Presidential Debates 2012
Quote: (10-04-2012 08:41 PM)painter Wrote:
Quote: (10-04-2012 08:17 PM)Fisto Wrote:
Quote: (10-04-2012 08:11 PM)Zebra_Cakes Wrote:
Why are people even mention President Obamas experience? He's been President for nearly 4 years. Regardless of whether you like the job he's done or not, he's now experienced. In fact, being President, he exceeds Mitt Romney in in certain sectors of experience, including having significantly more Foreign Policy experience.
It's hard to call "on the job training" experience.
We're mentioning it because after all the hype, all the rhetoric, all the promises of hope and change, we got exactly what his detractors were saying from the beginning, Nothing.
Yeah, it's worse than nothing. Gas is $4 a gallon, the price of food is going through the roof,
If you think the president has anything to do with the price of a commodity that is extracted and produced in OPEC nations and traded on the world market, you don't even deserve to vote. What is Obama supposed to do about the price of gas? Open the strategic oil reserve? And after that's gone in a few months what then? I guess we could take over Iraq's oil fields and keep all the oil money, but that's not exactly good for America's reputation. What exactly do you propose that Obama does about gas prices? When he talks about green technology, Republicans balk. So what does your side propose to do about gas prices? More domestic drilling? We don't have the reserves to make a major dent in the world market. That's why we're not an OPEC country, duh. And if Exxon drills oil in Alaska, they aren't cutting Americans a discount out of patriotic duty, they are selling it right back on the world market, much of it will go to China. We don't have a state run oil company that will only sell American oil to American consumers at discount prices.
Quote:Quote:
everything costs twice as much under Obama and they want higher taxes on top of that?
Really? Everything? So cars, clothes, consumer goods, food, computers, rents, houses cost twice as much in 2012 as they did in 2008? You don't really believe this bullshit do you?
Do you make more than $250,000 a year? If not, your taxes aren't going up under Obama.
Quote:Quote:
If we don't cut the borrowing to spend now we go broke. That's math Obama can't seem to add up.
If Bush hadn't slashed taxes on the wealthy while launching two wars, we wouldn't need to borrow. In fact he's the first president to cut taxes at a time of war. Remember that Bush came into office with a projected budget surplus. He squandered it.
Quote: (10-04-2012 08:55 PM)Kona Wrote:
Quote: (10-04-2012 08:37 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:
I know kids from Punahou, Kamehameha and some of the other elite Hawaii preps
Kamehameha isn't elitist it's Native Hawaiian ancestry only.
Aloha!
My bad.
Know your enemy and know yourself, find naught in fear for 100 battles. Know yourself but not your enemy, find level of loss and victory. Know thy enemy but not yourself, wallow in defeat every time.
Quote: (10-04-2012 09:02 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:
Quote: (10-04-2012 08:55 PM)Kona Wrote:
Quote: (10-04-2012 08:37 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:
I know kids from Punahou, Kamehameha and some of the other elite Hawaii preps
Kamehameha isn't elitist it's Native Hawaiian ancestry only.
Aloha!
My bad.
No problem. They both rejected me!
Aloha!
Guys I'm sorry but what all of your arguments in support of Obama boil down to is "it's not his fault" or "he's hasn't done NOTHING".
Athlone, you missed my point about the flip flopping comment entirely. My point was all of the criticisms of Romney being privileged, out of touch, rich, a flip flopper are hypocritical since they can all be applied to Obama. So what is left? You compare what they have accomplished.
Obama has enjoyed a privileged life. Downplaying his families' connections and his unsavory associates and then comparing them to Romney is a misleading. If your'e going to do that, compare his life to the average American's and then he's back to being a spoiled rich kid who's had every opportunity handed to him. You're really acting like the editor's position in college is something that helps him in his function as President? Or a community organizer makes him a good politician? Or that's equivalent to Romney making millions of dollars by turning around unprofitable businesses? Jesus man. I really expected something more.
You are being completely irrational to make the leap that Romney is going to run the country like a private equity firm. Is that how he ran Mass? Because it appears to me his accomplishments there are well regarded.
Your link says 43% of total white votes voted for Obama. I'm not sure how you can say that wasn't the majority of the popular vote.
Your link to what the fuck has obama done so far lacks any substance or credibility. Obama made a bunch of grandiose promises, and those largely remain unfulfilled. So you can say "oh well he signed such and such bill" but that's not what he ran his campaign on, and so the argument that he's accomplished nothing is valid. How about if I just say "He's accomplished nothing of what he said he would"?
Your link to a wikipedia page about death threats to Obama is pretty weak man. A cursory google search shows a shit load of the same kind of threats to George Bush and also Donald Trump and Tim Tebow. That doesn't make the argument that people are threatening him simply because he's black or that this "target" on him is any different that the ones placed on past controversial presidents like Bush.
