the way to do it.

Take Mitt Romney for example. He made $21 Million in 2010 and paid a 14% tax rate. How many jobs did he create? By his own admission he was "unemployed". Sorry, this country has a major problem with wealthy non-job creators benefitting from low tax rates, who take cover behind the argument that tax cuts always help the economy and create jobs.

Further, those like you also seem to forget that it is not just the personal capital at risk, but the soul crushing pressure and sometimes despair that real human beings now depend on you. The business owner, job creator, and income provider for your employees.

The happiest day for one of my first employees hired was about 2. 5 years into the birth of my business. She'd been with me since the start, along with a dozen others. She proudly told me she had just completed making offer and going into escrow for her first home purchase ever. In fact the first home anyone in her family had ever owned. Basically the American dream of buying that first home.

It was the worst day of my life. Outwardly happy for her but terrified that I now had people who literally depended on me to succeed not just for my own "greed" and filthy capitalist pursuit of wealth but so they could make mortgage payments.I have a lot of respect for the entrepreneur and businessman. I also have a lot of respect for doctors, teachers, policemen, firemen, scientists, etc etc. If you're looking for someone to put the businessman up on a pedestal, you're asking the wrong guy. A businessman is not the economy, they are a piece of the economy.

Free-market capitalism has brought us down a road where wealth and power increasingly accumulate at the top (wealthy individuals and large corporations). I would argue even the small businessman has been hurt by these Darwinian trends. I support incentivizing and rewarding entrepreneurs and small businesses, but not in a manner that further increases economic inequality. Do it in a way that will help the landscaper I hired, but not guys like Mitt Romney or Warren Buffett, who don't need any help.

Matt Psyche

09-02-12, 22:51

As for the estimates of electoral college votes the candidates are likely to win, currently Obama is leading 237-206, with 95 undetermined. Of course some of you will maintain that the NY Times is a liar. http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/electoral-map

Canitasguy

09-03-12, 17:57

All your income comes from your customers. How many will buy your product and how much they are willing to pay. Without demand you got nothing.It's not rocket science Jefe and your ubercapitalist know-it-alls on the site who make ever so cogent comments on economic philosophy and business practice in voices rising up from out of your fundaments!

WorldTravel69

09-04-12, 02:41

Toymann

09-04-12, 13:45

Enjoy my wild-ass liberal buddy. In his own words. IALOTFLMAO.

http://www.therightscoop.com/devastating-new-rnc-ad-weve-heard-it-all-before/

This is NOT an attack add WT69. Nothing about eating kittens or satanic rituals, tax evasion or murder. The comander and chief and his own words. You really drink the cool aid dude. Monger On WT69. Toymann

Jackson

09-04-12, 14:30

If it is Controlled.

A Profit Limit?

Okay, If It does not Fuck the working Class!

http://fuckconservatives.wordpress.com/2012/09/01/bill-maher-overtime-83112/

The Movie 1216, was Incorrect, Watch It.

What a bunch of Fucking Lies.

Are You still that Dumb?What the fuck are you trying to say?

In the mean time...

Gentlemen, please do not let the Liberals divert your attention from what's really important:

8.3% unemployment

$3.80 per gallon gas

$1,000,000,000,000 annual budget deficits

$16,000,000,000,000 national debt

$51,074.84 of national debt owed by each citizen

Thanks,

Jackson

Tiny12

09-04-12, 15:34

$51,074.84 of national debt owed by each citizen[/b][/size]

That's $153,000 in national debt owed by each taxpayer. Add to that the present value of unfunded medicare and social security liabilities and you get $500,000 to $1.2 million per taxpayer, depending on what assumptions you make.

BayBoy

09-04-12, 18:10

Jackson

09-04-12, 19:58

The last I've heard is that Mitt Romney still hasnt disclosed his tax returns for the last 12 years. His father wasnt afraid to do that back in the sixties. But I think Mitt doesn't want the people to find out about his tax shelters and off-shore havens that he's got his money socked away in. My guess is that his tax rate is even lower than 14% in some of those years. It would be kind of embarrassing for him to have to explain how he pays so little taxes compared to the middle class.This election is NOT about Mitt Romney's tax returns.

Nobody gives a fuck about Mitt Romney's tax returns EXCEPT liberals who fantasize about endlessly parsing every line item therein. Romney is too smart to fall for this trap.

Obama's Internal Revenue Service has reviewed, dissected and approved Romney's tax returns. That should be enough for any rational person to accept.

Gentlemen, please do not let the Liberals divert your attention from what's really important:

- 8.3% unemployment
- $3.80 per gallon gas
- $1,000,000,000,000 annual budget deficits
- $16,000,000,000,000 national debt
- $51,074.84 of national debt owed by each citizen

Thanks,

Jackson

SnakeOilSales

09-04-12, 20:18

This election is NOT About Mitt Romney's tax returns.

