keemapoot Posted September 30, 2012 Share Posted September 30, 2012 You gotta love it. Romney's campaign is driving Paul Ryan to drink to counter the Obama campaign's strategy of showing he's a normal beer swizzlin' dude too. I guess they'll have to make do with Gilligan doing this since Thurston ain't allowed to touch the sinful nectar. Paul Ryan Stops at Ohio State University Sports Bar to Have a Beer http://news.yahoo.com/paul-ryan-stops-ohio-state-university-sports-bar-235912857--abc-news-politics.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koheesti Posted September 30, 2012 Share Posted September 30, 2012 the Obama led recovery That joke never gets old! He led the economy from the ditch, over the cliff. NOW he wants to keep the keys for another four years? No, I don't think so, O. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neurath Posted September 30, 2012 Share Posted September 30, 2012 Percentage increase in average federal spending during the Obama administration: 2.4 Rank of that rate of increase among the lowest under any President since Truman: 1 So a big shout out to Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush the 1st and Bush the 2nd - all of whom managed a higher percentage increase than the Communist in White House. http://crfb.org/blog...president-obama http://crfb.org The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) is an independent, non-profit, non-partisan public policy organization based in Washington, D.C. that addresses federal budget and fiscal issues. It was founded in 1981 by former United States Representatives Robert Giaimo (D-CT) and Henry Bellmon (R-OK), and its board of directors includes former Members of Congress and directors of the Office of Management and Budget, the Congressional Budget Office and the Federal Reserve.[1] CRFB is also host of the Peterson-Pew Commission on Budget Reform, which released its initial report, Red Ink Rising, in December 2009 and its second report, Getting Back in the Black, in November 2010.[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_for_a_Responsible_Federal_Budget Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koheesti Posted September 30, 2012 Share Posted September 30, 2012 A casual glance at various booms and busts will tell you that Republicans love Booms. Then they milk them for all they are worth, pocket the cash and disappear while someone else digs the economy out of the Bust. Then they come in and do the whole thing again. They don't make money out of busts, and it's really convenient to blame someone else for causing them while they lead during times of economic hardship. Actually, rich people clean up during down periods. Who is left to scoop up great properties at bargain basement prices only to turn around and resell for x-times what they bought it for? Or who else can afford to load up on company stock that has temporarily tanked? Nope, rich people love a good bust (don't we all ) You have a good point there. They stimulate growth by encouraging people to spend money they don't have, then cash in before it goes tits up. Then they can do exactly what you describe. So they're quids in all round. It's a pretty efficient system, since folks don't seem to realise they are being had. It was the liberal politicians who pushed mortgages on low income families who couldn't afford them. If you were in America back in the 80's you might remember all the talk about how racist evil bankers were because they wouldn't give housing loans to people who couldn't afford it (poor white people didn't get the loans because they couldn't pay them off, poor black people didn't get the loads because bankers are racist!). Obama himself contributed to the mess with a 1995 lawsuit that enabled about 200 low income families to purchase homes they couldn't afford. Today, less than 20 still have them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicog Posted September 30, 2012 Share Posted September 30, 2012 I don't see why Obama can't boost spending to improve the economy, it seems to do the trick. You know, a few infrastructure projects would be good. If he needs advice on to how to line his mates pockets at the same time, he can always ask Mitt, he'll be seeing him in a few days. You know, maybe resurface a resorts car park or tennis courts, the kind of project from which everyone benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicog Posted September 30, 2012 Share Posted September 30, 2012 A casual glance at various booms and busts will tell you that Republicans love Booms. Then they milk them for all they are worth, pocket the cash and disappear while someone else digs the economy out of the Bust. Then they come in and do the whole thing again. They don't make money out of busts, and it's really convenient to blame someone else for causing them while they lead during times of economic hardship. Actually, rich people clean up during down periods. Who is left to scoop up great properties at bargain basement prices only to turn around and resell for x-times what they bought it for? Or who else can afford to load up on company stock that has temporarily tanked? Nope, rich people love a good bust (don't we all ) You have a good point there. They stimulate growth by encouraging people to spend money they