In Late 2008/09 I'm pretty sure the president was saying something along the lines of "I'll fix the economy in 3 years or this is a one term propostion". Well?
Speakeasy, experience and accomplishments give credibility to a candidate. I would gauge whether someone's political philosophy matched mine and then based on that experience or accomplishments I'd decide whether or not I thought they could fulfill those promises. As noted, Obama promised a lot and has delivered on almost nothing. My favorite was the "I'll cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term". Athlone likes to look at an executive directive that Obama signed and say that's an accomplishment, but when you compare the two things it's hard for me to see how anyone can honestly act like he's been effective as a leader.
As far as gas prices and the president, his policies have hurt this country and making it energy independent. Romney wisely brought attention to that at the very beginning of the debate.
Athlone, you missed my point about the flip flopping comment entirely. My point was all of the criticisms of Romney being privileged, out of touch, rich, a flip flopper are hypocritical since they can all be applied to Obama. So what is left? You compare what they have accomplished.
Obama has enjoyed a privileged life. Downplaying his families' connections and his unsavory associates and then comparing them to Romney is a misleading. If your'e going to do that, compare his life to the average American's and then he's back to being a spoiled rich kid who's had every opportunity handed to him. You're really acting like the editor's position in college is something that helps him in his function as President? Or a community organizer makes him a good politician? Or that's equivalent to Romney making millions of dollars by turning around unprofitable businesses? Jesus man. I really expected something more.
You are being completely irrational to make the leap that Romney is going to run the country like a private equity firm. Is that how he ran Mass? Because it appears to me his accomplishments there are well regarded.
Your link says 43% of total white votes voted for Obama. I'm not sure how you can say that wasn't the majority of the popular vote.
Your link to what the fuck has obama done so far lacks any substance or credibility. Obama made a bunch of grandiose promises, and those largely remain unfulfilled. So you can say "oh well he signed such and such bill" but that's not what he ran his campaign on, and so the argument that he's accomplished nothing is valid. How about if I just say "He's accomplished nothing of what he said he would"?
Your link to a wikipedia page about death threats to Obama is pretty weak man. A cursory google search shows a shit load of the same kind of threats to George Bush and also Donald Trump and Tim Tebow. That doesn't make the argument that people are threatening him simply because he's black or that this "target" on him is any different that the ones placed on past controversial presidents like Bush.
In Late 2008/09 I'm pretty sure the president was saying something along the lines of "I'll fix the economy in 3 years or this is a one term propostion". Well?
Speakeasy, experience and accomplishments give credibility to a candidate. I would gauge whether someone's political philosophy matched mine and then based on that experience or accomplishments I'd decide whether or not I thought they could fulfill those promises. As noted, Obama promised a lot and has delivered on almost nothing. My favorite was the "I'll cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term". Athlone likes to look at an executive directive that Obama signed and say that's an accomplishment, but when you compare the two things it's hard for me to see how anyone can honestly act like he's been effective as a leader.
As far as gas prices and the president, his policies have hurt this country and making it energy independent. Romney wisely brought attention to that at the very beginning of the debate.
Quote: (10-04-2012 09:50 PM)Fisto Wrote:
Your link to what the fuck has obama done so far lacks any substance or credibility. Obama made a bunch of grandiose promises, and those largely remain unfulfilled. So you can say "oh well he signed such and such bill" but that's not what he ran his campaign on, and so the argument that he's accomplished nothing is valid. How about if I just say "He's accomplished nothing of what he said he would"?
According to this site he's kept more of his promises than broken. You can sort his stated promises by category and see if they were fulfilled, stalled, compromised or reneged on.
Quote:Quote:
As far as gas prices and the president, his policies have hurt this country
How so, specifically?
Quote: (10-04-2012 10:00 PM)speakeasy Wrote:
Quote: (10-04-2012 09:50 PM)Fisto Wrote:
Your link to what the fuck has obama done so far lacks any substance or credibility. Obama made a bunch of grandiose promises, and those largely remain unfulfilled. So you can say "oh well he signed such and such bill" but that's not what he ran his campaign on, and so the argument that he's accomplished nothing is valid. How about if I just say "He's accomplished nothing of what he said he would"?
According to this site he's kept more of his promises than broken. You can sort his stated promises by category and see if they were fulfilled, stalled, compromised or reneged on.
Quote:Quote:
As far as gas prices and the president, his policies have hurt this country
How so, specifically?
So now we're given credit to compromised promises that were "partially" kept? A promise is kept or broken. This "compromise" part should be added to "promises broken". Also, again, I'm talking about big promises the ones that he spouted off about when he had a 2 minute commercial, the ones that made him seem like the second coming, not the "we'll have more high school kids in college level courses". If you go by the merit of the promises and compare what was kept and what was broken or "compromised" on it's like two different worlds.
