Official Political Thread
- Thread starter Bill Cosby
- Start date
- Status
well his point is that more and more jobs that used to require a human can now be done with machines. Guess he has to dumb it down for the literal folks. The only thing that kept the economy afloat in the mid 2000s was the housing bubble. Which remains the biggest noose around the neck of this recovery. And one area the President has massively failed to fix.Originally posted by kafka0117:
On a jobs note, why isn't our intellectual, "smartest guy in the room," president taking more of a hit for his weird remarks concerning those evil ATMs and airport kiosks hindering job growth? Lucky for Bush those things didn't exist during his term when unemployment was under 5%.
This post was edited on 6/15 11:45 AM by kafka0117
I'm starting to believe Obama is pretty vulnerable, no matter who the Republicans nominate. I see this morning that Gallup says his approval rating among independents is down to 42% (the bump he got from the Bin Ladin strike has to be among the shortest on record for that sort of flag-waving thing). The Repub field isn't as weak as some would like to think. Main problem the Ds and Obama have is the same as it always is: approx twice as many people in this country self-ID as conservatives than do liberals.
I saw this quote from Jake Tapper on ABC this weekend. Every time I hear Peggy Noonan say Obama won by 9 million votes, I want to ask her if she understands this is no longer a nation with 100 million people, and that if a Republican had the built-in advantages that Obama had, they'd have won by 20 points (e.g., Nixon, Reagan). Here, Tapper is responding to a question about how the Obama White House views the 2012 election:
I saw this quote from Jake Tapper on ABC this weekend. Every time I hear Peggy Noonan say Obama won by 9 million votes, I want to ask her if she understands this is no longer a nation with 100 million people, and that if a Republican had the built-in advantages that Obama had, they'd have won by 20 points (e.g., Nixon, Reagan). Here, Tapper is responding to a question about how the Obama White House views the 2012 election:
Originally posted by kafka0117:
On a jobs note, why isn't our intellectual, "smartest guy in the room," president taking more of a hit for his weird remarks concerning those evil ATMs and airport kiosks hindering job growth? Lucky for Bush those things didn't exist during his term when unemployment was under 5%.
This post was edited on 6/15 11:45 AM by kafka0117
While I can sort of see what Obama is stating (the changing dynamics of employment over the last 10 years) it just shouldn't be factored into any kind of discussion re: job growth........ever. The continuous revolving door of the job market is a fundamental occurrence of any growing economy. You want employment strengthened by new jobs centering on efficiency and productivity, such as designers and engineers of ATMs/ kiosks, rather than occupations of yesteryear that foster waste.
In short, it's a stupid comment and is rightfully mocked.
That is really a smart insightful comment by Tapper, thanks for posting it
And now a quote on the same subject by someone who is the exact opposite of smart or insightful
“They have no shot,” he said. “American elections are decided by oversimplifications,” adding that only one thing matters. “Obama is the guy who got Bin Laden, why would we change? End of thought.”
And now a quote on the same subject by someone who is the exact opposite of smart or insightful
“They have no shot,” he said. “American elections are decided by oversimplifications,” adding that only one thing matters. “Obama is the guy who got Bin Laden, why would we change? End of thought.”
Originally posted by JHB4UK:
That is really a smart insightful comment by Tapper, thanks for posting it
And now a quote on the same subject by someone who is the exact opposite of smart or insightful
“They have no shot,” he said. “American elections are decided by oversimplifications,” adding that only one thing matters. “Obama is the guy who got Bin Laden, why would we change? End of thought.”
Not much would please me more than if the left wing media decided to make this the central theme in their efforts to promote Obama for reelection. Such an approach will fail miserably.
As a point of reference, Bush inherited a 4.2% unemployment rate, and just about doubled it by the time he left office. So yeah, the GOP is all about job growth.Originally posted by kafka0117:
Lucky for Bush those things didn't exist during his term when unemployment was under 5%.