don't have, then cash in before it goes tits up. Then they can do exactly what you describe. So they're quids in all round. It's a pretty efficient system, since folks don't seem to realise they are being had. It was the liberal politicians who pushed mortgages on low income families who couldn't afford them. If you were in America back in the 80's you might remember all the talk about how racist evil bankers were because they wouldn't give housing loans to people who couldn't afford it (poor white people didn't get the loans because they couldn't pay them off, poor black people didn't get the loads because bankers are racist!). Obama himself contributed to the mess with a 1995 lawsuit that enabled about 200 low income families to purchase homes they couldn't afford. Today, less than 20 still have them. Oh purlease. 200 wasn't going to break the bank. This was: "The percentage of new lower-quality subprime mortgages rose from the historical 8% or lower range to approximately 20% from 2004 to 2006. I don't believe Obama's paltry 200 houses tipped the scales, and I doubt you do, either. Nice try, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neurath Posted September 30, 2012 Share Posted September 30, 2012 And even that didn't screw the pooch. What did was the securitization of those mortgages and the massively leveraged purchase of the securities. Also, between 1989 and 2007 to fund consumption "US citizens borrowed more than $3 TRILLION against their home equity, the difference between the value of their homes and the mortgage outstanding" Extreme Money: Masters of the Universe and the Cult of Risk. Is there any wonder at all that the overhang from this debt is a hugely disappointing job market as a result of low levels of aggregate demand? Job market won't appreciably improve until there is an increase in aggregate demand. The big fight is over how to achieve that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rijb Posted September 30, 2012 Share Posted September 30, 2012 I don't like either candidate... Romney is too wishy washy (or stupid) to explain to voters why they shouldn't vote for Obama. And Obama was/is too arrogant (or stupid) to work with congress and solve the financial crisis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neurath Posted September 30, 2012 Share Posted September 30, 2012 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiUjnhgloxw&feature=player_embedded November 7 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicog Posted September 30, 2012 Share Posted September 30, 2012 Chuck and Ulysses will be lifted by this news from FARS..... who don't appear to care that it came from The Onion. http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexkantrowitz/2012/09/28/irans-fars-news-agency-picks-up-bogus-obama-story-from-the-onion/ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted September 30, 2012 Share Posted September 30, 2012 Now THAT is funny! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicog Posted September 30, 2012 Share Posted September 30, 2012 (edited) Now THAT is funny! Gotta love 'em. I wonder how RT will report it? And Gorgeous George Galloway will probably be on his nightly Press TV show tonight extolling the virtues of Gallup and trying to get the phrase "Crusader Coalition" into an hour as many times as possible. Edited September 30, 2012 by Chicog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckd Posted September 30, 2012 Share Posted September 30, 2012 What's so crazy about that. I took part in the poll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maccaroni man Posted September 30, 2012 Share Posted September 30, 2012 great example of an oxymoron : Obama responsible 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicog Posted September 30, 2012 Share Posted September 30, 2012 What's so crazy about that. I took part in the poll. What poll? Bit of quoting wouldn't go amiss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nurofiend Posted September 30, 2012 Share Posted September 30, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheeryble Posted September 30, 2012 Share Posted September 30, 2012 (edited) How many charities out there are run by atheists? For a start the chain of charities spreading from the coffers of secular Gates and Buffett is of course huge. Secondly Buddhists have made a big thing of absolute compassion for millennia, and they're atheists, and there are a lot of them. As to Romney's charitable credentials, I think it says a lot that he gave $100m to his sons, a $100m which they would be hard pressed to spend if they bought every conceivable luxury, and which, cleverly spent, could have paid for countless unaffordable operations and really changed a large number of lives. Buffett of course decid to give more to his offspring, but only because he was so impressed with how they had given everything previous to charity so efficiently. But in a spectacular act of genetic selfishness Romney gave it to his sons......a bit like having a choice what to do with it......then giving it to oneself. Cheeryble Edited September 30, 2012 by cheeryble Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 It is not exactly unusual to leave your money to your