Post: #151

(10-06-2012 11:25 AM)ManAbout Wrote:  

(10-06-2012 12:44 AM)chochemonger1 Wrote:  As much as I dont like the US, it is quite inconsequential who wins the presidential election, in terms of major changes.

Wrong. For example, the Iraq war would never have happened if Al Gore had been elected.

Obama pushed through health care reform, it would never have happened if there had been a President McCain.

I was referring to this specific elections...but i get your point that many have had major consequences. Just that if Obama wins there is no grand vision of change like he talked aboutin 2008 and if Romney wins the only major change I see is a possible repeal of some of parts of Obamacare. That is possible only if the democrats lose the Senate.

Post: #152

(10-06-2012 11:25 AM)ManAbout Wrote:  

(10-06-2012 12:44 AM)chochemonger1 Wrote:  As much as I dont like the US, it is quite inconsequential who wins the presidential election, in terms of major changes.

Wrong. For example, the Iraq war would never have happened if Al Gore had been elected.

Obama pushed through health care reform, it would never have happened if there had been a President McCain.

The plans to go into Iraq where on Clintons desk as far back as 2008.

Al Gore would of gone into Iraq. The policy was sitting there for whomever got the job.

The healthcare Reform was being drafted by the Insurance Industry prior to 2008. Obama had the policies handed to him as early as when he assembled his transition team. Obama's main job was to campaign and sell the bill. He did not write or draft anything. If selling the bill took nearly half his term I can guarantee you, promise you, it took double that amount of time to draft the the actual policy.

Presidents don't create policy they only steer and sell it.

2,500 pages was that Healthcare Bill which was probably consolidated down from 8,000 pages, with the the thousands of lawyers, paper pushers, and bureaucrats whom minded over it. These things do not get developed overnight, nor is it something that is drafted in the White House. This is out of the scope of the Executive Ranks of Government., they wouldn't have the manpower/time to do it if they tried.

Obama's job was to sell it and arm twist it into law. His legal team and the Republican legal team would minus and add footnotes to make the thing vote-able. Half the people in Congress didn't even read the thing, hell I can guarantee Obama didn't read the shit either.

I keep on saying the President is nothing more than a figure head. Its the power blocks, and factions behind the scenes whom draft and shape policies, whom all largely exists outside of the Election Cycle.

The Heritage Foundation is around regardless of whom is in office...

So is the Council on Foreign Relations...

Brookings Institution

RAND Corporation

CATO Institute

etc, etc...

All are around lurking in the background, Republican or Democrat it does not matter. These are the groups whom dance with Political and Private/Corporate interests that create the policies. Not the loosers and windbags whom sit in Congress, nor is it the Executive ranks whiten the Cabinet ranks.

The President can only direct the narrative but he does not have the words.

Post: #153

That's the biggest gripe I have about the presidency as a whole. Most people, average American and pundits, believe the president has an effect on the economy. He may have a bit of an effect but unemployment and jobs created has nothing to do with him directly. Unless he is opening more governt jobs or pushing some transportation policy, 7.8% has nothing to do with him. It's a reflection of the economy as a whole which he has little effect on. That's why I can’t stand these promises of create 5 million jobs or some shit like that. How? More bureaucrats? Creating a new agency? Or you take credit if you lower small business tax by .001%? I dislike watching to liars talk.

Side note... because of the price of fuel and our relations with China, Mexico is about to blow the fuck up. Cartels aside, alot of international companies are setting up shop in Mexico because of cheap labor and cheap transportation.

Post: #154

(10-07-2012 12:56 AM)TexasMade Wrote:  That's the biggest gripe I have about the presidency as a whole. Most people, average American and pundits, believe the president has an effect on the economy. He may have a bit of an effect but unemployment and jobs created has nothing to do with him directly. Unless he is opening more governt jobs or pushing some transportation policy, 7.8% has nothing to do with him. It's a reflection of the economy as a whole which he has little effect on. That's why I can’t stand these promises of create 5 million jobs or some shit like that. How? More bureaucrats? Creating a new agency? Or you take credit if you lower small business tax by .001%? I dislike watching to liars talk.

I actually disagree with this - the POTUS ultimately decides what policies will be set into action and those policies determine how the economy will perform. the crappy economy we are seeing now are a result of Obama's poor policies that included more debt and the health care bill.

Post: #155

(10-07-2012 10:36 AM)Brian Wrote:  

(10-07-2012 12:56 AM)TexasMade Wrote:  That's the biggest gripe I have about the presidency as a whole. Most people, average American and pundits, believe the president has an effect on the economy. He may have a bit of an effect but unemployment and jobs created has nothing to do with him directly. Unless he is opening more governt jobs or pushing some transportation policy, 7.8% has nothing to do with him. It's a reflection of the economy as a whole which he has little effect on. That's why I can’t stand these promises of create 5 million jobs or some shit like that. How? More bureaucrats? Creating a new agency? Or you take credit if you lower small business tax by .001%? I dislike watching to liars talk.

