View Full Version : 2012 Elections in the USA
Pages :
[
1]
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Well the impact of the recent interpretation of the "corporate right to free speech" is starting."Swift Boat Centeral" here we come. The fact that Mitt is using hedge fund $$ to indirectly issue personal attacks against the crazy old ass-hole doesn't reflect my personal feeling about Newt, Mitt nor Obama. This is merely a comment of the further erosion of a working republic and destruction of the concept of free elections. With virtually unlimited corp contributions to "super pac's" anyone with enough money can further any cause and actually effect the results of an election.
There are intelligent educated people in the USA who still believe that sudam was responsible for 911-karl rove is maybe the most effective propagandist since herman gerbels. I am not implying the karl rove is in any may in league with gerbel's beliefs-only that they were both masters of manipulation so that even sophisticated, intelligent people can be and are mislead.
In Argentina, elections are manipulated by increasing pensions and welfare by 100 pesos. In the USA, there maybe us$100 million dollar slush funds for independent "super political action committees or PACs" which will buy propaganda tv time and public relations assistance that might sell the impression the black in white and white is black.
The democracts will do the same thing that mitt is starting. Another level of sleaze corrupts the process:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/31/us/politics/restore-our-future-attack-ads-harm-gingrich-in-iowa.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2
This boy might end-up voting for Mitt, but still wants to call him on contributing to the destruction of the election process. Maybe a pragmatist has no real choice, but to use the process and his wall street connections to his advantage. The real test of his courage will come when it is time to regulate.
Or control the hedge fund barons and wall street investment banks. Does Mitt have the integrity to possibly bite the hand that feeds him or funds his pac slush funds? Time will tell.
In the past, Mitt has been a first rate problem solver with a first rate mind-who has been driven by data, not political ideology. This type of person could put off the fall of the USA by a full generation or more or advert boom and gloom. I hope that he hasn't sold his soul for power. The devil knows how negotiate with the best.
Canitasguy
01-01-12, 20:19
Mitt has been a first rate problem solver with a first rate mind-who has been driven by data, not political ideology.Romney may have started as a businessman, but today he is a politician pure and simple. The critical problem he wants to solve is how to get into the White House. As a Massachusetts native and Romney watcher for two decades, I believe it is fair to say, his empty rhetoric notwithstanding, there is little evidence he has a real vision for the country. He didn't for Massachusetts and as a result was a very mediocre chief executive.
In 1994, in his first campaign, he ran as a liberal Republican against Ted Kennedy and got creamed. He ran successfully for governor in Massachusetts as a moderate Republican, as he had to to win. In 2008, as a candidate for President, he ran again as a moderate against the establishment's favorite, John McCain, and got creamed. Now running for Pres, he has morphed into a born-again right wing ideologue; ignoring, denying or distorting every liberal and moderate position he ever took.
The great antipathy to him from his fellow Republican leaders, the citizens of Massachusetts and three quarters of Republican voters stems from the sense that he has no core beyond a lust for office. The establishment Republicans' recent warming up to him is all about panic that Obama is a slam dunk winner, should any of the other midgets in the race capture the Rs nomination.
What has driven Romney's ambitions, since he first entered politics is a highly personal agenda which has to do with redeeming his father's reputation which was destroyed in the presidential election in 1968. George Romney was a former auto exec and popular governor of Michigan well positioned to beat Nixon in the Republican primaries. But, after he publicly admitted US generals in Vietnam had "brainwashed" him into erroneously thinking that the war was being won, his candidacy and political ambitions imploded. Mitt revered his Dad and wants to redeem the Romney name.
We saw what "W" did in Iraq, as a result of his daddy complex.
The one constant for Romney, since he was first tapped to rescue the Denver Olympics, has been his place in the inner circles of the corporate oligarchs. He actually believes corporations are people. Of course, they are his kind of people. He is as likely to bite the hands of the big money interests, as John McCain would have cut defense spending or Obama will someday tap the ANWAR oil fields in Alaska.
If Romney wins, it will be back to the days of cowboy capitalism and if that floats your boat, better keep a life jacket handy.
The Mormons have a lot of money..........
Canitasguy
01-02-12, 13:57
Does Mitt have the integrity to possibly bite the hand that feeds him or funds his pac slush funds? Time will tell. I hope that he hasn't sold his soul for power.The election cycle has hardly begun and to-date here are the numbers on Mitt's largest campaign contributions:
Goldman Sachs: $367, 200.
Credit Suisse Group: $203, 750.
Morgan Stanley: $199, 800.
HIG Capital: $186, 500.
Barclays: $157, 750.
Nuf said!
Do they give double green stamps when you purchase an election?
Ask mr exxon123 about mormon $$ and power. The are not comments about the actually religious believes of the church of the later day saints, but the political arm of the cultural group. Mitt's religuos beliefs have nothing to do with these comments. I have zero problem votong for a person of the mormon faith
Well Nibu has always been a big Ron Paul supporter.
WorldTravel69
01-03-12, 23:18
Here something interesting.
Punter 127
01-03-12, 23:18
A Mormon or a disciple of Rev Jeremiah Wright what a choice.
This could be McCain all over again: a good guy with a good history sells out to the radical right and christian right. Bachman would make a great stand-in or Palin or how about Santorum. The reasons that Newt insults Mitt are the very reasons I would vote for him: data and factually driven decision and policy making rather than idelogical belief.
Are you implying that some Mormons along with many others have used swiss bankers to avoid taxes. What does this have to do with anything?
Well, I guess it is always good to keep posting on a site that caters to internal travelers and ex-patriots to report all your assets and income or you could be in for some big problems. Follow the rules or pay the piper.
Member #4112
01-05-12, 11:24
First it was the Jews now it's the Mormans. Exxon while I think you are a great guy on this you are just playing the race / religon card. Are we now to see those wonderful posters from the 30's and 40's only changing the the name from Jew to Morman? Come on guys go back to the early 60's, they were doing the same thing to Kennedy because he was Catholic. Religon has nothing to do with it, all politicians are evil, it's just choosing the lesser one.
Big difference between a religion (Catholic, Jewish) and a cult (Mormon) which among other gems, believes that Jesus came to the USA in a boat. Read "Under the Banners of Heaven". If Romney gets in, he will follow his religion's dictates of only dealing with other Mormons when at all possible. The entire situation in the USA is depressing.
Mitt is laundering money? Every mormon is X; therefore Mitt is X. The article you linked says nothing about mormons nor Mitt. It is an article about hiding money off shore.
I started this thread because I am assuming that the upcoming USA elections will involve Mitt vs Obama and Mitt was starting to flex his financial muscle. It saddens me to think that any of the other folks running might actually become the leader of the USA, I don't want to turn this into the other political thread-which I haven't looked at in years.
Are you telling me that I am stupid or lack any brains or common sense because I will not prejudge mitt because of his religion? The new york times has been doing a series of in depth looks and the republican candidates pasts. The people who were in mitt's be school study group say the same things about him that his co-workers at bain said and the mass political people all said: he is a brilliant hard working guy who has no real ideology except problem solving based upon data and the facts If finding that description by a variety of different people at different points in his life is offense to you, so it will be.
I subscribe to a number of public policy publications and the policy wonks from both the left and right find him to be a very impressive intellect who is pragmatic and gets the job done. I voted for Obama before and may do so again, but mitt has been an impressive guy. I am concerned that he has made so many compromises and promises that they may interfere with him doing the job of the presidency in the same manner that he has performed in the past-which is a shame. The man who repaired the Olympics, built bain capital and ran Massachusetts would likely be a great president. The mitt of days past was never a doctrine anything, but a brilliant problem solver and this country has lots of big problems that need practical solutions.
The mitt at the "debates" was not the mitt who accomplished so many things in his past. Newt is probably right-he was re-building himself to fit into the polling data as much as he could. Almost too much so. I would not vote before I would vote for newt.
Well mr exxon123 explain yourself or go back to filling yourself with hate for any one mormon. I'm not a mormon. I am disappointed with you mr 123-I expected better.
I agree with david33, the religion is not all that spiritually appealing to me. I also see what can be done to the new testament by political operators and also scratch my head. In 1960 it was said that JFK would be controlled by the pope.
If Romney gets in, he will follow his religion's dictates of only dealing with other Mormons when at all possible.
My response is very simple. Maybe the stupidiest thing ever said on this board! Congrats on becoming the latest "village idiot". Crawl back under your rock fool. You understand little about mormons and / or the man Mitt Romney. Take your obvious liberal hate spew and get back to commenting on chicas. Oh, I forgot, you rarely if ever post anything valuable about the putas. IALOTFLMAO. Happy mongering All except for the uniformed and uneducated David33, Toymann
ps. for the benefit of the board please post all credible links to "said docrines". IALOTFLMAO again.
I tried to bring in mormon financing on a little something I tried to put togehter. The investment banker is greek orthodox. He told me that the mormon investors wanted mormons involved in the operation or they wouldn't invest. The operation's guy had a great cv and is a very pleasant guy who is it hard not to like. I couldn't understand. The bottom line was somesort of inte-rchurch stuff. It was sort of offensive.
I can't make any generalizations about all mormons from this experience, but from what the investment banker told me, his mormon investors liked having church boys in positions of authority. Very close to non-negociable. Our loyality to the operations guy screwed the deal.
My ultra-orthox jewish cousin hooked me up with introductions thru the ultrarthodox jewish community-a tight group where one of the ways trust can be established is through their community which binds them together in a way that individuals are less likely to screw each other. Do all jews form a secret society that control the world-adolph hitler thought so?
Now, back on point: mitt didn't pack bain capital, the olympics committee nor his mass policy advisors from any one group. Will he be influenced by the church: as a devote man, likely the same way Obama is effected by his faith as was W and other actively practicing executives are effected by their views of the world and may be influence by people they trust. Jkf met with cardinals, but the church didn't likely play a major role in his decision making but may have been a factor at times.
I might be equally or more worried about mitt's wall street backround. We live in times when regulation vs lack of reugulation of large financial institutions will required difficult policy decisions to be made. Over-regulate and the big boys will move overseas, but underregulate and in the process of engorgring themselves with profit[that is their reason to be] they can bring down the economy.
Look beyond disagreements over your views of mitt, the mormon church-david is the man in Lima. Fly to ba with a 3 day stop off in Lima and david is a very generous host. The lan stop off will likely cost you almost nothing.
I personally do not have a clear understanding of how certain fringes of the mormon community function: richard nixon's fall from grace was peppered with a mormon presence-but blaming all mormons or the church itself for the actions of a few members. Howard hughs also had a mormon connection.
Exxon your postings sound like skinhead talk. Criticize mitt's history, his policy statements at the debate or even the us$10, 000. Offer to bet with rick perryi-hate based upon his religion alone?
this discourse will lead me to do some reading
Take your obvious liberal hate spew1. I am sure you will find the the majority of the Tea Party and Religious Right agree with me on the Mormon issue.
2. I mentioned a book, read it if you are able.
3. Thinking the Mormons are a bunch of religious whackos has nothing to do with one's political views. IMHO any of the other Republicans still running, (except Perry because he obviously has a below average IQ), would be better then Willard.
1. I am sure you will find the the majority of the Tea Party and Religious Right agree with me on the Mormon issue.Well, your morman hate theory regarding the tea party and religious right will be duely tested in the near future. Having lived in South Carolina for 7 years I will not be surprised if things don't work out quite like you are expecting David. The Southern Baptists are not easily understood by those that have not had personal experience within that culture. The fact that Mitt goes to church will play just fine in the south, they are not that particular about the form of worship JUST THAT YOU WORSHIP. Furthermore, Mitt's long standing marriage to the same woman will also play quite well in South Carolina. Currently, in South Carolina they are playing ads showing Gingritch's past affiliation with Nancy Pelosi (IALOTFLMAO). Newt is walking dead in South Carolina. LMAO. Expect a surprise that is not consistent with the liberal media's portrayal of the Tea Party and religious right David. Expect a surprise, never let an uninformed position combined with liberal media play form the basis for your opinion. You will end up looking like an idiot everytime.
Happy Mongering All,
Toymann.
Ps. My dear brother EX, please stop with the silly video links. As a flaming liberal and known morman hater you just can't be objective here. The GOP is electing the next president here, not a pope or religious leader. Mitt Romney is an established turnaround expert, and moderate Republican. Exactly what the US needs right now. Your liberal buddies and Obomanation have created quite the mess and we need someone that can take a sows ear and make a silk purse. Remeber the Salt Lake Olympics? That was a horrific mess that Romney, in just 18 months, turned into the most successful Winter Olympiad of all time. His experience with Bain runs a similar path (TWICE in fact). Suggest you gracefully withdraw all the silly morman unsubstantiated video. You have personal history that simply clouds your judgement in this area. Time to chill out dude! See ya in March.
Having lived in south carolina for 7 years I will not be surprised if things don't work out quite like you are expecting David.
Well, we shall see. So far Willard can´t seem to get more than 25% of the Republicans to back him. You seem blinded to the fact that the majority of Republicans are desperately searching for anyone but Willard. Your insulting and hysteric posts (this is nothing new, I have seen you lower the level of the forum many times, however this is the first time I have been the fortunate target of your ill manners), suggest that you are trying to convince yourself that Willard will win. Time will tell. As long as you don't stroke out before the end of the primaries.....
Your starting to sound Inteligent.Exon, are you intelligent enough to understand that you're statement makes you look like an idiot?
Well, we shall see. So far Willard can´t seem to get more than 25% of the Republicans to back him. You seem blinded to the fact that the majority of Republicans are desperately searching for anyone but Willard. Your insulting and hysteric posts (this is nothing new, I have seen you lower the level of the forum many times, however this is the first time I have been the fortunate target of your ill manners), suggest that you are trying to convince yourself that Willard will win. Time will tell. As long as you don't stroke out before the end of the primaries.In total agreement on everything you just wrote, David. However, the ugly reality is that the candidate that spends the most wins their party's nomination over 90% of the time (I think the exact number is 94%). It has nothing to do with religion, but who spends the most (see: JFK. Et al). In the general election (no doubt Romney vs Obama) , again it'll come down to money spent. Then it's payback to all of the big donors. Politics, American style.
Time will tell. As long as you don't stroke out before the end of the primaries.Too funny. I can gaurentee that my heartbeat has never gotten over 80 bpm dude. Just checked my blood pressure and its slightly high at 125/82. Thanks for your concern! Happy Mongering easily offended David. Toymann.
Ps. Going forward I will attempt to stop destroying the forumn with my offensive posts. Please feel free to police my horrible republican behavior whenever I offend your liberal sensibilities.
IALOTFLMAO!
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/mitt-romney-opens-major-lead-south-carolina-182157407.html
Did I just speak of this, this morning! Too funny. Must be all those moderate non-religous folks in carolina supporting the devil mormon. The liberal media just kills me. Romney is just having a horrible time appealing to all those redneck bible thumping republicans. It's a good thing we have all those free-thinking liberals out there like David33 forcasting how Romney just can't get the support of the GOP party. Time for a reality check dude. LMAO Toymann
As long as you don't stroke out before the end of the primaries.My guess is that the stroke will occur about 9pm PST, Tuesday November 6, 2012, when Romney concedes to Obama. Both candidates being totally nauseating choices.
Ps. Going forward I will attempt to stop destroying the forumn with my offensive posts.Toymann, please don't stop. I need a good chuckle.
My guess is that the stroke will occur about 9pm PST, Tuesday November 6, 2012, when Romney concedes to Obama. Both candidates being totally nauseating choices.
Toymann, please don't stop. I need a good chuckle.I feel quite comfortable the reverse will occur dude. I have more confidence in the US electorate than that. Obomanation is dead man walking, and so is the liberal senate. Tick Tick Tick! Time will only tell brother. Just remember who focasted all this first. Called this shot a year ago on the forumn. He who laughs last always last best! Happy Mongering free-thinker. Toymann.
Ps. Any interest in a Madahos wager Chezz or David? Your liberal brother Esten has crawled back under his rock to protect himself from the oncoming GOP tsunami!
Pps. You liberals have such a short memory. Did you both already forget what happened last November. Keep whistling past the grave yard boys. IALOTFLMAO!
I feel quite comfortable the reverse will occur dude. I have more confidence in the US electorate than that. Obomanation is dead man walking, and so is the liberal senate. Tick Tick Tick! Time will only tell brother. Just remember who focasted all this first. Called this shot a year ago on the forumn. He who laughs last always last best! Happy Mongering free-thinker. Toymann.
Ps. Any interest in a Madahos wager Chezz or David? Your liberal brother Esten has crawled back under his rock to protect himself from the oncoming GOP tsunami!
Pps. You liberals have such a short memory. Did you both already forget what happened last November. Keep whistling past the grave yard boys. IALOTFLMAO!Exactly what part of my post makes you think I'm a liberal? Or a conservative for that matter? I'm somewhere in the middle, and for that reason it's always difficult to find a candidate to speaks to my values. And by the way, what happened last November will mean fuck-all next November, especially if the economy continues to improve and the Chicago cartel decides to kick it into full gear.
Follow the money. You'll find your winner.
Regarding your bet, forget it. I don't have a dog in this race.
PS (cause I know you love it) : you rock-throwing conservative cock-suckers always try to label anybody who isn't firmly in your tent as a liberal. Try not to jump to conclusions.
Now the mormon church set-up nixon-I assume they also killed jfk, mlk blah, blah, blah. I liked you better when you drank too much.
AP cannot support any type of real political discussion-it always results in name calling and wacko stuff, racism-the lowest form of discussion.
Maybe the mormons financed 9/11? Likely with $$ embezzled from howard hughes' estate-yah guy I've seen the light
OK Toymann, so anyone who thinks the Mormons are a dangerous cult full of brainwashed automatons and that Willard is a wienie is a liberal. Going by this ridiculous, pea-brained and intellectually bankrupt definition, I am more than happy that one of the principal forces behind the desertion of AP forum members thinks I'm a liberal. Keep on trying to convince those few who are still on the forum that you are capable of more than just insulting posters. I am one of the majority who repudiate you. And I do so without lowering myself to your level of insults and personal attacks. Have a good day.
According to the Jesus character in the Tim Tebow skit on Saturday Night Live a few weeks ago, Mormonism is "all true". As Geoffrey on the Craig Ferguson show might question,"or is it?" I could care less whether a Mormon becomes POTUS, but do find it interesting that Jon Huntsman is a far more believable (and qualified) Republican Mormon presidential candidate than Mitt, yet is getting far less traction. BTW, his daughters are hot!
OK Toymann, so anyone who thinks the Mormons are a dangerous cult full of brainwashed automatons and that Willard is a wienie is a liberal. Going by this ridiculous, pea-brained and intellectually bankrupt definition, I am more than happy that one of the principal forces behind the desertion of AP forum members thinks I'm a liberal. Keep on trying to convince those few who are still on the forum that you are capable of more than just insulting posters. I am one of the majority who repudiate you. And I do so without lowering myself to your level of insults and personal attacks. Have a good day.What personal attachs dude. All dialog here. Like most uninformed and ignorant clowns you run away! Guess I am also the cause of 9/11 and the Easter bunny being history as well as ap becoming history. PLEASE! Do you really think this way or does the current facts get in the way of your argument. Devil Mormons. They are taking over the us don't ya know. Crawl back under your rock dude. Your debating skills suggest you are a flor de puto! Ialotflamo. Bye bye. Happy mongering all. Toyman
Forget it Exon, Toymann will continue with the personal insults which are his trademark here. He thinks that by pushing the wienie Willard and calling anyone who doesn't agree with him a liberal or one of his other 5 cent adjectives (i. e. ignorant, clown), he will scare them off the forum. As I said before, although it is tempting to drop to his wormshit level, you and I have too much class and have actually contributed positively to both AP and ISG. Therefore as always, its best to let trolls babble to themselves. We can leave Toymann alone with his commentaries, insults and lack of status and support on the forums.
The wall street journal recomended 5 books about the mormon church and the history of prejudice against this group. I understand why you are personally angry about some of your past involvement with some people of the mormon faith-or at least they were born into the church. All mormons are not dedicated towards thievery and criminal activities. Basic knowledge about the religion might help and surely couldn't help if you are going to have business dealings regularly with mormons-
Maybe reading about the 1907 smoot hearings, when the first mormon elected to the us senate was initially refuseed their seat and senate hearings were held about whether a mormon should be seated in the USA senate. After obtaining information-including to testimony from joseph smith's son, senator smoot was seated
Exxon you aren't the only one who has made assumptions about an entire religion based out the acts of a few bad guys. Why don't you just keep it to yourself and at least read something about.
Why don't you try reading one of these books or more and at least reading the book reviews:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203462304577136340783641140.html?mod=WSJ_Books_LS_Books_8
warmest regards,
raciasm and prejudice are the lowest forms of political discourse,
the FBI denied the existance of organized crime in america until j edgar retired--what else is new. fjk's religion had nothing to do with him banging one of sam giacano's girl friends--don't next start posting about all catholics and all jews
http://www.pbs.org/mormons/
Put this on your I-pad and it will put you to sleep. Yes, this is an imperfect group of people-like all groups of people, are most horrible, not. Why may not accept their beliefs. All religions require some form of leap of faith. In our culture some sets of beliefs are more comfortable than others. If the majority wins-then the Buddhists are right!
I'm more worried about the christian ultra-far right political types- I wonder how rick santurom's justice department would approach many things that many of us enjoy-they would make john ashcroft look like a pussy? Now there is a more sympathetic supreme court.
If newt wins, he wants to re-do the constitution and end all over-site my federal courts if the executive and legislative branches agree to disagree with the courts.
Mitt and Obama are the only two that I can seriously imagine
The only good thing about the Mormon cult is that is was invented by a monger.
He is an atheist who who laike make fun of all accepted religious beliefs. He is laughing about the stupidity of religious belief. So what: go find more wacko stuff to make it clearer that your personal obsessions should more the basis for voting decisions.
If I am a "wacko" for accepting freedom of religion and not exploring nor mocking religious beliefs that don't seem attractive to me. I personally to not find most organized religions intellectually nor spiritually attractive.
Membership watch 2 or 3 of exxons' favorite expert in mormonism and judge him as a good sourse of data for making an important decision. I watch bill mar's comedy show. He is a fallen catholic and tells jokes about the cathelic church consistantly. Would you use him for an accurate expert on the church? Bill mar himself is intending to be funny. Your intentions aren't humor and you should know better.
Urch mem.
I take your insults as compliments based upon the source. You have no desire for discourse on the issue-go find more.
You-tubes by unusual guys to support your arguements.
Show me something that mitt has done in the past to hurt non-church members to favor church membership and I'll.
Pay attention. Show me hatred and obsession and I'll feel sorry for you and recognize you as obsessed.
