2012 Elections in the USA

[Tiny12]

I know that this is hard for you to envision, but the fact is that Cantor and McConnell fought to stop Obama because they genuinely thought that the Obama Stimulus Program was a waste of money. As it turns out, they were right.
Given that Republicans made a pact to oppose Obama on everything, it's hardly credible they opposed the Stimulus just because they didn't agree with it. The Stimulus was 1/3 tax breaks, so Republicans should have at least been able to support that part. Even the US Chamber of Commerce said a big Stimulus package was needed, surely Republicans could have backed an organization representing American business. It turns out the USCoC was right, and multiple economists have concluded the Stimulus was a success.

So it's abundantly clear that Republican opposition to the Stimulus was a case of 'party over country'.I agree with Jackson. This is why,

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444813104578016873186217796.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

An excerpt, because you have to read to the end to get their line of reasoning,

"In reality, the biggest difference between this recovery and others hasn't been the nature of the crisis, but the nature of the policy prescriptions. Mr. Obama's chief anti-recession idea was a near trillion-dollar leap of faith in the Keynesian "multiplier" effect of government spending. It was the same approach that didn't work in the 1930s, didn't work in the 1970s, didn't work in 2008, and didn't work in such other nations as Japan. It didn't work again in 2009.

Ronald Reagan also inherited an economy loaded with problems. The stock market had been flat for 12 years, inflation rates neared 14%, and mortgage rates almost 20%. The recession he endured in 1981-82 to cure inflation sent unemployment to 10.8%, higher than Mr. Obama's peak of 10%. But the business and jobs recovery by early 1983 was rapid and lasted seven years.

Reagan used tax-rate cuts, disinflationary monetary policy and deregulation to reignite growth—more or less the opposite of the Obama policy mix. Liberals tried to explain the Reagan boom that they said would never happen by arguing that there was nothing unusual about the growth spurt after such a deep recession. So why didn't that happen this time? "

[Member #2041]

Member you just can not get your facts straight. Here is the link to the BLS, you and Obama share a trait, neither one of you has been formally introduced to the truth.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

Member I am only repeating what your boy Obama promised. What no answer to his lies, come on you can up with some sort of wild ass excuse I know you canI already acknowledged that the forecasts of unemployment were significantly low, both before and after the Stimulus. An incorrect forecast is not a lie, it's an incorrect forecast. YOU claiming unemployment was 7. 3% when Obama took office, now THAT, is a lie. That doesn't mean squat though, with respect to whether or not the stimulus worked. The shape of the unemployment curve is what tells that story: The passage of the stimulus, and the first expenditure of funds under it on projects, corresponds directly with the first inflection point in the curve, where the slope of the dramatically increasing unemployment is significantly decelerated for the first time in Q2 of 2009. And 7 months later, in Q4 of 2009, which is exactly when it would be expected given the employment numbers well known 6-12 month lag on economic conditions, Unemployment finally is actually dropping, as 150K or so jobs are added to the economy for the first time in well over 1. 5 years, a trend that continues to this day. The curve does not lie, although you, apparently have no problem lying (or else, perhaps, you don't comprehend the actual data?. But I tend to believe that you are being disingenuous here, rather than stupid).

I used that link for the data I quoted. The fact is, you claimed that unemployment was 7.3% When Obama took office. He took office END of January 2009. 7.3% was the unemployment rate for December of 2008, according to that link. At the beginning of January, it was 7.8, and at the beginning of February, it was 8.3% and growing at 1/2 percent per month. Which means, that when Obama took office 3 weeks into January, it was AT LEAST 7.8, and as much as 8.3%. Which makes YOUR claim that he took office when the rate was 7.3%, to be factually incorrect. Read the data series in that link, and actually look at the curve that is shown - the Unemployment number crosses 8% and is continuing to rise upward at the beginning of January in 2009 - BEFORE Obama took office. It establishes that your claim is factually false, by at least 1/2, and as much as 1 percent. That being said, this is still a canard - the issue is not the specific rate, it's what happened to the rate once the stimulus actually kicked in. And what happened was, job losses IMMEDIATELY decelerated, and by 7 months out, jobs were being gained, and continued to be gained in each subsequent month in the private sector to this day. Yes, they were fewer jobs than hoped, but that is because the stimulus was architected to address a less severe spate of unemployment than we actually had - as reflected by that too low 8% forecast you keep harping on and misrepresenting as a lie, rather than simply the erroneous forecast it was, from Republican, Democratic, and impartial economists, all of whom missed the number by at least 1%.

In any case, you continue to argue an irrelevant strawman in that 8% number. And not JUST a bogus strawman, but an impossible metric by it's very definition, since Unemployment was already WELL above 8% before the stimulus was even passed, and well above 9% before the first dollar of stimulus was ever actually even spent. The forecast being too low, does not in any way alter the fact that the stimulus did what it was designed to do, as the curve makes clear. The stimulus worked, by knocking unemployment down from well over 9.5%, to just above 8%. Had it been larger, as the actual unemployment problem was larger than forecast, it's effect would have been even greater.

Of course, it's hardly surprising that Doppleganger is playing fast and loose with the actual factual data - despite it being right there in front of him - that's exactly what Romney and Ryan have been doing as well. It seems to be a pathological trait of conservative Republicans, that when their narrative is at odds with the truth, well, then, the truth be damned while the righties are weaving a story that they like the sound of.

[Member #4112]

You did not disappoint with your dodging of the origianl question regarding Obama and the Stimulus with total B / S.

Where is your defense of Obama's own promises in his own words regarding the upper level of unempolyment if the Stimulus was enacted and the rate of unemployment he promised by this date. You don't even dispute his promise of cutting the deficit by 50% during his first term, when he entered office the deficite was $10. 5 Trillion, now it's over $16 Trillion and growning. Answer? You don't really have one for a failed president and a failed policy.

You are just like Team Obama, crowed about 94, 000 jobs created in August while sweeping under the carpet the 368, 000 people who fell out of the work force. We have argued this point on the board before, sure unemployment is coming down not because the economy is creating jobs but because the BLS keeps reducing the size of the workforce, which is at a 30 year low. If you counted all the folks who want a job but can not fine one the unemployment rate is way over 10, more like 14 to 15.

I guess the next thing you are going to tell me is how it's a good thing the workforce is decreasing in size as it means more people now need to depend on the government, free food, free housing, free cell phones, free money!

[Member #2041]

You did not disappoint with your dodging of the origianl question regarding Obama and the Stimulus with total B / S.

Where is your defense of Obama's own promises in his own words regarding the upper level of unempolyment if the Stimulus was enacted and the rate of unemployment he promised by this date. You don't even dispute his promise of cutting the deficit by 50% during his first term, when he entered office the deficite was $10. 5 Trillion, now it's over $16 Trillion and growning. Answer? You don't really have one for a failed president and a failed policy.

You are just like Team Obama, crowed about 94, 000 jobs created in August while sweeping under the carpet the 368, 000 people who fell out of the work force. We have argued this point on the board before, sure unemployment is coming down not because the economy is creating jobs but because the BLS keeps reducing the size of the workforce, which is at a 30 year low. If you counted all the folks who want a job but can not fine one the unemployment rate is way over 10, more like 14 to 15.

I guess the next thing you are going to tell me is how it's a good thing the workforce is decreasing in size as it means more people now need to depend on the government, free food, free housing, free cell phones, free money!

A missed forecast is not a promise, broken or otherwise. Could Obama have done better? Of course, but you continue to harp on a missed forecast that reflected a failure by just about everyone to grasp the serious of the crisis that Obama inherited at the time he inherited it. Would the USA have been worse off economically had McCain won? Clearly, yes it would - McCain had no grasp whatsoever about what was going on, and the folks who led his Economic team were some of the key folks that CAUSED the financial collapse, such as Phil Gramm, who actually authored the law repealing Glass-Steagall, and who presided over the sub-prime collapse as a major VP in charge of the collateralized mortgage business at at UBS, a line of business that was enabled by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act, and that was the catalyst to the financial crisis. I simply ask myself, am I better off than I was 4 years ago when the last election was playing out? And the answer is, yes, by far. My personal net wealth has been largely restored to the level it was prior to the financial collapse under Bush. As I said, Obama is no Clinton. But sadly, Romney's policies are very much a return to what Bush brought us, which was a complete economic collapse.

I said earlier, that I was disappointed in Obama. Particularly in his failure to leverage the American public and it's opinion against Republican intransigence in Congress, but I am thoroughly terrified with what Romney and his policies would bring for the vast majority of Americans. I certainly prefer staying the course we are on, and a weak, but still real recovery, to reverting back to the disaster we had under Bush, where government does nothing other than cut the safety net and taxes to the richest Americans, and that is the choice Americans have.

[WorldTravel69]

The Job Creators with their Tax Breaks are NOT CREATING JOBS!

THAT IS THE TRUTH!

So, tell us Why THEY should Get Them?


Member you just can not get your facts straight. Here is the link to the BLS, you and Obama share a trait, neither one of you has been formally introduced to the truth.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

Member I am only repeating what your boy Obama promised. What no answer to his lies, come on you can up with some sort of wild ass excuse I know you can

[Tiny12]

The Job Creators with their Tax Breaks are NOT CREATING JOBS!

THAT IS THE TRUTH!

So, tell us Why THEY should Get Them?I agree. Tax breaks for businesses should be eliminated and their tax rates should be lowered. If there were a reasonable, fair, stable set of rules and Congress and the President weren't handing out special favors to campaign contributors and constituents, we'd be light years ahead. There would be more jobs.

[Esten]

Member#2041, most Republicans will never be completely honest about the success of the Stimulus, because it's too central to their core belief about limited government. They don't believe the government can effectively help the economy, despite abundant analyses that TARP and the Stimulus saved the United States from a far worse economic condition.

The 8% prediction was made by Christina Romer in January 2009, but the layoffs then accelerated much more than economists were forecasting. This threw off the baseline in Stimulus forecasts, but otherwise the predicted effects were pretty much on target. Later in 2010, Romer said "One could have presented it differently. If we'd only talked about the effect of the stimulus on the change in unemployment [instead of predicting the unemployment rate itself]... it would have been better."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/06/AR2010080606271.html

Republicans spend much less time refuting the claim that the Stimulus created or saved millions of jobs, because there are numerous economic analyses out there supporting this claim. It's easier to make people think of the Stimulus as a failure by focusing on the 8% prediction. This is a Republican deception that must be exposed at every opportunity.

[Esten]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444813104578016873186217796.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

An excerpt, because you have to read to the end to get their line of reasoning,

"In reality, the biggest difference between this recovery and others hasn't been the nature of the crisis, but the nature of the policy prescriptions. Mr. Obama's chief anti-recession idea was a near trillion-dollar leap of faith in the Keynesian "multiplier" effect of government spending. It was the same approach that didn't work in the 1930s, didn't work in the 1970s, didn't work in 2008, and didn't work in such other nations as Japan. It didn't work again in 2009.WSJ is a right-wing news organization with the same owner as Fox News. Furthermore, this looks like an opinion piece not an economic analysis. Relying on one such article is like me presenting an opinion piece from HuffPost as proof. Tiny, I thought your research was more robust than that. If you want the truth about economic issues you need to look at what a broad spectrum of economists say, not Rupert Murdoch's News Corp media.

Look up the Chicago Booth poll of 40 economists on the 2009 stimulus. 92 percent agreed that the stimulus succeeded in reducing the jobless rate. On the harder question of whether the benefit exceeded the cost, more than half thought it did, one in three was uncertain, and fewer than one in six disagreed.

The USA Economic Policy Debate Is a Sham
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-23/the-u-s-economic-policy-debate-is-a-sham.html

[Dccpa]

John Williams of Shadowstats. Com keeps the real government statistics as they were calculated prior the the numerous adulturations over the years. http://www.shadowstats.com/

According to Williams, there has been an actual net loss of jobs during the term of the Obama adminstration. Yet the BLS, bureau of lying statistics has done another recalculation and decided that even more jobs have been created in the last 4 years. The level of statistical lying in the Obama administration is starting to rival what occured under Reagan when the OMB would project 10% GDP growth so that the Gramm-Rudman budget cuts would not take effect.


You did not disappoint with your dodging of the origianl question regarding Obama and the Stimulus with total B / S.

Where is your defense of Obama's own promises in his own words regarding the upper level of unempolyment if the Stimulus was enacted and the rate of unemployment he promised by this date. You don't even dispute his promise of cutting the deficit by 50% during his first term, when he entered office the deficite was $10. 5 Trillion, now it's over $16 Trillion and growning. Answer? You don't really have one for a failed president and a failed policy.

You are just like Team Obama, crowed about 94, 000 jobs created in August while sweeping under the carpet the 368, 000 people who fell out of the work force. We have argued this point on the board before, sure unemployment is coming down not because the economy is creating jobs but because the BLS keeps reducing the size of the workforce, which is at a 30 year low. If you counted all the folks who want a job but can not fine one the unemployment rate is way over 10, more like 14 to 15.

I guess the next thing you are going to tell me is how it's a good thing the workforce is decreasing in size as it means more people now need to depend on the government, free food, free housing, free cell phones, free money!

[Dccpa]

Something that they learned from the Republicans during the Clinton and Bush administrations.Member this is the last time I will waste effort responding to you. Do you really think that evading Senate rules started in the last 10-20 years? If so, I have some ecologically sensitive land in Florida which I would like to show you. Someone can look up which particular Senator developed and implemented this idea, but it really doesn't matter. Your baseless answer did not address the main issue which is that one of the most signifcant pieces of legislation in the last several years was passed by virtue of evading Senatorial rules. The policies of both parties that the ends justify the means is a symptom of our dying political system.

[Tiny12]

WSJ is a right-wing news organization with the same owner as Fox News. Furthermore, this looks like an opinion piece not an economic analysis. Relying on one such article is like me presenting an opinion piece from HuffPost as proof. Tiny, I thought your research was more robust than that. If you want the truth about economic issues you need to look at what a broad spectrum of economists say, not Rupert Murdoch's News Corp media.

Look up the Chicago Booth poll of 40 economists on the 2009 stimulus. 92 percent agreed that the stimulus succeeded in reducing the jobless rate. On the harder question of whether the benefit exceeded the cost, more than half thought it did, one in three was uncertain, and fewer than one in six disagreed.

The USA Economic Policy Debate Is a Sham.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-23/the-u-s-economic-policy-debate-is-a-sham.htmlEsten, you place too much emphasis on what the majority believes. Getting off the subject, sometimes I think you think government should rule based on polls and what the majority wants. This would be anathema to the founding fathers, who believed in personal liberty.

I agree that the stimulus reduced the jobless rate. I don't believe it was worth the cost. We're awash in debt. This gets back to what Member 2041 and I were arguing about. Other countries have gone through recessions worse than ours over the last 20 years and they emerged without having mortgaged their futures. They spent less and ended up with better results, including lower unemployment. Actually, after the 1998 Asian economic crisis, some of the countries had to do things that were the opposite of what Keynes would have recommended during a recession. They raised interest rates and got rid of subsidies and lowered government spending. The IMF and/or the market made them do it. They emerged with vibrant economies, and growth rates and unemployment rates that we'd envy. As the WSJ pointed out, interest rates went up to 14% when Reagan was president, but we still ended up with a vibrant recovery.

Japan did something similar to what we're doing. It has very large public debt and a stagnant economy, over 20 years after the crash.

The Huffington Post isn't in the same league with the WSJ.

[Miami Bob]

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/117xx/doc11706/08-24-arra.pdf

Yes, there are assumptions made in the econometric modelling.

============================

http://factcheck.org/2012/09/romneys-stump-speech/

[Tiny12]

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/117xx/doc11706/08-24-arra.pdf

Yes, there are assumptions made in the econometric modelling.I just scanned it so may be missing something. FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROGRAM it looks like we went $814 billion more into debt for a temporary increase in GDP (total goods and services generated by the USA) of about $850 billion, using midpoints in their table. I'm not an economist but know something about business and investments. And a $814 billion investment for a temporary $850 billion increase in sales is a pretty bad deal. You'd go bankrupt pretty quickly doing that on a much smaller scale. Using midpoints again, the gross wages through the years in the table of those who were employed who otherwise would not have been might be around $250 billion, which again is much less than we spent.

This was published in August, 2010. It's old.

[Member #2041]

Member this is the last time I will waste effort responding to you. Do you really think that evading Senate rules started in the last 10-20 years? If so, I have some ecologically sensitive land in Florida which I would like to show you. Someone can look up which particular Senator developed and implemented this idea, but it really doesn't matter. Your baseless answer did not address the main issue which is that one of the most signifcant pieces of legislation in the last several years was passed by virtue of evading Senatorial rules. The policies of both parties that the ends justify the means is a symptom of our dying political system.No, of course I don't believe this started in the past 20 years. But I DO believe that it is only during this time that the Democrats got nearly as good / ruthless / disciplined at it as the Republicans have been for much longer.

[WorldTravel69]

Good Morning.
Just a little something to think about.

[Miami Bob]

Is it class warfare, to counter the extreme concentration of wealth and income that has occurred in the USA since the beginnings of the g w Bush presidency? Were w's policies that permitted so great a concentration of wealth effectively a class warfare on the part of the representative of the top. 5% against the other 99. 5% of the population. The doctor, lawyer, small business person earning $1 million dollars yearly may have more economically in common with the average worker than those in the top. 5.

Opinion piece by a pulitzer prize winning journalist-an opinion, but something to think about:

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

I remember a history professor explaining[opinion, but a learned one] that the french revolution occurred when the top 9. 5% realized that they had more in common with the 99. 5% than the wealthiest aristocrats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States

Yes, wiki is not a good source on it's own because anyone with any background or point of view can post. I posted this link so you can look at the footnotes and see the sources of the factual statements. The bottom line is that both income and wealth have become very concentrated in the top. 5-radically so since the time of reagan. This breaks a trend of increasing equality beginning after the end of the great depression / wwII. Has this trend starting in the late 70's and early 80's, itself been a form of "class warfare"?

I personally am very disappointed with Obama and the mitt. I will vote for Obama because mitt's choice of paul ryan[I would love to see 10 years of his income tax returns] meaNS THAT MITT will likely adapt the extreme supply sider point of view in searching for solutions to the dammed mess the USA economy is in today. As estan has pointed out, this extreme supply sider point of view-per the univ of chicago survey of the leading economists- is a small extreme viewpoint. I am specially referring to the very Herbert Hooverish view that stimulus does not create jobs- rather, we need to unleash the power and ability to accumulate wealth of the top. 5% of this nation and they will solve the problems with the help of the invisiable hand of the free market.

Mitt's income tax returns-to me the answer is likely that mitt took advantage of the 2009 amnesty to report hidden over-seas funds. There would be an outrage if this is revealed. Everything would be legal, but smell like old fish for someone who wants to be elected president.

One year ago, I was planning and hoping to vote for mitt. I read QUITE A BIT ABOUT HIM. There was a series in the New Yorker about his transition from the private to the public sector. I cannot remember the source, but there was a quotation from an interview mitt gave while governor. He said that working in the private sector was much easier: his job was to create value only for his shareholders within the bounds of the law. In the public sector there are many different conflicting public policy goals. I am disappointed by the policy choices he has made or is making. Having the personal skill set to govern as an autocrat at bain or the Olympic committee, is very different than leading the republican party and being a political leader to get things done in the capital.

I almost never post anything political on this forum because it is really about pussy and having fun in buenos aires and the personalities of the regulars. I am pretending that this is likely a different chatroom. Sorry for not proof reading. I will likely NOT READ ANYONES' REACTION TO THIS POSTING. HAVE FUN BOYS

[Miami Bob]

Should Obama been a stronger and better leader-YES. Could the stimulus package has been more successful if it was not chopped up by the politicians in congress-yes. Is that on the dems-yes.

Does the way the 2008/09 stimulus and bail-outs were implemented means that stimulus is not a useful tool to jump start this economy, no

[WorldTravel69]

The Stimulus is what got the Auto Industry back into Business.

Romney said Fuck Them!

Why are you so many of you Blind and Deft? Also, can you not Read? You Can ONLY Listen Misinformations FOX Networks.

Deft, Blind and Dumb.

WTF?


Should Obama been a stronger and better leader-YES. Could the stimulus package has been more successful if it was not chopped up by the politicians in congress-yes. Is that on the dems-yes.

Does the way the 2008/09 stimulus and bail-outs were implemented means that stimulus is not a useful tool to jump start this economy, no

[WorldTravel69]

This what your and our Friends Governments care about Us.

Based on a True story.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1448755/

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073240/

Greed is Good, Just Like A Pig.

The Meaning of Greed and Pigs are the Same.

Devour as much as you Can.

[WorldTravel69]

That is what the Republicans want us to, File Bankruptcy. So then they will look good.

Come On Wake Up.

Big business is holding millions from the people, so they can buy the Republicans.

Wake Up, see the trees before the forest. Not my quote, better men than I have said this, but I remember those great Men's Words.


I just scanned it so may be missing something. FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROGRAM it looks like we went $814 billion more into debt for a temporary increase in GDP (total goods and services generated by the USA) of about $850 billion, using midpoints in their table. I'm not an economist but know something about business and investments. And a $814 billion investment for a temporary $850 billion increase in sales is a pretty bad deal. You'd go bankrupt pretty quickly doing that on a much smaller scale. Using midpoints again, the gross wages through the years in the table of those who were employed who otherwise would not have been might be around $250 billion, which again is much less than we spent.

This was published in August. 2010. It's old.

[WorldTravel69]

Some asshole said, I thing it might be Romney.

He Said Obama spent too much time playing Golf.

He has spent less time time off than most President in the last few years.

But Congress has taken two Vacations close together than Any other Congress.

No Pay No Work, Isn't that what You Want?

http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/06/why-would-congress-take-a-five-week-vacation-with-all-the-problems-facing-the-country/

[Toymann]

Some asshole said, I thing it might be Romney.

He Said Obama spent too much time playing Golf.

He has spent less time time off than most President in the last few years.

But Congress has taken two Vacations close together than Any other Congress.

No Pay No Work, Isn't that what You Want?

http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/06/why-would-congress-take-a-five-week-vacation-with-all-the-problems-facing-the-country/Bush gave up golf after 9/11. He felt it was inappropriate to be playing golf while we were at war. Our current idiot in chief has no such concerns. No great surprise. Toymann

[WorldTravel69]

http://politic365.com/2012/05/08/obamas-vacations-of-any-president-bush-racked-up-the-most/


Bush gave up golf after 9/11. He felt it was inappropriate to be playing golf while we were at war. Our current idiot in chief has no such concerns. No great surprise. Toymann

[Punter 127]

Considering the cold relations between Obama and Netanyahu, the Iranian situation, and the failed Obama foreign policies, how could any American Jew or even Christians vote for Obama without thumbing their nose at Israel?

Isn't it obvious Obama doesn't like Israel, does anyone really think Obama would be any more congenial with Israel in a second term? He might show "more flexibility" with the Russians after the election but I doubt he will with Israel.

We need a POTUS that understands that Iran and other radical Muslim groups hate all none Muslins, be they Jew, Christian, atheist, or whatever, they want to convert you to teachings of Islam or kill you, there's no in between!

How can the United States or the World tolerate countries or groups who have openly called for the eradication of other nations and races of people from the face of the earth?

Appeasement perhaps? I think Hitler showed us how well that works, have you forgotten? I think these people are worse that Hitler, and perhaps soon they will be more powerful. Never forget, evil exist, it's real!

Don't think for a moment these radicals won't attack Israel or even the United States when they develop the capabilities, as WT69 would say 'Wake up'.

[SnakeOilSales]

Considering the cold relations between Obama and Netanyahu, the Iranian situation, and the failed Obama foreign policies, how could any American Jew or even Christians vote for Obama without thumbing their nose at Israel?

Isn't it obvious Obama doesn't like Israel, does anyone really think Obama would be any more congenial with Israel in a second term? He might show "more flexibility" with the Russians after the election but I doubt he will with Israel.

We need a POTUS that understands that Iran and other radical Muslim groups hate all none Muslins, be they Jew, Christian, atheist, or whatever, they want to convert you to teachings of Islam or kill you, there's no in between!

How can the United States or the World tolerate countries or groups who have openly called for the eradication of other nations and races of people from the face of the earth?

Appeasement perhaps? I think Hitler showed us how well that works, have you forgotten? I think these people are worse that Hitler, and perhaps soon they will be more powerful. Never forget, evil exist, it's real!

Don't think for a moment these radicals won't attack Israel or even the United States when they develop the capabilities, as WT69 would say 'Wake up'.The current US / European sanctions regime against Iran is working as intended and will probably "starve" Iran into serious negotiations within the next 6-12 months. Just yesterday the value of the Iranian Rial v. USD fell 17% IN ONE DAY and is now at an all-time low v. USD. Even the Israelis themselves are starting to see that starving the Iranians economically is a far better choice than launching a pre-emptive attack with an uncertain probability of success and guaranteed undesirable consequences. Plummeting real wages and 29% annual inflation are far more likely to lead to regime change than a military attack.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/9580540/Iranian-currency-plummets-to-record-low-as-US-sanctions-take-hold.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/9577106/Iran-sanctions-may-provoke-Arab-Spring-of-its-own-Israel-claims.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444592404578029810117268752.html

[Member #2041]

Well, I'm Jewish, and most of my Jewish friends are voting for Obama. The fact is, all American Presidents are pro-Israel. Obama might not be pro-the Netanyahu regime, but neither are most American Jews, IMHO. The claim that Obama is anti-Israel is a myth - which is not to be confused with his having major issues with Netanyahu. But Netanyahu is not Israel, he's just the current, and hardest-line Israeli leader in quite some time. And that being said, it's silly to assume that most Jews are 1-issue voters, or even that Israel is the most important issue to most American Jews. Like everyone else, Jews are driven by the economy, and they are also very Liberal on social issues, and by and large repelled by the Romney swing to the ultra-conservative in social issues, and they care about the sort of Justices get nominated to the SCOTUS - and they want Liberals (note that 3 of the 4 Liberal Justices on the Court are Jews). I'd say most American Jews care more about the 1st two of these issues than about the nuances of how hard pro Israel an American President is, within the context that no American President ever has been, nor ever will be actually Anti-Israel - despite the Republicans' desire to perpetrate this myth that Obama actually is Anti-Israel.


