View Full Version : 2012 Elections in the USA
Pages :
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
[
8]
9
WorldTravel69
10-17-12, 03:52
I wish you Luck.
AND Me.
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.
57% of the senators and 39% of the congress have law degrees and that seems pretty darn high to me. I have nothing against lawyers but a surplus of them can only create problems. Maybe shoot half of them; that should get us to a more reasonable ratio. Interestingly a slightly higher percentage of congress have master's degrees as compared to senators, and while no senators have PhDs. 23 congress do. That is a weird piece of data and I have no idea what to make of it.
242 to 193 Republicans to Democrats in the House of Representatives after the 2010 election and 51-47-2 in the Senate, with the 2 independents leaning Democratic. So we can see why nothing ever gets done; nobody has the required level of majority. Nothing getting done is often a good thing, though. I am reminded of the Spanish king's instruction to the first viceroy he sent to México (Pedro de Mendoza):
'Do little and do it slowly.'
Given that politicians could fuck up a wet dream, I think this is a good political philosophy and one we should embrace.
I wish you Luck.AND Me.Luck is not involved. Proper Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance. Or, to quote the visionary 20th century thinker Branch Rickey, 'luck is the residue of design. ' Vote and participate in the process, but realize that each individual voter is like a tiny turd in a vast outhouse. What you think matters, but it matters 1/6,000,000,000 so don't get your hopes up. That's why I recommend trying to fuck the system as opposed to changing it. Plus, economic theory tells me that if everyone tries to fuck the system for their own benefit, it will pull the system towards a stable equilibrium.
Doesn't the constitution protect people against this sort of thing?
http://rt.com/usa/news/us-prostitution-clients-shame-426/
I wonder where Romney and his supporters stand on this issue.
Punter 127
10-17-12, 07:23
Doesn't the constitution protect people against this sort of thing?
http://rt.com/usa/news/us-prostitution-clients-shame-426/
I wonder where Romney and his supporters stand on this issue.I wonder where Obama and his supporters stand on this issue. I also wonder what this has to do with the 2012 election?
Member #2041
10-17-12, 11:57
Gee, I thought Al Qaida was taken out by Obama.
Thinking is obviously not your strong suit. Al Qaida has been severely diminished, but neither Obama nor anyone else with knowledge ever claimed that they had been eliminated. The fact is, being able to launch an attack against an Embassy located in an Arab nation with a government in flux and national security forces of dubious allegiances is quite a bit less of a task than launching a mass attack on American civilians on American soil. Their ability to do the latter is presently in serious doubt, but their ability to do the former, obviously still exists.
In any case, it remains instructive that you continue to give Ryan / Romney a pass on intentional lying, and feel the need to deflect the subject when questioned about it.
Daddy Rulz
10-17-12, 18:37
Slick Willie!
Wow! Did MSNBC screw up. MSNBC had a post 2nd debate panel of 8 'undecided' voters. You would think MSNBC would stack the deck with 8 stealth Obama supporters. Whoops, the 8 'undecided' voters became Romney supporters after the 2nd debate, and the biggest surprise, the 4 'undecided' women voters on the panel became the most adamant of the new romney supporters.
Fox News had a post 2nd debate panel of about 30 'undecided' voters who had supported Obama in 2008. Surprise, surprise, almost all of the 30 'undecided' 2008 Obama supporters are no longer in the 'undecided' column. They became Romney supporters after the 2nd debate. MSNBC could learn something from Fox news about how to select panels of 'undecided 'voters that support the view of the news service that put them on the panel.
Member #4112
10-17-12, 21:09
I noticed Obama got around to the 'Romney would have let GM go bankrupt' shot during the last debate. Well Obama let GM go 'bankrupt' sort of, they went into 'Obama-ruptcy'. I believe we can all agree NO ONE was talking about liquidation of GM as a starting point for the rest of this dicussion.
First.
You must remember the purpose of bankruptcy is to free productive assets from the burden of debts which can not be repaid or refinanced. This is the purpose of Chapter 13 and 12.
Second.
At the time of GM's bankruptcy it had $20 Billion in tangible assets and another $10 Billion in intellectual properties for a total of roughly $30 Billion. GM also had underfunded the healthcare benefit trust for current and retired employees by $20 Billion and another $10 Billion in underfunded pension contributions for a total of $30 Billion owed the employee union. GM also owed the Bondholders $30 Billion. All the creditors got screwed which is what happens in bankruptcy.
Third.
What should have happened in a straight forward bankruptcy was each party, union and bondholders would have received roughly $15 Billion in cash and equity in the 'New GM'. Remember GM was worth about $30 Billion at the time it entered bankruptcy. But that's not what happened, somehow via 'Obama-ruptcy' the government injected $50 Billion dollars of taxpayer funds into the 'New GM'.250% of what the tangible assets were at the time of the filing.
Fourth.
Who got what. Bondholders received about 10% of the stock in the 'New GM' but were sequestered from selling that stock until much later. The Union received 100% of the $10 Billion due the pension which was just rolled into the 'New GM', the union healthcare trust was awarded 17. 5% of 'New GM' stock in addition to $9 Billion in preferred stock and notes in the 'New GM'. In other words the Bondholders received about 10 cents on the dollar while the union ended up with $28 Billion of the $30 Billion in claims going into bankruptcy. In addition the unions have a total lock on all GM profits for the foreseeable future.
Conclusion.
What should have happened was the union pension, the union healthcare trust and the bondholders should have taken at hit from the bankruptcy and the company should have been able to lower their labor expense from the current $56 / hour to the industry standard of $47 / hour and become a competitive and profitable company under new management. But that did not happen under 'Obama-ruptcy'. GM is still unable to earn a profit, the taxpayers have lost about 50% of the value of the $50 Billion Obama so blithely kicked in so the unions walked away with most of the company and GM is still under unsupportable pension obligations.
Punter 127
10-17-12, 22:22
Thinking is obviously not your strong suit.These type of insults are uncalled for, but they reveal the type of person you really are, and your desperation. I won't however lower myself to your level by calling you a prick or an asshole, you've done an excellent job of exposing that yourself.
Al Qaida has been severely diminished, but neither Obama nor anyone else with knowledge ever claimed that they had been eliminated. The fact is, being able to launch an attack against an Embassy located in an Arab nation with a government in flux and national security forces of dubious allegiances is quite a bit less of a task than launching a mass attack on American civilians on American soil. Their ability to do the latter is presently in serious doubt, but their ability to do the former, obviously still exists.The Obama team may not have said Al Qaida has been eliminated, but they sure tried to imply they were no longer a threat.
Why did Obama send his United Nations ambassador onto five TV shows to claim it was all just a Muslim protest of a video that got out of hand? When did they know, what did they know, and what did they do about it?
I'm not convinced Al Qaida is unable to attack on American soil, but on this one I hope you finally got one right.
In any case, it remains instructive that you continue to give Ryan / Romney a pass on intentional lying, and feel the need to deflect the subject when questioned about it.This from the king of ignore and deflect, talk to me after you address all of the Obama / Biden untruths.
Punter 127
10-17-12, 22:49
Industry sales volume had fallen from 16 to 11 million annual rate. Solutions were to fire top management and the board, provide sales incentives, and standardize to reduce costsI agree it was a management problem and I think the fact that Ford didn't take taxpayer money supports that thinking as well. However it's been suggested that thinking is not my strong suit. LOL
Big Boss Man
10-17-12, 22:54
I.
GM is still unable to earn a profit, the taxpayers have lost about 50% of the value of the $50 Billion Obama so blithely kicked in so the unions walked away with most of the company and GM is still under unsupportable pension obligations.Of course, to be fair, taxpayers have lost nothing until the sale of the stock is actually made. I have also read that the loss currently would be $13b not $25b because some of the money was repaid in 2010. Good question for the next debate. Should the government sell its GM stock at the current $25 a share? Why talk about 2008 when we could talk about 2013? We are just Monday morning quarterbacking now.
Member #4112
10-17-12, 22:59
Sidney, I agree with you the problems with GM have to do with management but also with the union labor contract, pension costs and healthcare costs. Had the bankruptcy gone according to law, management would have been changed; labor contracts / pension / healthcare would have had to be renegotiated, prior pension and healthcare costs would not have been carried over to the new company, the very concept of bankruptcy relief precludes them from being carried over. GM has many problems but one of the largest which keeps it from being a competitive company is labor costs. Other companies come here from Japan, set up shop, us non-union labor and continue to kick GM's ass.
It appears GM is headed back to bankruptcy court in the near future due to labor costs and bad management. A great example is the Chevy Volt, costs $80K to build but they sell it for $40K, another Obama 'green' gone south along with A123 batterys.
Member #4112
10-17-12, 23:01
BBM, yes GM paid back a portion of the original debt but they did so WITH ANOTHER LOAN FROM UNCLE SUGAR. Sort of like transfering balance on your credit card, the debt is still there just changed the name a bit.
A great example is the Chevy Volt, costs $80K to buildIs that based on the average cost with the overhead spread over the current number of units produced (absorption cost)? Because that would way overstate it. If you price closer to marginal cost (the cost to build the next car) , sometimes you can build up a break even volume when you otherwise would not. I am not arguing for subsidies here, necessarily, but you do sometimes have to produce below absorption cost in the first few years of a product.
Member #4112
10-17-12, 23:57
Sorry DH, it was $89K.
Here is the article.
http://theweek.com/article/index/233140/the-chevy-volts-89000-production-cost-a-waste-of-money
Sorry DH, it was $89K. Here is the article.
http://theweek.com/article/index/233140/the-chevy-volts-89000-production-cost-a-waste-of-moneyOkay, so first of all, cost information particular product lines is not public information. Second of all, the information was provided to Reuters by 'industry analysts and manufacturing experts. ' Third, and most importantly, the cost figure includes development costs. It's against the accounting rules to do that. So this is a cost figure that not only includes factory depreciation (a sunk cost) and a portion of fixed manufacturing costs that aren't even traceable to the model (both of those two are required under accounting rules but are not additional costs to produce the model), and an allocation of years and years of development costs that never should have been included. In other words it is a case of a journalist making up numbers to suit his or her purpose. All this can be found by working backwards from the article to its sources. That is how you debunk non-credible statements like the 'Volt costs $89k to make.' Nonsense. The development cost was all sunk by the time you started production, so not only does it not make sense from an economic standpoint to include it, it's PROHIBITED from an accounting standpoint to include it.
So shitcan that article and ignore the point it is trying to make.
Member #4112
10-18-12, 12:19
DH, development costs have to be allocated, you know this as well as I do. It appears you wish to segregate these costs and assign them to what? Somehow you think calling them 'sunk costs' makes them disappear? It also appears you wish to segregate the Volt production line from all other production lines to which both fixed and variable overhead and administrative expenses are assigned to reduce production costs to support a preconceived conclusion. This is exactly the fuzzy math that got GM in trouble to start with. You want to argue you are making a profit on a product line and ignore the development costs associated with it, as well as overhead costs assigned to all product lines? An example of your argument is say GM made a $100 Million profit on sales of the Volt but ignores the $200 Million in development costs. My friend in the real world that translates into a $100 Million LOSS. While this might be mitigated over time via a long production run, it just is not happening with the Volt.
The only thing that will make an electric vehicle a reality is a quantum leap in battery technology and the advent of a room temperature super conductor which can be produced at a financially viable cost. You folks seem to forget our electric grid will simply not handle widespread use of electric vehicles, not to mention the power plants to produce the energy which are all fossil fuel fired. Sort of a Catch 22 for the Greenies.
I hate to say it, but the greenies are living with Alice in Wonderland. The latest data has shown that there has been absolutely no global warming from 1996 to now. Since 1876, or something like that, global temperatures increased about 0.75 degrees Celsius. This increase did not occur during the last 16 years. Rather it occurred arround the turn of the century when the world was less industrialized. This emphasizes that global temperatures normally go up and down. No doubt global warming and global cooling occurs. However, man made global warming and man made global cooling is not occurring.
Anyway, it appears that greenies fixated on man made global warming have way too much time on their hands. Maybe because the greenies have nothing better to do than wait for government handouts to sustain their fragile and delicate sensibilities.
DH, development costs have to be allocated, you know this as well as I do.No. It is prohibited to allocate them. They must be expensed entirely in the year of occurrence. I know you aren't particularly concerned with facts, but that is Statement of Financial Accounting Standards #2 in case you would like to verify, and it has been the rule for nearly 40 years in the US.
Somehow you think calling them 'sunk costs' makes them disappear?They are already gone. It appears you don't understand the concept of a sunk cost. That is unfortunate.
It also appears you wish to segregate the Volt production line from all other production lines to which both fixed and variable overhead and administrative expenses are assigned to reduce production costs to support a preconceived conclusion.No, what I said was that there is no way for the costs of Volt production to be segregated based on public information.
You want to argue you are making a profit on a product lineI never said they were making a profit. I have no idea whether they are or not. But, I know for sure that the numbers presented were based on accounting that is both theoretically unsound (never allocate sunk costs as it creates a death spiral) AND prohibited.
Apparently Obama still has not admitted that the assault in Libya was a terrorist attack. Obama does not have enough information to make that determination. However, Obama had enough information to immediately blame the Libya attack on an obscure Utube video that had been online for months.
I would like to know the person who, in a matter of minutes, was able to convince Obama that the Libya attack was due to this obsure video. Probably the same clever person who sold the Brooklyn Bridge, was able to convince investors that he could change lead into gold and the same person who is now selling trees that grow greenbacks.
Apparently Obama still has not admitted that the assault in Libya was a terrorist attack. Obama does not have enough information to make that determination. However, Obama had enough information to immediately blame the Libya attack on an obscure Utube video that had been online for months. I would like to know the person who, in a matter of minutes, was able to convince Obama that the Libya attack was due to this obsure video. Probably the same clever person who sold the Brooklyn Bridge, was able to convince investors that lead could be changed into gold and the same person who is selling trees that grow greenbacks.Benghazi is a non-issue. Just some dust being kicked about for distraction. If Romney pursues the fact that he can work with Democrats, then his appeal will broaden and he can win. But the tea-baggers are controlling his every move, Ryan is okying when he can pee!
Member #4112
10-18-12, 20:51
DH, the only one here without any concept of "sunk costs" is you, you might notice R&D is not something that is usually considered "sunk cost". Here is the definition:
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sunkcost.asp#axzz29h0QTL57
While you admit you don't know what the true costs are for the Volt you are ready to dismiss a well founded trade publication's assessment of the costs. While you may not have access to this information you may be assured others in the business do and leak it frequently. GM even complained the R&D costs cited in the articale were applied over a period of time shorter then GM allotted for those costs. Even GM did not call the R&D costs 'sunk costs'.
With GM having to idle plants which produce the Volt due to falling sales, battery and other supply firms going out of business due to lack of demand for the parts they supply for the Volt, somehow I just doubt you have a clue what you are talking about. Support the unions all you want, GM is still mismanaged, its work force is still over paid vs the industry standard and they are still trying to produce a vehicle no one wants and is by no stretch of the imagination profitable.
DH there is Obama-nomics and then there is the REAL WORLD, please stop confusing the two.
[QUOTE=Black Shirt; 427861]Benghazi is a non-issue. Just some dust being kicked about for distraction.
Really! I think I have heard it all now.
A President who is clueless on the economy is now clueless on foreign affairs.
Tell the families of those brutalized in Benghazi that Benghazi is a non issue.
DH, the only one here without any concept of "sunk costs" is you, you might notice R&D is not something that is usually considered "sunk cost". Here is the definition:
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sunkcost.asp#axzz29h0QTL57And it says,"A cost that has already been incurred and thus cannot be recovered. A sunk cost differs from other, future costs that a business may face, such as inventory costs or R&D expenses, because it has already happened. Sunk costs are independent of any event that may occur in the future."
I bolded the parts you don't seem to understand. Past R & D is sunk, whether or not it ultimately proves productive. It occurred in the past and can never be recovered. Future R & D, while it may or may not be productive, is not a sunk cost.
The thought of me as a liberal accountant is really quite laughable. I certainly am seeing some interesting words being put into my mouth. You say, "support the unions all you want." I have never mentioned one single thing about unions. These types of straw-man attacks really detract from your credibility.
Punter 127
10-18-12, 22:21
Benghazi is a non-issue. Just some dust being kicked about for distraction. If Romney pursues the fact that he can work with Democrats, then his appeal will broaden and he can win. But the tea-baggers are controlling his every move, Ryan is okying when he can pee!Distraction from what, just what part of Obamas record would they want to distract from?
Member #4112
10-18-12, 23:45
DH if you can not read and understand the definition, there is no reason to continue the discussion. As stated earlier, even GM did not classify the Volt's R&D costs as "sunk costs" but complained the article failed to spread the cost over, in GM's opinion, a large enough production run / time period.
I can recommend several universities with good accounting programs if you're interested. Once you understand the principles of accounting, especially cost accounting, then go to GAAP at some point the meaning and uses of the concept of "sunk costs" will become clear.
I would be open to considering Obama's $5+ Trillion in new debt "sunk costs". By the way didn't Obama promise to reduce the deficit, which was $10 Trillion and change when he took office, by half and yet it's now $16 Trillion and climbing? I guess Member would call that $10 Trillion delta another 'forecast' not a promise. Perhaps it's time to change 'forecasters'.
I can recommend several universities with good accounting programs if you're interested. Once you understand the principles of accounting, especially cost accounting, then go to GAAP at some point the meaning and uses of the concept of "sunk costs" will become clear.Yeah, I've been meaning to take an introductory accounting class.
No matter what side you're on, I think most people agree the second debate was great if not exceptional. I'm no debate historian, but I did read one article quoting someone who said he'd seen all the debates for the past 3 decades or so and thought Tuesday's debate was the best. I found it riveting television. About 65 million viewers, just slightly less than the first. Both sides scored points and had plenty to be happy with.
Ultimately I am influenced by substance, policy. But with all the emphasis on style and the build-up to the debate, I can also appreciate the importance of style and effect. And this was clearly in play Tuesday night. Both Obama and Romney were strong.
'Riveting television' is a classic oxymoron.
Punter 127
10-19-12, 01:02
Obama let it slip in debate that he'd push for a gun ban in a second term, this puts Obama in a bit of a pickle. IMHO.
The NRA is stepping up its attack on the president in Ohio, Virginia, Florida and Wisconsin with a new "we told you so" Theme. They're also blanketing those states with mailings and ads, trying to persuade pro-gun, non-NRA members to vote for Romney. They made a similar effort during the recent Wisconsin gubernatorial recall effort and several analysts credited the NRA with helping to save Gov. Scott Walker.
Obama suggested more than just an assault weapons ban when he said "What I'm trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced. But part of it is also looking at other sources of the violence. Because frankly, in my hometown of Chicago, there's an awful lot of violence and they're not using AK-47s. They're using cheap handguns."[snip]
Washington Times said 'It's a revelation that could sway the election'.
You can bet the NRA and other Pro-Second Amendment groups will be working overtime to get the gun vote fired up.
A lot of gun owners believed Obama four years ago, when he said he wouldn't take their guns away, now he has admitted he wants to take them away. Thanks for coming clean Mr President.
BTW I'm still expecting an October Obama surprise, probably Iran connected.
The highlight was Obama's masterful trap that caught Romney in his own lie.
Romney and the entire Fox News operation had been saying for weeks that Obama had attempted a coverup by waiting so long to call the Libya attack terrorism. Now there are legitimate questions about the Benghazi attack. But what Romney and conspirators had been doing was shameless, opportunistic bullshit. This was obvious to anyone with half a brain.
So in the debate, Obama just says very plainly, he called it an act of terror the day after.
Romney, incredulous, says WAAAHHHHT?
Obama: Please proceed, Governor.
Romney: Hey everyone, this is amazing, I just want to make sure we get this on the record, the President is saying he called it an act of terror the day after.
Moderator: Actually, that is true.
Audience: APPLAUSE
Just EPIC! That is a debate moment that will go down in history. Romney got his ass handed to him, and his attempt to deceive the public was exposed in front of 65 Million Americans.
[QUOTE=Black Shirt; 427861]Benghazi is a non-issue. Just some dust being kicked about for distraction.
Really! I think I have heard it all now.
A President who is clueless on the economy is now clueless on foreign affairs.
Tell the families of those brutalized in Benghazi that Benghazi is a non issue.Compared to the Beirut Barracks bombings and the USS Cole, a Benghazi possibility is like driving on Interstate 5 in Los Angeles. How many people do you think die each year on Interstate 5?
http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_21799989?source=pop
"Mitt Romney, his Republican challenger, argues the flood of federal student aid spending unleashed in recent years has led colleges to raise tuition prices. He wants to return to a system in which the government supports private lenders, arguing it's more cost-effective, and his campaign has called the income-based repayment program flawed."
Regarding the bolded part only (I take no position on the rest of the quote but am presenting it for clarity), definitely. There are some very interesting and exploitable flaws or glitches. And, to a certain extent, the criticism can be applied to the health insurance subsidy. In both cases, the determining factor is AGI and only AGI. There is no consideration of assets and not all "income" is taxable. So the deal with the student loans is something like this: Stay in school for as long as possible and build up the maximum allowable debt which is something like $125, 000 in student loans including grad school. More for medical school. Then select the income contingent repayment plan. Then either: be from a rich family and so don't earn much money, have all your money in Roth IRAs and municipal bonds that don't produce taxable income, or go back to school when you are getting ready to retire. Or live off capital gains. Plus you can manipulate your AGI with IRA contributions, investment losses, etc. Many possibilities exist to take advantage of this within the law, few of which are inherently productive. I think both Democrats and Republicans, and both liberals and conservatives, are concerned about declining productivity or the threat thereof. I don't think there will be huge numbers of people in a position to take advantage of this but it's a good example of a bad idea.
Same thing with the way the health insurance subsidy is calculated. It considers AGI and nothing else. So, even a hideously wealthy person could get the subsidy every other year, just by cashing in enough investments to live off of for two years. I think it would be better to take the approach that for example the food stamp program takes, where they look at your income AND your assets.