I actually disagree with this - the POTUS ultimately decides what policies will be set into action and those policies determine how the economy will perform. the crappy economy we are seeing now are a result of Obama's poor policies that included more debt and the health care bill.

Oct 2012: DJIA 13,610.20

Post: #156

if you really think the success of the economy is measured by a stock index traded by computers and juiced by a Fed thats printing money you are showing your lack of economic knowledge

Post: #157

The DJIA is a mythical number. It holds no base in reality.

What does a volume of 13K even mean? Does it pour more money in your pocket or food on your table? Maybe your 401K is doing good but this is all registered in useless paper at the end of the day which is all falling in value compared to hard tangible goods.

And yes its true if a Politician is promising you "Jobs" he is full of shit. The Gov't can't create any jobs by definition. Gov't positions are just swishing cash from one pocket to the other. Don't get me wrong you need people to run a Civil Service and Unions for all the heat they take have maintained wages at levels where they should be, its the private sector that has been in a coma with wages but the shtick that Politicos push on Job creation is a joke.

I do feel that in due time America will see a job spike - low wage/Scab jobs are being created left and right. With current trends it will soon be more economical to run certain jobs in American versus abroad. The only hurdle still is benefits and such but if its all part-time, non-union work they can dance around that. Its a race to the bottom going on all over the West.

The discussion is never on how many people are being short-changed. I want to hear Obama and Romney talk about UNDERemployment, not UNemployment.

What good is putting Americans to work in shit positions which no upside. Give Americans quality work, foster an environment where innovative jobs can be created not crap jobs like Call centres, Starbucks, and Wal-Mart.

If people woke up and realized that them and 60 million other Americans are begin nickel and dime'd with shitty jobs they would get angry pretty damn quick.

Post: #158

(10-07-2012 11:46 AM)The_CEO Wrote:  

(10-07-2012 10:36 AM)Brian Wrote:  

(10-07-2012 12:56 AM)TexasMade Wrote:  That's the biggest gripe I have about the presidency as a whole. Most people, average American and pundits, believe the president has an effect on the economy. He may have a bit of an effect but unemployment and jobs created has nothing to do with him directly. Unless he is opening more governt jobs or pushing some transportation policy, 7.8% has nothing to do with him. It's a reflection of the economy as a whole which he has little effect on. That's why I can’t stand these promises of create 5 million jobs or some shit like that. How? More bureaucrats? Creating a new agency? Or you take credit if you lower small business tax by .001%? I dislike watching to liars talk.

I actually disagree with this - the POTUS ultimately decides what policies will be set into action and those policies determine how the economy will perform. the crappy economy we are seeing now are a result of Obama's poor policies that included more debt and the health care bill.

Oct 2012: DJIA 13,610.20

LOL... Wow just wow.

Post: #159

Post: #160

thought id mix it up

Post: #161

-edit

Post: #162

Well, it looks like Romney now has a chance of winning...



What Goldman wants, Goldman gets.

Post: #163

The thought of Romney as president truly depresses me. If we had to have a Republican president I'd rather it be Ron Paul by far, a man I have a lot of respect for even when I disagree. Romney is an elite, bought and paid for by elites who will work on behalf of the interests of the elite. Any normal income person supporting Romney needs their head examined. Anyone that thinks Romney gives a flying fuck about anyone but the business class needs a reality check. In any other western nation Romney would be a joke and people would clearly see through the nonsense of trickle down economics. Only in America do you have people voting in mass against their own economic interests.

If Obama loses though, he only has himself to blame. 2 weeks ago he had a solid lead. Maybe that comfort caused him to get soft and underestimated Romney at the debate. Usually debates don't make much of a difference but it seems as though the election will be riding on this one. This is shaping up to be another nail biter election like 2000.

Post: #164

From what little I saw of him, I liked Jon Huntsman. Seems pragmatic. More towards the center.

Post: #165

You knew this was coming:

Post: #166

(10-09-2012 01:56 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Well, it looks like Romney now has a chance of winning...



What Goldman wants, Goldman gets.

I would like to bump the thread where everyone except Tenderman100 and two others were saying Romney was going to get annihilated.

Of course, this isn't over yet. But it's pretty crazy how fast the switch has flipped. It's almost turning into a route.

I am expecting a far more competitive debate next time, but I still expect Romney to win.