The current US / European sanctions regime against Iran is working as intended and will probably "starve" Iran into serious negotiations within the next 6-12 months. Just yesterday the value of the Iranian Rial v. USD fell 17% IN ONE DAY and is now at an all-time low v. USD. Even the Israelis themselves are starting to see that starving the Iranians economically is a far better choice than launching a pre-emptive attack with an uncertain probability of success and guaranteed undesirable consequences. Plummeting real wages and 29% annual inflation are far more likely to lead to regime change than a military attack.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/9580540/Iranian-currency-plummets-to-record-low-as-US-sanctions-take-hold.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/9577106/Iran-sanctions-may-provoke-Arab-Spring-of-its-own-Israel-claims.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444592404578029810117268752.html

[Tiny12]

Well, I'm Jewish, and most of my Jewish friends are voting for Obama. The fact is, all American Presidents are pro-Israel. Obama might not be pro-the Netanyahu regime, but neither are most American Jews, IMHO. The claim that Obama is anti-Israel is a myth - which is not to be confused with his having major issues with Netanyahu. But Netanyahu is not Israel, he's just the current, and hardest-line Israeli leader in quite some time. And that being said, it's silly to assume that most Jews are 1-issue voters, or even that Israel is the most important issue to most American Jews. Like everyone else, Jews are driven by the economy, and they are also very Liberal on social issues, and by and large repelled by the Romney swing to the ultra-conservative in social issues, and they care about the sort of Justices get nominated to the SCOTUS - and they want Liberals (note that 3 of the 4 Liberal Justices on the Court are Jews). I'd say most American Jews care more about the 1st two of these issues than about the nuances of how hard pro Israel an American President is, within the context that no American President ever has been, nor ever will be actually Anti-Israel - despite the Republicans' desire to perpetrate this myth that Obama actually is Anti-Israel.In 2008 Obama's class warfare thing had me scared. But I thought there were several silver linings. He would be liberal on social issues. He would improve our standing in Islamic world and he would have a more balanced relationship with Israel. And he'd extract us from Iraq quickly and spend less money on military aid to foreign countries. He did none of the above. He's the worst of both worlds. A wasteful spender who keeps government involved in every aspect of our lives. Civil liberties were arguably better under Bush than Obama. Or at least there hasn't been a lot of change. Under Bush you didn't have federal cops busting medical marijuana outfits. Bush used drones wisely while Obama doesn't give a crap if he kills lots of civilians.

Romney swung to the right on social and foreign policy issues to get the religious conservative vote. If he were actually elected, I think he'd perform about the same or better on social issues than Obama.

[Member #2041]

In 2008 Obama's class warfare thing had me scared. But I thought there were several silver linings. He would be liberal on social issues. He would improve our standing in Islamic world and he would have a more balanced relationship with Israel. And he'd extract us from Iraq quickly and spend less money on military aid to foreign countries. He did none of the above. He's the worst of both worlds. A wasteful spender who keeps government involved in every aspect of our lives. Civil liberties were arguably better under Bush than Obama. Or at least there hasn't been a lot of change. Under Bush you didn't have federal cops busting medical marijuana outfits. Bush used drones wisely while Obama doesn't give a crap if he kills lots of civilians.

Romney swung to the right on social and foreign policy issues to get the religious conservative vote. If he were actually elected, I think he'd perform about the same or better on social issues than Obama.I think it is nonsense to believe that Romney will not be so deeply indebted to the Religious Right if he actually wins, that he will not do their bidding. I take the man at his word, that what he has said in this election he supports. He actually supports. And the choice of Paul Ryan as his running mate confirmed this for me. And frankly, that is why I would never consider voting for him. Were he the same candidate who Governed Massachusetts, I could easily vote for him (pro-choice to a point, universal healthcare via a mandate that all folks carry insurance. But he has been crystal clear in disavowing every one of his "moderate" positions. And not only that, he clearly shows that his positions are not based in principle, but in getting himself elected. And in doing so, he missed any real opportunity for me to support him. Oh, and BTW, Obama DID get us out of Iraq. And Bush didn't use drones sufficiently to actually get any of the major terrorists that have planned attacks that have killed many Americans. Obama has.

[Esten]

Esten, you place too much emphasis on what the majority believes.Well, when it comes to a subject one is not an expert in (such as the economy, science, medicine, etc) , sometimes it helps to listen to what the experts say. That should at least be part of one's research when trying to learn the truth about something (doesn't mean you have to agree though).

There's an article out that a majority of economists surveyed by CNNmoney think Romney would be better for the economy. You probably won't dismiss that one.


Getting off the subject, sometimes I think you think government should rule based on polls and what the majority wants. This would be anathema to the founding fathers, who believed in personal liberty.Sure, whatever that means.

[Esten]

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 +5.4

That first check-in was 08-13-12. Since then, 3 states moved from Toss Up to Leans Obama (Wisconsin, Ohio, New Hampshire), while 1 state moved from Leans Romney to Toss Up (Missouri). Quite a shift, and Obama increased his lead in most of the remaining toss ups. This is driven largely by two things. First, a good DNC convention that got the real Democrat message out (not the Fox News distortion of the Democrat message). Second, the video where Romney dissed 47% of the population. Thanks to Jimmy Carter's grandson.... poetic justice at its sweetest. Here's the new benchmark to judge the effect of the upcoming debates.

Electoral College 10/2/2012 (realclearpolitics) (270 to win)
Obama 269
Romney 181
Toss Ups 88

Toss Up States (Electoral Votes) :
Colorado (9) Obama +3.1
Florida (29) Obama +3.0
Iowa (6) Obama +3.5
Nevada (6) Obama +5.2
North Carolina (15) ---tie---
Virginia (13) Obama +3.7
Missouri (10) Romney +5.0

[Member #4112]

Saw this on Fox, a quote from a Republican woman running for the state senate in Illinois. I believe this is the most succinct description of ObamaCare I have seen: simple, easy to understand, and to the point. Enjoy

'Now let me get this straight. We are going to be gifted with a health care plan that we are forced to purchase, and fined if we don't, ' Bellar continues, 'signed by a president who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, by a government which has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that's broke. '

[Member #2041]

Saw this on Fox, a quote from a Republican woman running for the state senate in Illinois. I believe this is the most succinct description of ObamaCare I have seen: simple, easy to understand, and to the point. Enjoy

'Now let me get this straight. We are going to be gifted with a health care plan that we are forced to purchase, and fined if we don't, ' Bellar continues, 'signed by a president who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, by a government which has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that's broke. '

She left out the following: "and which happens to be a dead ringer for the plan that Mitt Romney implemented in Massachusetts while he was the Governor of that state."

What is most interesting about Obama-care is how it was based upon the principles long espoused by Conservative Republicans, such as the Heritage Foundation, who originally developed and promoted the concept of the universal mandate as a means of insuring that one's insurance purchase decision would not be subject to moral hazard, and that this concept was implemented the same way in Obama-care as it was by Romney in Massachusetts, and which was also advocated by John McCain during the last Presidential election. But the fact that Obama put his name on it caused all of these Republicans to suddenly run away from their own ideas, simply to attempt to deny Obama any sort of victory for having been the first to implement a national healthcare program for those other than the poor and elderly.

In actual fact, the vast majority of Democrats would have preferred a plan with either the government as the single payer, or the government providing a public option for those who could not afford private insurance. But Obama went with the far LESS expansive, long time Republican-advocated solution. And the lack of popularity of that decision is a result of his NOT doing what Democrats wanted, and seeing that Republicans had no problem whatsoever in abandoning their own ideas if it meant trying to poke Obama in the eye.

[Member #4112]

Member, she did not leave anything out.

As you allege ObamaCare is 'just like' the bill in Mass, please delineate point by point how it is the same. We should have some fun here considering ObamaCare only mimics the Mass plan in that of universal coverage. Check out the increases in costs of the plan, none of the promised 'savings'.

As you allege ObamaCare parrots a Republican plan, please delineate point by point what Republican plan that might be. This should also be fun since Republicans never proposed anything like ObamaCare.

Obama did not pass the one payer plan because he could not get the votes FROM HIS OWN PARTY! To pass what has become ObamaCare the Democrats and to cut deals with other Democrats to get their vote that if such 'bargaining' had taken place outside the House & Senate it would have been patently criminal. But what is a little criminal behavior among Democrats?

By the way, not one Republican voted for it, but it passed both House and Senate, so if Obama never had a filibuster proof lock on both houses just how did it pass without a single Republican vote?

As a sidebar.

I can predict before the debates even begin, Member, Snake and Esten to name a few will delcare Obama the winner regardless how he does.

[Member #2041]

Member, she did not leave anything out.Fundamentally, her complaint was about the fact that Obama-care has a universal mandate REQUIRING her to buy insurance. As I pointed out, and you either failed to read, or ignored, that is a Republican concept. It was developed by the Heritage Foundation and implemented by Romney in Massachusetts. In that glib quote which you claimed was comprehensive and concise, she actually had no substantive complaint about the program, just the people involved - other than the Universal Mandate. Which Obama lifted from the Heritage / Romney plans.

The simple fact is, Obama chose the Republican approach to healthcare - the other approaches would all have been MORE expansive, and MORE expensive. There is simply no way to insure that we cover everyone without incurring costs.

As far as costs go, what were costs doing PRIOR to Obama's program? They were rising at triple the rate of inflation. Take away Obama-care, and again, we can expect that health-care costs will again rise at triple the rate of inflation. The fact is, you cannot claim that costs will be higher under Obama-care, on a per-insured basis, than they were on a trajectory to be without Obama-care. The only added costs for Obama-care stem from more people actually getting coverage and medical care. And that's a GOOD thing.

The only direct cost comparison I can make is for my own health-care costs. And they will be cut in half under Obama-care compared to what I experience under my HIPAA plan that I currently have. They will revert back close to the levels I was paying before I was dropped from my insurer (adjusted for the trajectory that those costs were rising annually prior to Obama-care).

The biggest myth about health-care PRIOR to Obama's program is that Americans had good health care. SOME Americans did, but over 50 Million could not get coverage at all. In actual fact, almost every American was at risk of losing their coverage if they got sick. I personally was dropped from my coverage because I was diagnosed as a Diabetic, and a couple of years later, the company I worked for went out of business. As a result, the ONLY insurance I can obtain in the marketplace prior to Obama-care's full implementation is an abysmal HIPAA plan, which is far worse than the insurance I had previously, and would have chosen to continue to have. AND, it costs 3 times what my prior group coverage cost, and had less coverage across the board. And that situation could happen to everyone prior to Obama-care. What we need is a situation where folks can't be easily dropped by their carrier simply because they get diagnosed with a chronic condition. And over 20 Million Americans, including myself, have had that happen, and can finally again get the same coverage I had and paid for before I was dropped under Obama-care.

The fact is, until you tell us what the alternative was for providing coverage for the 50 Million Americans who didn't have access to insurance PRIOR to Obama-care, any anti-Obama-care argument is absurd and irrelevant.

You seem to suggest that it was not only acceptable, but Good that any American could get dropped from their coverage simply for getting sick, or having their employment situation change. Which is, of course, ridiculous, but that was the reality prior to Obama-care.

[Member #2041]

As a sidebar.

I can predict before the debates even begin, Member, Snake and Esten to name a few will delcare Obama the winner regardless how he does.And just like nearly everything else you post on this forum, this is simply factually incorrect. I believe Romney won the debate. What remains to be seen is to what extent that matters.

[Big Boss Man]

Obama or any President is not going to win an election with 8% unemployment. It's just too big of hurdle to overcome. Romney just needs to keep bringing up the facts.

Romney is very hard to attack because he does not lay out specifics. He is not cutting military, education or medicare. Well what is it he is going to cut and what are the unintended consequences of his policies? He is keeping like I forecast the benefits of Obamacare like preexisting conditions and children covered until they are age 26. Somehow this will magically happen without the tax increase. All the benefits and none of the sacrifice.

When Obama is swinging at Romney it is like swinging at vapor. There is nothing there to hit.

I am fairly convinced Romney wins in November. I do not see how Obama turns this around after tonight's pummeling.

[Member #2041]

Obama or any President is not going to win an election with 8% unemployment. It's just too big of hurdle to overcome. Romney just needs to keep bringing up the facts.

Romney is very hard to attack because he does not lay out specifics. He is not cutting military, education or medicare. Well what is it he is going to cut and what are the unintended consequences of his policies? He is keeping like I forecast the benefits of Obamacare like preexisting conditions and children covered until they are age 26. Somehow this will magically happen without the tax increase. All the benefits and none of the sacrifice.

When Obama is swinging at Romney it is like swinging at vapor. There is nothing there to hit.

I am fairly convinced Romney wins in November. I do not see how Obama turns this around after tonight's pummeling.At the end of the day, Romney winning a debate still doesn't mean that a voter in Ohio who's job was saved by the auto bail-out will vote for Romney, who has already suggested that those workers SHOULD have lost their jobs as GM was forced into bankruptcy. Romney still can't win the election without winning Ohio. The 8% unemployment number is big, but Romney still has to establish that he'd be the President of the poor and the Middle Class who he has already dissed, and not just the wealthy.

BTW, John Kerry pummeled George W. Bush in the debates 8 years ago. Guess who won the election - because he won Ohio.

[SnakeOilSales]

Romney looked very sharp in tonight's debate (as he needed to be) and clearly "won" the debate over Obama. Obama looked very uncomfortable up there and really shot himself in the foot by not showing up to the debate fired up, prepared and ready to issue a coup d'grace to Romney. Obama stammered, misspoke, and at times appeared very unpolished and flustered. Romney, on the other hand, spoke eloquently, fluidly and kept an even keel when Obama attacked him. Had Obama outdone Romney tonight he could have sealed the deal but this (non) performance by Obama may have just given Romney a legitimate chance to change people's minds.

[Esten]

Romney did all right. But Doppelganger is correct, I do think Obama won the debate.

As another poster noted, Romney was vapor, promising all good things and not always explaining how he gets it done. He reinforced his image as a guy who will say anything to get elected. He also seemed more agitated while Obama kept his cool.

Romney doubled down on the unpopular Medicare voucher plan. Obama effectively explained how a profit-driven industry could easily make a competing Medicare go bust. Romney continued to not explain how he offsets a 20% across-the-board tax cut without hurting the middle class. Obama countered this fairly tale by noting you can't do that, increase Defense spending, and balance the budget all at the same time, it's simple math.

When it boils down to the specifics, this debate just reinforced positions that have been helping Obama. People think the Clinton years were better than the Bush years, and it's clear which approach each candidate comes closest to. Expect the Obama campaign to continue running on the substantive positions which majorities of Americans agree with.

[Member #4112]

Well it is gratifying to see a little application of Psy-Ops 101 before the debate worked on some of the liberals on the board to get an honest assessment but not all, Esten still thinks Obama won on substance after Obama had his ass handed to him most of the evening. It must be embarrassing to have to have one of the moderators come to your rescue as Romney thrashes you.

A good debate and it shows without a teleprompter Obama rambles with no real direction. This is supposed to be the smartest guy in the room? For Democrats it must have been painful to watch their guy trot out the same old tired catch phrases from 2008 which don't get any traction today and quite frankly offend most folks intelligence. Of course we can always depend on Biden to help out with the 'middle class got buried' gems. Are you Democrats sure Biden is on your side?

Looking forward to the next debate, Obama found out that just being the Prez does not cut it, rock star status does not translate well in the real world. Obama just looked bad. On the morning news shows all the Obama reps looked as if they had just swallowed a dose of castor oil while the Romney reps look like the cat that got the canary.

Really looking forward to the Biden and Ryan debate, talk about King Kong vs the smurf!

[El Alamo]

Romney looked very sharp in tonight's debate (as he needed to be) and clearly "won" the debate over Obama. Obama looked very uncomfortable up there and really shot himself in the foot by not showing up to the debate fired up, prepared and ready to issue a coup d'grace to Romney. Obama stammered, misspoke, and at times appeared very unpolished and flustered. Romney, on the other hand, spoke eloquently, fluidly and kept an even keel when Obama attacked him. Had Obama outdone Romney tonight he could have sealed the deal but this (non) performance by Obama may have just given Romney a legitimate chance to change people's minds.Wow! SOS. Good analysis.

I hate to say it but Obama has never been very good at debates. 2008 Democratic primaries or 2008 presidential debates. But there is a reason Obama does not shine in debates. I think Obama is worried that if he says what he really believes. You didn't build that. Obama will reveal his true self.

I will say, if Obama could say it like he sees it, Obama would be an effective debator. However, Obama sees the world through Karl Marx glasses, and Obama cannot let that slip. Consequently, we have Obama looking like Alfred E Newman on a bad day.

[Miami Bob]

http://factcheck.org/2012/10/dubious-denver-debate-declarations/

[Wild Walleye]

Surprisingly, the corrupt media was unable to protect their paper tiger, this time. I wouldn't count them (Obama and the State-run media) out, just yet. Jim Lehrer screwed up with both his format and his inability to talk over Romney and inability to cut Romney off, while offering Obama repeated lifelines.

What we saw last night was the metaphorical fatted-calf (Marxist-based American liberalism) being slaughtered, upon the return of the prodigal son (American virtue, descended, in part, from the Founding Documents).

Until Univision hit Obama with tough questions (about two weeks ago) , this man has never, ever faced tough questions and / or pointed attack within a forum that he (or his handlers) couldn't control or from which he couldn't be rapidly extricated. His failure last night was not due to lack of practice or having Lurch as a debate coach. Obama failed for two very simple reasons: 1) it is extremely difficult to defend abject failure (no matter how good you are with the TV camera) and 2) he is completely out of touch with the facts (as was clearly evident with his fact-less ramblings, last night). The first item is self explanatory: gas prices have doubled, economy has eroded, there are fewer people in the work force than anytime in the last 50 years, healthcare costs have gone up and during a time of economic crisis this president has given trillions of dollars to his cronies and political supporters (need I continue?). The latter (being out of touch with the facts) has more complex roots that have a direct causal relationship to the aforementioned catastrophic failure of his first and hopefully only, term.

Obama is a troglodyte, living in an ideological cave into which no intellectual light ever shines. All of his decisions (the ones Valarie Jarret doesn't make for him) occur within the limited context of an indoctrinated Marxist. So you have someone who is living in a made up world completely detached from the real world practicing and espousing a philosophy that is also made up and is divorced from reality. This is extremely difficult for the human brain to perpetuate on its own because all of the "truisms" and "trans-formative events" of one's existence are made up and are incorporated into one's mind through rote memorization as opposed to becoming intrinsically part of one's being through experiential learning. The problem for someone like Obama is running into someone who has the truth on his side, in a relatively ideologically neutral environment. You see, once you have told so many lies, it is nearly impossible to remember exactly what your version of the "truth" is.

The false narrative that has been playing in the press (I. E. Romney's campaign is failing, Obama has it in the bag, etc) are just a continuation of the practices that have allowed this completely unqualified buffoon to occupy the most important, secular position on earth. While it appears that some of the varnish is finally coming off, allowing the viewer to see the cheap scrap wood hidden under the finish, that too is part of the false narrative of the press. The American people started to see the error of their ways, shortly after selecting this moron to further destroy the economy. The monumental awakening that occurred last night was not that of the American people, finally seeing past the flimsy veneer, it was the forcible enlightening to the media that not only does the emperor have no clothes but also, a plurality of Americans have known it, for some time.

It is way too early to call this race. Unfortunately, there is time, motive and opportunity for Obama and his minions to foist an October surprise (my money is on bombing aspirin factories in Libya but, it could be any number of things) on us. There already are plenty of signs of the old Democrat-voter-fraud-machine working in high gear: military absentee ballots are down something like 80% from '08 (which I highly doubt is due to a lack of interest on behalf of the military) and legally instituted voter I'd laws are being cast aside by unelected, unprincipled folks.

However, I have to hold out the hope that the electorate can properly see the stark differences between the paths and chose the one that is uniquely American and reject the one rooted in Marxism, racism and class warfare.

[Rev BS]

Surprisingly, the corrupt media was unable to protect their paper tiger, this time. I wouldn't count them (Obama and the State-run media) out, just yet. Jim Lehrer screwed up with both his format and his inability to talk over Romney and inability to cut Romney off, while offering Obama repeated lifelines.

What we saw last night was the metaphorical fatted-calf (Marxist-based American liberalism) being slaughtered, upon the return of the prodigal son (American virtue, descended, in part, from the Founding Documents).

Until Univision hit Obama with tough questions (about two weeks ago) , this man has never, ever faced tough questions and / or pointed attack within a forum that he (or his handlers) couldn't control or from which he couldn't be rapidly extricated. His failure last night was not due to lack of practice or having Lurch as a debate coach. Obama failed for two very simple reasons: 1) it is extremely difficult to defend abject failure (no matter how good you are with the TV camera) and 2) he is completely out of touch with the facts (as was clearly evident with his fact-less ramblings, last night). The first item is self explanatory: gas prices have doubled, economy has eroded, there are fewer people in the work force than anytime in the last 50 years, healthcare costs have gone up and during a time of economic crisis this president has given trillions of dollars to his cronies and political supporters (need I continue?). The latter (being out of touch with the facts) has more complex roots that have a direct causal relationship to the aforementioned catastrophic failure of his first and hopefully only, term.

Obama is a troglodyte, living in an ideological cave into which no intellectual light ever shines. All of his decisions (the ones Valarie Jarret doesn't make for him) occur within the limited context of an indoctrinated Marxist. So you have someone who is living in a made up world completely detached from the real world practicing and espousing a philosophy that is also made up and is divorced from reality. This is extremely difficult for the human brain to perpetuate on its own because all of the "truisms" and "trans-formative events" of one's existence are made up and are incorporated into one's mind through rote memorization as opposed to becoming intrinsically part of one's being through experiential learning. The problem for someone like Obama is running into someone who has the truth on his side, in a relatively ideologically neutral environment. You see, once you have told so many lies, it is nearly impossible to remember exactly what your version of the "truth" is.

The false narrative that has been playing in the press (I. E. Romney's campaign is failing, Obama has it in the bag, etc) are just a continuation of the practices that have allowed this completely unqualified buffoon to occupy the most important, secular position on earth. While it appears that some of the varnish is finally coming off, allowing the viewer to see the cheap scrap wood hidden under the finish, that too is part of the false narrative of the press. The American people started to see the error of their ways, shortly after selecting this moron to further destroy the economy. The monumental awakening that occurred last night was not that of the American people, finally seeing past the flimsy veneer, it was the forcible enlightening to the media that not only does the emperor have no clothes but also, a plurality of Americans have known it, for some time.

It is way too early to call this race. Unfortunately, there is time, motive and opportunity for Obama and his minions to foist an October surprise (my money is on bombing aspirin factories in Libya but, it could be any number of things) on us. There already are plenty of signs of the old Democrat-voter-fraud-machine working in high gear: military absentee ballots are down something like 80% from '08 (which I highly doubt is due to a lack of interest on behalf of the military) and legally instituted voter I'd laws are being cast aside by unelected, unprincipled folks.

However, I have to hold out the hope that the electorate can properly see the stark differences between the paths and chose the one that is uniquely American and reject the one rooted in Marxism, racism and class warfare.Break it down for us simple folks, my head is spinning. (3 smiles)

[El Alamo]

"Trickle down government" that about says it all. Explains why we are all hurting. Government is not the answer to our problems. Government is the problem.

[Wild Walleye]

Break it down for us simple folks, my head is spinning. (3 smiles)The crib notes are that last night:

1. Obama was alone, armed only with his record and what he knows and believes. Therefore, he was defenseless.

2. Objectively, there is nothing about Obama or his record as president that can be truthfully pitched as proven success (if you disagree, don't bother with talking points, be specific with the perceived achievements).

3. In the absence of any shred of proof that anything Obama has done has helped the US economy, voters are left to scratch their heads. When he can't specify one success on the economic front, the voters get pucker factor.

4. Romney, to his credit (I've never been a Romney supporter, until he got the nomination) has some balls. He went after Obama on his failures. In contrast, McCain was afraid to even pronounce his name for fear of offending someone.

5. The people who were surprised by last night's performance were the those on the left and others who believed the media about who Romney is.

6. When Romney had the opportunity to disintermediate (I. E. Remove the middleman) his relationship with the public, the public, overwhelmingly found him to be likeable and competent (a stark contrast to the other guy on the stage).

[Wild Walleye]

`Trickle down government` that about says it all. Explains why we are all hurting. Government is not the answer to our problems. Government is the problem.I thought "trickle-down government" was a keeper as was "You pick the losers."

Romney and his advisers took a page out of Ross Perot's campaign manual: keep it simple and when possible draw a picture. Since Romney didn't have a whiteboard, he had to find one or two opportunities to create a mental picture. The oil "subsidies" were a juicy hanging curve ball, out over the plate. Romney crushed it with the mental illustration (see how I did that?) of how the handouts pissed away to Obama's contributors under the guise of "green energy" were the equivalent to 50 years of the oil "subsidies."

I love the post-debate coverage with geniuses like Stephanopolis were calling it a draw and saying that no one landed a knock-out punch. While the latter may be true (no knock-out punch) , Romney was able to land jabs and crosses, at will. Had it been a fight, the referee would have called it less than half way through.

[SnakeOilSales]

2. Objectively, there is nothing about Obama or his record as president that can be truthfully pitched as proven success (if you disagree, don't bother with talking points, be specific with the perceived achievements).

.1. Auto Bailouts.

2. Killed OBL.

3. Drone campaign against Al-Qaeda

4. Ended the "black hole" war in Iraq

[Member #2041]

1. Auto Bailouts.

2. Killed OBL.

3. Drone campaign against Al-Qaeda

4. Ended the "black hole" war in IraqI must add some more:

Ended Qaddafi reign in Libya without a single American combat troop loss.

Successfully ended Don't Ask, Don't Tell and established equal rights in the Military.

Got most of the TARP funds disbursed under the Bush / Paulson regime repaid to the Treasury, and restored a functioning banking system.

Stimulus Prevented the next Great Depression from happening, and restored over 75% of American Wealth lost from 2006-2008.

Established first ever universal healthcare program in the USA . It's a fact, if you could not obtain insurance before, this is a HUGE breakthrough and will likely save hundreds of thousands of American lives annually by insuring all Americans can get their illnesses treated.

[Matt Psyche]

Libyan people, rather than Obama or the US gov, ended the Qaddafi regime. For the universal halthcare, it is premature to make assessment of the positive and negative impact. We must see if the whole medical cost will decline or not (market competition vs economy of scale argument) and if the number of sick people will increase since they worry less about medical cost, as conservatives project.


I must add some more:

Ended Qaddafi reign in Libya without a single American combat troop loss.

Established first ever universal healthcare program in the USA. It's a fact, if you could not obtain insurance before, this is a HUGE breakthrough and will likely save hundreds of thousands of American lives annually by insuring all Americans can get their illnesses treated.

[Matt Psyche]

Stop supporting the Republican Party, which wants to maintain and control the government, and start advocating for an anarchist society without government?