There is another problem with the income contingent repayment plan. What will happen is that if you don't make very much money, your payments won't even cover the interest and the loan balance will balloon. And if you make the calculated payment based on your AGI, even if the result of the calculation is zero and you "make" a "payment" of zero, faithfully every month for 25 years, the entire balance goes away; you are forgiven.
Sounds great. There is one problem, though; when the loan is "forgiven," the entire huge loan balance becomes taxable income immediately. That might bankrupt you and that debt is not normally forgivable in bankruptcy. I am sure I will have a better understanding of all of this after I take that introductory accounting class, but this does not seem like a very good approach to determining eligibility for these subsidies.
One more issue about student loans, and I don't know the history behind this or which party was responsible, but they are forgiven upon death. Other unsecured loans are not. This encourages excessive borrowing, especially if you look at it in tandem with the whole 25 year forgiveness thing. In general you have a bunch of patchwork bullshit of tax credits, deductions, exclusions and what-not for higher education. A more streamlined and integrated approach is needed. I believe in incentives for higher education but there is a lot of waste here and incentives to jack off for long periods.
Punter 127
10-19-12, 02:59
Here's a very interesting article about Benghazi consulate attack, by who else but The American Thinker.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/10/benghazi_emperor_obamas_waterloo.html
This subject will be revisited in the next debate, Romney will be ready and Obama will not have Candy Crowley to help him out.
"Mitt Romney, his Republican challenger, argues the flood of federal student aid spending unleashed in recent years has led colleges to raise tuition prices. He wants to return to a model in which the government supports private lenders, arguing it's more cost-effective,"
This is a supply side argument, but the larger determinant of the higher-than-inflation increases in tuition was reductions in (primarily state) government subsidies, especially when the economy contracted in 2008/2009. Higher education may have a long term benefit, but nobody starves to death without it in the short run. So it's pretty logical to reduce this type of government spending in the short run, under those conditions.
Romney is saying, in effect, that loans are drawing people to go to college. Do you really think there are large numbers of people who would go to college because of loans? No. Mostly people decide to go to college first and then figure out how to finance it afterwards."Flood" of student aid is a tough allegation to analyze because of the shift to private aid, but I think it is an exaggeration.
Compared to the Beirut Barracks bombings and the USS Cole, a Benghazi possibility is like driving on Interstate 5 in Los Angeles. How many people do you think die each year on Interstate 5?Black shirt, you are killing me. One issue is that we were totally unprepared to protect our ambassador even though any birdbrain could see imminent danger.
The bigger issue is that we did not blame the USS Cole attack on mermaids and we did not blame the Beirut Barracks bombing on space aliens. Blaming the Benghazi attack on an obscure video is incredulous at best and more likely a sign of deceit, dishonesty and incompetence by the Obama Administration.
http://news.yahoo.com/mitt-romney-takes-lead-projected-electoral-vote-count-133807291.html
Old Toymann told ya two years ago. Get ready to open that wallet esten! Its just about all over but for the crying! LMAO! Bye bye Obamanation and off to Madahos for me! It's all good. Happy mongering all. Toymann.
Ps. And this site notoriously oversamples democrats. IALOTFLMAO
Black shirt, you are killing me. One issue is that we were totally unprepared to protect our ambassador even though any birdbrain could see imminent danger.
The bigger issue is that we did not blame the USS Cole attack on mermaids and we did not blame the Beirut Barracks bombing on space aliens. Blaming the Benghazi attack on an obscure video is incredulous at best and more likely a sign of deceit, dishonesty and incompetence by the Obama Administration.I am sure that all embassies were on security alert due to the annivesary of 9-1. Obviously, something went haywired when 4 Americans were killed, incuding Ambassador Stevens. The incident happened simultaneously with heavy demonstrations going on all over the Middle East in regard to the video. The American flag was taken down at the Cairo embassy, and US security had to fired warning shots to push them back. My initial reaction was that the Benghazi consulate had been over-run. Of course, the killings is a traumatic event! And I salute and thank the 4 heroes.
But your comments is from a reaction to an allergy called Obamanitis. You have been breaking out every day for almost 4 years. Your cure could be in the final stages. Not sure what I can do for you if it is delayed again. Perhaps a River Nile cruise?
The highlight was Obama's masterful trap that caught Romney in his own lie.
Romney and the entire Fox News operation had been saying for weeks that Obama had attempted a coverup by waiting so long to call the Libya attack terrorism. Now there are legitimate questions about the Benghazi attack. But what Romney and conspirators had been doing was shameless, opportunistic bullshit. This was obvious to anyone with half a brain.
So in the debate, Obama just says very plainly, he called it an act of terror the day after.
Romney, incredulous, says WAAAHHHHT?
Obama: Please proceed, Governor.
Romney: Hey everyone, this is amazing, I just want to make sure we get this on the record, the President is saying he called it an act of terror the day after.
Moderator: Actually, that is true.
Audience: APPLAUSE.
Just EPIC! That is a debate moment that will go down in history. Romney got his ass handed to him, and his attempt to deceive the public was exposed in front of 65 Million Americans.Esten, you failed to notice the news articles the next day stating that Romney was correct and Obama and the idiot moderator were wrong. But then, don't let the facts mess up a good story. The only thing this event showed is that the press still favors BO.
Member #2041
10-19-12, 22:27
Esten, you failed to notice the news articles the next day stating that Romney was correct and Obama and the idiot moderator were wrong. But then, don't let the facts mess up a good story. The only thing this event showed is that the press still favors BO.Actually, it IS A FACT, that the day after the attack, in commenting on it, Obama did specifically refer to "acts of terror" that we were not going to allow to derail our policy agendas in the middle east. Naturally, the Right Wing doesn't seem to care much about facts either, when they get in the way of a narrative that they are trying to spin, and this is a prime example. Quite simply, Romney got caught attempting to misrepresent the President's comments on the subject, and he got called on it. This is standard procedure for the Romney / Ryan campaign. The only thing that WASN'T standard about it was that he got called out on it by Crowley at the moment he did it.
Probably the reason Esten did not notice what you think he ought to have noticed is that no REPUTABLE news agency actually came up with the conclusion that DCCPA seems to think that they did - perhaps he is confusing biased hack propaganda organizations like Faux News with reputable news outlets.
Punter 127
10-19-12, 22:37
I am sure that all embassies were on security alert due to the annivesary of 9-1. Obviously, something went haywired when 4 Americans were killed, incuding Ambassador Stevens. The incident happened simultaneously with heavy demonstrations going on all over the Middle East in regard to the video. The American flag was taken down at the Cairo embassy, and US security had to fired warning shots to push them back. My initial reaction was that the Benghazi consulate had been over-run. Of course, the killings is a traumatic event! And I salute and thank the 4 heroes.
But your comments is from a reaction to an allergy called Obamanitis. You have been breaking out every day for almost 4 years. Your cure could be in the final stages. Not sure what I can do for you if it is delayed again. Perhaps a River Nile cruise?It doesn't matter if they were on alert if they didn't have adequate security. More security had been requested and apparently ignored several time, and this was not the first attack on the consulate. There was no demonstration happening at the Benghazi consulate and it didn't have anything to do with the video, it was an al-Qaeda plot. You my friend need to get up to speed on this issue.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/10/benghazi_emperor_obamas_waterloo.html
So, were we prepard for 9-11, the first time?Does not being prepared on 9-11-2001 justify not being prepared on 9-11-2012?
It doesn't matter if they were on alert if they didn't have adequate security. More security had been requested and apparently ignored several time, and this was not the first attack on the consulate. There was no demonstration happening at the Benghazi consulate and it didn't have anything to do with the video, it was an al-Qaeda plot. You my friend need to get up to speed on this issue.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/10/benghazi_emperor_obamas_waterloo.html
Does not being prepared on 9-11-2001 justify not being prepared on 9-11-2012?I am trying to separate this event from the election rhetoric. But isn't the same CIA that did not see 9-11 coming? Take care, dude.
Punter 127
10-20-12, 00:22
This is not a partisan issueIt's the unraveling of the Obama administration's foreign policy.
I am trying to separate this event from the election rhetoric. But isn't the same CIA that did not see 9-11 coming? Take care, dude.Same agency but different leadership. Speaking of the CIA did you read this, 'Within 24 hours of the deadly attack, the CIA station chief in Libya reported to Washington that there were eyewitness reports that the attack was carried out by militants, officials told The Associated Press. But for days, the Obama administration blamed it on an out-of-control demonstration over an American-made video ridiculing Islam's Prophet Muhammad. '
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-10-19/cia-found-militant-links-a-day-after-libya-attack
Here's some more links you should read before you draw conclusions.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/9607958/British-firm-secured-Benghazi-consulate-contract-with-little-experience.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/19/documents-show-stevens-worried-about-libya-security-threats-al-qaeda-before/
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/documents-back-up-claims-of-requests-for-greater-security-in-benghazi/
Now go get a nice Thai massage.
It's the unraveling of the Obama administration's foreign policy.
Same agency but different leadership. Speaking of the CIA did you read this, 'Within 24 hours of the deadly attack, the CIA station chief in Libya reported to Washington that there were eyewitness reports that the attack was carried out by militants, officials told The Associated Press. But for days, the Obama administration blamed it on an out-of-control demonstration over an American-made video ridiculing Islam's Prophet Muhammad. '
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-10-19/cia-found-militant-links-a-day-after-libya-attack
Here's some more links you should read before you draw conclusions.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/9607958/British-firm-secured-Benghazi-consulate-contract-with-little-experience.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/19/documents-show-stevens-worried-about-libya-security-threats-al-qaeda-before/
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/documents-back-up-claims-of-requests-for-greater-security-in-benghazi/
Now go get a nice Thai massage.But I think you need one, too.
Punter 127
10-20-12, 00:58
But I think you need one, too.Sounds good to me. LOL
Punter 127
10-20-12, 02:10
'Lee Iacocca, the man credited with saving Chrysler, has thrown his support to Mitt Romney in the Republican's effort to unseat Barack Obama and take the reins of the country after the November election.
Iacocca, a lifelong Democrat who has been a war horse for numerous Democratic candidates in the past and who once turned down an appointment to the US. Senate, announced his decision to back Romney in an Op-Ed in Friday's Detroit News.
He praised Romney and said the country needs a president who can turnaround the economy with more than just words and promises.' When people like Iacocca start jumping ship it's probably not a good sign for Obama.
Alternatively, it could be viewed that when a candidate has to drag out an 87 year old has-been with a history of being in charge of bankrupt companies, some desperation may be involved. This one will go down to the wire and I am JUST so glad I don't care who wins. I have my preference but it won't affect me. Panic is the final refuge of the unprepared.
I think it is probably good that we have a lot of really close presidential elections in this country. I think it's bad that there is fraud such as in 1876 and 2000. At least we have a FREE PRESS. That is huge. I do support until death everyone's rights to say whatever the fuck they want, no matter how stupid. We do still have this right. In fact, I think that politics could potentially become more participative in the internet age.
So let's make sure we all vote in these (mostly) free elections that we have. Just to list the candidates alphabetically, maybe you prefer Obama or maybe you prefer Romney. I respect your choice and, importantly, I understand that some vote ideologically and some vote based on what is best for themselves.
Most people have one political hot button and mine is one person, one vote. The Electoral College takes federalism way too far and I want the President of the United States to be elected by direct popular vote.
Punter 127
10-20-12, 05:11
Lee Iacocca doesn't strike me as a guy that would ever allow anybody to 'drag' him anyplace that he didn't want to go, even at 87.
I have mixed emotions about the Electoral College I can see both sides of the argument. Have you thought about an Electoral College tie? What a nightmare that would be, but it's a possibility.
[QUOTE=Punter 127; 427900]It's the unraveling of the Obama administration's foreign policy.
What foreign policy? Obama doesn't have one. What economic policy? Obama doesn't have one.
But there is still hope. Obama is planning an in depth interview with Big Bird to explain his plans for the future. Whoops, Obama is going to explain what he plans to do when he gets kicked out of the White House. I guess we will never know if Obama has a foreign policy or an economic policy.
Member #2041
10-20-12, 11:58
Lee Iacocca doesn't strike me as a guy that would ever allow anybody to 'drag' him anyplace that he didn't want to go, even at 87.
I have mixed emotions about the Electoral College I can see both sides of the argument. Have you thought about an Electoral College tie? What a nightmare that would be, but it's a possibility.No Problem, the Senate then picks the President. BTW, the Dems still control the Semate, and in a tie vote, Joe Biden breaks the tie. Hardly any worse than the Supreme Court picking the President, which you may recall, led to the most catastrophic Presidency in a century.
Lee Iacocca doesn't strike me as a guy that would ever allow anybody to 'drag' him anyplace that he didn't want to go, even at 87.
I have mixed emotions about the Electoral College I can see both sides of the argument. Have you thought about an Electoral College tie? What a nightmare that would be, but it's a possibility.Isn't it an odd number? 435 representatives + 100 senators = 535. Oh, now I see; DC has 3 electoral votes now which they did not when I was I lad. So 538, so there could be a tie. Bad planning. 1876 was sort of a mess, although not a tie. The Republicans stole that one (although the Dems got something in return) even though the Democrat, Tilden, had more popular votes and more electoral votes. A committee voting on straight party lines decided the election. Hmmm, where have we seen that before? Does the phrase "hanging chad" mean anything to you?
Direct popular vote. One person, one vote. Very simple and easy to administer.
WorldTravel69
10-20-12, 12:36
The Republicans are having a hard time keeping the minorities from Voting.
WorldTravel69
10-20-12, 12:38
It is interesting what this women thinks about BinderGate.
WT, did you see this one: Romnesia
Obama rolled it out in a speech in Virginia yesterday. Republicans may say this is small-minded, but it's all about trust. How do you trust a presidential candidate that flip flops on his own positions as much as Romney? How do you know what he stands for, or what he would really do? Valid questions.
Video: http://theweek.com/article/index/235147/romnesia-can-obama-convince-voters-that-romney-is-untrustworthy
28553
I wish I had thought of this.
"If men could get pregnant, there would be more abortion clinics than Starbucks."
Tres3
WT, did you see this one: Romnesia
Obama rolled it out in a speech in Virginia yesterday. Republicans may say this is small-minded, but it's all about trust. How do you trust a presidential candidate that flip flops on his own positions as much as Romney? How do you know what he stands for, or what he would really do? Valid questions.
Video:
http://theweek.com/article/index/235147/romnesia-can-obama-convince-voters-that-romney-is-untrustworthy
28553Yes, we know: Romney flip-flops and Obama "evolves".
I am reminded of something that Winston Churchill once said to a woman who accused him of changing his mind: "Madame, I change my mind when the circumstances change. What, pray tell, is it that you do?"
Punter 127
10-20-12, 15:49
No Problem, the Senate then picks the President. BTW, the Dems still control the Semate, and in a tie vote, Joe Biden breaks the tie. Hardly any worse than the Supreme Court picking the President, which you may recall, led to the most catastrophic Presidency in a century.Nope I think you're wrong, the House picks the President and the Senate picks the VP. So we could end up with Romney as President and Biden as VP. However I don't think they're limit to the current candidates, I think they can pick DickHead if they want.
It's all spelled out in the 12th Amendment. I'm not sure if it's the current House and Senate or the one that takes office in January, it just says the 'House has until the fourth day of March to select a president'.
It is interesting what this women thinks about BinderGate. The only one I can think of besides Mitt Romney who keeps "binders full of women" would be Hugh Hefner.
It is the new Congress (which I feel is correct) , and there is a twist in that you can't just say whoever holds the House majority will prevail, because each state's delegation gets one vote (which sucks in my opinion). Not sure what would happen if it was then 25-25. But the Republicans now control 33 delegations and one is evenly split. So the Republicans would have an edge unless a whole shitload of Dems get elected. That seems unlikely but if it did, Obama would probably have won anyway, right? One guy is running computer sims and saying the possibility of a tie is 1 in 160. Not very high but scary. It would be a terrible thing for the country. I would prefer either candidate win, rather than a tie and more hanging chad type of shit.
The first thing that comes to my mind when I hear binders full of women are massage places in Bangkok, where they give you a binder full of photos and you pick your date. Moveon and WorldTravel, anybody on this board who has a problem with what Romney said, and I'm not saying you do, would be living in some other world, populated by radical feminists and hypocrites.
Punter 127
10-20-12, 16:36
Isn't it an odd number? 435 representatives + 100 senators = 535. Oh, now I see; DC has 3 electoral votes now which they did not when I was I lad. So 538, so there could be a tie. Bad planning. 1876 was sort of a mess, although not a tie. The Republicans stole that one even though the Democrat, Tilden, had more popular votes and More electoral votes. A committee voting on straight party lines decided the election. Hmmm, where have we seen that before? Does the phrase "hanging chad" mean anything to you?
Direct popular vote. One person, one vote. Very simple and easy to administer.It might be worse than hanging chads, we could go to bed on election night thinking it's a 269 to 269 tie, but it's not until the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December that electors of the Electoral College cast their votes. Also in some states the electors are not required by law to cast their vote according to the popular vote, they can vote any way they want. There has been a few times that an elector didn't follow the popular vote but it never effected the outcome of the election, but it could. Can you imagine the under the table BS that would be going on between election day and the day the Electoral College votes. Let's hope it doesn't happen, it would just divide the country more than it is now.
The only one I can think of besides Mitt Romney who keeps "binders full of women" would be Hugh Hefner.Hey asshole,
Stop the fucking bullshit.
You know god damn well that he was referring to binders full of women's resumes.
Gentlemen, this election is NOT about Mitt Romney having made a statement in which any sane person would have readily understood that the word "resumes" was implied.
Please do not let the Liberals divert your attention from what's really important:
- 8.3% unemployment
- $3.80 per gallon gas
- $1,000,000,000,000 annual budget deficits
- $16,000,000,000,000 national debt
- $51,074.84 of national debt owed by each citizen
Thanks,
Jackson
Good one Jackson. I am not sure how many people are as dense as Obama but it appears that there are a few on this forum who are neck and neck with Obama in the stupidity category.
- - $51,074.84 of national debt owed by each citizen
Each citizen owes $280, 000 if you count unfunded Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and pensions to federal employees.
Romney and especially Ryan are the only ones that seem to be concerned about that.
Each citizen owes $280, 000 if you count unfunded Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and pensions to federal employees.Using what discount rate? Using what mortality assumptions? Using what assumed rate of increase in medical costs? But that is great to hear because as one of my law professors pointed out,"He who dies with the most unsecured debt, wins."
Unless you are.
A complete.
Moron.
You would figure out after.
Ten years not.
To hit the.
Carriage return all the.
Fucking time.
Using what discount rate? Using what mortality assumptions? Using what assumed rate of increase in medical costs? But that is great to hear because as one of my law professors pointed out,"He who dies with the most unsecured debt, wins."Hell if I know, and I suspect it's undiscounted: http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/16/report-federal-unfunded-liabilities-total-84-trillion/
From memory I saw a reputable discounted estimate going out to around 2050 or 2060 of about $50 trillion, or around $160, 000 per person. In any event entitlement spending is not sustainable unless something changes, big time.
Hell if I know, and I suspect it's undiscounted:
http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/16/report-federal-unfunded-liabilities-total-84-trillion/
From memory I saw a reputable discounted estimate going out to around 2050 or 2060 of about $50 trillion, or around $160, 000 per person. In any event entitlement spending is not sustainable unless something changes, big time.Thanks for the link. Nice to see something non-partisan. Corporate accounting would be discounting those liabilities at a AA bond rate (and estimating the mortality and expense growth ratios) but I don't know what governmental accounting does for that. Probably something silly. But if you think about that, it's pretty funny. When the US issues more debt, all interest rates go up. And when interest rates go UP, the value of discounted liabilities would appear to go DOWN, sorta hiding things. In fact any discount rate you would use would probably be artificially depressed right now, though.
So what do we do? If we try fiscal austerity in the face of a depressed economy, we are emulating Hoover in 1929 onward and also Díaz in 1900-1910. We could try to reduce our trade deficit with protectionism but that could be inflationary. So do you try to increase government revenues? Tariffs are unlikely to do this to any significant degree so you are looking at the T-word. Or, we could try to increase the savings rates. How do we do that? IRA-like tax incentives might work, but of course decrease tax revenues, add complexity (unless you just increased the IRA deduction and retirement credit that are already in place, and I advocate that) and would probably be slow to take effect. We could hope to decrease our trade deficit through productivity gains, which would be good, but that would probably require more investment in training and / or education. So a lot of what might reduce the deficit in the long run will definitely increase it in the short run.
Those numbers in the article are pretty scary but here is what is scarier: over 60% of all US dollars in circulation are circulating outside the US. Now THAT is a big IOU! We have already received foreign currency and / or imports in return for those dollars. The good news is it's an interest-free loan, but it is still a loan. Nobody ever talks about that.
So what do we do? ....or, we could try to increase the savings rates.If I were dictator I'd implement a system like Singapore, GRADUALLY, over a period of maybe 10 years. Social security / medicare contributions combined from employees and employers would go from 15% to 30%. Only they would no longer be called social security or medicare. Instead you'd have an account that you could draw out of for medical care, education, to buy a house, and for retirement. Part of the 30% contribution would be used to pay for catastrophic medical insurance. A policy with a deductible of say $25,000. If you're below that amount you pay medical expenses directly from your account to the provider / hospital, so the free market can work.
This idea actually goes against my Libertarian instincts. But Americans are spendthrifts. We're among the wealthiest people in the world but many live pay check to pay check, saving much less of their earnings in % terms than people in 3rd world countries. Maybe there needs to be an enforced method of making people save.
Silver Star
10-20-12, 23:26
If I were dictator I'd implement a system like Singapore, GRADUALLY, over a period of maybe 10 years. Social security / medicare contributions combined from employees and employers would go from 15% to 30. Only they would no longer be called social security or medicare. Instead you'd have an account that you could draw out of for medical care, education, to buy a house, and for retirement. Part of the 30% contribution would be used to pay for catastrophic medical insurance. A policy with a deductible of say $25, 000. If you're below that amount you pay medical expenses directly from your account to the provider / hospital, so the free market can work.
This idea actually goes against my Libertarian instincts. But Americans are spendthrifts. We're among the wealthiest people in the world but many live pay check to pay check, saving much less of their earnings in % terms than people in 3rd world countries. Maybe there needs to be an enforced method of making people save.Tiny12,
Freedom works better than government control when it comes to healthcare and retirement. Get back on track!
Government run Social Security and Medicare are BUSTED, big time.
Silver Star
10-20-12, 23:31
Hey asshole,
Stop the fucking bullshit.
You know god damn well that he was referring to binders full of women's resumes.
Gentlemen, this election is NOT About Mitt Romney having made a statement in which any sane person would have readily understood that the word "resumes" was implied.
Please do not let the Liberals divert your attention from what's really important:
- 8. 3% unemployment.
- $3. 80 per gallon gas.
- $1, 000, 000, 000, 000 annual budget deficits.
- $16, 000, 000, 000, 000 national debt.
- $51, 074. 84 of national debt owed by each citizen.
Thanks,
JacksonThe last 2 figures you quote are the direct result of the major parties working TOGETHER to bankrupt the USA. Time for a new direction, Gary Johnson, Libertarian. At least he knows how to balance a budget as Governor and as a Businessman.
www.garyjohnson2012.com
It's time to stop voting for the same parties over and over again that created the same problem they claim to fix.
If I were dictator I'd implement a system like Singapore, GRADUALLY, over a period of maybe 10 years. Social security / medicare contributions combined from employees and employers would go from 15% to 30. Only they would no longer be called social security or medicare. Instead you'd have an account that you could draw out of for medical care, education, to buy a house, and for retirement. Part of the 30% contribution would be used to pay for catastrophic medical insurance. A policy with a deductible of say $25, 000. If you're below that amount you pay medical expenses directly from your account to the provider / hospital, so the free market can work.
This idea actually goes against my Libertarian instincts. But Americans are spendthrifts. We're among the wealthiest people in the world but many live pay check to pay check, saving much less of their earnings in % terms than people in 3rd world countries. Maybe there needs to be an enforced method of making people save.That sounds reasonable to me. I'd argue, though, that Social Security, at least the OASDI part of it, IS an enforced method of making people save. I mean, you take 4. 2% or 6. 2% of my pay for 40 or 50 years and then promise to pay me a certain sum of money. Sounds like forced savings to me. The other problem, of course, is that once people do manage to save they will be totally ignorant about investing since we don't teach them shit in high school. I think even libertarians are going to be disappointed in the results if we go to Bush-like self-directed retirement accounts to the exclusion of all else. I mean, I know a lot of well educated people who invest like ninnies, so what will the general public's result be like?
WorldTravel69
10-22-12, 12:31
This is a person feelings about what the Tea Party and Ultra Conservative believe in.
I have to agree.
This is a person feelings about what the Tea Party and Ultra Conservative believe in.
I have to agree.The person that wrote that article has no clue about the Tea Party.
The person that wrote that article has no clue about the Tea Party.The guy who posted it has no clue either.
I'm a liberal, voted for Obama in 2008 and not a big fan of the Tea Party.
That said, that jpg you posted was the biggest bunch of bullshit I've ever read. It's no wonder the conservatives on this board think liberals are nuts. And if YOU agree with one single sentence of that, you need to take off your tinfoil hat and seek medical attention immediately.
It's so discouraging that there are people in my party who might actually agree with you... <sigh>
And thanks to people like you, the democratic party is fucked.
This is a person feelings about what the Tea Party and Ultra Conservative believe in.
I have to agree.
Silver Star, Good points. Bush and Republicans did their part in running up the debt, although the Democrats are worse than the Republicans. Gary Johnson would be my ideal candidate. I agree with most of his platform. I believe Romney and Ryan have a chance at pulling us back from the precipice. They're cut from a different mold. One has actually fixed broken companies and an Olympics, and the second is truly concerned about the effect of government indebtedness on the future of the country.
Any Obama fans?
http://exitoina.com/2012-10-22-130037-la-espectacular-cola-que-apoya-a-obama/
I am no genius but I think a lot of people feel very comfortable with Romney after this 3rd debate.
Wild Walleye
10-23-12, 03:15
I am no genius but I think a lot of people feel very comfortable with Romney after this 3rd debate.I'm no genius either but, I think a plurality of the American voters now know that our president is a petulant c*nt.
I'm no Romney fan-boy but, this Obama is a freakin' train wreck on so many levels. I am hoping for a change.
Wild Walleye
10-23-12, 03:17
Silver Star, Good points. Bush and Republicans did their part in running up the debt, although the Democrats are worse than the Republicans. Gary Johnson would be my ideal candidate. I agree with most of his platform. I believe Romney and Ryan have a chance at pulling us back from the precipice. They're cut from a different mold. One has actually fixed broken companies and an Olympics, and the second is truly concerned about the effect of government indebtedness on the future of the country.There should be no quarter for politicians that wantonly run up the national debt, REGARDLESS OF PARTY.
I'm kind of surprised there is not more focus on Congress vs. The presidential administration as far as the debt goes. Congress is the one with the final say on the budget. I wonder if four year Congressional terms might be cheaper and also reduce the temptation of first-term legislators to immediately introduce pork legislation to ensure re-election. I'd like to focus a bit more on the QUALITY of government spending. For sure that is a hard thing to measure but what if we cut the number of legislators in half? That would not change the power balance between the House and Senate in any terms other than empire building terms. Save a lot of money that way. I agree with Romney that multiple government agencies could be eliminated, or at least consolidated. I would start with the whole FBI CIA Homeland Security cluster fuck. In a global world I see no reason to separate the FBI and the CIA, in particular, and those fuckers gobble up a LOT of funds. That whole spook industry is a lot more information intensive and a lot less capital intensive than it once was, so let's capture the savings from that. The DEA can go, too. I would address hard drug smuggling through a more comprehensive and consolidated immigration and border control policy. You have the INS and the border patrol at odds at times. I do advocate evaluating everyone who wants to come into the country, one way or the other; it just stands to reason we want the most qualified immigrants we can get.
Silver Star, Good points. Bush and Republicans did their part in running up the debt, although the Democrats are worse than the Republicans. Gary Johnson would be my ideal candidate. I agree with most of his platform. I believe Romney and Ryan have a chance at pulling us back from the precipice. They're cut from a different mold. One has actually fixed broken companies and an Olympics, and the second is truly concerned about the effect of government indebtedness on the future of the country.This brings up the question of whether the fact that we have essentially been a two party system for over 100 years has led to the extremism I complain about. Johnson is just a Republican who couldn't get nominated so became a Libertarian, and would become a Rhinoceros if that would get him elected, but in general I'm increasingly questioning the two-party system. Run off elections are messy and inefficient but it seems like in the electronic age we could handle it. It might help in consensus building. I don't think the average American has very good consensus building skills. We tend to dominate efforts at coalition building (see Bretton Woods, for example). I personally find myself looking for more centrist candidates in local elections in particular; there are some real wing nuts on my local ballot right now, both left and right.
This brings up the question of whether the fact that we have essentially been a two party system for over 100 years has led to the extremism I complain about. Johnson is just a Republican who couldn't get nominated so became a Libertarian, and would become a Rhinoceros if that would get him elected, but in general I'm increasingly questioning the two-party system. Run off elections are messy and inefficient but it seems like in the electronic age we could handle it. It might help in consensus building. I don't think the average American has very good consensus building skills. We tend to dominate efforts at coalition building (see Bretton Woods, for example). I personally find myself looking for more centrist candidates in local elections in particular; there are some real wing nuts on my local ballot right now, both left and right.The multi-party system seems to be even worse. I follow New Zealand politics much closer than I do US politics. The mult-party system leads to extreme situations of the tail wagging the dog. For example, if there was an election in New Zealand right now, the governing conservative party would probably get about 45-48% of the vote. So, if all the other parties got together, you would have the liberal party in power while only getting 30% of the vote. And the government would be beholden to every single party in its coalition. It is a real possibility that all those parties would get together and the result would be political paralysis.
Chezz, I didn't follow US politics closely at the time, but somewhere in the 1960-1970s, things changed. We used to have a lot of conservative democrats in the South. Now conservative Southerners are mostly Republican. Something happened to make them change parties. And whatever caused them to switch parties also seems to have lead to the polarization of the two main parties.
One of the two main parties is going to destroy itself. Right now, it seems like a race in mutual self-destruction. But eventually, those of us in the middle will form a new party. Hopefully, it is something along the lines of our founding fathers (aka Libertarian), but we are likely years away from that situation.
Member #2041
10-23-12, 14:44
I am no genius but I think a lot of people feel very comfortable with Romney after this 3rd debate.You must have watched a different debate than the one that was televised last night. I thought it was amusing how Romney essentially agreed with everything Obama has actually done in foreign policy, yet contended that Obama's doing so weakened us. It was also indicative that Romney's internal polling must have told him that he got his ass handed to him in the last debate about the Libyan Consulate attacks, so he never went back to the issue in this debate.
This is hilarious. CBS had a post 3rd debate panel of 8 'undecided' voters from Ohio. Repeat Ohio. Surprise, surprise. 6 became romney supporters after the 3rd debate and 2 became Obama supporters. It looked like the CBS anchors were going to stroke out when they heard the results. I guess they were beginning to believe their own BS about how well Obama did in the third debate.
To me, Romney was masterful. Obama spent $300 million dollars in ads this summer trying to portray Romney as Snidely Whiplash come to foreclose the mortgage. In each debate Romney came across as kind, caring and capable and Romney has President written all over him. The third debate probably sealed the deal for Romney.
Member #2041
10-23-12, 15:01
I'm kind of surprised there is not more focus on Congress vs. The presidential administration as far as the debt goes. Congress is the one with the final say on the budget. I wonder if four year Congressional terms might be cheaper and also reduce the temptation of first-term legislators to immediately introduce pork legislation to ensure re-election. I'd like to focus a bit more on the QUALITY of government spending. For sure that is a hard thing to measure but what if we cut the number of legislators in half? That would not change the power balance between the House and Senate in any terms other than empire building terms. Save a lot of money that way. I agree with Romney that multiple government agencies could be eliminated, or at least consolidated. I would start with the whole FBI CIA Homeland Security cluster fuck. In a global world I see no reason to separate the FBI and the CIA, in particular, and those fuckers gobble up a LOT of funds. That whole spook industry is a lot more information intensive and a lot less capital intensive than it once was, so let's capture the savings from that. The DEA can go, too. I would address hard drug smuggling through a more comprehensive and consolidated immigration and border control policy. You have the INS and the border patrol at odds at times. I do advocate evaluating everyone who wants to come into the country, one way or the other; it just stands to reason we want the most qualified immigrants we can get.There are some VERY robust reasons for keeping the CIA and the FBI separated. In particular, the issue about the primacy of the civil liberties of American citizens, vs the way we deal with potential adversaries. The fact that in the post 9/11 world, both parties have agreed to trade liberties for a perception of enhanced security does not ameliorate the need to continue to maintain this divide. Arguably, it makes it more imperative than ever. So that it remains clear that the compromises to civil liberties that we have seen take place post 9/11 remain understood to be emergency exceptions, and never actually become the accepted norms of the way our government operates. Even if in fact, the govt. IS spying on it's own citizens in ways that would make our founding fathers turn over in their graves. This must never be allowed become the standard operating procedure without being continually questioned as the impingement over citizens' rights that it is, possibly acceptable in emergencies, but never tolerated as NORMAL. Merging the FBI and CIA would eliminate any difference in the manner with which citizens rights are forfeited as being no different from those of non-citizen potential enemies of the state.
As for Homeland Security, I would put it under the CIA, but that would inherently come with severe restrictions upon their jurisdiction over American Citizens, other than when they are returning to the U.S. from foreign soil.
Member #2041
10-23-12, 15:06
This is hilarious. CBS had a post 3rd debate panel of 8 'undecided' voters from Ohio. Repeat Ohio. Surprise, surprise. 6 became romney supporters after the 3rd debate and 2 became Obama supporters. It looked like the CBS anchors were going to stroke out when they heard the results. I guess they were beginning to believe their own BS about how well Obama did in the third debate.
To me, Romney was masterful. Obama spent $300 million dollars in ads this summer trying to portray Romney as Snidely Whiplash come to foreclose the mortgage. In each debate romney came across as kind, caring and capable and Romney had President written all over him. The third debate probably sealed the deal for Romney.Small sample, completely unscientific. The more scientific polling is running something like 50% Obama. 30% Romney, among undecided voters, across a broad range of polls. Incidentally, your latter observation is a textbook example of why the opinions of those who have already made up their minds are discounted as being irrelevant in these sorts of analysis. Because you will fit any result, no matter how contrary, with your already locked-in belief structure. Romney could stand on his head yelling that Obama is a Kenyan Muslim and you would observe how Presidential Romney looked while doing so.
Small sample, completely unscientific. The more scientific polling is running something like 50% Obama. 30% Romney, among undecided voters, across a broad range of polls. Incidentally, your latter observation is a textbook example of why the opinions of those who have already made up their minds are discounted as being irrelevant in these sorts of analysis. Because you will fit any result, no matter how contrary, with your already locked-in belief structure. Romney could stand on his head yelling that Obama is a Kenyan Muslim and you would observe how Presidential Romney looked while doing so.Me thinks Obama is throwing in the towel
Member #2041
10-23-12, 16:52
Me thinks Obama is throwing in the towelAre you a comedian? Just curious.
The handwriting is on the wall. The house of cards known as Obama is collapsing
We used to have a lot of conservative democrats in the South. Now conservative Southerners are mostly Republican. Something happened to make them change parties.What made the "conservative Democrats," who were really ideologically Republicans all along, reveal themselves as such were the Civil Rights Act and the 20somethingth Amendment that eliminated the poll tax. This was considered by the Dixiecrats to be a betrayal. That the conservative Democrats comprised a voting block dates back to the Reconstruction and its end with the disputed election of 1876. But I think the polarizing of the country stems from the Vietnam War. Subsequent wars,"police actions," and similar debacles have increased this polarization.
Most polls had Obama the winner of the third debate. CNN 48% vs 40%..... CBS 53% vs 23%..... Fox News 53% vs 47%. Romney played it well enough, and safe.
It seemed Obama had the women's vote in mind, based on his choice of words and the CNN real-time mood watcher which clearly showed more positive women's reactions to Obama than Romney. Apparently the women's vote in swing states has become more of a factor. They are more likely swayed by Obama's call for nation building here at home, than Romney's call for more Defense spending.
Romney failed to explain why we need to build more warships than currently planned. Is 1917 the benchmark for how many ships we should have? It was an empty call for unjustified spending. And his math still doesn't add up. Cut taxes for the rich (yes, he does) , increase defense spending, and balance the budget. Give me a break! Malarkey!
I've said before, Romney's an OK guy. But his priorities are with the investor class, not the worker class. Trickle-down policies are inefficient at stimulating economic growth, and they increase economic inequality. We've had way too much of that already. As Warren Buffet said, investors will always be motivated by maximizing profit, and whether that's a 30% profit or a 40% profit isn't going to have a significant effect on their decisions when other options yield only a few percent.
I thought it was amusing how Romney essentially agreed with everything Obama has actually done in foreign policy, yet contended that Obama's doing so weakened us. It was also indicative that Romney's internal polling must have told him that he got his ass handed to him in the last debate about the Libyan Consulate attacks, so he never went back to the issue in this debate.Exactly.
The information coming out on Libya is that the Administration talking points have been pretty much on target all along. And the whole narrative of Obama's foreign policy 'unraveling', doesn't really jive with Romney agreeing with almost everything Obama has been doing.
Republicans and the Fox News operation are utterly desperate to defeat Obama, it's obvious.
Esten post. Trickle-down policies are inefficient at stimulating economic growth, and they increase economic inequality.
Good to see that you have finally seen the light. 'Trickle down government' is a disaster
Member #2041
10-24-12, 11:45
Esten post. Trickle-down policies are inefficient at stimulating economic growth, and they increase economic inequality.
Good to see that you have finally seen the light. 'Trickle down government' is a disasterYou're confused. The disaster is the trickle-down economic policies promoted by every Republican since Reagan, and which have resulted in the current economic decline worldwide.
Wild Walleye
10-24-12, 12:14
I'm kind of surprised there is not more focus on Congress vs. The presidential administration as far as the debt goes. Congress is the one with the final say on the budget.The House is the key spending organ of the US govt, however, leadership, or the lack thereof, by the CIC dictates the pace. You shouldn't have any problem finding a myriad of my posts criticizing Bush for being a profligate spender and proposing that we return to a citizen, part-time legislature.
I wonder if four year Congressional terms might be cheaper and also reduce the temptation of first-term legislators to immediately introduce pork legislation to ensure re-election.You're right on as to the origins of one of the key causes of this problem (I. E. Members of Congress see your tax dollars as political contributions to their re-election campaigns). Along those same lines, I believe that no congress should be able to spend beyond it's tenure (I. E. They can't commit to spending that isn't fully paid for within 24 months) without super majorities of both houses.
I'd like to focus a bit more on the QUALITY of government spending.Therein lies another key element, QUALITY is a very qualitative (subjective) measure. I think that federal spending should be limited to: 1) protecting the republic and her people. 2) providing key services that "it" (the federal government) can demonstrably do better than the private sector, and 3) assisting those who truly can't provide for themselves and private organizations that support these people.
We are an advanced, just society and have a moral obligation to care for those that can't care for themselves. However, the definition of not being able to care for oneself has been a moving target for nearly 100 years. If not for the selfish, immoral behavior of legions of elected officials, over that period of time, we would be an even wealthier country with the resources to do more for the weaker members of society.
The determination of the "quality" of spending is very important. I am no Romney fanboy but, the only candidate that I have heard driving home that point, during the last 20+ years, is Romney.
For sure that is a hard thing to measure but what if we cut the number of legislators in half?No need to change their numbers. You'd be more likely to get a Constitutional Amendment ensuring partial-birth abortions than you would to reduce the ranks of congress. I say, send the f*ckers home by making them part-time (I. E. They can't afford to feed themselves and their families off of their congressional pay) so that they will have to go home and work.
That would not change the power balance between the House and Senate in any terms other than empire building terms.It isn't the ratio of reps to sens rather, it is the ratio of citizen to congress member combined with the aggregation of power amongst and even smaller core of the Ruling Class. It is a bit of a cluster f*ck with 435 and 100 house and senate members, respectively but, look at the power wielded by the leaders and chairmen. Imagine if that power was concentrated across half those numbers. The best thing for us (and US) is inefficiency and dysfunction at the congressional level with discord between the congressional majorities and the White House (you know, gridlock). That is, of course, to say that we want gridlock after we have fiscal conservatives in charge of the White House, House and Senate with majorities sufficient to gut the federal budget.
Save a lot of money that way. I agree with Romney that multiple government agencies could be eliminated, or at least consolidated.Check out the Obama administration report on the inefficiency of spending (mainly listing duplicative federal programs) , circa early 2009. While Obama had his administration try to cut down on paperclip purchases of Staples, it didn't raise a red pen to any of the duplication.
I would start with the whole FBI CIA Homeland Security cluster fuck.I rank the likelihood of accomplishing that right below the likelihood of reducing the number of congressional members. Intelligence and related organizations metastasize like rabbits multiply. This is exacerbated by the legal and feudal lines that exist between the branches of government. Self-preservation within that snake pit encourages compartmentalization of information and communications in order to avoid prosecution (just look at Fast and Furious).
In a global world I see no reason to separate the FBI and the CIA, in particular, and those fuckers gobble up a LOT of funds.There is a very good reason for living with the additive cost structure of two organizations, onshore and offshore. From nearly the beginning, there was a realization that spying had to separate from both law enforcement and from domestic intelligence efforts. Man needs to know his limitations one of which is his general inability to process conflicts of interest in real-time concurrent with personal and national crises. If you don't like the Santa Clara PD spying on you with a drone, while you nude sunbathe, just imagine what a domestic KGB / GRU-type organization would do. Bringing those elements into an organization with domestic law enforcement powers is almost certainly in conflict with the perpetuation of the Declaration and the Constitution and the rights they imbue into each of us.
That whole spook industry is a lot more information intensive and a lot less capital intensive than it once was, so let's capture the savings from that.I have to disagree. The equipment and highly-skilled personnel are more expensive than ever. Further, we had so degraded our HUMINT, prior to 911, we were totally blindsided.
The DEA can go, too. I would address hard drug smuggling through a more comprehensive and consolidated immigration and border control policy.We do not have the desire, at the federal level, to control our borders. How could we possibly get to a comprehensive, consolidated immigration and border control policy? Why not declare the trans-border, illicit narcotics industry a clear and present danger to the national security of the US and have our military and intelligence communities deal with it? I think that had we brown-bagged Pablo Escobar and via extraordinary rendition took him to Diego Garcia for an informal interview, we would have learned a great deal about both his operations and the industry at large. Foreign nationals engaged in activities that are clearly deleterious to US national security are neither entitled to our constitutional rights nor do they deserve our compassion.
You have the INS and the border patrol at odds at times. I do advocate evaluating everyone who wants to come into the country, one way or the other; it just stands to reason we want the most qualified immigrants we can get.We can't effectively do any of these things without fundamental torte reform and real accountability. A Mexican criminal gets shot in the ass by a border patrol agent, during the commission of a felony, and the agent ends up in jail. The federal government supplies Mexican drug cartels, some of the most vicious criminals on earth responsible for murdering as many as 20-30k people per year, with more than 2, 500 assault weapons and no one is held accountable. Would that make you, as an ICE or DEA agent more likely to seek out the bad guys or shuffle papers?
At the root of all these problems are the abdication of personal responsibility by the bad actors (congress, presidents, criminals, etc) and the long-term distortion of our social folkways and morays, which prevents our governments (local, state and federal) from properly enforcing our laws and holding the bad actors accountable. When a majority in the congress says no to all spending except that which is truly necessary, we'll know that we are on the right path. When elected officials forego the immoral trappings of incumbency relying upon the quality of their performance, we'll see that we have chosen wisely. When US Navy ships sink drug smuggling boats and the CIA subjects drug lords to rendition and waterboarding, we'll have an indication that change is coming. When Eric Holder is sitting in a jail cell for his wanton disregard for the law and his direct complicity in over 300 murders, we will start to regain some of our trust in government. However, none of this will start until we, the citizens, resolve ourselves to elect only those who have the moral fiber to follow this path.
Member 2041
I am not sure that 'trickle down government' has been promoted by every Republican since Reagan. However, you are on the right track when you say 'trickle down government' has resulted in the current economic decline worldwide.
Wild Walleye
10-24-12, 12:31
This is hilarious. CBS had a post 3rd debate panel of 8 'undecided' voters from Ohio. Repeat Ohio. Surprise, surprise. 6 became romney supporters after the 3rd debate and 2 became Obama supporters. It looked like the CBS anchors were going to stroke out when they heard the results. I guess they were beginning to believe their own BS about how well Obama did in the third debate.I got a pretty good chuckle out of their responses. There was one, parting feeble line intimating that Obama still has a chance, there still is time. Regardless of that being true (Obama does have a chance) , you could sense their desperation (wow, I am so disillusioned, I thought the press was neutral).
To me, Romney was masterful.I started off yelling at the TV that he needed to go for the jugular, particularly on Libya. By the time Obama showed his playground skills with the "horses and bayonets" comment, it dawned on me exactly what Romney was doing. While I still wanted him to bury this punk, that isn't the goal. The true objective is to save the country from Obama and the left and to do so, Romney needs every vote possible. If he didn't figuratively disembowel big ears, he could still count on my vote so why then should he play to me in that debate? I wasn't sold on him until he wrapped up the nomination. It wasn't so much what Romney said or did (since virtually none of it made it through the media filter) as it was that I initially supported Romney because, IMO, he was by far the better of the two candidates. However, since bagging the nomination, I have been favorably impressed by Romney. Today, more importantly on election day, my vote is not just an anti-Obama vote, it is a full-throated pro-Romney vote. Now, if he turns into a profligate spender (like Bush) , I will be disappointed with him, however, I find it impossible to imagine a scenario under which I would regret voting for him.
Obama spent $300 million dollars in ads this summer trying to portray Romney as Snidely Whiplash come to foreclose the mortgage. In each debate Romney came across as kind, caring and capable and Romney has President written all over him. The third debate probably sealed the deal for Romney.Given Obama's investment track record (Solyndra, GM, Fisker, etc) , it is no wonder he bet on another losing strategy. The one thing I will say is that he is extremely consistent, he has never risked his own money on any of these schemes.
Wild Walleye
10-24-12, 13:04
Member 2041.
I am not sure that 'trickle down government' has been promoted by every Republican since Reagan. However, you are on the right track when you say 'trickle down government' has resulted in the current economic decline worldwide.If you take an apolitical view (something I am extraordinarily good at, despite my moderate views) of the founding of this nation, what is the one thing that the Founders attempted to guard against more than any other single force?
Give up? The answer: human nature.
Were it not for those efforts, the republic would have crumbled years ago. We do not persist today due to any one element of our origins rather we thrive (despite current conditions exacerbated by a certain big-eared Marxist and his useful idiots Reid and Pelosi) because of the tenets upon which were were founded and the guide (the US Constitution) which was primarily designed to protect us from ourselves. To me, that is the single most stunning element of the founding. Sure, the notion of a great, free nation must have been even more awe inspiring then but, to have the clarity of vision to see that the only thing that could destroy that nation would be itself is nearly clairvoyant. Most of us think concurrently within our immediate surroundings (environment, time, etc) and our fundamental beliefs are usually well ingrained. However, to understand that human nature does not change overtime is difficult to grasp because we see so many societal changes, every day. Most of us look at the symptoms because that seems to be what needs to be treated, immediately. However, the Founders rightly predicted the future and the causes of our future problems in ways that make one think that they already knew how it would turn out.
Fiscally, the government is supposed to be a skimmer as initially designed and envisioned by the Founders. Like skimming the fat off of a kettle of soup or the cream out of the churn. In times of need, the federal government was empowered to skim some of the wealth of the nation to fund those basic functions necessary to perpetuate the integrity of the republic. However, generations of poorly disciplined, selfish, ignorant, misguided and immoral (they all didn't possess all of these foibles) the federal government morphed into a dipper, taking the fat and some of the broth, scooping up some milk with the cream. Still, that wasn't enough and the government became a filter, taking a huge chunk of all earned income (marginal tax rate was 91% as recently as 1961, now it's 35%) filtering out and keeping (spending) all that it can and returning some to its rightful owners while giving some to others (not the rightful owner). A filter is far too efficient a metaphor to describe what it is today. Now, it has become a sponge soaking up all that it can from every walk of life (regulation = revenue). The only thing to do with a fully engorged sponge in wring it out.
Federal spending is subject to a phenomenon akin to Moore's Law (I call it Wild Walleye's Law) : the "need" for spending is directly correlated to the government's ability (A) and willingness (W) to confiscate private wealth relative to its desire to eliminate existing spending measures (D). The growth in the rate of spending (SG) is limited or increased by A & W relative to D and accelerates at a multiple of the aggregate demand amongst incumbents to remain in office (the 'lust for power factor' or "LFPF"). It takes more than a couple of wide-eyed congressional rookies to combat this affliction.
SG=(A+W)/D*(LFPF)
"Trickle down government" began in earnest under the dark reign of FDR and in many ways commenced the "War for Poverty" under which tens of millions of Americans would be marginalized by government-induced addictions to entitlements. That is to say that the government, despite what may have been good intentions, enslaved millions of able bodied peoples, capable of caring for themselves, by exploiting their misfortunes and diminishing their incentives. Again, this is not relative to those who can't care for themselves, this is about people who have fallen on hard times and who need a temporary helping hand. However, the indiscriminate "helping hand" became a crutch and then a perpetual morphine drip.
Every president since then has inherited a massive trickle-down government component. The differences are clear between those who sought to better the country and the lives, and those of their progeny, of these millions of marginalized Americans as opposed to the morally bankrupt perpetuation of the status quo. It is easy to spend more on entitlements, skip the public battles and call yourself a champion of the people, despite the fact that by doing so you are doing the exact opposite.
Again, if we could do away with the trillion or so of dollars, wasted each year (yep, it's that big), we would all be better off, especially those who truly need help because we would all have more resources with which to help. If we didn't have the departments of energy (the federal govt has never produced a kilowatt of energy or a gallon of fuel), commerce (should companies spend their own money for international marketing?) and education (that's supposed to be up to the states) we'd have $24.1B, $14.2B and $107B, respectively in reduced spending. That's about $145.3B right off the bat. Of course, that reduced spending wouldn't equate to net savings (i.e. having more to spend on other stuff) because our annual deficits have run well over $1T per year during Obama's reign of economic and social terror.
Member #2041,
You're confused. The disaster is the trickle-down government policies promoted by every Democrat since FDR, and which have resulted in the current economic decline worldwide.
Esten,
Democrats and the MSNBC News operation are utterly desperate to defeat Romney, it's obvious.
Thanks,
Jackson
Member #2041
10-24-12, 13:44
Member #2041,
You're confused. The disaster is the trickle-down government policies promoted by every Democrat since FDR, and which have resulted in the current economic decline worldwide.
Esten,
Democrats and the MSNBC News operation are utterly desperate to defeat Romney, it's obvious.
Thanks,
JacksonExcept that this disaster took place under the George W. Bush Presidency. The prior Democrat, Bill Clinton, presided over a period of tremendous prosperity. The Republican narrative on the economy has the unfortunate characteristic of being directly contradicted by the facts of what occurred, and when it occurred.
Member #2041
10-24-12, 13:46
Member 2041.
I am not sure that 'trickle down government' has been promoted by every Republican since Reagan. However, you are on the right track when you say 'trickle down government' has resulted in the current economic decline worldwide.I NEVER mentioned "Trickle down government". That was a term YOU introduced into this discussion. Your reading skills are as flawed as your comprehension of economics is. But we get the fact that no-one on the right can actually make a case without misrepresenting both reality, and what their adversaries actually said. It's called lying. You got caught doing it, just as Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have, repeatedly.
Member 2041.
I have to admit. I am not able to comprehend how trillion dollar deficits, 25 million unemployed, 50 million on food stamps, declining economic growth, destroying the private sector with onerous taxes and job killing regulations while wasting our money on bankrupt companies such as Solyndra, electric forks, Fisker etc is actually going forward. Only someone who blames an obvious terrorist attack in Libya on an obscure, months old utube trailer could see the benefits of such economic policies.
Member #2041
10-24-12, 14:30
Member 2041.
I have to admit. I am not able to comprehend how trillion dollar deficits. 25 million unemployed. 50 million on food stamps, declining economic growth, destroying the private sector with onerous taxes and job killing regulations while wasting our money on bankrupt companies such as Solyndra, electric forks, Fisker etc is actually going forward. Only someone who blames an obvious terrorist attack in Libya on an obscure, months old utube trailer could see the benefits of such economic policies.You also can't comprehend a simple English sentence, so it's rather irrelevant what you can and can't comprehend. Perhaps if you could make an argument without misrepresenting the opposition's positions, you might be more convincing. Although, I'm prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt and take your word for it that you are simply in above your intellectual depth, rather than being intentionally deceitful.
You're confused. The disaster is the trickle-down economic policies promoted by every Republican since Reagan, and which have resulted in the current economic decline worldwide.Please, tell us what exactly does "the current economic decline worldwide" have to do with "trickle down economic policies promoted by every Republican since Reagan?" Specifically, what do Republicans have to do with budget deficits, government spending, pensions and tax systems in southern Europe? Or with slow economic growth in Western European countries? It would appear to me the current "worldwide" problems, which are coming out of Europe, result from policies you favor, in countries with trickle down government.
If one wants to look at a possible association between trickle down economics and poor economic performance, one would look at things like increased wealth inequality, both from an asset standpoint and from an income standpoint, and the tendency of supply siders to favor monetary policy over fiscal policy to smooth the business cycle. In the first instance, normally there is a negative correlation between real per capital GDP and wealth inequality. In the second instance, monetary policy can be slower than some forms of fiscal policy, and also a stimulative monetary policy tends to disproportionately benefit the already wealthy. Even for those who are not inherently bothered by the inequality, it's bad for the economy because it lowers the velocity of money, among other things. You give a poor person a $500 tax rebate and they spend it right away, which gives the economic stimulus in the short run. If you give it to a rich person, they might invest it but they most likely won't consume it. So that might be beneficial in the long run but it blunts the short-term effectiveness.
Those southern European countries Greece, Spain, and to a lesser extent Portugal and Italy, that are having problems? Those countries are definitely NOT following trickle down policies. They are following "dump bushels of money out the window" policies, extremely fiscally loose. I think there is some confusion on the part of some people about what trickle down economics is. It AIN'T those southern European countries!
If one wants to look at a possible association between trickle down economics and poor economic performance,"Trickle down economics" is something Democrats say to piss off Republicans."Trickle down government" is something Republicans say to piss off Democrats, and doesn't imply that either the poor or the rich are the primary beneficiaries of trickle down. Archer Daniels Midland and hedge fund managers are beneficiaries of trickle down government. As are people in Greece who receive overly generous government pensions.
I agree with much of your post. Compared to you though I'm much more worried about long term savings and investment than short term economic stimulus. The negative correlation between real per capita GDP and wealth inequality is misleading because as countries become more prosperous, inequality tends to decrease. That's the reason for the correlation, not because communist, socialist or strongly redistributive policies create wealthier countries.
Member #4112
10-24-12, 18:44
This should end all the arguments regarding taxation in the US. Got this simple little exercise from a friend of mine and pretty much lays out how our tax system really works. Enjoy.
Our Tax System Explained: Bar Stool Economics.
Everyday ten men go out for beer after work and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve."Since you are all such good customers," he said,"I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20." Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. What about the other six men. The paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share? ' They realized that $20.
Divided by six is $3. 33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same system they originally paid, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should now pay. And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,"but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man."I only saved a dollar too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I got"
"That's true!" shouted the seventh man."Why should he get $10 back when I got.
Only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison."We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph. D.
Professor of Economics.
University of Georgia.
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
Again, I am not taking a position on whether short-term is better or more important. I am just summarizing the effects of the policies. Excessive government pension aren't trickle down policies. If anything they are Keynesian. An example of a trickle down policy would be a cut in the capital gains rate. A cut in the corporate tax rate is often giving as an example, but it's a bad example since we have already shown that the corporate tax is a fiction.
What's an 'excessive' pension, anyway? Higher than yours? Too high of a % of income? The income was too high to begin with? I think if you want to look at excessive pensions, the private sector is the place to look; all these golden parachutes for unsuccessful executives are just pensions in my book.
Well, that and major league baseball. Those guys get a pension at age 45 with only four years' required service time.
What's an 'excessive' pension, anyway?Dickhead, I was just throwing out Greek government pensions as an example. Here's why some people think they were excessive,
http://www.economist.com/blogs/charlemagne/2010/02/greeces_generous_pensions
The negative correlation between real per capita GDP and wealth inequality is misleading because as countries become more prosperous, inequality tends to decrease. That's the reason for the correlation, not because communist, socialist or strongly redistributive policies create wealthier countries.Then how come all prosperous countries have progressive income tax systems?
Dickhead, I was just throwing out Greek government pensions as an example. Here's why some people think they were excessive,
http://www.economist.com/blogs/charlemagne/2010/02/greeces_generous_pensionsSo the complaint is primarily excessive LENGTH or duration of the pension, and secondarily the % of income. I am not bothered by 80% of former income although most financial planners say you can live on 70% (but that is based on the US tax system and I have no idea what the Greeks do). And as far as this goes:
"civil servants in Greece employed before 1992 can retire after 35 years service, if they have reached 58"
US civil servants can retire at 55 with 30 years of service, although they would only get 33% of their salary under the Federal Employees' Retirement System, which also has a 401k component. That started in 1984. Civil servants employed before that date would be getting I believe it is 70% of their salaries. Maybe it was 60. Anyway, not that dissimilar. For sure I think that is awfully early although I (mostly) retired at 55 (with no pension). And bear in mind that police, firefighters, military, and maybe some other groups get pensions after as little as 20 years. I don't like cops anyway but I don't see why they should get a pension after 20 years.
So I am comfortable with pension reform, but I don't think the retirement age for Social Security should be raised for those who have already started contributing to it. That is changing the rules in mid-game. If they want to change them going forward that is fine. 67 is already pretty old, though. Everybody freaks about "Social Security solvency" but if it has to be sustained with revenues from the general funds that is just how it will have to be. It is already completely fucked that SS is taxable, since the contribution was already taxed. That is just heinous and has to go. Either that or give me a deduction for AGI for the contribution.
Congressional pensions are excessive as well.
Then how come all prosperous countries have progressive income tax systems?Why do the most prosperous countries countries in the world, with a few exceptions, have no income tax, a flat income tax, or a less progressive income tax system. Qatar, Macau, Singapore, Kuwait, Brunei, Hong Kong, Switzerland, UAE, USA, San Marino, Jersey, Guernsey, Bermuda, Cayman Islands, Gibraltar, Lichtenstein. See
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP) _per_capita/[url]
O. K, you can attribute a number of those on the list to special circumstances. But not Singapore, Hong Kong, Switzerland and the USA. Actually income taxes in the U.S. are reasonably progressive, but not as progressive as Western Europe and Japan. And Western Europe and Japan aren't as prosperous as the U.S., with a couple of exceptions like Luxembourg and Norway.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph. D.
Professor of Economics.
University of Georgia.
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.Though I am far from rich, I am certainly considering overseas retirement. Sooner, than later if BO is reelected. Maybe Romney can fix things, but I believe we are too far down the road.
Wild Walleye
10-24-12, 20:54
If one wants to look at a possible association between trickle down economics and poor economic performance, one would look at things like increased wealth inequality, both from an asset standpoint and from an income standpoint,I've spent a ton of time debunking this and Gini. Since the time that man began to keep written records, there has never been a successful, long-lived society that lacked income disparity or that had flat income distribution."Wealth inequality" how and why could that ever be a valid measure of anything (anything that has value, of course) in a free society with a relatively free economy? Why should we compare the poorest in this country to the richest? Do they both possess the same job skills? Educational background? Work experience? Business connections? If they don't possess the same potential to add value, why it a relevant discussion? In a scenario where you make millions and I am scraping by, how would that discrepancy negatively impact me? We are not competing for the same jobs, the economy is not a zero-sum game and 'giving' me money won't necessarily make me any more productive (although, I would likely stimulate the top line of my local liquor store).
Big, lofty, pie-in-the-sky allegories of right (liberal think) and wrong (any other type of think) are generally 99% bullsh*t and 1% fabrication.
and the tendency of supply siders to favor monetary policy over fiscal policy to smooth the business cycle.Looks like Obama's crony capitalists are all supply-siders, given the riches that Obama is bestowing upon them via this misguided monetary policy.
I have to go some place so, I will respond to the rest, later.
Why do the most prosperous countries countries in the world, with a few exceptions, have no income tax, a flat income tax, or a less progressive income tax system. Qatar, Macau, Singapore, Kuwait, Brunei, Hong Kong, Switzerland, UAE, USA, San Marino, Jersey, Guernsey, Bermuda, Cayman Islands, Gibraltar, Lichtenstein. See.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_ (PPP) _per_capita/
[url]
O. K, you can attribute a number of those on the list to special circumstances. But not Singapore, Hong Kong, Switzerland and the USA. Actually income taxes in the USA are reasonably progressive, but not as progressive as Western Europe and Japan. And Western Europe and Japan aren't as prosperous as the USA, with a couple of exceptions like Luxembourg and Norway.Certainly the US has a progressive income tax. Not only that, but its economy has performed relatively better when the top rates were higher than when they were lower. I can't explain why that is, but it's true. Some of it comes from the high growth post WW II period. I do think you can point to special circumstances in the case of Hong Kong because it has some special trade preferences and barriers. Mostly it's strategic location, and oil, that contributes to countries on your list, but I don't want to live in any of those places on your list. Gibraltar certainly benefits from special circumstances (and isn't a country).
I've spent a ton of time debunking this and Gini. Since the time that man began to keep written records, there has never been a successful, long-lived society that lacked income disparity or that had flat income distribution."Wealth inequality" how and why could that ever be a valid measure of anything (anything that has value, of course) in a free society with a relatively free economy? Why should we compare the poorest in this country to the richest? Do they both possess the same job skills? Educational background? Work experience? Business connections? If they don't possess the same potential to add value, why it a relevant discussion? In a scenario where you make millions and I am scraping by, how would that discrepancy negatively impact me? We are not competing for the same jobs, the economy is not a zero-sum game and 'giving' me money won't necessarily make me any more productive (although, I would likely stimulate the top line of my local liquor store).
Big, lofty, pie-in-the-sky allegories of right (liberal think) and wrong (any other type of think) are generally 99% bullsh*t and 1% fabrication.
Looks like Obama's crony capitalists are all supply-siders, given the riches that Obama is bestowing upon them via this misguided monetary policy.
I have to go some place so, I will respond to the rest, later.The facts are that income inequality and GDP are negatively correlated. That is what you need to debunk, but you can't, because it's true. But you are welcome to try. Only with data, though, not with rhetoric.
You give a poor person a $500 tax rebate and they spend it right away, which gives the economic stimulus in the short run. If you give it to a rich person, they might invest it but they most likely won't consume it. So that might be beneficial in the long run but it blunts the short-term effectiveness.Exactly. And the key word is might.
And herein lies the fundamental flaw in Republican trickle-down theory. It's assumed that helping the wealthy (individuals or corporations) maximize their wealth, and their investment profit potential, will lead to investment that creates jobs and prosperity.
It's really a strategy of hope.
And it doesn't work very well. Some of the wealth trickles down. Some does not. Individuals and corporations sit on their cash, or invest in financial instruments or in other countries. Wall Street is already a huge parasite on the US economy. Low tax rates on capital gains and dividends, for example, only facilitate the transfer of wealth to Wall Street and wealthy investors. Republicans can't deny this. But they will defend it. Either by saying "But it's their money" (which is basically an admission it's not good economic policy). Or by blaming others, such as the government, for the failure of the wealthy to invest in a way that creates jobs. And their solution will always be the same, that basically we need to kiss their ass even more and hope for that wealth to trickle down.
World's Rich Are Hoarding $10 Trillion in Cash
http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2010/07/13/worlds-rich-are-hording-10-trillion-in-cash/
I just had an interesting discussion. Somebody asked me if I had to vote for either Romney or Bush II, for whom would I vote. Irrelevant, but: Romney IQ 15 points Bush II IQ; Romney worked for a living. Educational BACKGROUNDS pretty similar but Romney outperformed. Romney no youthful DUIs or cocaine. Versus: Mormonism very scary. Romney evasive about taxes, both his own and his plans. Romney seems to have changed his position more than Dubya.
To a moderate Democrat such as myself, Romney is more palatable than Bush II so if Romney wins I will be less disappointed than I was in 2004. Bush and Romney seem very personally wooden to me as a voter, but Romney is moderately more likeable. Somebody made the point that Romney's changes in position could be preferable to maintaining untenable positions and that was a point well-taken.
I am extremely concerned about separation of church and state under Romney. I don't see him as being monger friendly.
The facts are that income inequality and GDP are negatively correlated. That is what you need to debunk, but you can't, because it's true. But you are welcome to try. Only with data, though, not with rhetoric.Dickhead, I'm not sure that's true. See for example, http://time.dufe.edu.cn/spti/article/barro/pinequalitygrw.pdf, which came to a conflicting conclusion with respect to growth in wealthier countries. Please don't actually read the whole paper. I feel guilty I haven't finished the paper on corporate taxation yet.