Please call me wacko again, so I know that I am doing the right thing and I am on the right side of this issue:
Should mitt be eliminated as a possible candidate in the minds of the member ship here because he calls himself a mormon?
This is the issue here. Not the mormon church, unless you can tie mitt's public actions to hurting the people to do something to help the church or that most mormons are theives as mr exxon123 has stated or directly implied.
It's clear that generally you do not have a positive outlook on the mormon church==neither do i BUT our personal feelings about the church may or ma ynot have a substantial influence on our final voting decisions depending on the context and choices available. You don't seem obsessed with the issue.
If WW was till posting he would call this a variable that is too subjective to analyze and not lending itself to rational discourse.
This is really fun. Newt is creating tv spots for Obama. Newt could never beat anyone in a national election-too checkered a past: ethical violations while speaker; took millions in consulting fees from freddy / fannie, too many wacko things that will hit him hard in 30 second tv spots.
Now newt is attacking Mitt for doing what a venture capitalist does. Sometimes raping the companies bain purchased. The venture capitalist, sometimes, are the vultures who eat the dead and weak. Other times they help grow a company, bain under mitt turned around staples, domino's pizza amongst othesr.
Newt's super pack-these outfits are amazing-has produced a 28 minute film filled with interviews of people who lost their jobs when bain capital, under Mitt, broke-up their employer, sold off the pieces for profit and lead the remaining shell into bankruptcy. I wonder if the "super pac" will sell the production to the Obama supporters after newt doesn't get the nomination?
Moreover, I'm all in favor of Romney getting the nomination, He'll be the easyest to beat.Actually, I think Perry, Gingrich, Santorum and Bachmann (before she dropped out) would have been easier to beat. I say "would have" because this primary season is a fucking joke. It's Romney's race to loose. Though I think he could fuck a billy goat and still have an edge over Gingrich. Remember Exon, in the general election, it's all about money and moving towards the middle. Those other four have ZERO chance of beating Obama in the general election.
With the results in NH coming in, watch out for Ron Paul! Not that he is likely to win eventually, but that this might give him the impetus (and the gall) to launch a 3rd party candidature, thus splintering the Republican vote and dooming Romney in the general. BO must be licking his chops at this prospect. Remember Ross Perot!
Fun times!
Ken
P. S . The below hypothesis is based upon the fact (or my opinion, at least) that Senor Paul is crazy enough (some might call it a commitment to his beliefs) to do this, knowing it will sink the Republican campaign.
Ken.
Obama v mitt-very close:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html
Obama way head of the others in polling- jan 10th 2012:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/elections/
The wall street journal is owned by the same folks who own fox-this is not the left in any way shape nor form:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204124204577155112456593648.html?mod=WSJ_article_LatestHeadlines
Newt Ron Perry and the good old boys don't cotton to what real free market capitalism really is all about, making money with the limits provided by the law and whatever view of human decency one holds.
Even exxon123 has to be right once in a while: Mitt has problems with the base who can't handle the actually reality of free market capitalism. Exxon the mormon angle isn't the real problem as a whole can of worms opens as Newt and Ron Perry go lefty and attack Bain Capital and Mitt.
Does anyone have any real personal integrity or wli they say and do anything to get that nomination. Carolina will get interesting. In 1990, carl rove destroyed mccain lead in the polls by have telephone banks calling voter and asking them questions about their reactions to john mccaain's black love child-he adopted a pakastani orphan with a dark complexion. Someone told 100% bold face lies about mccaion's daughter to pull vote for W-the rest is history-mission accomplished! Will newt stoop so low as to attack mitt because he was a successful legitimate venture capitalist-the answer is yes!
The bumbling Obama hasn't started looking for the million dollar per year+ bonuses investment banking job yet-he may yet full off another 4 years after demonstrating an inability to negociate the corridors of power and chew gum at the same time.
So Ron Paul reminds me of the shaky deputy, otherwise, he makes the most sense. The rest are just lobbyists for the Wall St / Military Industrial crowd. And for most of the audience and even the press, they couldn't care less. They just wanted to hear what they wanted to hear. If americans learn to save, everyday would be X'mas day.
Member #4112
01-17-12, 14:22
While the GOP candidates are doing their dead level best to kill each other in the primaries, YES Bob they will say anything to get elected, Obama merrily trips along cutting the military, increasing welfare and deciding the Constitution of the United States is not worth the paper it is written on with his recess appointments.
I know our left wing brothers on this board are gloating but when the 2012 elections roll around in November what exactly will Obama run on? You can bet your bottom dollar it will not be his record.
Add to this the thrashing Obama and his Justice Department lackey Erick Holder are about to receive from the Supreme Court this summer on ObamaCare, state immigration laws, redistricting, and a few other cases, I'm not sure he will be able to blame everyone else for his failures.
Obama's own words are already biting him in the ass now and the GOP is still involved in primaries, wait until they have a candidate and turn all that money and venom on the Anointed One. How ugly will it get this summer, pretty ugly.
I'm pretty sure Mitt will end up with the nomination so it will make for an interesting election cycle this year.
I have always admired Texas Governor Rick Perry, especially the last several years. He never ceases to amaze me with his complete lack of geopolitical knowledge and his inferior mental incapacity. His most recent gaffe, calling out Turkey as being "ruled by Islamist Terrorists" is his latest gem.
Wow. This moron needs to go back to the plains of Texas and stop embarrassing the Republican Party as in now.
I have always admired Texas Governor Rick Perry, especially the last several years. He never ceases to amaze me with his complete lack of geopolitical knowledge and his inferior mental incapacity. His most recent gaffe, calling out Turkey as being "ruled by Islamist Terrorists" is his latest gem.
Wow. This moron needs to go back to the plains of Texas and stop embarrassing the Republican Party as in now.I have always admired Barak Obama, especially the last several years. He never ceases to amaze me with his complete lack of knowledge of the free enterprise system and his inferior mental capacity. His most recent gaffe, asking to increase the debt ceiling by another 1.2 trillion dollars, is his latest gem.
Wow, this moron needs to go back to indonesia, where he was born, and stop embarrassing the Democratic Party
Big Boss Man
01-18-12, 17:58
I have always admired Texas Governor Rick Perry, especially the last several years. He never ceases to amaze me with his complete lack of geopolitical knowledge and his inferior mental incapacity. His most recent gaffe, calling out Turkey as being "ruled by Islamist Terrorists" is his latest gem.
Wow. This moron needs to go back to the plains of Texas and stop embarrassing the Republican Party as in now.I thought the guy was interesting until I started looking into it. His release of his financials was the eye opener. Basically he has a government pension of a $100k a year. He owes $250k to Vanderbilt for his kid's education. I guess there is some family money from ranch land. My Dad's rule of thumb was never to listen to any guy with less money than yourself. I was thinking that Rick and I should sit down and have the money conversation.
As a Californian I think Texas is doing some great stuff economically but I am fairly sure it was not due to Perry's vision.
If this is not the stupidest thing Big Brother has done, I don't know what is.
Los Angeles is going to monitor XXX films, require the use of condoms in porn films and penalize those not using condoms.
As far as I can tell the LA porn industry probaby films a couple hundred sex scenes a day. Some with condoms some without condoms.
In private, probably hundreds of thousands (million??) of sex acts are performed daily. Some with condoms some without condoms.
But the Big Brother lovers ie advocates of unlimited government intrusion into our lifes and advocates of increasing taxes to fund this intrusion into our lifes, want to alocate valuable personal and money to police the couple of hundred sex acts performed daily by the porn industry.
I say, tell Nancy Pelosi to fund it out of her own pocket or, preferably force that ***** into the porn induistry and get fucked in the ass, every hour of every day for several years, by some Neandrathal with a 15 inch dick. Maybe then she will see the value of putting government back in its cage.
Unfortuneately, in this case, these regulations are probably advocated by the bird brain evangelical right. Who in their own way are just as moronic as the bird brain fanatical left.
I thought the guy was interesting until I started looking into it. His release of his financials was the eye opener. Basically he has a government pension of a $100k a year. He owes $250k to Vanderbilt for his kid's education. I guess there is some family money from ranch land. My Dad's rule of thumb was never to listen to any guy with less money than yourself. I was thinking that Rick and I should sit down and have the money conversation.
As a Californian I think Texas is doing some great stuff economically but I am fairly sure it was not due to Perry's vision.Well, that's it for Mr. Outhouse himself, Governor Rick Perry.
No more SNL skits portraying his stupidity.
It's a good thing we have all those free-thinking liberals out there like David33 forcasting how Romney just can't get the support of the GOP party. Time for a reality check dude. LMAO ToymannNot a free thinking liberal, just more intelligent than you are.
"Not a free thinking liberal, just more intelligent than you are"
Now that is a hot one. Intelligent liberal. Sure to rise to the top of the oxymoron charts along with jumbo shrimp, paid volunteer, slightly pregnant etc.
I think Albert Einstein got it right when he said that if you are not a liberal when you are 20 years old you have no heart. If you are still a liberal when you are 30 years old you have no brain
"Not a free thinking liberal, just more intelligent than you are"I was referring to the fact that Toymann started insulting me when I stated that Willard the Mormon Wienie had no chance of winning in South Carolina even with the help of his Mormon friend Huntsman's support. I was right, he was wrong, being liberal or conservative has nothing to do with it. If you read back, my problem was with a candidate who will put his church before his country. Not with the Republicans per se. I quite like the possibility of a Republican free love candidate winning.
It would make my day if the former Congressman and lobbyist, Newt Gingrich wins the GOP Presidential nomination!
That basically guarantees another term for President, Barack Obama.
Newt not only won last night, he kicked Mitt Romney's Ass, beat him by 12 % in a 4 man race, huge.
The American people with not stand for a Mormon President, that's why he lost so don't kid yourselves.
I'm "Privy" to information all of you are not, there's some "Big League Shit" going down in Salt Lake City.
Here's part of it.
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/washingtons-birthday-letter-pres-obama-et-al
Here's more.
http://world.einnews.com/pr_news/56849353/americans-united-against-fascist-theocratic-government.
Moreover, if you can't trust the FBI who can you trust.
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=15493695
Exon knows.
Exon
It would make my day if the former Congressman and lobbyist, Newt Gingrich wins the GOP Presidential nomination!
That basically guarantees another term for President, Barack Obama.That's what they used to say about Reagan, and look what happened.
As much as I am convinced Obama has no idea how a free enterprise economy functions, Obama is not all bad. I would have to close my eyes, hold my nose and be highly drugged or intoxicated to vote for Gringrich for President. Congressman or Senator. No problem. But President? Then again, maybe Gringrich is just what we need.
Obama: to make the tv speaches.
Mitt: to do the the policy analysis.
Carl rove: to control public opinion.
They could run the government with underlings:
Newt as court jester.
Rick santorum as ambassador to the dieties.
Rick perry to lead a commissioner in charge of dementia as the baby boomer age and there are few entitlements to help them in the later years, help for impoverished seniors will be a crutial compoment of contuing the american dream.
-
The republican reply speech is boring-this guy should have rev wright help him punch-up his public speaking skills.
O-we could stroll into the future hand in hand-republican and democrat side by side mitch daniels he's the man, if he can't do it the ghost of abraham lincoln can.
There is a sad state to this union-both parties suck. I am going to watch: mr deeds comes to town on netflix. Maybe we can teach mitt to do a good jimmy stewart imitation?
Hate and prejudice aren't great qualities. Obama is slightly ahead of mitt, but Obama kills everyone else. I feel like el alamo, but not as strongly anti-Obama. Newt would make george W look like abraham lincoln.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html
The following link is worth skimming. Rather than relying upon prejudice or a friend of a friend who has a mormon neighbor, factual info never hurts:
http://www.pewforum.org/Christian/Mormon/mormons-in-america-executive-summary.aspx
It's interesting and look at some of the footnoted links. My own ignorance is surprising to me. Much of what I thought was so just is not part of current common mormon belief. Like many different groups there is a wide range of mormon points of view-but they tend to be extremely "socially" and politically conservative.
Hate and prejudice aren't great qualities. Obama is slightly ahead of mitt, but Obama kills everyone else. I feel like el alamo, but not as strongly anti-Obama. Newt would make george W look like abraham lincoln.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.htmlNo doubt the SC result was a bit of a shocker to most, BUT, Mitt is hardly done. In fact, As Bobby indicated, he is still far ahead of the other candidiates in the beat-obomanation factor. Did anyone really expect one candidtae to win all the primaries? Good old David33 is so capable that he has to live outside the US and Exon just can't get past his perception of his personal interactions in Utah back in the day. Lets not all forget that it took almost all 50 states for the dems to pick Obama over Hillary. Did that mean that 3 years ago the dems were a "fractured" party? LMAO. That's all I hear from the David33 types, just plain old media liberal speak. I don't doubt the Obama lovers like Dave and EX are praying for Newt to win the GOP. Newt has a much poorer chance of blowing out Obomanation like Romney certainly would. Time will tell what will transpire. Would either David33 or Ex be interested in a friendly bet on the GOP and Novemeber Presidential Elections. I am game to entertain a night at MaDAHOS based the outcomes. I'll take Romney wins the GOP and the GOP presidential elect beats Obomanation in November. I will also add a GOP controlled senate to the bet as a sweetner, if two bets might end up cancelling each other out! Any takers? Happy Mongering All. Toymann.
Ps. Been away fishing for almost two weeks in the caribean, so just getting caught up today.
Punter 127
01-26-12, 01:56
After watching his speech last night the guy's "A Rock Star"
ExonJust what we need 'A Rock Star' as POTUS, 'Snake Oil Salesman' Would be more appropriate.
Just what we need 'A Rock Star' as POTUS, 'Snake Oil Salesman' Would be more appropriate.I think you are suffering from pussy overload, it's starting to affect your perspective. Once a day is enough.
so just getting caught up today.Well get "caught up" with the fact that you were wrong, and I was right. Keep pushing your Wienie Willard. Keep calling me a liberal although I have never posted anything supporting Obama. We shall see who gets the nomination, notwithstanding Willard's buying off of Fox News, Florida media and everyone else he can get to. 75% of the Republicans appear to agree with me that he is a whining, spoiled Mormon fool and can't stand him. But keep supporting him "Dude", "birds of a feather flock together".
Good old David33 is so capable that he has to live outside the USIs that supposed to be another of your well thought out insults? I suppose you are also referring to Jackson.
Canitasguy
01-26-12, 15:21
I think Albert Einstein got it right when he said that if you are not a liberal when you are 20 years old you have no heart. If you are still a liberal when you are 30 years old you have no brainChurchill made the famous statement about how aging turns good hearted liberals into hard headed conservatives. Of course Churchill was a war-mongering racist, who redeemed his very checkered political career with true courage and leadership in WWII.
Einstein was a pacifist who regretted the dawning of the nuclear age. He once described capitalist society, a source of evil and the "predatory phase of human development". Einstein supported socialism as an economic system. He was anticommunist who distrusted the bureaucratic and authoritarian excesses of the Soviet Union.
75% of the Republicans appear to agree with me that he is a whining, spoiled Mormon fool and can't stand him. But keep supporting him "Dude", "birds of a feather flock together".Where in the world did ya pull that out of? Please reveal your source, local paper in south america? LMAO. Better check out the amount of money Newt just got from his old buddy Vegas tycoon and then his wife (10M all together). I have no issue with politicians raising private money. I only bring this up in response to your comment about Romney buying "everything out". Really don't get your point so please elaborate.
I admit that SC was quite a last minute turn around for Newt. I take my hat off to him actually. The tactics he imployed in SC where obviously effective. In fact, he sounds a lot like Obomanation and the liberal media spin doctors. Success and wealth is bad! Business is bad! Yada Yada Yada. Class warfare at it's finest. Time will tell if Newt and his approach will win the day. I doubt it!
In lieu of your recent increased bravado, why not accept my friendly wager. Or do you feel too insulted to accept. You are taking this dialoug far to seriously David33. You appear to have quite thin skin. LOL. Kinda like most liberals I know.
As I mentioned before, as a result of your past comments, I am attempting to tone down my retoric. I would hate to destroy the board, kill the easter bunny, banish santa, yada, yada, yada.
As far as your political position goes. You have pitched your tent with the esteemed Exon. Like most liberals I know.
Still waiting for your response to my suggested wager (a friendly one). Try not to get your hair all up in a ball dude. It's all good. Happy Mongering All. Toymann.
Ps. If is walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck. MOST LIKELY IT"S A DUCK
You have pitched your tent with the esteemed Exon. Like most liberals I know.Please quote ANY comment or post I have made which is in any way politically liberal.
My subjective opinion is that with your personal insults and antagonistic style you have already done more than most to chase away members and spoil the forum. You obviously have your issues. I have no interest in making a bet or having any kind of future dialog with you. You can call that being thin skinned, I call it having good taste.
Maybe you might save the forumn by making some chica posts. Oh. I forgot. Not really your thing. Over and out. Happy Mongering All. Toymann
No comments from the Exons and David33's. I guesse I am the only one watching TV tonight. SC was surprising but the end is beginning. Love the polls regarding Romney matching up with Obama. Not quite what Exon suggested. It is so early but based on what's coming up before Super Tuesday Mitt will be carrying quite a lead by then. Three years ago it took almost 50 states for the democrats to decide on Obomanation over Hillary and somehow they won the election. It won't take that long for the GOP to pick their man! All that liberal media spew about a fractured party will become inconsequential once Romney finished Newt. By my guesse it will be all over by mid-March. The far right may not be fully behind Mitt right now, BUT they would vote for Davis33 or Exon before they voted for Obomanation. Just like the dems 3 years ago the GOP will rally behind Mitt when push comes to shove. Obomanations record will sink him in the end. Happy Mongering All. Toymann
I only predicted South Carolina, fool. I was right and you were wrong. Also please re-post any liberal post or comment I have ever made on the forum. I'm still waiting to see that. From what I have observed, your practice of insulting other posters or ruining threads talking about your fishing prowess or some other off topic subject is despised by most forum members. We can only hope that Jackson gives you the Nibu Rafael quarantine treatment which you so richly deserve. Maybe he could put up a poll on this subject: "should Toymann be given and restricted to, his own thread".
No comments from the Exons and David33's. I guesse I am the only one watching TV tonight. SC was surprising but the end is beginning. Love the polls regarding Romney matching up with Obama. Not quite what Exon suggested. It is so early but based on what's coming up before Super Tuesday Mitt will be carrying quite a lead by then. Three years ago it took almost 50 states for the democrats to decide on Obomanation over Hillary and somehow they won the election. It won't take that long for the GOP to pick their man! All that liberal media spew about a fractured party will become inconsequential once Romney finished Newt. By my guesse it will be all over by mid-March. The far right may not be fully behind Mitt right now, BUT they would vote for Davis33 or Exon before they voted for Obomanation. Just like the dems 3 years ago the GOP will rally behind Mitt when push comes to shove. Obomanations record will sink him in the end. Happy Mongering All. Toymann
Canitasguy
02-01-12, 14:01
The far right may not be fully behind Mitt right now, BUT they would vote for Davis33 or Exon before they voted for Obomanation. Just like the dems 3 years ago the GOP will rally behind Mitt when push comes to shove. Obomanations record will sink him in the end. Happy Mongering All. ToymannAfter outspending Gingrich more than $12 to $1 with even more money spent by his secret corporate SuperPacs, Mitt lost 53% against him to 47% for.
Evangelists, who are a huge portion of what you call the far right, will sooner vote for a black Christian with the middle name Hussien, than for a Mormon. They will vote as usual in large numbers in 2012 and skip the top of the ticket if the Rs go with Mitt!
I have been saying for over a year that Obama can't get re-elected!
And then I added, but the Rs could lose.
I didn't dream they would make it so easy for POTUS.
Also please re-post any liberal post or comment I have ever made on the forum. I'm still waiting to see that. ".So you're bizzare comment about Romney following some Mormon agenda to destroy america if elected wasn't just ignorant but also NOT liberal. Ok. I get it now. Walks like a duck, quaks like a duck, swims like a duck. Must be a duck. Good think you don't live in the US and won't have to endure the Romney mormon agenda once he gets elected. As far as all your other dibble goes. Very passive agressive behavior. Hmmm. More duck like behavior. Happy Mongering All. Toymann.
Ps. So now you speak for the forumn do you. IALOTFLMAO
PPs. Maybe YOU should stick to the topic being discussed and stop making all the insulting comments. Glass house dude.
I am not a genius, but the 2012 presidential election is a foregone conclusion. Basically we have Obama who has demonstrated his total lack of knowledge of free market economies to such an extent that he has eclispsed the incompetence of Jimmy Carter. Then we have Romney, who is being criticized for his understanding of free market economies and his track record of success in free market economies.
Criticizing Romney for his business success and rewarding Obama for his economic incompetence would be similar to benching Tom Brady or Eli Manning because they win ballgames and playing a blind quadaplegic I. E. Obama because he will never, repeat never, win a ballgame.
Read it and weep. It is a done deal.
I am not a genius, but the 2012 presidential election is a foregone conclusion.To call this race a foregone conclusion is reaching a bit. The RCP average has Obama with a 2. 3% lead over Romney, which has been the trend over the last 3 months, more or less. And this is with Obama doing almost zero campaigning. It's going to be an interesting, close race, no doubt. But if you think Romney is going to waltz into the White House, you're dreaming.
I am not a genius, but the 2012 presidential election is a foregone conclusion. Basically we have Obama who has demonstrated his total lack of knowledge of free market economies to such an extent that he has eclispsed the incompetence of Jimmy Carter. Then we have Romney, who is being criticized for his understanding of free market economies and his track record of success in free market economies.
Criticizing Romney for his business success and rewarding Obama for his economic incompetence would be similar to benching Tom Brady or Eli Manning because they win ballgames and playing a blind quadaplegic I. E. Obama because he will never, repeat never, win a ballgame.
Read it and weep. It is a done deal.I take you are willing to give 10-1 odds. I will bet $100.
Punter 127
02-02-12, 07:11
Circa 2008.
This election may be decided by events on the day of the election or the day before the election.
In 1980 the race between Carter and Reagan was considered to be a dead heat. But on the morning of the election the news was filled with something the Iranians were doing with the American hostages (street demonstration or something like that) It was the only newsworthy topic that day.
Reagan won by a landslide because the voting public realized, seeing the carnage on the news reports, that Carter was incapable of handling foreign affairs.
In 2004 there was the last minute Bin Ladin (sp? Tape.
This year, a meltdown in the stock markets on the day before the election or the day of the election, could seal this for Obama. If not, this might be a closer election than some think.2012.
I am not a genius, but the 2012 presidential election is a foregone conclusion. Basically we have Obama who has demonstrated his total lack of knowledge of free market economies to such an extent that he has eclispsed the incompetence of Jimmy Carter. Then we have Romney, who is being criticized for his understanding of free market economies and his track record of success in free market economies.