Expand Early Head Start and Head Start
The Promise: "Will quadruple Early Head Start, increase Head Start funding and improve quality for both."
Update September 27th, 2012: Early learning programs grew, but not to promised size>> More
Launch a Children's First Agenda
The Promise: "Obama will launch a Children's First Agenda that provides care, learning and support to families with children from birth up to 5 years old."
Update September 27th, 2012: No agenda, but some progress>> More
Increase the number of high school students taking college-level courses
The Promise: "We're also going to set a goal of increasing the number of high school students taking college level or AP courses by 50 percent in the coming years."
Update September 25th, 2012: The number is probably on the rise, but we don't have an accurate count>> More
Double funding for Federal Charter School Program and require more accountability
The Promise: "Will double funding for the Federal Charter School Program to support the creation of more successful charter schools. An Obama-Biden administration will provide this expanded charter school funding only to states that improve accountability for charter schools, allow for interventions in struggling charter schools and have a clear process for closing down chronically underperforming charter schools. An Obama-Biden administration will also prioritize supporting states that help the most successful charter schools to expand to serve more students."
Update September 25th, 2012: Obama's support of charter schools falls short of campaign promise>> More
Address the dropout crisis by giving schools incentives for more dropout prevention
The Promise: "Will address the dropout crisis by passing his legislation to provide funding to school districts to invest in intervention strategies in middle school - strategies such as personal academic plans, teaching teams, parent involvement, mentoring, intensive reading and math instruction, and extended learning time."
Update September 20th, 2012: Obama funded middle school dropout prevention>> More
Create a Presidential Early Learning Council
The Promise: "I will create a Presidential Early Learning Council to coordinate this effort (early childhood education) across all levels of government and ensure that we're providing these children and families with the highest-quality programs."
Update September 20th, 2012: President's early learning council exists as an interagency board>> More
Restore the Great Lakes
The Promise: "Restore the Great Lakes - Will push for the passage of the Great Lakes Collaboration Implementation Act, which will move us past playing defense against environmental problems and toward a comprehensive restoration of the Great Lakes."
Update September 19th, 2012: Bill fizzled, but carp problem addressed>> More
Support repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)
The Promise: Will support "repeal (of) the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions."
Update September 17th, 2012: Despite Obama's opposition, DOMA remains on the books>> More
Create 5 million "green" jobs
The Promise: Will "create 5 million 'green' jobs; will invest $150 billion over ten years to deploy clean technologies, protect our existing manufacturing base and create millions of new jobs."
Update September 13th, 2012: Green-job creation off target for now>> More
Invest $50 billion in auto manufacturing facilities for fuel efficient vehicles
The Promise: Will provide "support to domestic automakers to invest $50 billion to retool their manufacturing facilities in America to produce [fuel efficient] vehicles."
Update August 31st, 2012: No way to measure total private investment>> More
Improve high school graduation rates
The Promise: "When I am president, we'll fight to make sure we are once again first in the world when it comes to high school graduation rates."
Update August 31st, 2012: Lack of good data makes it impossible to know yet>> More
Bring Democrats and Republicans together to pass an agenda
The Promise: Obama and Joe Biden will "turn the page on the ugly partisanship in Washington, so we can bring Democrats and Republicans together to pass an agenda that works for the American people."
Update August 31st, 2012: Record-setting partisa
You guys love to point at "Fact check" but anytime it comes to true or false, yes or no, these "facts" would be presented much differently.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/wash...52655762/1
And this article by CNN, a liberal mouthpiece, dances around and tries to discredit Romney but ultimately can't
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/04/politics/f...index.html
This is what reporting looks like when the media is doing its job. He posts a new video almost every day. Listen to everything this man says. He's non-partisan and almost never wrong:
Quote: (10-04-2012 09:50 PM)Fisto Wrote:
Guys I'm sorry but what all of your arguments in support of Obama boil down to is "it's not his fault" or "he's hasn't done NOTHING".
Athlone, you missed my point about the flip flopping comment entirely. My point was all of the criticisms of Romney being privileged, out of touch, rich, a flip flopper are hypocritical since they can all be applied to Obama. So what is left? You compare what they have accomplished.
Obama has enjoyed a privileged life. Downplaying his families' connections and his unsavory associates and then comparing them to Romney is a misleading. If your'e going to do that, compare his life to the average American's and then he's back to being a spoiled rich kid who's had every opportunity handed to him. You're really acting like the editor's position in college is something that helps him in his function as President? Or a community organizer makes him a good politician? Or that's equivalent to Romney making millions of dollars by turning around unprofitable businesses? Jesus man. I really expected something more.
You are being completely irrational to make the leap that Romney is going to run the country like a private equity firm. Is that how he ran Mass? Because it appears to me his accomplishments there are well regarded.
Your link says 43% of total white votes voted for Obama. I'm not sure how you can say that wasn't the majority of the popular vote.