[QUOTE=El Alamo; 427214Government is the problem.[/QUOTE]

[Esten]

Interesting, most commentary about the debate seems to focus on style. Romney was said to be more forceful and energetic. Obama too reserved and polite (or worse names from some). Obama looked down too much, etc. A little silly to me. I don't like a salesman pitch, I like someone who appeals to my reason and intelligence. Obama beat Romney on this count, but it seems many Americans (including some liberals) put a lot of value on style, they want to see a fight. Ehhhh, I'm influenced much more by policy and character.

I noticed a lot of right wing aggression and chest-thumping. Trying to kick Obama to the curb with lies and smears. Rather ugly, but that's nothing new. It's the same type of arrogance that gives Americans a bad name abroad. I guess they needed a release, after the trouncing Romney has had in the polls.

Now that Mitt Romney is proclaimed a strong candidate by his party, if he loses, his failure will be explained differently. We won't be able to say it was because Republicans didn't have a good candidate. The only explanation will be that Americans rejected the Republican message. This temporary focus on style will shift back to substance (policy), in fact it already started today. And this is where Republicans struggle. It is indeed too early to proclaim a winner. But if Romney loses now, people will be talking about Laura Ingraham's advice to "shut down the Republican Party". It will be ugly.

[Wild Walleye]

1. Auto Bailouts.I said positive, not brazen, extraconstitutional national appropriation of private property.


2. Killed OBL.Obama had as much to do with killing Bin Laden as did George Bush. Your point?


3. Drone campaign against Al-QaedaKilling people, completely devoid of legal finding, is now a liberal call to arms?


4. Ended the "black hole" war in IraqWhat? I think that the heat is getting to you. Nice try, though.

[WorldTravel69]

I will omit that Romney had better Lies. Romney gained one percent overall.

In other words the small 47% people, Know Where O'Romney came from.

What is the name of his Planet? Should have been "Rich Man Only"

I bet you do not know, where his after life will be?

P. S. Russ LimtDick said the Obama's grades were C's, in Harvard, but the school gave him A's.

Gee, there must have been a Lot of Black Professors to do That?

[Wild Walleye]

I must add some more:

Ended Qaddafi reign in Libya without a single American combat troop loss.I don't think that team-O-loser wants to highlight their "successes" in Libya, right now.


Successfully ended Don't Ask, Don't Tell and established equal rights in the Military.Honestly? With all due respect to those that bat for the other, or both teams, the gay population of the US is well below 10% and less than 1% of the US population is in the military. So 100% of the country is suffering and Obama is doing what?


Got most of the TARP funds disbursed under the Bush / Paulson regime repaid to the Treasury, and restored a functioning banking system.TARP had president elect Obama's fingerprints all over it. Any illusion of the US tax payer getting repaid for TARP and / or stimulus is pure fantasy.


Stimulus Prevented the next Great Depression from happening, and restored over 75% of American Wealth lost from 2006-2008.Your figures on the restoration of wealth are perplexing. As for preventing the next great depression, I am not certain how giving $2T to cronies and supporters of of the president saved us from anything.


Established first ever universal healthcare program in the USA .I really heard Obama banging the Obamacare drum last night.


It's a fact, if you could not obtain insurance before, this is a HUGE breakthrough and will likely save hundreds of thousands of American lives annually by insuring all Americans can get their illnesses treated.Poppycock. You can say whatever you want as often as you like, it still won't make it true. I have never had a problem getting insurance individually or as a family, with loads of preexisting conditions. Even if you weren't completely off base, how many people do you think that this would help? Consider that up to 50 million Americans may lose their health insurance due to Obamacare. Just like the $90B pissed away on Obama's cronies in the "green energy business" it appears that the left is willing to err to the extent of 50X, in order to help a few. If you don't think that is anti-American, well.

[Wild Walleye]

P. S. Russ LimtDick said the Obama's grades were C's, in Harvard, but the school gave him A's.

Gee, there must have been a Lot of Black Professors to do That?I will never say a word in anger towards WT (considering the ear-to-ear sh*t-eating-grins he has enabled) , however, I would like to point out there is very little chance that racial preference played no role in getting a black stoner from Occidental to Columbia and then on the Harvard.

In every room he enters, Obama is the least qualified person present.

[David_33]

I have the feeling that the first debate was Obama doing a "rope a dope" and that Toymann will still be paying my night at Madahos.

[Wild Walleye]

I have the feeling that the first debate was Obama doing a "rope a dope" and that Toymann will still be paying my night at Madahos.One can't execute the rope-a-dope, if one lacks all forms of substance.

You can keep whacking off to that Farah Faucet poster but, I don't think that she is going to knock on your door, anytime soon.

[WorldTravel69]

In what Country did your family escape from.

Where is your Birth Certificate?

Check the Sailing List, was your relatives on Board?

Or did your family get into the USA Like Romney's Dad Did? Illegally?

http://www.maritimeheritage.org/

[WorldTravel69]

Sounds You Are Loaded!


I will never say a word in anger towards WT (considering the ear-to-ear sh*t-eating-grins he has enabled) , however, I would like to point out there is very little chance that racial preference played no role in getting a black stoner from Occidental to Columbia and then on the Harvard.

In every room he enters, Obama is the least qualified person present.

[Tiny12]

Or did your family get into the USA Like Romney's Dad Did? Illegally?

http://www.maritimeheritage.org/Yeah, right, and Obama was born in Kenya too.

[SnakeOilSales]

I said positive, not brazen, extraconstitutional national appropriation of private property.

Obama had as much to do with killing Bin Laden as did George Bush. Your point?

Killing people, completely devoid of legal finding, is now a liberal call to arms?

What? I think that the heat is getting to you. Nice try, though.I guarantee you that the vast majority of registered voters in the United States agree that the accomplishments I credited to Obama are in fact successes. How many registered voters do you honestly believe would have preferred GM and Chrysler to be liquidated, US soldiers to still be getting slaughtered in a hopeless war in Iraq, and various dangerous Al-Qaeda figures including OBL to still be alive? The OBL killing came under Obama's command and Obama made the call to go forward with the operation; George Bush never came close to even locating OBL during his two terms of mis-administration.

[Member #2041]

Obama had as much to do with killing Bin Laden as did George Bush. Your point?Amongst the lies and nonsensical steaming piles of bullshit that the right wing has attempted to foist on the American public, this is the largest and stinkiest of all.

I wonder if the poster is even genuinely stupid enough to believe it, rather than simply being disingenuous. But in actual fact, Bush thoroughly de-emphasized this mission, and Obama re-emphasized it, and had the guts to make the call to go forward, against the advice of several senior advisors, including Gates and Biden.

[Member #2041]

I will never say a word in anger towards WT (considering the ear-to-ear sh*t-eating-grins he has enabled) , however, I would like to point out there is very little chance that racial preference played no role in getting a black stoner from Occidental to Columbia and then on the Harvard.

In every room he enters, Obama is the least qualified person present.Nobody who has ever not been qualified has become the President of the Harvard Law Review. I find it amusing that Wild Walleye is passing judgment upon the qualifications of someone who is quite obviously VASTLY more intelligent and vastly more accomplished than Wild Walleye is.

Affirmative action might have gotten Obama into Columbia, but from that point on, he achieved academic honors at Columbia, and becoming President of Harvard Law Review speaks for itself as an earned accomplishment for all but the most obtuse and denial-ridden amongst us. Oh, then he wrote two best-selling books, and got elected to Congress, the Senate, and the Presidency. They don't have affirmative action for those things.

[Rev BS]

"Trickle down government" that about says it all. Explains why we are all hurting. Government is not the answer to our problems. Government is the problem.That was quick, don't you have anything better to do? I don't believe you or I are hurting at all. We are the ones who is better off than 4 years ago. My mutual funds have made a comeback I could never dreamed of. But it still hurts to pay $3-4 at Starbucks! And why is there a tip box at every damn counter? Worse, it has spread all over the world.

Govenment is not really the problem, just BAD govenment.

[El Alamo]

I have heard all the excuses: Obama had an off night, Obama was playing rope a dope, Obama was preoccupied because he had not attended a national security meeting in 3 years. Let's face it. That was as good as Obama gets. Exactly in line with his performances in the 2008 Democratic primary debates and the 2008 presidential debates.

I will go a step farther. If Obama had debated McCain Wednesday night, his preformance would not have raised eyebrows. In fact, the media would have called Obama the winner. Unfortuneately for Obama, Romney was Obama´s opponent and comparing Obama aka Pee Wee Herman, Alfred E Newmann to Romney aka Babe Ruth, Jimmy Fox, Lou Gehrig is ludicrous.

Lets face facts. Obama is a fraud, a fake, a huckster and an intellectual midget. The only people more naive and shallow than Obama are the pathetic losers who cannot see Obama for what he is. A fake and a fraud and above all, dime store huckster.

[Jackson]

Affirmative action might have gotten Obama into Columbia, but from that point on, he achieved academic honors at Columbia, and becoming President of Harvard Law Review speaks for itself as an earned accomplishment for all but the most obtuse and denial-ridden amongst us.I guess we'll never really know exactly how academically accomplished Obama really is because...

1. Occidental College records - SEALED
2. Columbia college records - SEALED
3. Columbia thesis paper - SEALED
4. Harvard college records - SEALED
5. Selective Service registration - SEALED
6. Medical records - SEALED
7. Illinois state senate schedule - SEALED
8. Illinois state senate records - SEALED
9. Law practice client list - SEALED
10. Certified copy of original birth certificate - SEALED
11. Signed, embossed paper certification of live birth - SEALED
12. Baptism record - SEALED

...and why is it that we've never heard from anybody who remembers Obama from his college days?

Thanks,

Jackson

[Wild Walleye]

I guarantee you that the vast majority of registered voters in the United States agree that the accomplishments I credited to Obama are in fact successes. How many registered voters do you honestly believe would have preferred GM and Chrysler to be liquidated,Anyone dim enough to think that a company with $147B in LTM revenues and sitting on $13B in cash is going to be liquidated as opposed to reorganized is dim enough to believe that Romney is planning to cut taxes for the rich to the tune of $5T (or 5 times the total individual tax revenues collected by the govt for the year 2011). If Romney cut 100% of the taxes paid by the "rich" (top 1%) , it would take 13 years for that to amount to $5T. Obama is like an insolent child spewing BS on the playground.


US soldiers to still be getting slaughtered in a hopeless war in Iraq, and various dangerous Al-Qaeda figures including OBL to still be alive? The OBL killing came under Obama's command and Obama made the call to go forward with the operation; George Bush never came close to even locating OBL during his two terms of mis-administration.If you check the record, I commended Obama for going through with the strike to take out OBL. If you think anyone in that position could chose a different decision, I am all ears (as opposed to just having big dumbo-ears).

[Wild Walleye]

Amongst the lies and nonsensical steaming piles of bullshit that the right wing has attempted to foist on the American public, this is the largest and stinkiest of all.

I wonder if the poster is even genuinely stupid enough to believe it, rather than simply being disingenuous. But in actual fact, Bush thoroughly de-emphasized this mission, and Obama re-emphasized it, and had the guts to make the call to go forward, against the advice of several senior advisors, including Gates and Biden.See prior post (hint: "prior" means preceding).

[Wild Walleye]

Nobody who has ever not been qualified has become the President of the Harvard Law Review.Upon what, do you base that ridiculous statement? Maybe you could restate it in English.


I find it amusing that Wild Walleye is passing judgment upon the qualifications of someone who is quite obviously VASTLY more intelligent and vastly more accomplished than Wild Walleye is.I can assure you that my academic achievements equal, if not surpass, those of our glorious leader. I managed to graduate from excellent schools in spite of being discriminated against (for admissions) , due to the color of my skin and geographic proximity of my birthplace.


Affirmative action might have gotten Obama into Columbia, but from that point on, he achieved academic honors at Columbia, and becoming President of Harvard Law Review speaks for itself as an earned accomplishment for all but the most obtuse and denial-ridden amongst us.I doubt you had similar comments to make about GWB getting his MBA at Harvard. All but the most obtuse understand when you are talking out of both sides of your mouth.


Oh, then he wrote two best-selling books,Not sure how much "writing" he did. As it turns out, the books, allegedly authored by Obama, were misidentified as nonfiction.


and got elected to Congress, the Senate, and the Presidency.Running unopposed in all three (when you take into consideration how weak a candidate McCain was).


They don't have affirmative action for those things.How's the Cool Aid, this morning? Do you really think that Obama hasn't received preferential treatment in part due to his race, over the past four years? Have you picked up a newspaper, recently?

[Wild Walleye]

Sounds You Are Loaded!Do you mean to say that I needed to be drunk to think that Obama received preferential treatment or drunk to state it publicly?

To ignore the history of racial preferences in the USA is to ignore the facts. I have never faulted Obama, or anyone else for that matter, for availing himself of the opportunities that were available to him. In fact, I have stated that exact sentiment many times. I also do not feel that the fact that someone gained an educational advantage over others, based upon racial discrimination, diminishes their ultimate accomplishments. However, it is intellectually dishonest and disingenuous to tout one's achievements on an apples-to-apples basis when one has been held to a different standard.

As far as Obama being a pot-smoking slacker, that is the self portrait he drew in one of the books that he allegedly authored.

Just for the record, believing and/or stating that Obama received preferential treatment, in part due to his race, is no different from the claims that GWB received preferential treatment because of who his daddy is.

When I was accepted by the institution (truck driving academy), where I did most of my undergraduate work (except the time I spent studying at an old, stuffy place on the banks for the Charles River), it was a well known fact that white, American-born males had to have better SAT scores and transcripts than did folks that were not white, American-born males. That is just the way it was. There wasn't anything that I could have done about it (life isn't always fair), so I accepted it and moved on. I probably haven't thought about it more than a couple times over the past 25 years.

[WorldTravel69]

I guess they opened them for Russ. Because he says he knows what Obama grades were.


I guess we'll never really know exactly how academically accomplished Obama really is because.

1. Occidental College records. SEALED.

2. Columbia college records. SEALED.

3. Columbia thesis paper. SEALED.

4. Harvard college records. SEALED.

5. Selective Service registration. SEALED.

6. Medical records. SEALED.

7. Illinois state senate schedule. SEALED.

8. Illinois state senate records. SEALED.

9. Law practice client list. SEALED.

10. Certified copy of original birth certificate. SEALED.

11. Signed, embossed paper certification of live birth. SEALED.

12. Baptism record. SEALED.

And why is it that we've never heard from anybody who remembers Obama from his college days?

Thanks,

Jackson

[Tiny12]

I find it amusing that Wild Walleye is passing judgment upon the qualifications of someone who is quite obviously VASTLY more intelligent and vastly more accomplished than Wild Walleye is.Hitler, Stalin, Jimmy Carter and Warren Harding were all intelligent and accomplished in their own special ways. I'd vote for Walleye over Obama anyday. Actually, I might just do that. I was debating between Romney and Gary Johnson, but maybe I'll do a write-in instead. Wild Walleye for President!

[El Alamo]

I guess they opened them for Russ. Because he says he knows what Obama grades were.I have been telling you for months what Obama's grades were. Acumulative 1. 57 GPA with numerous stents on academic probation for lack of academic achievment (read lack of intelligence)

And the biggest hoax is that Obama claims he was cumma sum laude or some similar nonsense at Harvard. The best thing Obama's professors could say about Obama at Harvard was that when Obama quit selling drugs and quit using drugs Obama was able to raise his academic standard to D level.

Wow! I always thought I was just lucky. Now I get it. I wasn't lucky. I made my money off the stupidity of others. And in this world there is nobody as stupid as an Obama supporter. It takes an unique and total lack of intelligence to fall for a transpàrent fraude, fake and huckster such as Obama.

[Member #2041]

Upon what, do you base that ridiculous statement? Maybe you could restate it in English.

That was English, although I might concede that it was English beyond your level of comprehension. Sorry, I can't do much about that.




I can assure you that my academic achievements equal, if not surpass, those of our glorious leader. I managed to graduate from excellent schools in spite of being discriminated against (for admissions) , due to the color of my skin and geographic proximity of my birthplace.

I doubt you had similar comments to make about GWB getting his MBA at Harvard. All but the most obtuse understand when you are talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Not sure how much "writing" he did. As it turns out, the books, allegedly authored by Obama, were misidentified as nonfiction.

Running unopposed in all three (when you take into consideration how weak a candidate McCain was).

How's the Cool Aid, this morning? Do you really think that Obama hasn't received preferential treatment in part due to his race, over the past four years? Have you picked up a newspaper, recently?As I said, I acknowledge that Obama likely got into Columbia via affirmative action. But he then did earn academic honors at Columbia. Even rich white folks who earn academic honors at Columbia can likely get into Harvard Law on that credential. That being said, unless they are damn accomplished in their studies once they get there, they don't become President of Harvard Law Review.

Getting into Harvard's MBA program is roughly 2-3 orders of magnitude lesser of an exclusive accomplishment than getting appointed President of Harvard Law Review. Even for someone who probably earned it like Mitt Romney (as opposed to legacy entrees like Dubya). I personally got into Harvard's MBA program, without a rich legacy entree that G. W. Bush had, although I personally chose to attend a more quantitatively rigorous program, one in which I doubt that Dubya could have handled the higher level math.

[Member #2041]

I have been telling you for months what Obama's grades were. Acumulative 1. 57 GPA with numerous stents on academic probation for lack of academic achievment (read lack of intelligence)

And the biggest hoax is that Obama claims he was cumma sum laude or some similar nonsense at Harvard. The best thing Obama's professors could say about Obama at Harvard was that when Obama quit selling drugs and quit using drugs Obama was able to raise his academic standard to D level.

Wow! I always thought I was just lucky. Now I get it. I wasn't lucky. I made my money off the stupidity of others. And in this world there is nobody as stupid as an Obama supporter. It takes an unique and total lack of intelligence to fall for a transpàrent fraude, fake and huckster such as Obama.The fact is, Columbia University lists Obama as having graduated with academic honors. I never heard Obama claim anything of the kind with respect to Harvard, but the Law Review officers are chosen by a combination of their academic standing and a vote of their peers in their class. One needs to be academically accomplished amongst their peers within Harvard Law School, as well as have superior interpersonal skills to be selected as the President of the Law Review.

[Member #2041]

I have been telling you for months what Obama's grades were. Acumulative 1. 57 GPA with numerous stents on academic probation for lack of academic achievment (read lack of intelligence)

And the biggest hoax is that Obama claims he was cumma sum laude or some similar nonsense at Harvard. The best thing Obama's professors could say about Obama at Harvard was that when Obama quit selling drugs and quit using drugs Obama was able to raise his academic standard to D level.

Wow! I always thought I was just lucky. Now I get it. I wasn't lucky. I made my money off the stupidity of others. And in this world there is nobody as stupid as an Obama supporter. It takes an unique and total lack of intelligence to fall for a transpàrent fraude, fake and huckster such as Obama.Either your tin foil hat is on too tight, or you must be a buyer and heavy consumer of hallucinogens. In either case, you have my pity.

As an aside, you right wingers might find that people respected you and your arguments quite a bit more if you weren't coming from some sort of alternative reality that is complete and ridiculous fiction:

To wit: Try to actually make your case on the merits - there certainly IS a legitimate case to be made about the relative economic merits of Obama's programs compared to Romney's - although for sure, the more Romney shies away from specifics, the harder it is to make that case. If you wish to claim there are better approaches to foreign policy, go ahead and make them.

But, claiming stupid batshit crazy stuff, like Obama is a Kenyan, Obama is a Muslim, Obama is a Marxist, Obama didn't legitimately get his degrees from Columbia and Harvard, Obama didn't have anything more to do with our taking out Osama bin Laden than George W. Bush did, simply removes any credibility whatsoever from the person making those absurd claims, and anyone serious will dismiss your argument out of hand, and rightfully conclude that you cannot be considered even as a reasonable person with whom to have a dialog on the issues.

[Esten]

I guess we'll never really know exactly how academically accomplished Obama really is because...

1. Occidental College records. SEALED.
2. Columbia college records. SEALED.
3. Columbia thesis paper. SEALED.
4. Harvard college records. SEALED.
5. Selective Service registration. SEALED.
6. Medical records. SEALED.
7. Illinois state senate schedule. SEALED.
8. Illinois state senate records. SEALED.
9. Law practice client list. SEALED.
10. Certified copy of original birth certificate. SEALED.
11. Signed, embossed paper certification of live birth. SEALED.
12. Baptism record. SEALEDAfter Romney's great acting performance, don't you have any better arguments against Obama than reviving conspiracy theories about his past?


...and why is it that we've never heard from anybody who remembers Obama from his college days?They are out there, despite what Fox News may have reported. Here's one, google Carol Platt Liebau, she's a political analyst and commentator, who was at Harvard at the same time.

[Rev BS]

. I made my money off the stupidity of others. And in this world there is nobody as stupid as an Obama supporter. It takes an unique and total lack of intelligence to fall for a transpàrent fraude, fake and huckster such as Obama.Or is it a trade secret? I could use some extra income. As you know, life is a painful and longsuffering journey. Even just crossing the road is difficult and dangerous, never mind about Wall Street.

Let me guess, you are a bookie.

[El Alamo]

Or is it a trade secret? I could use some extra income. As you know, life is a painful and longsuffering journey. Even just crossing the road is difficult and dangerous, never mind about Wall Street.

Let me guess, you are a bookie.Well, Black Shirt, as you know, investing is more or less blind luck. However, it helps to have enough intelligence to stay away from investments such as electric forks, Solyndra etc..

The litmus test for the minimum intelligence needed to avoid investing in electric forks and Solyndra is whether or not you can detect BS when you see and hear BS. The simplest test for this is to ask yourself: Does Obama look and sound like a fake, fraud and huckster? If your answer is yes, you have the minimal intelligence for successful investing. If your answer is no, you will probably lose all your money investing in electric forks and Solyndra.

As you can see, Obama is not only a fake, fraud and huckster. Obama believes his own BS. He invested our money in solyndra and left us with the tab. Time to cut in two the credit card we gave Obama and return Obama to his true calling : Dealing drugs

[Member #4112]

Sorry for being a little behind the curve on responding to the GM / Chrysler 'Obama-ruptcy' filings but perhaps you should look up from all the Liberal B / S and see reality.

1. Neither GM nor Chrysler truly entered bankruptcy but instead received 'Obama-ruptcy' which violated the Chapter 13 Federal Bankruptcy statute. At no time did either company contemplate filing Chapter 7 for liquidation of the companies.

2. Obama was not about to permit either GM or Chrysler to enter into the normal Chapter 13 Bankruptcy process. Why? Should those companies have enter into Chapter 13 proceedings their LABOR CONTRACTS would most likely have been voided by the court and Obama could not permit his most ardent supports, unions and the UAW in specific, to have to renegotiate their wage and benefit packages.

3. What Obama-ruptcy did was to strip equity ownership from the legal owners and transfer a portion of it to the UAW while keeping their wage and benefit packages safe from total renegotiation.

There is no proof what so ever the Stimulus passed by Obama and the Democrats 'rescued' the economy from a second 'Great Depression' as Democrats would have us believe. The Stimulus was so effective our workforce participation rate is the lowest in over 30 years; more people are on welfare and food stamps than 4 years ago. Then magically somehow our unemployment rate falls while the economy, three years after the Official End of the Recession, chugs along at an enigmatic 1. 9% growth in GDP which is not enough to produce sufficient jobs for those entering the job market for the first time.

Even liberal economists are questioning the new 7. 8% unemployment rate when fewer jobs were produced in September than August, and fewer jobs in August than July, and the rate goes DOWN. Could there really be 800, 000 people who suddenly started their own home / self-employed businesses in September – more than all the jobs produced the entire year and right after the debacle of the debates?

There is one thing I have noticed, for the last several months' government agencies have been trumpeting economic activity figures then a few weeks later very quietly revise them downward, in some cases significantly.

And for the closing shot at our liberal friends;

I heard Obama's prepared weekly address and he sounded strong and confident, like the Obama of old. But of course he had his old friend T0TUS with him. You know Teleprompter Of The United States.

While I am sure he will study harder for the next debate and not find it such a 'drag' as he did before, his words not mine. He will still be only half a man without his beloved TOTUS at his side, having to face someone who does not drink the Kool Aid, hits hard and keeps coming back to uncomfortable realities instead of the drooling true believers from his rallies.

Have you noticed his rallies are getting smaller and smaller?

[WorldTravel69]

You are Wrong.

American Car Industries are on Top.

Romney said to file bankruptcy.

He is two Faced full of Lies.

[WorldTravel69]

He can not remember day to day what he said.

Too Bad.

http://www.alz.org/alzheimers_disease_10_signs_of_alzheimers.asp

[Member #4112]

GM and Chrysler should have been allowed to follow normal Chapter 13 REORGANIZATION and not 'Obama-ruptcy'. No other company has been given such a pass, but I guess if you are in the Prez's corner Federal Law does not apply to you, I. E. Dept of Justice and Dept of Homeland Security.

Well WT69, I see you have reverted to the same tactic as your idol, Obama. When you can not win the argument on merit U-turn to name calling and personal attacks. After having his ass handed to him on October 3rd it's all Obama has left, name calling and personal attacks. What happened to HOPE & CHANGE?

[Rev BS]

WILD WALLEYE: I ask for a blonde.

ROMNEY: I was a blonde yesterday. If it helps, I'm still a blonde downstairs.

JACKSON: What do you mean you don't do BBJs?

ROMNEY: It hurts, I have some cold sores at the moment.

WT69: What do you mean you don't take foodstamps!

ROMNEY: Is that a real or fake Rolex. No matter, I'll take it.

TOYMANN: Jeepers! Who do you take me for, you trash! My dick is too good for you.

ROMNEY: I only ask you to pay up front, sir. You don't have to be President Menem. And your hair is too oily.

ESTEN: Hey, I am not stupid, that is not the body I saw in the picture.

ROMNEY: Not to worry, I can make you a happy man! Just close your eyes.

Enough of possible scenerios! That was Romney in the debate. So many switches, so many possibles. It was enough to make Obama speechless. I hope Michelle give him a few slaps!

[Chicago Guy]

"The aircraft was large, modern and considered among the world's safest. But that night it was flying straight into a huge thunderstorm. Turbulence was extreme, and airspeed indicators may not have been functioning properly. Worse, the pilots were incompetent. As the plane threatened to stall they panicked by pointing the nose up, losing speed when they ought to have done the opposite. It was all over in minutes.

Was this the fate of Flight 447, the Air France jet that plunged mysteriously into the Atlantic a couple of years ago? Could be. What I'm talking about here is the Obama presidency."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904140604576495932704234052.html

[Wild Walleye]

I guess we'll never really know exactly how academically accomplished Obama really is because.