Criticizing Romney for his business success and rewarding Obama for his economic incompetence would be similar to benching Tom Brady or Eli Manning because they win ballgames and playing a blind quadaplegic I. E. Obama because he will never, repeat never, win a ballgame.
Read it and weep. It is a done deal.Perhaps not a genius but a Political Guru, he was right before. :)
I have been on a losing streak with my soccer and football picks. El Alamo could easily be on the money again, but I have nothing to lose (except $100). He does not have to go in alone, I think he could easily get a consortium within AP to back this wager.
So what.
Who's Snooky going to endorse?
I think that if the election is between the Mormon Willard and Obama, that Obama will win. This is an evaluation such as I made for the South Carolina Republican Primary, and has nothing to do with my political views, just the way I think that things will go. If the Republicans get it together and nominate someone other than Romney they could still beat Obama, but if they stick with Romney they will lose.
Sad but true, millions of Americans suffer from a disorder called ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome). Including some of our very own posters here.
ODS is characterized by a fundamental belief that Barack Obama is the cause of all problems in the USA. That Obama can do no right, and that everything he does is wrong.
Facts do not stand in the way of a person suffering from ODS. When presented with facts, one of two responses is generally elicited:
(i) The facts are countered by an argument that is loosely based in reality, usually derived from repeated exposure to programming and messaging that creates an illusion of truth.
(ii) The facts are willfully ignored as the person changes the topic back to their anti-Obama narrative, fueled by uncontrollable firing of diseased synaptic connections.
It is a very difficult disorder to cure. What we do know is ODS is more common in people from the South, people with less education, people who watch more than 1 hour of Fox News a day, and older white men. Falling in just 2 of these categories puts the odds of having or developing ODS at 70%.
Texas Tornado
02-08-12, 03:16
Sad but true, millions of Americans suffer from a disorder called ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome). Including some of our very own posters here.
ODS is characterized by a fundamental belief that Barack Obama is the cause of all problems in the USA. That Obama can do no right, and that everything he does is wrong.
Facts do not stand in the way of a person suffering from ODS. When presented with facts, one of two responses is generally elicited:
(I) The facts are countered by an argument that is loosely based in reality, usually derived from repeated exposure to programming and messaging that creates an illusion of truth.
(ii) The facts are willfully ignored as the person changes the topic back to their anti-Obama narrative, fueled by uncontrollable firing of diseased synaptic connections.
It is a very difficult disorder to cure. What we do know is ODS is more common in people from the South, people with less education, people who watch more than 1 hour of Fox News a day, and older white men. Falling in just 2 of these categories puts the odds of having or developing ODS at 70.Not to be confused with its sister ailment, OIOS: Obama Is Our Savior syndrome which tends to occur in Americans who believe that welfare payments cure all evils, that all wealth should be evenly (read: fairly) distributed and tends to occur in those who have never owned a business or been responsible for making payroll.
Sad but true, millions of Americans suffer from a disorder called ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome). Including some of our very own posters here.
ODS is characterized by a fundamental belief that Barack Obama is the cause of all problems in the USA. That Obama can do no right, and that everything he does is wrong.
Facts do not stand in the way of a person suffering from ODS. When presented with facts, one of two responses is generally elicited:
(I) The facts are countered by an argument that is loosely based in reality, usually derived from repeated exposure to programming and messaging that creates an illusion of truth.
(ii) The facts are willfully ignored as the person changes the topic back to their anti-Obama narrative, fueled by uncontrollable firing of diseased synaptic connections.
It is a very difficult disorder to cure. What we do know is ODS is more common in people from the South, people with less education, people who watch more than 1 hour of Fox News a day, and older white men. Falling in just 2 of these categories puts the odds of having or developing ODS at 70.Another typical liberal running his mouth with 0 factual statements. Here is a fact. 65,000,000 are on some form of government assistance.
Here is a fact. 65,000,000 are on some form of government assistance.It's George Bush's fault!
Not to be confused with its sister ailment, OIOS: Obama Is Our Savior syndrome which tends to occur in Americans who believe that welfare payments cure all evilsThis provides an excellent example of the first type of ODS response:
(i) The facts are countered by an argument that is loosely based in reality, usually derived from repeated exposure to programming and messaging that creates an illusion of truth.In this case, the loose basis in reality is that some people do believe in the moral and economic value of certain forms of welfare. But that's where the connection with reality ends. Few if any people believe that welfare payments cure all evils, or that welfare should be the main or singular focus of government. However, right wing programming and messaging has instilled in many the idea that this is a widespread view among Liberals. In fact, Liberals believe in the same ideals of individual effort, opportunity and rewarding success as Conservatives do. Some Conservatives recognize this, and understand their differences with Liberals are not so great. Those with ODS however, typically weak-minded shallow thinkers, merely recycle the programming and messaging they have succumbed to. They take comfort in the delusion that they alone are the vanguards of American ideals.
Here is a fact. 65,000,000 are on some form of government assistance.And I'm guessing that half of those 65mil are republicans. Just TRY taking away THEIR welfare or unemployment check, not to mention their Lark Scooter reimbursement check. Fucking hell to pay, you better believe it.
Texas Tornado
02-09-12, 03:20
This provides an excellent example of the first type of ODS response:
In this case, the loose basis in reality is that some people do believe in the moral and economic value of certain forms of welfare. But that's where the connection with reality ends. Few if any people believe that welfare payments cure all evils, or that welfare should be the main or singular focus of government. However, right wing programming and messaging has instilled in many the idea that this is a widespread view among Liberals. In fact, Liberals believe in the same ideals of individual effort, opportunity and rewarding success as Conservatives do. Some Conservatives recognize this, and understand their differences with Liberals are not so great. Those with ODS however, typically weak-minded shallow thinkers, merely recycle the programming and messaging they have succumbed to. They take comfort in the delusion that they alone are the vanguards of American ideals.You are so far from understanding the reality of an entrepreneurial mindset that any attempts at honest dialogue wold be a frivolous waste of time.
It's George Bush's fault!Even if Obama loses the election, history will be kinder to Obama than Bush. But of course, most historians and writers are liberals.
In fact, Liberals believe in the same ideals of individual effort, opportunity and rewarding success as Conservatives do.ROTFLMAO!
People, please don't listen to what liberals say, just watch what they do.
For example, they will claim that they believe in "rewarding success", when in fact what they actually believe in is redistributing success.
Thanks,
Jackson
You are so far from understanding the reality of an entrepreneurial mindset that any attempts at honest dialogue wold be a frivolous waste of time.That's it. Go ahead and retreat back to your warm little cocoon of delusion. Where business and entrepreneurship are akin to rocket science, understood only by a few. And where one can quickly ascertain another person's lack of understanding of such things without knowing anything about them. Never mind explaining how so many liberals and democrats have started and run successful businesses. It must have just been a fluke, or maybe a conservative friend helped them. Go ahead. I understand. You're not used to having your programming challenged. It's easier to just dismiss and avoid.
Another typical liberal running his mouth with 0 factual statements. Here is a fact. 65,000,000 are on some form of government assistance.OMG. 65, 000, 000 is such a huge number. Therefore we must be spending too much!
That's the kind of simpleton message that Republicans depend on to maintain their support. Forget the analysis. What for? It's obvious we're spending too much. Just look at that number. 65 Million!
We can all agree it would be better if that number wasn't so high. But there are reasons why the number is what it is. And there are consequences if that number gets brought down through forced spending cuts, versus voluntary reduced usage of assistance.
OK. Let's give Runner Up a chance to prove he's actually given this some thought. Tell us sir, how much money is the goverment spending on those people, where is it going, and how and by how much would you reduce this spending?
I agree with Esten. Liberals are actually very knowledgeable about the private sector. In fact liberals have become experts at taxing the private sector and distributing that money to 'obama is our savior' constituents who prefer not to work.
OMG. 65, 000, 000 is such a huge number. Therefore we must be spending too much!
That's the kind of simpleton message that Republicans depend on to maintain their support. Forget the analysis. What for? It's obvious we're spending too much. Just look at that number. 65 Million!
We can all agree it would be better if that number wasn't so high. But there are reasons why the number is what it is. And there are consequences if that number gets brought down through forced spending cuts, versus voluntary reduced usage of assistance.
OK. Let's give Runner Up a chance to prove he's actually given this some thought. Tell us sir, how much money is the goverment spending on those people, where is it going, and how and by how much would you reduce this spending?Here is a fact. I fired a libtard today because I got tired of listening to his crap for 1. 5 years. I didn't even see this guy unless it was inspection time or on Wednesday whe he came in to get his check. He renovates properties for me but thinks he has banking hours and voted for Obama. His wife has 3 kids that aren't his and he supports them all. Well maybe not for the next few months! I felt so good firing his dumb ars.
Here is a fact from Obama mouth and then a few more.
"I think we should acknowledge that some welfare programs in the past were not well designed and in some cases did encourage dependency. As somebody who worked in low-income neighborhoods, I've seen it where people weren't encouraged to work, weren't encouraged to upgrade their skills, were just getting a check, and over time their motivation started to diminish. And I think even if you're progressive you've got to acknowledge that some of these things have not been well designed."He's absolutely right. The United States welfare system has not promoted prosperity and self-reliance but, rather, a culture of entitlement. Since the federal government got into the welfare business with the War on Poverty back in the 1960s, the poverty level has remained nearly the same, yet government welfare spending has soared. Today, the federal government operates over 70 welfare programs at a cost edging toward $1 trillion a year, or roughly 13 times the cost of what it spent in the 1960s.
The United States welfare system has not promoted prosperity and self-reliance but, rather, a culture of entitlement. Since the federal government got into the welfare business with the War on Poverty back in the 1960s, the poverty level has remained nearly the same, yet government welfare spending has soared. Today, the federal government operates over 70 welfare programs at a cost edging toward $1 trillion a year, or roughly 13 times the cost of what it spent in the 1960s.This is a cut-and-paste from the Heritage Foundation. Just more short, slanted right-wing messaging.
Notice the comparison of apples (poverty rate) to oranges (total spending). Guess what, the US population has almost doubled since the 1960s. So of course spending will increase even with a flat poverty rate. The 13X reference needs investigation, it is most likely a distortion to support the Heritage Foundation's right-wing agenda. An apples-to-apples per capita comparison is needed.
We already had significant welfare reform in the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA). This added a workforce development component to welfare legislation. This reform has been hailed as a great success by Republicans.
But once again, Republicans are banging the drum that we still have a huge problem.
No doubt there is still some waste and inappropriate incentives in our welfare system, as Runner Up and Obama have said. The real question is quantifying and addressing the "some". If Republicans are banging the drum for action, the onus is on them to present a plan of action.
What will Republicans do? Cut the single biggest component of welfare - Medicaid? Good luck. Polls show most Americans are against Medicaid cuts, by wide margins.
So what else can be done? How do we distinguish appropriate welfare from inappropriate welfare? And how much money will that really save?
Runner Up provides no answers to these questions, but that's par for the course from people like him.
Member #4112
02-13-12, 12:15
Sorry Esten, that was a pretty lame excuse for spending and one trotted out by liberals since 1964.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Johnson's "Great Society" project called welfare and its associated programs promise to lift those in poverty out of poverty in a single generation. If I can Google and find these promises so can you.
We are now 48 years down the road with that portion of the populace even move dependent on the Government than ever before as we watch new program after program fail to meet the Democrat's promise of 1964.
To the contrary the poverty pimps, such as Jackson & Sharpton just to name a few, still abound as well as the liberal Democrats who continue to push the programs to buy votes on election day. Obama is chief among those now.
What really puzzles me is the very people liberal's claim to 'care about' have been decimated during those 48 years. Look at statistics from pre 1964 regarding the black family structure and illegitimate birth rates among the black population, now compare them to today's figures.
If conservatives had wrought this much wholesale destruction on a minority population within the United States liberals would be up in arms calling conservatives racist and demanding redress in the courts and criminal punishment for those involved in this 'crime'. But since liberal's caused this destruction in the name of 'social justice', 'fairness', 'compassion' it is OK.
And now we have Doppelganger, yet another conservative complaining about welfare, but with no answers. No details on what should be cut.
Truly UNBELIEVABLE.
Doppel, the simple answer to your question is this. The Great Society had some initial success. But over the long run, government efforts have been inadequate to counter the forces of free-market capitalism, which have increasingly concentrated wealth in the hands of a few. Surely you are not so naive as to think legislation from the 1960s is the sole or even main factor influencing the poverty rate today.
According to the Economic Policy Institute. 80% of the nation's wealth gains between 1983 and 2009 went to the wealthiest top 5%. The top 1% gained 40% of the nation's total wealth gain, while the next 4% gained 41.5%. The bottom 60% lost 7.5% of the gains.
http://www.epi.org/publication/large-disparity-share-total-wealth-gain/
In general, conservative policies strongly support this type of extreme economic inequality. It is pretty much bottom --> up wealth redistribution. Similar though less extreme statistics exist for income as well. When liberals look at these statistics and propose to do something about it, conservatives march out their Wall-Street friendly messaging and propaganda:
"But the rich EARNED their money. It's wrong to take it away."
"Redistribution of wealth is morally wrong."
"Don't punish success."
And so the trend continues.
The same name calling and blind nonsense disconnected from reality. Jackson-please close both political threads and let's just agree to disagree.
-
I was saddened to see Mitt on TV trying to win over the right wing of the grand old party:" I was a severely conservative governor."
Mitt and the democract were almost in a dead heat until Mitt became part of the who is the most conservative conservative contest:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html
-
Now a true social conservative has to be against birth control. Mr Rick made the Sunday morning new talks shows and told the world that he personally is against the use of birth control regardless of who pays for it. I am sure the Mr Rick would make a great leader for maybe 25% of the USA whose moral conviction play out as abstinence if sex is not for making babies. I am sure that all the members here would applaud this as social policy in the good old USA.
I call him Mr rick because he looks like the dashing gay blade who used to cut one of my X's hair who was called Mr Rick in his salon.
The general poplulation doesn't buy this stuff no matter whatever the republican primaries might say:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_santorum_vs_obama-2912.html
_________________________________________________________.
The president demonstrates problems with the basic job skills while the republicans play a game as to who can tame the far right wind of the grand old party[that represents maybe 25% of the electorate. ]
While the country self destructs-I can imagine bill clinton play sax with the rolling stones while mick sings honky tonk women-a modern equivalent of nero playing the fiddle while rome burns
All this nonsense about who has wealth is just an attempt to divert attention from the fact that the economy of the United States is in the gutter and will remain in the gutter as long as Obama's birdbrain policies are followed.
Member #4112
02-14-12, 12:00
Esten, sitting on your ass, with your hand out for a government program to fill is not capitalism it's typical liberal feel good policies with someone else's money.
I gave you two very specific criteria by which to judge the 'great society' welfare programs effectiveness which you have ignored, as usual.
Yes the 1960's Great Society is where this monster started. It's like eating possum, the longer you chew it the bigger it gets!
My suggestion is to totally abolish ALL FEDERAL WELFARE PROGRAMs, turn them over to the several states to fund and manage as each state sees fit. This would include MEDICAID, which would also revert to the several states.
Reduce the Federal Tax Rate since the Fed does not have to feed the Welfare Monster anymore.
Let the private charities do their work with VOLUNTARY donations from the 'evil rich' and get the Federal Government out of the welfare business.
The Federal Government has collected taxes from both employees and employers for years for MEDICARE and SOCIAL SECURITY, as such they should be continued at the Federal level, but these programs need to be returned to their original payment schedules which do not include spouses, kids and all the other additional pay outs never envisioned in the original program.
Last but not least, your arguments are much like Obama's man Lee trying to explain how Obama's budget which adds an additional Trillion dollars to the national debt is a good thing.
It's the Keep It Simple Stupid – STOP SPENDING MONEY WE DON'T HAVE!
Esten, is that specific enough for you?
http://news.yahoo.com/santorum-calls-occupy-movement-intolerant-protestors-interrupt-him-001541619.html
I guess rick doesn't like BBBJ. Rick when you visit the privados in baires ask for bucal sin
Unfortunately, that is almost never acknowledged on this site. Politics doesn't belong here. The divisions in the contemporary USA will not be resolved here. This forum serves a better purpose to share what we can share about things.
I think we all agree that the "social conservatives" would want 99. 999999% of the membership here stoned and flogged in public as an example to the youth that we are all ungodly perverts. Maybe mr rick would bring back the guillotine to cut off jackosn's head during half-time of next years superbowl.
NO the guillotine is french and well all know how those "social conservatives "generally feel about all things french.
It is unfortunate that the current republican candidates have to pander to the social conservatives. A "moderate republican" can beat the president, but the party base apparently is in revolt and mitt is now a severely conservative guy and was a severely conservative governor.
The mitt of the past who I was assuming I would vote for is getting sliced and diced in the sausage machine and coming out severely conservative at the end of the assembly line.
Member #4112
02-14-12, 19:22
Bob, I readily agree intelligent people can have very different views of the body politic; an example would be Esten and me. We have been going at it for years now and nothing has changed. We continue to swap good natured barbs.
No we are not going to change anyone's mind on this site or anywhere else for that matter, but me thinks you take this tread much too seriously. I also think you are confusing social conservatives as a general group with evangelicals.
If Mr. Rick is going to cut off my Johnson he better bring a magnifying glass and some tweezers, cause that's what it's going to take to find that sucker!
As far as Mitt is concerned, it is pretty clear he will be the nominee. What you are seeing in these smaller races are the conservatives telling Mitt he needs to get off center and move right. No different than Obama getting off center, well maybe not 'center' but moving more to the left to satisfy his base.
If you remember during the 2008 campaign the Democrats did not choose a candidate until late in the primary season after some really bruising campaigns and he still went on to win.
I think the Catholic thing is going to really hurt Obama in the general election, there are a lot of Catholics out there and he just pissed them all off. Not because of the birth control per say but because he is forcing it down their throat by presidential fiat.
A Liberal, a Moderate and a Conservative walk into a bar.
The bartender says, "Hey Mitt !"
Esten, sitting on your ass, with your hand out for a government program to fill is not capitalism it's typical liberal feel good policies with someone else's money.Notice Doppel recycling a favorite right-wing message, that liberal policies are focused on giving handouts to lazy people. Why is such right-wing messaging and propaganda so pervasive? Because it helps prop up their ideological arguments, so they can feel good about their position. So they can believe they are right. No doubt, a significant chunk of Republican support depends on frequent repetition of such nonsense.
Now Doppel deserves credit for laying out his position with some details. But let's have a closer look.
Cutting all federal welfare (including Medicaid) would be a big hit. There is no way such a shortfall would be made up by the states, or by increased charitable giving. Not even close. Who takes the hit? Millions of lazy people with their hand out? Not quite.
About two-thirds of Medicaid (the largest welfare component) goes to spending on the elderly and disabled. Also, many people who receive welfare and can work make an honest effort to find work. With the high ratio of applicants to openings, it's inevitable that millions of people will not land a job. What's the number / cost of able-bodied people 'sitting on their ass' with their hand out, not making an honest effort? That number is unclear, but irrelevant to folks like Doppel. It's easier to just lump everybody together in one group, cut the funds, and let the chips fall where they may.
Likely outcomes would be:
- Increased leverage for employers, decreased leverage for workers. Which often translates into a poorer deal for workers.
- An increase in the poverty rate.
- An increase in economic inequality (already at extreme levels).
- An increase in infant and child mortality.
- A decrease in average life expectancy. Currently the US ranks 36th, well-behind other countries with universal health coverage.
To far-right Conservatives, it appears the risk of these outcomes is worth it, if we can weed out those lazy freeloaders.
You guys debating would be like ron paul and huntsman-everyone would fall asleep. You guys are missing the drama and idiocy of Rick perry, herman cain and super newt.
After newt loses the primaries and gets thrown out of clalista's bed, he should join ap and take sweet jazmin and her girlfriend carla for a weekend with TL's love drops supplied via iv. Newt could liven up this board and if he really had the balls to ask his wife with cancer for an open marriage,
He would fit right in here: there is no substitute for class.
Well back on point-don't want to confuse anyone-I have not been reading the political boards because all the nasty name calling and dumb repition was boring. I am re-reading your on-going dialog and it is a "reasonable discourse" my comments should not apply to the two of you. I stand corrected.
I for one miss WW. He actually would research and think through his postings even if I found him to have the sensitivity of gengus khan and the mongol hoard
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html
Is the USA ready for no contraceptives and sexual self control as a national policy? I guess covered BJ's may become illegal. Bootleggers will be running in illegal condoms from canada and mexico. Viagra will only be available to married men. Mr rick has the point of view of a good christian man from before martin luther's time. Each religion or even those without religion are entitled to their own point of view as long as it does impact those with other points of view.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-sheriff-babeu-20120219.0, 182908. Story.
A Republican freak of nature or an Democratic agent sent to cause disarray among the Republicans. The world is coming to an end.
Romney will be the Republican nominee and Obama will beat him because the economy is recovering just fast enough for that to happen. Obamacare will thus survive because even if the Democrats don't get a majority in Congress the Republicans won't be able to override a veto. Some states will refuse to implement the "insurance exchange" system and so that will mean more Medicaid enrollees. The Bush tax cuts will not survive in their entirety but the 10% bracket will survive. Capital gains will not be taxed the same as ordinary income but the preference will decrease. My bet is the 0% will go to 10% and the 15% will go to 20%. Dividends might go higher since people are too stupid to realize that one is a substitute for the other.
I am not political. I am practical. You set up whatever system and I will do my best to beat it. But these are my predictions so let's see how it all shakes out. I will vote for Obama not because he is the Messiah but because I selfishly believe I will be better off under him than under either Sanctimonio or Rich Fuck Mormon. Ideology means nothing to me and my net cash flow means everything to me.
Now let's return to our regularly scheduled righty lefty bullshit.
Punter 127
02-19-12, 06:18
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-sheriff-babeu-20120219
0, 182908. Story.
A Republican freak of nature or an Democratic agent sent to cause disarray among the Republicans. The world is coming to an end.Your link is bad.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-sheriff-babeu-20120219
0, 182908. Story.
A Republican freak of nature or an Democratic agent sent to cause disarray among the Republicans. The world is coming to an end.Well, the news story is of the Arizona sheriff who is running for Congress, Paul Babeu, a rising Republican star. He disclosed his gay identity after exposure that he is featured in a gay soliciting web site. In addition, it was reported that he threatened his former lover, with deportation if he disclosed their relationship.
How about some posting about chicas or a good restaurant or bar. You are the master of cost-effective mongering in BA. Newbies-this is the guy to listen to HE KNOWS HIS STUFF.
You guys debating would be like ron paul and huntsman-everyone would fall asleep. You guys are missing the drama and idiocy of Rick perry, herman cain and super newt.I couldn't miss it if I tried! The GOP race is on the news every day, every hour it seems. Occasionally I get tired of the news so dominated with it, but sooner or later I find myself wanting to check in on the latest. It's turning out to be good for the Obama team, I'm sure they're happy to have it go on as long as possible. I am looking forward to seeing what quotes and clips end up in the fall campaign.
I generally don't post about the GOP race, I prefer discussing and exposing the pervasive bullshit in right wing policies and positions. But they are certainly connected.
My favorite guy so far is Rick Perry. Too bad he dropped out. All Obama would have had to do is run his 'Oops' debate performance as a commerical over and over.
"I will tell you: It's three agencies of government, when I get there, that are gone: Commerce, Education and the -- what's the third one there? Let's see. . OK. So Commerce, Education and the -- . The third agency of government I would -- I would do away with the Education, the . Commerce and -- let's see -- I can't. The third one, I can't. Sorry. Oops."My gawd, what an epic embarrassment for Perry, and for the state of Texas. And he's had several other embarrassing quotes too. But forgetting the three agencies he wants to cut? What that tells me, is this could not possibly have been a policy position he's thought through and held for a long time. You wouldn't forget something like that. No, Perry and his handlers probably whipped this up prior to the debate, to help separate himself from the pack, to help portray him as a leader with great, bold policies. But then he forgot, live on national television. The guy comes across as the consumate snake-oil salesman. Maybe he can sweet-talk his believers in the conservative state of Texas, but his bullshit wouldn't have stood a chance against a reasoned thinker like Obama. Too bad, I would have loved to watch Obama. Perry debates.
Now Perry's latest, he jumped on Newt's bandwagon as it was surging ahead. Now Newt slid back to third.
There will be plenty of time to talk about Romney and Santorum. I don't care who their nominee is. They will lose. Not because of their candidate but because of their policies and positions. The single biggest one being their position on taxes. The GOP nominee will not be the most important person determining Obama's win. The most important person helping Obama win will be Grover Norquist.
I think Dickhead's predictions are pretty sound.
I am not sure the economy is going to save Obama. I expect the economy to be more or less a mess come November I. E. Housing markets a disaster, inflation starting to raise its ugly head, national debt increasing at warp speed, real unemployment unacceptable. I don't think Obama can make a dent in these problems because Obama's understanding of a free market economy could be written on the back of a postage stamp with a lot a space left over.
The real issue is that the Republicans might nominate a knucklehead. Much like their senatorial candidates in nevada and Delaware in 2010.
Member #4112
02-20-12, 12:39
Dick Head makes some good points but I believe the election will be too close to call until late on election night baring some unforeseen major event, be it good or bad for either side.
If you look back at other elections, the incumbent always sees a rise in his popularity as the other party's presidential candidates attack each other. All the incumbent has to do is remain in the back ground and at least give the impression of being presidential, so Esten I would not start counting the election won at this point.
I do think the election will turn into a dog fight late this summer and Obama's current above 50% approval rating will plummet as the election nears.
Where is why :
1. Gas prices continue to rise and will be at or above $4 / gal before the election, you will see plenty of ads quoting Obama's US Secretary of Energy Steven Chu 'somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe' as they continue to force the American public 'Green' by choking off domestic production via regulation and red tape. XL Pipeline anyone?
2. The Catholic Church contraceptive issue is not going to go away, as one case filed on behalf of a Catholic institution has already been granted a temporary injunction prohibiting the Fed from implementing it. This will be a wedge issue which will cost Obama badly needed votes come November.
3. Obama's continued treatment of Israel as the 'red headed step child' is already costing Obama votes in the Jewish community and the administration's further demands for Israel to refrain from defending itself will only accelerate the loss of the Jewish vote.
4. Obama will suffer a reversal of fortune in the Supreme Court at the end of June or first of July as the individual mandate is found unconstitutional.
5. The companion case to this regarding severability will most probably come out against Obama as well since trying to insert a 'severability clause' into the legislation after it was written, enacted and signed into law is futile and will result in the entire law collapsing.
6. Unemployment will come back to haunt Obama as the masses lose their Unemployment Benefits they are now turning to Disability which is paid by the Social Security Trust Fund.
A. When granted disability they are removed from the 'unemployment rolls' but added to the already overburdened social security disability rolls, FYI the Social Security Trust Fund is scheduled to go bankrupt in 2018.
B. By the way 5. 3% of all Americans now receive disability payments from the Social Security Trust Fund. The number approved for disability has increased 18% since 2008 and continues to accelerate.
C. This manipulation of unemployment numbers and disability numbers will be another negative for Obama
7. Once the GOP primary battles are over, the GOP candidate will turn all that attention on Obama and his record.
Have a good day
Newt is a pig, but at least he has soul and isn't boring. Mitt just loves the height of the trees in michigan and lakes, lots of lakes. He drove a mustang-wowwie zowwie a mustang-
Sarah pallin on the 40th ballet, is the only one left standing. She gets herman's and rick perry's left over delegates delegates and mr rick's by promising to campaign on her daughters being taught to never use condoms during their home schooling. Public schools teach the youth of america about ungodly things like condoms.
While this goes on and the world stratches it's head-Obama will open up an annex of the the governmet printing office to set-up exrtra printing presses in the White house to keep-up with the demand for more $$. He moves michelle and the girls and 47 secret service guys into trailer park and he pays less taxes than warren buffet's secretary.
Only in the USA
Newt is suggesting he could get gas down to $2 / gallon as president.
One of his arguments is that we actually had $2 gas not too long ago. That the national average was below $2 when Obama was inaugurated. Republicans also use this to show how much gas has increased under Obama. Of course, they all fail to point out that these events occured near the bottom of a market crash.
They're also claiming Obama's policies have caused the rise in gas prices, especially Keystone, but no oil projects he might have approved would have brought any oil to market at this point. The other angle is that Obama has been weak with Iran, and this is causing oil to go up.
As usual, these jokers are grasping at anything they can to advance themselves politically. It is comical, and a shame.
Here's an article with some stats you will never hear these guys mention. One of the most noteworthy IMO - more drilling rigs are being deployed in America today than at any time since the mid 1980's.
Oil and Gas Jobs Increase by 75,000 Under Obama — 69,000 More Than Would Be Created By Keystone XL
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/01/18/406314/oil-and-gas-jobs-increase-by-75000-under-obama-69000-more-than-would-be-created-by-keystone-xl/
Oil and Gas Jobs Increase by 75, 000 Under Obama — 69, 000 More Than Would Be Created By Keystone XL.
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/01/18/406314/oil-and-gas-jobs-increase-by-75000-under-obama-69000-more-than-would-be-created-by-keystone-xl/All these jobs are a result of north Dakota Balkan formation oil development. This had nothing to do with Obama, but guesse who? The devil George W! It takes time to ramp up oil development. Your facts are totally misdirection BULLSHIT! Shame on you spin Boy! I live in this part of the world and no one out here would ever attribute this sole example of energy growth to Obamanation. WTF. I thought you were actually much smarter than this! Guesse you just have to use any distorted metric to support your boy. Obomanations record is "what it is"! Deal with it! Happy Mongering All. Toymann
Your facts are totally misdirection BULLSHIT! Shame on you spin Boy! WTF. I thought you were actually much smarter than this! Guesse you just have to use any distorted metric to support your boy."Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong." Rousseau, Jean Jacques
"Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong." Rousseau, Jean JacquesWe are allowed to be colourful here [Deleted by Admin]! Read the political threads and stop sounding like a [Deleted by Admin] everytime I post. Esten and I are friends [Deleted by Admin] and colourful exchanges have dominated this and the other political thread for years. As most liberals on this board you do not address the facts of my post. So I guesse you are now an expert on the Balkins. LMAO. Suggest you stay off these threads unless you want to discuss the issues and not whine about the form of my posts here. Trust me, Esten wasn't offended. Now go out and save some whales or continue your lecture series on internet chat board etiquette.
Happy Mongering All,
Toymann
EDITOR'S NOTE: This report was edited in accordance with the Forum's Zero Tolerance policy regarding reports containing any personal attacks or derogatory comments directed towards another Forum Member or the Forum Membership in general.
Once again your post proves my point. But what can one expect from someone who needs to use toys?
"Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong." Rousseau, Jean JacquesNow you are referencing a Frenchman, too funny (but of course YOU are not a wild-ass liberal). Go back to whale watching dude. Happy Mongering All. Toymann
Hey Toymann that's cool. If you think that article implies Obama created those jobs (even though it does NOT claim this) , fair enough for you to point out some of those jobs were probably set in motion before Obama came along. If Bush had something to do with them, good for him, he did a few things right as I've said before. You guys should really stop calling him evil and saying everything was his fault.
The 'direction' of my post and that article, is to put the lie to the claim some Republicans are making that Obama is stifling oil & gas development. Jobs are increasing, rigs are increasing, production increasing. Those are the facts.
Now it was very interesting listening to Bill O'Reilly today. Recently he has had a rare, apolitical discussion of something, in this case what is causing the high price of gas. In fact he acknowledged production is up, and US demand is down due to the mild winter, so the high price contradicts the laws of supply and demand. Basically the take away was that the oil companies are exporting the oil, in turn reducing the US supply, driving the price up. If this is true, increasing production further (as Republicans want) is not necessarily the answer to driving the price back down. O'Reilly then goes on to suggest something surprising (from a conservative) : Obama could ask Congress to raise export taxes on oil companies, to encourage them to sell more oil in the US (thereby driving down price).
That's an idea worth discussion. Republicans won't likely get behind it though, given their earlier vigorous opposition to ending tax loopholes for Big Oil, and the ideological positions they have dug themselves into on taxes and 'government meddling' in the private market.
So my designated wild-ass liberal monger. Did you watch the debate tonight. As a liberal wanting a second term for obomanation, who of the GOP candidates concern you the most? Furthermore, what do you think of Romney's 28% max tax, close the loopholes revenue neutral idea. Inquiring minds want to know. Monger on Dude. Toymann.
Hey Toymann that's cool. If you think that article implies Obama created those jobs (even though it does NOT claim this) , fair enough for you to point out some of those jobs were probably set in motion before Obama came along. If Bush had something to do with them, good for him, he did a few things right as I've said before. You guys should really stop calling him evil and saying everything was his fault.
The 'direction' of my post and that article, is to put the lie to the claim some Republicans are making that Obama is stifling oil & gas development. Jobs are increasing, rigs are increasing, production increasing. Those are the facts.
Now it was very interesting listening to Bill O'Reilly today. Recently he has had a rare, apolitical discussion of something, in this case what is causing the high price of gas. In fact he acknowledged production is up, and US demand is down due to the mild winter, so the high price contradicts the laws of supply and demand. Basically the take away was that the oil companies are exporting the oil, in turn reducing the US supply, driving the price up. If this is true, increasing production further (as Republicans want) is not necessarily the answer to driving the price back down. O'Reilly then goes on to suggest something surprising (from a conservative) : Obama could ask Congress to raise export taxes on oil companies, to encourage them to sell more oil in the US (thereby driving down price).
That's an idea worth discussion. Republicans won't likely get behind it though, given their earlier vigorous opposition to ending tax loopholes for Big Oil, and the ideological positions they have dug themselves into on taxes and 'government meddling' in the private market.
WorldTravel69
02-23-12, 13:54
http://screen.yahoo.com/crazystupidpolitics/
Punter 127
02-24-12, 00:56
5 Biggest Whoppers In Obama's Energy Speech
Energy: The White House billed President Obama's energy policy speech as a response to mounting criticism of record high gas prices. What he delivered was a grab bag of excuses and outright falsehoods.
Obama's main message to struggling motorists was: It's not my fault, so stop whining. The speech only got worse from there, recycling excuses and myths that Obama's peddled for years. But there were some standout whoppers that deserve debunking. The five biggest:
"We're focused on production."
Fact: While production is up under Obama, this has nothing to do with his policies, but is the result of permits and private industry efforts that began long before Obama occupied the White House.
Obama has chosen almost always to limit production. He canceled leases on federal lands in Utah, suspended them in Montana, delayed them in Colorado and Utah, and canceled lease sales off the Virginia coast.
His administration also has been slow-walking permits in the Gulf of Mexico, approving far fewer while stretching out review times, according to the Greater New Orleans Gulf Permit Index. The Energy Dept. Says Gulf oil output will be down 17% by the end of 2013, compared with the start of 2011. Swift Energy President Bruce Vincent is right to say Obama has "done nothing but restrict access and delay permitting."
"The USA consumes more than a fifth of the world's oil. But we only have 2% of the world's oil reserves."
Fact: Obama constantly refers to this statistic to buttress his claim that "we can't drill our way to lower gas prices." The argument goes that since the USA supply is limited, it won't ever make a difference to world prices.
It's bogus. New exploration and drilling technologies have uncovered vast amounts of recoverable oil.
In fact, the USA has a mind-boggling 1. 4 trillion barrels of oil, enough to "fuel the present needs in the USA for around 250 years," according to the Institute for Energy Research. The problem is the government has put most of this supply off limits.
"Because of the investments we've made, the use of clean, renewable energy in this country has nearly doubled."
Fact: Production of renewable energy — biomass, wind, solar and the like — climbed just 12% between 2008 and 2011, according to the federal Energy Information Administration.
"We need to double-down on a clean energy industry that's never been more promising."
Fact: Renewable energy simply won't play an important role in the country's energy picture anytime soon, accounting for just 13% of USA energy production by 2035, according to the EIA.
"There are no short-term silver bullets when it comes to gas prices."
Fact: Obama could drive down oil prices right now simply by announcing a more aggressive effort to boost domestic supplies. When President Bush lifted a moratorium in 2008, oil prices immediately fell $9 a barrel.
Obama said in his speech that Americans aren't stupid. He's right about that, which is why most are giving his energy policy a thumbs down.This clown needs to go ASAP.
We have such a huge supply of natural gas and the prices are so low, that the gas producers are capping their wells. The natural gas the is loccated incidental to drilling for oil is being released and not captured. The techology is mature safe and readily available. The distrubution system is being built out with out any government incentives. The president says the USA is the saudi arabia of natural gas. It is also clean in term of green-house gas emmissions. The natural and near perfect solution.
The has been a bill pending every year to provvide tax credist for conversion to natural gas for larger commercial vehicles. Minor changes in the regulartory framework without a tax incentive would spend-up the conversation process and create jobs and lessen our dependence on imported oil.
Bboth the parties and all the candidates are sucking on "big oil's" tit and nothing can be done.
The natural gas industry is preparing the liquify USA's cheap natural gas and export it to europe and asia. Do some reading on westport energy's website and chaniere's site.
I may write in the name elmer fudd when I vote in the next election.
We have such a huge supply of natural gas and the prices are so low, that the gas producers are capping their wells. The natural gas the is loccated incidental to drilling for oil is being released and not captured. The techology is mature safe and readily available. The distrubution system is being built out with out any government incentives. The president says the USA is the saudi arabia of natural gas. It is also clean in term of green-house gas emmissions. The natural and near perfect solution.
The has been a bill pending every year to provvide tax credist for conversion to natural gas for larger commercial vehicles. Minor changes in the regulartory framework without a tax incentive would spend-up the conversation process and create jobs and lessen our dependence on imported oil.
Bboth the parties and all the candidates are sucking on "big oil's" tit and nothing can be done.
The natural gas industry is preparing the liquify USA's cheap natural gas and export it to europe and asia. Do some reading on westport energy's website and chaniere's site.
I may write in the name elmer fudd when I vote in the next election.As citizens and consumers, do we really have a choice? Yeah, peddle a bicycle. Yet, we have the propoganda machine that urges us to consume more, and to dig more. Profit (as in domination) is the controlling factor. Our lifestyles, even the lowliest of the middle class far exceeds 75% (?) of the world. Yeah, when we buy that 2nd or 3rd car, or when we buy just to buy, we have to question our culture or our lifestyle. But that would be telling people how to live, and that's just not America. The sad truth is that when we buy, most of us are not in control of what we buy or why we buy, we just like to think that we do.
The sad truth is that when we buy, most of us are not in control of what we buy or why we buy, we just like to think that we do.Totally lost me with that one BlackShirt, mind clarifying this point. Inquiring minds want to know. Happy Mongering All. Toymann
Well, I was hoping that Newt would get the nomination, but it looks like Whiny Willard, baptizer extraordinaire will be able to buy it. So seeing that someone as stupid as Toymann (remember South Carolina?) is convinced that the Mormon will beat Obama: I am now taking the bet of the "man" who needs toys to back up his lack of testosterone, dimension and technique and has his head up his ass. Since I don't like to be seen with losers nor ugly individuals who can't spell, after Obama wins, the limp dick Toymann can give the Madaho's money I have won to Jackson and I'll pick it up from him. By the way Toymann, you have been blocked (by Jackson), so any future girlish insulting posts referring to whale watchers will not be seen by me. Maybe they will interest others, although I doubt it. So don't spend all your money on more toys or your fishing trips and make sure my Madaho's money (taking inflation into account let's call it an even 2000 pesos) is put aside for November.
Obviously if the Republicans get smart and don´t run Willard, the bet´s off.
Totally lost me with that one BlackShirt, mind clarifying this point. Inquiring minds want to know. Happy Mongering All. ToymannJust walk around or look in the mirror. The kind of food Americans choose to consume is a prime example of my statement. Are Americans more healthy just because life expectancy is longer that say 50 years ago? Who is really in control when your kids throw a trantrum because you chose not to go to McDonalds? Or even when you choose to go voluntary. And the size of the servings, I will stop right here.
The Goldman Sacks partners may decide that it is worth $100, 000, 000. Or more to get rid of the Obama guy. Let's presume set up thru Litchenstin-which never signed the tax treaty with the USA- the boys/gals set-up 100 corporations hiding thru Panama and the channel islands to each donate money to a number of different super packs. They have lunch with a few of their friends and former partners to raise another $100, 000, 000.
Now the wall street robber barons plaster the tv with public relations info and commercials to sell whatever themes their market research suggests would influnce the moderates in the USA to vote for anyone other than Obama. The just buy the elections, the same way mcdonalds influences average good people to buy their unhealthy shit that passes for food. [sorry to those out there who love micky D's-it is a collection of unehalthy and minimally nuitritous, ok tasting stuff]
Or assume that the shoe is one the other foot: instead of goldman sacks, warren buffet and a group of super-rich democrat types and entertainment businss folks, put up their own half billion dollars to sell the american people their own brand of horse manure-they could elect fidel castro on a write-in campaign as burak is too moderate for them.
USA will become a super circus with these new powerful super packs-elections need fund raising reform of some type. The new super packs will provide even more power to the super wealthy-a club the requires hundreds of millions of dollars to belong.
OK-I have been reading about mitt's nw tax proposals-it's trickle down economics, which was called "voodoo economics" by mainstream republicans 20 years ago-what's good for the rich, is good for the poor as the new found wealth of the wealthy will trickle down.........
Is this just a bad joke. I grew up in another country, that loves to bash the US, but your statement is totally idiotic! I am virtually speechless (and that says something). Sorry I ever asked you to elaborate. Either you are totally arrogant to judge america based on your perceptions of fast food or meal portion size or just a ranting idiot. Sorry for engaging your initial post. Over and out! Where is WW when I need him. I'm guessing he is watching this thread and ROTFLHAO. Happy Mongering All. Toymann
I was SHOCKED reading this:
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
The changes in distribution 1983 to almost today:
Distribution of wealth, USA, over time.
The concentration of wealth in the top 1% 1900 to 2010:-this from a business magazine, no lefty source here-look at the charts-radical concentration of wealth in th top 1% `1945 to 2010 increasing. During the reagan years and Bush II years-the boat has not been rising for evryone:
http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4
My conclusions: rickle down economics are against the economic interests of at least 90% of the population, if not really 99%. I think that blackshirt makes a valid point all thought the way he makes it is not too clear. You can sell almost anything if you can spend enough $$
If it pleases you, I am the ranting idiot. I don't any problem with whatever characterization you want to put me in.
I don't judge America by just what it eats. It is the waste and over-indulgence that will erode our wealth and our moral strength. An old wisdom, it takes 3 generations to waste a fortune. We are on our way there. History has a habit of repeating itself.
Junk is food is not necessay bad food, but it is food that you should not be eating all the time. It is convenient food made for the American lifestyle. Diabetes is epidemic in America, and is making healthcare very expensive. A drink that made American very rich and famous is now banned in schools. So does that tell you anything.
WW, I need you, too. Come on back in! I think Toymann needs some mentoring.
This idea that those who work hard, have ability and accumulate wealth are evil and should be demonized is interesting.
If you want to see concentration of wealth look at the sports world. Tens of million of people play sports at some level. Little league baseball, junior high basketball, girls soccer. However. 99. 9999999% of the wealth in sports is concentrated in the hands of about 1000 professional athletes. Nobody asks these athletes to share their wealth with the 99. 9999999% of athletes who don't have their talent, their work ethics or their genetics.
The sad truth is that the vast majority of people with limited success also have limited ability. These people are the equivalent of 3 foot tall basketball players, 95 pound pound football players or 400 pound sprinters. We do not punish or condemn successful athletes and we should not punish or condemn successful people.
The Goldman Sacks partners may decide that it is worth $100, 000, 000. Or more to get rid of the Obama guy. Let's presume set up thru Litchenstin-which never signed the tax treaty with the USA- the boys / gals set-up 100 corporations hiding thru Panama and the channel islands to each donate money to a number of different super packs. They have lunch with a few of their friends and former partners to raise another $100, 000, 000.
Now the wall street robber barons plaster the tv with public relations info and commercials to sell whatever themes their market research suggests would influnce the moderates in the USA to vote for anyone other than Obama. The just buy the elections, the same way mcdonalds influences average good people to buy their unhealthy shit that passes for food. [sorry to those out there who love micky D's-it is a collection of unehalthy and minimally nuitritous, ok tasting stuff]
Or assume that the shoe is one the other foot: instead of goldman sacks, warren buffet and a group of super-rich democrat types and entertainment businss folks, put up their own half billion dollars to sell the american people their own brand of horse manure-they could elect fidel castro on a write-in campaign as burak is too moderate for them.
USA will become a super circus with these new powerful super packs-elections need fund raising reform of some type. The new super packs will provide even more power to the super wealthy-a club the requires hundreds of millions of dollars to belong.
OK-I have been reading about mitt's nw tax proposals-it's trickle down economics, which was called "voodoo economics" by mainstream republicans 20 years ago-what's good for the rich, is good for the poor as the new found wealth of the wealthy will trickle down.The rich and powerful making sure of the status quo is not unique to America. It is a world wide phenomenon. Only question I suppose, is that if you are rich and powerful, what stance would you be taking?
The reagan years:
http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4#if-you-arent-in-the-top-1-then-youre-getting-a-bum-deal-15
If your income is earned rather than from capital gains and interest on financial instruments, you are getting crapped on. The top 1% will do with their money whatever is in their own best interest. Starting jobs through investment might be somewhere on the list, but for most it is preservation of capital and minimizing risk of loss of capital.
The guys on this board with over $10,000,000, are you investing to start businesses to provide jobs or investing in manufacturing companies who might expand plants and hire workers in the USA? Most I know are holding a large % in cash or t-bills and are concerned about preserving capital and trying to beat the rate of inflation.
The guys on this board with over $10, 000, 000Oh sure. You are talking about Vietnamese Dong, right?
I am presenting facts. Supply-side economics really benefit the top 1%. The concentration of wealth over the last 25 years is shocking-is it evil? That may be your judgement. You generally post in a positive, thoughtful manner. I try to also do so.
These postings are in reaction to Mitt's new tax proposals. I wanted to be able to vote for Mitt six months ago. His history was that of a brilliant creative problem solver who made policy judgements based upon data, not ideology. Mitt has made his deals with the far right wing of the republican base. I am saddened because I am personally repulsed by the ideology of the far ultra right and personally believe that it will concentrate more wealth and maybe be positive looking out a few years, but it will be the beginning of the end of the this great noble experiment which is the USA. The economic classes will be further congealed and the the middle class and the educational system will be further eroded.
The dream and reality of social mobility-which made the USA great-will slowly be chocked off over the next few generations. The left wing has destroyed.
Argentina since 1948. The right wing is equally capable of destroying the USA-while creating an appearance of economic prosperity for a few years.
This is what the data shows me. Is that evil-I don't think good and bad belong in this discussion. What type of USA to you want to see in 50 years-one that leaves a school teacher to die in the street outside a hospital? A nation that out-sources labor to other countries and has a poor uneducated underclass. Making strictly economic decisions based on a business school case study model of analysis-this is your future.
Mitt in an interview while governor of mass was asked about the difference between governing a state and running a business. Mitt said that they were very different set of responsibilities as the objectives of government are much more complicated then running a business. I hope that he remembers this if elected when the political cronies and contributors ask for their favors. It is going to take lots of $$ with super packs polluting the airwaves with half-truths that appeal to voters' more base instincts if out to win at all costs
ALAMO--you are a very thoughtful intelligent guy. This is whether posting about the ladies or politics. If we are in BA at the same time, the first round is on me. I abore talking politics with almost all extreme right wingers because they hold their political beliefs with a religious fervor so that dialog is impossible. I listen to rush Limbaugh in the car because is is absurd and ridiculous--he makes me laugh. Rush can and does laugh at himself and sometimes even the implications of his point of view--they guy is an entertainer who is on radio to sell advertising
Unless you are here to work or you have a very economically comfortable retirement or you are an ex-patriot; it takes wealth and leasure time to spend substantial time in BA. The life style for folks with a bit of money invested securely outside of Argentina, is very nice in buenos aires.
If you are earning a living in Argentina and are dependent of there local policies to generate the money to pay your basic bills, it can be a nightmare and takes fortitude and "special know how" and good advice and trial and error.
Oh sure. You are talking about Vietnamese Dong, right?Good one Hooky! Thats damn funny! Happy Mongering All. Toymann
WorldTravel69
02-26-12, 05:11
Come on you Republicans vote for him.
No rubbers, sounds good to me.
The 13th Century man, Chastiity belts again. They were like girdlies (Spelling, sorry I had a hard time getting my dick around them) in the 60s.
So my designated wild-ass liberal monger. Did you watch the debate tonight. As a liberal wanting a second term for obomanation, who of the GOP candidates concern you the most? Furthermore, what do you think of Romney's 28% max tax, close the loopholes revenue neutral idea. Inquiring minds want to know. Monger on Dude. Toymann.I didn't watch the debate, not interested enough. I can get caught up quickly listening to the news the next day. Their "he's not a real conservative" attacks on each other are stupid, grasping at anything they can. But that's not surprising.
Just based on polling, Romney would pose the best challenge to Obama. His tax plan is better than a flat tax, which would be a huge giveaway to top income earners. But his all-bracket tax cut plan is still a typical Republican one, almost certain to help the rich get richer and increase economic inequality (just less so than a flat tax). It's typical Republican snake oil.
Compare a high vs. middle-income worker:
BEFORE ROMNEY PLAN
High income 500K - 175K (@35% Tax) = 325K (59%)
Middle income 50K - 12.5K (@25% Tax) = 37.5K (7%)
Government 175 + 12.5 = 187.5K (34%)
AFTER ROMNEY PLAN
High income 500K - 140K (@28% Tax) = 360K (65.5%)
Middle income 50K - 10K (@20% Tax) = 40K (7.3%)
Government 140 + 10 = 150K (27.2%)
There is some rounding off here, but basically Romney's plan benefits a high-income worker far more than a middle-income worker. It is upwards wealth redistribution.
Now Romney says he would pay for it by closing loopholes and deductions, but the devil is in the details, which Romney hasn't spelled out. If even part of that hits low and middle income workers, that could wipe out any gain they saw from their small tax cut. In order for Romney's plan not to increase economic inequality, the closed loopholes and deductions would have to almost entirely hit high incomes only. But Romney hasn't given us the details. In fact his plan also eliminates the estate tax (good for the rich) and requires $500 Billion of spending cuts (will likely hit everyone).
Romney's plan is Republican feel-good snake oil, designed to get the masses focused on the idea their taxes will go down. He doesn't want you to think too much about the other details, that will be needed to balance the budget. His plan is almost certain to worsen economic inequality in the US.
His plan is almost certain to worsen economic inequality in the US.Never understand this liberal point of view! Democracy and capitalism always works like this. WORK HARD, FOCUS, SACRIFICE, catch a break or two and guese what? You get ahead and make some money. Nothing more american than that ESTEN! There is nothing un-american about getting ahead and MAKING MONEY. Socialism works very differently. SIT ON YOUR ASS, COMPLAIN LOUDLY, and WAIT FOR YOUR GOVERNMENT HANDOUT. There will always be "economic inequality" ESTEN. You make it sound like a "dirty word"!
There is absolutely nothing un-american about that! Sometimes I wonder if liberals really ever understood what made america the greatest country the world has ever seen so far. It's very cool when an immigrant can land in the US, start washing dishes and then one day OWN THE REASURANT! Thats the american dream baby and many of us have lived it first hand. Economic inequality my ass. LIKE WHO CARES! My dos centavos. Happy Mongering All. Toymann
WORK HARD, FOCUS, SACRIFICE, catch a break or two and guese what? You get ahead and make some money. Nothing more american than that ESTEN! There is nothing un-american about getting ahead and MAKING MONEY.Agreed! Those are American values. Liberals support them just as Conservatives do. Raising taxes on higher incomes does not negate those values. There is still plenty of reward for people that work for it.
Guess what Toymann, in a democracy the government is supposed to reflect the will of the people. Most people support higher taxes on the wealthy as part of an approach to balancing budgets and funding programs people want. That includes safety nets for the jobless, poor and disabled. Apparently to folks like you, all those people are lazy, and any support of safety nets equates with supporting laziness and government dependancy.
Once again, we see conservatives recycling their stereotypes. All that does is demonstrate how shallow their analysis really is.
jobless, poor and disabled. .Disabled? Give me a break dude. Our discussion had nothing to do with the disabled. There are currently loads of programs for the disabled. Kinda of using a pretty extreme, out of context example. Don't ya think? As far as taxation goes. Let me follow your logic. Today, the 85% that pay only 15% of the country's taxes would like the 15% that pay 85% of the taxes to PAY MORE! Of course they would Esten. When did that EVER go out of style. You could have asked those americans that question for the past 100 years and the answer would always have been YES! What a shocker! Those that have not have always wanted those that have to GIVE THEM A FREE HANDOUT. This is nothing new Esten. My point is soley that this type of attitude is totally un-american. Obama's class warefare approach was always going to be appealing to most of those that depend on government handouts or are looking for a free lunch. Nothing shocking about that dude and hardly representative of americans, today or 50 years ago. Happy Mongering On. Toymann
As far as taxation goes. Let me follow your logic. Today, the 85% that pay only 15% of the country's taxes would like the 15% that pay 85% of the taxes to PAY MORE! Of course they would Esten. When did that EVER go out of style.Don't feel sorry for the top few % who pay most of the taxes. They also make most of all income and accumulate most of all wealth. In fact this is the only group who has seen their wealth grow significantly in recent decades. Everybody else has eaked out meager gains, is flat, or has lost ground. Your cherished free-market capitalism is increasingly benefitting only a small group. How did you get suckered into sympathizing for them?
Your argument is also flawed as to who wants who to pay what. Some people in the 85% don't want the wealthy to pay more taxes. More importantly, many people in the 15% want the 15% (themselves) to pay more. So it's not as simple as one group wanting another group to pay more.
Millionaire Investor Calls for Higher Taxes on the Rich
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/millionaire-investor-calls-higher-taxes-rich-145808200.html
"People in the top 1 percent are paying historically low tax rates," he says."That's simply an unsustainable way to run a capitalistic society."
Hanauer admits he paid an 11 percent tax rate on an eight-figure income in 2010. He's one of several millionaires speaking out against what he feels is an outdated system that disproportionately benefits the rich at the country's. And the middle class's. Expense.This article has a lot of good information. I like his quote at the end :
"If it was true that the rich and business were job creators, we'd be drowning in jobs today."
There are many wealthy people who feel the same way as this guy. Why do you think that is? To borrow some Republican rhetoric, do you think they want to "punish" themselves? Maybe, just maybe, they have taken a hard look at the system and concluded it does a poor job of sharing the prosperity it creates.
The problem is not rich people. The problem is rigid ideology.
Texas Tornado
02-28-12, 03:10
Don't feel sorry for the top few % who pay most of the taxes. They also make most of all income and accumulate most of all wealth. In fact this is the only group who has seen their wealth grow significantly in recent decades. Everybody else has eaked out meager gains, is flat, or has lost ground. Your cherished free-market capitalism is increasingly benefitting only a small group. How did you get suckered into sympathizing for them?
Your argument is also flawed as to who wants who to pay what. Some people in the 85% don't want the wealthy to pay more taxes. More importantly, many people in the 15% Want the 15% (themselves) To pay more. So it's not as simple as one group wanting another group to pay more.
Millionaire Investor Calls for Higher Taxes on the Rich.
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/millionaire-investor-calls-higher-taxes-rich-145808200.html
This article has a lot of good information. I like his quote at the end :
"If it was true that the rich and business were job creators, we'd be drowning in jobs today."
There are many wealthy people who feel the same way as this guy. Why do you think that is? To borrow some Republican rhetoric, do you think they want to "punish" themselves? Maybe, just maybe, they have taken a hard look at the system and concluded it does a poor job of sharing the prosperity it creates.
The problem is not rich people. The problem is rigid ideology.We could all find anyone to quote to validate our own positions. If you spent as much time on positive things in your life, you would be much better off.
http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4#if-you-arent-in-the-top-1-then-youre-getting-a-bum-deal-15
The actual class war fare has been the top 1% vs the other 99. The top 5% have made progress since the time of reagan, but nothing compared to the massive redistribution of wealth and income to the top one. Take a look at some of the other charts. Yes, there are individuals who have done well, but the charts and statistics deal with the nation as a whole. There aren't too many folks without some form of financial success who can regularly get to miami and then fly 9 hours south.
Google" redistirbution of wealth USA" the republicans are 100% correct that the wealthiest people pay almost all of the taxes-look at these charts and it will make sense. The purchasing power of the middle class has decreased and the net wealth of the wealthiest 1% has increased on a near parabolic curve.
It is supply side economics that has done this: what is best for the most wealthy is best for the USA-the benefits will trickle-down to the middle class. Guess what, it hasn't tricked down past the top 10% at all and the top 1% have received almost all of the gain. This is factual, not ideology. This is factual not that it sounds nice nor fits in with your world view. The real nut of the argument is: if you can't grab you piece of pie: fuck you and drop dead because I've got mine and don't want to share.
Maybe I should move to france-they have a better health care system, longer life expectancy and maybe a generally better quality of life. The french once believed in the divine right of kings, but stopped thinking that way a few hundred years ago. I am proud to be an american but embarrassed by the greed and extreme egocentric approach of many of my brothers and their view of the mutual rights and obligations that flow back and forth between the members of society.
If the gangs in LA had the same philosophy they would take a trip out to the suburbs with AK47's and kill all the security personnel and start pulling gold out of people's mouths because they had the power to do it. The pimps-no I mean political leaders.now are selling this supply side bull shit have facilitated the raping of the USA middle class- which is diminishing. Since 1983. What happened to the trillions of dollars that disappeared in the last financial unpleasantness-it wasn't vaporized?
I am a capitalist within the meaning of the term in the modern world. All modern economies of first world countries blend forms of capitalism with socialist type programs. George HW Bush called supply-side economics voodoo economics-I agree with him. If the distribution of wealth fell back to where is was when "W" took over the top 1% have still made out like bandits in the class warfare they have perpetrated since 1983.
PLEASE look at the data. I am pleased if many of the readers of this forum consider me a dumb shit-that is an honor within the context in which it is said. I usually walk away from political discussions on this forum because the level of discourse is vile name calling with a minimum amount of actual thought process. Eg Obama's mother is a working girl. Why? Because any white woman who would sleep with a black man in the 1950's is a working girl. This type of discussion is repulsive to me. It goes against whatever makes me a human being living in a modern world. Yes, there are people who think like that, but I don't want to discuss politics with them. I may share other things in common with them and should avoid political discourse.
I am going to stop political posting again. The last few months are the first times in 5 years or so. I don't feel the need to say anything else. Flame away-I don't burn too easily and I'll likely never look at this thread again. I haven't looked at the other political thread in many years.
I was hoping to have a choice rather than voting for Obama again. I don't see any choice that isn't worse than Obama out there in the republican primaries. Mitt in detroit talked about how right the trees are because what else could he say-days before he had explained how he would have let GM fail. Why would any industrial worker ever want to vote for him. Oh the lakes are so beautiful. Maybe he is embarrassed at what he has to say to obtain the republican nomination and can't look the industrial heartland straight in the eye.
I'd rather come to ap to chat about stuff relevant to my frequent visits to Argentina. The truth is that I visit Argentina because I like argentines and Argentina and the few ex-patriot and frequent visitors that I have come to know and call friends. AP as a fund of political knowledge or discourse is absurd and a waste of bandwidth. I miss WW.
We could all find anyone to quote to validate our own positions. If you spent as much time on positive things in your life, you would be much better off.I subscribe to your "pollyanna" theory wholeheartedly, but I also had dedicated parents, and my peer group all went on to college. I learned and developed good working ethics.
Now imagine, if you came from a broken family, and did not possess the security and self esteem of a secured childhood. I could go on and on, but you would say, life is tough, and nobody owes you a living. Why can't they set it up where if you are going to take welfare money, you are obligated to do so something and contribute to society. Just for example, the parks and streets in many areas are being neglected due to lack of municipal and state funds.
My apologies for another idiotic rant.
Just for example, the parks and streets in many areas are being neglected due to lack of municipal and state funds.
My apologies for another idiotic rant.Simple answer dude. Is the state you live in running a defecit or surplus. Guesing it's a deficit! WOW. What a surprise! You mean the "free lunch" isn't pruning the trees. Nothing comes for free dude. Suggest you elect state officials that start running your state like a business. You only get what you can afford in this world. The piper always needs to be paid. Stop whining and start becoming part of the solution. My state ran a 450 million dollar surplus this year and "SURPRISE", all the trees are pruned and we have killer social services for the poor, drug addicted, handycapped, etc (and guese what. NO STATE INCOME TAXES). First ya have to make the money and THEN YOU GET TO SPEND IT. This is a concept that liberals will just sadly never understand. Such a shame really. Happy Mongering All. Toymann
Maybe I should move to france-they have a better health care system, longer life expectancy and maybe a generally better quality of life.Just be real brother. A registered democrat like yourself just can't bring himself to vote for anyone but Obomanation. It's referred to in clinical circles as a "self-fulfilled prophecy". It's all good. We still love ya! Happy Mongering All. Toymann.
Ps. I am guessing its been quite some time since you've been to France Bobby. LMAO
Simple answer dude. Is the state you live in running a defecit or surplus. Guesing it's a deficit! WOW. What a surprise! You mean the "free lunch" isn't pruning the trees. Nothing comes for free dude. Suggest you elect state officials that start running your state like a business. You only get what you can afford in this world. The piper always needs to be paid. Stop whining and start becoming part of the solution. My state ran a 450 million dollar surplus this year and "SURPRISE", all the trees are pruned and we have killer social services for the poor, drug addicted, handycapped, etc (and guese what. NO STATE INCOME TAXES). First ya have to make the money and THEN YOU GET TO SPEND IT. This is a concept that liberals will just sadly never understand. Such a shame really. Happy Mongering All. ToymannWould you be so kind to let us know what state you live in, so I could move there. Sounds so blissful and perfect. So I can qualify for welfare without having to prune any trees, right? I have an itch that I and the doctors cannot cure. Bangkok is getting so tiresome. It is full of prostitutes, and corrrupt policemen. And it is so hot and humid, and you can't get away from the mosquitoes.
Now that is a novel idea. Start running government like a business. Prune jobs, perks and fat when the money isn't there. Like the private sector has always done.
Dealing with government agencies is an 'out of this world experience'. Incompetent, lazy to the bone employees who think they are entitled to their jobs. Regardless of how inefficient they are. These employees actually think we are working for them.
TejanoLibre
02-28-12, 12:33
Now that is a novel idea. Start running government like a business. Prune jobs, perks and fat when the money isn't there. Like the private sector has always done.
Dealing with government agencies is an 'out of this world experience'. Incompetent, lazy to the bone employees who think they are entitled to their jobs. Regardless of how inefficient they are. These employees actually think we are working for them.Politics are NOT my strong point!
I live in BA so who cares?
Please sell me on one of the candidates!
I believe that the garden can't be fixed in a 4 year term; but who ruined it, the previous gardner or the latest?
Is the current fixing the other?
Or is he making waves?
Man I don't know my left from my right or center!
Only while playing football
So who is the lesser of the evils?
TL.
P. S- I much rather brag about PUSSY!
Don't feel sorry for the top few % who pay most of the taxes. They also make most of all income and accumulate most of all wealth. In fact this is the only group who has seen their wealth grow significantly in recent decades. Everybody else has eaked out meager gains, is flat, or has lost ground. Your cherished free-market capitalism is increasingly benefitting only a small group. How did you get suckered into sympathizing for them?Wrong again, as usual.
In fact, since WWII, it's been the middle class in America that has made most of the income and "accumulated most of all wealth."
In the aggregate, America's middle class earns far more income and holds far more wealth than the top 1.
It's a simple fact related to the sheer number of people in the middle class: 150 million middle class citizens vs 3 million one "percent" citizens.
Do the math.
Of course, the facts have never stopped liberals from using this line to stoke class envy among the country's losers who are pre-disposed to believe that their own personal failures are somebody elses fault.
In any event, the entire premise of the "zero sum" argument that anyone's financial gain comes at the expense of everybody else is BS, which may be illustrated by one simple question: Bill Gates created software which improved the productivity of the entire world, thus benefiting every single person on the planet, and along the way he made for himself a personal fortune of more than $50 billion dollars. The question is: Are you or anyone else on the planet any poorer because Bill Gates created this $50 billion in wealth for himself?
Of course the answer is "no", but that won't stop the country's losers from looking enviously at Bill Gate's fortune and think to themselves "If I vote for the democrat liberals, they'll use the government's taxing authority to take the money from Bill Gates and give it to me".
Thanks,
Jackson
Politics are NOT my strong point!
I live in BA so who cares?
Please sell me on one of the candidates!
I believe that the garden can't be fixed in a 4 year term; but who ruined it, the previous gardner or the latest?
Is the current fixing the other?
Or is he making waves?
Man I don't know my left from my right or center!
Only while playing football
So who is the lesser of the evils?
TL.
P. S- I much rather brag about PUSSY!Presenting the profile of the typical Democrat voter.
Would you be so kind to let us know what state you live in, so I could move there.Ok dude. Google states with surpluses in 2011. But here are a few hints. No state income tax. Most republican state in the US. 88% voted against Obamanation in the last election. Wide open spaces and beautiful mountains. That should get you there. Sadly, based on your posts you might find that "your point of view might not be highly regarded". We have fast food chains but raising solid children and family is definitely high on the important list. One final clue. Hunting, fishing, golf, skiing, outdoor activities, etc. Happy Mongering All. Toymann
Ok dude. Google states with surpluses in 2011. But here are a few hints. No state income tax. Most republican state in the US. 88% voted against Obamanation in the last election. Wide open spaces and beautiful mountains. That should get you there. Sadly, based on your posts you might find that "your point of view might not be highly regarded". We have fast food chains but raising solid children and family is definitely high on the important list. One final clue. Hunting, fishing, golf, skiing, outdoor activities, etc. Happy Mongering All. ToymannThank you for your kind invitation to live in paradise. By the way, do you have your longjohns on? Yes, my viewpoints would be met with blank stares or even a snarl or two. Do they know what globalization is? I went to school in Nebraska, so I am familiar with the territory and the mindset. And yes, Santorum, I mean Custer's last stand was in the same vicinity.
And yes, Santorum, I mean Custer's last stand was in the same vicinity.Yes in the vicinity, in fact right next door. In fact, the first time elected democrat governor of the state next door took a 300 plus million dollar surplus 3 years ago, used it all up, and ran a north of 100 million dollar deficit in 2011. He's walking dead in November for sure. The great experiment is over in the GREAT state next door! As I always say,"never give the keys to bus to a democrat, they end up off the road in the ditch everytime"! Glad to hear you went to school in nebraska, somebody's got to go there. GO GAMECOCKS! LOL! Happy Mongering All. Toymann
I'll acknowledge one correction. I should not have referred to "all income", but rather "income growth". Yes, adding 100M+ small / medium incomes will likely outweigh a few million high incomes. Although when you have one guy like John Paulson making $5 Billion, equivalent to 100,000 workers making 50K, it makes you wonder.
In fact, since WWII, it's been the middle class in America that has made most of the income and "accumulated most of all wealth."A great place to start. Notice I referred to recent decades, but Jackson goes back to WWII. Most of the gains of the middle class came during the 1940s-1970s. When - coincidentally - tax rates on top earners were far higher than they are today. We don't remember this period as a time when the rich were punished. We remember it as a time when the middle class grew and prospered. Which demonstrates how ridiculously absurd the rhetoric is from Republicans today, claiming that raising taxes on top earners enjoying historically low tax rates amounts to punishment.
In the aggregate, America's middle class earns far more income and holds far more wealth than the top 1.