Here's a scatter plot of GDP per capita vs. Gini Index. It's L shaped.
http://visualizingeconomics.com/2006/01/04/gdp-per-capital-vs-gini-index
What I think's going on, there are a number of poor countries that are very unequal. One explanation in the paper above is that a country may be switching from an agricultural to industrial economy. Or if you want to look for less benign explanations, maybe you have crony capitalism, poor education, politicians and government employees that steal, and government programs like fuel subsidies that help the better off, all of which are common in poor, unequal countries, countries that have highest Gini indices. But if you look at countries with low to medium Gini indices, up to the level of the United States, there's not an obvious correlation either way between GDP per capita and Gini index. By the way, if you adjust the Gini coefficient in the U.S. for taxes, entitlements and transfer payments like food stamps, it comes down considerably -- liberals prefer to look at the unadjusted number because they think it proves some kind of a point.
The best way is to reduce inequality is through education and eliminating government handouts to the relatively wealthy, be they Wall Street bankers or corn farmers. Not by taxing investment and savings and businesses and successful workers at very high rates as promoted by a couple of posters here. Walleye has a good point IMHO, the system should promote hard work, thrift, etc, not penalize it, and that will promote growth and prosperity for all.
About another of your posts, I applaud you for having the intellectual honesty to recognize that there are other things going on that affect GDP growth, besides the maximum marginal personal income tax rate. 91% tax rates were not the cause of strong economic growth in the USA.
I don't want to live in any of those places on your list.Please note that the USA is on the list. I've visited four of the others and would just as soon live in any of them as the United States. Actually I'd prefer living in any of them to, say, New York City. And I might do that, if I can put together enough cash to afford the exit tax, that's required before they'll let you leave the USA and abandon your citizenship. And if Obama's announced tax and spending plans are implemented. All the sixteen countries by the way are on one or more of the Wikipedia lists of top ten countries by GDP per capita adjusted for purchasing power.
Member #2041
10-25-12, 12:29
Please note that the USA is on the list. I've visited four of the others and would just as soon live in any of them as the United States. Actually I'd prefer living in any of them to, say, New York City. And I might do that, if I can put together enough cash to afford the exit tax, that's required before they'll let you leave the USA and abandon your citizenship. And if Obama's announced tax and spending plans are implemented. All the sixteen countries by the way are on one or more of the Wikipedia lists of top ten countries by GDP per capita adjusted for purchasing power.How ludicrous is it when someone who purports to be a Libertarian implies that he'd rather live in a place like Singapore or Hong Kong or Qatar or Kuwait than the U. S? I hope you actually do renounce your USA citizenship and do that. Then you'll see what too much government and not enough freedom is REALLY all about.
Member #2041
10-25-12, 12:38
About another of your posts, I applaud you for having the intellectual honesty to recognize that there are other things going on that affect GDP growth, besides the maximum marginal personal income tax rate. 91% tax rates were not the cause of strong economic growth in the USA.And yet, interestingly, those 91% tax rates were not an impediment to that growth either.
Don't want to wind up anyone on this board, especially the members that might have forgotten to take their medication, but? Why does Obama not want to release his school transcripts and passport application? If somebody offered me $5 million dollars for my school transcripts and passport application I would not only send them my transcripts and passport application, I would send them my diplomas, school loans, actual passport and offer them a free round the world cruise.
I read Barro's earlier paper, the one he updates, as part of my research back in the 90s, also the Summers paper he cites. In the update, I thought this was interesting:
"growth is insignificantly related to the ratio of public debt to GDP, measured at the start of each period."
If I recall correctly, criticism of Barro's work (to the extent it existed, which it always does) revolved around the quintilization that he refers to. I love where he says,"This relationship is not obvious from the scatter plot, although one can discern such a curve after staring at the diagram for a long time." Never heard a Harvard guy talk like that. Anyway the r-squared is very low. I have no problem believing this to be true: "For growth, there is an indication that inequality retards growth in poor countries but encourages growth in richer places." And then the sign change or instability in the poorer countries is likely from drastic changes in the regimes.
In the figures at the end of the paper, I don't see where he used income inequality as an independent variable. Did he throw that out because the r-squared was too low? The size of the inflation impact surprised me. I knew it was negative. I'd like to see an individual regression on that, as opposed to being part of a multiple one.
The best way is to reduce inequality is through education and eliminating government handouts to the relatively wealthy, be they Wall Street bankers or corn farmers.I agree with that completely. All agricultural subsidies and tariff barriers must go. I suggest a 5-7 year phaseout to allow for factor utilization to adjust. But that Horatio Alger stuff about hard work and thrift under capitalism is bullshit. It's all about the class you were born into. 96% of the time. I know plenty of hard working, thrifty people who have worked all their lives just to be poor. I also know a lot of rich jack-offs. In fact, my goal was to be a rich jack-off but I fell a bit short of the rich part.
And yet, interestingly, those 91% tax rates were not an impediment to that growth either.Why do you say 91% tax rates weren't an impediment? Do you honestly believe that? Maybe growth was 4%, but would have been 5% or higher if the tax system made sense. Over many years that makes a tremendous difference. I wasn't alive then so don't know a lot. I do know people with money looked for anyway they could to avoid taxable income. Drilling lousy oil wells and dry holes for instance. They'd rather have the write off than give the money to the government. That sort of behavior can't be good for the economy, or the overall level of prosperity.
Rc Collins
10-25-12, 13:28
Don't want to wind up anyone on this board, especially the members that might have forgotten to take their medication, but? Why does Obama not want to release his school transcripts and passport application? If somebody offered me $5 million dollars for my school transcripts and passport application I would not only send them my transcripts and passport application, I would send them my diplomas, school loans, actual passport and offer them a free round the world cruise.The money is being offered to a charity of Obama's choosing and not the individual.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgOq9pBkY0I
How ludicrous is it when someone who purports to be a Libertarian implies that he'd rather live in a place like Singapore or Hong Kong or Qatar or Kuwait than the U. S? I hope you actually do renounce your USA citizenship and do that. Then you'll see what too much government and not enough freedom is REALLY all about.Unh unh unh. Data mining. BAD #2041. Now you are beating up on the straw man. Tiny did not mention he would live in any of those countries. Don't fudge the data to make your points. Go to your room.
Why do you say 91% tax rates weren't an impediment? Do you honestly believe that? Maybe growth was 4%, but would have been 5% or higher if the tax system made sense. Over many years that makes a tremendous difference. I wasn't alive then so don't know a lot. I do know people with money looked for anyway they could to avoid taxable income. Drilling lousy oil wells and dry holes for instance. They'd rather have the write off than give the money to the government. That sort of behavior can't be good for the economy, or the overall level of prosperity.It wasn't an impediment because only like six people paid those rates.
The money is being offered to a charity of Obama's choosing and not the individual.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgOq9pBkY0IOK, I rescind the free round the world cruise, but the rest stands
Wild Walleye
10-25-12, 13:45
The facts are that income inequality and GDP are negatively correlated. That is what you need to debunk, but you can't, because it's true. But you are welcome to try. Only with data, though, not with rhetoric.Why would I try to debunk something that is a fact of nature? The inequality of outcomes is as important to the perpetuation of mankind as are water and air. Someone's financial successful does not ascribe one's value to society. Many, many people compete for things that are non-pecuniary, everyday. However, if there is nothing for which to compete, mankind will take a pass. So, why on earth do liberals spend so much time trying to reprogram human nature at its core (which has and will always fail) as opposed to shepherding and guiding it?
Why is income inequality bad? That is income inequality, not poverty. They aren't the same thing (BTW).
The correlation between income inequality and GDP growth is derivative of the fact that in order for GDP to grow, someone has to be making some more money. Gee, that really seems evil. We should make capitalism illegal (that isn't directed at you DH, I know you are not completely lost).
Wild Walleye
10-25-12, 13:53
It wasn't an impediment because only like six people paid those rates.Higher tax rate regimes, at least in US history, have had a disproportionately negative impact on lower and middle income families (check it out in the Commerce Dept's data. Better use them now, before I get in office and eliminate them). Therefore, I would posit that, in truth, the inverse of your statement would be more factual.
Wild Walleye
10-25-12, 13:58
I read Barro's earlier paper, the one he updates, as part of my research back in the 90s, also the Summers paper he cites. In the update, I thought this was interesting:
"growth is insignificantly related to the ratio of public debt to GDP, measured at the start of each period."Barrio is a writer? I thought that was Spanish for neighborhood and that by using the different names and my tourista map, I could find mas privados.
*Please don't make me point out that this was an attempt at humor.
Wild Walleye
10-25-12, 14:13
Trump is a buffoon. A rich buffoon but nonetheless, a buffoon. However, I don't think he is stupid nor do I think he does things, especially very public things, without considerable thought. He's always had the ability to do something like this, that is to say he could make a public offer like this to draw the president out (birth certificate, college application, etc) or offer a bounty to people in a position to provide legally obtained materials. However, I don't think any of us (I'll even include Esten and Member #whatever) are dumb enough to think that such an act would have any lasting value. It is cheap headline-grabbing tactic that has no legs. I don't see any way that Trump's ploy could effect the polls in any way. I doubt Trump's assessment of the situation is any different. Why then why would he do it? I'm guessing that he always known that he had the ability to suck the wind out of a day's news cycle, if and when, he thought such an act was needed. I think he kept his powder dry (less than two weeks until Obama gets his pink slip) just in case some scum-sucking worm like Gloria Albad (I don't want her name to appear here, she'd probably look for chicas to represent to get back pay based on US rates) popped her head out of the anal cavern within which she was hiding. I suspect that it was just an attempt to push Gloria's October "Surprise" (her OS is a surprise in the same vein as a hershey squirt is a surprise) off the list of top stories in the news cycle. If you can force a news item onto the shelf for 48 hours, you might well kill it (unless it has something to do with dereliction of duty, resulting in the deaths of four Americans).
As for Gloria Alscum's big surprise, it is a dud. I think she hung all of her hopes on the Romney campaign fighting the unsealing of the record. Oops, small miscalculation. As for the 'explosive' content, what a crock. Nobody cares about some lady that is still bitter about her divorce settlement. 25 years later. The American public doesn't have the attention span, nor the interest in a valuation analysis of a private company, circa the late 80's. It must be like having sand in her panties that Romney is squeaky clean.
This is a hot one. Apparently Obama, on the record, told a group of 6 year olds that Romney was a "bullshitter". Much to his credit, Jeremy, a very bright 6 year old responded "Mr President, it takes one to know one"
I think Obama should find out what medications Christina is on and start taking them pronto.
Wild Walleye
10-25-12, 14:27
So the complaint is primarily excessive LENGTH or duration of the pension, and secondarily the % of income. I am not bothered by 80% of former income although most financial planners say you can live on 70% (but that is based on the US tax system and I have no idea what the Greeks do).My issue with government pensions is not that there shouldn't be any, however, there should never be any "defined benefit" pensions for public sector employees. They can never be justified (I. E. Rationally quantified as sustainable) in any real-world environment. In order for "defined benefit" pensions to be appropriate for public sector employees, there would need to be a guarantee that economic activity will never drop below the 'current' level, population won't decline, the size and productivity of the workforce will never decline, etc.
Because governments (municipal, state and federal) are generally poor representatives of the citizens' best interests, they should not be allowed to enter into situations within which the can't properly represent the people (I. E. Collective bargaining, etc.). Am I the only one that thinks that allowing government employees to negotiate government employee benefits, on be half of the citizens, with the unions (that represent govt employees) is rife with conflicts of interest?
Wild Walleye
10-25-12, 14:30
This is a hot one. Apparently Obama, on the record, told a group of 6 year olds that Romney was a "bullshitter". Much to his credit, Jeremy, a very bright 6 year old responded " Mr President, it takes one to know one"
I think Obama should find out what medications Christina is on and start taking them pronto.I suspect he is already taking PMS medications. He's probably going through Obamapause. That could explain why he has no command of the facts, lies constantly and always seems to be on the rag.
Higher tax rate regimes, at least in US history, have had a disproportionately negative impact on lower and middle income families (check it out in the Commerce Dept's data. Better use them now, before I get in office and eliminate them). Therefore, I would posit that, in truth, the inverse of your statement would be more factual.Are you talking about the average rate or the top marginal rate? I was exaggerating, of course, but my point was that when we had 90% and so forth briefly during or right after WWII (I forget which) , a very tiny % paid the highest rate. There were more different rates at that point, too.
Member #2041
10-25-12, 15:37
Don't want to wind up anyone on this board, especially the members that might have forgotten to take their medication, but? Why does Obama not want to release his school transcripts and passport application? If somebody offered me $5 million dollars for my school transcripts and passport application I would not only send them my transcripts and passport application, I would send them my diplomas, school loans, actual passport and offer them a free round the world cruise.Probably because Trump is a well-known liar, and there's no reason to assume he'd actually make good on his commitment here, just as he reneged on his promise to actually have some sort of newsworthy announcement in the first place.
Is it just me or does anyone else think that Romney looks like Hope and Change and Obama looks like the Grunge that Stole Christmas.
Whoops, the polls are saying a lot of people think that way.
Tequila Tim
10-26-12, 02:01
Is it just me or does anyone else think that Romney looks like Hope and Change and Obama looks like the Grunge that Stole Christmas.
Whoops, the polls are saying a lot of people think that way.I think the people have finally determined that the emperor has no clothes.
I think the people have finally determined that the emperor has no clothes.Give him a second term and he won't be the only one with no clothes. But right now, things are trending much better. Even if most people won't spend the time to really learn what he wants to do in his second term, at least they understand that he really doesn't understand anything other than asking the government for handouts / grants.
News is breaking right now that we had the mortar locations attaching the Libyian consulate laser targeted and they were called off. Ooooooops! What ya want to bet the idiot commander in chief didn't have the balls to pull the trigger. If this info pans out, and I am sure that it will, we can call this election over and out! Get ready for a slaughter Esten! I told ya all years ago but most didn't listen. He how laughs last always laughs best, and gets an all paid night at Madahos! IALOTFLMAO. Bye bye Obamanation! Monger on dudes. Toymann
News is breaking right now that we had the mortar locations attaching the Libyian consulate laser targeted and they were called off. Ooooooops! What ya want to bet the idiot commander in chief didn't have the balls to pull the trigger. If this info pans out, and I am sure that it will, we can call this election over and out! Get ready for a slaughter Esten! I told ya all years ago but most didn't listen. He how laughs last always laughs best, and gets an all paid night at Madahos! IALOTFLMAO. Bye bye Obamanation! Monger on dudes. ToymannThe problem is that the liberal media has and continues to completely ignore the entire Libya story, so outside of the few million informed individuals who watch something other than the lame stream media, the rest of the voting electorate doesn't even know there is an unfolding story.
I personally suspect that the full story will reveal that as our Libyian Consulate was under attack, as these reports were coming in, during those hours when we needed an executive decision from the Commander-in-Chief to call in reinforcements from our air bases in the region, Obama instead decided to get on a plane and go to a fund raiser in Nevada.
Thanks,
Jackson
Member #2041
10-26-12, 17:18
The problem is that the liberal media has and continues to completely ignore the entire Libya story, so outside of the few million informed individuals who watch something other than the lame stream media, the rest of the voting electorate doesn't even know there is an unfolding story.
I personally suspect that the full story will reveal that as our Libyian Consulate was under attack, as these reports were coming in, during those hours when we needed an executive decision from the Commander-in-Chief to call in reinforcements from our air bases in the region, Obama instead decided to get on a plane and go to a fund raiser in Nevada.
Thanks,
JacksonActually, this story has been way OVER-played by the media. Terrorists attacked our embassy, and killed 4 Americans. For several days, we got mixed, confused information about it due to faulty intelligence and chaos on the ground in Libya. All in all, that was worthy of about a week's worth of news coverage. There was no executive decision to be made, because the event was long over by the time we had any reliable information about it, and there is exactly ZERO evidence that we had any actionable, non-contradictory information about this while it was happening. It's of course worth asking why we had an intelligence failure, and how we can prevent this from happening again, but that needs to be done in a deliberate, non-sensational, non-political environment if we want to actually get that question answered in a constructive manner. Which is exactly the opposite of what Republicans are trying to do with it. It is decidedly NOT a partisan political issue, and anyone who attempts to make it one is is demonstrating that they don't actually have the nation's interest at heart.
Punter 127
10-26-12, 17:50
Benghazi Consulate Could Have Used Marines With Bayonets.
Scandal: More than six hours after terrorists attacked our consulate, former Navy SEALs manned a blood-soaked machine gun to defend USA territory. Meanwhile Apache helicopters sat on the ground in Italy.
At 4 am Local time on Sept. 11 — six hours and 20 minutes after the initial attack began — former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed at the CIA annex not far from the consulate by a mortar shell. The machine gun they were firing was encrusted with blood, an indication they continued to fight after being wounded.
During that eternity, Woods and Doherty might have wondered between gunfire and explosions where the military, with bases strewn across Europe, was. USA forces were indeed being moved like chess pieces as the attack unfolded, but none came to their aid because no one gave the order.
President Obama, perhaps preoccupied with his upcoming Las Vegas fundraiser, met with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Vice President Joe Biden in the Oval Office at 5 pm ET, a little more than an hour after the onset of the attack.
He could have given the order but did not, even after an email, in which the al-Qaida-tied group Ansar al-Sharia claimed responsibility, arrived at 6:07 pm ET to a distribution list that included the White House Situation Room.
A Special Operations force went from central Europe to Naval Air Station Sigonella in southern Italy, just 480 miles from Benghazi. F-16s and Apache helicopters remained parked and unused at Aviano Air Base in northern Italy. Two Navy destroyers already in the Mediterranean Sea were moved off the coast of Libya on the day of the attack but were never used.
The question is: Why not?
Some suggest that sending nearby AC-130 gunships or Apaches would have been futile because in the chaos they couldn't have identified the attackers and might have hit innocents. A few well-timed machine gun bursts at nowhere in particular would have been sufficient to disperse the jihadists. We know there was no protest mob in the way and certainly we could have plucked those two heroic SEALs off the annex roof.
But to send help would have acknowledged it was a terrorist attack. It would have destroyed Team Obama's campaign mantra that Osama bin Laden was dead, al-Qaida was destroyed and the Arab Spring was in full bloom. Better to blame a filmmaker and his obscure video.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who pushed the video fraud, and whose employee, U. N. Ambassador Susan Rice, went on five Sunday talk shows to repeat that shameful and colossal lie, defended Obama's inaction in the face of terror by saying,"Posting something on Facebook is not in and of itself evidence" of a terrorist attack.
And the massacre at Fort Hood, Texas, was "workplace violence."
When terrorists attacked the USA Consulate in Benghazi and killed the USA ambassador and three other Americans, no Marines were deployed to protect them on the anniversary of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Yet a Marine security detachment was guarding our embassy in Barbados.
"The last two casualties occurred well over six hours after the initial attack," Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham noted."It is disappointing to hear that our national command authorities failed to try to reinforce the consulate with timely air assets, and that a consulate located in one of the most dangerous regions in the world was so unsecured."
Rather than sitting in the Oval Office to tell the American people how and why four Americans died at the hands of an attack by an al-Qaida-linked group, our less-than-optimal president yukked it up with Jay Leno Wednesday night after appearing with David Letterman two days after the attack, worrying about nothing more than his re-election and demonstrating that even after four years of on-the-job training how eminently unqualified he is to be our commander in chief.
Why, Mr. President, weren't there Marines with bayonets in Benghazi?
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/102512-630874-no-marines-with-bayonets-at-benghazi.htmI apologize for the copy and paste, but I think it's important.
Member #2041
10-26-12, 18:43
I apologize for the copy and paste, but I think it's important.I agree, it's important to see what sort of stupidity passes for right-wing editorializing these days. Thanks for showing us a prime example of this sort of idiocy.
Do you or the editorial writer seriously think that cc'ing the White House situation room on an e-mail means that said e-mail actually gets read by the President's immediate security team without being put through massive amounts of filtration and analysis first? Because the entire premise of that nonsensical e-mail is that since the White House situation room was cc'd on an e-mail, that represents real-time actionable intelligence, and I find it hard to believe that ANYBODY is actually stupid enough to believe that. although perhaps Punter 127 might convince me otherwise.
Investors' Business Daily is not exactly an unbiased source given the ideology of its founder. But then I am not sure there are any unbiased sources any more, which is part of the problem.
This Libya story is a sinister plot of brave Americans sacrficing their lifes while their government turns its back refusing to come to their aid. All because Obama has ulterior motives that prevents Obama from acting in the best interests of America.
Obama's ulterior motive is a core belief that America is evil and that America is the root cause of international tensions. For Obama to provide military aid to Americans being brutalized in Libya would require Obama to admit that his 'apology tour' through the middle East resolved nothing and admit that the same forces that harmed us in the past are still seeking to harm us. This is something Obama cannot do. To Obama, America is the villain and America should apologize and accept violence directed towards us as a just response for America's sins.
It is no wonder that Obama blamed the violence in Libya on an obscure, months old utube trailer. This fits in nicely with Obama's belief that we are to blame and that we are provoking these assaults.
This Libya story is a sinister plot of brave Americans sacrficing their lifes while their government turns its back refusing to come to their aid. All because Obama has ulterior motives that prevents Obama from acting in the best interests of America.
Obama's ulterior motive is a core belief that America is evil and that America is the root cause of international tensions. For Obama to provide military aid to Americans being brutalized in Libya would require Obama to admit that his 'apology tour' through the middle East resolved nothing and admit that the same forces that harmed us in the past are still seeking to harm us. This is something Obama cannot do. To Obama, America is the villain and America should apologize and accept violence directed towards us as a just response for America's sins.
It is no wonder that Obama blaimed the violence in Libya on an obscure, months old utube trailer. This fits in nicely with Obama's belief that we are to blame and that we are provoking these assaults.I want to laugh, but you have been going on for so long, I really think you are serious. As to why you dislike Obama, why don't you come clean. Obama can't zip up his fly without you interjecting that he is screwing America.