This post was edited on 6/15 11:45 AM by kafka0117
And please, by all means, you guys need to continue to bash Obama with those anti-business sound bites (heard another this morning on Fox in the break room, some talking head puking de-regulation nonsense) about his lack of job creation and how all these regulations are choking businesses.
Those very businesses that are MAKING RECORD PROFITS IN THE MIDDLE OF A RECESSION.
Two. Term. President. Writeitdown.
** News Flash from the Man Who Was Almost Vice-President department **
Mugshot of John Edwards from the US Marshals Service.
Mugshot of John Edwards from the US Marshals Service.
Then pray tell where are the jobs - I work for a large company (worldwide) but in the last 2 years - our local office has gone from 75 people to 8 employees - only 8
Tell me how many jobs have been created in the Gulf since your wonderful president put a hold on all the permits for drilling. The reason why companies are making a profit is because they are afraid of all the regs and taxes they are going to be hit with if they start hiring.
It is Obama's economy now and it is NOT GROWING since he took office. I love how the new DNC Chairman said the other day 'the economy is improving" What planet is she on?
I think the American people know that if the Dems and Obama continue to blame Bush then it is all over for Obama. He will ONLY BE A ONE TERM PRESIDENT and I, for one, sure hope that is the case. The only jobs he has created are GOVERNMENT jobs and a few jobs (temporary) from the Stimulus (which was a JOKE!!!). Keep dreaming WillGolf4Food - if the unemployment rate is higher than 8% (and in many areas it is far worst - in some cases over 15% and higher), then he has not chance.
This post was edited on 6/15 4:13 PM by C_Cat
Tell me how many jobs have been created in the Gulf since your wonderful president put a hold on all the permits for drilling. The reason why companies are making a profit is because they are afraid of all the regs and taxes they are going to be hit with if they start hiring.
It is Obama's economy now and it is NOT GROWING since he took office. I love how the new DNC Chairman said the other day 'the economy is improving" What planet is she on?
I think the American people know that if the Dems and Obama continue to blame Bush then it is all over for Obama. He will ONLY BE A ONE TERM PRESIDENT and I, for one, sure hope that is the case. The only jobs he has created are GOVERNMENT jobs and a few jobs (temporary) from the Stimulus (which was a JOKE!!!). Keep dreaming WillGolf4Food - if the unemployment rate is higher than 8% (and in many areas it is far worst - in some cases over 15% and higher), then he has not chance.
This post was edited on 6/15 4:13 PM by C_Cat
You may be right. Of course, Obama has all the advantages of being the incumbent (then again, so did Carter: 44-6 for the good guys if I recall).
Two things. First, the unemployment rate every month under Bush was better than it's been every month under Obama. Obama would kill to have Bush's worst month. Secondly, I don't think any candidate has ever had as favorable an environment -- ever -- as what Obama enjoyed in 2008. He was still somehow behind in the polls in September, in what was the worst economic vibe in Lord knows how long -- when the whole dang thing nearly collapsed in the middle of that month. At that point, I don't think a Reagan/Lincoln ticket could have won with an R beside their names. As Tapper says in the quote above, even the White House admits they got every break to be had. And still, 47% of the people said nope, not him. The adoring crowds, the rock star events, the promise of "Hope" and "Change", the idiots saying we should name a book in the bible after him, or that we should begin to tell time by Before Obama and After Obama, all of that is gone, he won't enjoy those dynamics next time. He'll still have the press on his side, but not as fervently.
We'll see. Long ways off - if the economy turns around, he should be good. If it doesn't.....
I made the news! Well, not me specifically, but a semester project/presentation that I worked on in conjunction with BU professor Zvi Bodie to present to FINRA last year gets a brief mention.
This is a just barely on topic as it somewhat relates to increased oversight in the financial sector. For this project I focused on the cost/benefit analysis and trade-offs of investing in structured products vs purchasing the underlying investments individually (usually a combination of calls & puts on the S&P plus a discounted zero coupon bond) as well as the horrendously misguided (or misleading) marketing campaigns of structured product offerings, CitiFirst in particular.