Your link to what the fuck has obama done so far lacks any substance or credibility. Obama made a bunch of grandiose promises, and those largely remain unfulfilled. So you can say "oh well he signed such and such bill" but that's not what he ran his campaign on, and so the argument that he's accomplished nothing is valid. How about if I just say "He's accomplished nothing of what he said he would"?
Your link to a wikipedia page about death threats to Obama is pretty weak man. A cursory google search shows a shit load of the same kind of threats to George Bush and also Donald Trump and Tim Tebow. That doesn't make the argument that people are threatening him simply because he's black or that this "target" on him is any different that the ones placed on past controversial presidents like Bush.
In Late 2008/09 I'm pretty sure the president was saying something along the lines of "I'll fix the economy in 3 years or this is a one term propostion". Well?
Speakeasy, experience and accomplishments give credibility to a candidate. I would gauge whether someone's political philosophy matched mine and then based on that experience or accomplishments I'd decide whether or not I thought they could fulfill those promises. As noted, Obama promised a lot and has delivered on almost nothing. My favorite was the "I'll cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term". Athlone likes to look at an executive directive that Obama signed and say that's an accomplishment, but when you compare the two things it's hard for me to see how anyone can honestly act like he's been effective as a leader.
As far as gas prices and the president, his policies have hurt this country and making it energy independent. Romney wisely brought attention to that at the very beginning of the debate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLo0Jwj03JU
Cute.
Big shocker. a PAPER plant went out of business. Who could ever guess that would happen in the digital age?
Big shocker. a PAPER plant went out of business. Who could ever guess that would happen in the digital age?
Quote: (10-04-2012 09:00 PM)speakeasy Wrote:
Quote: (10-04-2012 08:41 PM)painter Wrote:
Quote: (10-04-2012 08:17 PM)Fisto Wrote:
Quote: (10-04-2012 08:11 PM)Zebra_Cakes Wrote:
Why are people even mention President Obamas experience? He's been President for nearly 4 years. Regardless of whether you like the job he's done or not, he's now experienced. In fact, being President, he exceeds Mitt Romney in in certain sectors of experience, including having significantly more Foreign Policy experience.
It's hard to call "on the job training" experience.
We're mentioning it because after all the hype, all the rhetoric, all the promises of hope and change, we got exactly what his detractors were saying from the beginning, Nothing.
Yeah, it's worse than nothing. Gas is $4 a gallon, the price of food is going through the roof,
If you think the president has anything to do with the price of a commodity that is extracted and produced in OPEC nations and traded on the world market, you don't even deserve to vote. What is Obama supposed to do about the price of gas? Open the strategic oil reserve? And after that's gone in a few months what then? I guess we could take over Iraq's oil fields and keep all the oil money, but that's not exactly good for America's reputation. What exactly do you propose that Obama does about gas prices? When he talks about green technology, Republicans balk. So what does your side propose to do about gas prices? More domestic drilling? We don't have the reserves to make a major dent in the world market. That's why we're not an OPEC country, duh. And if Exxon drills oil in Alaska, they aren't cutting Americans a discount out of patriotic duty, they are selling it right back on the world market, much of it will go to China. We don't have a state run oil company that will only sell American oil to American consumers at discount prices.
Quote:Quote:
everything costs twice as much under Obama and they want higher taxes on top of that?
Really? Everything? So cars, clothes, consumer goods, food, computers, rents, houses cost twice as much in 2012 as they did in 2008? You don't really believe this bullshit do you?
Do you make more than $250,000 a year? If not, your taxes aren't going up under Obama.
Quote:Quote:
If we don't cut the borrowing to spend now we go broke. That's math Obama can't seem to add up.
If Bush hadn't slashed taxes on the wealthy while launching two wars, we wouldn't need to borrow. In fact he's the first president to cut taxes at a time of war. Remember that Bush came into office with a projected budget surplus. He squandered it.
The President does indeed matter in regards to commodity prices. It was Obama whom left Helicopter Ben in charge in to ramp up QE which keeps giving Banks and Speculators free money to play with. They are dumping this money into hard goods such as Oil which is jacking up the price.
Oil demand has been stagnant with very little increases the volitile prices represent no reality whiten the market place. The USA is refining more gasoline domestically then it ever has before, demand keeps spiking and dropping, a lot of this gas is staying back domestically and yet prices still spike.
The President has not closed these loopholes in speculation. All he would have to do is sign a Exec Order banning/limiting cross-trading with the London commodity future exchanges on future calls - making sure that you can't bid up on virtual barrels of Oil that have no intentions of ever being delivered. Do that and Oil/Gas would return to normal prices overnight.
But of course he would never do this as it would piss off all his buddy's in the the Chicago markets whom are caking heavily of the speculation play going on off commodities right now.
1. Rampant Speculation
2. Dollar Devaluation
This are the two reasons Oil is so sporadic in price lately. Both reasons are due to the Presidents action & inaction.
The Debate:
Like two different worlds collided here. Romney was in his element, tight group, closed confinements, heavily controlled. I am sure Romney is a beast like this in the Boardroom too when it comes down to money. Obama on the other hand was a soft handed Beta whom couldn't even look Mitt in the fucking eyes. Mitt kept his chin out there on so many fronts where Obama could call him out and Obama didn't do shit.
The Regan analogy where Romney BS and named dropped BIG TIME.
Romney's BS tax plan
Ryan and his imported policy plan
Romney being a rich ass hole
Romney just kept grinning as Obama did not lay a hand. It was pitiful to watch. But this has always been Obama he's a slick well crafted man who can speak well. But he is a empty suit with nothing inside. He can read and is well spoken when somebody else is fronting his words. He is a charismatic and can charm the hell out of you. But in high pressure, closed settings... dude is a wimp.
On and on and on.
And even though these Debates are no more real than a WWE wrestling match they are still highly crafted events which serve one purpose:
To sell a vibe, and persona to the American people. To sell whom can be a "leader" more-so then the other. The talking points and campaign speak is known. People know where both stand. But its selling the sizzle which is what the debates is all about. Even as much as a better fitting suit, and haircut, posture do a lot. Romney looked like an aggressive leader. Even though he won't do shit to help America if he gets the job... it does not matter. He sold himself last night as being more capable of that job more-so then Obama.
Quote: (10-04-2012 10:32 PM)speakeasy Wrote:
This is what reporting looks like when the media is doing its job. He posts a new video almost every day. Listen to everything this man says. He's non-partisan and almost never wrong:
This is a good video. It should hammer home to people that both these candidates have no legitimate plan to fix anything. The deficit is a systematic problem that neither of them will touch with a ten foot poll.
Enjoy the debates and political fodder for what it is.... Entertainment.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/new...l-20120829
A man makes a $250 million fortune loading up companies with debt and then extracting million-dollar fees from those same companies, in exchange for the generous service of telling them who needs to be fired in order to finance the debt payments he saddled them with in the first place. That same man then runs for president riding an image of children roasting on flames of debt, choosing as his running mate perhaps the only politician in America more pompous and self-righteous on the subject of the evils of borrowed money than the candidate himself. If Romney pulls off this whopper, you'll have to tip your hat to him: No one in history has ever successfully run for president riding this big of a lie. It's almost enough to make you think he really is qualified for the White House.
A man makes a $250 million fortune loading up companies with debt and then extracting million-dollar fees from those same companies, in exchange for the generous service of telling them who needs to be fired in order to finance the debt payments he saddled them with in the first place. That same man then runs for president riding an image of children roasting on flames of debt, choosing as his running mate perhaps the only politician in America more pompous and self-righteous on the subject of the evils of borrowed money than the candidate himself. If Romney pulls off this whopper, you'll have to tip your hat to him: No one in history has ever successfully run for president riding this big of a lie. It's almost enough to make you think he really is qualified for the White House.
^^ I mostly agree with Kosko's post above, especially the last paragraph. I don't agree at all that Obama is empty. I think that speaks more to your own political leanings. He has reiterated I don't know how many times what his vision is for the country is on healthcare, taxes, military spending, the auto industry, wall street reform, etc. The man is intelligent. People that have worked with Obama say he's very calculated and thinks things through carefully before he makes decisions. He's not hasty. He's more of a pragmatist and not a firebrand. It's a sharp contrast between his professorial style and Romney's aggressive CEO manner.
Obama lost me when I noticed, just months into his presidency, that he was talking up the weak economy as being in the midst of a serious recovery. For three summers in a row we were told the economy is turning the corner.
The truth is, the employment to population ratio hasn't budged since the supposed end of the recession.
Honestly, I expected a liberal President to show more empathy for the common people of America and say: yes, this is a dark time for America, but I'm working everyday to turn this country around and restore the American dream. I waited for Obama to talk like FDR during the Depression - he never did. Instead he basically gave up on the economy after the stimulus and moved to health care. Which in turn demanded the justification that the economy had entered a phase of self-sustaining recovery and job growth, when it really hadn't.
Because make no mistake, this country seems to be sliding into a lower trend growth economy, where 2% coming out of a recession (when growth is supposed to be higher than normal) is considered acceptable, and where 8% unemployment is just fine. It makes me sad that the U.S. seems to be joining Western Europe and Japan into an age of low growth and declining expectations for future generations. Ironically, game is perfectly suited for this sort of crumbling society.
The truth is, the employment to population ratio hasn't budged since the supposed end of the recession.
Honestly, I expected a liberal President to show more empathy for the common people of America and say: yes, this is a dark time for America, but I'm working everyday to turn this country around and restore the American dream. I waited for Obama to talk like FDR during the Depression - he never did. Instead he basically gave up on the economy after the stimulus and moved to health care. Which in turn demanded the justification that the economy had entered a phase of self-sustaining recovery and job growth, when it really hadn't.
Because make no mistake, this country seems to be sliding into a lower trend growth economy, where 2% coming out of a recession (when growth is supposed to be higher than normal) is considered acceptable, and where 8% unemployment is just fine. It makes me sad that the U.S. seems to be joining Western Europe and Japan into an age of low growth and declining expectations for future generations. Ironically, game is perfectly suited for this sort of crumbling society.
Quote: (10-04-2012 10:53 PM)kosko Wrote:
Quote: (10-04-2012 10:32 PM)speakeasy Wrote:
This is what reporting looks like when the media is doing its job. He posts a new video almost every day. Listen to everything this man says. He's non-partisan and almost never wrong:
This is a good video. It should hammer home to people that both these candidates have no legitimate plan to fix anything. The deficit is a systematic problem that neither of them will touch with a ten foot poll.
Enjoy the debates and political fodder for what it is.... Entertainment.
Well in all fairness, Romney used PBS as an example of things he would cut, he didn't just say "I'll cut PBS and Obamacare only". I for one hope that will include all sorts of other things.
I hate this idea that throwing more money at the military makes it stronger. The military wastes money. It's unreal. In my own experience my unit used to have something called "spendex" which happened at the end of every quarter. We would have all this left over weaponry and ammunition and so for two weeks straight we'd be out there shooting everything, rocket launchers, carl gustav rounds, grenades, morter rounds, javelin missiles, I'm talking hi tech expensive shit, literally millions of dollars worth of stuff, just so we'd get MORE money the next time it came up on whether or not our allotment was increased. EVERY function of gov't works that way on some level.
After watching the debate again, the way that Romney took it to Obama, I was wondering if there are performance enhancing elements that could have led to that type of performance (not suggesting Romney did anything at all).. He was more intellectually on point and had a confidence about him over the president that I would have previously thought unimaginable from how I previously perceived him.. maybe a special energy drink, I dont know.. It was kind of like watching an older version of Bradley Cooper's character in the movie Limitless
I watched it, I really didn't think Romney was that amazing or Obama that terrible. I'm still going to vote R, but my expectations were higher.
A year from now you'll wish you started today
Quote: (10-04-2012 10:45 PM)Fisto Wrote:
Cute.
Big shocker. a PAPER plant went out of business. Who could ever guess that would happen in the digital age?
Imma gonna keep my mouth shut. VOTE CLINTON AND OBAMA!!
edit: Let one man on this forum defend any president after Regan.
edit: 2x. Imma gonna keep my mouth shut. Just glad I'm not a useless turd in a Ivy League dream. My family can and will still till the land. Useless knowledge unless you are standing in the bread line. BTW, the family vote was to KEEP that shitty land. We see it coming. And most of my family is WAY more educated and versed that I am. The only than I bring to the table is security and honor to the table.
Quote: (10-05-2012 05:45 AM)Aliblahba Wrote:
Quote: (10-04-2012 10:45 PM)Fisto Wrote:
Cute.
Big shocker. a PAPER plant went out of business. Who could ever guess that would happen in the digital age?
Imma gonna keep my mouth shut. VOTE CLINTON AND OBAMA!!
edit: Let one man on this forum defend any president after Regan.
edit: Reagan
Quote: (10-04-2012 11:03 PM)speakeasy Wrote:
^^ I mostly agree with Kosko's post above, especially the last paragraph. I don't agree at all that Obama is empty. I think that speaks more to your own political leanings. He has reiterated I don't know how many times what his vision is for the country is on healthcare, taxes, military spending, the auto industry, wall street reform, etc. The man is intelligent. People that have worked with Obama say he's very calculated and thinks things through carefully before he makes decisions. He's not hasty. He's more of a pragmatist and not a firebrand. It's a sharp contrast between his professorial style and Romney's aggressive CEO manner.
The problem that I have as a citizen of the United States is that he has communicated his vision for this country gradually over the last 3.5 years he's been in office. Would have been nice to know the details of his vision back when he was campaigning in 2007/08.
I’ve read through many of the comments of Romney supporters and can only shake my head. So much of the support for him--and the GOP more generally--is built on solutions that worked before: cut taxes, decrease regulation and watch the growth and good times come roaring back. In a word, Reaganism.
There’s no denying that Reaganism was stunning success when it was implemented, but it’s crucial to remember the precise terms and times under which that success was enjoyed. Reagan-era deregulation & growth came after the stagflation (stagnant economic growth combined with inflation) of the 70s. Economies everywhere were creaking under the weight of gov’t and Eastern Bloc was approaching the collapse of its largely communist system. Under these conditions, the empirically correct solution was for the gov’t to step back and encourage growth.