12. Baptism record. SEALED.

JacksonI didn't realize Muslims practiced baptism, too*

*Keep it in your pants, I am making a joke.

[Wild Walleye]

That was English, although I might concede that it was English beyond your level of comprehension. Sorry, I can't do much about that.
Nobody who has ever not been qualified has become the President of the Harvard Law Review.I'll concede that the words appear to be English. I guess you have to go to a special program to learn to write like that and to employ the double negative so deftly.


As I said, I acknowledge that Obama likely got into Columbia via affirmative action. But he then did earn academic honors at Columbia. Even rich white folks who earn academic honors at Columbia can likely get into Harvard Law on that credential. That being said, unless they are damn accomplished in their studies once they get there, they don't become President of Harvard Law Review.When you get a chance, maybe you could post the details of the HLR's process for selection of its president. Oh wait, it's a subjective process. Therefore, anyone can be selected, for this role at an institution that has nearly broken its back bending over backwards to show that how racially aware and sympathetic they are. Of course they would never advance someone based upon anything other than merit even if by doing so they would have additional proof of their "greatness." I mean, did any of the other prestigious law schools have someone claiming to be from Africa as president of their reviews?


Getting into Harvard's MBA program is roughly 2-3 orders of magnitude lesser of an exclusive accomplishment than getting appointed President of Harvard Law Review.Excellent point. Are you also aware of the fact that red and green are different colors?


Even for someone who probably earned it like Mitt Romney (as opposed to legacy entrees like Dubya).W was a legacy at Yale, not HBS.


I personally got into Harvard's MBA program,Congrats, I just can't understand why someone would bother applying to a business school that doesn't excel at finance. It just seems counter intuitive. I already knew how to party and socialize so, I was looking for a little more substance than HBS could offer.


without a rich legacy entree that G. W. Bush had, although I personally chose to attend a more quantitatively rigorous program, one in which I doubt that Dubya could have handled the higher level math.I can think of three, MIT (too technical and linear, stifles creativity) , Wharton and the place I attended. I suspect that any of those institutions would have welcomed GWB. His grades were 'good enough' and his pedigree was something most institutions would have difficulty passing up (they are all wh*res, too).

[Wild Walleye]

The fact is, Columbia University lists Obama as having graduated with academic honors.Then you should have no problem posting a link to that statement.


I never heard Obama claim anything of the kind with respect to Harvard,You've been making them ad nauseum (that means more than frequently). You are pointing to his brilliance being the driving factor behind his selection as HLR's president.


but the Law Review officers are chosen by a combination of their academic standing and a vote of their peers in their class.There you go again. I find it remarkable that there isn't a contingency of Obama's HLS classmate telling everyone how great he is.


One needs to be academically accomplished amongst their peers within Harvard Law School, as well as have superior interpersonal skills to be selected as the President of the Law Review.He's a real people person, alright. He is devoid of interpersonal skills.

[WorldTravel69]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_Chapter_11_reorganization


GM and Chrysler should have been allowed to follow normal Chapter 13 REORGANIZATION and not 'Obama-ruptcy'. No other company has been given such a pass, but I guess if you are in the Prez's corner Federal Law does not apply to you, I. E. Dept of Justice and Dept of Homeland Security.

Well WT69, I see you have reverted to the same tactic as your idol, Obama. When you can not win the argument on merit U-turn to name calling and personal attacks. After having his ass handed to him on October 3rd it's all Obama has left, name calling and personal attacks. What happened to HOPE & CHANGE?

[El Alamo]

The only pollster to get the 2004 and 2008 presidental results exactly right was Rasmussen. Only one other pollster got the 2008 results dead on. That was Pew. At this moment Pew has Romney ahead by 4 and Rasmussen has it more or less a dead heat.

If you don't think CNN cooks the books with their polls you should have seen the CNN post debate interview with 8 'undecided' voters. Undecided, my ass. Each of the 8 were selected to be stelth Obama supporters. Each had their canned lines why they as 'undecided voters' thought Obama had won the debate. The CNN commentor was so depressed over the debate that he finally told the 8 'undecided' Obama supporters to face facts. Obama was crushed in the debate and even he, the CNN Obama commentor, could not tolerate the canned nonsense of the 8 'undecided' Obama supporters.

[Jackson]

Only one other pollster got the 2008 results dead on. That was Pew. At this moment Pew has Romney ahead by 4 and Rasmussen has it more or less a dead heat.Just a few hours ago, Pew released their latest poll showing Romney and Obama now in a dead heat amongst women voters.

New Pew Poll Shows Romney And Obama Pulling Even With Women Voters.

http://www.inquisitr.com/357613/new-pew-poll-shows-romney-and-obama-pulling-even-with-women-voters/#MzGPzQMYpv8GmcQT.99

It's refreshing to learn that women voters might cast their vote based on something other than free birth control pills.

Thanks,

Jackson

[Member #2041]

The only pollster to get the 2004 and 2008 presidental results exactly right was Rasmussen. Only one other pollster got the 2008 results dead on. That was Pew. At this moment Pew has Romney ahead by 4 and Rasmussen has it more or less a dead heat.

If you don't think CNN cooks the books with their polls you should have seen the CNN post debate interview with 8 'undecided' voters. Undecided, my ass. Each of the 8 were selected to be stelth Obama supporters. Each had their canned lines why they as 'undecided voters' thought Obama had won the debate. The CNN commentor was so depressed over the debate that he finally told the 8 'undecided' Obama supporters to face facts. Obama was crushed in the debate and even he, the CNN Obama commentor, could not tolerate the canned nonsense of the 8 'undecided' Obama supporters.FYI, Rassmussen USED TO BE a very accurate pollster. They no longer are. And in actual fact, in 2010, their mean result over SEVERAL DOZENS of congressional races (a quite meaningful sample, much more so than a single Presidential election in 2008) was 3.9% incorrectly skewed toward the Conservative / Republican end of the spectrum. There is a reason for this, and it is because they use a methodology that has become obsolete over time as cell phones have become pervasive. And that is, they ONLY survey a population that is selected via from people who have land line telephones. And in the past 5 years or so, a very substantial portion of the population, which happens to skew very young, very mobile, and leans strongly Liberal / Democratic, have ceased to use land line phones at all, and only use mobile phones as their only phone. This entire population is completely missed by Rassmussen's methodology, and they have not yet made any correction for this situation.

Here is an excellent analysis of this issue by Nate Silver of the New York Times:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/rasmussen-polls-were-biased-and-inaccurate-quinnipiac-surveyusa-performed-strongly/

[Member #4112]

Very good WT69, now can you read the link and find the exceptions to Chapter 11 which I refer to as "Obama-ruptcy"? I'll give you a hint,"prepackage","government payments". They should have gone through Chapter 13 not 11 but why sweat it with the fix in from Obama. Also check out how much was left for the original equity holders.

[Tiny12]

Getting into Harvard's MBA program is roughly 2-3 orders of magnitude lesser of an exclusive accomplishment than getting appointed President of Harvard Law Review. Even for someone who probably earned it like Mitt Romney (as opposed to legacy entrees like Dubya). I personally got into Harvard's MBA program, without a rich legacy entree that G. W. Bush had, although I personally chose to attend a more quantitatively rigorous program, one in which I doubt that Dubya could have handled the higher level math.I can't understand why anyone with a background in business would be a rabid supporter of Obama, except some special cases like the CEO's of alternative energy companies and Hollywood studios. So enlighten me, why are you? Is your experience in business or government? I'm not being flippant, I'm honestly curious. Maybe you'll teach me something.

[El Alamo]

This is great. Obama's response to a terrorist attack that killed our ambassador in Libya was to immediately go to a Las Vegas liquor soaked fundraiser event.

On the same theme, Obama might not take terrorist attacks seriously but Obama has enough time to reassure 'Big Bird' that the Obama administration will continue wasting taxpayer money to keep 'Big Bird' on the air. Nonchalantly oblivious to fact that that we have trillion dollar plus annual deficits.

Much to 'Big Birds' credit the response from 'Big Bird' was. 'Big Bird' to Obama. Shut the f* up and start taking your job seriously. Try attending more than one national security briefing in 3 years and think about creating jobs. I think 'Big Bird' has more on the ball than Obama and I am sure 'Big Bird' could have done a better than Obama during the first Romney / Obama debate. Whoops, I forgot, 'Bird bird' has already said that ' Big Bird' considers Obama to be a fake, fraud, phoney and huckster.

Or as Romney said "You have to scratch your head when the president spends the last week talking about saving Big Bird, I actually think we need to have a president who talks about saving the American people and saving good jobs."

I think Obama is revealing his true intellect which is somewhere between imbecile and moron and rapidly declining to idiot status

[Member #2041]

I can't understand why anyone with a background in business would be a rabid supporter of Obama, except some special cases like the CEO's of alternative energy companies and Hollywood studios. So enlighten me, why are you? Is your experience in business or government? I'm not being flippant, I'm honestly curious. Maybe you'll teach me something.My experience is as a director of marketing and business development for a couple of high tech companies, one of which I cashed out my stock options from, and retired circa 2005. I am also a graduate of the Economics Department and the MBA program at the highly conservative University of Chicago. I am a rare moderate to emerge from there, and while there, I studied under Gary Becker, George Stigler, Merton Miller, Eugene Fama, and several other notable folks. I am also somewhat of a student of Economic history over the past century.

First of all, I am NOT a rabid supporter of Obama. What I am is a person who is convinced that the laissez-faire, de-minimus regulatory policies, and the only recipe for growth being cutting taxes to the wealthy and to businesses that Mitt Romney espouses have been thoroughly discredited over the course of the past couple of decades, and if we were return to them, we will be well on the way to a trajectory toward becoming a failed state. I consider Romney and in particular, the agenda espoused by Paul Ryan, to be an unmitigated disaster for this nation if it were to take hold.

We only have two real choices in the present election. One of whom, Obama, I consider to be mediocre, but FAR less onerous than Romney / Ryan. Obama's POLICIES, BTW, I consider to be much more on the right track than Romney's. But I certainly will accept that Obama's personal execution of those policies, and his effectiveness in working with a hostile Congress to get things implemented, have been less than impressive. In this regard, he's no Bill Clinton. And would that we could actually vote for Clinton now, he'd DWARF both Romney and Obama as a positive choice to move this country forward.

That being said, IMHO, by far the biggest threat to the future prosperity of the American state is the ever-widening gulf of empowerment between the most affluent and the dwindling middle class. This trajectory was really started in earnest under Reagan, and only saw a brief respite during the Clinton years, before really kicking into gear during G. W. Bush's Presidency. The fact is, Obama has NOT been as ineffectual as the right wing claims. It was entirely unreasonable to assume that any sort of collapse of the magnitude that Obama inherited, could be recovered from in less than 6-7 years, and we are only half way into that time span. The ONLY recession that was EVER worse than the one Obama inherited was the Great Depression, and the Great Depression took 12 years and the buildup to WWII for that recovery to really take hold. It is unreasonable to assume that THIS recovery, from a downturn that was very nearly as bad, could be accomplished in less than half of that same timeframe. And during that time, what Obama HAS accomplished is the restoration of something on the order of 70% of the lost wealth of the last recession. And this restoration of lost wealth is the most important first step in the recovery process. The second most important step was to halt the job losses. Any serious analysis of the timing of the Obama stimulus package will demonstrate that the stimulus package beginning, and it's taking effect in earnest directly correlate with the inflection points of the unemployment curve. The main flaws of the stimulus package were that it was far too SMALL, given the magnitude of the problem it was intended to cure, and that it did not have a secondary phase that was almost entirely oriented toward beefing up the nation's infrastructure, rather than the significant portions of pork that the existing package doled out, which were so popular that even blowhards like Bobby Jindal found a means of accepting them even as he mocked the very program that was gilding his lilly. In particular, the infrastructure emphasis should have been oriented to enabling delivery of alternative energy sources rather than oil. In particular, enabling natural gas and later fuel cells, from being the replacement for petroleum-based fuels for our vehicles.

And finally, there is the age-old question, are you better off than you were 4 years ago? In my personal situation, the answer is unambiguously YES. 4 years ago, my personal wealth had been utterly gutted by the Bush financial collapse. Under Obama (with serious help from another student of economic history, Ben Bernanke) the lost value of my personal wealth has been roughly 80% restored.

It's ludicrous for Romney to claim that he understands how to create jobs, and how taxes disincentivize otherwise optimal business decisions, because he personally has only created jobs in OTHER countries, by outsourcing those from the USA, and all he understands about taxes is how to maximize his avoidance of them. And finally, the SINGULAR impressive accomplishment on Romney's record as it would relate to being President, would be the implementation of a universal health-care system in Massachussetts. But Romney has bowed to the politically craven winds of the Republican party, and disavowed his own principles and run away from his own accomplishment as far and as fast as he can, when in fact, the ONLY thing that would recommend him as a potential President would be were he to implement a nearly identical universal health-care plan nation-wide. Which, BTW, is exactly what Obama actually did, and what Romney has made clear he would NOT do as President, and in fact, would dis-assemble it.

[Tiny12]

Member 2041, If you're open minded and run across a copy of the New Yorker, the October 1 edition, you should read the article on Romney. It might change your mind about how well equipped he is to lead the country. I don't understand your criticism of Reagan. He and Volcker pulled us out of a situation at least as difficult as the one we're in now. Middle class incomes grew significantly during the Reagan years. I would fault Reagan for not balancing the budget and Clinton for raising taxes on ordinary income (he wisely dropped the capital gains tax rate) , but otherwise believe both were good presidents. Obama's performance has been abysmal compared to them.

We need at least six to seven years for a recovery? This is the worst recession in the history of the United States except for the great depression? Those aren't reasonable claims. There have been numerous recessions in USA history far worse than the one we went through. As you point out Obama and the Democrat congress did not design a good stimulus program -- too much pork and too little infrastructure -- and that is one of the reasons for a slow recovery.

I believe the reverse of what you do about taxation, and suspect you base your analysis too much on a 20 or 30 year period of USA history. If income taxes went down during the Bush presidency (and arguably became more progressive too) , that doesn't mean lower taxes reduce middle class incomes. Many countries have wisely reduced marginal tax rates on businesses, because they believe lower rates create better economies. Globalization and technology are the chief culprits for the long term decline in middle class incomes. Solutions include better education and a better trained work force, along with tax and regulatory policies that promote growth.

[Member #2041]

We need at least six to seven years for a recovery? This is the worst recession in the history of the United States except for the great depression? Those aren't reasonable claims.Not in USA history, but certainly it is within the past century. And the fact is, we barely averted the 2nd great Depression. They are not only reasonable claims, they are facts.

And sorry, but the only way one can make a case that Mitt Romney would NOT be a disaster would be if you take the position that everything he said during the Republican primaries was a lie.

And it is also a fact that while Reagan did lead an economic recovery, his policies did begin the era of deregulation that has resulted in the diminution of the Middle class in the USA at the expense of the wealthy. Middle class income did rise under Reagan, but nowhere near as much on a percentage basis as that of the affluent. And even that only happened because of the severity of the downturn we had been in. The fact is, the scenario we have now where the Middle Class is being left behind while the affluent prosper has it's roots in the deregulatory regime begun by Reagan, and now aggressively promoted by Romney.

Obviously, you are entitled to your beliefs on tax policy, but your beliefs happen to be erroneous, and not backed up at all by the empirical data. And it is also true that the periods of substantial prosperity in this nation occurred under Reagan and Clinton, where the highest bracket for the affluent was FAR higher than it presently is, and the progressiveness of the tax code in terms of rates was significantly more than it presently is as well.

[Rev BS]

I can't understand why anyone with a background in business would be a rabid supporter of Obama, except some special cases like the CEO's of alternative energy companies and Hollywood studios. So enlighten me, why are you? Is your experience in business or government? I'm not being flippant, I'm honestly curious. Maybe you'll teach me something.Pick out Bloomberg Video on October 9, 2012. CEO of Evercore Partners, Robert Scholsstein gives an rational explaination for the state of affairs today. And if the GOP do not take any responsiblity for the gridlock, then just fold the tent.

[Tiny12]

Obviously, you are entitled to your beliefs on tax policy, but your beliefs happen to be erroneous, and not backed up at all by the empirical data.That's not true. Your assumption that tax policy is the reason for stagnant or declining middle class incomes, if that's what you believe, is erroneous. Compare Hong Kong and Singapore to other Asian countries, or take a look at changes in tax rates and economic growth in Eastern Europe over time the way you've done in the USA and you'd decide that low stable income tax rates are good for everyone.

You can correlate stock market performance with whether an NFC or AFC team won the superbowl. That doesn't mean there's cause and effect.

You may or may not have a point about regulation. If you're writing about requiring banks to loan money to people who can't afford to repay loans and allowing financial institutions to operate with very little equity compared to their assets, then you're right. But if you're writing about the EPA trying to put a stop to hydraulic fracturing or the IRS making people spend a month a year filling out forms, you're wrong.

Blackshirt, I haven't seen the video yet, but will try to. Gridlock is good. It keeps politicians from screwing the rest of us over even worse.

[Member #2041]

That's not true. Your assumption that tax policy is the reason for rising gaps in income in the USA over the last 30 years is erroneous. Compare Hong Kong and Singapore to other Asian countries, or take a look at changes in tax rates and economic growth in Eastern Europe over time the way you've done in the USA and you'd decide that low stable income tax rates are good for everyone.

You can correlate stock market performance with whether an NFC or AFC team won the superbowl. That doesn't mean there's cause and effect.

You may or may not have a point about regulation. If you're thinking about requiring banks to loan money to people who can't afford to repay loans and allowing financial institutions to operate with very little equity compared to their assets, then you're right. But if you're thinking about the EPA trying to put a stop to hydraulic fracturing or the IRS making people spend a month a year filling out forms, you're wrong.

Blackshirt, I haven't seen the video yet, but will try to. Gridlock is good. It keeps politicians from screwing the rest of us over even worse.First of all, I did not say that the tax policy was responsible for the rising gaps in income over the past 30 years. What I said was, that that was predominantly due to the broad-scale deregulation of commerce that occurred during that timeframe, and which has enabled the wealthy to exploit the workers and outsource the higher value jobs from this country. The tax policy does, however help to maintain and exacerbate the WEALTH gap, if not the income gap.

Secondly, it's fascinating for me to see the sort of cognitive dissonance that is pervasive among many mindless Romney supporters out there. You asked a question, with the very ridiculous underlying assumption that there is no plausible basis for supporting Obama in this election if one is in favor of economic growth. You were given a straightforward answer to that question. But one that has it's underpinnings on an entirely different set of underlying assumptions than you seem to accept as gospel despite there not being any credible evidence. The claim that tax cuts for the wealthy has been the catalyst for economic growth in the USA simply does not stand up to scrutiny. Quite simply, I've done the diligence, as have quite a few other economists such as Paul Krugman, and the majority of your deeply held assumptions about what has caused, and what has impeded prosperity within the USA economy over the past 30+ years are simply not borne out in the actual empirical data. See the 2nd link, below for the gory details.

http://www.ctmirror.org/story/17498/nonpartisan-congressional-study-tax-breaks-rich-dont-grow-jobs

http://www.ctmirror.org/sites/default/files/documents/0915taxesandeconomy.pdf

[Tiny12]

What I said was, that that was predominantly due to the broad-scale deregulation of commerce that occurred during that timeframe, and which has enabled the wealthy to exploit the workers and outsource the higher value jobs from this country. The tax policy does, however help to maintain and exacerbate the WEALTH gap, if not the income gap.You've got it backwards by the way. Regulation causes jobs to leave the country. That and a screwed up corporate tax system, with high marginal rates and penalties for repatriating profits back to the USA, that would be used to invest and create jobs here.

[Member #2041]

You've got it backwards by the way. Regulation causes jobs to leave the country. That and a screwed up corporate tax system, with high marginal rates and penalties for repatriating profits back to the USA, that would be used to invest and create jobs here.Except that does NOT even begin to explain why the most prosperous periods in this nation's history were during times when the highest tax rates on the wealthy and on corporations were MUCH higher than they are now. What you believe will happen, has actually never happened in recorded history, despite having been well and truly tried.

I presented you with the analysis that has been done on this issue, and which conclusively rebuts your unsubstantiated belief system, which I see you did not bother to address. You might just as well base your positions on a belief in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. Just because your mommy told you that these things exist when you were 3 years old did not actually make it so.

[Tiny12]

For the 5th time, look at the world, not just the USA. And look at other considerations, or variables or whatever you want to call them, besides just USA personal income taxes, USA income and USA GDP and you'll come to different conclusions. You're right about the income gap and taxes by the way. I actually edited my post before you posted my original quote. If you have a sharply progressive tax system, where you tax those at the top at 90%, you will decrease the gap. I'm out of here, this is a big time waster. You can have the last word if you so choose.

[Member #2041]

this is a big time waster.We have found the common ground. This discussion, in this particular venue, most assuredly is a big time waster.

[Dickhead]

I dunno who's going to win the presidential election but my local congress race is sure interesting. Both guys are poli sci graduates of my alma mater. How those two apples fell so far apart from the same tree is a mystery. One could not be farther right and the other is well left of center. I wonder how many times two guys that graduated from the same school majoring in the same thing ever ran against each other for public office. They are a generation apart so they didn't study from the same people, but it is still pretty interesting.

[Matt Psyche]

Political "science", except one in China or Soviet Union, does not advocate, if explain, particular values or policy solutions. How could you teach that a dollar spent for soda is more valuable than a dollar spent for a donut. It is just a preference (ideology). Poli sci teaches how to analize and assess policy solutions, and how governmental institutions interact.


I dunno who's going to win the presidential election but my local congress race is sure interesting. Both guys are poli sci graduates of my alma mater. How those two apples fell so far apart from the same tree is a mystery. One could not be farther right and the other is well left of center. I wonder how many times two guys that graduated from the same school majoring in the same thing ever ran against each other for public office. They are a generation apart so they didn't study from the same people, but it is still pretty interesting.

[Wild Walleye]

My experience is as a director of marketing and business development for a couple of high tech companies, one of which I cashed out my stock options from, and retired circa 2005.No offense to marketeers, but weren't you making some quip about the HBS program? I took my first company public in '96, sold my next one to a group out of LA in '01. I'd like to say it was because I am so f'cking smart, however, the truth of the matter is that you could make money falling off a bar stool, in those days (I'm not opining on the validity of your personal experience, of which I have no knowledge).


I am also a graduate of the Economics Department and the MBA program at the highly conservative University of Chicago.Poor uncle Milty must be turning in his grave. What a waste of money seeing that you missed out on some of the finest that institution has to offer.


I am a rare moderate to emerge from there,I'd say that you are more rare than you think (and less moderate).


and while there, I studied under Gary Becker, George Stigler, Merton Miller, Eugene Fama, and several other notable folks. I am also somewhat of a student of Economic history over the past century.Please stop. You are like fingernails on a chalkboard. The thought of a close-minded Keynesian academic like yourself and the SOE are completely incongruous (that means the two things don't go together that well).


First of all, I am NOT a rabid supporter of Obama. What I am is a person who is convinced that the laissez-faire, de-minimus regulatory policies, and the only recipe for growth being cutting taxes to the wealthy and to businesses that Mitt Romney espouses have been thoroughly discredited over the course of the past couple of decades, and if we were return to them, we will be well on the way to a trajectory toward becoming a failed state. I consider Romney and in particular, the agenda espoused by Paul Ryan, to be an unmitigated disaster for this nation if it were to take hold.Tres bien "laissez-faire" vous êtes si drôle. Only a complete buffoon would suggest that any business (in the US) in 2012 (or 2000, for that matter) is unregulated or free of the hand of the federal govt.

Do you have any idea how this:


I am also somewhat of a student of Economic history over the past century.And this:


and the only recipe for growth being cutting taxes to the wealthy and to businessesAre somewhat mutually exclusive (unless you're a really poor student)?

I don't care if you love Obama or hate him. It is his policies that are the problem. Very simply put, removing wealth from the private sector has cyclical effect of reducing economic activity, which negatively impacts federal revenues, which causes politicians to try to squeeze more out of the golden goose, only to find that they kill it. If you, as a self-proclaimed economic expert, can't accurately read the economic foibles of the past 100 years, there isn't much hope for you. It's like reading Barney stories (I. E. Pretty simple and straight forward).


We only have two real choices in the present election. One of whom, Obama, I consider to be mediocre, but FAR less onerous than Romney / Ryan.Mediocre? Clearly, you concentrated your studies on subjects other than actual business (e. G corporate finance, accounting and operations management) since you seem to be unaware of the effect of rising costs on profitability and the inexorable relationship between profitability and corporate sustainability. Further, as a student of economics, I'd expect you to have a slightly better understanding of the concept of "risk" and the role it plays in fostering and inhibiting economic activity. Check my '08-'09 postings on the subject. I predicted that Obama put loads of new regulations onto the private sector. He did. In fact, he heaped countless (more than 1600) new regulations on businesses, many of which were (and still are) impossible to fully quantify. Unquantifiable (that means you can't calculate its value with any amount of certainty) future costs are one of the most dangerous forms of risk a company can face. Judicious management doesn't roll the dice in the face of unquantifiable risk, it sticks to its knitting and hopes to whistle past the graveyard. The reason why no one has been hired, since Obama was elected, is that prospective employers can't quantify how much an additional hire will cost and therefore can't determine if it is a good business decision to add to head count. Therefore, they do more with less.


Obama's POLICIES, BTW, I consider to be much more on the right track than Romney's.Wait, now I know who you are. You work at BLS, don't you?

The US has lost over 3 million full-time jobs, since 2007. You can hide behind the mathematical gymnastics and play hide-the-sausage with the people who have given up on finding work but, you can't change the truth. The phony BLS numbers are a great indication of how Obama and Christina think alike.


But I certainly will accept that Obama's personal execution of those policies, and his effectiveness in working with a hostile Congress to get things implemented, have been less than impressive.Wow, you must have been out smokin' pot when they taught basic math. Obama had super majorities in the house and senate for the first two years of his reign of terror. Hostile congress? Really? That is all you can come up with? Since the 2010 midterms, he just waves his "Executive Order" wand and makes those things de facto laws without any Congressional participation or oversight.

Please, Mr. Economic expert, point to any major Obama economic policy that has a successful, historical precedent (don't forget to cite the precedent).


In this regard, he's no Bill Clinton.You mean the guy that has a hostile congress to thank, for his legacy?


And would that we could actually vote for Clinton now, he'd DWARF both Romney and Obama as a positive choice to move this country forward."Oooooh, Dream Waever, I believe you can get me through the night."


That being said, IMHO, by far the biggest threat to the future prosperity of the American state is the ever-widening gulf of empowerment between the most affluent and the dwindling middle class.So, we'd be better off if everyone was poor?


This trajectory was really started in earnest under Reagan, and only saw a brief respite during the Clinton years, before really kicking into gear during G. W. Bush's Presidency.You are talking out your ass. Please, don't bother citing Gini, I can't bear to hear about that Nazi propagandist, again.


The fact is, Obama has NOT been as ineffectual as the right wing claims.

That's the problem is that despite being an anti-social, dim-witted, former-burn out, Marxist, he was successful in enacting some of the most harmful legislation that this country has every seen.



It was entirely unreasonable to assume that any sort of collapse of the magnitude that Obama inherited,

False. I lived through it at ground zero (intricately involved on Wall St and Main St when it all came down), In October '08 there was no one, no one, who didn't know what a giant f'ing whole we were in (in large part due to people that think like you being mistakenly trusted with positions of power).

I don't have the energy to go through the rest of your blather but, I wish you well. Monger on.

[Member #2041]

No offense to marketeers, but weren't you making some quip about the HBS program? I took my first company public in '96, sold my next one to a group out of LA in '01. I'd like to say it was because I am so f'cking smart, however, the truth of the matter is that you could make money falling off a bar stool, in those days (I'm not opining on the validity of your personal experience, of which I have no knowledge).

Poor uncle Milty must be turning in his grave. What a waste of money seeing that you missed out on some of the finest that institution has to offer.

I'd say that you are more rare than you think (and less moderate).

Please stop. You are like fingernails on a chalkboard. The thought of a close-minded Keynesian academic like yourself and the SOE are completely incongruous (that means the two things don't go together that well).

Tres bien "laissez-faire" vous êtes si drôle. Only a complete buffoon would suggest that any business (in the US) in 2012 (or 2000, for that matter) is unregulated or free of the hand of the federal govt.

Do you have any idea how this:

And this:

Are somewhat mutually exclusive (unless you're a really poor student)?

I don't care if you love Obama or hate him. It is his policies that are the problem. Very simply put, removing wealth from the private sector has cyclical effect of reducing economic activity, which negatively impacts federal revenues, which causes politicians to try to squeeze more out of the golden goose, only to find that they kill it. If you, as a self-proclaimed economic expert, can't accurately read the economic foibles of the past 100 years, there isn't much hope for you. It's like reading Barney stories (I. E. Pretty simple and straight forward).

Mediocre? Clearly, you concentrated your studies on subjects other than actual business (e. G corporate finance, accounting and operations management) since you seem to be unaware of the effect of rising costs on profitability and the inexorable relationship between profitability and corporate sustainability. Further, as a student of economics, I'd expect you to have a slightly better understanding of the concept of "risk" and the role it plays in fostering and inhibiting economic activity. Check my '08-'09 postings on the subject. I predicted that Obama put loads of new regulations onto the private sector. He did. In fact, he heaped countless (more than 1600) new regulations on businesses, many of which were (and still are) impossible to fully quantify. Unquantifiable (that means you can't calculate its value with any amount of certainty) future costs are one of the most dangerous forms of risk a company can face. Judicious management doesn't roll the dice in the face of unquantifiable risk, it sticks to its knitting and hopes to whistle passed the graveyard. The reason why no one has been hired, since Obama was elected, is that prospective employers can't quantify how much an additional hire will cost and therefore can't determine if it is a good business decision to add to head count. Therefore, they do more with less.

Wait, now I know who you are. You work at BLS, don't you?

Wow, you must have been out smokin' pot when they taught basic math. Obama had super majorities in the house and senate for the first two years of his reign of terror. Hostile congress? Really? That is all you can come up with?

Please, Mr. Economic expert, point to any major Obama economic policy that has a successful, historical precedent (don't forget to cite the precedent). Since the 2010 midterms, he just waves his "Executive Order" wand and makes those things de facto laws without any Congressional participation or oversight.

You mean the guy that has a hostile congress to thank, for his legacy?

"Ohhhhh, Dream Waever, I believe you can get me through the night."

So, we'd be better off if everyone was poor?

You are talking out your ass. Please, don't bother citing Gini, I can't bear to hear about that Nazi propagandist, again.

That's the problem is that despite being an anti-social, dim-witted, former-burn out, Marxist, he was successful in enacting some of the most harmful legislation that this country has every seen.

I don't have the energy to go through the rest of your blather but, I wish you well. Monger on.

It was entirely unreasonable to assume that any sort of collapse of the magnitude that Obama inherited, could be recovered from in less than 6-7 years, and we are only half way into that time span. The ONLY recession that was EVER worse than the one Obama inherited was the Great Depression, and the Great Depression took 12 years and the buildup to WWII for that recovery to really take hold. It is unreasonable to assume that THIS recovery, from a downturn that was very nearly as bad, could be accomplished in less than half of that same timeframe. And during that time, what Obama HAS accomplished is the restoration of something on the order of 70% of the lost wealth of the last recession. And this restoration of lost wealth is the most important first step in the recovery process. The second most important step was to halt the job losses. Any serious analysis of the timing of the Obama stimulus package will demonstrate that the stimulus package beginning, and it's taking effect in earnest directly correlate with the inflection points of the unemployment curve. The main flaws of the stimulus package were that it was far too SMALL, given the magnitude of the problem it was intended to cure, and that it did not have a secondary phase that was almost entirely oriented toward beefing up the nation's infrastructure, rather than the significant portions of pork that the existing package doled out, which were so popular that even blowhards like Bobby Jindal found a means of accepting them even as he mocked the very program that was gilding his lilly. In particular, the infrastructure emphasis should have been oriented to enabling delivery of alternative energy sources rather than oil. In particular, enabling natural gas and later fuel cells, from being the replacement for petroleum-based fuels for our vehicles.

And finally, there is the age-old question, are you better off than you were 4 years ago? In my personal situation, the answer is unambiguously YES. 4 years ago, my personal wealth had been utterly gutted by the Bush financial collapse. Under Obama (with serious help from another student of economic history, Ben Bernanke) the lost value of my personal wealth has been roughly 80% restored.

It's ludicrous for Romney to claim that he understands how to create jobs, and how taxes disincentivize otherwise optimal business decisions, because he personally has only created jobs in OTHER countries, by outsourcing those from the USA, and all he understands about taxes is how to maximize his avoidance of them. And finally, the SINGULAR impressive accomplishment on Romney's record as it would relate to being President, would be the implementation of a universal health-care system in Massachussetts. But Romney has bowed to the politically craven winds of the Republican party, and disavowed his own principles and run away from his own accomplishment as far and as fast as he can, when in fact, the ONLY thing that would recommend him as a potential President would be were he to implement a nearly identical universal health-care plan nation-wide. Which, BTW, is exactly what Obama actually did, and what Romney has made clear he would NOT do as President, and in fact, would dis-assemble it. Yadda Yadda Yadda. I'd say more, but the post doesn't warrant any more, other than to point out that anyone who genuinely believes that Obama is a Marxist is, quite simply, a blithering idiot, who really has no business opining on anything related to Finance or Economics.

[Wild Walleye]

Yadda Yadda Yadda. I'd say more, but the post doesn't warrant any more, other than to point out that anyone who genuinely believes that Obama is a Marxist is, quite simply, a blithering idiot, who really has no business opining on anything related to Finance or Economics.Clearly, you do not know what a Marxist is. Did you ever manage to attend any classes while at the SOE?

[Esten]

Yadda Yadda Yadda. I'd say more, but the post doesn't warrant any more, other than to point out that anyone who genuinely believes that Obama is a Marxist is, quite simply, a blithering idiot, who really has no business opining on anything related to Finance or Economics.You are correct.

Some people are simply incapable of understanding the concept of responsible Capitalism.

[Wild Walleye]

You are correct.

Some people are simply incapable of understanding the concept of responsible Capitalism.Some people don't know what capitalism is.

[Dickhead]

'The US has lost over 3 million full-time jobs, since 2007. '

Who was president in 2007 and 2008? Might want to do a better job of data mining.

[Punter 127]

Who was president in 2007 and 2008? [snip]That guy is NOT running for office.

[Member #2041]

That guy is NOT running for office.Right, but he IS the guy who is overwhelmingly responsible for the job losses since 2007, since the vast preponderance of those took place in 2007 and 2008, when he WAS President, and the first half of 2009, before the next guy's policies could kick in to ameliorate the crisis that occurred on the first guy's watch.

The simple truth is that anyone who quotes a jobs statistic that starts in 2007 and tries to hang it on Obama is either simply a disingenuous liar, or so stupid and ill-informed about economics that he doesn't understand that unemployment is actually a lagging indicator, to the tune of about 9 months. I'd agree that Obama owns the jobs number from 2H 2009 on. In any case, this sort of deception and misrepresentation of reality by righties is what we've come to expect from a bunch of folks who recognize that they can't make their case on the merits and reality, and so resort to outright deceptions like these, and stupid batshit crazy stuff like Obama being a Kenyan-born Muslim Marxist who didn't legitimately get his degrees from Columbia and Harvard. It's all cut from the same cloth.

As my lawyer friend says, when you have the facts, you argue the facts, when you have the law, you argue the law. When you have neither, you baffle them with bullshit. The degree to which the right has had to resort to baffling with bullshit is quite telling.

[Tiny12]

No offense to marketeers, but weren't you making some quip about the HBS program? I took my first company public in '96, sold my next one to a group out of LA in '01. I'd like to say it was because I am so f'cking smart, however, the truth of the matter is that you could make money falling off a bar stool, in those days (I'm not opining on the validity of your personal experience, of which I have no knowledge).Give up Walleye. He probably was a good man once but he drank the Kool Aid and he's not coming back. He believes marginal tax rates on corporations should be higher, which puts him to the left of mainstream Democrats. Just be thankful it's Obama and not Member #2041 that's running for president.

By the way, I have reconsidered my choice for president. As indicated in an earlier post, I was considering writing your name in. But based on the above I have determined that your success in life was largely due to luck. Ability, skill and intelligence played a larger part in Romney's success in turning around companies, a government and the Olympics. Therefore I will be voting for him. Sorry.

[Member #2041]

Give up Walleye. He probably was a good man once but he drank the Kool Aid and he's not coming back. He believes marginal tax rates on corporations should be higher, which puts him to the left of mainstream Democrats. Just be thankful it's Obama and not Member #2041 that's running for president.

By the way, I have reconsidered my choice for president. As indicated in an earlier post, I was considering writing your name in. But based on the above I have determined that your success in life was largely due to luck. Ability, skill and intelligence played a larger part in Romney's success in turning around companies, a government and the Olympics. Therefore I will be voting for him. Sorry.That's right, I have no plans to run for President, because I fuck hookers with a high rate of frequency, and that's a disqualifier for the office. But, in any case, I certainly appreciate Tiny12 mustering all of his intellectual prowess to come up with this post.

[Wild Walleye]

'The US has lost over 3 million full-time jobs, since 2007. '

Who was president in 2007 and 2008? Might want to do a better job of data mining.Why? I didn't cherry pick a number to just show Obama's ineptitude, just pointing out that the US economy has and continues to shed full-time jobs while the numbers that get published by the proletariat say that things are improving. I have never said that Obama caused the initial recession, he just turned it into the Great Recession. The weekly and monthly numbers are pure political propaganda. They have been revised, each and every period, to show that the situation was worse than reported. However, we are lead to believe that things are getting better. The only reason that things might be getting better is that Romney is looking strong (you can go back to my '08 election posts and you'll see that I'm not a life long Romney fan. In this election, I'd vote for Homer Simpson before I'd vote for the Marxist candidate, Obama).

[Punter 127]

Right, but he IS the guy who is overwhelmingly responsible for the job losses since 2007, since the vast preponderance of those took place in 2007 and 2008, when he WAS President, and the first half of 2009, before the next guy's policies could kick in to ameliorate the crisis that occurred on the first guy's watch.Gee I thought Obama was elected to fix the problem, not just blame the other guy, I also believe he promised to do that in his first term.

BTW The Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers of congress between January 3, 2007, and January 3, 2009. (Yes, two independent senators caucused with the Democrats)


The simple truth is that anyone who quotes a jobs statistic that starts in 2007 and tries to hang it on Obama is either simply a disingenuous liar, or so stupid and ill-informed about economics that he doesn't understand that unemployment is actually a lagging indicator, to the tune of about 9 months. I'd agree that Obama owns the jobs number from 2H 2009 on. In any case, this sort of deception and misrepresentation of reality by righties is what we've come to expect from a bunch of folks who recognize that they can't make their case on the merits and reality, and so resort to outright deceptions like these, and stupid batshit crazy stuff like Obama being a Kenyan-born Muslim Marxist who didn't legitimately get his degrees from Columbia and Harvard. It's all cut from the same cloth.LOL, same old tired leftwing BS, but since it looks like the wheels are starting to come off the Obama cart I understand your anxiety and the need to lash out.


As my lawyer friend says, when you have the facts, you argue the facts, when you have the law, you argue the law. When you have neither, you baffle them with bullshit. The degree to which the right has had to resort to baffling with bullshit is quite telling.I don't think 'baffling with bullshit' is limited to the right, please refer to your previous paragraphs.

[Wild Walleye]

Right, but he IS the guy who is overwhelmingly responsible for the job losses since 2007, since the vast preponderance of those took place in 2007 and 2008, when he WAS President, and the first half of 2009, before the next guy's policies could kick in to ameliorate the crisis that occurred on the first guy's watch.If you were in any way consistent in your way of thinking about things, you'd be banging on the table to throw the current administration out of office.

In your way of thinking, Bush is responsible for everything that happened under his watch (a sentiment, with which, I am mostly in agreement), while Obama is responsible for nothing that transpired during his watch, except that he led the mission to kill Bin Laden.

What color is the sky, in your world?


The simple truth is that anyone who quotes a jobs statistic that starts in 2007 and tries to hang it on Obama is either simply a disingenuous liar, or so stupid and ill-informed about economics that he doesn't understand that unemployment is actually a lagging indicator, to the tune of about 9 months.Why? Is Obama's reign the only period of relevance here? Who ever said that unemployment was a leading indicator (assuming that you have any clue what that might mean)? You do not need to be an economist to drive down the street and see what seems to be every other house with a "for sale" sign in front of it. Why would all these people sell their houses at the worst possible time? Why don't they just stay put and do it in a few years? Why are so many shops at the Mall boarded up? Why are almost 50 million people on food stamps? Why are so many former white collar workers on Medicaid? You can cherry pick numbers all day long but, it won't change the reality of our situation.


I'd agree that Obama owns the jobs number from 2H 2009 on. In any case, this sort of deception and misrepresentation of reality by righties is what we've come to expect from a bunch of folks who recognize that they can't make their case on the merits and reality, and so resort to outright deceptions like these, and stupid batshit crazy stuff like Obama being a Kenyan-born Muslim Marxist who didn't legitimately get his degrees from Columbia and Harvard. It's all cut from the same cloth.This was no normal transition of power and the incoming president's impact preceded his inauguration. Obama's influence on the economy started when McCain pulled out of the campaign to get back to Washington to [I have no f*cking idea what he thought he was going to do]. Obama, Reid and Pelosi were up to their eyeballs in TARP (Q4'08) and the $1T of payoffs to his supports (unions and bundlers) that some people euphemistically called "Stimulus" (Feb '09). He didn't own the profligate spending of the Bush administration (at that point) rather he doubled down on it as soon as possible. Rather than cut the deficit by 50%, as promised, he increased it by 50%.

I didn't say that Obama was born outside the US, I said that I believe he told Columbia and HLS that he was from a foreign country in order to better his treatment from admissions to scholarship. I also stated very clearly that degrees acquired by the beneficiaries of racial preferences are not illegitimate.

Please, don't let the facts get in the way of your narrative, after all, you're a liberal and it would be unfair of us to expect you to act otherwise.


As my lawyer friend says, when you have the facts, you argue the facts, when you have the law, you argue the law. When you have neither, you baffle them with bullshit. The degree to which the right has had to resort to baffling with bullshit is quite telling.Why then is it so difficult for you to actually insert a few facts into any of your posts? I would argue that the guy with the facts seems to be gaining on the guy trying to win via smoke and mirrors.

[Wild Walleye]

That's right, I have no plans to run for President, because I fuck hookers with a high rate of frequency, and that's a disqualifier for the office.Since when? Womanizing and wh*re mongering are completely acceptable traits, so long as the candidate is a liberal. In fact, through some strange form of magic, these traits actually make you an untouchable protector of women (like Ted Kennedy).


But, in any case, I certainly appreciate Tiny12 mustering all of his intellectual prowess to come up with this post.His post is spot on. He can clearly see that you can't be deprogrammed by conventional methods, like the truth. However, being the humanitarian that I am, I find it difficult to give up on anyone, including lost souls, like yourself.

[Member #2041]

However, being the humanitarian that I am, I find it difficult to give up on anyone, including lost souls, like yourself.Well, good luck with that, because, conveniently, this forum has an ignore list, which I use for the folks who's political discourse tends to veer into the batshit crazy space that I described earlier.

[Wild Walleye]

Well, good luck with that, because, conveniently, this forum has an ignore list, which I use for the folks who's political discourse tends to veer into the batshit crazy space that I described earlier.It is your prerogative to insulate yourself from those with differing opinions and a firmer grasp on the facts. That seemed to work well for Obama in the first debate.

Why did you chose to respond just to that part of my posts as opposed to maybe this part:


Why then is it so difficult for you to actually insert a few facts into any of your posts?

[Wild Walleye]

Is will there be enough time and intestinal fortitude for the House to impeach the President?

So many high crimes and misdemeanors, it an abundance of riches: fast and furious (the first POTUS to be directly complicit in the murder of more than 100 nonmilitary, foreign nationals) ; Bengazigate (the cover up of the intentional misinformation program foisted on the US public) ; the deliberate manipulation of national labor and unemployment statistics for political and personal gain; the intentional solicitation and collection of illegal foreign campaign contributions (RICO-caliber conspiracy to circumvent federal election laws) and the payoffs to Obama's cronie capitalists like Solyndra and Fisker (Al Gore).

This administration if so corrupt, it is hard to believe. If this had taken place during a Republican administration, not only would the press be banging the impeachment drum, so would I.

Even if Obama wins reelection, his second term is going to be gridlocked because he and his minions are going to be hamstrung by the proliferation of meritorious Congressional investigations. Had this been a Republican, in addition to the press drumbeat, Holder, Rice, Jarret and Axlerod would have all been forced out (and / or sacrificed) , by now. Could you imagine how the press would howl about the fact that one of our ambassadors was killed because the State Department was cutting their protection detail at the same time it was further subsidizing Government Motors (beyond the oversight of Congress) by purchasing Chevy Volts for the Austrian Embassy. Yep, the administration and its State Department willfully contributed to the conditions that enabled Islamic terrorists to kill a US Ambassador in exchange for political window dressing in the form of artificial sales of Obama's electric cars. Wow, I can't believe no one is interested in this story.

Sadly, if Obama loses, I suspect that the Congress will not have the time nor the moral will to fully prosecute these crimes and the bad actors (criminals) will escape responsibility for their crimes and will make millions in the private sector.

[WorldTravel69]

Now you know.

http://www.sfweekly.com/2012-10-10/news/taxes-tax-breaks-1-percent-corporations-loopholes-government-congress-corruption-mitt-romney/

[Tiny12]

Now you know.

http://www.sfweekly.com/2012-10-10/news/taxes-tax-breaks-1-percent-corporations-loopholes-government-congress-corruption-mitt-romney/Both Obama and Romney want to bring down marginal corporate tax rates and eliminate loopholes like these. Just as it took someone like Nixon to normalize relations with China, so I believe that Romney is more likely to actually accomplish this.

[Member #2041]

Both Obama and Romney want to bring down marginal corporate tax rates and eliminate loopholes like these. Just as it took someone like Nixon to normalize relations with China, so I believe that Romney is more likely to actually accomplish this.And yet Romney lacks the gonads / character to actually state what loopholes he'll do away with. Unlike you, I am quite sure he'll get rid of every loophole he specifically says that he'll get rid of prior to the election, and not one single additional one.

[Dickhead]

Both Obama and Romney want to bring down marginal corporate tax rates and eliminate loopholes like these. Just as it took someone like Nixon to normalize relations with China, so I believe that Romney is more likely to actually accomplish this.The corporate tax is an economic fiction that should be eliminated and the rate makes no difference. Shareholders and consumers are sharing the corporate income tax burden, since corporations are only legal persons and not actual persons.

By "someone like Nixon," you mean a crook, right?

[Wild Walleye]

Now you know.

http://www.sfweekly.com/2012-10-10/news/taxes-tax-breaks-1-percent-corporations-loopholes-government-congress-corruption-mitt-romney/WT, my brother, I don't disagree with you that there are tax loopholes in the individual tax code that favor one segment of society or another. However, it is an apples to oranges comparison to look at corporate taxes through the same lens.

Everyone should learn the following: corporations do not pay taxes, they convey additional monies from their customers to the government. End of story.

If you raise taxes on corporations, they raise prices to their customers and pass through the money. By exploiting corporations ostensibly to take more private wealth from the citizens, the govt is forcing companies to increase their prices. This does two, very negative, things: 1) it further erodes the aggregate, national disposable income that would otherwise be spent in the private sector providing true stimulus in a way that the government can't, and 2) the artificial inflation of the corporations products and services makes them less competitive. Therefore, corporate taxes are particularly egregious because they are a transfer of wealth that inflates prices while simultaneously reducing disposable income. Think about that. We'd be better off with zero corporate taxes and higher individual taxes because we would eliminate the inflationary component.

Everyone of the people quoted in that article knows this to be true, they also know that the majority of people don't understand it.

[Dickhead]

Here is a good review of the corporate tax and who pays it. To quote the article, the corporate tax is "neither necessary nor desirable." The classic view that the burden was split between corporate shareholders' lower profits and consumers' higher prices according to the elasticity of their respective supply and demand curves is now being challenged by the view that it is split between current and future shareholders but I haven't really examined that. But, either way it is all noise and bullshit and paperwork and a needless drain on corporate resources. If anyone wants a good reason to explain to Joe Six Pack why the corporate tax should go, just tell 'them about all the lawyers and accountants we could get rid of.

http://elsa.berkeley.edu/Auerbach/bearstax.pdf

[Tiny12]

Dickhead, I haven't thought it through, but your and Walleye's explanation makes a lot of sense to me. Just as inflation helps elites and hurts others, so an income tax on, say, Walmart, hurts people who don't have a lot of purchasing power. And double taxation of corporate income and dividend income at high rates is definitely a bad thing. About your comment, "Nixon was a crook" -- As you know, but maybe some others don't, Nixon and Republicans were considered hawks, considered more likely to go to war with China than normalize relations. Romney spent a good bit of his career in the corporate world, knows the loopholes and the subsidies, and if he wins his party would probably have majorities in both houses. He's more likely to have success pushing through a restructuring of the corporate income tax system than Obama. While you and Walleye may be right, you'll never see an end to corporate income tax. Like the value added tax in Europe, a tax on corporations is too juicy for politicians to let go, since the people who ultimately pay it, being consumers, don't realize they're actually paying it.

Your point about the massive amount of time required and the fees to accountants and lawyers is a good one too.

[Dickhead]

Inflation doesn't just help the elites. It helps anyone who has a fixed rate loan. I remember when I worked for the feds and guys would b!tch about inflation, when we had COLA and fixed mortgages. I would tell them,"We want RAGING inflation" and they just looked at me kinda sideways dog-head. And no, I don't hold out any hope of the corporate income tax going away given that it has been 50 years since it was conclusively proven to be bogus.

[Punter 127]

The team of University of Colorado professors has created a model that has correctly chosen the President every year since 1980. The way they made this prediction and their track record is very interesting, I wonder if they have it right again this time?

http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2012/10/04/updated-election-forecasting-model-still-points-romney-win-university

[Daddy Rulz]

Yes I know I never post here but I couldn't resist it, how often do you see Jackson in a tie?

http://www.mnftiu.cc/

Romney got that bounce, the big bootie bounce.

Don't bother after the first two minutes or so but the song is funny

[Dickhead]

[QUOTE=Punter 127; 427542]The team of University of Colorado professors has created a model that has correctly chosen the President every year since 1980. The way they made this prediction and their track record is very interesting, I wonder if they have it right again this time?

I sure hope whoever gets the most electoral votes also wins the popular vote because the opposite keeps happening and it isn't good for the country.

[WorldTravel69]

Goes to Biden.

The Young B O Y could not keep Up With the

Truth.

[Dickhead]

Obviously this is going to be another close election. I think close elections are good and a lot of countries don't have them. We have had a few very controversial elections such as 1876 and 2000 but if you look at other countries' histories we have done okay. Look at our neighbor, México. They went through something like 55 presidents in 31 years (although some guys were president more than once and Santa Anna was president 11 separate times) and aside from the rulers who got assassinated, executed, or killed in battle (Obregóand, Madero, Villa, Zapata, Carranza, Maximilian, Cuauhtémoc, Moctezuma II, etc, you had a guy who lost a leg (Santa Anna) , a guy who lost an arm (Obregóand) , and a guy who died in a US prison (Huerta). Huerta makes Nixon look like a saint. Santa Anna was an asshole and we have had asshole presidents but not 11 fucking times.

"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."

[Punter 127]

Goes to Biden.

The Young B O Y could not keep Up With the

Truth.Maybe out there in Rump-A-Roni land and possibly on MSNBC (I don't get MSNBC) but I think the rest of America saw it differently. CNN says it's a draw with a slight edge to Paul Ryan. 48 to 44.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/11/cnn-poll-on-debate-winner-ryan-48-biden-44/

[WorldTravel69]

What did you Hear and See?

You can't be Serious?


Maybe out there in Rump-A-Roni land and possibly on MSNBC (I don't get MSNBC) but I think the rest of America saw it differently. CNN says it's a draw with a slight edge to Paul Ryan. 48 to 44.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/11/cnn-poll-on-debate-winner-ryan-48-biden-44/

[Punter 127]

What did you Hear and See?

You can't be Serious?I saw an arrogant, overbearing, and condescending old washed-up has-been who was an embarrassment to himself and his party. Unfortunately his patronizing arrogance mirrors that of many (not all) in the Democrat party today.

Is that serious enough or do I need to break it down a little more for you?

[Member #2041]

I saw an arrogant, overbearing, and condescending old washed-up has-been who was an embarrassment to himself and his party. Unfortunately his patronizing arrogance mirrors that of many (not all) in the Democrat party today.

Is that serious enough or do I need to break it down a little more for you?Time to visit the opthalmologist. Your eyes are failing.