Nobody gives a fuck about Mitt Romney's tax returns EXCEPT liberals who fantasize about endlessly parsing every line item therein. Romney is too smart to fall for this trap.

Obama's Internal Revenue Service has reviewed, dissected and approved Romney's tax returns. That should be enough for any rational person to accept.

Gentlemen, please do not let the Liberals divert your attention from what's really important:

- 8. 3% unemployment.

- $3. 80 per gallon gas.

- $1, 000, 000, 000, 000 annual budget deficits.

- $16, 000, 000, 000, 000 national debt.

- $51, 074. 84 of national debt owed by each citizen.

Thanks,

JacksonOn July 7, 2008 the average price in the US for a gallon of regular gas was $4. 11. Who was the president at that time?

Jackson

09-04-12, 20:22

On July 7, 2008 the average price in the US for a gallon of regular gas was $4. 11. Who was the president at that time?This election is NOT about the price of gas 4 years ago.

Gentlemen, please do not let the Liberals divert your attention from what's really important:

- 8.3% unemployment
- $3.80 per gallon gas
- $1,000,000,000,000 annual budget deficits
- $16,000,000,000,000 national debt
- $51,074.84 of national debt owed by each citizen

Thanks,

Jackson

BayBoy

09-04-12, 20:41

Jackpot

09-04-12, 20:56

This election is NOT About Mitt Romney's tax returns.

Gentlemen, please do not let the Liberals divert your attention from what's really important:

8. 3% unemployment.

$3. 80 per gallon gas.

$1, 000, 000, 000, 000 annual budget decificts.

$16, 000, 000, 000, 000 national debt.

$51, 074. 84 of national debt owed by each citizen.

Thanks,

JacksonHEAR YE, HEAR YE!

To all you misguided republicans and others who need to read the truth about willard the rat:

I present mandatory reading to bring you to your senses (his real name is willard mitt rommney)

A dear trusted dem friend sent me an article to read from the Rolling Stone website POLITICS section.

These articles astounded me and showed again how adept the press is at keeping real news from the

Public. PLEASE READ THESE ARTICLES! And tell me if you still believe in the mitt rat. And tell.

Me why this damming evidence has never been revealed.

The New York Times could run this and shut the mitt rat machine down. Wait until you read who are

His 10 wealthiest contributors are and how they will benefit from the mitt rat's election.

You will see if he wins, we the common serfs will pay and pay and lose our health and rights to the wealthy.

He is a george Bush clone but worse. He never served in the military and used influence to avoid.

Miitary service.

He very shrewdly bilked the govt into bailing out his bain capital and the taxpayers paid again.

He pulled off several stunts with bailouts aided by our lame govt and enriched bain capital.

With your tax dollars.

To conclude, some of you know me and that I'm quite apolitical but these on-line articles in THE ROLLING STONE.

In the POLITICS section made so pissed, I had to voice a warning to all who trust his rat.

My new stance is if you have not read these articles, I will not discuss politics with you. PERIOD.

And we can stay friends.

Jackpot.

PS. Can I post the rolling stone website in reference to this article or is that forbidden?

Romanee

09-04-12, 20:59

The last I've heard is that Mitt Romney still hasnt disclosed his tax returns for the last 12 years. His father wasnt afraid to do that back in the sixties. But I think Mitt doesn't want the people to find out about his tax shelters and off-shore havens that he's got his money socked away in. My guess is that his tax rate is even lower than 14% in some of those years. It would be kind of embarrassing for him to have to explain how he pays so little taxes compared to the middle class.Don't you think that Romney's tax returns have been audited in the last 10 years? I would be really astonished if he hasn't. If he hasn't been audited, the IRS must think he is legal.

What I want to know is what about President Obama's College Transcripts Why doesn't he release them? He went to Columbia for 2 years and no body remembers him. Who paid for his education? Columbia and Harvard are not cheap.

Jackson

09-04-12, 21:14

I'm going to get a kick in 2014 when the Romney Care Health Plan (based on his Massachuetts idea) opps Obama Care Health Plan starts in full. Thats when everybody has to have a health plan or pay a fine. The crying and bellyaching from the right-wingers will be deafening. I'll just be laughing.This election is NOT about the Massachusetts health care law, which BTW was passed into law by the Massachusetts legislature with 99% of house reps and 100% of the state senators supporting the bill.

Gentlemen, please do not let the Liberals divert your attention from what's really important:

- 8.3% unemployment
- $3.80 per gallon gas
- $1,000,000,000,000 annual budget deficits
- $16,000,000,000,000 national debt
- $51,074.84 of national debt owed by each citizen

Thanks,

Jackson

Jackpot

09-04-12, 21:18

Greetings mongers,

Please read the online Rolling Stone political section for a real.

Expose of Mitt Rommney and his backers. www.rollingstone.com/political

This is MANDATORY reading for you who want to know the truths and motivations.

Of the Rommney campaign.

I am an apolitical animal but these articles made me speak out to expose.

The suppressed truth that all Republicans and Democrats should be aware of.

Jackpot.

This election is NOT About Mitt Romney's tax returns.

Nobody gives a fuck about Mitt Romney's tax returns EXCEPT liberals who fantasize about endlessly parsing every line item therein. Romney is too smart to fall for this trap.

Obama's Internal Revenue Service has reviewed, dissected and approved Romney's tax returns. That should be enough for any rational person to accept.

Gentlemen, please do not let the Liberals divert your attention from what's really important:

- 8. 3% unemployment.

- $3. 80 per gallon gas.

- $1, 000, 000, 000, 000 annual budget deficits.

- $16, 000, 000, 000, 000 national debt.

- $51, 074. 84 of national debt owed by each citizen.

Thanks,

Jackson

BayBoy

09-04-12, 21:25

This election is NOT About the Massachusetts health care law, which BTW was passed into law by the Massachusetts legislature with 99% of house reps and 100% of the state senators supporting the bill.

Gentlemen, please do not let the Liberals divert your attention from what's really important:

- 8. 3% unemployment.

- $3. 80 per gallon gas.

- $1, 000, 000, 000, 000 annual budget deficits.

- $16, 000, 000, 000, 000 national debt.

- $51, 074. 84 of national debt owed by each citizen.

Thanks,

JacksonThat Massachetts Health Care law was the great guvenor's idea that he came up with. Now he pretends that he didn't want to have anything to do with the law. The Supreme Court got it right, everybody must pay and get on board.

Mpexy

09-04-12, 22:50

That Massachetts Health Care law was the great guvenor's idea that he came up with. Now he pretends that he didn't want to have anything to do with the law. The Supreme Court got it right, everybody must pay and get on board.There is a vast difference between approving or not caring what any individual state chooses to pass vs. Being forced by the Federal government under one broad umbrella to no longer have an option, and that in fact the very option of not doing something is now considered an 'act' the government can now regulate.

Whether anyone approves of the Massachusetts health care reform or not, you have two choices. Don't go along with it as is your right to not participate (until Obamacare changes that of course) , participate, or move out of the state and in effect vote with your feet.

That has how states have always lost / won the final debate who has a "better" system.

Comparing Romney's Massachusetts and Obamacare is complete apples vs oranges. It's one state you can opt out of vs a vast federal umbrella you have no choice - a penalty that by the way scales UP with your income as a screwed up percentage rather than a flat penalty fee.

And when referencing the Supreme Court decision, reference it all, not just the handy part you like.

Yes. By 5:4 they ruled the individual mandate stays in as a tax. E. G. You, I, everyone. Has to buy mandated health care coverage by 2014 when that provision kicks in. Or be penalized, as a "tax" on non-participation now being ruled a "taxable" act. Where that ends we can argue later. E. G. You didn't get a college degree. Please pay a tax sir.

However, this covers only the penalty of you and me deciding to participate or not. By 7:2 vote, the justices agreed that states could not be forced to expand Medicaid the millions upon millions of people they'd now need to cover in order to actually extend health coverage so that people could "participate" as the individual mandate law now requires.

Or nuts and bolts version. We have to buy healthcare by force, but who's going to sell it / provide it? Obama assumed the unlimited funds states had would cover it. Or he didn't think. Who knows. Because the by large majority. 7 of 9 justices voted to strike down and ruled unconstitutional the forced expansion of Medicaid by the federal government threatening to withhold matching federal funds for Medicaid if the states did not expand. Who pays for this gargantuan expansion is conveniently ill defined because at most the fed funds only partiall helps, not fully funds the Medicaid liability of even today's enrollment much less the enormous expansion now mandated.

Unfunded mandates are a bizarre federal government intrusion upon states rights in my opinion, but no doubt to you it must be "fair" because everyone has to "do their share".

Also by magic of course will be the continued pipeline of medical practitioners who will cheerfully accept a zero win game to provide health services for the estimated 32 million growth in enrollment with socialist price controls on reimbursement that will eventually push most doctors out of serving state and federal funded patients. At leat those that can do basic math and I'd safely suggest the vast majority can.

That will also dry up as an option when private health insurers can no longer operate with basic math principles they do today. Take in more premiums that they pay out. Since Obamacare now forces all prior conditions covered, and is making the fed a vast single payer system, eventually the private insurers will go bankrupt. As designed, and cheered on by the ignorant.

Then what? Three words. Health care rationing.

You will be a number. Your net positive future "contribution" will be a number. Grandma WILL be allowed to die because health care must be rationed against both the continually shrinking services supply (eg doctors and high-q nurses) and the funding available.