And we got growth---plenty of it. But Reaganism contained within it the seeds of very intractable problems that it is ill-equipped to deal with---the foremost of the issues being economic inequality. Under Reaganism, everyone benefited---but the vast majority of the wealth and growth accrued to the top. Theoretically, there is nothing wrong with people receiving asymmetrical benefits in a free society except that when the distribution of these benefits become too wildly unbalanced you reach a tipping that threatens the legitimacy of capitalism and liberal democracy itself. The lower classes have always accepted that there will be people richer than them. They have always accepted that there will be people who get richer faster than they get richer. But it can be hard to swallow the notion that you can work hard you whole life, play by the rules, etc and only move up so slowly that it’s tough to notice any difference at all. And when income growth stalls for the working classes, the motivation for the gov’t to step in with entitlements becomes very powerful.
Especially when most of the new GDP is being deposited into the brokerage accounts of the 1 percent. These 1 percent then needed new liquid investments in which to pour capital. This demand drove the creation of derivatives and other financial instruments that were crucial in precipitating a near collapse of the global economy in 2008 (I happen to know a bit about this financial engineering myself as I do quantitative research for an investment firm). This was the free market on steroids--completely deregulated--and it nearly destroyed us all.
The world we face post-2008 is nothing like the world Reagan faced after 1979. Not even close. Which is why Reaganism is not the right tool for our restoration---there are an entirely different set of conditions and problems on the ground now. Reaganism was a necessary corrective to leftist, socialist overreach of the 70s, but it is not the solution to the problems of today which were caused, in part, by Reaganism itself. Reaganism was brilliant in its moment but the dogmas of the past are inadequate to the stormy present, to paraphrase the words of a wise man. If you care about free market capitalism and healthy middle class, then you should very worried about the dramatic inequality we have now---and the role that Reaganism played in bringing us here because dramatic inequality and abuse of freedom (a la Wall Street exotic financial instruments) will eventually compel state intervention.
Viewed through this lens, Obama is actually more properly viewed as a centrist and his opposition as Randian reactionaries who not only refuse to acknowledge the new circumstances, but will exacerbate the problems of the present because they've transformed low taxes/deregulation/spending cuts into an economic religion that shall not be deviated from one iota.
Lots more to write but I have the day off and don’t want to spend it in front of a computer. But please give this some thought if you don't mind.
There’s no denying that Reaganism was stunning success when it was implemented, but it’s crucial to remember the precise terms and times under which that success was enjoyed. Reagan-era deregulation & growth came after the stagflation (stagnant economic growth combined with inflation) of the 70s. Economies everywhere were creaking under the weight of gov’t and Eastern Bloc was approaching the collapse of its largely communist system. Under these conditions, the empirically correct solution was for the gov’t to step back and encourage growth.
And we got growth---plenty of it. But Reaganism contained within it the seeds of very intractable problems that it is ill-equipped to deal with---the foremost of the issues being economic inequality. Under Reaganism, everyone benefited---but the vast majority of the wealth and growth accrued to the top. Theoretically, there is nothing wrong with people receiving asymmetrical benefits in a free society except that when the distribution of these benefits become too wildly unbalanced you reach a tipping that threatens the legitimacy of capitalism and liberal democracy itself. The lower classes have always accepted that there will be people richer than them. They have always accepted that there will be people who get richer faster than they get richer. But it can be hard to swallow the notion that you can work hard you whole life, play by the rules, etc and only move up so slowly that it’s tough to notice any difference at all. And when income growth stalls for the working classes, the motivation for the gov’t to step in with entitlements becomes very powerful.
Especially when most of the new GDP is being deposited into the brokerage accounts of the 1 percent. These 1 percent then needed new liquid investments in which to pour capital. This demand drove the creation of derivatives and other financial instruments that were crucial in precipitating a near collapse of the global economy in 2008 (I happen to know a bit about this financial engineering myself as I do quantitative research for an investment firm). This was the free market on steroids--completely deregulated--and it nearly destroyed us all.
The world we face post-2008 is nothing like the world Reagan faced after 1979. Not even close. Which is why Reaganism is not the right tool for our restoration---there are an entirely different set of conditions and problems on the ground now. Reaganism was a necessary corrective to leftist, socialist overreach of the 70s, but it is not the solution to the problems of today which were caused, in part, by Reaganism itself. Reaganism was brilliant in its moment but the dogmas of the past are inadequate to the stormy present, to paraphrase the words of a wise man. If you care about free market capitalism and healthy middle class, then you should very worried about the dramatic inequality we have now---and the role that Reaganism played in bringing us here because dramatic inequality and abuse of freedom (a la Wall Street exotic financial instruments) will eventually compel state intervention.