The structured product market is still small potatoes in the US but has a decent presence in Europe. There are obvious benefits, especially with high net worth individuals and corporations looking to hedge risk while reducing transaction costs required with complex strategies and don't have the same economies of scale as institutional intermediaries. However, pitching an auto-callable note with a lookback feature and leveraged performance on the up and down side to retirees, while calling it 'guaranteed' (even with a mention of credit risk from the issuer) is ridiculous.
Professor Bodie is a favorite at FINRA due to his life long pursuit of exposing the flawed approach of lifestyle investing taught by financial services firms, as well as the major pitfalls of current pension ALM practices. Take a gander at his weird site if anyone gets the inkling. Great guy with a captivating personality.
This is a just barely on topic as it somewhat relates to increased oversight in the financial sector. For this project I focused on the cost/benefit analysis and trade-offs of investing in structured products vs purchasing the underlying investments individually (usually a combination of calls & puts on the S&P plus a discounted zero coupon bond) as well as the horrendously misguided (or misleading) marketing campaigns of structured product offerings, CitiFirst in particular.
The structured product market is still small potatoes in the US but has a decent presence in Europe. There are obvious benefits, especially with high net worth individuals and corporations looking to hedge risk while reducing transaction costs required with complex strategies and don't have the same economies of scale as institutional intermediaries. However, pitching an auto-callable note with a lookback feature and leveraged performance on the up and down side to retirees, while calling it 'guaranteed' (even with a mention of credit risk from the issuer) is ridiculous.
Professor Bodie is a favorite at FINRA due to his life long pursuit of exposing the flawed approach of lifestyle investing taught by financial services firms, as well as the major pitfalls of current pension ALM practices. Take a gander at his weird site if anyone gets the inkling. Great guy with a captivating personality.
"Re-read how the VOTING system works and I'll ask you this one question: How do you think we know if someone has voted or not? I'll give you a hint - they gave us their name and address. What happens next? Do you think we have to memorize who cast a ballot and who did not? Just answer that one, super simple question."
Let me guess, you have a full proof computer data base which stores all of this vital information so there is no way for human error or voter fraud?? You're right I stand corrected.
Let me guess, you have a full proof computer data base which stores all of this vital information so there is no way for human error or voter fraud?? You're right I stand corrected.
"We can argue the definition of minimal if you'd like."
A 20 year affiliation, being an instructor for the group and donating nearly 1 million dollars is not minimal is any world other than your delusional one.
"You're 3 different sources all say the same thing, and they all warp the truth."
Due tell please. I'll await your response.
A 20 year affiliation, being an instructor for the group and donating nearly 1 million dollars is not minimal is any world other than your delusional one.
"You're 3 different sources all say the same thing, and they all warp the truth."
Due tell please. I'll await your response.
Originally posted by BleedBluNAZ:
Let me guess, you have a full proof computer data base which stores all of this vital information so there is no way for human error or voter fraud?? You're right I stand corrected.
Didn't say that there was no chance of voter fraud or human error, did I? It looks like I'm going to have to hold your hand through this process:
Me: we had a no ID system in Cambridge MA
Rex Kwon do: How does that work?
Me: people who are registered to vote are on the precinct's voter registration log. When they show up, they give their name and address. The people working the polls will then mark their name off the registration log
You: how do you remember who voted? Especially Latino names that all sound the same to me?!?!
Me: Really? Did you not read how it works?
You: voter registration grumble grumble full proof blah blah blah black people IDs
This will be my last point on this. I made it clear that my concern was with Obamas long association with ACORN. Not the card carrying member assertion. I don't find them nearly as noble an institution that you do and that's the crux of the issue. And we will never agree as to their value to the voting process or any other community contributions so it's best to let it go.
I also want to apologize for the "child" comment last nite. Uncalled for. regarding your lovely bike ride this morning, I am envious of the 60 degree weather. I live in Phoenix where it was 110 today. Something tells me if you lived here you would at least have to break down and buy a Smart car.