BayBoy

09-04-12, 23:25

The conservatives like to make people think that the world is coming to an end with this Affordable Care Act. That America will fall into a vast 'socialist' pit and we'll never survive as a country. Well, they said that about social security, medicare, medicaid and all other social programs for the people. I'd like to point out that people do have a choice: you can move to another country I. E. Argentina (oh they have a socialized medical plan already) or Mexico etc. In fact ALL countries in the western world and developing world have socialized health plans that cover all their people. Those states who deny medicaid to their people will be under huge pressure from the electorate to give medical coverage to its people. After all there will be elections about that.

SnakeOilSales

09-05-12, 00:10

This election is NOT About the Massachusetts health care law, which BTW was passed into law by the Massachusetts legislature with 99% of house reps and 100% of the state senators supporting the bill.

Gentlemen, please do not let the Liberals divert your attention from what's really important:

- 8. 3% unemployment.

- $3. 80 per gallon gas.

- $1, 000, 000, 000, 000 annual budget deficits.

- $16, 000, 000, 000, 000 national debt.

- $51, 074. 84 of national debt owed by each citizen.

Thanks,

JacksonThe budget deficit was $438 Billion in FY 2008. Who was the president in FY 2008, which by the way, almost entirely took place BEFORE the economic crash.

Esten

09-05-12, 02:24

This election is NOT about Mitt Romney's tax returns.

Nobody gives a fuck about Mitt Romney's tax returns EXCEPT liberals who fantasize about endlessly parsing every line item therein. Romney is too smart to fall for this trap.

Polls show most Americans, including most independents, think Romney should release his tax returns. This is standard for anyone running for President. Why should Romney get an exemption ? What the fuck is the guy hiding ?

Gentlemen, please do not let the Liberals divert your attention from what's really important:

- 8.3% unemployment
- $3.80 per gallon gas
- $1,000,000,000,000 annual budget deficits
- $16,000,000,000,000 national debt
- $51,074.84 of national debt owed by each citizen

You forgot something: And what's responsible for these numbers ?

It's a 'gift' from Republicans just as much as from Democrats. Too bad John Boehner walked away from the table when they had a chance to cut $4 Trillion last year.

Esten

09-05-12, 03:01

You will be a number. Your net positive future "contribution" will be a number. Grandma WILL be allowed to die because health care must be rationed against both the continually shrinking services supply (eg doctors and high-q nurses) and the funding available.Guess what. You're already a number. Your healthcare is already rationed. I liked your last post, but the Grandma talk makes you sound like Sarah Palin.

Personally, I don't like the idea of being denied coverage if I have a pre-existing condition. Or going bankrupt if I get sick. And I really don't like the idea of having my Medicare RATIONED through a Romney / Ryan voucher program.

Jackson

09-05-12, 03:36

The budget deficit was $438 Billion in FY 2008. Who was the president in FY 2008, which by the way, almost entirely took place BEFORE the economic crash.This election is NOT about the federal budget deficit 4 years ago under a different administration.

This election is about the federal budget deficit today under the Obama Administration.

Gentlemen, please do not let the Liberals divert your attention from what's really important:

- 8.3% unemployment
- $3.80 per gallon gas
- $1,000,000,000,000 annual budget deficits
- $16,000,000,000,000 national debt
- $51,074.84 of national debt owed by each citizen

Thanks,

Jackson

Esten

09-05-12, 03:43

Very good first night. San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro gave a great speech, he countered some of the Republican themes head on:

"We know that in our free market economy some will prosper more than others. What we don't accept is the idea that some folks won't even get a chance. And the thing is, Mitt Romney and the Republican Party are perfectly comfortable with that America. In fact, that's exactly what they're promising us."

Clinton is on tomorrow. You guys should tune in, to get another perspective on Democratic views. Not just the programming from the right wing media, where they repeat simple messages over and over, without any critical thinking....

Rev BS

09-05-12, 07:44

I have scheduled cataract surgery, Oct 7. Medicare will not pay after Oct. 15! The 'Death Panel'!Why don't you tell us why Medicare will not pay after Oct. 15 rather than politicizing it. Sarah Palin is long gone, a victim of her own uselessness. When she pose for Playboy, then I will acknowlege her assets.

WorldTravel69

09-05-12, 12:15

There was not any job growth for twelve months before Obama was in office.

In other words the Job Losses started with the Republican President. The Job Creators were not hiring, just laying off workers.

4 million jobs have been created since then.

The Jobs Bill would have created 3 million more Jobs.

But the Republican Congress voted it down.

The Job Creators are waiting for more tax cuts.

Hypocrites.

P.S.
There are 3 millions jobs going unfilled, because of our education system. Our people are not qualified.
And the Republicans want to cut teachers and schools again. Sounds like they are making our country a Third World Country for Cheaper Workers.

"You Can't Handle The Truth!"

This election is NOT About the federal budget deficit 4 years ago under a different administration.

This election is about the federal budget deficit today under the Obama Administration.

Gentlemen, please do not let the Liberals divert your attention from what's really important:

- 8. 3% unemployment.

- $3. 80 per gallon gas.

- $1, 000, 000, 000, 000 annual budget deficits.