Post: #167

(10-09-2012 02:44 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  The thought of Romney as president truly depresses me. If we had to have a Republican president I'd rather it be Ron Paul by far, a man I have a lot of respect for even when I disagree. Romney is an elite, bought and paid for by elites who will work on behalf of the interests of the elite. Any normal income person supporting Romney needs their head examined. Anyone that thinks Romney gives a flying fuck about anyone but the business class needs a reality check. In any other western nation Romney would be a joke and people would clearly see through the nonsense of trickle down economics. Only in America do you have people voting in mass against their own economic interests.

If Obama loses though, he only has himself to blame. 2 weeks ago he had a solid lead. Maybe that comfort caused him to get soft and underestimated Romney at the debate. Usually debates don't make much of a difference but it seems as though the election will be riding on this one. This is shaping up to be another nail biter election like 2000.

This is brilliant.

Romney is going to win because people are stupid.

Obama is going to lose because he was lazy.

In none of this do you consider that perhaps the verdict is that Obama has been, according to half the country, a shitty prez and that nearly 60 percent of the nation think the country is going in the wrong direction. Maybe people want to give a guy with real experience in achieving results a chance?

PS. Btw, since the eraly summer the number who things are getting better has increased from 30 to nearly 40%. It's not over yet.

Post: #168

(10-09-2012 01:56 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Well, it looks like Romney now has a chance of winning...



What Goldman wants, Goldman gets.

They're just betting on who wins. GS guys are probably just smarter.

You could've made 100% return on your investment if you had bought Romney-Win @ InTrades a week before the debate. He was down at 20 percent odds of winning. Today he's at 40%.

That being said, Obama has raised way more than Romney. And I still think he can win, even if he loses the next debate.

Post: #169

This is on tonight:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/...oice-2012/

Post: #170

Post: #171

ElJefe Wrote:In none of this do you consider that perhaps the verdict is that Obama has been, according to half the country, a shitty prez and that nearly 60 percent of the nation think the country is going in the wrong direction. Maybe people want to give a guy with real experience in achieving results a chance

Yeah and what, like 25% of the country thinks he's a Muslim that was born in Kenya too right? I don't put much value in American public opinion about much of anything. Most Americans are low information voters, ignorant as shit about the world, easily duped by slick campaign ads.

Telling me that Romney has experience doesn't mean shit when the type of experience he has clearly shows who his loyalty is too. Hint: it ain't you and me. Romney is whatever he has to be to get elected. He was once pro choice but now he's pro life since he's running for president. Obama care is modeled on Romney care, but now he's an arch enemy of Obama care because the people that own him forced him to be. Who knows what the hell he really thinks on anything. All his talking points are written for him by right wing think tanks, which he did a great job of rehearing at the debate. On top of that the idiot is rattling the saber at Russia and Iran, and wants to ramp up military spending to cold war levels, like two fucking wars isn't enough.

Post: #172

The new Pew Research Center poll has Romney leading 49% to 45%, this is going to come down to the wire

http://news.yahoo.com/pew-romney-leads-4...itics.html

Post: #173

(10-09-2012 04:47 PM)ElJefe Wrote:  

(10-09-2012 02:44 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  The thought of Romney as president truly depresses me. If we had to have a Republican president I'd rather it be Ron Paul by far, a man I have a lot of respect for even when I disagree. Romney is an elite, bought and paid for by elites who will work on behalf of the interests of the elite. Any normal income person supporting Romney needs their head examined. Anyone that thinks Romney gives a flying fuck about anyone but the business class needs a reality check. In any other western nation Romney would be a joke and people would clearly see through the nonsense of trickle down economics. Only in America do you have people voting in mass against their own economic interests.

If Obama loses though, he only has himself to blame. 2 weeks ago he had a solid lead. Maybe that comfort caused him to get soft and underestimated Romney at the debate. Usually debates don't make much of a difference but it seems as though the election will be riding on this one. This is shaping up to be another nail biter election like 2000.

Maybe people want to give a guy with real experience in achieving results a chance?

real experience? you mean a one term unpopular governor/ private equity guy who loads up companies with debt and liquidates them for profit?

Post: #174

@lovebug

Saw your comments on Israel and wanted to reply before you deleted them.

I've never seen a candidate that sucks Israel's dick harder than Romney. Obama in my opinion was weak on the Israeli and Palestinian issue, but I'll take that any day over a man that wants to give Israel carte blanche to do whatever the fuck they want with our unmitigated military and financial support. Bomb Iran? Go right ahead, Romney's got your back!

And the thing is man, I'm not even anti-Israel, at all. I just think we need to be fair and honest brokers here. We won't even make them stop building settlements on Palestinian land. Romney's puppermasters at the PNAC will be writing our middle east policy if he wins.

Post: #175