So you really want to waste your time on this? Sure, I'll play along.
However, you first have to clearly state my original position when laughing at CatsRuleSEC, and how I have subsequently been 'wrong' in that original position. Do that for me and I'll honor your request.
Yes! Here were at the heart of the issue at hand. My point was Obama was not a card carrying member of ACORN. Ne'er did I argue that he didn't deal, or acknowledge, the organization. Not once.
No, it's not. We (me and you) never discussed the legitimacy of their activities. I mentioned it in a response to one of your posts then KlansRuleSEC took off with that tangent.
Agreed
Originally posted by BleedBluNAZ:
I also want to apologize for the "child" comment last nite. Uncalled for. regarding your lovely bike ride this morning, I am envious of the 60 degree weather. I live in Phoenix where it was 110 today. Something tells me if you lived here you would at least have to break down and buy a Smart car.
No worries, and I apologize for the personal remarks that I made as well. No need.
However, I'd still ride in the 110 degree weather, or at least try to. I'm stupidly stubborn that way. I'd just take a shower at the end of it.
Mime, seriously with the reading comprehension. I never stated you were wrong about Obama being a card carrying member. In fact I went to painful ends to make it clear that was not my issue with your other assertions.
I simply took the conversation in a different direction - hardly a new concept. His affiliation with ACORN has never been minimal by his own admission regardless of my 3 sources.
Why won't you just admit to that and move on. If you have ties to any person, place or thing for 20 years, it would never be qualified as "minimal". Don't bother wasting your time trying to dispute John Fund, The Wall Street Journal or the NY Times as I will simply just point to Obama's spoken word regarding ACORN.
We will just have to agree to disagree even though I am correct.
At least someone is immune to Obama's pathetic economic policies. How are people still stupid enough to think people like Pelosi are out to help the "little guy"???
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) saw her net worth rise 62 percent last year, cementing her status as one of the wealthiest members of Congress.
Pelosi was worth at least $35.2 million in the 2010 calendar year, according to a financial disclosure report released Wednesday. She reported a minimum of $43.4 million in assets and about $8.2 milion in liabilities.
For 2009, Pelosi reported a minimum net worth of $21.7 million."
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) saw her net worth rise 62 percent last year, cementing her status as one of the wealthiest members of Congress.
Pelosi was worth at least $35.2 million in the 2010 calendar year, according to a financial disclosure report released Wednesday. She reported a minimum of $43.4 million in assets and about $8.2 milion in liabilities.
For 2009, Pelosi reported a minimum net worth of $21.7 million."
I'm not sure what you're saying, exactly. Are you suggesting that her income is somehow illegal, or that Obama's economic policies made her richer?
Good for Nancy. I hope she starts spending some of that money on things other than face lifts and ZJ's.
Look, the Obama experiment has not worked thus far. He has roughly another year or so for it to start paying dividends or he will lose. This economy sucks. The talking heads can blame Bush all they want, but Obama is on record as saying he, "owns it". His words about unemployment won't go above 8% if they pass his "jobs" bill won't help matters either.
Obama just seems to be losing the swagger he came in to office with. He seems almost detached at best, and incompetent at worst. And while he may have gotten what he wanted with the passage of his healthcare bill, it very well may be the reason he loses. The argument will be made, and has been made, he incorrectly focused all his attention on healthcare when 100% of his focus should have been on the economy.
I still think it's going to be VERY tough to beat him, but with each passing week, I see the possibility of it happening becoming greater.
Romney/Rubio
Look, the Obama experiment has not worked thus far. He has roughly another year or so for it to start paying dividends or he will lose. This economy sucks. The talking heads can blame Bush all they want, but Obama is on record as saying he, "owns it". His words about unemployment won't go above 8% if they pass his "jobs" bill won't help matters either.
Obama just seems to be losing the swagger he came in to office with. He seems almost detached at best, and incompetent at worst. And while he may have gotten what he wanted with the passage of his healthcare bill, it very well may be the reason he loses. The argument will be made, and has been made, he incorrectly focused all his attention on healthcare when 100% of his focus should have been on the economy.