children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keemapoot Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 I was looking forward to the first debate at DU this Wednesday, but now with both camps advising to "lower expectations," it sounds like a real sleeper. Romney's camp said he should go slow in the first one because Obama has so much experience and Romney doesn't in these things. Obama meanwhile maybe thinks he is so far ahead now in the polls he can just "ride out the clock" and just be careful not to fumble or turn over the ball. The pressure is certainly on Romney to make up ground during these debates, so being tentative may be a losing strategy, if that's what he does. Maybe Romney is just sending false signals and will be a firebrand? I guess I'll watch anyway depending on the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 (edited) They both want to lower expectations, so that if they do well, it will not just be expected and if they do badly they will have some sort of an excuse. Obama will probably just play it safe, but, IMO, if Romney does he will likely lose the election. Edited October 1, 2012 by Ulysses G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 A snide comment directed at another poster has been deleted. This thread isn't anyone's personal playground. Treat others in a civil manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asiantravel Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 How many charities out there are run by atheists? For a start the chain of charities spreading from the coffers of secular Gates and Buffett is of course huge. Secondly Buddhists have made a big thing of absolute compassion for millennia, and they're atheists, and there are a lot of them. As to Romney's charitable credentials, I think it says a lot that he gave $100m to his sons, a $100m which they would be hard pressed to spend if they bought every conceivable luxury, and which, cleverly spent, could have paid for countless unaffordable operations and really changed a large number of lives. Buffett of course decid to give more to his offspring, but only because he was so impressed with how they had given everything previous to charity so efficiently. But in a spectacular act of genetic selfishness Romney gave it to his sons......a bit like having a choice what to do with it......then giving it to oneself. Cheeryble What you say is simply inaccurate http://clashdaily.com/2012/09/heartless-romney-blows-obamabiden-away-in-charity-gifts/ 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keemapoot Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 The Christian Science Monitor has a new analysis of the impact of religion in the election. In spite of Ryan's catholic status, Catholics are flocking to Obama instead. Similarly, Jews usually vote democrat (78% in 2008 for Obama) though of course Romney has been hammering the Obama relationship with Israel. Evangelicals have managed to put aside their distaste of Romney's LDS faith as they are more concerned about getting Obama out. “On June 17, Obama held a slight edge over Mitt Romney among Catholics (49 percent to 47 percent), according to the Pew Research Center,” the news service reported. “Since then, Obama has surged ahead, and now leads 54 percent to 39 percent, according to a Pew poll conducted Sept. 16.” http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2012/0930/Obama-and-Romney-fight-for-religious-groups-votes.-Then-there-s-Romney-s-Mormon-faith/(page)/3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 An off-topic post has been deleted. If you wish to have a discussion about the candidates, their policies and those things related to the election, feel free to do so. Making snide comments to other posters, or baiting them with questions of a personal nature is going to result in your posts being deleted. If it becomes a pattern, then you will receive a temporary suspension of posting ability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koheesti Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 The Christian Science Monitor has a new analysis of the impact of religion in the election. In spite of Ryan's catholic status, Catholics are flocking to Obama instead. Similarly, Jews usually vote democrat (78% in 2008 for Obama) though of course Romney has been hammering the Obama relationship with Israel. Evangelicals have managed to put aside their distaste of Romney's LDS faith as they are more concerned about getting Obama out. “On June 17, Obama held a slight edge over Mitt Romney among Catholics (49 percent to 47 percent), according to the Pew Research Center,” the news service reported. “Since then, Obama has surged ahead, and now leads 54 percent to 39 percent, according to a Pew poll conducted Sept. 16.” http://www.csmonitor...