It's a simple fact related to the sheer number of people in the middle class: 150 million middle class citizens vs 3 million one "percent" citizens.
Do the math.Aggregate amounts don't tell the whole story. Look at the data, for income growth and wealth accumulation:
Income for the top 1% has soared over last three decades
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2011/10/income-for-the-top-1-has-soared-over-past-three-decades.html
How the rich became the über rich
http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/22/news/economy/income_inequality/index.htm
The Wealthiest 5% Grabbed Most of the America's Gains
http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2011/09/16/the-top-5-grabbed-most-of-the-americas-gains/
The top 1% of households saw their after-tax household income grow by 275% from 1979 to 2007, according to the CBO. Meanwhile, income for the 60% of households that make up the middle of the income scale increased by slightly less than 40%. The poor -- the 20% of the population with the lowest income -- saw just an 18% increase. Also, more than 80% of the nation's wealth gains between 1983 and 2009 went to the wealthiest top 5%. The share of wealth held by the bottom 60% dropped 7.5%. I've posted such stats before, but conservatives tend to ignore such data. When you grow the pie and a majority only gets a few crumbs, that's hard to defend. A lot easier to just ignore.
You better believe that anytime more of the pie is given to a few, less of the pie is available to the many. There are abundant examples, to even question this is absurd.
Of course, the facts have never stopped liberals from using this line to stoke class envy among the country's losers who are pre-disposed to believe that their own personal failures are somebody elses fault.And once again, without fail, conservatives whip out their divisive and unfactual rhetoric. I guess here the rich are 'winners' and everyone else are 'losers'. LOL!
One more time: It's not about envy. It's not about demonizing anyone. It's about people, rich and poor, simply taking a hard look at how free market capitalism is today distributing the prosperity it creates. And deciding, that the trends occuring are not acceptable, that as a society we can do better.
WorldTravel69
02-29-12, 03:47
I am voting for him. He sounds like what us Democrats want."The Working Mans Hero".
I am voting for him. He sounds like what us Democrats want."The Working Mans Hero".Yes, Romney's deep understanding of business will help us all:
If General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye.ROTFLMAO!!!
The actual class war fare has been the top 1% vs the other 99. The top 5% have made progress since the time of reagan, but nothing compared to the massive redistribution of wealth and income to the top one. Take a look at some of the other charts. Yes, there are individuals who have done well, but the charts and statistics deal with the nation as a whole.This is the upward wealth redistribution that Republicans are fighting to protect and expand. Scary isn't it?
It is supply side economics that has done this: what is best for the most wealthy is best for the USA-the benefits will trickle-down to the middle class. Guess what, it hasn't tricked down past the top 10% at all and the top 1% have received almost all of the gain. This is factual, not ideology.Bob, I am glad you see this. Republicans defend trickle-down by arguing "I never got hired by a poor person". Just another example of simpleton right-wing messaging. They fail to realize that helping the rich get richer is no guarantee they will create more jobs. In fact as you point out, the data shows that trickle-down has been a grand ruse.
I wish these advocates of wealth distribution would spend as much time focusing on improving the economy as they do on their birdbrain obsession with wealth distribution. The greatest obstacle to improving the well being of Americans is a lousy economy, not the lack of a 95% tax bracket.
The sad fact is, these amantes of wealth distribution dream of an economy like Cuba. 99. 99% of us would live in poverty while the other 0. 01% would have access to all the country's wealth. I can imagine who our wealth distribution comrades envision as being a part of that 0. 01%. Maybe themselves.
This idea that those who work hard, have ability and accumulate wealth are evil and should be demonized is interesting.
If you want to see concentration of wealth look at the sports world. Tens of million of people play sports at some level. Little league baseball, junior high basketball, girls soccer. However. 99. 9999999% of the wealth in sports is concentrated in the hands of about 1000 professional athletes. Nobody asks these athletes to share their wealth with the 99. 9999999% of athletes who don't have their talent, their work ethics or their genetics.
The sad truth is that the vast majority of people with limited success also have limited ability. These people are the equivalent of 3 foot tall basketball players. 95 pound pound football players or 400 pound sprinters. We do not punish or condemn successful athletes and we should not punish or condemn successful people.I wanted to get back to this great post while it's still recent. Great because it shows just how strong ideology can trump critical thinking. The idea of those with talent and ambition getting ahead is a universal concept. It applies in sports, and in the broader labor market. But that's about all that's similar.
Nobody expects those at the top in sports to share anything with those who didn't reach the top, because the latter have nothing to do with the top group's success. That kid shooting hoops in Harlem has nothing to do with Michael Jordan's success.
But in the broader labor market and economy, the income of top earners is almost always dependent on the productivity of many workers below them. Both groups depend on each other. Unlike the sports analogy, it is absolutely expected that the wealth be shared. And also, absolutely fair to question whether the wealth is shared in a fair manner.
So the sports analogy is pretty much a dud, but nice try.
In any event, the entire premise of the "zero sum" argument that anyone's financial gain comes at the expense of everybody else is BS, which may be illustrated by one simple question: Bill Gates created software which improved the productivity of the entire world, thus benefiting every single person on the planet, and along the way he made for himself a personal fortune of more than $50 billion dollars. The question is: Are you or anyone else on the planet any poorer because Bill Gates created this $50 billion in wealth for himself?Jackson,
It appears you would have us believe that capitalism is mainly about creating wealth. And not about shifting wealth. Because when wealth is shifted from one individual or group to another, such as happens with competition for market share, or when workers are laid off because their jobs were automated, one's financial gain is another's financial loss. Is it your contention that this does not happen in capitalism?
Jackson,
It appears you would have us believe that capitalism is mainly about creating wealth. And not about shifting Wealth. Because when wealth is shifted from one individual or group to another, such as happens with competition for market share, or when workers are laid off because their jobs were automated, one's financial gain is Another's financial loss. Is it your contention that this does not happen in capitalism?At the request of certain hypocrites who are still posting in political threads (not you Esten) , I quit posting anything not having to do with hookers on Jackson's sites. However, this really bothers me. Esten, what you're arguing goes against history. The reason capitalism triumphed over socialism and communism is because competition and automation in capitalist economies improved productivity which in turn improved everyone's living standards. Greed may not be good, but competition is. Intense, fair competition is the reason telephone service and cement cost the US consumer a fraction of what they cost the Mexican consumer. We could go back to the days before automation and make everything by hand. What would that do to living standards? Capitalism is not a zero sum game.
At the request of certain hypocrites who are still posting in political threads (not you Esten) , I quit posting anything not having to do with hookers on Jackson's sites. However, this really bothers me. Esten, what you're arguing goes against history. The reason capitalism triumphed over socialism and communism is because competition and automation in capitalist economies improved productivity which in turn improved everyone's living standards. Greed may not be good, but competition is. Intense, fair competition is the reason telephone service and cement cost the US consumer a fraction of what they cost the Mexican consumer. We could go back to the days before automation and make everything by hand. What would that do to living standards? Capitalism is not a zero sum game.What you write is reasonable and is validated by history. Capitalism and free market has allow America to become the most prosperous country in the world.
But everything has a shelf life, and that includes all the "isms" There has to be some new tinkering to meet new challenges Globalization, resources, cultural and population changes within the country are some that come to mind. Dysfunctional political system? So all the shouting and name calling is just everyone looking out for themselves. It is really part of the evolution or revolution until we redefine ourselves again.
Esten, what you're arguing goes against history. The reason capitalism triumphed over socialism and communism is because competition and automation in capitalist economies improved productivity which in turn improved everyone's living standards. Of course capitalism is a net wealth creator. Powered by the forces of innovation, competition and productivity. It is a great thing. Nobody argues that. But the same forces also result in continual shifting of wealth from one individual and group to another. Both happen. You may argue that as wealth is created and moved around, it all works out and everybody benefits. That depends. It was more true in the post-WWII economic expansion. It is less true today. While capitalism is still creating wealth, it is also shifting wealth to the top and to other countries. If capitalism is still raising the standard of living in the US, why are statistics like average hourly earnings, median household income, and poverty rate almost flat over the past three decades? Please, pull up a chart that shows how great the middle class is doing.
You guys need to study the details of how capitalism has been working in recent decades. The pie is growing, but also changing in how it gets divided.
Montana judge, Richard F Cebull and Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio, two of America finest.
America is alive and well. 2012.
I wanted to get back to this great post while it's still recent. Great because it shows just how strong ideology can trump critical thinking. The idea of those with talent and ambition getting ahead is a universal concept. It applies in sports, and in the broader labor market. But that's about all that's similar.
Nobody expects those at the top in sports to share anything with those who didn't reach the top, because the latter have nothing to do with the top group's success. That kid shooting hoops in Harlem has nothing to do with Michael Jordan's success.
But in the broader labor market and economy, the income of top earners is almost always dependent on the productivity of many workers below them. Both groups depend on each other. Unlike the sports analogy, it is absolutely expected that the wealth be shared. And also, absolutely fair to question whether the wealth is shared in a fair manner.
So the sports analogy is pretty much a dud, but nice try.I am going to kick myself for responding to such a birdbrain analysis. Of course everyone in sports is interconnected. If they were not Michael Jordan would have no one to practice with and Michael Jordan´s abilities would go unnoticed on an empty court.
Esten, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but with your razor sharp mind I think you better get used to the lower income tax brackets for the rest of your life.
It is amazing that as human beings, we can rationalize our every motivation and action. No different from Castro, Assad, Khadaffi, Mubarak and all other dictators, he comes back for another 6 year term. Of course, lest we forget, Putin will tell us Mother Russia is a democracy now and he is just a caretaker of the constitution.
Looks like Newt and Rick are assuring their own defeat by staying in the race, splitting the conservative vote. Doesn't seem like they are thinking strategically. They both say only a real conservative can offer the contrast needed to defeat Obama. That's probably also what they'll be saying if Romney loses to Obama.
223,000 jobs in December
284,000 jobs in January
227,000 jobs in February
8.3% Unemployment (down from peak of 10.2% in October 2009)
Remember the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), aka Stimulus? The package of spending and tax cuts, about 450B and 300B respectively accounted for to date. Republicans were fond of repeating their "failed stimulus" messaging, but I bet you haven't heard that for awhile. Because it flies in the face of the economic data.
There is more ground to recover, but these numbers are respectable. We probably would have got to this point sooner without last summer's debt ceiling debacle. Does Obama get all the credit? No, but he definately gets some.
With large corporations increasingly dominating market share, globalism and job automation, it's hard to see how we ever get back to 6% unemployment. Only the hand of government can offset those job-killing forces of capitalism.
There is no question the Stimulus did its job of stabilizing the economy and getting us back on a trajectory of growth. The only serious debate is whether it was worth the tradeoff of higher debt.
Sheldon Adelson is backing Newt so that the Conservative votes get split, assuring Romney the prize. He is too smart to back a loser (Newt). He is only pretending to. Shell Game.
Ken
I will say it again. The 2012 election is over. 2012 will be a mirror image of 2010.
Obama is like Tebow. Both are likeable and both have their supporters. However, Tebow cannot pass and Obama cannot govern.
the job-killing forces of capitalism.WHAT?
Do you ever actually think about some of the statements you make?
The job-killing forces of capitalism?
I guess that means that the country needs some more of the "job-creating forces of liberals"?
Or perhaps the "job-creating forces of socialists"?
Esten, with all due respect, you're clueless.
Thanks,
Jackson
Canitasguy
03-13-12, 18:43
WHAT?
Do you ever actually think about some of the statements you make?
With all due respect, you're clueless.
Thanks,
JacksonI suggest you go back and read Adam Smith, who authored the original capitalist manifesto. Capitalism seeks profits and tries to minimize the costs of production. Most critically, the cost of labor. Capitalists kill jobs when it helps their bottom line. Any one with half a brain gets it.
Smith also called for workers to fight for just compensation and called for the state to provide a safety net to correct for the inevitable societal dislocations that flow from capitalism. He was quite prescient.
Too bad so many self proclaimed champions of capitalism are so clueless about how it actually works and hide behind ideological nostrums to excuse the greed that really underpins their behavior and belief systems.
Member #4112
03-13-12, 18:45
Yes Esten, unemployment is down but why? It has more to do with a much larger number of people dropping out of the workforce than the number of folks finding employment.
So your contention is Obama has done a great job lowering unemployment by so discouraging workers they no longer seek employment or they remove themselves from the unemployment rolls by going on disability under Social Security? You really want to make that argument?
The Stimulus is, was, and continues to be a failure. The answer to your question about if the debt increase was 'good' or 'bad' has already been answered, Obama doubled the national debt all by his little self and the country will suffer under its weight for years to come with little appreciable growth or employment. We would have been better off to have simply handed out checks to everyone making them 1%ers than what the Obamation has done!
The job-killing forces of capitalism?
Modern capitalism is more complex than just some system that creates wealth and prosperity. Both job-creating and job-killing forces are at work. I can understand how a small businessman, an entrepreneur, might not appreciate this. But small business is just one segment of capitalism. I happen to work in big business. I have extensive experience with our US and Global operations, and some insight into the operations of the numerous vendors we deal with. My opinions on capitalism are not just based on reading the news.
Look at automation. This is largely a phenomenon with big business, but we can all see some of the examples. We've heard about ATMs replacing bank tellers. Another example: self-service checkouts. Ten years ago I never bagged my own groceries. Now I often do. Why? The big supermarkets understaff the checkouts, creating line-ups and waiting which incentivize people to use self-checkout. The supermarket chain is being more efficient and productive. Hallmarks of capitalism. But jobs are lost (and / or not created). They transferred the labor from a worker to me (and the help of a computer).
BTW Jackson, there's one example right there where Bill Gates' wealth can be linked to job loss. Automation is run by software. Yes, software has enabled the success of website operators like yourself. That's why you see the rosy side. You should look more at how large corporations have used software. And guess what, the savings from automation do not necessarily get distributed back into the economy. Yes in some cases new industries are created (e.g. makers of automation equipment). But often a good chunk of the savings will end up in the hands of wealthy individuals and Wall Street firms. Not all of that flows back into the economy, and what does may not necessarily flow back into the same economy from where the efficiencies were realized.
I've personally signed off on paperwork approving a wide range of automation projects where I work. It's a small piece of what I do, but I've seen plenty of it. If these projects don't eliminate jobs, they typically allow the company to grow with minimal new hires.
I know you small business guys like to think you know everything about capitalism. It just ain't true.
Member #4112
03-14-12, 20:21
Fess up Esten, you are really Thomas Friedman from the NY Times just trying to give all us conseratives a hard time.
Need to check your figures, small business is the major generator of new jobs in the economy not large companies.
Yea, automation is a *itch, we need to go back to making cars by hand one at a time. Automation really killed the auto industry didn't it.
Actually I am really Gordon Hodson, I conduct research on the relationship between cognitive function and ideology. One of my studies got some buzz in the media recently, maybe you read about it. It was not too favorable for conservatives.
I've been conducting research here on AP for my latest study. It's about how conservatives have great difficulty grasping that something can be good and bad at the same time.
The data is very convincing. Sure to create another media buzz when published.
Texas Tornado
03-15-12, 00:21
Actually I am really Gordon Hodson, I conduct research on the relationship between cognitive function and ideology. One of my studies got some buzz in the media recently, maybe you read about it. It was not too favorable for conservatives.
I've been conducting research here on AP for my latest study. It's about how conservatives have great difficulty grasping that something can be good and bad at the same time.
The data is very convincing. Sure to create another media buzz when published.From the article discussing Hodson's study:
Earlier studies have found links between low levels of education and higher levels of prejudice, Hodson said, so studying intelligence seemed a logical next step. The researchers turned to two studies of citizens in the United Kingdom, one that has followed babies since their births in March 1958, and another that did the same for babies born in April 1970. The children in the studies had their intelligence assessed at age 10 or 11; as adults ages 30 or 33, their levels of social conservatism and racism were measured.You can measure anything and arrive at a bias. Notice that the study measured intelligence juxtaposed with social conservatism and racism. Query: did they conduct a similar study on social radicalism and its impact on racism and biases? I rather doubt it.
It is a toss up whether Obama was born in Kenya or Indonesia. I am putting my money on Obama being a space alien closely related to ET. A long shot but more probable than Obama being born in Hawaii.
Member #4112
03-22-12, 18:57
While I, as many others, considered the matter of Obama's birth place to be settled with the production of a birth certificate by the White House, I came across this article from the Associated Press regarding pending litigation regarding the anointed one.
You might note it took a court order to obtain the release of the information from Occidental College.
Do you find it strange we know everything about the current GOP candidates including college transcripts which were freely available but it takes a court order to obtain only a small part of Obama's?
Do you find it strange Obama is spending campaign funds to cover legal costs to prevent the disclosure of personal information? Maybe Newt should have taken a cue!
AP. WASHINGTON D. C.
In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama's qualifications for the presidency, the group "Americans for Freedom of Information" has released copies of President Obama's college transcripts from Occidental College. Released today, the transcript school indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate. The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California. The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. To qualify, for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship.
This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obama's detractors have been seeking. Along with the evidence that he was first born in Kenya and there is no record of him ever applying for US citizenship, this is looking pretty grim. The news has created a firestorm at the White House as the release casts increasing doubt about Obama's legitimacy and qualification to serve as President article titled,"Obama Eligibility Questioned," leading some to speculate that the story may overshadow economic issues on Obama's first official visit to the U. K. In a related matter, under growing pressure from several groups, Justice Antonin Scalia announced that the Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear arguments concerning Obama's legal eligibility to serve as President in a case brought by Leo Donofrio of New Jersey. This lawsuit claims Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. Donofrio's case is just one of 18 suits brought by citizens demanding proof of Obama's citizenship or qualification to serve as president.
Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has released the results of their investigation of Obama's campaign spending. This study estimates that Obama has spent upwards of $950, 000 in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states for legal resources to block disclosure of any of his personal records. Mr. Kreep indicated that the investigation is still ongoing but that the final report will be provided to the USA Attorney general, Eric Holder. Mr. Holder has refused to comment on the matter.
While I, as many others, considered the matter of Obama's birth place to be settled with the production of a birth certificate by the White House, I came across this article from the Associated Press regarding pending litigation regarding the anointed one.
You might note it took a court order to obtain the release of the information from Occidental College.
Do you find it strange we know everything about the current GOP candidates including college transcripts which were freely available but it takes a court order to obtain only a small part of Obama's?
Do you find it strange Obama is spending campaign funds to cover legal costs to prevent the disclosure of personal information? Maybe Newt should have taken a cue!Now, the United States do allow dual citizenships, and people freely used that right to legally reside and enjoy benefits of both countries. Education, pensions, tax, housing, voting, etc. That he eventually became president was something that only a dreamer can fantasize. Recently, a poll show that a majority of GOP voters in Alabama & Mississippi believe Obama is a Muslim. And some of us would like to believe George Bush, who I believe is a good man, would never have gotten into Yale & Harvard had his father owned a hamburger stand in Glendale.
Life is changing, it is not static. Some people just cannot accept it.
This is certainly good new for kenya and indonesia. We could send Obama to either country. If we play our cards right we could swap Obama for 2 or 3 camels. If they don't go for the camels we shouldn't accept anything less than a couple of palm trees.
OK, what the heck, we will send them Obama and throw in the camels and palm trees.
[QUOTE=Black Shirt; 421458]And some of us would like to believe George Bush, who I believe is a good man, would never have gotten into Yale & Harvard had his father owned a hamburger stand in Glendale.
And Obama would never have gotten his high school equivalency diploma/GED had he not claimed to be a foreign student born in - take your pick - Indonesia, Kenya, Outer Mongolia or Transylvania.
I came across this article from the Associated Press regarding pending litigation regarding the anointed one.
You might note it took a court order to obtain the release of the information from Occidental College.You guys are being taken for fools by whoever is recycling this stuff. This exact, verbatim 'article' was originally distributed on April 1, 2009. It was an April Fools' Day hoax.
Check your facts:
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/was-obama-born-in-the-usa/
It is amusing though how you guys lap this stuff up. LOL
You guys are being taken for fools by whoever is recycling this stuff. This exact, verbatim 'article' was originally distributed on April 1, 2009. It was an April Fools' Day hoax.
Check your facts:
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/was-obama-born-in-the-usa/
It is amusing though how you guys lap this stuff up. LOL"Fools rush in, where angels fear to tread."
Oh sorry, excuse my humming.
Member #4112
03-23-12, 15:03
Black Shirt, Esten, I did not fact check it and you are right and I am wrong, the information regarding the Occidental records release was not valid.
What is true is there appears to be continued litigation regarding Obama's records and he has been using campaign funds to fight to keep his records closed.
It still seems strange; after 3 years Obama's personal history is still an enigma. I cannot remember any presidential candidate whose background was not gone over with a fine tooth comb but the anointed one is exempt.
The anointed one is shooting himself in the foot just fine all by himself. The 'energy tour' as gas prices continue to rise is an excellent example. The XL Pipeline appearance in Oklahoma was a classic on Kerry's 'I voted for it before I voted against it' just in reverse here.
I hate to say it but as gas prices continue to rise I predict the shaky 'recovery' Obama and the Democrats continue to trumpet is about to go south again. As fuel prices increase the cost of any good which is transported goes up from groceries to construction materials.
Canitasguy
03-23-12, 20:57
Reading this thread since its inception I finally remembered that in the mid-1970s US mental health facilities started to release mentally challenged patients considered not to be dangerous back into the general population. Now it is clear that policy has proven a boon for the AP site, as most of the post by the Obama haters who scribble their inanities here can do so from their home PCs, rather than the PCs provided in their facility's communal wards!
Maybe the Republican budget plan is the best option. With our growing debt problem, we all have to make sacrifices.
Giving another tax cut to the wealthy, while I take a cut on future Medicare benefits, seems like a fair approach.
Member #4112
04-02-12, 13:12
Esten, perhaps you should revisit the changes in Medicare which are already coming on line due to ObamaCare. Now many tests have been dropped from the approved payment list and when physicians order these test it is now up to the patient to pay if the tests are preformed. I guess you missed the millions being cut from Medicare and shifted to Medicaid.
As ObamaCare is phased in the cuts to Medicare, which has been funded by payroll taxes, are real as funds are shifted to the Medicaid program, a totally unfunded liability. So your previous statement should read,"let the old people die so Obama and the Democrats can pander to their base while also permitting illegal aliens, who will become loyal Democrats after another blanket amnesty bill is passed, receive Medicaid benefits'.
The old saying is true:
If you are not a liberal until you are 25, you don't have a heart. If you are not a conservative after 25 you don't have a brain.