What I saw was a guy who was not afraid to call Ryan on any of his hypocrisy and BS.

In actual truth, this particular debate was such that neither side will change any minds at all. Ryan reiterated the righty talking points, but did not make any headway, as anything he said that would have been significant was challenged. There was no huge gaffe, and there was no dominance either way. People already knew that Ryan was a numbers geek who masters details but is often factually challenged, and that Biden is a blustery guy who speaks his heart first and powerfully, and that's what they saw. In the grand scheme of things, this debate was a no-op, even though I thought Biden made Ryan look like a junior accountant who knew his numbers, but couldn't explain why he was inconsistent in his principles when there was a Republican President earlier.

[Punter 127]

Time to visit the opthalmologist. Your eyes are failing.

What I saw was a guy who was not afraid to call Ryan on any of his hypocrisy and BS.

In actual truth, this particular debate was such that neither side will change any minds at all. Ryan reiterated the righty talking points, but did not make any headway, as anything he said that would have been significant was challenged. There was no huge gaffe, and there was no dominance either way. People already knew that Ryan was a numbers geek who masters details but is often factually challenged, and that Biden is a blustery guy who speaks his heart first and powerfully, and that's what they saw. In the grand scheme of things, this debate was a no-op, even though I thought Biden made Ryan look like a junior accountant who knew his numbers, but couldn't explain why he was inconsistent in his principles when there was a Republican President earlier.I think you have tunnel vision. Biden is a disgrace to the office, there was absolutely no reason to be rude, he lacks class and he is a total ass!

[Member #2041]

I think you have tunnel vision. Biden is a disgrace to the office, there was absolutely no reason to be rude, he lacks class and he is a total ass!Actually, It is entirely appropriate to be rude when calling someone out for lying to the American People.

If you want to know what a disgrace to the office of the Vice Presidency is, Dick Cheney suborning torture and war crimes in the name of the American public, and fabricating a bogus case to go to a war over oil, under the false pretense that it was to protect America from terrorists - now THAT is a disgrace to the office of the Vice Presidency.

[Wild Walleye]

Inflation doesn't just help the elites. It helps anyone who has a fixed rate loan. I remember when I worked for the feds and guys would b!tch about inflation, when we had COLA and fixed mortgages. I would tell them,"We want RAGING inflation" and they just looked at me kinda sideways dog-head. And no, I don't hold out any hope of the corporate income tax going away given that it has been 50 years since it was conclusively proven to be bogus.You are correct, in large part due to the difficulty in executing this:


But, either way it is all noise and bullshit and paperwork and a needless drain on corporate resources. If anyone wants a good reason to explain to Joe Six Pack why the corporate tax should go, just tell 'them about all the lawyers and accountants we could get rid of.

[Tiny12]

If you want to know what a disgrace to the office of the Vice Presidency is, Dick Cheney suborning torture and war crimes in the name of the American public, and fabricating a bogus case to go to a war over oil, under the false pretense that it was to protect America from terrorists - now THAT is a disgrace to the office of the Vice Presidency.


That guy is NOT running for office.


xxxxxxxxxx

[Wild Walleye]

Actually, It is entirely appropriate to be rude when calling someone out for lying to the American People.You mean like telling the American people that our ambassador accidentally died from smoke inhalation after a spontaneous civil disturbance that was not terrorism, as opposed to the truth that the ambassador was sodomized and murdered in a preplanned, terrorist attack, during which three other Americans were murdered?

Or do you mean like telling the American people that you will cut the federal debt by 50% but, in reality you increase it by 50%

How about telling the American people that we have to have "stimulus" or the world will end and that every dime is going to shovel ready jobs, when in reality the entire package consisted of political payoffs to cronies capitalists and unions? Wait, wait, I know, you mean like telling the American people that you will work across the aisle to forge consensuses when in reality you tell the opposition that they can go to the back of the bus?


If you want to know what a disgrace to the office of the Vice Presidency is, Dick Cheney suborning torture and war crimes in the name of the American public, and fabricating a bogus case to go to a war over oil, under the false pretense that it was to protect America from terrorists - now THAT is a disgrace to the office of the Vice Presidency.You are certainly entitled to your agenda-driven, fact-less opinions. Do you find Cheney's tenure to be more disgraceful than fast and furious? You know, that program where the President and Attorney General participated directly in conspiracy to take away our second amendment rights by supplying some of the most vicious criminals on earth with automatic weapons, resulting in hundreds of deaths?

[Matt Psyche]

CBS News instant poll shows 50 percent of "uncommitted" voters dubbing Biden the winner; 31 percent Ryan. Probably the CNN Poll had more GOP voters than Democrats in respondents. I was not impressed by Biden's facial expression either.


Maybe out there in Rump-A-Roni land and possibly on MSNBC (I don't get MSNBC) but I think the rest of America saw it differently. CNN says it's a draw with a slight edge to Paul Ryan. 48 to 44.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/11/cnn-poll-on-debate-winner-ryan-48-biden-44/

[Member #2041]

xxxxxxxxxxNonetheless, the Cheney point is appropriate, because it demonstrates the sort of nauseating person that the voters of the Repugnant Party find to be acceptable. And it is a good reminder of the flawed judgment of anyone who has ever supported this War Criminal.

[Daddy Rulz]

You mean like telling the American people that our ambassador accidentally died from smoke inhalation after a spontaneous civil disturbance that was not terrorism, as opposed to the truth that the ambassador was sodomized and murdered in a preplanned, terrorist attack, during which three other Americans were murdered?Could you provide your source for this please. If possible could you provide two from opposed agenda driven outlets, ie. Fox and Huffpo? I hadn't heard this, prolly because I don't watch the news, but from what I can find it started as a report from a Lybian outlet quoting an AFP report but AFP immediatly denied reporting it. After that all I can find about it is from fringe sites, nothing from real (BBC, Fox, CBS, AP, hell even Al Jazera would work for me) news.

Not calling you a liar, not getting into the fight just want to know the source so I can read more about it.

Thanks, DR

[Tiny12]

Nonetheless, the Cheney point is appropriate, because it demonstrates the sort of nauseating person that the voters of the Repugnant Party find to be acceptable. And it is a good reminder of the flawed judgment of anyone who has ever supported this War Criminal.I didn't vote for Bush / Cheney in either election and, unlike the majority of Democrats and Republicans, didn't think going into Iraq was a good idea.

Cheney however was not a war criminal any more than Obama is a war criminal. And Iraq wasn't primarily about oil, but rather the neoconservatives desire to change the Arab world. They actually had a good humanitarian argument. If the Iraq war had played out the way they expected, many Iraqi lives would have been spared, as sanctions would have ended and Saddam would have been removed from power with little bloodshed. Tens of thousands died because of Hussein and sanctions. The neoconservatives were naive, not war criminals. Naive like you, since you apparently believe your party and its candidates are always right.

[Chicago Guy]

My experience is as a director of marketing and business development for a couple of high tech companies, one of which I cashed out my stock options from, and retired circa 2005. I am also a graduate of the Economics Department and the MBA program at the highly conservative University of Chicago. I am a rare moderate to emerge from there, and while there, I studied under Gary Becker, George Stigler, Merton Miller, Eugene Fama, and several other notable folks. I am also somewhat of a student of Economic history over the past century.http://www.chicagobooth.edu/programs/full-time/student-experience/alumni-network

"Regardless of what you do or where you are, you're bound to find an alumnus eager to share their experiences and information."

...

Even on ArgentinaPrivate. Com

[Member #2041]

The neoconservatives were naive, not war criminals. Naive like you, since you apparently believe your party and its candidates are always right.Not hardly. However, there is a big distinction between criticizing Obama and other Democrats internally, and offering ammunition to the opposition. Frankly, this is something that the more strategic thinkers amongst us Democrats have learned from Republicans. I have plenty of objections to how Obama has conducted his dealings as President. Most noteably in how he has managed his interactions with the Congress. There is little to be gained by airing those critiques in venues frequented by Republicans, however.

BTW, I really had no desire to discuss my Chicago school background, but I was challenged point blank as to what my background was, by Tiny12 here, who made the ridiculous assertion that nobody who had any desires for economic growth in the U.S. could possibly support Obama. I simply offered that background as evidence that his perspective was myopic. Frankly, the more time I have spent in the real world, the less impressed I become with the Chicago education I acquired, compared to that of my undergraduate institution - where the point seemed to be to develop critical thinking and analytical skills, rather than how to use a very particular approach and perspective on the world as advocated by the University of Chicago's Economics and Business faculties. It's instructive that while I donate significantly to my undergraduate alma mater, I give nothing to the U. of C., as I cannot imagine them using ANY dollars of mine in a manner that would be more constructive toward the general welfare than my undergraduate alma mater would.

[Wild Walleye]

Could you provide your source for this please. If possible could you provide two from opposed agenda driven outlets, ie. Fox and Huffpo? I hadn't heard this, prolly because I don't watch the news, but from what I can find it started as a report from a Lybian outlet quoting an AFP report but AFP immediatly denied reporting it. After that all I can find about it is from fringe sites, nothing from real (BBC, Fox, CBS, AP, hell even Al Jazera would work for me) news.

Not calling you a liar, not getting into the fight just want to know the source so I can read more about it.

Thanks, DRDR, you are absolutely entitled to call me out on anything I say. I never take offense at being called out and I don't equate it with being called a liar. Unlike some other folks, who shall remain nameless, I will back up what I say with facts and substance. AFP, the Libyan Free Press, Mike Masters (Wash Post, WSJ) and and Tayyar. Org (Lebanese news organization) all reported that the ambassador was sodomized before he was murdered by Al-Qaeda-related individuals as did. I do acknowledge that AFP attempted to distance itself from the report (AFP didn't deny reporting it, they described it as unconfirmed) , after it had gone with the story. I have heard that account on various radio and TV broadcasts (news, not talk) , although I don't recall the outlet (I don't watch Fox News or any other news, for that matter). I would guess that I most often get audio and video news via ABC and CNN (going on in the background) although, I don't seek either out when I need news.

I wouldn't expect that I need to cite the sources for the part about the administration denying it was terrorism-related and that it was due to the "video." If you need that info, you can pull down the public statements by Obama, Clinton, Gibbs, Carney, et al. Similarly, all the major news outlets reported that three other American perished in the terrorist attack. The Congressional testimony on Wednesday also has plenty of data (provided under oath) to back that up as well (excluding details about how the ambassador died).

[Chicago Guy]

BTW, I really had no desire to discuss my Chicago school background, but I was challenged point blank as to what my background was, by Tiny12 here, who made the ridiculous assertion that nobody who had any desires for economic growth in the U.S. could possibly support Obama. I simply offered that background as evidence that his perspective was myopic. Frankly, the more time I have spent in the real world, the less impressed I become with the Chicago education I acquired, compared to that of my undergraduate institution - where the point seemed to be to develop critical thinking and analytical skills, rather than how to use a very particular approach and perspective on the world as advocated by the University of Chicago's Economics and Business faculties. It's instructive that while I donate significantly to my undergraduate alma mater, I give nothing to the U. of C., as I cannot imagine them using ANY dollars of mine in a manner that would be more constructive toward the general welfare than my undergraduate alma mater would.I attempted to make fun of the politically correct lingo on B-school websites. Anyway, I think you should be proud to be a Booth alum. As you point out yourself, you've studied under amazing professors who have conducted groundbreaking research in macro and finance.

[Wild Walleye]

BTW, I really had no desire to discuss my Chicago school background, but I was challenged point blank as to what my background was, by Tiny12 here, who made the ridiculous assertion that nobody who had any desires for economic growth in the U.S. could possibly support Obama. I simply offered that background as evidence that his perspective was myopic.Tiny probably should have qualified that with nobody "with a clue, who hasn't already made his"


Frankly, the more time I have spent in the real world, the less impressed I become with the Chicago education I acquired, compared to that of my undergraduate institution - where the point seemed to be to develop critical thinking and analytical skills, rather than how to use a very particular approach and perspective on the world as advocated by the University of Chicago's Economics and Business faculties. It's instructive that while I donate significantly to my undergraduate alma mater, I give nothing to the U. of C., as I cannot imagine them using ANY dollars of mine in a manner that would be more constructive toward the general welfare than my undergraduate alma mater would.I can only guess as to why you feel differently about the two institutions.

I greatly enjoyed all of my undergrad and grad programs, picking up degrees in English, Economics, Commercial Real Estate, International Business and Corporate Finance and fluency in two foreign languages (albeit, not Spanish. Mistake) along the way. I studied at five institutions (3 well-known US universities, one well-known US college and 1 foreign institution). I maintain a fondness for all of them. I feel like the education I received was excellent (I am a sh*tty student and slow learner) , however, my education in the real world dwarfs what I picked up in school. For me, ass time progresses, that doesn't diminish the value of my formal education it just means that the value of my real world education continues to grow. That is the nature of the beast. I needed certain basic skills, across many functions, to accomplish that which I have and that which I will. While, I also understand that none of them provided me with my innate abilities nor a guarantee of success, they have definitely helped me to advance myself. Further, those experiences have benefited many other people, including the hundreds (if not thousands) of people that have been able to put food on the table, thanks in part to my efforts.

I have always resent liberals, especially rich liberals (the Kennedys, for example) who constantly try to put obstacles in my way, and those like me, to deny me my shot at the American dream. I can assure you that no matter how much or little I make, I will never knowingly contribute to obstructing the pursuit of the American dream.

[Chicago Guy]

I have always resent liberals, especially rich liberals (the Kennedys, for example) who constantly try to put obstacles in my way, and those like me, to deny me my shot at the American dream. I can assure you that no matter how much or little I make, I will never knowingly contribute to obstructing the pursuit of the American dream.Not to mention the former governor of the state of New York.

[Tiny12]

However, there is a big distinction between criticizing Obama and other Democrats internally, and offering ammunition to the opposition. Frankly, this is something that the more strategic thinkers amongst us Democrats have learned from Republicans. I have plenty of objections to how Obama has conducted his dealings as President. Most noteably in how he has managed his interactions with the Congress. There is little to be gained by airing those critiques in venues frequented by Republicans, however.So, if you're a political operative, the ends justify the means? There's no room for self criticism? When you call the other side war criminals you're starting down a slippery slope.

[Daddy Rulz]

AFP, the Libyan Free Press, Mike Masters (Wash Post, WSJ) and and Tayyar. Org (Lebanese news organization) all reported that the ambassador was sodomized before he was murdered by Al-Qaeda-related individuals as did. I do acknowledge that AFP attempted to distance itself from the report (AFP didn't deny reporting it, they described it as unconfirmed) , after it had gone with the story. I have heard that account on various radio and TV broadcasts (news, not talk) , although I don't recall the outlet (I don't watch Fox News or any other news, for that matter.Yeah I still can't find anything. Why is it so much easier to find porn than a specific story? I can find the Washington Times quoting a release from AFP where they catagorically deny the report.

"The AFP has sent out the following statement:

Greetings, Concerning your query on the report published by a Lebanese website according to which ambassador Stevens was sodomized. That report falsely quoted our news agency and has no truth whatsover to it. AFP promptly sent a strongly worded complaint to that website and they removed the report and published a denial, saying that AFP did not report such a thing."

But I can't find anything on the AFP website. Not saying it's not there just that I haven't found it.

I know one of the Washington papers (Times / Post) is supposed to be more liberal but I don't know which. I also can't find much of anything searching Mike Masters and any keywords I can think of to tie to this story.


I wouldn't expect that I need to cite the sources for the part about the administration denying it was terrorism-related and that it was due to the "video." If you need that info, you can pull down the public statements by Obama, Clinton, Gibbs, Carney, et al. Similarly, all the major news outlets reported that three other American perished in the terrorist attack. The Congressional testimony on Wednesday also has plenty of data (provided under oath) to back that up as well (excluding details about how the ambassador died).Thanks but no need, this is all after the fact finger pointing and neither side could be expected to tell anything that resembles truth. I do appreciate you taking the time though. I just wanted to read more from a credible source about the attack and there just doesn't seem to be much that doesn't reference that original Tayyar. Org story which seems to have been somewhat discredited.

If you come across anything credible please PM (or post here) the link I would like to read more, thanks a lot.

DR

[Member #2041]

So, if you're a political operative, the ends justify the means? There's no room for self criticism? When you call the other side war criminals you're starting down a slippery slope.Absolutely there is room for self-criticism. It is actually a necessity. But that doesn't mean you share the critique with your political opponents. Remember, it was Richard Nixon who developed the concept that the the other side of the aisle was "enemies" and he used J. Edgar Hoover and the resources of the FBI to spy on his political adversaries as though they were foreign enemies. As far as I can tell, the Republicans of the ilk of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove have continued that modus operandi (albeit without the corrupt FBI involvement) to this day. It's about time that Democrats used the same tactics, and now they are. Thou doth protest too much. Clean up the Republican side's use of this sort of perspective, and then maybe you can be more self-righteous about it.

BTW, the reason I call Dick Cheney a war criminal is that he suborned torture, and in fact, in conjunction with the CIA developed and ran a substantial program, known as extraordinary rendition, to ship prisoners captured on the battlefield off to some of our less reputable allies (such as Egypt, and even Syria at the time) who had no compunction about torturing them. That is a war crime.

[Member #2041]

I attempted to make fun of the politically correct lingo on B-school websites. Anyway, I think you should be proud to be a Booth alum. As you point out yourself, you've studied under amazing professors who have conducted groundbreaking research in macro and finance.I have no problem with the individual professors, who have, as you note, conducted important, ground-breaking research and analysis and are amongst the most influential people in the field of Economics and Finance. Gary Becker might be the most brilliant, out-of-the-box-thinking Economist who has ever lived, and I was particularly fond of George Stigler, whom I sparred with as one of his students, and who gave me good grades despite my frequent disagreements with him. I DO, however have a problem with the institution itself, which has a distinct bias in terms of who it considers to have a valid perspective on things economic, and what fields of inquiry it considers worthy of pursuit. A highly distinguished Keynesian of similar heft, such as a James O. Tobin or Paul Samuelson or Paul Krugman would not have been allowed on the faculty the U. Of C. as a result of that institutional bias, and the glaring lack of diversity of viewpoints amongst the U.of C. faculty is by far it's most substantial and persistent shortcoming.

[Tiny12]

Thou doth protest too much. Clean up the Republican side's use of this sort of perspective, and then maybe you can be more self-righteous about it.Since I'm not a Republican or politician or political operative that's hard to do.

[Esten]

I saw an arrogant, overbearing, and condescending old washed-up has-been who was an embarrassment to himself and his party. Unfortunately his patronizing arrogance mirrors that of many (not all) in the Democrat party today.Translation:

Wahhhhhhhh.......... Biden won and I'm a sore loser. I can't refute that Biden repeatedly exposed Ryan's weak and dishonest talking points. So I'll just complain about his style.

[Dickhead]

I don't really look at Biden as a has-been. I look at him more as a never-was. However, he is not an unmitigated cocksucker like the prior VP. The VP is a big yawn anyway. Yeah, we had 4 presidents assassinated and they took a shot at a couple more such as Jackson, FDR, and Reagan but even when a gerbil like Gerald Ford ended up as president it wasn't that big of a deal. I think I read something like 7% of all voters consider the running mate when making their decisions, or 17%; it was low.

[Wild Walleye]

Yeah I still can't find anything. Why is it so much easier to find porn than a specific story?'cause porn is so much better.


I can find the Washington Times quoting a release from AFP where they catagorically deny the report.I deliberately left out the WT, 'cause they aren't part of the liberal main stream media. Masters is on staff at the Washington Post. He made his comments in a number of interviews.


"The AFP has sent out the following statement:

Greetings, Concerning your query on the report published by a Lebanese website according to which ambassador Stevens was sodomized. That report falsely quoted our news agency and has no truth whatsover to it. AFP promptly sent a strongly worded complaint to that website and they removed the report and published a denial, saying that AFP did not report such a thing."I'm not sure what happened but, I have seen loads of statements attributed to the AFP.


But I can't find anything on the AFP website. Not saying it's not there just that I haven't found it.I suspect that they scrubbed their sight as soon as they felt that the info might be questionable.


I know one of the Washington papers (Times / Post) is supposed to be more liberal but I don't know which. I also can't find much of anything searching Mike Masters and any keywords I can think of to tie to this story.Wash Times is a reasonably objective news outlet. The Washington Post is a flaming liberal rag (someone very close to me had a column there for years). Masters is related to the liberal rag.


Thanks but no need, this is all after the fact finger pointing and neither side could be expected to tell anything that resembles truth. I do appreciate you taking the time though. I just wanted to read more from a credible source about the attack and there just doesn't seem to be much that doesn't reference that original Tayyar. Org story which seems to have been somewhat discredited.There is video of the assault on the compound. The first info that I read is completely consistent with what is purportedly on the video (militants out of nowhere, sans public protest). The only item that I wonder about (regarding accuracy) is whether or not the ambassador was sodomized. I am fairly comfortable with postulating that he was killed.


If you come across anything credible please PM (or post here) the link I would like to read more, thanks a lot.

DRI will do that. While I may come off as a fire-breathing right-winger, I am not. I believe in the US and I believe in the founding documents and the intentions of the founders. I do not believe that those values are irrelevant, today. I don't accept disinformation or dissembling from our govt, regardless of who is in power.

[Wild Walleye]

Translation:

Wahhhhhhhh. Biden won and I'm a sore loser. I can't refute that Biden repeatedly exposed Ryan's weak and dishonest talking points. So I'll just complain about his style. I am just wondering who looks more ridiculous now, Biden or Esten.

[Punter 127]

Actually, It is entirely appropriate to be rude when calling someone out for lying to the American People.I strongly disagree, being rude in a debate format is just wrong, make your case and let it stand or fall based on its merits. If everyone acted like Biden, debates would become uncontrolled screaming matches.

'Unfortunately his patronizing arrogance mirrors that of many (not all) in the Democrat party today.' If the shoe fits my friend.

[Punter 127]

'While I may come off as a fire-breathing right-winger, I am not. I believe in the US and I believe in the founding documents and the intentions of the founders. I do not believe that those values are irrelevant, today. I don't accept disinformation or dissembling from our govt, regardless of who is in power.[snip]Hear Hear!

[Punter 127]

Translation:

Wahhhhhhhh. Biden won and I'm a sore loser. I can't refute that Biden repeatedly exposed Ryan's weak and dishonest talking points. So I'll just complain about his style. Translation:

Wahhhhhhhh. I can't really defend Biden's rude and crude behavior so I'll just do like I've done so many times before and try to 'kill the messenger'.

[Member #2041]

I strongly disagree, being rude in a debate format is just wrong, make your case and let it stand or fall based on its merits. If everyone acted like Biden, debates would become uncontrolled screaming matches.

'Unfortunately his patronizing arrogance mirrors that of many (not all) in the Democrat party today. ' If the shoe fits my friend.That's your opinion only. One that has exactly as much merit as mine. Every voter gets exactly one. Frankly, I consider the problem is that there is not enough aggressive calling out of lying in these debates and discussions. And as a result, the lies have become a far greater portion of discourse than they ever have been before, because the perpetrators are not being called out for it in the strongest possible manner.

[Big Boss Man]

This is a tough election for me. Even if I think that Romney's policies are better for the economy, I am the minority in that I have done exceptionally well under Obama's policies. If you compare 4 years of Obama to 8 years of Bush, I have far superior performance. Under both administrations, I will receive a tax hike. In any revenue neutral tax policy change as Romney is proposing there will be winners and losers. In the Reagan tax example that Ryan pointed to in the debate, my taxes were raised because I was using a preference that was eliminated.

Actually agree with Obama that Defense should be on the table for budget purposes. For example, I do not think reducing the number of ships in the Navy from 330 to 300 will weaken US image in the world as Romney proposes.

I thought that Ryan's view on Syria were naive. 30, 000 dead in a civil war are not that many. In America's Revolutionary war, there were 25, 000 dead according to Wikipedia. In US Civil war there are estimates of 750, 000 combat deaths alone. I listen to NPR which I know is anathema to most of you but NPR regularly reports that Americans are on the ground in Syria distributing weapons to the rebels.

All Presidents in my lifetime have had incidents similar to Liberia. If we would have reinforced the embassy, there would have been 25 dead Americans instead of 4. Here is a list of embassy attacks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attacks_on_diplomatic_missions I doubt Republicans will be able to prevent them in the future. It is a very high standard Romney is setting for himself. One prediction. Issa will not hold a congressional hearing when an embassy attack occurs under Romney.

[Member #2041]

This is a tough election for me. Even if I think that Romney's policies are better for the economy, I am the minority in that I have done exceptionally well under Obama's policies. If you compare 4 years of Obama to 8 years of Bush, I have far superior performance. Under both administrations, I will receive a tax hike. In any revenue neutral tax policy change as Romney is proposing there will be winners and losers. In the Reagan tax example that Ryan pointed to in the debate, my taxes were raised because I was using a preference that was eliminated.

Actually agree with Obama that Defense should be on the table for budget purposes. For example, I do not think reducing the number of ships in the Navy from 330 to 300 will weaken US image in the world as Romney proposes.

I thought that Ryan's view on Syria were naive. 30, 000 dead in a civil war are not that many. In America's Revolutionary war, there were 25, 000 dead according to Wikipedia. In US Civil war there are estimates of 750, 000 combat deaths alone. I listen to NPR which I know is anathema to most of you but NPR regularly reports that Americans are on the ground in Syria distributing weapons to the rebels.

All Presidents in my lifetime have had incidents similar to Liberia. If we would have reinforced the embassy, there would have been 25 dead Americans instead of 4. Here is a list of embassy attacks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attacks_on_diplomatic_missions

I doubt Republicans will be able to prevent them in the future. It is a very high standard Romney is setting for himself. One prediction. Issa will not hold a congressional hearing when an embassy attack occurs under Romney.Big Boss Man, I hope that you realize that there is no place for a reasonable viewpoint in the center here. Don't you realize that it's not sufficient to argue that Obama may simply have had some policy and execution failings, but rather, you must demonize him as a Marxist who does not hold core American values? But my compliments for using a word such as "anathema" which will either blow right by the righties who dominate this board, or send them scurrying to the dictionary if they actually want to know what you said (admittedly doubtful).

[Esten]

Paul Ryan is an articulate and intelligent guy. But whether he is honest is an entirely separate question. A few points from the debate.

1. Ryan has panned the Stimulus over and over. But we learn he wrote the DOE several letters, requesting Stimulus funds for Wisconsin businesses. Ryan claimed the Stimulus funds would create growth and jobs, and help promote green energy.