Viewed through this lens, Obama is actually more properly viewed as a centrist and his opposition as Randian reactionaries who not only refuse to acknowledge the new circumstances, but will exacerbate the problems of the present because they've transformed low taxes/deregulation/spending cuts into an economic religion that shall not be deviated from one iota.
Lots more to write but I have the day off and don’t want to spend it in front of a computer. But please give this some thought if you don't mind.
Quote: (10-04-2012 11:53 PM)Fisto Wrote:
Quote: (10-04-2012 10:53 PM)kosko Wrote:
Quote: (10-04-2012 10:32 PM)speakeasy Wrote:
This is what reporting looks like when the media is doing its job. He posts a new video almost every day. Listen to everything this man says. He's non-partisan and almost never wrong:
This is a good video. It should hammer home to people that both these candidates have no legitimate plan to fix anything. The deficit is a systematic problem that neither of them will touch with a ten foot poll.
Enjoy the debates and political fodder for what it is.... Entertainment.
Well in all fairness, Romney used PBS as an example of things he would cut, he didn't just say "I'll cut PBS and Obamacare only". I for one hope that will include all sorts of other things.
I hate this idea that throwing more money at the military makes it stronger. The military wastes money. It's unreal. In my own experience my unit used to have something called "spendex" which happened at the end of every quarter. We would have all this left over weaponry and ammunition and so for two weeks straight we'd be out there shooting everything, rocket launchers, carl gustav rounds, grenades, morter rounds, javelin missiles, I'm talking hi tech expensive shit, literally millions of dollars worth of stuff, just so we'd get MORE money the next time it came up on whether or not our allotment was increased. EVERY function of gov't works that way on some level.
Fisto is 100% correct.
Fraud, waste and abuse is rampant in the U.S. government. It's not Obama's fault -- been like that forever.
Try to fire a government employee for being lazy or unproductive and see what happens. You can't. In my experience, government civilian employees are the laziest group of workers in the workforce. In any other industry they would get fired. But in the U.S. government they are protected by so much bureaucracy (i.e. unions) that it becomes easier to diffuse a situation by simply transferring people or shuffling them around the office.
Look at that GSA scandal in which they spent $823k on a lavish conference in Las Vegas. It blew up in the media and what happened to the guy who was in charge of the conference and spending ? He was put on paid leave while they investigated. He continued to collect his $170,000 taxpayer funded salary.
For those of you who have worked in the government, have you ever worked with a senior civilian that deserved $170k for what they produced? I haven't met one yet, and I've worked with dozens.
It took the GSA inspector general's office over a year to investigate this issue. Why so long? Because they have to follow very detailed, bureaucratic processes. The government has to "build the case" against someone like this just to fire the sack of shit.
Would any private sector company take that long to deal with someone who wasted millions of dollars of their money?
Regarding Fisto's comments on 'spendex' -- spot on. Spend it or lose it is the government mentality. And if you spend it all, you increase your odds next fiscal year for getting more. In any other business you have to show a return on your money. Not in the U.S. government.
The military is no better when it comes to wasting money and a large portion of the military service members are no better than their civilian counterparts. Anyone been on an Army, Navy or Air Force base lately? Look at how many fat people you see now. How many of those soldiers, sailors, airmen are deployable? The Marines don't have a problem - "Shape up or ship out."
But the politicians won't acknowledge these problems publicly because it's too dangerous. If you criticize the government, its workers or the military you are un-american. You'll get the FBI watching you. You'll get the local law enforcement cowboys attaching GPS devices to your car and tracking you without a court order.
The last I knew, the government was funded by my tax money. You work for me, motherfuckers.
Some of the guys on this thread have talked about the loss of revenue to the government because Congress extended the tax cuts that were passed during the Bush administration, as if this is a bad thing.
For a forum full of entrepreneurial, alpha males who largely want to make money and live the location independent lifestyle, I simply cannot fathom how any of you would want to increase taxes and pay more into the most wasteful and inefficient organization in this country - the U.S. government.
I have a strong suspicion that anyone who argues for higher taxes 1) is doing so from purely an academic standpoint and has ZERO real world experience and 2) has not felt the shock, and the subsequent impact of having 38% taken out of your paycheck.
I'm all for sequestration in January. We need to cut the Defense budget, entitlements and start laying off government workers.
The U.S. government has become an obese, lazy and unproductive machine and it's time to put the big bitch on a diet.
Quote: (10-04-2012 10:45 PM)Fisto Wrote:
Cute.
Big shocker. a PAPER plant went out of business. Who could ever guess that would happen in the digital age?
...assuming that the plant's main reason for going out of business was the coming of the digital age. I don't think that's the whole story, as any quick google search could reveal.
Know your enemy and know yourself, find naught in fear for 100 battles. Know yourself but not your enemy, find level of loss and victory. Know thy enemy but not yourself, wallow in defeat every time.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)