Bllack Shirt, you might be right. Obama probably cannot zip up his fly without screwing America. It is known as instinctual or ingrained behavior
Member #2041
10-26-12, 23:32
This Libya story is a sinister plot of brave Americans sacrficing their lifes while their government turns its back refusing to come to their aid. All because Obama has ulterior motives that prevents Obama from acting in the best interests of America.
Obama's ulterior motive is a core belief that America is evil and that America is the root cause of international tensions. For Obama to provide military aid to Americans being brutalized in Libya would require Obama to admit that his 'apology tour' through the middle East resolved nothing and admit that the same forces that harmed us in the past are still seeking to harm us. This is something Obama cannot do. To Obama, America is the villain and America should apologize and accept violence directed towards us as a just response for America's sins.
It is no wonder that Obama blamed the violence in Libya on an obscure, months old utube trailer. This fits in nicely with Obama's belief that we are to blame and that we are provoking these assaults.The most astonishing thing is, not only does this guy actually believe this nonsensical crap, he's not too embarrassed to admit it publicly. Jeez, you really should just hide under the bed until the big scary black man goes away.
WorldTravel69
10-27-12, 05:30
Where did you watch that?
K Foxed Up.
Bllack Shirt, you might be right. Obama probably cannot zip up his fly without screwing America. It is known as instinctual or ingrained behavior
WorldTravel69
10-27-12, 05:50
God said Rape is OK. Why do you Republicans say that is OKAY?
Bllack Shirt, you might be right. Obama probably cannot zip up his fly without screwing America. It is known as instinctual or ingrained behaviorIn your press releases, you and Donald Trump are quite similar. But he has just made a fool of himself this time. Hanging around Key West, you must be loaded, too. But if you have the same hair-do, then all is lost.
SnakeOilSales
10-27-12, 08:35
http://news.yahoo.com/why-gop-fear-romney-presidency-121512172--politics.html
Interesting read regarding a possible Romney presidency.
Consumers Report evaluated the solar panels Obama wasted trillions on. Their conclusion "the solar panels work great until you put them in the sun"
Apparently, when put in the sun they burst into flames.
There is still hope. Obama is now touting electric forks to halt the rise of the oceans and cure the world.
Yes sir, our economy is in good hands with Obama
God said Rape is OK. Why do you Republicans say that is OKAY?Wt, there you go again.
I don't know of a single person, Republican or otherwise, who believes that "rape is okay".
In fact, YOU don't know of a single person, Republican or otherwise, who believes that "rape is okay".
Publishing completely idiotic statements does not reflect well on your character.
Thanks,
Jackson
WorldTravel69
10-27-12, 13:32
Rape is what God Wanted?
http://nation.time.com/2012/10/24/ind-gop-senate-candidate-stands-by-rape-comment/
I don't know of a single person, Republican or otherwise, who believes that "rape is okay". JacksonJerry Sandusky? The Boy Scouts of America? The Catholic church?
God said Rape is OK. Why do you Republicans say that is OKAY?
Rape is what God Wanted?
http://nation.time.com/2012/10/24/ind-gop-senate-candidate-stands-by-rape-comment/
Jerry Sandusky? The Boy Scouts of America? The Catholic church?Gentlemen, this election is NOT about some obscure Senate candidate who misspoke when making a statement about sexual assual.
Please do not let the Liberals divert your attention from what's really important:
- 8.3% unemployment
- $3.80 per gallon gas
- $1,000,000,000,000 annual budget deficits
- $16,000,000,000,000 national debt
- $51,074.84 of national debt owed by each citizen
Thanks,
Jackson
The Obama campaign has prohibited discussions on the following topics.
- 8. 3% unemployment.
. $3. 80 per gallon gas.
. $1, 000, 000, 000, 000 annual budget deficits.
. $16, 000, 000, 000, 000 national debt.
. $51, 074. 84 of national debt owed by each citizen.
Allowed talking points are.
** 1) Big Bird.
**2) Bullshitter.
**3) Volunteering to lose your virginity to Obama.
Interviews with Obama are restricted to.
**1) Nickleodeon
**2) Characters from Sesame Street.
**3) Empty Chairs.
**4) Zoo Animals.
**5) Flipper.
**6) Rin Tin Tin.
**7) ET
**8) Pimp with a Limp.
**9) his wife Michelle.
With the promise that all questions revolve arround Obama's favorite sport, color, animal, food or favorite music group.
- $3.80 per gallon gas. JacksonHttp://wallstreetpit.com/92107-highest-and-cheapest-gas-prices-by-country/
As can clearly be seen, out of 55 major countries, US gas prices rank 45th, and when adjusted for income (I. E, how many hours of work to buy a gallon of gas) , rank 50th. Seems like a strange issue to focus on. Especially for supply-siders!
The unemployment rate is now 7.8%. That's down from a high of 10.2% in 2009.
Gas prices were over $4 in Bush's last year 2008.
Deficits and debt are driven mostly by legacy Republican policies of unfunded wars and tax cuts. Republicans want to continue with low-tax, high-defense spending policies. Democrats want to reverse these fiscal trends.
Folks, don't let Republican talking points distract you from the facts and the underlying policies driving our debt.
28558
Member #4112
10-27-12, 15:28
Since the comment has been taken completely out of context by the media and even the Republicans have failed to properly address it, permit me to attempt to restore it to its original context.
The candidate was addressing the very small number of abortions which were preformed due to the victim being impregnated by the perpetrator of a rape, which is true.
I also find it amusing our liberal friends now wish to invoke the name of 'God' regarding this matter after liberals in general have attempted to erase any reference to such entity from the public domain and government for years even though such entity's name reoccurs through out all our founding documents as well as on our currency.
Member #2041
10-27-12, 16:21
Wt, there you go again.
I don't know of a single person, Republican or otherwise, who believes that "rape is okay".
In fact, YOU Don't know of a single person, Republican or otherwise, who believes that "rape is okay".
Publishing completely idiotic statements does not reflect well on your character.
Thanks,
JacksonYet you apparently don't think that publishing completely idiotic statements reflect on El Alamo's character, because he's littered this forum with them recently.
Member #2041
10-27-12, 16:35
Gentlemen, this election is NOT About some obscure Senate candidate who misspoke when making a statement about sexual assual.
Please do not let the Liberals divert your attention from what's really important:
- 8. 3% unemployment.
- $3. 80 per gallon gas.
- $1, 000, 000, 000, 000 annual budget deficits.
- $16, 000, 000, 000, 000 national debt.
- $51, 074. 84 of national debt owed by each citizen.
Thanks,
JacksonIt IS, however, in some measure about a general attitude among Republicans, including Romney, NOT to repudiate this sort of stupidity, and to continue to support those candidates efforts after they make these type of moronic comments.
[QUOTE=Esten; 428237]Folks, don't let Republican talking points distract you from the facts and the underlying policies driving our debt.
Dah! Could the underlying policies driving our debt be a President spending money like a drunken sailor while preventing job creation with onerous taxes and job killing regulations?
Individuals and corporations sit on their cash, or invest in financial instruments or in other countries. Wall Street is already a huge parasite on the US economy. Low tax rates on capital gains and dividends, for example, only facilitate the transfer of wealth to Wall Street and wealthy investors. Republicans can't deny this. But they will defend it. Either by saying "But it's their money" (which is basically an admission it's not good economic policy). Or by blaming others, such as the government, for the failure of the wealthy to invest in a way that creates jobs. And their solution will always be the same, that basically we need to kiss their ass even more and hope for that wealth to trickle down.
World's Rich Are Hoarding $10 Trillion in Cash.
http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2010/07/13/worlds-rich-are-hording-10-trillion-in-cash/So it's not "their" money? Taking as much as you can from people is good economic policy? Communist governments and malevolent dictatorships are the best at taking people's money, so I guess they're the best at economic policy.
The cash and financial instruments the wealthy corporations and individuals are sitting on is in bank accounts, certificates of deposit, bonds, treasury bills, money market funds, etc. The money is used by borrowers to buy houses, expand businesses, fund the federal government deficit, and pay for schools, roads and bridges. Still, despite the billions or trillions being "hoarded", there's not enough domestic savings. So a large part of our federal government deficit is funded by the Chinese and other foreigners.
Depending on where you are, the top tax rate on interest income is currently between 35% and 47%. Next year, the top rate goes up 8.4 percentage points on interest income paid to individuals. Maybe that combined with low interest rates will cause behavior to change the way you want. I for one am going to spend more money on top flight hookers. You might as well spend it if otherwise the government is going to take it.
Member #2041
10-27-12, 18:15
[QUOTE=Esten; 428237]Folks, don't let Republican talking points distract you from the facts and the underlying policies driving our debt.
Dah! Could the underlying policies driving our debt be a President spending money like a drunken sailor while preventing job creation with onerous taxes and job killing regulations?Well, as the graph Esten posted makes clear, that certainly WAS the case under George W. Bush, but not so much under Obama.
Well, guys, I don't know how to break this to you but there are no undecided voters on this forum and there are no undecided voters in all the United states that will be influenzed by the impressive intellectuals on this board.
This has been a lot of fun. My advice on election night is to sit down, take a deep breath and don't forget to take your medication.
Well, as the graph Esten posted makes clear, that certainly WAS the case under George W. Bush, but not so much under Obama.
Bush and Obama and Congress spent like drunken sailors. What's your point? Romney knows how to balance budgets. He's proved that at Bain and with the Olympics. Ryan, at considerable political risk, has actually come out with proposals that would balance the budget.
Don't want anyone to get upset and go out and do a random shooting but my guess is Benghasi will become synonymous with 'Remember El Alamo'. The difference is that Santa Ana will be Obama.
Punter 127
10-27-12, 21:11
Bush and Obama and Congress spent like drunken sailors. What's your point? Romney knows how to balance budgets. He's proved that at Bain and with the Olympics. Ryan, at considerable political risk, has actually come out with proposals that would balance the budget.Member 2041 doesn't have a point, he just makes snide remarks and childish insults. He's the new version of
badboy 13, he shouldn't be allowed access to a computer without adult supervision. IMHO
Agreed. Maybe Jackson should filter the posts of member 2041 to reduce the number of migraine headaches member 2041 has induced.
Member #2041
10-27-12, 21:45
Agreed. Maybe Jackson should filter the posts of member 2041 to reduce the number of migraine headaches member 2041 has induced.It wouldn't be the first time that people censor opinions that they can't refute with logic and actual, legitimate data. We recognize it for what it would be, a tacit admission of defeat - when self-proclaimed Libertarians determine that they can't handle free speech that they disagree with.
Member #2041
10-27-12, 21:54
Member 2041 doesn't have a point, he just makes snide remarks and childish insults. He's the new version of.
Badboy 13, he shouldn't be allowed access to a computer without adult supervision. IMHODon't confuse your inability to understand the point I am making with there not being one. It should be pretty obvious to anyone literate that the point is the hypocrisy, the inability to actually deal with facts, and the glaring double standards demonstrated by the right wingers here. That being said, I did mention that one would need to be literate to grasp it, so you're excused on that basis, Punter 127, as is El Alamo.
In any case, I'll do you all a favor and cease posting on this Election thread, since this entire discussion, given it's participants, is clearly a worthless enterprise.
Member 2041, Why don't you stay on, but stop implying the rest of us are morons, idiots, illiterates, hypocrites and, worst of all, litterers. Moveon and SnakeOilSales have moved on, Matt Psyche only comes by to this thread occasionally, WT69 likes Gary Johnson and the flat tax, and Esten disappears for long stretches. You're now the only consistent token liberal Democrat.
Member 2041.
Calm down. The world is not coming to an end. A landslide defeat for Obama is not the end of the world.
But please, get your prescription refilled
Too hard to tell who is going to win, it will be VERY VERY close. If I was a betting man I would probably say Obama. I think between the tea party and the state of Arizona (and other states wanting to stop anybody who appears to be brown in color) just about killed any latinos voting for Romney. The 47% comment didn't help him either. Obama care is going to be tough on lots of working families and I for one am not happy with it.
My. 02
Member #2041
10-27-12, 23:09
Member 2041, Why don't you stay on, but stop implying the rest of us are morons, idiots, illiterates, hypocrites and, worst of all, litterers.I'll pass, as I can't see any constructive purpose in continuing these discussions in this particular forum. BTW, I've never IMPLIED any of that mentioned above. Whenever I believe something to be the case, I say so, and I'm pretty sure I actually said so here.
I don't know who will win but if Obama does win, the (non-Cuban) Hispanic vote will for sure be a huge factor. AZ and CO are swing states with many latinos and Romney only has something like 10% of the vote. Of course the Hispanic turnout % is lower than average so that'll mute the effect of that. I don't think the stupid rape / abortion comments will affect the presidential election but they could affect the Senate majority, which is going to be pretty close as well. The IN guy might still win but the other one looks like toast.
Shit, it could be win-win for me if Romney gets elected but can't repeal the health care bill due to no Senate majority. I don't agree with his tax ideas but they do favor me from a selfish standpoint. I don't agree with all the right wing abortion stuff but I don't plan on needing an abortion any time soon. In fact even a sluggish growth scenario doesn't necessarily hurt me and would keep rents down. A lot of my jobs have been in fields where the worse the economy was overall, the higher was our demand, or else I benefited from inflation (because I had COLA and a fixed rate mortgage) , so it requires some different thinking to figure out whose policies are actually going to be better for me.
Selfishly I want higher interest rates and a stronger dollar. No idea which guy is going to give me that.
After following the campaign for several months, I have discerned the following differences between the Republican platform and the Libertarian platform:
Selfishly I want higher interest rates and a stronger dollar. No idea which guy is going to give me that.Too bad the Democratic ticket isn't Rubin / Volcker instead of Obama / Biden. Seriously.
Romney / Ryan would be better in the short / medium term. I don't know about the long term. If you believe what Obama and Boehner are saying then we will go over the fiscal cliff if Obama is re-elected. That means a recession and USA credit downgrade are much more likely. Which in turn means lower interest rates for a longer period of time and a weaker dollar. Also, Romney doesn't like Bernanke, because he believes his policies weakened the dollar and he believes Bernanke went overboard on quantitative easing, to lower interest rates. Romney would probably appoint a more hawkish Fed chairman when Bernanke retires, who would support higher interest rates and a stronger dollar.
In the longer term, if Obama is indeed going to carry on with his spending plans and is not going to raise taxes on the middle class or cut entitlements, then we're headed for a debt crisis. Normally that would mean higher interest rates and a weaker currency. But given the dollar is the world's reserve currency, will we have to raise real interest rates (which I assume is what's of interest to you)? That's a question. You probably have a better idea than I do. High real interest rates and massive government debt would be very painful to deal with. Could we go along with interest rates way below inflation and solve the debt crisis that way?
All of the above assumes politicians are telling the truth. Obama and Boehner might be likely to bend, and Obama if re-elected and if he has the votes in Congress might raise taxes on the middle class. Or just leave tax rates on everyone where they'll automatically be as a result of the end of the Bush tax cuts on Janauary 1.
I believe Romney's policies are more likely to promote growth, which in turn would cause higher interest rates and a stronger dollar. You'd probably disagree though.
Too bad the Democratic ticket isn't Rubin / Volcker instead of Obama / Biden. Seriously.
Romney / Ryan would be better in the short / medium term. I don't know about the long term. If you believe what Obama and Boehner are saying then we will go over the fiscal cliff if Obama is re-elected. That means a recession and USA credit downgrade are much more likely. Which in turn means lower interest rates for a longer period of time and a weaker dollar. Also, Romney doesn't like Bernanke, because he believes his policies weakened the dollar and he believes Bernanke went overboard on quantitative easier, to lower interest rates. Romney would probably appoint a more hawkish Fed chairman when Bernanke retires, who would support higher interest rates and a stronger dollar.
In the longer term, if Obama is indeed going to carry on with his spending plans and is not going to raise taxes on the middle class or cut entitlements, then we're headed for a debt crisis. Normally that would mean higher interest rates and a weaker currency. But given the dollar is the world's reserve currency, will we have to raise real interest rates (which I assume is what's of interest to you)? That's a question. You probably have a better idea than I do. High real interest rates and massive government debt would be very painful to deal with. Could we go along with interest rates way below inflation and solve the debt crisis that way?
All of the above assumes politicians are telling the truth. Obama and Boehner might be likely to bend, and Obama if re-elected might raise taxes on the middle class.Well, a recession is associated with lower real interest rates (yes, I only care about real and not about nominal) , but a credit downgrade is associated with HIGHER real interest rates. I think the likelihood of a recession or even a depression is greater under Romney, personally, because of the demand side of thing. I'd ask the supply siders how come Hayek was never allowed to teach in the economics department (his PhDs were in political science and law but that is not the reason). When you look at a fiscal cliff, you have to look at both sides of the balance sheet. Ever since I took that intro accounting course at one of the great programs Doppelganger recommended, I realize you need to look at net liabilities and not gross liabilities. If you do that, the per capita NET indebtedness (negative international investment position) per citizen is only a little over $9k per person, assuming a 300 million population (source: US Dept. Of Commerce Survey of Current Business Conditions, July 2010 pp 9-10). That's not good but it is not Armageddon either. So I am of the belief that since the debt and trade deficit did not appear over night it is not necessary to balance the budget over night. I fear excessive belt tightening under Romney. It could be too much too fast.
Also I should point out that as long as the US dollar remains a vehicle currency, a current account deficit is almost inevitable because of what is known as the "Triffin dilemma." We have to supply dollars abroad and that creates a current account deficit. You have to ask yourself if the benefit from the seigneurage or interest free loan that results from having over 60% of the dollars outside the country is worth the risk to the current account as well as the risk of a run on the currency. I'm not really smart enough to figure that out but I DO know that the financial account now dwarfs the current account. Also roughly half of our current account deficit is traceable to China which means at least the problem is identifiable.
Similarly, and importantly, a recession in isolation STRENGTHENS the currency. I get really scared when righties don't understand stuff like this. Let's have a brief review of the current account and exchange rates.
A current account deficit is more likely with (as compared to other countries) : A higher price level (inflation makes your goods relatively more expensive than theirs so exports decline and imports increase) , growth in GDP (because it increases demand for imports; righties often get this backwards) , higher interest rates, lower tariffs and other barriers to entry (reduces imports) , and more attractive investment opportunities (http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/BalanceofPayments.html, for example, but this is mainstream thinking).
Focus on that last one. Do we have a deficit because of excessive inflation, low productivity, and inadequate savings? Maybe. Or is it because US investments are viewed as being safer? Look how everyone ran to the dollar in late 2008 and early 2009 even though everything looked really dismal in the US as well. Then focus on the fact that the when you can settle a deficit by moving the foreign exchange rate instead of having to drain international reserves, the deficit is less urgent by definition. Not saying the deficit is a good thing, just saying that the righties often think in terms of a post-WW II Bretton Woods environment instead of a world with floating exchange rates.
Now, on to the determinants of exchange rates. US economic growth WEAKENS the dollar. Repeat that 500 times. Why? Because it increases the demand for imports. That increases the demand for foreign currencies while the supply of dollars is finite. US inflation weakens the dollar. Higher US interest rates (again, as compared to other countries' interest rates) strengthens the dollar; foreign capital flows to the US, increasing demand for dollars since the US investment is denominated in dollars.
So this: "Normally that would mean higher interest rates and a weaker currency," no. Sorry about that.
Let's look at what happens if real short-term interest rates remain low. This is supposed to be stimulative to borrowing and capital investment and thus should lead to job creation in the long run. So then the spread between LT and ST is supposed to reflect the consensus estimate of future inflation. Let's look at the spread between the 30 year T-bond and the 3-month T-bill. Right now it is 2. 92%.0. 12% = 280 basis points. 10 years ago it was 5. 16%.1. 64% = 352 basis points. 20 years ago it was 7. 65%.3. 00% = 465 basis points. My concern would be that such flatness would lead to excessive risk taking or "yield chasing" if it continues. That could be good for the equity markets in the short term but if you think about the graying of America there is a need for higher real yields on fixed income. This should happen on its own during times of economic growth, absent government intervention. So the government invention to keep interest rates low benefits the deficit but could be anti-growth if none of us old fuckers has any money to spend because we are getting 0. 01% on our money markets and don't want to invest long term since we could be dead. I would start gradually tightening the money supply at this point, while keeping the fiscal tap turned on a bit longer.
I don't thinking removing the subsidy on student loan rates was a very good idea. That has very long term implications for demand and consumption. OTOH I favor higher admission standards to keep some of the loans from going to waste.
but a credit downgrade is associated with HIGHER real interest rates. .You're right. In my own mind I was associating a credit downgrade with a weaker currency. When the USA was downgraded in August 2011, interest rates went down, probably because of the Fed. Having just looked at exchange rates too, to be truthful, the dollar got stronger afterwards too.
Similarly, and importantly, a recession in isolation STRENGTHENS the currency. .I don't believe this, if it's "in isolation". I looked at USA recessions back to 1969 and actually can't see a correlation between recessions and the strength of the currency. I think this is because USA recessions aren't usually in isolation. If the USA is suffering other places are too. You pointed out the example of people running to the dollar in 2008/2009 and that's a good point. Most of the steep recessions I'm familiar with in recent times have been correlated with weaker currencies. Since the late 1990's, Thailand, Indonesia, South Korea, Russia, and Iceland are a few examples. Conversely, regardless of what the theory says about current account deficits, when you're seeing growth, you see money coming into a country, to take advantage of investment opportunities and higher interest rates, so are more likely to see an appreciating currency. In other words, in the real world, the effects of growth on interest rates and investment flows swamp whatever effect the change is on imports.
How do you explain Australia? It goes through a long period of strong growth, always has big current account and trade deficits, and the currency is very strong.