2. Ryan portrayed stimulus spending as full of cronyism. But we learn an investigation found no evidence of cronyism.

3. Ryan says we are putting American soldiers at risk in Afghanistan by leaving fewer and fewer of them in dangerous places. But we learn American soldiers are being replaced one-for-one by Afghan soldiers, who are being trained to provide security in parallel with the US drawdown of troops.

4. Ryan says he wants to protect small businesses. But we learn that the segment of small business he wants to help (beyond Obama's plan) includes Wall Street hedge funds.

5. Ryan says 'Obamacare' takes $716 billion from Medicare. Without explaining the details, there is a clear implication this will hit seniors. But we learn in fact this doesn't affect benefits, it's a reduction in future overpayments to insurance companies (some call it waste). And it extends Medicare to 2024 and helps close the prescription drug donut hole - both good for current and future seniors.

That's just five. People can judge what Ryan's motive is in what he said and what he didn't say. Romney / Ryan also continue to be vague on their alternate plans for taxes and healthcare. Trust us, we have a plan. And they profess to want to work with Democrats in a bipartisan manner, even though congressional Republicans have had a deliberate strategy of obstruction since Obama took office !

Ryan was all about rehearsed talking points. Biden crushed Ryan's attempts at deception.

I expect more of the same next week.

[Dickhead]

30, 000 dead in a civil war are not that many.México lost one-eighth of its population during their (second) revolution, about two million people.

[Matt Psyche]

He didn't sound intelligent at all.


Paul Ryan is an articulate and intelligent guy.

[Tiny12]

Paul Ryan is an articulate and intelligent guy. But whether he is honest is an entirely separate question. A few points from the debate.

1. Ryan has panned the Stimulus over and over. But we learn he wrote the DOE several letters, requesting Stimulus funds for Wisconsin businesses. Ryan claimed the Stimulus funds would create growth and jobs, and help promote green energy.

2. Ryan portrayed stimulus spending as full of cronyism. But we learn an investigation found no evidence of cronyism.

3. Ryan says we are putting American soldiers at risk in Afghanistan by leaving fewer and fewer of them in dangerous places. But we learn American soldiers are being replaced one-for-one by Afghan soldiers, who are being trained to provide security in parallel with the US drawdown of troops.

4. Ryan says he wants to protect small businesses. But we learn that the segment of small business he wants to help (beyond Obama's plan) includes Wall Street hedge funds.

5. Ryan says 'Obamacare' takes $716 billion from Medicare. Without explaining the details, there is a clear implication this will hit seniors. But we learn in fact this doesn't affect benefits, it's a reduction in future overpayments to insurance companies (some call it waste). And it extends Medicare to 2024 and helps close the prescription drug donut hole. Both good for current and future seniors.

That's just five. People can judge what Ryan's motive is in what he said and what he didn't say. Romney / Ryan also continue to be vague on their alternate plans for taxes and healthcare. Trust us, we have a plan. And they profess to want to work with Democrats in a bipartisan manner, even though congressional Republicans have had a deliberate strategy of obstruction since Obama took office!

Ryan was all about rehearsed talking points. Biden crushed Ryan's attempts at deception.

I expect more of the same next week.For some reason Democrats believe they're always truthful and the other side is not. Here's a list of Biden's "untruths" during the debate from a conservative web site:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/12/Fact-Check-Top-Ten-Worst-Lies-by-Joe-Biden-in-VP-Debate

I'd add to it the $5 trillion in tax cuts that Biden and Obama keep mentioning.

On your list,"1" and "2" sound like business as usual in Washington. All Congressmen except Ron Paul seek pork for their districts. Ryan is probably less aggressive than most. Undoubtedly cronyism played a part in the stimulus. Look at Solyndra, or the United Auto Workers.

Item "3" doesn't sound reasonable to me. From what I've read, mostly in a liberal publication (the New Yorker) , Afgan troops aren't competent. When they're involved in joint operations, they put our troops in danger. They're not well armed or well trained. While I'm to the left of you and just about everyone else on this board when it comes to keeping American troops overseas, Ryan was right.

Item "4", about the hedge funds, is true solely because hedge fund management companies are small businesses. So if Ryan protects small business then theoretically he protects hedge funds because they're small businesses? I maintain (and you'd disagree) that Romney and Ryan stand a better change of eliminating carried interest for hedge fund managers than Obama. At least Obama didn't do it when he had a majority in the house and 60 votes in the Senate. (Apologies Walleye)

Item "5" I don't know enough about to offer an opinion.

I commend you for not calling him a liar. That's getting really common, and the accusations are coming a lot more from the left than the right, although there are some conservatives doing it, like the writer on Breitbart's site.

[Tiny12]

This is a tough election for me. Even if I think that Romney's policies are better for the economy, I am the minority in that I have done exceptionally well under Obama's policies. If you compare 4 years of Obama to 8 years of Bush, I have far superior performance. Under both administrations, I will receive a tax hike. In any revenue neutral tax policy change as Romney is proposing there will be winners and losers. In the Reagan tax example that Ryan pointed to in the debate, my taxes were raised because I was using a preference that was eliminated.Good post, thanks. I did well under Clinton and have done well under Obama too. In Clinton's case, it was partly because he did a good job with the economy, balancing the budget among other things. The only big thing that he did wrong was raise taxes on ordinary income. He cut them on capital gains. In Obama's case, it's sheer coincidence. And if not for Republicans in the Senate and House he would have screwed me over. Romney would do a better job with the economy. Obama, however, might make more sense for older people who don't mind burdening the young and future generations with debt they can't repay.

I don't think the two sides really have different positions on Syria, although they claim to. And agree that Syria and Libya aren't big issues compared to the economic ones, and defense should be cut.

[Wild Walleye]

Big Boss Man, I hope that you realize that there is no place for a reasonable viewpoint in the center here.How would you know that?


Don't you realize that it's not sufficient to argue that Obama may simply have had some policy and execution failings, but rather, you must demonize him as a Marxist who does not hold core American values?I'm still waiting for one of you lefties to list a few of his successes (I. E. The kind that more than just hardcore leftists consider to be successful). I did not demonize him as a Marxist, I accurately identified him as a Marxist because that is what he is. Wait, that is probably racist, you know, to truthfully identify what Obama is, as opposed to accepting what we are told he is.


But my compliments for using a word such as "anathema" which will either blow right by the righties who dominate this board, or send them scurrying to the dictionary if they actually want to know what you said (admittedly doubtful).Please feel free to use the search function containing "wild walleye anathema" and see what you come up with.

[Dickhead]

I am curious as to whether you have read Marx. I haven't heard anything from Obama about workers receiving the full marginal product of their labor, owning the means of production, or inevitably revolting. He has some socialist leanings but not Marxist leanings. Who has Marxist leanings any more anyway? Shit's been discredited. Passing a national health care law is a major achievement, regardless of whether one is for or against the law. I'm not even sure whether I am for or against it, but it's a memorable achievement. I think it was Tiny who said gridlock is good and under our political system, the chief executive can't just simply implement his program (then it would be Argentina). What truly memorable achievements did Bush II have? Clinton? Bush I? Do you see a pattern here?

[Wild Walleye]

Paul Ryan is an articulate and intelligent guy. But whether he is honest is an entirely separate question. A few points from the debate.

1. Ryan has panned the Stimulus over and over. But we learn he wrote the DOE several letters, requesting Stimulus funds for Wisconsin businesses. Ryan claimed the Stimulus funds would create growth and jobs, and help promote green energy.Extreme and unaware of the realities that are the US Congress. Ryan is an elected representative of the State of Wisconsin and is serving both his state and his country. In his role representing the former, he needs to promote the interests of his constituents. Just because Obama, Pelosi and Reid made a $1T slush fund, deliberately excluding republicans, doesn't absolve him of his responsibilities to his constituents. However, I agree with Ryan, we would have been better off without the profligate spending.


2. Ryan portrayed stimulus spending as full of cronyism. But we learn an investigation found no evidence of cronyism.There really is no hope for you, is there? Solyndra, Fisker, Lightsquared, any of this ringing any bells?


3. Ryan says we are putting American soldiers at risk in Afghanistan by leaving fewer and fewer of them in dangerous places. But we learn American soldiers are being replaced one-for-one by Afghan soldiers, who are being trained to provide security in parallel with the US drawdown of troops.Ever heard of "blue on green?"


4. Ryan says he wants to protect small businesses. But we learn that the segment of small business he wants to help (beyond Obama's plan) includes Wall Street hedge funds.You believe that to be true because Joe said it during the interruption fest? Please show me where the plan targets that type of small business.


5. Ryan says 'Obamacare' takes $716 billion from Medicare. Without explaining the details, there is a clear implication this will hit seniors.Will you pick that same bone with the OMB, the source of the $716B number?


But we learn in fact this doesn't affect benefits, it's a reduction in future overpayments to insurance companies (some call it waste).Do you honestly believe that Medicaid overpays anyone to the tune of $716B, in the absence of fraud? Please, you can call a flaming pile of sh*t an overpayment, that doesn't make it one.


And it extends Medicare to 2024 and helps close the prescription drug donut hole - both good for current and future seniors.You mean taking the money away from those programs is good for seniors?


That's just five.You count like a liberal, too. That is zero.


People can judge what Ryan's motive is in what he said and what he didn't say.I have judged that his motive is to help save America from a Marxist ideologue who is doing his best to destroy the country. I don't think that I am the only one to draw that conclusion.


Romney / Ryan also continue to be vague on their alternate plans for taxes and healthcare. Trust us, we have a plan.No successful presidential candidacy gets too deep into the details of their plan. To do so is to open your self up to a wider variety of attacks. Why should Romney and Ryan do something Obama didn't due in the previous presidential race? Sh*t, Obama has been president for more than 3. 5 years and he can't give any details.


And they profess to want to work with Democrats in a bipartisan manner, even though congressional Republicans have had a deliberate strategy of obstruction since Obama took office !Why the false argument about Republican obstructionism? Did you miss the first two years (24 months, on some calendars) of the Obama administration? Please. The only thing that has kept Obama's increase in the national debt to 50% has been that for the last 21 months, there have been a few grown ups in the House. If it weren't for the Tea Party, Obama would have rung up $10T in national debt as opposed to his $5T.


Ryan was all about rehearsed talking points. Biden crushed Ryan's attempts at deception.We must have been watching two different debates. In the one I was watching, there was a respectful, competent individual, familiar with all of the issues, trying to squeeze a word in edgewise between the 84 interruptions from the buffoon next to him and a handful more from the moderator, who was clearly trying to prevent him from making his case. Despite the bizarre behavior of the vice president and the predictable behavior of the moderator, Ryan was a class act from the beginning to the end. I would have wanted to vault the table and beat old Joe with a chair (a sentiment shared by millions and millions of viewers, who oddly seem to be leaving the Obama / Biden ticket).


I expect more of the same next week.I expect that no matter what happens in the debate, you will claim the Obama won, Romney was just putting out well rehearsed talking points and that Romney didn't want to be there, he would rather have been out giving some steel worker's wife cancer.

You're a broken record. Unfortunately, the recording is of fingernails on a chalkboard.

[Wild Walleye]

I don't think the two sides really have different positions on Syria, although they claim to.Don't get me wrong, I'm not attacking you but, where has anyone from Team Obama articulated a strategy for Syria?


And agree that Syria and Libya aren't big issuesI agree and I disagree. The civil wars in Libya and Syria are one thing. Don't forget, Obama got us involved in the Libyan civil war. However, where I disagree is with regard to Benghazi, which is something completely different. Libya, as it relates to Obama's failure to protect the diplomatic detail and secure the facility (particularly the intelligence) , post attack and the subsequent cover up should be dealt with by Congress. Obama, Clinton and Rice should all be out of a job for what appears to have transpired. I hope that folks in the Congress will have the intestinal fortitude to do the right thing.


compared to the economic ones, and defense should be cut.I am on the fence on cutting defense. It isn't that there isn't room to cut so much as it is that when politicians cut defense they tend to do a piss-poor job. Regardless, Obama is the last person who should be entrusted with out military, let alone cutting it. The only DOD Obama loves is his dereliction of duty.

[Matt Psyche]

The president, 50% of the House members, 60% of senators, and a majority of Supreme Court Justices must agree with legislation. Not an easy thing.


II think it was Tiny who said gridlock is good and under our political system, the chief executive can't just simply implement his program (then it would be Argentina). What truly memorable achievements did Bush II have? Clinton? Bush I? Do you see a pattern here?

[Wild Walleye]

I am curious as to whether you have read Marx. I haven't heard anything from Obama about workers receiving the full marginal product of their labor,Isn't that what he's talking about with Joe the Plumber, backing the Occupy movement and "making sure everyone gets their fair share?" How else should one interpret those (amongst many similar) data points?


owning the means of production, or inevitably revolting.You missed the part about fundamentally transforming America. I thought Obama was the only thing between republicans and the masses with pitchforks and torches. Sun Tzu meets 21st century Marxist, the threat of revolt has been trotted out many times by this lot of malcontents. Buses of rabble-rousers going to the private homes of AIG executives? Long-term, illegal occupation of private property (Occupy)? You don't see a revolutionary nature of this community organizer?


He has some socialist leanings but not Marxist leanings.You say tomato, I say Marxist.


Who has Marxist leanings any more anyway?Obama.


Shit's been discredited.Not from where I am sitting.


Passing a national health care law is a major achievement, regardless of whether one is for or against the law.That is what Hitler said. Of course, before long, being against his policies could turn out to be fatal.


I'm not even sure whether I am for or against it, but it's a memorable achievement. I think it was Tiny who said gridlock is good and under our political system,I have said that in that past, especially when discussing profligate spenders in the Oval Office (I wish we had some spending gridlock during the Bush years).


the chief executive can't just simply implement his programWhen the chief executive's program is bad for the country, I am perfectly comfortable with my representatives doing all that they can to prevent him from implementing it.


(then it would be Argentina).I would agree, to some extent. However, Argentina is the version in which more than 50% of the populace are dependent upon government largess, in one form or another (in one form or another, not necessarily for subsistence).


What truly memorable achievements did Bush II have?

Kept us safe, post 9-11. Tax cuts. Spending way too much.


Clinton?He had a Republican congress that gave him his biggest accomplishments.


Bush I?We read his lips, oops.


Do you see a pattern here?Yes. We should not elect presidents who will spend too much or increase taxes.

Please see the photo attached to post #1520. That book has been in my possession since the Spring of 1984.

http://www.argentinaprivate.com/forum/showthread.php?5285-American-Politics-during-the-Obama-Administration/page152

[Wild Walleye]

The president, 50% of the House members, 60% of senators, and a majority of Supreme Court Justices must agree with legislation. Not an easy thing.In the absence of a fiscally conservative president, Senate and House, gridlock is good.

[Dickhead]

You have proven to my satisfaction that you don't know the difference between socialism and communism."Fair share" is a socialist concept. Marx would reject it out of hand (you haven't read him) because "fair" is nowhere near the same concept as "marginal product." Maybe you were sick that day but a guy with an econ degree who hasn't read Marx does leave a bit to be desired.

[Matt Psyche]

"Implementation" of the programs are done by the federal bureaucracy, and the president, chief executive, is the boss. Nobody can stop implementation of the programs, except Judicial Review by the supreme court or a successful lawsuit by a third party. Your "representative" (should be singular) and senators of your state are in the legislative branch. Their power is only for passing or rejecting legislative agendas, subject to presidential veto. They can't stop implementation by the executive branch.


When the chief executive's program is bad for the country, I am perfectly comfortable with my representatives doing all that they can to prevent him from implementing it.

]

[Tiny12]

You have proven to my satisfaction that you don't know the difference between socialism and communism."Fair share" is a socialist concept. Marx would reject it out of hand (you haven't read him) because "fair" is nowhere near the same concept as "marginal product." Maybe you were sick that day but a guy with an econ degree who hasn't read Marx does leave a bit to be desired.I'm not trying to start an argument, I respect both you and Walleye. The little bit of educational background in economics that I have is mostly in project economics. I did have a Marxist government professor, in one of the four liberal arts classes I took, and understand at one time Marxist professors were very common and even dominated some University programs in economics and political science. Even 30 years ago, given the examples of East Germany and West Germany, North Korea and South Korea, etc, it should have been thoroughly discredited. Why would they bother to teach it at universities? And how did Marxist professors manage to get tenure? Do they still teach it, outside of history classes?

Btw, I'm not sure whether the students in my government class were sucking up to the professor or whether they really believed the B.S., but there were quite a few that appeared to be fellow travelers. I was tempted to fake it, some of the revolutionary women were hot, although they had hairy armpits.

[Wild Walleye]

You have proven to my satisfaction that you don't know the difference between socialism and communism."Fair share" is a socialist concept. Marx would reject it out of hand (you haven't read him) because "fair" is nowhere near the same concept as "marginal product." Maybe you were sick that day but a guy with an econ degree who hasn't read Marx does leave a bit to be desired.Good thing I'm not too concerned what you think. Would you really expect a Marxist with the dumb luck to get elected president of the USA to come right out and say what he is? All of those things are toes in the water, mere tips of the iceberg.

I picked up a degree in economics in '87 from a fairly well-known program. Had many Keynesian professors, some were ardent believers in Keynes, others were just masquerading Marxists. I wrote a thesis on environmental economics and another on the economics of labor (as in organized labor) so, my exposure is not purely what you might want to label as right-wing. Even without that background, I am pretty sure that I could spot a Marxist, when I see one. I guess my performance in econ was good enough since it played a decent role in getting into a top be-school. I partied a lot but, I didn't miss many classes.

[Tiny12]

Would you really expect a Marxist with the dumb luck to get elected president of the USA to come right out and say what he is? All of those things are toes in the water, mere tips of the iceberg.One thing is indisputable, he has grown the size of federal government so that it's 24% of GDP. Combined with state and local government, which unlike the federal government actually provide significant useful services, government expenditures are 41% of GDP. Add what we spend on excess regulation, filling out tax forms, etc., and you're probably over 45%. That's too much.

[Wild Walleye]

Even 30 years ago, given the examples of East Germany and West Germany, North Korea and South Korea, etc, it should have been thoroughly discredited. Why would they bother to teach it at universities? And how did Marxist professors manage to get tenure?During my studies, I'd say the question is "how many teachers that get tenure are not Marxists?"


Do they still teach it, outside of history classes?Yes. It is of great importance to understand Marxism and the abject and perpetual failure of the command economy. The memory of the American public is pretty short, after all, they elected Obama a relatively short time after selecting Jimmy Carter. Know thy enemy.


Btw, I'm not sure whether the students in my government class were sucking up to the professor or whether they really believed the B.S., but there were quite a few that appeared to be fellow travelers.Most students are dumber than a bag of rocks and soft-minded, even the smart ones. They are very susceptible to the influences of college professors, whom they expect to possesses infinite, unimpeachable knowledge. They are primed for indoctrination and before too long, you can't get through to them (Esten, Member [whatever his number is] and Dickhead). It doesn't make them bad people, some of my best friends are hopeless liberals.


I was tempted to fake it, some of the revolutionary women were hot, although they had hairy armpits.One term, I had the brilliant idea to follow that line of thought (I. E. Chase tail via class selection). So I picked "The Politics of Language." What a f*cking train wreck. First class, the professor (diesel dike) lays out the premise of the class: men are the bane of all political discourse. Right or wrong, I dropped that class like a hot stone.

[Wild Walleye]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Obama is doing to us what we did to the Soviet Union, to end the cold war. We forced them to collapse under the weight of their own spending. If our economy doesn't grow at an average of at least 7. 5, every year into perpetuity, we will collapse under the weight of our own spending (don't forget the trillions of unfunded liabilities that don't get included in the debt numbers).

[Dickhead]

It is indeed important to study failed economic strategies. Not just communism but mercantilism and bullionism, to name a couple. I am not a liberal but a moderate (I must be since conservatives accuse me of being liberal and liberals accuse me of being conservative), so I study both sides. Politics is not a main interest for me; I look at it as a branch of economics and a sub-set of the study of history. To quote Santayana, those who don't understand history are condemned to repeat it. Studying failure is to avoid it. When Álvaro Obregón was figuring out how to defeat Pancho Villa, he studied the battles that had recently taken place in Europe. He looked at both the ineffective techniques and the effective techniques before he came up with his barbed wire strategy, a new strategy he would have been unlikely to develop had he not studied both successful and unsuccessful cavalry charges. I am of the opinion that much of life is guerrilla warfare and so you have to study both what you believe in and what you don't believe in. To the extent the US can get away from liberal vs. conservative, Democrat vs. Republican and start studying what has and HAS NOT worked in the past, everyone will be better off. For example, how about a bi-partisan, empirical Congressional study about what increases or decreases in individual tax rates does to the economy, similar to what I posted about the corporate tax rate? Politics is so polarizing for many people (but not for me because I will just concentrate on beating whatever system is in place), it's hard to get people to shut up and look at empirical research. And, there is a lot of shit research out there.

But the concept of not studying something because it is a proven failure is not a good one. We must understand how and why these things fail. Why did the 'Great Leap Forward' fail? Lack of understanding of the economic concepts of economies of scale and the learning curve, among other factors. Why did the Spanish empire decline? Bullionism and protectionism, among other factors. Why do governments continue to use tariffs when they have conclusively been proven to decrease world-wide wealth and would thus perhaps appear to be failures? Because they can benefit one party at the (greater) expense of another. If no one had studied why the early attempts at building the Panamá Canal failed, the successful undertaking would have been impossible.

Failure is very instructive. Even with chicas.

[Member #2041]

It is indeed important to study failed economic strategies. Not just communism but mercantilism and bullionism, to name a couple. I am not a liberal but a moderate (I must be since conservatives accuse me of being liberal and liberals accuse me of being conservative) , so I study both sides. Politics is not a main interest for me; I look at it as a branch of economics and a sub-set of the study of history. To quote Santayana, those who don't understand history are condemned to repeat it. Studying failure is to avoid it. When Álvaro Obregóand was figuring out how to defeat Villa, he studied the battles that had recently taken place. He looked at both the ineffective techniques and the effective techniques before he came up with his barbed wire strategy. I am of the opinion that much of life is guerrilla warfare and so you have to study both what you believe in and what you don't believe in. To the extent the US can get away from liberal vs. Conservative, Democrat vs. Republican and start studying what has and HAS NOT worked in the past, everyone will be better off. For example, how about a bi-partisan, empirical Congressional study about what increases or decreases in individual tax rates does to the economy, similar to what I posted about the corporate tax rate? Politics is so polarizing for many people (but not for me because I will just concentrate on beating whatever system is in place) , it's hard to get people to shut up and look at empirical research. And, there is a lot of shit research out there.

But the concept of not studying something because it is a proven failure is not a good one. We must understand how and why these things fail. Why did the 'Great Leap Forward' fail? Lack of understanding of the economic concepts of economies of scale and the learning curve, among other factors. Why did the Spanish empire decline? Bullionism and protectionism, among other factors. Why do governments continue to use tariffs when they have conclusively been proven to decrease world-wide wealth and would thus perhaps appear to be failures? Because they can benefit one party at the (greater) expense of another. If no one had studied why the early attempts at building the Panamá Canal failed, the successful undertaking would have been impossible.

Failure is very instructive. Even with chicas.
Dickhead is correct - one must learn from tragic mistakes to avoid repeating them, and it's fascinating to see someone like Tiny12 advocate wanton ignorance about such things as communism. Of course, we see that those who advocate ignorance about what they disagree with tend to be ignorant about a whole lot of stuff, as apparently, this makes it easier to regurgitate talking points without worrying if they have any actual merits to them, rather than soothe their need for simplistic answers to complex questions and problems.

It's most amusing that our Republican friends are very quick to note - Correctly, I might add - that communist policies have failed in the past, but they are unwilling or unable to do the same with their own favorite dogma, I. E. That tax cuts for the wealthy as a means of stimulating economic opportunity for the middle and poorer classes do not in fact work, but rather, simply contribute to the overall inequality of wealth. I've posted this study before, but none of our conservative friends on this forum was either willing or capable of addressing it's substance:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/PDF/0915taxesandeconomy.pdf

I do feel compelled to note that Mitt Romney has been endorsed by that well known deep thinker with concern over how to best reinvigorate the middle class, with a compelling track record of learning from her mistakes, one Lindsay Lohan

[Wild Walleye]

Failure is very instructive. Even with chicas.Sometimes, failure is more instructive than success.

[Dickhead]

Success is just delayed failure. Ask the trickle-down advocates. Or Tiger Woods.

[Wild Walleye]

Dickhead is correct - one must learn from tragic mistakes to avoid repeating them, and it's fascinating to see someone like Tiny12 advocate wanton ignorance about such things as communism.I doubt that was Tiny's point.


Of course, we see that those who advocate ignorance about what they disagree with tend to be ignorant about a whole lot of stuff, as apparently, this makes it easier to regurgitate talking points without worrying if they have any actual merits to them, rather than soothe their need for simplistic answers to complex questions and problems.The day you can articulate conservatism will be the day I can part the Red Sea.


It's most amusing that our Republican friends are very quick to note - Correctly, I might add - that communist policies have failed in the past, but they are unwilling or unable to do the same with their own favorite dogma, I. E. That tax cuts for the wealthy as a means of stimulating economic opportunity for the middle and poorer classes do not in fact work, but rather, simply contribute to the overall inequality of wealth.For the record, I am not a Republican, I am a conservative. The legendary right-winger John F. Kennedy proved you wrong.


I've posted this study before, but none of our conservative friends on this forum was either willing or capable of addressing it's substance:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/PDF/0915taxesandeconomy.pdfZzzzzzzzzzz.


I do feel compelled to note that Mitt Romney has been endorsed by that well known deep thinker with concern over how to benefit the middle class, one Lindsay LohanYou think that is more egregious than the scores of embarrassing statements and instances of abject ignorance displayed by Obama and his minions?

[Wild Walleye]

Success is just delayed failure. Ask the trickle-down advocates. Or Tiger Woods.There are more wealthy and fewer poor folks under trickle-down economics than there are under trickle-down government.

[Dickhead]

Rome spent close to 70% of its GDP in the public sector at their peak. In fact, the decline of that particular empire coincided with decreased government spending, although correlation does not prove causality. Same thing with the Habsburg Empire. Of course, this is data mining because I am only presenting examples that corroborate what I seek to show, but actually those are the only two empires I have studied in that regard. México, I know, was relatively more successful (defining success in terms of peace and lack of starvation) when government spending was relatively higher, but I haven't looked at that one empirically. All government spending is not equal, though. Spending on things like education and training is investment (if the education and training is worth a shit, of course) , infrastructure spending can have high rates of return and short payback periods (unless the project was pork in the first place) , and there is such a thing as a natural monopoly. Defense spending is often Keynesian in nature, a juxtaposition many conservatives dislike. One problem I would address if elected (but see Sherman, William T.) is agricultural and other subsidies that distort the markets. That type of government spending is counterproductive.