- $16, 000, 000, 000, 000 national debt.

- $51, 074. 84 of national debt owed by each citizen.

Thanks,

Jackson

Matt Psyche

09-05-12, 13:10

Yes, Obama caused all of these in less than 4 years.

Gentlemen, please do not let the Liberals divert your attention from what's really important:

- 8. 3% unemployment.

- $3. 80 per gallon gas.

- $1, 000, 000, 000, 000 annual budget deficits.

- $16, 000, 000, 000, 000 national debt.

- $51, 074. 84 of national debt owed by each citizen.

Thanks,

Jackson

Moveon

09-05-12, 14:36

Yes, Obama caused all of these in less than 4 years.Let's not forget 2 wars started by the Republican's and funded by the US tax payers. We are talking about trillions of dollars, here.

Now, Romney and the neo-cons, including Senator McCain, are posturing to enter additional conflicts & WARS with countries like Iran and Syria.

Where would that money come from?

These war mongers are completely silent about that.

El Alamo

09-05-12, 14:37

Obama's acceptance speech has been moved from a 73, 000 seat stadium to a 500 seat closet. Obama says it is because of weather concerns. The mayor of Charlotte says it is because there are not more than 500 Obama supporters in all of north carolina and these 500 Obama supporters are all long term residents of mental institutions.

El Alamo

09-05-12, 21:24

Rev BS

09-05-12, 21:41

We are approaching the end times. The sun does not shine, rain does not fall, crops wither, people go hungry, unemployment soars, crime is everpresent and overlooking all is darth vader aka Barrak Obama. A sinister creature from another continent.Just put on your raincoat, and go to the bus shelter. Put a empty giant 7-11 cup in front of you and a hopeful face, you will be alright! Fresh air, open space, a steady stream of visitors, no stress, man!

WorldTravel69

09-06-12, 01:43

I know somewhat know about your goals.

Profit. Give me some insider Help.

I will check how many Republicans voted with the Demos on your time frame.

But Bush went to War Without the UN's Help. WMDs? And Cried later that he needed them.

I know that you are not in complete agreement with the Republican Party.

They do not your same your Social Interests.

Republicans plans do not agree with Co-Operation within the Parties.

Check Bill Clinton's SPEECH, it is Not Too Be Missed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5knEXDsrL4

http://www.policymic.com/articles/14181/dnc-schedule-of-speakers-live-bill-clinton-speech-time-video-of-all-wednesday-speeches

Unless you are really dumb and can't Read.

Check it on YouTube.

I listened to the Republicans in Tampa, they left me with Ice Sickles in my Heart.

I Cried during a lot of the Demo's Speeches.
Especially the Woman War Iraq War Vets speech, that serviced for You and Me that Lost Her Legs for Our Country.

The Republicans did not mention Our Vets or their Wars, that were lies?

But Bill said was We Need Co-Operation between the All Parties, not just the Republicans, Indies, Etc. included.
Which the Republicans have not Done.

A little history lesson.

A lot of people don't care for Bush but here is the story.

This tells the story, why Bush appeared so bad at the end of his term.

Don't just skim over this, it is not very long, read it slowly and let it sink in. If in doubt, check it out!

The day the democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009, it was actually January 3rd 2007 the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress.

The Democrat Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.

For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is "Bush's Fault", think about this:

January 3rd. 2007 was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress. At the time:

The DOW Jones closed at 12, 621. 77.

The GDP for the previous quarter was 3. 5%

The Unemployment rate was 4. 6%

George Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB GROWTH.

Remember the day. January 3rd. 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee.

The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?

BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!

Unemployment. To this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!

Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie. Starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy.

And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? OBAMA.

And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie?

OBAMA and the Democrat Congress.

So when someone tries to blame Bush.

REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd. 2007. THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!"

Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democrat Party.

Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 &2011.

In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.

For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budgets.

And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009.

If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Senator Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.

If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself. In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.

Esten

09-06-12, 02:26

A little history lesson.

A lot of people don't care for Bush but here is the story.Here is the story about Sidney. A nice guy, a good friend to mongers, but also the biggest ranter against "Obamanation" this board ever saw. How else did his post count get so high? Be prepared to be inundated with right wing nonsense if he returns to his old ways.

His "history lesson" is a copy and paste from the right wing blogosphere. It has a simple rebuttal - the financial "greed is good" house of cards was built between 2001-2006 when Republicans controlled every branch of the federal government. All that was left was for it to come crashing down, regardless of who was in power afterwards.

I have scheduled cataract surgery, Oct 7. Medicare will not pay after Oct. 15! The 'Death Panel'!Sidney, oddly enough I can't find a peep about this on google. Please provide a credible link! Or be known as just another Republican peddling deception.

WorldTravel69

09-06-12, 02:36

http://www.businessweek.com/
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/bill-clinton/261991/

Here is the story about Sidney. A nice guy, a good friend to mongers, but also the biggest ranter against "Obamanation" this board ever saw. How else did his post count get so high? Be prepared to be inundated with right wing nonsense if he returns to his old ways.