Canitasguy
04-02-12, 16:52
Ignorance of the realities of today's perverted US health care system run through this thread as the Obama haters rant on and on. The real world of medical care is hardly mentioned, like who really pays all the unexplained billions of dollars in charges that don't exist in other countries where patients actually get better care. And why! No one, Esten least of all, maintains the new reforms are perfect. But Doppel, Alamo and others only trash the President's courageous attempt to begin to salvage the system before it self-destructs. How can anyone support a system where medical bills are cheaper if a patient claims to be uninsured and pays cash to a provider, because the institutional provider can cheat? The AP conservatives would leave untouched a system where insurance companies, hospitals and doctors play bizarre billing games that make no sense except to enrich the players and bankrupt the patients and taxpayers. The Obamacare detractors seem very comfortable with a system where parents of an 11-year-old girl with a stomachache girl can take her to an emergency room where she is given a few pills and sent home, and a few weeks later a $5000 bill arrives in the mail. Or no problem when a patient spends a total of four hours in a outpatient surgery center having a simple bone spur removed and is billed $37, 000, not counting doctor fees. On a more important note, how can fellow mongers trust the conservative monger chica reviews of when those same mongers are so patently ignorant of quality, value and inflated pricing in US health care?
Good luck arguing that the Affordable Care Act is bad for Medicare. Not only does ACA not cut basic Medicare benefits, it also closes the Part D prescription drug "donut hole" by 2020. The first steps to close this gap in prescription drug coverage saved $2.1 billion for nearly 3.6 million seniors in 2011.
What tests were dropped? I can't find anything about it. You should know covered test lists get updated from time to time. Tests that get dropped are typically those that haven't demonstrated clear medical value, or have been replaced by better tests. Please post your link about the lab tests, let's see what they are.
This may come as a huge shock, but some people feel access to affordable health care is more a moral issue than a political issue. And there is the economic issue of enabling broader access to health care, spending more on preventive care vs. treating late-stage disease.
As the saying goes, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."
It looks like the Republicans dodged a bullet. Romney is their nominee. I could be dead wrong but it seems so obvious that Romney will be elected President. It is crystal clear that romney is light years more competent than the current president. But then. Who isn't. I expect something similar to the Reagan / Carter election. That election was considered a dead heat up to polling day. But when the votes had to pull the lever they said enough is enough. Reagan won by one the largest landslides in history.
WorldTravel69
04-04-12, 11:47
Here is a few funny ones for you to chew on.
Maybe the Republican budget plan is the best option. With our growing debt problem, we all have to make sacrifices.
Giving another tax cut to the wealthy, while I take a cut on future Medicare benefits, seems like a fair approach.
Canitasguy
04-04-12, 16:35
I could be dead wrong but it seems so obvious that Romney will be elected President.If there is anything more wrong than dead wrong, you own it Alamo! A Romney victory may be obvious in Uruguay, but in the US of A voters seem poised to deliver a slam-dink for Obama. Romney is less popular than former President George W, who people still blame for the economic crisis. Voters like Obama. He is 19% up over Mitt on the guy to have a beer with measure. The Prez leads by double digits nationally and in the swing states for the final!
Punter 127
04-04-12, 23:15
It looks like the Republicans dodged a bullet. Romney is their nominee. I could be dead wrong but it seems so obvious that Romney will be elected President. It is crystal clear that romney is light years more competent than the current president. But then. Who isn't. I expect something similar to the Reagan / Carter election. That election was considered a dead heat up to polling day. But when the votes had to pull the lever they said enough is enough. Reagan won by one the largest landslides in history.I would like to agree with you and I hope you're right, but I see two potential flaws in you prediction.
1. Romney is not a Ronald Reagan, but that could be offset somewhat by the fact that Carter was a much better president than Obama.
2. Your prediction is based on the assumption that wannabe dictator Obama is going to allow us to have a free election, I suspect it's going to be something more akin to a Hugo Chavez type election.
Punter.
You may be right. Obama's vote totals are favorably impacted by votes from the legally dead, convicted felons, illegal immigrants, and imaginary people who never existed. And some of these people are allowed to vote over 200 times each election. Strangely, all these fraudulent voters pull the lever for Obama
It is similar to a football game where one side plays by the rules and the other team wants 5 points for a field goal, 12 points for a touchdown and 3 points for the conversion after a touchdown.
Canitasguy
04-05-12, 17:44
Punter.
Obama's vote totals are favorably impacted by votes from the legally dead, convicted felons, illegal immigrants, and imaginary people who never existed. And some of these people are allowed to vote over 200 times each election. Strangely, all these fraudulent voters pull the lever for Obama.I didn't realize INDEC was reporting on US election voter fraud. Alamo's claims are a complete fantasy. Independent studies document that over the past five national election cycles out of hundreds of millions votes cast a few dozen criminal charges have been brought for voter fraud and of those most were dismissed for lack of evidence.
WorldTravel69
04-05-12, 21:20
Sounds like Bush in Florida.
Punter.
You may be right. Obama's vote totals are favorably impacted by votes from the legally dead, convicted felons, illegal immigrants, and imaginary people who never existed. And some of these people are allowed to vote over 200 times each election. Strangely, all these fraudulent voters pull the lever for Obama.
It is similar to a football game where one side plays by the rules and the other team wants 5 points for a field goal. 12 points for a touchdown and 3 points for the conversion after a touchdown.
Texas Tornado
04-06-12, 01:36
Sounds like Bush in Florida.Are you serious? They crimped every chad under the sun in Florida.
Sounds like you still think we needed Gore since he invented the Internet while cutting carbon dioxide emissions and monitoring it all from his G4 (that his daddy let him that he buy with the coal mine profits in Tennessee).
This mornings jobs report reiterated what many have said on this board. Obama will keep a lid on the US economy. If Obama were in charge of Apple he would bankrupt the company within 6 months. The man is absolutely clueless. Anti-business to the bone and then wonders why the economy stays in the gutter
Canitasguy
04-06-12, 23:16
This mornings jobs report reiterated what many have said on this board. Obama will keep a lid on the US economy. If Obama were in charge of Apple he would bankrupt the company within 6 months. The man is absolutely clueless. Anti-business to the bone and then wonders why the economy stays in the gutterPot calling kettle black? (Pun intended!)
WorldTravel69
04-07-12, 03:13
War Horse came out on Video in the USA this week.
I really was reluctant about watching the movie, because I did not want to see horses charging into cannons. But that happen, but when I watched the Soldiers following there rich Captains' telling them to Go forward or be Killed by there own friends on Captain's orders.
That was 1914.
Or Did They know what they were in Charge of?
Same as Now. Bushes War's!
Are your sons and daughters still the ones that are not Rich enough and will DIE for the Politicians that what to get rich at your Families cost?
Since then it is still the Same, the Rich, do not have to Go To WAR. Your Friends, kids and the Not TOOO Rich and Will GO and DIE! For the Rich. Is that where YOUR Head it At?
What happened to the War Bonds? They had them in the first and second World Wars.
They really only had only Two First Wars Then.
Now the ex-Middle Class still has toooo still PAY for the WARS. That Bush Started.
Please Wake Up.
Our Country needs You, Not the Poliiticans!!
P.S.
I Don't have any, but I worry about YOURS!!
WorldTravel69
04-07-12, 03:20
And who would profit from those Crimped Chads?
I really was reluctant about watching the movie, because I did not want to see horses charging into cannons. But that happen, but when I watched the Soldiers following there rich Captains' telling them to Go forward or be Killed by there own friends on Captain's orders.
That was 1914.
Or Did They know what they were in Charge of?
Same as Now. Bushes War's!
Are your sons and daughters still the ones that are not Rich enough and will DIE for the Politicians that what to get rich at your Families cost?
Since then it is still the Same, the Rich, do not have to Go To WAR. Your Friends, kids and the Not TOOO Rich and Will GO and DIE! For the Rich. Is that where YOUR Head it At?
What happened to the War Bonds? They had them in the first and second World Wars.
They really only had only Two First Wars Then.
Now the ex-Middle Class still has toooo still PAY for the WARS. That Bush Started.
Please Wake Up.
Our Country needs You, Not the Poliiticans!!
P.S.
I Don't have any, but I worry about YOURS!![/QUOTE]
P.S.
I had High School Friends died In Vietnam, for the war for Oil.
How many friends or relatives did you lose?
My Brother-in-Law still will not talk about the his missions in jungle he had to go into.
Most of you young pups were not born, then and do not know shit of this counties History.
It must only what you learned on the farms?
Well, I do not know about pretty blue eyed sheep, like you do.
But, It is not for me too judge. I am just a working man, trying to survive.
Why are you middle country people supporting the Rich when you have Jack Shit (Nothing)?
Are you serious? They crimped every chad under the sun in Florida.
Sounds like you still think we needed Gore since he invented the Internet while cutting carbon dioxide emissions and monitoring it all from his G4 (that his daddy let him that he buy with the coal mine profits in Tennessee).
Good grief. It is worse than I thought.
Punter 127
04-07-12, 09:40
Good grief. It is worse than I thought.Here's something you might find interesting.
http://news.investors.com/article/606939/201204051834/obama-dangerously-close-to-totalitarianism.htm
Sorry it's not a movie WT69
It is clear that those who suffer from Obama Derangement Syndrome (ODS) live in their own separate universe.
Here is something to chew on. Without the Stimulus and other government initiatives, there would have been more business failures, more layoffs, more foreclosures, and higher unemployment. The Republican argument is that this short term pain would be good in the long run as the strong would remain and the weak would be weeded out.
But what happens when more of the economy is concentrated into fewer, stronger companies? These large companies become more efficient and need less labor. And when wealth is concentrated into fewer, wealthier individuals, there is less net spending into the economy.
The unemployment rate just ticked down to 8.2%. Without the Stimulus, this number would be higher. Those who advocate Darwinian capitalism imply it's a good thing for everyone. But it's only good if you're on the winning side. And that becomes increasingly difficult when the strong become stronger.
I think comrade Esten must be living in his own separate universe. The economy moves in cycles and Obama has prevented a normal recovery, or anything resembling a recovery, to occur. Obama deserves a separate Nobel Prize. How to destroy an economy in three easy steps. Step 1) waste trillions on unproven and completely worthless green energy projects that all go bankrupt without producing enough energy to turn on a 20 watt light bulb Step 2) Downgarde US Debt by convincing every monetary body in the world that the united states has a moron as president, and Step 3) add millions of bueurocratic pencil pushers to the already bloated and inefficient government payrolls and claim, with a straight face, that these are real jobs.
And most important, during all this nonsense, keep chanting It's Bush's fault, it's bush's fault etc. ect. Keep chanting this refrain nonstop until at least the year 3000 with an eye on continuing the chant to the year 5000.
Punter 127
04-07-12, 17:16
It is clear that those who suffer from Obama Derangement Syndrome (ODS) live in their own separate universe.
Here is something to chew on. Without the Stimulus and other government initiatives, there would have been more business failures, more layoffs, more foreclosures, and higher unemployment. The Republican argument is that this short term pain would be good in the long run as the strong would remain and the weak would be weeded out.
But what happens when more of the economy is concentrated into fewer, stronger companies? These large companies become more efficient and need less labor. And when wealth is concentrated into fewer, wealthier individuals, there is less net spending into the economy.
The unemployment rate just ticked down to 8. 2. Without the Stimulus, this number would be higher. Those who advocate Darwinian capitalism imply it's a good thing for everyone. But it's only good if you're on the winning side. And that becomes increasingly difficult when the strong become stronger. “Nonfarm Payroll +120,000,
Unemployment Rate Fell .1 to 8.2%,
Record 87,897,000 "Not in Labor Force"
US Unemployment Rate dropped .01 to 8.2%
In the last year, the civilian population rose by 3,604,000. Yet the labor force only rose by 1,315,000. Those not in the labor force rose by 2,289,000.
The Civilian Labor Force fell by 164,000.
Those "Not in Labor Force" increased by 310,000. If you are not in the labor force, you are not counted as unemployed.
Those "Not in Labor Force" is at a new record high of 87,897,000.
By the Household Survey, the number of people employed fell by 31,000.
By the Household Survey, over the course of the last year, the number of people employed rose by 2,270,000.
Participation Rate fell .1 to 63.8%
Were it not for people dropping out of the labor force, the unemployment rate would be well over 11%.
Over the past several years people have dropped out of the labor force at an astounding, almost unbelievable rate, holding the unemployment rate artificially low. Some of this was due to major revisions last month on account of the 2010 census finally factored in. However, most of it is simply economic weakness.
In the last year, the civilian population rose by 3,604,000. Yet the labor force only rose by 1,315,000. Those not in the labor force rose by 2,289,000”
"Success" of QE2 and Operation Twist
Over the past 12 months, average hourly earnings have increased by 2.1 percent.
In February, the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) had an
over-the-year increase of 2.9 percent; growth in prices has recently been
outpacing growth in earnings.
Not only are wages rising slower than the CPI, there is also a concern as to how those wage gains are distributed.”
“The official unemployment rate is 8.2%. However, if you start counting all the people that want a job but gave up, all the people with part-time jobs that want a full-time job, all the people who dropped off the unemployment rolls because their unemployment benefits ran out, etc., you get a closer picture of what the unemployment rate is. That number is labeled U-6.
U-6 is much higher at 14.5%. Both numbers would be way higher still, were it not for millions dropping out of the labor force over the past few years.”
The real unemployment numbers are much higher than the pure statistical bullshit our socialist comrades would have us believe.
Who really lives in a “separate universe”?
WorldTravel69
04-10-12, 03:01
Michigan:
The powers that be say that the Democratic process does not count.
Repubilicans
And who would profit from those Crimped Chads?
I really was reluctant about watching the movie, because I did not want to see horses charging into cannons. But that happen, but when I watched the Soldiers following there rich Captains' telling them to Go forward or be Killed by there own friends on Captain's orders.
That was 1914.
Or Did They know what they were in Charge of?
Same as Now. Bushes War's!
Are your sons and daughters still the ones that are not Rich enough and will DIE for the Politicians that what to get rich at your Families cost?
Since then it is still the Same, the Rich, do not have to Go To WAR. Your Friends, kids and the Not TOOO Rich and Will GO and DIE! For the Rich. Is that where YOUR Head it At?
What happened to the War Bonds? They had them in the first and second World Wars.
They really only had only Two First Wars Then.
Now the ex-Middle Class still has toooo still PAY for the WARS. That Bush Started.
Please Wake Up.
Our Country needs You, Not the Poliiticans!
P. S.
I Don't have any, but I worry about YOURSP. S.
I had High School Friends died In Vietnam, for the war for Oil.
How many friends or relatives did you lose?
My Brother-in-Law still will not talk about the his missions in jungle he had to go into.
Most of you young pups were not born, then and do not know shit of this counties History.
It must only what you learned on the farms?
Well, I do not know about pretty blue eyed sheep, like you do.
But, It is not for me too judge. I am just a working man, trying to survive.
Why are you middle country people supporting the Rich when you have Jack Shit (Nothing)?
You titled your post "Republicans." Your memory is selective.
Bush and the overwhelming majority of Democrat and Republican congressmen, Ron Paul excepted, didn't start the war for oil or to manipulate the working man. They did it because they are dumb shits.
Who started the war in Vietnam? Answer: JFK and LBJ (Democrats)
Who got us out of the war in Vietnam? Answer: Nixon and Kissinger (Republicans)
What did the war in Vietnam have to do with Oil? Answer: Nothing.
Who was president when we got into World War I, one of the stupidest, most senseless, most destructive wars during the history of mankind, and the subject of your new favorite movie? Answer: Woodrow Wilson (Democrat)
Who was president when we got into World War II, the most destructive in the history of the world (although admittedly justified)? Answer: FDR, a Democrat.
Who are the lackeys of the rich Democrats who manipulate the system to promote their special interests and their wars?
Why do you post in this thread when you've said a number of times that this board should be reserved for writing about hookers?
Wt69, like most liberals, never let the facts get in the way. It's not really his fault as those breakfast meetings with Pelosi sometimes gets him all fired up. Vietnam and Oil? Now that's a novel idea, no doubt WT69 feels it's all W's fault! Too funny. Looks my boy Romney is quite nicely on his way to becoming our next president. Just as I predicted over a year ago on this thread. Not bad for a redneck bible thumping Neanderthal who is incapable of free thought. That would be me! Happy Mongering All. Toymann
Wt69, like most liberals, never let the facts get in the way. It's not really his fault as those breakfast meetings with Pelosi sometimes gets him all fired up. Vietnam and Oil? Now that's a novel idea, no doubt WT69 feels it's all W's fault! Too funny. Looks my boy Romney is quite nicely on his way to becoming our next president. Just as I predicted over a year ago on this thread. Not bad for a redneck bible thumping Neanderthal who is incapable of free thought. That would be me! Happy Mongering All. ToymannAh, yes, that cocky American, an endangered species these days. Looking forward to your press conference in November.
It must eat you guys up inside that the unemployment rate is down from 10.3% to 8.2% under Obama's watch. That seems obvious from the desperate attempts to claim that the real unemployment rate is something else. Of course there are other variables, but the official rate is calculated by a prescribed, pre-determined method and that's what everyone goes by. I guess the claim that Obama was destroying the economy was just a big lie.
Bringing up the U6 rate is also deceptive because this is not the commonly used metric. People are used to numbers below 10, so hearing 14.5% sounds bad. If you were to discuss the U6 honestly, you would compare it to historical rates and especially to where it went in 2009. It went up over 17%, but like Punter's post, the right wing media doesn't mention that. They want people to compare 14.5% with numbers they are used to. That's nothing but deception.
Pull up all the numbers and analyses you can. None of it changes the fact that the official rate is 8.2%. Most people know better and won't be fooled. Some will be fooled though, which Republican strategists are counting on.
BTW, on an unemployment chart you'll see a HUGE spike from mid-2008 to mid-2009. What caused that? Free-market capitalism. That's another little detail Republicans want voters to forget.
Right Wing Lies, Deception and Deflection. Will they be enough to help Romney win? Or will they backfire ?
Punter 127
04-11-12, 08:26
It must eat you guys up inside that the unemployment rate is down from 10. 3% to 8. 2% under Obama's watch. That seems obvious from the desperate attempts to claim that the real unemployment rate is something else. Of course there are other variables, but the official rate is calculated by a prescribed, pre-determined method and that's what everyone goes by. I guess the claim that Obama was destroying the economy was just a big lie.
Bringing up the U6 rate is also deceptive because this is not the commonly used metric. People are used to numbers below 10, so hearing 14. 5% sounds bad. If you were to discuss the U6 honestly, you would compare it to historical rates and especially to where it went in 2009. It went up over 17, but like Punter's post, the right wing media doesn't mention that. They want people to compare 14. 5% with numbers they are used to. That's nothing but deception.
Pull up all the numbers and analyses you can. None of it changes the fact that the official rate is 8. 2. Most people know better and won't be fooled. Some will be fooled though, which Republican strategists are counting on.
BTW, on an unemployment chart you'll see a HUGE spike from mid-2008 to mid-2009. What caused that? Free-market capitalism. That's another little detail Republicans want voters to forget.
Right Wing Lies, Deception and Deflection. Will they be enough to help Romney win? Or will they backfire?Estens tantrum translates to: Waaah! Waaah! Waaah! Punter is telling the stuff we don't want you to know, please make him stop. Boo-hoo-hoo!
Punter 127
04-11-12, 09:05
Left wing Hypocrisy,
Obama has lost touch with the American people, he no longer feels our pain.
The hypocrisy and arrogance of Obama, Pelosi, and Hillary Clinton in the following video is simple stunning.
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=qKdScVerrBU&vg=medium
TejanoLibre
04-11-12, 16:34
Estens tantrum translates to: Waaah! Waaah! Waaah! Punter is telling the stuff we don't want you to know, please make him stop. Boo-hoo-hoo!Who will be Romney's running mate?
TL
It must eat you guys up inside that the unemployment rate is down from 10.3% to 8.2% under Obama's watch.8.2%? That's what you going to brag about?
BTW, on an unemployment chart you'll see a HUGE spike from mid-2008 to mid-2009. What caused that? Free-market capitalism.Esten, your thought process are so convoluted that you're embarrassing yourself.
Capitalism does not cause unemployment. Capitalism creates employment.
The absence of capitalism is what causes unemployment.
Left Wing Lies, Deception and Deflection. Will they be enough to help Obama win? Or will they backfire?
What Punter should have responded with is: "You're right Esten, it's misleading to compare the U6 to the U3."
But all he does is get defensive, and throw out some silly idea that critiquing his argument amounts to having a tantrum. LOL!
I would post some pictures to depict him unfavorably, but that would be childish.
Who will be Romney's running mate?Hey Dude! This board is supposed to be about discussing PUSSY !!
Sorry, couldn't resist. ;)
My guess, Romney's running mate will be someone both likeable and Conservative. Maybe Paul Ryan. The Conservative part is easy enough to understand. The likeable part, because Romney is very weak here. In a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, when asked who was more "friendly and likable", 64% said Obama, 26% said Romney.
I actually like Romney, somewhat. He doesn't connect well with average Americans, but I can tell he's a good guy. His attacks on Obama seem scripted, like acting. He doesn't seem to have a genuine anger against Obama or his policies. He just seems like a high achiever who really wants to be president.
Punter 127
04-12-12, 03:36
What Punter should have responded with is: "You're right Esten, it's misleading to compare the U6 to the U3."It will be a cold day in hell when I let you dictate what I should and shouldn't say.
But all he does is get defensive, and throw out some silly idea that critiquing his argument amounts to having a tantrum. LOL!You didn't critique anything you attack the messenger and said I was being deceptive and then you tried to spin things away from the real subject at hand.
Lets take a look at what really happened here, you cherry picked some numbers out of the jobs report and ballyhooed them here expecting everyone to except your bullshit as gospel.
I acknowledged your number 8.2 and the fact that it was down 0.1 and then I presented more numbers from the same report. There is absolutely nothing deceptive about the U6 number, it's in every jobs report, and I've talked about it here before.
Why do you think the government includes the U6 number in it job's report?
Is the government being deceptive or misleading when they include the U6 number?
What Esten should have responded with is 'Punter is right, his report shows the true unemployment picture. '
It is true that the unemployment rate has been as high as 10.3, but that number was achieved on Obamas watch, and it was not Part of the current jobs report. I find it interesting that you bring up the 10.3 number but fail to mention fact that unemployment is still higher now than it was when Obama took office, must have slipped your mind? Oh and how much debt did we take on to get where we are today?
One last thing you seem to have ignored missed and failed to address is the fact that the number of people not in the work force is at a record high. I guess you just can't spin explain that one away. If I were you I'd want to ignore that also.
WorldTravel69
04-12-12, 04:45
Right Wingers please keep on Fighting.
There is No Real Republican that can Win for President!
I loved it, no sex just from the mouth. Why do all Republicans do not want safe sex?