So this: "Normally that would mean higher interest rates and a weaker currency," no. Sorry about that.OK, again, in the countries I've followed that's what happens during a debt crisis. Iceland in 2008 or Indonesia in 2007. Latin America in the 1980's. Zimbabwe. Germany in the 1920's. And that's what would be happening in Greece right now if it had its own currency. Governments take on too much debt and start printing money. Inflation goes up. Interest rates go up. And the currency becomes weaker. As I mentioned, I don't know what would happen in the USA since, as you say, the dollar is a vehicle currency.
Conversely, regardless of what the theory says about current account deficits, when you're seeing growth, you see money coming into a country, to take advantage of investment opportunities and higher interest rates, so are more likely to see an appreciating currency.That is the non-current account, my friend. That explains some of the results you indicate, particularly in SE Asia where it was the financial capital pulling out. In fact because nothing happens in isolation, the theory behind determinants of forex rates is incomplete. So if you want to look for correlation, you're going to need to control for the other variables to "isolate" the effects. That is what Barro tried to do in that paper you posted. It's hard. The other thing about forex is that expectations play such a big role. Market expects the euro to weaken, so they sell euros, so it weakens. Self-fulfilling prophecy. Also, my guess is that when you looked at the "strength of the dollar," you were looking at the dollar versus a weighted average basket of currencies. That won't work, because as I said, what matters is the growth rate in GDP of country X versus a given country Y or Z. Your regression should be the change in the Euro/$ exchange rate versus the change in Euro zone GDP/change in US GDP and etc. for each of the major currencies. In fact I recently did that for the euro and dollar for the last twelve years, using monthly observations, and got the expected negative correlation. The r value was about (negative) 60% and 8 of the 11 signs (12 years so 11 changes) were negative (opposite). That's not a great r-value, which is consistent with an incomplete model. If you compare the average strength of the dollar vs. many currencies, then you are simultaneously comparing it to different countries in different stages of growth versus recession. It isn't too surprising you would not get much correlation doing that.
Now, a brief quiz. So foreign money comes in to take advantage of higher interest rates. What does that then do to interest rates? You need to think about interest rate arbitrage.
Dickhead, While I frequently disagree with you, I also learn from you, so thanks. We're getting off topic so I'll either send you a PM or continue on the thread that Punter kindly set up for this.
I went here:
http://www.bea.gov/national/index.htm#gdp
and pulled the real GDP figures for as far back as they had them, which was 1929. I then calculated the rates of change for each annual period. Then I separated those years into Republican versus Democratic presidents (in the year following election I assumed the new guy was in for the entire year; somewhere in there, fairly early on, we switched from March 4 to Jan. 20 inauguration so it shouldn't make TOO much difference) , and averaged the rates of change in real GDP for all the years with a Democratic president and all the years with a Republican president. I had no idea what I would find. I will send the spreadsheet to anyone who wants it but it is simple to do.
Average (arithmetic mean) rate of change in real US GDP for all years ending with a Republican president. 1929-2011: 1.80%
Average (arithmetic mean) rate of change in real US GDP for all years ending with a Republican president. 1929-2011: 4.77%
Furthermore the coefficient of variation is about twice as high under the elephants as it is under the donkeys, 222% to 113%.
So I looked at this and smiled. I then felt sorry for the poor Republicans with the stagnant growth rates their policies obviously produce, and I decided to throw out the Great Depression and just look at 1933-2011. That is pretty charitable given that the Republicans were in power the entire decade preceding the Depression (which they then exacerbated by not listening to Keynes and doing pretty much what Romney proposes to do if elected).
Average (arithmetic mean) rate of change in real US GDP for all years ending with a Republican president. 1933-2011: 2.73%
Average (arithmetic mean) rate of change in real US GDP for all years ending with a Republican president. 1933-2011: 4.77%
The coefficient of variation is now a bit better under the elephants, I must admit, 113% to 85%. The compound return implied is still way, way higher for the Democratic regimes even if you throw out the Republicans' one biggest fuck up.
What do you Republicans and supply-siders have to say to these figures?
What do you Republicans and supply-siders have to say to these figures?Including the great depression and World War II in your figures is misleading. Sure, FDR's results are going to look great, starting when he did.
You're not taking into account Congress.
How much difference was there between the positions of the presidents? FDR, Carter, and Obama were left of center on economic issues. Reagan was a supply sider. Other than that the rest of the presidents could have switched parties and no one would have noticed.
As countries get richer GDP growth rates slow. The presidents from 1933 to 1969 were predominantly Democrats. As the USA became wealthier, there was a more even mix of Democrat and Republican presidents.
You're not taking into account changes in technology and demographics and many other extraneous variables.
The past is not necessarily an indication of the future. Putting Romney in the same category with Bush Jr. or Obama in the same category with Bill Clinton is a mistake, IMHO.
I looked at 1946-2011: Dems 3.71% vs. Reps. 2.73%, and during my lifetime, Dems 3 65% vs. Reps. 2.66%. I'd sure be interested to see the analysis with the Congress instead of the president but the presidents I know off the top of my head and the Congress I don't. Your other points are well-taken although I don't think I compared Clinton to Obama. You can see the growth slowing and the difference narrowing. It's true FDR benefited from a high base point but that doesn't explain the post WW-II results. If you did look at Congress you'd have to look at stuff like what was passed by lame duck Congresses and it could get messy. You could argue that you should look at the growth with a one year lag as well (this year is implementation of last year's policy). That is easy to do so I will.
Okay, if you credit this year's growth or lack thereof to last year's admin, the numbers don't change too much:
Rep Dem
Avg real GDP growth 1929 to date 1.762% 4.878%
Avg 1933 to date 2.666% 4.878%
Std dev 1929 to date 3.983% 5.368%
Std dev 1933 to date 2.375% 5.368%
Coefficient of variation 1929 to date 226.042% 110.039%
Coefficient of variation 1933 to date 89.090% 110.039%
Avg 1946 to date 2.776% 3.156%
LBJ was left of center to my way of thinking. Lots of fiscal stimulus and transfer payments. That was still Bretton Woods so no monetary policy.
Avg 1946 to date 2.776% 3.156%That's the one I'd go with. The difference doesn't look signficant in light of the other considerations. You'd never make it politics, you're honest. You're probably right about LBJ. I was thinking of his foreign policy, when I said he could have switched parties and no one would have noticed. But that's faulty thinking on my my part, as it's not relevant to what we're talking about.
Here is a regime by regime breakdown since WW II (starting with Truman in '46) :
Truman 4+ years (GDP growth) and 3. Years (GDP shrinkage or recession) ; Eisenhower 6+ years and 2- years; Kennedy-Johnson 8 straight plus years; Nixon-Ford same as Ike. 6+ and 2-; Carter 3+ and 1- which surprised me since he was such a ninny economically; Reagan-Bush I 10+ 2-; Clinton 8 straight plus years hint hint; Bush II 7+ 1-; BO 2+ 1-
Overall Dems 25+ and 5- for an. 833 batting average; Reps 29+ and 7- or. 806 batting average. These are good numbers and I think would compare favorably with most countries, but that is a guess.
Dems will point out no R ever got out of office without a recession year. Repubs can point to less volatility under Repubs. For example, if you look at the best and worst years, the Rs only had one year. 1982, with a GDP decline of greater than 1% (-1. 92%). The Dems' two worst GDP declines were. 10. 94% in 1946 (which could be explained away pretty easily) and. 3.07% in 2009 (which may have been partially inherited, but that could be true of a lot of these years and I didn't look at each individual year). But, the Dems had a bigger high side; the two best years were 8. 74% in 1950 and 7. 74% in 1951 versus the R's best years of 7. 20% in 1955 and 7. 17% in 1959.
A little less volatility or variability under the Rs but not enough to offset the superior absolute numbers under the Ds, is what I see from these numbers. Now I'm going to look at unemployment.
That's the one I'd go with. The difference doesn't look signficant
Well let's look at the difference over a 75 year lifetime. 1.032175 to the seventy-fifth power = 10.7016; 1.027375 to the seventy-fifth power = 7.5387; 10.7016 / 7.5387 = 1.4196.
Therefore you'd have more than 40% more economic growth in your lifetime if you would just switch parties. Now this ratio is slightly overstated. Why?
Now this ratio is slightly overstated. Why?Because you punched the wrong numbers into your calculator? (1. 0315675^75) / (1. 0277675^75) - 1 = 32%
I'd still argue there are so many other considerations that the difference isn't significant.
GDP growth in Argentina has been great under the Kirchners. Castro did very well when he was receiving massive aid from the Soviet Union, from about 1970 to the early 1990's. I don't think you'd want to make a correlation between their parties and GDP growth though. Time caught up with Castro and probably will with Cristina's party someday. That's not to make a comparison between either of them and Democrats or Obama. I'd (reluctantly) take Obama any day.
Because you punched the wrong numbers into your calculator? (1. 0315675^75) / (1. 0277675^75) - 1 = 32%No, those are the numbers when I lagged by a year. The numbers I used are the unlagged numbers. If you don't think they are significant in proving the Dems better, I'd still argue they are significant in refuting they are worse. I say it's overstated because if you use the compound average instead of the arithmetic mean, the gap will close some. I'll do that later if I have time. What I mean is, the variability of the D's return is greater so the difference between the simple average and the compound average will be greater for D than for R.
Also, from 1946-2011 unemployment averaged 5.92% in years that ended with a Republican president versus 5.47% in years that ended up with a Democratic president. So, during that 65 year period, Democratic administrations provided both faster economic growth and fuller employment. I guess I could look at inflation but since I looked at real GDP I don't see why inflation matters.
No, those are the numbers when I lagged by a year. The numbers I used are the original ones I presented. If you don't think they are significant in proving the Dems better, I'd still argue they are significant in refuting they are worse.
Also, from 1946-2011 unemployment averaged 5. 92% in years that ended with a Republican president versus 5. 47% in years that ended up with a Democratic president. So, during that 65 year period, Democratic administrations provided both faster economic growth and fuller employment. I guess I could look at inflation but since I looked at real GDP I don't see why inflation matters.In fact, your analysis really suggests that it appears there is little relationship between political party and any of your indices. Maybe a factor analysis using your key economic measures is in order. Just my dos centavos. Toymann
P. especially true when you consider how both parties screw with the unemployment numbers, especially recently
In fact, your analysis really suggests that it appears there is little relationship between political party and any of your indices. Maybe a factor analysis using your key economic measures is in order. Just my dos centavos. Toymann.
P. Especially true when you consider how both parties screw with the unemployment numbers, especially recently"In fact" based on what? I could do a regression with dummy variables and sign changes but every way I have sliced and diced it so far points in one direction. You want to present some numbers in the other direction, go ahead. I don't have the software to do factor analysis. I also don't think the regression slopes matter, either. Better is better. More betterer would be gooderer but why would it change one's voting decision IF one bases their decision on economic factors?
BTW inflation is higher under the Dems, which is probably no surprise. Again looking at 1946-2011 and using year-end to year-end (to more properly affix responsibility than the average-to-average that is used for government inflation adjustments) , the average inflation in years ending with Republican presidents was 3.68% and in years ending with Democratic presidents it was 4.25%. But, again, that all washes out in the real GDP figures so who cares.
I've never really looked at these numbers before and probably should have done so long before I formed my political ideology, but the numbers certainly serve to reinforce it. You can interpret them otherwise if you like.
If you don't think they are significant in proving the Dems better, I'd still argue they are significant in refuting they are worse.Look, I wouldn't even be trying to make a correlation on the basis of parties. During my life since puberty, I thought Reagan did an excellent job, Clinton and Bush Sr did well, and Carter, Bush Jr and Obama sucked. Reagan was supply side, although government expenditures grew more more than they should have during his terms. Clinton did most things right. Trade policy, welfare reform, balancing the budget, lowering the tax on capital gains. The only thing he did wrong was increase taxes on ordinary income. So I attribute the superior performance of the economy during their terms largely to following policies I favor.
Bush Senior gets high marks because of execution of the war in Kuwait. And leaving when it was over. The economy didn't perform so well, in part because of the oil price shock from the war and in part because a Democratic Congress forced him to raise taxes. While tax rates were reasonable, spending got completely out of hand under Bush Jr and Obama. Carter, I don't remember a lot about.
I think Romney / Ryan are more likely to be able to implement tax reform along the lines of Reagan (eliminate deductions that distort the economy while keeping tax rates at reasonable levels) while reducing the budget deficit. They're more likely to combine the best of Reagan's and Clinton's terms in office, when economic growth was strongest, once you filter out the 1981/1982 recession / stagflation. I attribute that to high oil prices, and to high interest rates to bring down inflation that kicked up during Carter's time in office.
I realize I'm being a hypocrite here, based on what I just said about the Kirchner's and Castro.
You have a lot of subjective statements but not much that's objective. You can't really start a war and then say the resulting oil price spike shouldn't be attributed to you, I don't think. But anyway in the interest of being objective and unbiased, I re-ran the GDP numbers with the compound average and the Dems' advantage drops from over 40% to 12.3%, which I will still take. That is considering the mean and the standard deviation. If you looked at skew the Dems' advantage would rise just slightly, as I can see visually it has more positive skew, but I forget how to make that conversion and I can also tell visually it isn't that significant. But the variability is, and it mattered more than I would have guessed. You do have a bit of a data problem because there are 25 "D" years and 29 "R" and I also forget how to adjust for that, but it would also raise the Dems' advantage if I did.
I'm not saying vote solely on economic numbers. I am just saying all the trickle down stuff sounded like bullshit to me and now I am even more sure that it is. IF the Republicans' policies do, in fact, lead to higher economic growth, I would be hard pressed to explain the results I got. IF the Republicans' policies do, in fact, lead to job creation and lower unemployment, I would be hard pressed to explain the results that I got. I mean, I don't really care if the Republicans' numbers look worse because they always start wars or for some other reason. I just care about better GDP growth and that's clearly associated more with Democratic administrations going all the way back as far as reliable data exist and looking at periods of 50 years and since WWII.
Anyway, vote early and vote often, as they say in Cook County.
Overall Dems 25+ and 5- for an. 833 batting average; Reps 29+ and 7- or. 806 batting average. These are good numbers and I think would compare favorably with most countries, but that is a guess.This one has about an 80% success rate in predicting an outcome too,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_indicator
I'm giving you a hard time. As you say it really comes down to what you think will work.
The polls and the betting odds are all over the board.
Today an ABC poll conducted by some Research Organization came out with a Romney 49 to 48 lead nationwide. Looking deeper, the breakdown of the poll participants was 35-28-34 democrat / republican / independent which mirrored the 2008 actual breakdown of 39-32-29. The real question is not whether the 49 to 48 romney lead is correct. The real question is whether the 35-28-34 breakdown of voters is realistic. If it is not this poll is simply garbage in. Garbage out.
A month ago the media was trying to convince everyone the election was over, go home, Obama will win. There were polls, CNN for example, that showed a huge Obama lead. When you looked at the breakdown of those polled it was laughable. 49% democrats. 31% republicans and the rest independents.
Most likelly Rasmussen is correct. Rasmussen says there has been very little movement in the polls since the first of the year. Rasmussen said that romney was ahead by 2 or 3 points in May/June and Romney will probably win by the same 2 or 3 points. My guess, with Benghasi, voter enthusiasm, money that will pour into the Romney campaign this final week, Romney becoming friendly and fuzzy while Obama becomes a visibly angry and out of control candidate, it was be a Romney win by about double 2 to 3 points.
Chicago Guy
10-29-12, 19:33
"One day, I hope I'm rich enough to become a Democrat."
Right, because Fox News doesn't have a dog in the fight. Anyway I saw Libertarian VP candidate Jim Gray today. Nice guy, seems sincere. Grasp of economic concepts non-existent. I also read the Libertarian Party's entire platform for the first time. It is thoughtfully set out but not for me. I like about a third of it. Gray said he wanted to eliminate Medicare and I asked if I would be refunded the 1. 45% of my salary I have been paying for 41 years and he said 'absolutely. ' Then I asked him where the money would come from to refund everyone's past contributions and that is where it got all fuzzy and stuff. He said we could eliminate the corporate tax, the federal income tax, and state income taxes and replace it with a 10% flat tax. Come on. Anyway then the scheme is to give some half ass credit such that the first I think he said $10, 000 a year but maybe it was $1, 000 a month would not be taxed, and if you made less than that you got money back. So that is not a flat tax, although it could sure be simpler. He used the term 'revenue neutral' to describe their scheme but I am not sure if he meant a revenue neutral situation with all spending cuts going towards the deficit, or what. I mean, if it is revenue neutral then there is no tax cut, right? He got all bogged down explaining the credit they propose for health care. Something about three tiers of need. However he did give 'assurances' that 'the citizens would be taken care of. ' He made a big deal about going to public schools but last I checked USC Law is not a public school. He talked about how they are going to audit every government agency and that 'has never been done before. ' Umm yeah it has; it was called the Grace Commission Report and nothing ever came of it. Then there was the National Partnership for Reinventing Government. Nothing came of it. Anyway, not a new idea. I agree many federal agencies could be eliminated so fuck the audit and just DO it already. He said bring all the troops back immediately which is fine by me but then he said that if the Straits of Hormuz were closed, that should be considered an attack on the US. Last time I looked the Straits of Hormuz is pretty far removed from the US. So that was really kind of an inconsistent bit of ideology there.
Anyway, a moderately articulate guy but he showed his age a few times and did not know much about our community. He was talking about legalizing drugs because legalization (not decriminalization) of marijuana is on our state ballot this year, and he said, 'I guess in this state there are only dispensaries in [our state capital]. ' No, there are like ten in this little town alone, and if you want to get elected, don't guess; prepare. This was not in response to a question, either. He was talking about economics and he said, 'We could all grow our own tomatoes but who bothers to do that? ' Well, not rich assholes from Orange County but probably 1/4 of our community does. So really just another out of touch rich guy.
Punter 127
10-30-12, 07:51
The polls and the betting odds are all over the board.
Today an ABC poll conducted by some Research Organization came out with a Romney 49 to 48 lead nationwide. Looking deeper, the breakdown of the poll participants was 35-28-34 democrat / republican / independent which mirrored the 2008 actual breakdown of 39-32-29. The real question is not whether the 49 to 48 romney lead is correct. The real question is whether the 35-28-34 breakdown of voters is realistic. If it is not this poll is simply garbage in. Garbage out.
A month ago the media was trying to convince everyone the election was over, go home, Obama will win. There were polls, CNN for example, that showed a huge Obama lead. When you looked at the breakdown of those polled it was laughable. 49% democrats. 31% republicans and the rest independents.
Most likelly Rasmussen is correct. Rasmussen says there has been very little movement in the polls since the first of the year. Rasmussen said that romney was ahead by 2 or 3 points in May / June and Romney will probably win by the same 2 or 3 points. My guess, with Benghasi, voter enthusiasm, money that will pour into the Romney campaign this final week, Romney becoming friendly and fuzzy while Obama becomes a visibly angry and out of control candidate, it was be a Romney win by about double 2 to 3 points.What effect if any do you think Sandy will have?
I am not sure. Most of the states affected by Sandy, New York, New Jersey, PA, are generally considered to be solid Obama states. However, I predicted months ago that New Jersey, PA, Michigan and Wisconsin would be toss up states.. In PA and New Jersey, at least, voters will probably be less focused on the election because of Sandy.. This might not be good news for Obama.
But who knows. That is why we have elections.
Obviously the world will not self destruct if one candidate wins and the other loses. Likewise, we will not receive 18 year old playboy bunnies if one candidate wins and the other loses.
However, the process is fascinating.
My prediction, without saying one candidate is the devil and the other is Jesus Christ, is as follows: I think the number of Democrats registered to vote is about the same as the number of Republicans registered to vote. I think the Republicans will have a slightly higher turnout. Among independent voters, which accounts for about 25-30% of voters, I expect Romney to win by 6-8%.
Consequently, I think Carl Rove is about right. 51-48 Romney. However, a more accurate number, in my opinion, is closer to 52-47 Romney.
I could be dead wrong. I would be interested to hear other projections.
WorldTravel69
11-02-12, 18:26
In case you want to learn?
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/ebx/sneak-attack/Content?oid=3378778
Big Boss Man
11-02-12, 19:52
Obviously the world will not self destruct if one candidate wins and the other loses. Likewise, we will not receive 18 year old playboy bunnies if one candidate wins and the other loses.
However, the process is fascinating.
My prediction, without saying one candidate is the devil and the other is Jesus Christ, is as follows: I think the number of Democrats registered to vote is about the same as the number of Republicans registered to vote. I think the Republicans will have a slightly higher turnout. Among independent voters, which accounts for about 25-30% of voters, I expect Romney to win by 6-8.
Consequently, I think Carl Rove is about right. 51-48 Romney. However, a more accurate number, in my opinion, is closer to 52-47 Romney.
I could be dead wrong. I would be interested to hear other projections.It still depends on the key states. In California, Independent is just a code word for Republican. It does not mean they are clear thinking looking at both sides of the issue. Maybe they think they do but they always side with the Republicans. For example, in my congressional district, the Republican is running as an Independent although he seems to oppose everything the current Democratic incumbent stands for and takes mostly Republican positions.
Romney will win he popular vote easy. It really depends on the electoral college. Ironically, Obama is for doing away with the electoral college but he is going to play by the rules in this election according to an interview I heard on NPR. Doing away with the electoral college would force the candidates to campaign in all the states. El Alamo you have an advantage because you live in Florida and can see what is going on. I cannot recall one Romney ad in California and just a few Obama ads.
I thought this was interesting.
It's a parody of the quintessential liberal politician.
Thanks,
Jax
I spent some time trying to get at winners and losers based on campaign interruption and the need for Obama to prioritize the disaster. I didn't come up with a clear winner. But what I did NOT think about is the effect of suspending the Gallup poll. I think it will increase turnout because the lack of information may convince people they need to weigh in. But who does that help? We know Republicans have a better turnout but will this narrow the difference in turnout or widen it? I think it might help Obama a **** hair because the marginal Republican voters will be working and might say fuck it, while the marginal Democratic voters will be hanging around the liquor store cashing their welfare checks and might not have anything better to do that day, or might think there are free doughnuts.