His "history lesson" is a copy and paste from the right wing blogosphere. It has a simple rebuttal. The financial "greed is good" house of cards was built between 2001-2006 when Republicans controlled every branch of the federal government. All that was left was for it to come crashing down, regardless of who was in power afterwards.

Sidney, oddly enough I can't find a peep about this on google. Please provide a credible link! Or be known as just another Republican peddling deception.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bill-clintons-speech-to-the-democratic-national-convention-full-transcript/2012/09/06/af97c51a-f7da-11e1-8253-3f495ae70650_story.html

WorldTravel69

09-06-12, 03:30

33 states say if you do not have drivers license or passport you can not Vote, under the New Republican Laws.

http://www.hbo.com/the-newsroom?cmpid=ABC1270&tracking_ID=305798&K_CLICKID=4be7064e-d756-8569-8ac5-00003c00eab2
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/bill-clinton-makes-case-obama-034027507--election.html

I say again Watch your past history on HBO's Newsroom. They report the truth that happened and You Missed.

"Rights for All Americans!"

Member #4112

09-06-12, 09:46

The Democrat Party has demonstrated again they are just a pack of hypocrites.

You can not enter the vaulted chambers of the Democrat National Convention without a government issued photo I.D., but when it comes to voting they fight tooth and nail against any effort to institute voter I.D. laws.

Well in the Democrat's minds I am sure they believe their convention is much more important than merely voting for the president, congress and the senate.

What a joke, Bill Clinton having to go to bat for Obama. Isn't this the same Bill Clinton who said Obama should be carrying Hillary and his bags back in 2008? Obama would probably have dicked that up too.

Jackson

09-06-12, 12:23

33 states say if you do not have drivers license or passport you can not Vote, under the New Republican Laws.You conveniently forgot to include a state-issued ID card in your list, which may be obtained at any DMV in the country merely by demonstrating that you are a resident of the state, and without taking any sort of driving test.

Here's what's pathetic about all of this: It's the idea that there are groups of individuals in this country who apparently can't function in society with the same tools that are available to the rest of us, specifically the ability to go to a DMV and get a photo ID.

I say again Watch your past history on HBO's Newsroom. They report the truth that happened and You Missed.Great, yet another reference to a fantasy television program.

"Rights for All Americans!"That's the problem. Not everybody lining up to vote in our elections is actually an American citizen, although a lot of them are undocumented Democrats.

Thanks,

Jackson

WorldTravel69

09-06-12, 16:11

No, I did not conveniently forget it, but I did forget to mention it.

The problem for some people that don't drive is getting there to get one. Especially in the some of our countries small towns.

Yes, it is a fantasy TV Show, but the news they use really happened. They show a lot of our political fuck ups.

In case you missed Bill Clinton's speech last night here it is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5knEXDsrL4

You conveniently forgot to include a state-issued I'd card in your list, which may be obtained at any DMV in the country merely by demonstrating that you are a resident of the state, and without taking any sort of driving test.

Here's what's pathetic about all of this: It's the idea that there are groups of individuals in this country who apparently can't function in society with the same tools that are available to the rest of us, specifically the ability to go to a DMV and get a photo I'd.

Great, yet another reference to a fantasy television program.

That's the problem. Not everybody lining up to vote in our elections is actually an American citizen, although a lot of them are undocumented Democrats.

Thanks,

Jackson

Jackson

09-06-12, 16:16

The problem for some people that don't drive is getting there to get one. Especially in the some of our countries small towns.Like I said before...

"Here's what's pathetic about all of this: It's the idea that there are groups of individuals in this country who apparently can't function in society with the same tools that are available to the rest of us, specifically the ability to go to a DMV and get a photo ID."

So, why is it that these "undocumented voters" can't find a way to get to the DMV and get an ID card like everybody else!

Thanks,

Jackson

Member #4112

09-06-12, 17:47

New story just surfaced regarding Axelrod and Gallop Polls. When a Gallop poll back in April 2012 showed Romney leading Obama by about 5 percentage points, Axelrod called the folks at Gallop wanting them to come to the White House to explain their polling methodology. Axelrod alleged their polling methodology was flawed. The Gallop folks felt this was a thinly veiled attempt to intimidate them.

The folks at Gallop declined the invitation / demand to appear at the White House and explain how they arrived at the numbers but did invite Axelrod and any White House representatives to come over to Gallop's offices to discuss the matter but no one accepted the invitation.

The folks at Gallop also did not change the numbers as Axelrod wanted.

Guess what happened next?

All of a sudden the Justice Department got interested in a whistle blower lawsuit filed in 2009 by a former Gallop employee with the DOJ filing a brief in support of the whistle blower.

My what a coincidence!

Sound a bit like Chicago Politics to you?