Unprotected sex to make babies, which no one wants to pay for. The Church will not part with their Gold to support Your Republican Kids?
But, I wish I was getting some pussy in Buenos Aires instead of watching the TV that Republicans say no sex for pleasure, unless you want babies!
I get off from hearing about you Republican losers.
Our Brother Foreigners has more to say. They laugh at us, being Un-worldized Americans.
P.S.
The Budget was not so bad under Clinton.
The next person to take over Fu---ked it Up,
GOOGLE IT!
Ryan or Rubio will be the GOP VP nominee. Both appeal to the Conservatives and will make the ticket much stronger. Rubio would deliver Florida, which is a must win for the Republicans. For those of you not living in the US, though the "official" unemployment number continues to drop, it is not evident in most areas of the US that there are any jobs. I am in contact with many people in their twenties- my kids, nieces, nephews, their friends- it is unbelievably hard to get a job- any job- right now. Most of the press is trying to make a case that things are looking up in the US- I don't see it. I visit BA monthly. There are a significant number of articles in the US press about the "Argentina miracle" that Cristina is pulling off. Honestly, I don't see that either. I see lots of trash in the streets, a lot of homeless, etc. Is it going on somewhere besides BA? Now that the in-fighting among the Republicans is just about over, you will see the race tighten up. Obama's fundraising totals compared to this time 4 years ago are significantly down. A lot of people in the US are going to have a hard time pulling the handle for Obama this time.
.
There is No Real Republican that can Win For president!How do You explain that in over 70years only one democrat president has gotten a second term WT69? Put that in your pipe and smoke It dude. Say Hi to Nancy for me. Mongering on dude. Toymann
WorldTravel69
04-12-12, 20:35
Both parties had 5 presidents elected twice.
How do You explain that in over 70years only one democrat president has gotten a second term WT69? Put that in your pipe and smoke It dude. Say Hi to Nancy for me. Mongering on dude. Toymann
Punter, perhaps you did not intend to be deceptive, but that's how the information you presented comes across. There's a clear effort on the right to change the discussion from the U3 to the U6 and claim the latter is the "real" number. The article you copy and pasted is just one example. You can try and change the narrative on this all you want, but I don't recall the right wing referring to U6 under Bush, and it's certain you guys will drop it like a rock if Romney is elected. Just like Romney will mention the U6 often before the election, and then he'll switch immediately to the U3 if he is elected.
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/02/whats-the-real-jobless-rate/
Romney calls the U-6 number the “real unemployment rate,” but BLS spokesman Gary Steinberg said the agency does not refer to U-6 as any kind of “unemployment rate,” real or otherwise, because it includes people who are employed, albeit part-time. The U-3 figure is the “official unemployment rate,” Steinberg said, and has been calculated the same way for decades.The deception is not just mere mention of the U6. The deception is claiming the U6 is the real number and that the U3 is "pure statistical bullshit".
This effort to shift the narrative to the U6 is an implicit acknowledgement that the 8.2% number sounds good. Nothing to brag about - no. But it's a good, respectable number at this point given where we've come from. The 10.3% peak in 2009 had nothing to do with Obama, both sides have said this. And we both agree there is more work to do.
Punter 127
04-13-12, 07:26
Esten doesn't like the U6 number. OK, How about the real U3 number should be 11%
'Were it not for people dropping out of the labor force, the unemployment rate would be well over 11.
Over the past several years people have dropped out of the labor force at an astounding, almost unbelievable rate, holding the unemployment rate artificially low. Some of this was due to major revisions last month on account of the 2010 census finally factored in. However, most of it is simply economic weakness.
In the last year, the civilian population rose by 3,604,000. Yet the labor force only rose by 1,315, 000. Those not in the labor force rose by 2,289, 000' [snip]Esten you can huff and you can puff but you can't blow those numbers down.
Sorry Esten the guys on this forum are much smarter than you give them credit for and I think they are very capable of interpreting the employment numbers and drawing their own conclusions.
'The unemployment rate in all 39 months of Obama's presidency has been higher than that of any single month in President Bush's 8 years in office.'
Esten wants to point fingers and give excuses about who's to blame, but the American people expect results not excuses.
I suspect Stingers post is a pretty good reflection of the American heartbeat.
For the record when I post somebody else's words I make every effort to put those words inside quotation marks, unlike Mr. Esten who on several occasions has post other peoples words as if they were his own. (a baiting ploy) Now he wants to limit the information you are allowed to look at because the truth 'sounds bad.' Who's really being deceptive?
I have a hard time believing these polls that show Obama leading Romney. The American people have a choice. They can send Romney (aka Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, Mickey Mantle) to plate and know they have someone swinging the bat who has excelled in the private and public sectors or they can send Obama (aka Pee Wee Herman) to the plate knowing that Obama has failed at his only private sector job, his lemonaide stand, and in the public sector has excelled only at pandering to the most despicable elements of American society while effortlessly destroying the American economy.
Alamo,
I don't know if you have watched any of the stuff from the primaries, but Romney is incredibly bad (awkward) in front of the cameras. Also, some of his comments show that he is out of touch with the average guy. Remember when someone asked Bush I about the price of milk? Imagine that, but worse. Romney is just an awkward guy and people want to vote for someone who has a personality.
Wow! This is a hot one. Obama wants Romneys tax records back to the 1970's. Romney wants to see Obama's birth certificate and Obama's high school equivalency/GED scores. Which do you think we will see first?
Tequila Tim
04-14-12, 00:52
Punter!
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/jobless-rate-figures-underestimated/2012/04/13/id/435791?s=al&promo_code=EA71-1
WorldTravel69
04-14-12, 03:00
Some of you that may still have brains, may get a laugh or of this.
http://www.hbo.com/real-time-with-bill-maher/episodes/0/244-episode/guest-stars.html?cmpid=ABC166
Tequila Tim
04-14-12, 13:26
This is a gem, secret service agent sent home after ripping off a pro in Columbia:
http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/13/11190256-secret-service-officers-sent-home-from-colombia-involvement-with-prostitutes-alleged?lite
Apparently the Secret Service agent (s) forgot that prostitution is legal in Columbia and that when they refused to pay she went to the police. What was the guy thinking?
WSJ? Another Wall Street friendly company from the same owner as Fox News. Newsmax? Are you kidding?
Of course the right wing is going to say the "real" unemployment rate is something other than 8.2%. No surprise here. But they can't even agree. Punter first said it was 14.5%. Now he says its 11%. The WSJ says its 12%. And Romney is saying it's 14.5%. My head is spinning, what's the "real" number ?
I'll stick with the 8.2% from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, thank you. It's the official number, and provides the only proper baseline for comparison with past numbers.
Regarding labor force participation rate (LFPR) , which I haven't commented on yet. It is correct it has been declining, which can influence the U3 number. Right wing talking points claim that millions have given up and left the labor force, because of Obama's terrible economy. In fact, the LFPR has been declining since 2000. It is mostly demographic, with a large and more recent baby boomer effect, not just people giving up looking for work. Why do Punter, Romney and WSJ fail to mention the demographic effect, and the decline occuring since 2000? Because they want to dupe people into thinking it's all Obama's fault. More deception.
Baby Boomers, Not Recession, Behind Drop In Workforce
http://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2012/03/02/baby-boomers-not-recession-lowering-labor-force-participation/
According to the report, just a third of the drop in labor force participation came from those who still wanted a job—and only 15% of those folks are of prime working age, 25 to 54. So, the economists see “the possibility of a large and sudden return of previously discouraged job seekers to the labor force as remote.”
Punter 127
04-16-12, 23:08
WSJ? Another Wall Street friendly company from the same owner as Fox News. Newsmax? Are you kidding? [snip]Why don't you just give us a list of approved places to obtain official propaganda?
Of course the right wing is going to say the "real" unemployment rate is something other than 8.2%. No surprise here. But they can't even agree. Punter first said it was 14.5%. Now he says its 11%. The WSJ says its 12%. And Romney is saying it's 14.5%. My head is spinning, what's the "real" number ?[snip]WTF are you delusional? You still got a problem with quotes, why didn't you use real quotes instead of posting your conveniently twisted interpretation of what I said? The snip below is the only place I can find that I actually used the 14. 5% number, and I also acknowledged that 'The official unemployment rate is 8. 2. ' Try reading it slowly or perhaps you need to read it out loud so you can understand what it says.
'The official unemployment rate is 8. 2. However, if you start counting all the people that want a job but gave up, all the people with part-time jobs that want a full-time job, all the people who dropped off the unemployment rolls because their unemployment benefits ran out, etc, you get a closer picture of what the unemployment rate is. That number is labeled U-6.
U-6 is much higher at 14. 5. Both numbers would be way higher still, were it not for millions dropping out of the labor force over the past few years. ' [snip]Dude if your head is spinning it's because you're the king of spin, not because of anything I wrote.
I'll stick with the 8.2% from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, thank you. It's the official number, and provides the only proper baseline for comparison with past numbers. [snip]No surprise here, just cherry pick a number you like, rather then look at the complete picture, typical leftwing BS!
Punter 127
04-17-12, 00:11
Regarding labor force participation rate (LFPR) , which I haven't commented on yet. It is correct it has been declining, which can influence the U3 number. Right wing talking points claim that millions have given up and left the labor force, because of Obama's terrible economy. In fact, the LFPR has been declining since 2000. It is mostly demographic, with a large and more recent baby boomer effect, not just people giving up looking for work. Why do Punter, Romney and WSJ fail to mention the demographic effect, and the decline occuring since 2000? Because they want to dupe people into thinking it's all Obama's fault. More deception.
Baby Boomers, Not Recession, Behind Drop In Workforce.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2012/03/02/baby-boomers-not-recession-lowering-labor-force-participation/
According to the report, just a third of the drop in labor force participation came from those who still wanted a job—and only 15% of those folks are of prime working age, 25 to 54. So, the economists see “the possibility of a large and sudden return of previously discouraged job seekers to the labor force as remote.”Wow where shall I start? Lets start at the end and work back, Esten seem to be cherry picking once again, notice how he quotes a part of the article that refers to 'economists' but he doesn't bother to mention that it's only one small group of economists (Barclays Capital) they are speaking of, that must have slipped his mind.
He also seems to have skimmed over the very first two paragraphs.
To hear most economists tell it, the prolonged recession has caused millions of Americans to leave the labor force.Key words 'most economists' they're speaking of all economist not a small group.
The second paragraph.
“ Perhaps though there’s another story there. Maybe it’s just the baby boomers.”Key words here 'Perhaps and Maybe'.
Next he says I ignored that LFPR has been dropping since 2000 and the demographic effects in order to dupe and deceive people, sometimes I wonder if this guy can read or if it's just over his head. Either way his remarks are untrue.
Over the past several years people have dropped out of the labor force at an astounding, almost unbelievable rate, holding the unemployment rate artificially low. Some of this was due to major revisions last month on account of the 2010 census finally factored in. However, most of it is simply economic weakness. [snip]There are a couple of other reasons why I did not elaborate on the LFPR first and foremost is the fact that the long term trend is not part of the current labor report. The other reason is Esten is sounding more and more desperate with every post, and I didn't want to kick him while he was down. But since he won't stop whipping the dead donkey, here's some graphs to help expose more of the real labor story. Indeed as Esten said the LFPR has been going down since 2000, but notice the acceleration in the rate of decline in the last three years. Take a look at the working age population number, and the 'Percentage of Labor Force Covered by Benefits. '
Esten would have us believe that everybody just retired. I don't doubt the retirement rate has increased, but how many people retired in the last three years because their job went away?
The numbers have been exposed, you guys can draw your own conclusions, even though Esten doesn't want you to.
My work on this subject is complete at least until the next jobs report. Until then I will not respond to Esten on this subject because I refuse to continue beating up on an opponent that has been disarmed and who is now down to cherry picking, delusional interpretation and mythomania in order to help achieve his ultimate desire of destroying free markets and capitalism. (If you don't believe that's what he wants? Go back and read his posts)
Esten you can spew whatever verbal regurgitation you want but it won't matter, the guys on this forum have you figured out. You gave it your best now let it rest, more rambling by you will just further expose how deceptive you really are, give the readers a break.
What we should be able to agree on:
1. There are multiple factors influencing the U3 unemployment rate.
2. There are multiple factors influencing the LFPR.
3. Millions of jobs were lost during the Great Recession.
4. Millions of jobs have been created since the recession ended - but fewer.
5. The unemployment rate is still elevated, and it's a challenge to get a good paying job.
What I think is a more interesting discussion is #5. Why is it tough for many people to find a good paying job? This should be a good topic for those who advocate digging into the numbers, and looking at the complete picture.
in order to help achieve his ultimate desire of destroying free markets and capitalism.Unfortunately, Punter flushes his credibility down the toilet here. He started off with a fair point about the LFPR influencing the U3. But it became little more than a one-sided presentation to mask the progress that has been made. Now he caps off his argument with an outright lie about my political views. Not exactly objective commentary.
For the record (again), I believe in both a strong private sector and a strong government. I posted somewhat of a position statement on 1/24/2011: http://www.argentinaprivate.com/forum/showthread.php?5285-American-Politics-during-the-Obama-Administration&p=415194&viewfull=1#post415194
Discussing the negative aspects of free market capitalism does not negate the positive aspects. I choose to look at both sides, than to live in some fantasy world where capitalism is a system is which jobs are only created and never lost.
Member #4112
04-19-12, 15:39
For all our liberal members of AP who wish for you to believe Obama's US Bureau of Labor Statistics' unemployment rate of 8. 2% is accurate, please read the article I have attached to this post.
As I have pointed out in earlier posts the unemployment rate has decreased primarily due to a decrease in the US labor force as defined by the Bureau, to the tune of about 9 Million people, and not by job creation.
It is not that these 9 million folks are not still unemployed but the Bureau has 'defined' them right out of existence as far as the US labor force is concerned. The Bureau has managed to reduce the unemployment numbers from over 10% to 8. 2% and is attempting to project a continued downward trajectory for unemployment by simply reducing the labor force by changing a 'definition'.
Esten, liberals and the Obama administration attempt to explain away this 9 Million person reduction in the labor force as the Baby Boomers moving into retirement. The article points out only 26% of those 'defined' out of the labor force by Obama's Bureau of Labor Statistics are in the 55 and above age bracket, while the remain 74% of those 'defined' out of the labor force by the Bureau are in the 16-54 age bracket. The folks I know who are between 55 and 65 are still working until they qualify for Medicare, but that's a story for a different day.
While this pretty much blows up Obama's assertion all the folks are Baby Boomers retiring, the Obama Bureau of Labor Statistics adds insult to injury by making the cynical judgment that the job situation has been so bad for so long the 74% of folks of that 9 million who fall in the 16-54 bracket are being scrubbed from labor force since they have no hope of finding a job.
Interesting reading and very straightforward without the psycho babble / static smoke and mirrors used by the liberals, you know like counting the Medicare funds twice: once as a cut then as revenue.
Those 9 million folks Obama's US Bureau of Labor Statistics made vanish from the labor force are sure as hell going to reappear on Election Day!
http://danielamerman.com/articles/2012/WorkC.html
Doppleganger,
That's an interesting article, but it's simply too complicated for the typical Democratic voter (excluding the esteemed Democrat readers of this forum, of course) to comprehend.
Can you reduce it to a sound bite? Hahahaha!
Anyway, I was particularly humored by this comment...
a government which desires to control public perceptions can, by manipulating that obscure definition, make the reported unemployment inflation rate "sit, roll over or bark like a dog" at will, almost regardless of what is actually happening with jobs prices....which reminded me of the way that the Argentina government manipulates their official inflation statics.
Thanks,
Jackson
That's what John Boehner said in a television interview last September.
"We have 10,000 baby boomers retiring every day. It’s time for us to get serious about ensuring that these programs are going to be there for them."
Politifact checked that statement out and ranked it as completely true.
http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2011/sep/26/john-boehner/house-speaker-john-boehner-says-10000-baby-boomers/
Retiring baby boomers are by no means the only factor influencing the LFPR. But it is certainly a factor, and probably a significant one.
Gee whiz this is fun, isn't it?
Doppel's article is from a blogger who uses his own metric "Workforce Participation Rate Change" to arrive at the 74% being from the 16-54 age group. Google this term and you'll get one hit. It's not an official statistic. I see this gentleman has a bunch of books and dvd's for sale too. Sometimes, these bloggers make claims nobody else is making to draw attention to themselves. Regardless, the 16-54 group would be the most likely to resume looking for work, in which case they'll be counted in the official unemployment rate. We can watch in the months ahead whether there is or isn't a surge of job seekers back into the labor market.
BTW, it's not the "Obama Bureau of Labor Statistics", it's the "Bureau of Labor Statistics". There is no manipulation, BLS has been using the same method to calculate the unemployment rate for 30 years.
Member #4112
04-20-12, 13:49
Esten, John Boehner is a congressman, not a CFP, economist, statistician or even an accountant. I doubt he has anything to backup his claim.
I also don't really consider PolitiFact to be the end all of fact checking, particularly in this case. An excellent example of this was their rating of Obama's claim the US has only 2% of the worlds reserves, a number which has not changed since the 1940's as it refers to Proven Reserves. Folks in the energy business have successfully refuted this number due to advances in technology, discoveries of new fields, and rehabilitation of existing fields through technology increasing the US reserves from 2% to 26% of world reserves.
So what was PolitiFact's rating of Obama's statement – it was partly true and partly false. Wow does not mean it's more lie than truth. Face it Obama never let the truth stand in the way of a good campaign speech or sound bite!
Regardless, the 16-54 group would be the most likely to resume looking for work, in which case they'll be counted in the official unemployment rate. We can watch in the months ahead whether there is or isn't a surge of job seekers back into the labor market.
BTW, it's not the "Obama Bureau of Labor Statistics", it's the "Bureau of Labor Statistics". There is no manipulation, BLS has been using the same method to calculate the unemployment rate for 30 years.Esten, even you do not dispute the persons falling in 16-54 bracket of long term unemployed have been dropped from the 'unemployed' figure to get the magic 8. 2%. Since these folks still don't have a job did they just vanish? They are still unemployed just not being counted due to the Bureau's change in 'definition' therefore making the unemployment number look better than it really is. Face it Esten, you like the 8. 2% number regardless of if it is true or not since it serves your purposes.
Esten, please don't insult everyone's intelligence by attempting to convince us the Bureau of Labor Statistics is not being leaned on by the Obama administration to make the unemployment picture look better than it is. If not why change the underlying assumptions for the numbers by changing definitions of who is unemployed when such a change has not been made in 30 years until the Obama admininstration came along.
Wasn't sure how much the books were being cooked until I read this.
Discouraged workers dropping out of the labor force make the unemployment rate look fractionally better, but the 8. 2 percent headline masks the misery. It is a reflection of the U-3 statistic, which counts only people who have applied for a job in the last four weeks. Among the jobless army, a staggering 42 percent of them are long-term unemployed, without jobs for six months or longer. Look instead at the more relevant U-6 statistic, which counts the number of people who have applied over the last six months. U-6 also includes those who are involuntarily working on a part-time basis. That U-6 unemployment is now in the range of 15 percent. Since 2008, some 3 million people have dropped out of the job market. If they hadn't, the unemployment rate would be about 10. 8 percent. In March, the unemployment rate seemed to fall a tenth of 1 percent, yet the number of people who are actually employed dropped by 31, 000. Why? Because the number of people who looked for a job dropped by 164, 000 and they are not considered unemployed. Not to mention that half the new jobs are in temporary help agencies.
I think Christina could take a few tips from us on how to manipulate statistics.
There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics. Mark Twain.
In every kind of statistical sample there are assumptions. The easiest way to play with data is to jigger with the population assumptions. The surveys tend to be fairly static. But a changing population, in the statistical not demographic sense, is the way to move the needle. Not living stateside, I don't have a good feel for what is really happening but from the doublespeak I see in the news. Something funny is going on.
Member #4112
04-23-12, 12:44
Let's get the acronyms out of the way first:
Bureau of Labor & Statistic (BLS)
Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
Government Accountability Office (GAO)
Talk about piling on, after the BLS released its rosy unemployment number of 8. 2% with its prediction of a continued downward trajectory for unemployment with cooked numbers, see earlier post, along comes the CBO with their prediction on unemployment numbers which show: 1. Unemployment is higher than the 8. 2% BLS crows about; 2. Unemployment is going to rise to nearly 10% in the next two years; 3. Unemployment will not be below 8% for several years.
If the CBO blowing the BLS's numbers and Obama's claims out the water is not bad enough along comes the GAO and blasts ObamaCare for paying out $8 Billion in 'bonuses for quality of care' within the Medicare Advantage program which really is nothing of the sort since you get the bonus for delivering the same care as you provided today without any 'improvements'. You might note this little 'bonus' scheme did not come up until Obama started fading heat for the cuts to the Medicare Advantage program from seniors. Typical ObamaNomics, just keep throwing our money at the problem.
Guess Obama was so busy leaning on the BLS he forgot to make sure the CBO & GAO were all telling the same story. ROFLMAO
PolitiFact is probably the best site out there for checking what is based on fact and what isn't. It should be a go-to site for anyone interested in getting at the truth. The part-true part-false on the 2% claim sounds more than fair. Obama is citing proven reserves and based on information available, the 2% figure is correct. The USGS study released last week doesn't render that inaccurate, because the study measured "undiscovered, technically recoverable" reserves. Two different things. I can't find the page on PolitiFact but the part-false rating is probably to the critic's point that some could infer the US has less oil than we do. I'm not sure that's false but PolitiFact does attempt to be fair.
To me the % of world reserves is not the main point. It's how many years of oil we have left. Some estimates put it at hundreds of years, but I for one don't want to wait to act. Many others aren't waiting either. There is a nascent solar energy revolution happening now, at individual, government and industry levels. Federal support to help kick-start this industry in the US has been absolutely the right call. Why buy from China when we can buy from the US and create jobs here in the US at the same time. And that's just solar.
"All of the Above"? Or just "Drill Baby Drill"?
For me there isn't even a debate as to which is the superior approach for energy.
Esten, perhaps you should revisit the changes in Medicare which are already coming on line due to ObamaCare. Now many tests have been dropped from the approved payment list and when physicians order these test it is now up to the patient to pay if the tests are preformed.Doppel, do you have a credible link as to what tests were dropped? I asked you before.
Esten, please don't insult everyone's intelligence by attempting to convince us the Bureau of Labor Statistics is not being leaned on by the Obama administration to make the unemployment picture look better than it is. If not why change the underlying assumptions for the numbers by changing definitions of who is unemployed when such a change has not been made in 30 years until the Obama admininstration came along.Do you have a credible link showing how BLS changed how they calculate the official unemployment rate, let alone how Obama "leaned" on them to do it?
It's time for us to check your sources Doppel, looking forward to your responses.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.4 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.