Somehow I think the hurricane helps Romney because it is obviously the incumbent's fault if there is a hurricane, psychologically, but I think the suspending of the polls helps Obama.
Ironically, Obama is for doing away with the electoral college but he is going to play by the rules in this election according to an interview I heard on NPR. Doing away with the electoral college would force the candidates to campaign in all the states.Doing away with the Electoral College would be the absolute best thing that could ever happen to the country. I don't like Romeny but if he gets one more vote than Obama then he should be president and that is that. It is also among the most unlikely things to happen because it would require a constitutional amendment. So the whole point of abolishing the Electoral College would be to prevent senators from states with low populations to have disproportionate influence. But since in the case of constitutional amendments each state has one vote, they have disproportionate influence over the process over which they have disproportionate influence. So you can be "in favor of" abolishing the electoral college until you bleed out your ears and it will never happen in our lifetimes nor in our children's lifetimes.
Now is probably the best time (while all is still up in the air as to who will win), to finalize the bet with the often blocked Toymann. Since it is for an evening at Madaho's I am estimating around $200 or $250. If I am off base, maybe someone could suggest a reasonable amount. If the Mormon wins, then I will give the money to Jackson to pass on (since I'm not eager to meet the other individual involved), and if Obama wins, Toymann can do the same.
Big Boss Man
11-03-12, 14:01
To further illustrate my point about Independents leaning towards Romney being meaningless unless in a key state, here are some statistics from my County. 48% registered Democrat. 25% registered Republican and 25% decline to state. 2% are registered to the fringe parties. Obama won 66% of LA County in 2008. I suspect Obama will be under 55% in LA County in 2012. California electoral votes will still go to Obama but in national polling it will show up as many independents voting for Romney. It is an essentially meaningless shift in Independent voting at the national level.
Most oddsmakers (intrade odds, Barrons money manger poll) have it at 60-40, Obama winning the electoral college. I suspect we will see Romney carry New Jersey due to lack of ability to vote in the cities. I think Ryan will pull Wisconsin through for Romney. Romney wins with about 300 electoral votes.
I think the Democratic pundits are awfully quiet right now. Almost everything I read is from the Republican side Rowe, Will, Noonan. Republicans seem surer of themselves.
I suspect we will see Romney carry New Jersey due to lack of ability to vote in the cities.The "lack of ability to vote" is called voter suppression. Luckily, President Obama's best new friend, GOP Gov. Christie, is allowing early voting for those affected by the storm. Needless to say, Gov. Christie's order has created an uproar with other Republicans since voter suppression is part of their game plan to win. The idea of any political party or organization scheming to suppress the rights of citizens to vote is nauseating.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/03/us-storm-sandy-christie-idUSBRE8A20BC20121103
Needless to say, Gov. Christie's order has created an uproar with other Republicans since voter suppression is part of their game plan to win. The idea of any political party or organization scheming to suppress the rights of citizens to vote is nauseating.
In case you want to learn?
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/ebx/sneak-attack/Content?oid=3378778What a bunch of bull shit. Where do you see Christie's order creating an uproar? Meanwhile the woman profiled in WT69's article can post a provisional ballot if she doesn't have her ID when she votes. They verify her identity later and her vote is counted.
Big Boss Man
11-03-12, 23:53
I meant to say that people will not vote in New Jersey cities because they have too much other stuff going on. Suburbs were not hit as hard. People in suburbs have more resources to handle the difficulty. I did not mean that anyone was trying to suppress a vote. I was just trying to channel my inner Byron Wien.
Voter suppression is a pretty sensitive issue, given that it was used to win the 2000 election (and a couple of others as well). I don't see any evidence of it occurring YET in this election. Anybody who doesn't have to, who waits to vote until election day is a hell of a fence-sitter, I would say.
Punter 127
11-04-12, 07:54
'He who casts a vote decides nothing. He who counts the vote decides everything.'
Joseph Stalin
Well, as one who is not going to jump off a high building if the wrong candidate wins I have a few observations. Romney is becoming a better and better candidate with an articulate message. Obama is becoming angrier and angrier and his comment about 'revenge' puts chills up some voters spines (the dangers of getting off the telepromptor)
I do not think there are many people voting for Obama. Maybe 10% of the population. However, there are a lot of people voting against Romney and Republicans. Obama has been a disaster but most people voting for Obama would vote for a lamppost rather than vote for Romney and Republicans.
I am sticking with my prediction of a 51-48 or 52-47 Romney win.
Big Boss Man
11-04-12, 13:06
Well, as one who is not going to jump off a high building if the wrong candidate wins I have a few observations. Romney is becoming a better and better candidate with an articulate message. Obama is becoming angrier and angrier and his comment about 'revenge' puts chills up some voters spines (the dangers of getting off the telepromptor)Actually, El Alamo, in my most cynical moments, Romney sounds to me like he is articulating a message of competence which reminds me a whole helluva lot of Dukakis.
I think his message works if you think Obama is incompetent but most Democrats do not think so.
Many analysts say this election is about appealing to and turning out your base rather than capturing the middle.
Interesting, I nor the people I consult with are not changing are economic forecasts for a Romney victory. In California, we are fairly close to the 250, 000 a month job growth that Romney is promising. I imagine California will continue on its own path on the energy issues which is where Romney is going to get his job increases.
I will be interested to see how "immoral" deficits continue to be under a Romney administration.
Personally I will vote for Obama because of the tax issue. I calculate the 25k limit on Schedule A will increase my taxes. I do not see how raising my taxes while lowering others will help the economy.
Cordoba Dan
11-04-12, 13:13
I couldn't give a fuck who wins this election. I believe it is important to be able to thrive no matter which publicly sanctioned entity is granted their allotted term to siphon their fill. What I do care about is that someone on this board be able to gloat and someone else choke down some humble pie for all the posturing going on in this thread for what feels like forever.
Now is probably the best time (while all is still up in the air as to who will win), to finalize the bet with the often blocked Toymann. Since it is for an evening at Madaho's I am estimating around $200 or $250. If I am off base, maybe someone could suggest a reasonable amount. If the Mormon wins, then I will give the money to Jackson to pass on (since I'm not eager to meet the other individual involved), and if Obama wins, Toymann can do the same.
I agree with Córdoba Dan; it is very important to have a plan to fuck the system no matter who wins. In fact, I already won and have beaten the system and will prosper under either president. To me, the funniest thing about this whole debate has been seeing how many mongers are willing to vote for a Mormon. Of course a lot of those same people appear to actually believe Obama is a Muslim so perhaps that explains some of it.
I doubt Romney will make everybody wear the funny underwear but he sure might crack down on mongering. OTOH maybe he will raise the cigarette tax by $50 a pack or so. That would be excellent.
'When is this bet going to be finalized?" Maybe when the winner is declared. Does that make sense? By the way it was Toymann's bet and I took him up on it. Read back and learn.
As far as gloating is concerned; as I have mentioned many times my problem with the Mormon wienie is that he is a Mormon (not with his constantly changing political policies), and that I suspect his religion (like the radical Muslims), is more important to him than his country is. Its my opinion and why I truly hope that he loses.
In an interview with the Washington Post, Republican Karl Rove admitted that hurricane Sandy helped President Obama's re-election since it distracted voters.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/11/02/hurricane-sandy-helped-obama-politically-karl-rove-says/
In the interest of equal time to Mr. Romney, here's how he would have responded to a disaster like hurricane Sandy if he was the President (after he eliminated FEMA) :
Romney's disaster management tips:
1. If your home is in the path of Sandy, evacuate to your second or third home immediately.
2. If your home sustains damages from Sandy, ask your parents for money to fix it.
3. Make sure you've moved your cars to the top floor of your garage.
4. Sandy is so violent because she was raised by a single mother.
5. Don't worry about evacuating. It it's a legitimate storm, your house has a way of shutting itself down to protect itself from damage.
6. My prayers and thoughts go out to 53% of you.
7. 53% of you will be fine. The other 47% I couldn't care less about.
8. If you survive, I'll take credit for it.
9. If you must drive in the storm, use extra-strength rope to secure your dog to the roof of the car.
10. Everyone chill out. Sandy will end earlier than male-named storms. She has dinner to get on the table.
11. I actually have a bunch of storm survival tips, but I'm not going to tell you any of them until after the election.
12. Everyone in the path of the storm: Don't be a victim and stop looking for handouts!
I blame the natural disaster on Donald Trump. He is so outrageous I think he even pissed off the Higher-Ups.
Joking aside, I think Donald Trump is a natural for Ambassador to China or the United Nations under Romney. A reality show in the making right there.
7. 53% of you will be fine. The other 47% I couldn't care less about.Romney never said that he didn't care about the 47% that are the net benificaries of the taxes that the rest of us have to pay.
What he said was that the 47% who are net benificaries of the taxes that the rest of us have to pay would not vote for him (Romney) specifically because he will reduce the percentage of people leaching off of the rest of us.
The reality is that the 47% don't care about Romney (or the rest of us taxpayers either, for that matter.)
Romney's statement was in fact accurate, as many of us argued at the time that his comments were 1st published.
Thanks,
Jackson
Romney never said that he didn't care about the 47% that are the net benificaries of the taxes that the rest of us have to pay.
What he said was that the 47% who are net benificaries of the taxes that the rest of us have to pay would not vote for him (Romney) specifically because he will reduce the percentage of people leaching off of the rest of us.
The reality is that the 47% don't care about Romney (or the rest of us taxpayers either, for that matter.)
Romney's statement was in fact accurate, as many of us argued at the time that his comments were 1st published.
Thanks,
JacksonWell, maybe, but it's 'leeching' and not 'leaching. ' Did you know that doctors did not apply leeches? That was beneath them. Surgeons, who were frequently barbers, applied leeches. I think what this country needs is a president who is more like a barber. In fact I think my barber would make a better president than either Obama, Romney, or Johnson.
I blame the natural disaster on Donald Trump. He is so outrageous I think he even pissed off the Higher-Ups.
Joking aside, I think Donald Trump is a natural for Ambassador to China or the United Nations under Romney. A reality show in the making right there.Agree 101 %. The Chinese are in the way of making his wig!
Silver Star
11-05-12, 01:01
Romney never said that he didn't care about the 47% that are the net benificaries of the taxes that the rest of us have to pay.
What he said was that the 47% who are net benificaries of the taxes that the rest of us have to pay would not vote for him (Romney) specifically because he will reduce the percentage of people leaching off of the rest of us.
The reality is that the 47% don't care about Romney (or the rest of us taxpayers either, for that matter.)
Romney's statement was in fact accurate, as many of us argued at the time that his comments were 1st published.
Thanks,
JacksonYikes! What happens when that 47% becomes 51%, democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. Merely 2% away, that's razor thin.
Silver Star
11-05-12, 01:08
Well, maybe, but it's 'leeching' and not 'leaching. ' Did you know that doctors did not apply leeches? That was beneath them. Surgeons, who were frequently barbers, applied leeches. I think what this country needs is a president who is more like a barber. In fact I think my barber would make a better president than either Obama, Romney, or Johnson.Gary Johnson served as an awesome Governor for 8 years, check out his record. He has more (government) executive experience the the other 2 combined. It is also time to submit a balanced budget now (Gary Johnson will, they won't) , or economic doomsday is coming. I bet you that the next non Gary Johnson administration will push the debt up even higher that will result in a bond rating downgrade during their term. There is a real difference with GJ. Make your vote count this time by voting for Gary. Make a statement by using the ballot box. Vote Libertarian.
Gary Johnson served as an awesome Governor for 8 years, check out his record. He has more (government) executive experience the the other 2 combined. It is also time to submit a balanced budget now (Gary Johnson will, they won't) , or economic doomsday is coming. I bet you that the next non Gary Johnson administration will push the debt up even higher that will result in a bond rating downgrade during their term. There is a real difference with GJ. Make your vote count this time by voting for Gary. Make a statement by using the ballot box. Vote Libertarian.I know all about Johnson's record as governor of NM. As I stated earlier, I went to see the Libertarian VP candidate speak. They have no idea how to accomplish their economic goals. Their tax plan is just more of the same and their feeling that a flat tax rate could be as low as 8, while simultaneously eliminating corporate and state taxes, is so wildly optimistic as to be delirious. Johnson had the power to balance the budget in New Mexico. The federal situation is completely different. I think it would be good if the Libs get 5% so they can get the matching funds and all of that, not because I agree with their platform (I agree with very little of it, maybe a third, mostly on social issues) , but because we need more alternatives in the US right now.
Since posting is at crawling speed, you might be interested to know:
That more people in 2011 played lotteries than went to church (CBS News) , so it's true that we worship money.
Joe Kernan of CNBC possess the genetic pool of AP right wingers. Let's just say he could be their spokesman. He does do alot of rambling & mumbling just like El Alamo. He has somewhat of a small mouth, I have been told that it relates to meaness. Just one of my profiling techniques, very useful when screening chicks from a distance at Cafe Orleans. Another tip, round/flat face signifies a generous heart and willing wide-spread thighs.
Joe had Jack Welch on this morning. It was a lovefest, but Welch should not venture out of the old folks home. You can hardly understand his nasal utterings. He made me some money, I should say nice things about him. But I lost respect for him when he was outmanouver by his 2nd wife over their pre-nuptial agreement. But then, she was a merger & acquisitions expert after all.
If you say that you dislike fossill fuel today, it's akin to say you dislike cigarette smoking in 1955. At least in the murderous looks that you get and people telling you to go jump off the Empire State Building.
Milt Romney would win by a landslide if he ran as a Moderate Milt in Massachusetts, but then Rick S, the used car salesman & Sunday school teacher would be the candidate.
That Toyman has apply for a loan in case he need to pay off his bets. (just a rumour)
Happy Hunting, Merry X'mas, whatever.
Since posting is at crawling speed, you might be interested to know:
That more people in 2011 played lotteries than went to church (CBS News) , so it's true that we worship money.
Joe Kernan of CNBC possess the genetic pool of AP right wingers. Let's just say he could be their spokesman. He does do alot of rambling & mumbling just like El Alamo. He has somewhat of a small mouth, I have been told that it relates to meaness. Just one of my profiling techniques, very useful when screening chicks from a distance at Cafe Orleans. Another tip, round / flat face signifies a generous heart and willing wide-spread thighs.
Joe had Jack Welch on this morning. It was a lovefest, but Welch should not venture out of the old folks home. You can hardly understand his nasal utterings. He made me some money, I should say nice things about him. But I lost respect for him when he was outmanouver by his 2nd wife over their pre-nuptial agreement. But then, she was a merger & acquisitions expert after all.
If you say that you dislike fossill fuel today, it's akin to say you dislike cigarette smoking in 1955. At least in the murderous looks that you get and people telling you to go jump off the Empire State Building.
Milt Romney would win by a landslide if he ran as a Moderate Milt in Massachusetts, but then Rick S, the used car salesman & Sunday school teacher would be the candidate.
That Toyman has apply for a loan in case he need to pay off his bets. (just a rumour)
Happy Hunting, Merry X'mas, whatever.Luckily rates are very low right now! The Esten bet will be resolved shortly. Tick tick tick. Toymann
I'm confused. I thought the bet was Toymann and David 33. Does Esten even believe in money? Boy, this is going to be close. Again I say I hope the popular and electoral votes go the same way. Whoever wins won't have much of a mandate and no one seems to think the Repubs will take the house so it will probably be the same bullshit either way for four years. While that might not sound like a great outcome, at least it will be four years of US political bullshit and not four years of Argie political bullshit or French political bullshit. There are varying degrees of bullshit.
I'm not going to watch it. I am just going to wake up Wednesday and find out. And, no matter who wins I will still get a 10% discount at Albertson's that day.
Member #2041
11-05-12, 13:47
Well, maybe, but it's 'leeching' and not 'leaching. ' Did you know that doctors did not apply leeches? That was beneath them. Surgeons, who were frequently barbers, applied leeches. I think what this country needs is a president who is more like a barber. In fact I think my barber would make a better president than either Obama, Romney, or Johnson.At least your Barber would not be afraid to give the Wall Street Bankers the haircut that they so seriously need for causing the last near-Depression.
Member #4112
11-05-12, 15:35
Come Wednesday morning. 7 November 2012, if Mitt Romney wins you will hear an immediate hue & cry from the liberals that the election was stolen from Obama by those dirty Republicans using voter suppression to deny the will of the American people.
Have you noticed the Democrats have been pretty quiet about Obama winning lately?
Since posting is at crawling speed, you might be interested to know:
That more people in 2011 played lotteries than went to church (CBS News) , so it's true that we worship money.
Joe Kernan of CNBC possess the genetic pool of AP right wingers. Let's just say he could be their spokesman. He does do alot of rambling & mumbling just like El Alamo. He has somewhat of a small mouth, I have been told that it relates to meaness. Just one of my profiling techniques, very useful when screening chicks from a distance at Cafe Orleans. Another tip, round / flat face signifies a generous heart and willing wide-spread thighs.
Joe had Jack Welch on this morning. It was a lovefest, but Welch should not venture out of the old folks home. You can hardly understand his nasal utterings. He made me some money, I should say nice things about him. But I lost respect for him when he was outmanouver by his 2nd wife over their pre-nuptial agreement. But then, she was a merger & acquisitions expert after all.
If you say that you dislike fossill fuel today, it's akin to say you dislike cigarette smoking in 1955. At least in the murderous looks that you get and people telling you to go jump off the Empire State Building.
Milt Romney would win by a landslide if he ran as a Moderate Milt in Massachusetts, but then Rick S, the used car salesman & Sunday school teacher would be the candidate.
That Toyman has apply for a loan in case he need to pay off his bets. (just a rumour)
Happy Hunting, Merry X'mas, whatever.I don't follow the political thread much any more, but I'm glad I saw this post. Kudos B Shirt.
I haven't watched CNBC in years and haven't missed it. I stick all my money in a cookie jar, and I don't have to endure that pedophile on Friday mornings with his USA flag lapel pin.
Wow! These polls are hard to take seriously.
CNN is at it again. CNN polled 41% Democrats 30% Republicans and 29% Independents. The result. A 49-49 tie. The 41-30 Democrat / Republican breakdown in laughable. The poll was a tie because the independents favored romney 59-37 (I guess 4% of Independents are still undecided)
The final 49-49 result may be somewhat close to the final result but the poll is fatally flawed with the 41-30 Democrat / Republican breakdown. If the election day breakdown is really 41-30 I doubt Republicans would win more than 100 House seats.
Anyway, the CNN poll is in line with Rasmussen and Gallup but the CNN polling method was absurd. If CNN actually arrived at a 49-49 tie with a 41-30 Dem / Rep participation and a 59-37 edge for Romney with Independents we are looking at a Romney landslide tomorrow.
Obama and romney may get A pluses for their campaigns but the polls get a F minus.
For those of you who reside in Argentina, do you still pay taxes to Uncle Sam? If so, is it because you maintain your bank account in the states?Why do some people have to do this shit?
This thread is clearly titled "2012 Elections in the USA".
There's an entire other thread dedicated to the subject of paying USA taxes.
Perhaps you couldn't find it because it was cryptically titled "USA Taxes on Worldwide Income".
However, my guess is that you didn't even fucking bother to look first.
Anyway, it took me about 10 seconds to find it using the forum's search function.
http://www.argentinaprivate.com/forum/showthread.php?5024-U.-S.-Taxes-on-Worldwide-Income+taxes.
And this being right on the heels of the "Civilians Reading the Forum" discussion that I had to move to it's own thread just a couple of days ago.
Please, search before you post.
Thanks,
Jackson
I'm confused. I thought the bet was Toymann and David 33. Does Esten even believe in money? Boy, this is going to be close. Again I say I hope the popular and electoral votes go the same way. Whoever wins won't have much of a mandate and no one seems to think the Repubs will take the house so it will probably be the same bullshit either way for four years. While that might not sound like a great outcome, at least it will be four years of US political bullshit and not four years of Argie political bullshit or French political bullshit. There are varying degrees of bullshit.
I'm not going to watch it. I am just going to wake up Wednesday and find out. And, no matter who wins I will still get a 10% discount at Albertson's that day.Any bet with david33 is only a fantasy in his and some others mind. Have never heard directly from him thus no bet. Just wierd innuendo from some other posters. Black shirt is just having fun, he is from Nebraska so what can you expect! LOL. Soon all will be revealed. Monger on Dick! Toymann
SnakeOilSales
11-06-12, 01:30
Obama was just interviewed on MNF by Chris Berman, he stated that he "promised" a NCAA D-I playoff and that he "delivered"- "promises made, promises kept" (the D-I football playoff begins in 2014). RE-ELECT THIS MAN!
It is always nice to have a president who is a sports fan and not a sissy like Jimmy Carter but college athletics needs to get smaller and not bigger. Our priorities are all screwed up there. If all the money that went to college athletics went to STEM fields we wouldn't get embarrassed in math and science at the K12 level. Cutting athletic scholarships in half and using the money for academic scholarships would be a nice start.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/158519/romney-obama-gallup-final-election-survey.aspx
49/48 Romney. Obama leads 49/48 among the 32% who had already voted. Survey notes geographical differences in early voting:
"there are highly significant differences in the rate of early voting by region, extending from 9% in the East to 50% in the West, with 25% early voting in the Midwest and 43% in the South."
Hmm. That seems favorable to the incumbent because the east should be an Obama stronghold. To what extent CA comprises "the west" makes that hard to analyze. The South is Romney territory so since more than 32% of those have voted, that is also favorable to Obama. But. 25% Midwest and 43% South exactly cancel each other out.
So I think exactly how FL and CA are represented here is key, and since we don't know that, all I can really say is the fact that Obama leads among those who have already voted, while only 9% of the east has voted, should be interpreted as somewhat favorable to Obama.
Too bad the popular vote is not determinative. I have already voted as well so tomorrow I will practice avoidance and see if I can wake up Wednesday without knowing who won. Shit, it could well be that it won't even be determined by the time I wake up.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.4 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.