WorldTravel69

09-06-12, 19:23

Rocky2

09-06-12, 21:29

Since 1961, 52 years, the Republicans have been in office 28 years.

The Democrats have been in 24 years.

66 millions private sector jobs were created.

Pay closed attention now!

The Republicans created 24 million jobs.

And.

The Democrats created 42 Million Jobs.

P. S.

Of all the Countries with Health Care Coverage, not one of them is trying to get rid of it.Why and the hell would we want to be like those other countries?

Esten

09-07-12, 02:14

The Democrat Party has demonstrated again they are just a pack of hypocrites.

You can not enter the vaulted chambers of the Democrat National Convention without a government issued photo I. D, but when it comes to voting they fight tooth and nail against any effort to institute voter I. D. Laws.

Well in the Democrat's minds I am sure they believe their convention is much more important than merely voting for the president, congress and the senate.I think there are clear security issues with political conventions that make a strong argument for photo IDs.

Not so for voting booths. The argument here is voter fraud. That sounds like a good reason, if voter fraud was really a problem. But it hasn't been.

So what's the reason this is happening now, in the run-up to a very important election for Republicans? We all know the answer.

Esten

09-07-12, 02:21

Since 1961, 52 years, the Republicans have been in office 28 years.

The Democrats have been in 24 years.

66 millions private sector jobs were created.

Pay closed attention now!

The Republicans created 24 million jobs.

And.

The Democrats created 42 Million Jobs. 100% True at Politifact. You don't have a strong economy without a strong middle class.

Bill Clinton says Democratic presidents top Republican presidents in job creation
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/sep/06/bill-clinton/bill-clinton-says-democratic-presidents-top-republ/

Rev BS

09-07-12, 02:51

Nothing personal here, but the color for the Republicans is funeral black in November. The debates may cause a swing, but that is not "charismatic" Romney's forte. How will Ryan / Biden play out? They are only a sideshow. The Republican problem is their candidates. Toyman for President in 2016!

El Alamo

09-07-12, 08:02

Wow! Does Obama look pathetic or what. The only one more pathetic than Obama is Biden. The Obama / Biden song and dance is becoming comedy material.

Member #4112

09-07-12, 09:49

Esten I know you are quite aware the move toward voter I.D. laws has been going on since before Obama entered office. Obama's DOJ has done everything it can to stifle the will of the people of the several states in the name of 'social justice' but what do you expect from an attorney general who lets blatant voter intimidation slide so long as it is against non-minorities as in the Black Panther case? . Voter fraud you ask, can you say ACORN?

The Voting Rights Act is a relic of the 50's and 60's which should be repealed. What happened to equal treatment under the law? Voter I.D. laws in states outside the umbrella of the Act have been enacted, have been upheld in the courts and have gone into effect. Only states covered by the Act have the additional hurdle of asking 'mother may I". from the DOJ before being afforded the same rights as the other states.

Under this administration equal treatment does not extend to that part of the populace who are white or southern, the only persons deemed to be racists by this administration have white skin; Holder and Obama's mantra is power to the people so long as they are not white.

Do you call this a racist tirade? Change a only a few words and I could be lauded as Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, Jeremiah Wight, Al Sharpton, Sheila Jackson Lee and all the other poverty pimps out there.

Get real Esten, the Democrats don't give a damn about who votes so long as they vote for them. Citizenship and eligibility are a thing of the past so long as they are loyal Democrats. Hell, even the dead get to vote so long as they are Democrats.

Flexible Horn

09-07-12, 12:45

Wow! Does Obama look pathetic or what. The only one more pathetic than Obama is Biden. The Obama / Biden song and dance is becoming comedy material.As pathetic as Romneys gaffes on his brief trip to parts of europe. If his elected and thats a huge if, he needs to change some of his advisers, the man came across as a fool.

I think in his 2nd term Barack should look into congress allowing presidents to stand for a 3rd or even 4th term.

Most of the world needs a healthy, strong US economy, I know here in the UK we are suffering.

I know most of my north american friends / acquaintances are pro Romney but I hope that on the 6th November they vote for the only man who can lead America back where it should be. Here's hoping

El Alamo

09-07-12, 13:38

As pathetic as Romneys gaffes on his brief trip to parts of europe. If his elected and thats a huge if, he needs to change some of his advisers, the man came across as a fool.

I think in his 2nd term Barack should look into congress allowing presidents to stand for a 3rd or even 4th term.

Most of the world needs a healthy, strong US economy, I know here in the UK we are suffering.

I know most of my north american friends / acquaintances are pro Romney but I hope that on the 6th November they vote for the only man who can lead America back where it should be. Here's hopingOh MY God! It is worse than I thought. Obama / Biden and friends are living with Alice in Wonderland

Matt Psyche

09-07-12, 13:42

Very rarely one party held the presidency for consecutive 3 terms after WWII. I can only think of Bush senior, who won after Reagan's 2 terms (plus Truman after FDR). Gore won most popular votes but he lost election.