I still think it's going to be VERY tough to beat him, but with each passing week, I see the possibility of it happening becoming greater.
Romney/Rubio
My overriding point is that all we here about Republicans is that they are the party of the rich, when in fact it's the complete opposite. Kennedy, Rockefeller, Kerry, Pelosi just to name a few. Plenty of rich Republicans to be sure but the Democrats in Congress are the wealthiest from top to bottom.
And if someone minimum wager worker thinks that Pelosi or her ilk "feels their pain", they are moronic. And they continue to be duped election after election. The point about Obama was in jest. But his policies do suck.
AND: Republicans are the party of the "rich" correct? And if someone is stupid enough to think Pelosi gives a rats ass about their well being, especially the poor and middle class, then California deserves what is currently going thru not to mention how much worse it is going to get.
I'm not sure you've thought this point through very well.
Remind me, which party normally argues that fabulously rich people should pay more in taxes?
Also, everytime a big oil company makes an extra penny of profit, they are the devil. 1 person - a politician no less- has a 62% increase in their income all the while championing the poor, it's just "meh" from the left. It's called a double standard.
What she pays in taxes was not my point. I don;t think she should be penalized for being rich. Please tell me you see the irony with a politician who net worth increases 62% in a year a - who spent tax payers money at record pace while she was speaker - who claims to be in touch with the little guy? And who regularly demonizes any comppany with excessive profit that she differs with politically.
I'm still not sure how Nancy Pelosi arguing that her own tax rate should be higher means that she doesn't care about poor people.
I'm surprised to have to tell you this, but nobody in the House or Senate is poor. Almost every single one of them are successful lawyers, doctors, or businessmen - in both parties. Many of them are hugely wealthy. Your suggestion was that Nancy Pelosi's wealth somehow makes her economic views hypocritical, and I don't see how it does. It's like saying that anybody who has a lot of money has no right to argue that people or corporations with a lot of money should pay more in taxes.
This is when you know it's getting out of hand. Neal Boortz this week:
This town is starting to look like a garbage heap. And we got too damn many urban thugs, yo, ruining the quality of life for everybody. And I'll tell you what it's gonna take. You people, you are - you need to have a gun. You need to have training. You need to know how to use that gun. You need to get a permit to carry that gun. And you do in fact need to carry that gun and we need to see some dead thugs littering the landscape in Atlanta. We need to see the next guy that tries to carjack you shot dead right where he stands. We need more dead thugs in this city.
But it's not racist. Yo.
This town is starting to look like a garbage heap. And we got too damn many urban thugs, yo, ruining the quality of life for everybody. And I'll tell you what it's gonna take. You people, you are - you need to have a gun. You need to have training. You need to know how to use that gun. You need to get a permit to carry that gun. And you do in fact need to carry that gun and we need to see some dead thugs littering the landscape in Atlanta. We need to see the next guy that tries to carjack you shot dead right where he stands. We need more dead thugs in this city.
But it's not racist. Yo.
And the uncertainty thing? Maybe, but don't quite buy it. Wasn't there uncertainty when Clinton was pushing his healthcare bill in the 1990s and taxes were being raised, the gas tax was being raised, all the scandals, etc.?
In case you didn't notice, we have divided government. What typically happens with divided governement? A whole bunch of nothing. That's why nothing drastic has happened policy wise except between 2008 and 2010, when we didn't have divided government.
The reason why businesses aren't hiring? They don't have to. There's no demand in the economy, and they're already making record profits. Why change anything when you don't have to?
In case you didn't notice, we have divided government. What typically happens with divided governement? A whole bunch of nothing. That's why nothing drastic has happened policy wise except between 2008 and 2010, when we didn't have divided government.
The reason why businesses aren't hiring? They don't have to. There's no demand in the economy, and they're already making record profits. Why change anything when you don't have to?
- Status
Similar threads