So my platform is as follows:

1) Eliminate the corporate income tax.

2) Adopt a higher set of individual rates, that are approximately as progressive as what we currently have, that would be revenue neutral considering #1.

Immediate savings in bureaucratic bullshit. Decreased government employment would result, which could have a temporary negative effect. Some of the savings could be earmarked to offset this with temporary transfer payments to affected workers. Say 50.

3) Legalize marijuana. Regulate it and tax it like alcohol.

Immediate savings in bureaucratic bullshit. Decreased government employment would result, which could have a temporary negative effect. Suggest executing those cocksuckers instead.

4) Legalize prostitution. Duh.

Immediate savings in bureaucratic bullshit. Decreased local government revenues from outrageous property seizures would result, which could have a temporary negative effect, had we not had the foresight to legalize marijuana to offset this.

5) Tax all forms of income, earned income, dividends, royalties, and capital gains at the same rate. If you are against this proposal, read Modigliani and Miller and then shut the fuck up until you win your own Nobel Prize. QED.

6) Abolish the Electoral College and the Senate. If this does not happen eventually blood will flow in the streets. It never will so I hope 'eventually' is after I am dead.

7) Abolish private and charter schools. Maintain local control of the curriculum if you like (although I wouldn't) but everybody goes to the same fucking school for Christ's sake. That is the type of basic equality that my United States is all about. And free means free. No more of these bullshit textbook fees that we did not have when I was a kid. That is a real problem.

8) Abolish tax breaks for religious organizations. Duh. It is in the Constitution.

9) Abolish all aspects of the tax system that favor those with children over those without, or those with more children over those with fewer. Encouraging large families is regressive.

10) Take the New York Yankees, their management, and their fans out on a boat in the middle of the ocean and sink it.

This is my platform. Feel free to write my name on your ballot: Richard T. Head, Esq.

[Dickhead]

There are more wealthy and fewer poor folks under trickle-down economics than there are under trickle-down government.Any empirical documentation of this assertion would be favorably received.

[Wild Walleye]

Any empirical documentation of this assertion would be favorably received.I'll work on that. However, we might start with the more than 110 million people killed by communist regimes, during the last century.

[Dickhead]

I'll work on that. However, we might start with the more than 110 million people killed by communist regimes, during the last century.Start with the economic side, but also work on supporting the figure you just gave. And try to move away from examples involving communism because that is so last century. I understand that is hard for you to recognize because you don't have any idea what communism is or involves, but I will grant that you can probably identify which countries were communist in the past.

[Wild Walleye]

Start with the economic side, but also work on supporting the figure you just gave. And try to move away from examples involving communism because that is so last century. I understand that is hard for you to recognize because you don't have any idea what communism is or involves, but I will grant that you can probably identify which countries were communist in the past.Sure, let's ignore the facts and move into fantasy land. I can assure you that Communism and its ilk are not last century. I am also quite certain that being killed severely limits one's ability to participate in the economy. Any more ridiculous constraints that you'd like to apply to the analysis? Does the air in that bubble ever get stale?

[Dickhead]

What's it's 'ilk'? Socialism? Go back and study the history of economic development and thought. You were sick that day too. It's really easy to ignore facts when chatting with you, since you never present any. You are articulate but lacking in substance. Have you considered a career in politics?

[Wild Walleye]

What's it's 'ilk'? Socialism? Go back and study the history of economic development and thought. You were sick that day too.I am surprised that an economic genius such as yourself doesn't know that there are multiple flavors of communism and command economies. Typical leftist approach: one size fits all.

[Dickhead]

Give some examples to support your position. Certainly there is a continuum of economic strategies ranging from pure capitalism to pure communism. Some would say socialism lies along that continuum (my view) while others would say it lies inside or within it; I think few would say it lies outside it. You don't engage my views at all; rather, you resort to 'liberal' as an epithet despite my assurance it does not describe me very well. You're adept at introducing straw men but seemingly incapable of any kind of independent analysis. It's sort of an anecdotal approach in place of an analytical one.

[Wild Walleye]

Give some examples to support your position. Certainly there is a continuum of economic strategies ranging from pure capitalism to pure communism. Some would say socialism lies along that continuum (my view) while others would say it lies inside or within it; I think few would say it lies outside it. You don't engage my views at all; rather, you resort to 'liberal' as an epithet despite my assurance it does not describe me very well. You're adept at introducing straw men but seemingly incapable of any kind of independent analysis. It's sort of an anecdotal approach in place of an analytical one.I've been pretty consistent over the past four years about Obama, Marxism and related subjects. Feel free to use the search function to educate yourself.

I don't feel the need to change the subject, however, I just saw this and thought that it is appropriate: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/13/us-qaeda-zawahiri-film-idUSBRE89C06520121013

Your boy Obama is LEADING Al Qaeda's attack on the US by providing them with excuses and cover.

[Dickhead]

Here is an article by an economist who has a PhD from Wharton, normally considered to be both a top program and a fairly mainstream one. The author claims and presents empirical evidence that tax rates and economic growth are unrelated. See what kind of holes you can poke in this.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/signal/does-28-top-marginal-tax-rate-mean-175706337.html

[Dickhead]

I've been pretty consistent over the past four years about Obama, Marxism and related subjects. Feel free to use the search function to educate yourself.

I don't feel the need to change the subject, however, I just saw this and thought that it is appropriate:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/13/us-qaeda-zawahiri-film-idUSBRE89C06520121013

Your boy Obama is LEADING Al Qaeda's attack on the US by providing them with excuses and cover.I haven't indicated a preference for one candidate over another but I do find it interesting that you call Obama 'boy. ' I did not see any particular point to the article you quoted. Maybe you would like to elaborate.

[Member #2041]

It's really easy to ignore facts when chatting with you, since you never present any. You are articulate but lacking in substance.That, and his misinformed yammering about Obama being a Marxist without any basis is why I put him on my ignore list. The calling of Obama "boy" is just more indication of where he's REALLY coming from.

[Tiny12]

Here is an article by an economist who has a PhD from Wharton, normally considered to be both a top program and a fairly mainstream one. The author claims and presents empirical evidence That tax rates and economic growth are unrelated. See what kind of holes you can poke in this.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/signal/does-28-top-marginal-tax-rate-mean-175706337.htmlMy argument is also with high marginal rates on corporations and a tax system riddled with loopholes. I assume unlike Member #2041 that you don't disagree with that. The evidence is pretty clear cut that they slow economic growth.

You're an economist, I'm not. But doing a quick search in Google Scholar, there appears to be no argument that higher tax rates on companies reduce economic growth. Lee and Gordon (2005) estimate a 10% cut in the corporate tax rate increases economic growth by one to two percentage points. Other studies have similar results. That's gigantic, and I guess something you and Walleye already knew. Cut the rate on corporations to 0% and the tax on sole proprietorships, LLC's and Sub S's to 0% and we end up with East Asian levels of economic growth. I actually don't think the effect would be that profound, but am sure it would increase the GDP growth rate.

The data for the personal income tax is less clear cut. But as alluded to above, in the United States a large part of the personal income tax on the wealthy is actually tax on profits from businesses – sole proprietorships, LLC's and Sub S corporations. Higher tax rates on these businesses will slow economic growth, everything else being equal.


With respect to the mixed views on whether higher personal tax rates, exclusive of taxes on business, affect economic growth, they largely, like your link, don't take into account all the variables. They may not look at business conditions, education, globalization, technology, etc.

Most importantly, perhaps, some may not look at where we started and where we're going. COUNTRIES SEE GDP GROWTH FALL AS THEY BECOME MORE PROSPEROUS AND WEALTHIER. That's what's going on in the graph in your link. Lower tax rates are not causing GDP growth rates to fall. The only two countries that aren't special cases (oil rich, etc.) that I know of that have managed to maintain high rates of GDP growth as they've become wealthy are Singapore and Hong Kong. AND THEY HAVE LOW CORPORATE AND PERSONAL TAX RATES.

As I've pointed out here ad nauseum, if you compare compare high tax economies to low tax economies, the ones with lower taxes do better, all other things being equal. Compare Hong Kong and Singapore to any place in the world. And compare East Asian countries and the USA to Western Europe. Go through a list of the 10 countries with the highest GDP per capita in the world -- 7 or 8 of the 10, including the USA, have lower tax rates than Western Europe. And 6 have very low tax rates: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita.

There's a fairness issue. How much are you going to milk people? Some would say 50% or 60% on high earners including state income taxes. I view that as robbery and in that scenario don't see much difference between the USA government and someone who hits you over the head and takes your wallet.

[Matt Psyche]

"Empirical" finding. That's a most boring thing to the most members on this thread. I brought indicators suggesting the lack of relationship several times. But they didn't matter to the people who don't know the difference between Marxists and those who don't vote Republicans.

[QUOTE=Dickhead; 427706]The author claims and presents empirical evidence That tax rates and economic growth are unrelated. See what kind of holes you can poke in this.

[Tiny12]

"Empirical" finding. That's a most boring thing to the most members on this thread. I brought indicators suggesting the lack of relationship several times. But they didn't matter to the people who don't know the difference between Marxists and those who don't vote Republicans..

If you'd PM me an Email address I'd send you a .pdf copy of the paper I quoted below. I think it would change your mind about tax rates on business.

[Dickhead]

My argument is also with high marginal rates on corporations and a tax system riddled with loopholes. I assume unlike Member #2041 that you don't disagree with that. The evidence is pretty clear cut that they slow economic growth.Yes, I do disagree with that and posted a very fine study showing that there is not much correlation between corporate tax rates and economic growth. You didn't look at it. As far as your empirical support, why not post it publicly?

Since corporate taxes are about 9% of revenue, per

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/revenue.cfm

one would suppose marginal individual tax rates would need to go up by that much (actually it would be the inverse of 1 minus 9%, minus 1, or 9.89%; let's just go with 10%), if the corporate tax were eliminated. That would imply rates of 11%, 16.5%, 27.5%, 30.8%, 34.1% and 38.5%. Capital gains taxes would have to go up by 10% (not 10 percentage points) as well. Hmmm. The "old" rates that are scheduled to return are all higher than that except for 16.5%. So now would be the perfect opportunity to eliminate the entire fucking thing!

When did I ever say I was an economist? I did pay attention in the economics courses I took, and I took quite a few, but I don't have an econ degree and I have never worked as an economist. You don't have to be an economist to find out how much the corporate tax brings in and do the simple math I just did to prove that people talking about rate of 50 or 60% are full of shit.

I also have other goals besides growth in GDP, growth in GDP, and growth in GDP. Hong Kong may have strong GDP growth but it has a tremendous amount of pollution, as does China. Singapore is a fucking police state. Plus (this should be obvious) it is a lot easier to get high GDP growth when you are in an earlier stage of development. What country has the highest per capita GDP? High tax country or low tax country?

As far as I know, I have taken two positions on taxes: Abolish the corporate tax in a revenue-neutral fashion and tax all forms of income at the same marginal rate. I have never said anything about cutting taxes or raising them. Notice it isn't part of my platform. I would use monetary policy over fiscal policy whenever possible.

[Member #2041]

When did I ever say I was an economist?To be fair, I'm pretty sure he was referring to me.

[Dickhead]

To be fair, I'm pretty sure he was referring to me.He was quoting me.

[Member #2041]

Plus (this should be obvious) it is a lot easier to get high GDP growth when you are in an earlier stage of development. What country has the highest per capita GDP? High tax country or low tax country?I already went around the block with Tiny12 a few pages back in this thread. What is obvious to both you and I about growth rates vs. Overall stage of economic development is quite clearly NOT obvious to Tiny12. He seems to think that higher growth rates than the U.S. in places like Mexico and Thailand and Indonesia has nothing to do with the relative state of economic development in these countries, but rather, is purely a function of U.S. government spending under Obama (and, I might add, ONLY Obama, not his predecessor).

[Tiny12]

Sorry, My last post was intended for Matt. I knew Dickhead has a strong background in economics, finance, and accounting, and called him an economist when he's not, as we now know. And I feel like a dumb shit, I just found a link to the paper that I paid $31. 50 for:

www.aiecon.org/advanced/suggestedreadings/PDF/sug334.pdf

They looked at a lot of countries. In the U.S. they just looked at the corporate tax rate, but apparently Gentry and Hubbard (2000) would have extended their conclusions to other businesses whose taxes show up in the personal rate. I haven't checked out that second paper.

Member #2041, my comments about Mexico, Thailand and Indonesia were related to their emerging from recessions worse than ours with a lot less debt to repay. I also said that if you do that, you have a better base to grow the economy from. I agree with your last post, and would compare, say, the USA to Western Europe, not to a developing country, when looking at taxes and growth rates.

[Dickhead]

And the European country with the highest GDP per capita is Luxembourg, and both their top marginal individual tax rate and their average individual income tax rates are higher than the US's, to say nothing of their VAT. I am not an advocate VATs, by the way. They are okay for developing countries that have trouble collecting taxes. I will try to read that paper today. Be sure to look at the one I posted a couple of days ago because it reviews a lot of prior studies.

[Tiny12]

And the European country with the highest GDP per capita is Luxembourg, and both their top marginal individual tax rate and their average individual income tax rates are higher than the US's, to say nothing of their VAT. I am not an advocate VATs, by the way. They are okay for developing countries that have trouble collecting taxes. I will try to read that paper today. Be sure to look at the one I posted a couple of days ago because it reviews a lot of prior studies.O. K, I'll take a look. You might want to take a look at link to the Wikipedia post to GDP per capita adjusted for PPP, in my post down a little on this page. Luxembourg and Norway are the two exceptions. The other top 10 wealthiest countries, including the USA, have relatively low taxes. I agree on the VAT. A tax that politicians love because the people who ultimately pay it don't know they're paying it, but easier to collect than an income tax.

[Tiny12]

Be sure to look at the one I posted a couple of days ago because it reviews a lot of prior studies.This is Auerbach's paper, Berkeley, Who Bears the Corporate Tax? I started on it. It's going to take a while, it gets pretty technical and I don't have the background to understand some of it.

[Dickhead]

OK, so this study examines other countries. The one I posted examines the US corporate income tax. Looking at other countries is problematic because they don't have similar overall tax structures (I. E, VATs, taxation of holding gains, etc.) to ours. The authors make this assumption:

"Consistent with this interpretation, however, we provide evidence that a low corporate rate leads to a fall in personal income tax revenue, in spite of the higher growth rate. We presume this occurs because people reduce their time as employees, where income is subject to the personal tax, and instead become entrepreneurs, generating corporate tax revenue and perhaps personal tax losses."

The bolded part is at odds with most research I've seen. People can't afford to do this. I hope not too much of the rest of the paper is contingent on this.

"low current effective tax rates on new investment suggest faster short-run growth"; this is the thinking behind IRC Sec. 179 or so-called "immediate depreciation."

"if tax policy is used to respond to business-cycle fluctuations, this could also induce a short-run correlation between tax rates and the growth rate." True and a reason I favor monetary policy.

"there is a tax encouragement to being self-employed when the effective tax rate on business income is less than the tax rate on wage and salary income. This would occur to the extent that the corporate tax rate is below marginal personal tax rates." In the US this would only apply to C corporations, which are seldom used by entrepreneurs (but might be if you took double taxation off the table). Same is true about what he says about risk taking. All this would be neutral under my platform.

I am not sure a Cobb-Douglas function accurately captures an economy where about 30% of all industries have economies of scale, but I doubt it's significant to the findings. The choice to use the top marginal tax rate was probably appropriate given the thrust of the paper, but weakens any extension of the study to an overall society.

Okay, I finished it. It doesn't convince me of anything regarding the US. The numbers say that if you hold individual rates constant and raise corporate rates (an overall tax increase) , it is bad for GDP. I have no problem accepting that. Although the "p" values are high, the are-squared are not, indicating many missing factors. You can also see from reading this how much easier the analysis would be if corporate income taxes were eliminated.

Again, Zimbabwe and Ghana and such are not close enough to the US for this study to mean anything, although I do thank you for finding it. Now go look at my study about the US.

[Dickhead]

This is Auerbach's paper, Berkeley, Who Bears the Corporate Tax? I started on it. It's going to take a while, it gets pretty technical and I don't have the background to understand some of it.Okay. Try to finish it before you vote, though.

[Esten]

For some reason Democrats believe they're always truthful and the other side is not. Here's a list of Biden's "untruths" during the debate from a conservative web site:Yes Biden had some "untruths" too. Not to excuse him, but in some cases I think he just didn't have his facts right, versus knowingly stating something untrue.

Democrats don't believe Democrats are always truthful.

What I would say though, is that nobody is better at crafting a deliberate falsehood than a Republican.

[Esten]

There really is no hope for you, is there? Solyndra, Fisker, Lightsquared, any of this ringing any bells?Romney's claims of cronyism have been shown false by CNN and Washington Post:

Completely False - Fact Checking Romney's Claim Of Obama Cronyism And Fisker (CNN)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plx_alKP0aQ

4 Pinocchios for an unproven Romney claim of 'crony capitalism'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/4-pinocchios-for-mitt-romneys-unproven-claim-of-crony-capitalism/2012/07/17/gJQAYuYPsW_blog.html

I'm sure if they looked into it they could find a bunch of Republicans who received stimulus funds as well. That would be fishy too, huh?

Face it, you just believe what you want to believe.

[Dickhead]

Biden has had honesty issues going back to when he got caught plagiarizing:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history_lesson/2008/08/the_write_stuff.html

One of the guys running for Congress here has been arrested twice for pissing in public and once for breaking into vending machines. Where the fuck do they get these guys?

[Punter 127]

Ohio Coal Miners Condemn Obama's 'Absolute lies' and Sherrod Brown, too.

The Obama campaign had seized on rumors started by a local shock jock, David Bloomquist, who claimed the miners had been forced to attend the Romney rally. Mitch Miracle, speaking for the miners, read aloud the two letters they had written and signed.

The letter to Obama read like this:

Dear President Obama:.

We are writing as the employees of American Energy Century Mine in Beallsville, Ohio. You have approved in a running television campaign ads about the Mitt Romney event that was held at our Century coal mine. These ads state that we were forced to attend this rally and that is blatantly false. There are numerous false statements and absolute lies concerning our participation in this event, we, the employees, mostly started by a local shock jock host. Since your approval is attached to these ads, you may not wish to support these mistruths. Why would you lie about the 500 working miners who have signed this letter? We, the employees of Century Mine, would request you immediately stop these false ads. Thank you. Century Mine employees. [snip]

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/14/Ohio-Coal-miners-condemn-ObamaPerhaps words do matter, here's a link with more Obama lies, in his own works no less.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4puS-yjwsiE&feature=related

Even Rachel Maddow calls Obama out in this one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=PL1dAyaJmSE

[Wild Walleye]

Romney's claims of cronyism have been shown false by CNN and Washington Post:

Completely False. Fact Checking Romney's Claim Of Obama Cronyism And Fisker (CNN)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plx_alKP0aQ

4 Pinocchios for an unproven Romney claim of 'crony capitalism'

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/4-pinocchios-for-mitt-romneys-unproven-claim-of-crony-capitalism/2012/07/17/gJQAYuYPsW_blog.html

I'm sure if they looked into it they could find a bunch of Republicans who received stimulus funds as well. That would be fishy too, huh?

Face it, you just believe what you want to believe.I am not sure that having part of the Obama campaign (CNN) fact check their statements is going to reassure objective people. Similarly, having the Washington Post fact check its opposition is inherently wrought with conflicts of interest.

[Wild Walleye]

Biden has had honesty issues going back to when he got caught plagiarizing:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history_lesson/2008/08/the_write_stuff.html

One of the guys running for Congress here has been arrested twice for pissing in public and once for breaking into vending machines. Where the fuck do they get these guys?I have always said that Biden was the dumbest man in the Senate, throughout his tenure. I would also posit that he might be the dumbest VP, ever, too (makes Quayle look like a genius).

[Matt Psyche]

What are the indicators suggesting that Biden is "the dumbest " senator and VP? How did you measure? Thanks.


I have always said that Biden was the dumbest man in the Senate, throughout his tenure. I would also posit that he might be the dumbest VP, ever, too (makes Quayle look like a genius).

[Dickhead]

Rumor and insinuendo. Now let's see who's old enough to get that joke.

[Esten]

I saw a photo over the weekend of Paul Ryan and his wife washing dishes in a soup kitchen. They were the only ones in the photo. I didn't doubt it, though it was clear why he was doing it.

Now the story comes out, it wasn't real. He was washing clean pots just for the photo. Looking more closely at the photo, I must say I don't see any dirty dishes. From what we've seen from Ryan, this doesn't totally surprise me.

Charity president unhappy about Paul Ryan soup kitchen 'photo op'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/10/15/charity-president-unhappy-about-paul-ryan-soup-kitchen-photo-op/


'We're a faith-based organization; we are apolitical because the majority of our funding is from private donations, ' Antal said in a phone interview Monday afternoon. 'It's strictly in our bylaws not to do it. They showed up there, and they did not have permission. They got one of the volunteers to open up the doors. '

He added: 'The photo-op they did wasn't even accurate. He did nothing. He just came in here to get his picture taken at the dining hall. '

Ryan had stopped by the soup kitchen for about 15 minutes on his way to the airport after his Saturday morning town hall in Youngstown. By the time he arrived, the food had already been served, the patrons had left, and the hall had been cleaned.

[Punter 127]

I saw a photo over the weekend of Paul Ryan and his wife washing dishes in a soup kitchen. They were the only ones in the photo. I didn't doubt it, though it was clear why he was doing it.

Now the story comes out, it wasn't real. He was washing clean pots just for the photo. Looking more closely at the photo, I must say I don't see any dirty dishes. From what we've seen from Ryan, this doesn't totally surprise me.

Charity president unhappy about Paul Ryan soup kitchen 'photo op'

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/10/15/charity-president-unhappy-about-paul-ryan-soup-kitchen-photo-op/Kind of pales compared to the White House handling of the Libya incident. IMHO

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/10/15/krauthammer_on_libya_cover_up_how_could_they_have_thought_they_would_get_away_with_it.html

[Member #2041]

What are the indicators suggesting that Biden is "the dumbest " senator and VP? How did you measure? Thanks.I'd especially be interested in precisely how Spiro Agnew and Dan Quayle graded out on the same metrics.

[Member #2041]

Kind of pales compared to the White House handling of the Libya incident. IMHO.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/10/15/krauthammer_on_libya_cover_up_how_could_they_have_thought_they_would_get_away_with_it.htmlNot really. I do find it instructive how you consider that giving a confused and erroneous message based upon not really knowing what was happening in the fog of war is somehow worse than planned attempts to fabricate a photo-op that purport to be carrying out charitable acts which are not actually being carried out.

[WorldTravel69]

Read it here.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/mitt-romney-s-tax-dodge-20121012

[WorldTravel69]

Do the Math!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/mitt-romneys-new-math-for-jobs-plan-doesnt-add-up/2012/10/15/fd1d1e1c-170f-11e2-a55c-39408fbe6a4b_blog.html

[WorldTravel69]

Here is the break down.

http://www.romneytaxplan.com/

[Punter 127]

Not really. I do find it instructive how you consider that giving a confused and erroneous message based upon not really knowing what was happening in the fog of war is somehow worse than planned attempts to fabricate a photo-op that purport to be carrying out charitable acts which are not actually being carried out.'Fog of war' which war would that be, and who got us involved in it?

The only fog I see is the one created by the Obama cover up team.

[Dickhead]

http://taxfoundation.org/article/next-years-tax-brackets

I thought this was an interesting and somewhat more independent analysis of the tax issue. I am not too sure I want an Obama-sponsored website telling me what Romney's plan is. This article has the added benefit of looking at the House proposal alongside the two candidates' proposals.

I am better off under either candidate's plan, although not grossly so, which is kind of nice.

[Member #2041]

'Fog of war' which war would that be, and who got us involved in it?

The only fog I see is the one created by the Obama cover up team.Yes. Fog of War. And to answer your question, it was Al Qaida that got us involved in it.

As far as what you are seeing, perhaps you need to remove your obviously shaded glasses through which you view things.

[Punter 127]

Yes. Fog of War. And to answer your question, it was Al Qaida that got us involved in it.

As far as what you are seeing, perhaps you need to remove your obviously shaded glasses through which you view things.Gee, I thought Al Qaida was taken out by Obama.

You should take your own advice when it comes to 'shaded glasses'.

[Dickhead]

I wonder if a political discussion between two moderates would even be interesting. So discussions between extremists are pointless and discussions between moderates might be boring. So:

What ONE substantive change would you make if you were elected president of the United States? Try to go for something remotely do-able.

[WorldTravel69]

Romney Fucked up.

On Women.

Workers,

Education, Family, and the

Economy.

FOX Did Not Know What to say, they were dumbfounded.

[Dickhead]

So I think the website WT posted earlier is a spoof. Look what happens when you click through. It goes from saying it is approved by Obama to saying it is approved by nobody.

http://www.romneytaxplan.com/

When you try to click on 'Get the details, ' the button starts running away from you. Pretty funny. Not surprising WT fell for it as he sets the standard for gullible.

[WorldTravel69]

Romney said he balanced the budget in Massachusetts.

HE DID NOT DO THAT.

LIEING MFer.

Also being Disrespectful of the Host. Candy.

[Dickhead]

Vegas has the race being very close: http://www.politicalbettingodds.com/2012-us-presidential-election-odds.html

Over / under popular vote for Obama 50. 5% and 49. 5% for Romney.

[WorldTravel69]

What are the odds?

I am in. Obama Wins.

I will take all bets, within my pocket book.


Vegas has the race being very close:

http://www.politicalbettingodds.com/2012-us-presidential-election-odds.html

Over / under popular vote for Obama 50. 5% and 49. 5% for Romney.

[Dickhead]

Nope. It doesn't matter to me who wins. They can set up whatever system they want, either one of them, and I will figure out how to beat it. I always do. I have already found a hole in the system to where I can get around $80k in free money so god bless america.

[WorldTravel69]

I Did not fall for It. You Did.

I Knew It! What the Answer would be.

If some of you did not understand it try again.

I did not mention Obama anywhere. Was it an affliction you have? Missing Things? Or Beer?
Mines Wine.

http://www.romneytaxplan.com/


So I think the website WT posted earlier is a spoof. Look what happens when you click through. It goes from saying it is approved by Obama to saying it is approved by nobody.

http://www.romneytaxplan.com/

When you try to click on 'Get the details, ' the button starts running away from you. Pretty funny. Not surprising WT fell for it as he sets the standard for gullible.

[Dickhead]

Very articulate.