Since 1961, 52 years, the Republicans have been in office 28 years.

The Democrats have been in 24 years.

Member #4112

09-07-12, 14:03

Did you check out the new unemployment numbers? Unemployment dropped from 8.3% to 8.1% as 96,000 Jobs were created in August.

The job creation number is not what caused the unemployment rate to drop.

The fact that more than 368,000 people dropped out of the work force is what accounted for the drop in the rate.

That means while 96,000 found a job 368,000 dropped out of the workforce I. E. The labor department no long counts them.

The U-6 figure, which really reflects the true number of unemployed, is over 14%

Our workforce participation rate is the lowest it has been in 32 YEARS!

Wow, what a great job Obama / Biden have done and they are asking for 4 more years after this performance?

Matt Psyche

09-07-12, 14:33

Tiny12

09-07-12, 16:28

The argument here is voter fraud. That sounds like a good reason, if voter fraud was really a problem. But it hasn't been.The Democratic Party has a long and rich tradition of voter fraud. LBJ in South Texas, the Daley machine in Chicago for example. And it extends to the present day. A Democratic Supreme Court in Florida almost stole the 2000 election. (The recount by a media consortium, which included the AP, New York Times, WSJ, CNN and others concluded that Bush would indeed have gotten more votes, if the recounts requested by Gore had been completed in the year 2000.) The Democratic Party continues to steal elections in New York, West Virginia, Indiana, Wisconsin and other places.

I think in his 2nd term Barack should look into congress allowing presidents to stand for a 3rd or even 4th term. I know most of my north american friends / acquaintances are pro Romney but I hope that on the 6th November they vote for the only man who can lead America back where it should be. Here's hoping

On the other hand, to hell with voter fraud -- who cares. The ends justify the means. Maybe we should do as Flexible Horn suggests and give Obama 4 terms in office, since the country has performed so well during his first term. Median incomes are only down about $4,000 or $5,000 per family during his term. It could have been a lot worse. Venezuela did something similar for Hugo Chavez, virtually making him dictator, er, president for life, and that's turned out really well.

Jackson

09-07-12, 16:52

Realistically, I do not see how the president can increase private employment or influence the economy. The federal govt spending only accounts for 1/4th of the national economy. President has no power over the federal Reserve, an independent agency, for monetary policy. For fiscal policy, the president only "submits" the budget to Congress, which enacts appropriations. Anyway, the great majority of the budget is a "mandatory" spending- legally obligated spending, which politicians cannot reduce or increase. Plus, the president is a chief of only one of the three branches of the federal govt, and mostly our govt is divided govt.Okay, let me spell it out for you (and everybody else) one more time:

1. Lower taxes.
2. Reduce regulations.
3. Reduce the size of government (i.e. fire some government employees)
4. Reform government entitlements (meaning reduce benefits to meet projected future income)
5. Reform Social Security (meaning reduce benefits to meet projected future income)
6. Pass a budget!
7. Reduce the budget deficit, develop a plausible plan to bring it to zero.
8. Overturn Obamacare.
9. Secure our borders (thus reducing entitlements and local government expenditures)
10. Deport illegal aliens (thus reducing entitlements and local government expenditures)
11. Rein in or disband government employee unions (government employees are sufficiently protected by Civil Service protections)
12. Get government out of the fucking way!

Remember, "mandatory spending" is only mandatory if we don't change the program, which is within our power if we had a real leader.

Thanks,

Jackson

"Real leaders don't follow polls, real leaders change polls."

Gov. Chris Christie

WorldTravel69

09-07-12, 19:05

Sorry, Jackson you did not spell it out.

I listened and watched the both conventions.

Romney said exact what you said, What He WANTS To Do, NOT HOW HE WAS GOING TO DO IT!

If Medicare goes to vouchers, they will run out and leave the retirees and those with needs fucked.

That will also affect our Vets with financial problems.

Oh, yes what did the Republicans say about our troops.

NOTHING!

Okay, let me spell it out for you (and everybody else) one more time:

1. Lower taxes.

2. Reduce regulations.

3. Reduce the size of government (I. E. Fire some government employees)

4. Reform government entitlements (meaning reduce benefits to meet projected future income)

5. Reform Social Security (meaning reduce benefits to meet projected future income)

6. Pass a budget!

7. Reduce the budget deficit, develop a plausible plan to bring it to zero.

8. Overturn Obamacare.

9. Secure our borders (thus reducing entitlements and local government expenditures)

10. Deport illegal aliens (thus reducing entitlements and local government expenditures)

11. Rein in or disband government employee unions (government employees are sufficiently protected by Civil Service protections)

12. Get government out of the fucking way!

Remember,"mandatory spending" is only mandatory if we don't change the program, which is within our power if we had a real leader.

Thanks,

Jackson.

"Real leaders don't follow polls, real leaders change polls."

Gov. Chris Christie