-faith/(page)/3 Hispanics are Catholic so there is probably some overlap there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koheesti Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 How many charities out there are run by atheists? For a start the chain of charities spreading from the coffers of secular Gates and Buffett is of course huge. Cheeryble Being secular is not the same as being Atheist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koheesti Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 You have a good point there. They stimulate growth by encouraging people to spend money they don't have, then cash in before it goes tits up. Then they can do exactly what you describe. So they're quids in all round. It's a pretty efficient system, since folks don't seem to realise they are being had. It was the liberal politicians who pushed mortgages on low income families who couldn't afford them. If you were in America back in the 80's you might remember all the talk about how racist evil bankers were because they wouldn't give housing loans to people who couldn't afford it (poor white people didn't get the loans because they couldn't pay them off, poor black people didn't get the loads because bankers are racist!). Obama himself contributed to the mess with a 1995 lawsuit that enabled about 200 low income families to purchase homes they couldn't afford. Today, less than 20 still have them. Oh purlease. 200 wasn't going to break the bank. This was: "The percentage of new lower-quality subprime mortgages rose from the historical 8% or lower range to approximately 20% from 2004 to 2006. I don't believe Obama's paltry 200 houses tipped the scales, and I doubt you do, either. Nice try, though. If that's what you read into my post, then it explains why you believe the things you do...you're confused. You blame the Republicans for pushing poor people to buy homes they couldn't afford when it was mostly the Dems and even Obama was involved when he was a community organizer. So if you hate people for screwing the poor, turn your hate around and focus it where it belongs - on the Democrats & their leader, Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koheesti Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 I don't see why Obama can't boost spending to improve the economy, it seems to do the trick. You know, a few infrastructure projects would be good. If he needs advice on to how to line his mates pockets at the same time, he can always ask Mitt, he'll be seeing him in a few days. You know, maybe resurface a resorts car park or tennis courts, the kind of project from which everyone benefits. I agree with large infrastructure projects but Obama has screwed the pooch on that one and pissed off California Democrats AND the unions... A short while back the State of California wanted to rebuild the Bay Bridge between Oakland and San Francisco. The problem is that the Bay Bridge construction project is using Chinese steel. ABC News did this story on the Bay Bridge Steel. [follow the link to watch the video] http://nhlabornews.com/2012/07/american-taxpayer-money-going-to-chinese-companies-for-us-construction-projects/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicog Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 Oh purlease. 200 wasn't going to break the bank. This was:"The percentage of new lower-quality subprime mortgages rose from the historical 8% or lower range to approximately 20% from 2004 to 2006. If that's what you read into my post, then it explains why you believe the things you do...you're confused. You blame the Republicans for pushing poor people to buy homes they couldn't afford when it was mostly the Dems and even Obama was involved when he was a community organizer. So if you hate people for screwing the poor, turn your hate around and focus it where it belongs - on the Democrats & their leader, Obama. Yes, I do blame the Republicans, and I gave you the timeline to prove it. Turn your hate around and focus on where it belongs: The Republicans and their puppet leader who simply want to rip more money from the American economy into their personal coffers, no matter what it does to the American people, who they are supposed to represent and protect, not bleed dry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koheesti Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 Oh purlease. 200 wasn't going to break the bank. This was:"The percentage of new lower-quality subprime mortgages rose from the historical 8% or lower range to approximately 20% from 2004 to 2006. If that's what you read into my post, then it explains why you believe the things you do...you're confused. You blame the Republicans for pushing poor people to buy homes they couldn't afford when it was mostly the Dems and even Obama was involved when he was a community organizer. So if you hate people for screwing the poor, turn your hate around and focus it where it belongs - on the Democrats & their leader, Obama. Yes, I do blame the Republicans, and I gave you the timeline to prove it. Turn your hate around and focus on where it belongs: The Republicans and their puppet leader who simply want to rip more money from the American economy into their personal coffers, no matter what it does to the American people, who they are supposed to represent and protect, not bleed dry. OK, I'm curious, please show me the timeline. I don't buy that rich people want to bleed everybody dry. The only people who believe that the pie is only one size and can't be expanded giving everyone an opportunity to be better off are the Democrats. So the rich Dems who believe it is possible to bleed everyone dry. The rich Reps believe they can get richer by making the pie bigger so there is something for everybody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts