2012 Elections in the USA

"The aircraft was large, modern and considered among the world's safest. But that night it was flying straight into a huge thunderstorm. Turbulence was extreme, and airspeed indicators may not have been functioning properly. Worse, the pilots were incompetent. As the plane threatened to stall they panicked by pointing the nose up, losing speed when they ought to have done the opposite. It was all over in minutes.

Was this the fate of Flight 447, the Air France jet that plunged mysteriously into the Atlantic a couple of years ago? Could be. What I'm talking about here is the Obama presidency."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904140604576495932704234052.html

[QUOTE=Jackson; 427270]I guess we'll never really know exactly how academically accomplished Obama really is because.

12. Baptism record. SEALED.

Jackson[/QUOTE]I didn't realize Muslims practiced baptism, too*

*Keep it in your pants, I am making a joke.

[QUOTE=Member #2041;427285]That was English, although I might concede that it was English beyond your level of comprehension. Sorry, I can't do much about that.[/quote][quote=]Nobody who has ever not been qualified has become the President of the Harvard Law Review.[/quote]I'll concede that the words appear to be English. I guess you have to go to a special program to learn to write like that and to employ the double negative so deftly.

[quote=]As I said, I acknowledge that Obama likely got into Columbia via affirmative action. But he then did earn academic honors at Columbia. Even rich white folks who earn academic honors at Columbia can likely get into Harvard Law on that credential. That being said, unless they are damn accomplished in their studies once they get there, they don't become President of Harvard Law Review.[/quote]When you get a chance, maybe you could post the details of the HLR's process for selection of its president. Oh wait, it's a subjective process. Therefore, anyone can be selected, for this role at an institution that has nearly broken its back bending over backwards to show that how racially aware and sympathetic they are. Of course they would never advance someone based upon anything other than merit even if by doing so they would have additional proof of their "greatness." I mean, did any of the other prestigious law schools have someone claiming to be from Africa as president of their reviews?

[quote=]Getting into Harvard's MBA program is roughly 2-3 orders of magnitude lesser of an exclusive accomplishment than getting appointed President of Harvard Law Review.[/quote]Excellent point. Are you also aware of the fact that red and green are different colors?

[quote=]Even for someone who probably earned it like Mitt Romney (as opposed to legacy entrees like Dubya).[/quote]W was a legacy at Yale, not HBS.

[quote=]I personally got into Harvard's MBA program,[/quote]Congrats, I just can't understand why someone would bother applying to a business school that doesn't excel at finance. It just seems counter intuitive. I already knew how to party and socialize so, I was looking for a little more substance than HBS could offer.

[quote=]without a rich legacy entree that G. W. Bush had, although I personally chose to attend a more quantitatively rigorous program, one in which I doubt that Dubya could have handled the higher level math.[/QUOTE]I can think of three, MIT (too technical and linear, stifles creativity) , Wharton and the place I attended. I suspect that any of those institutions would have welcomed GWB. His grades were 'good enough' and his pedigree was something most institutions would have difficulty passing up (they are all wh*res, too).

[QUOTE=Member #2041;427288]The fact is, Columbia University lists Obama as having graduated with academic honors.[/quote]Then you should have no problem posting a link to that statement.

[quote=]I never heard Obama claim anything of the kind with respect to Harvard,[/quote]You've been making them ad nauseum (that means more than frequently). You are pointing to his brilliance being the driving factor behind his selection as HLR's president.

[quote=]but the Law Review officers are chosen by a combination of their academic standing and a vote of their peers in their class.[/quote]There you go again. I find it remarkable that there isn't a contingency of Obama's HLS classmate telling everyone how great he is.

[quote=]One needs to be academically accomplished amongst their peers within Harvard Law School, as well as have superior interpersonal skills to be selected as the President of the Law Review.[/QUOTE]He's a real people person, alright. He is devoid of interpersonal skills.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_Chapter_11_reorganization[/url]

[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 427400]GM and Chrysler should have been allowed to follow normal Chapter 13 REORGANIZATION and not 'Obama-ruptcy'. No other company has been given such a pass, but I guess if you are in the Prez's corner Federal Law does not apply to you, I. E. Dept of Justice and Dept of Homeland Security.

Well WT69, I see you have reverted to the same tactic as your idol, Obama. When you can not win the argument on merit U-turn to name calling and personal attacks. After having his ass handed to him on October 3rd it's all Obama has left, name calling and personal attacks. What happened to HOPE & CHANGE?[/QUOTE]

The only pollster to get the 2004 and 2008 presidental results exactly right was Rasmussen. Only one other pollster got the 2008 results dead on. That was Pew. At this moment Pew has Romney ahead by 4 and Rasmussen has it more or less a dead heat.

If you don't think CNN cooks the books with their polls you should have seen the CNN post debate interview with 8 'undecided' voters. Undecided, my ass. Each of the 8 were selected to be stelth Obama supporters. Each had their canned lines why they as 'undecided voters' thought Obama had won the debate. The CNN commentor was so depressed over the debate that he finally told the 8 'undecided' Obama supporters to face facts. Obama was crushed in the debate and even he, the CNN Obama commentor, could not tolerate the canned nonsense of the 8 'undecided' Obama supporters.

[QUOTE=El Alamo;427410]Only one other pollster got the 2008 results dead on. That was Pew. At this moment Pew has Romney ahead by 4 and Rasmussen has it more or less a dead heat.[/QUOTE]Just a few hours ago, Pew released their latest poll showing Romney and Obama now in a dead heat amongst women voters.

New Pew Poll Shows Romney And Obama Pulling Even With Women Voters.

[url]http://www.inquisitr.com/357613/new-pew-poll-shows-romney-and-obama-pulling-even-with-women-voters/#MzGPzQMYpv8GmcQT.99[/url]

It's refreshing to learn that women voters might cast their vote based on something other than free birth control pills.

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=El Alamo; 427410]The only pollster to get the 2004 and 2008 presidental results exactly right was Rasmussen. Only one other pollster got the 2008 results dead on. That was Pew. At this moment Pew has Romney ahead by 4 and Rasmussen has it more or less a dead heat.

If you don't think CNN cooks the books with their polls you should have seen the CNN post debate interview with 8 'undecided' voters. Undecided, my ass. Each of the 8 were selected to be stelth Obama supporters. Each had their canned lines why they as 'undecided voters' thought Obama had won the debate. The CNN commentor was so depressed over the debate that he finally told the 8 'undecided' Obama supporters to face facts. Obama was crushed in the debate and even he, the CNN Obama commentor, could not tolerate the canned nonsense of the 8 'undecided' Obama supporters.[/QUOTE]FYI, Rassmussen USED TO BE a very accurate pollster. They no longer are. And in actual fact, in 2010, their mean result over SEVERAL DOZENS of congressional races (a quite meaningful sample, much more so than a single Presidential election in 2008) was 3.9% incorrectly skewed toward the Conservative / Republican end of the spectrum. There is a reason for this, and it is because they use a methodology that has become obsolete over time as cell phones have become pervasive. And that is, they ONLY survey a population that is selected via from people who have land line telephones. And in the past 5 years or so, a very substantial portion of the population, which happens to skew very young, very mobile, and leans strongly Liberal / Democratic, have ceased to use land line phones at all, and only use mobile phones as their only phone. This entire population is completely missed by Rassmussen's methodology, and they have not yet made any correction for this situation.

Here is an excellent analysis of this issue by Nate Silver of the New York Times:

[url]http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/rasmussen-polls-were-biased-and-inaccurate-quinnipiac-surveyusa-performed-strongly/[/url]

Very good WT69, now can you read the link and find the exceptions to Chapter 11 which I refer to as "Obama-ruptcy"? I'll give you a hint,"prepackage","government payments". They should have gone through Chapter 13 not 11 but why sweat it with the fix in from Obama. Also check out how much was left for the original equity holders.

[QUOTE=Member #2041;427285]Getting into Harvard's MBA program is roughly 2-3 orders of magnitude lesser of an exclusive accomplishment than getting appointed President of Harvard Law Review. Even for someone who probably earned it like Mitt Romney (as opposed to legacy entrees like Dubya). I personally got into Harvard's MBA program, without a rich legacy entree that G. W. Bush had, although I personally chose to attend a more quantitatively rigorous program, one in which I doubt that Dubya could have handled the higher level math.[/QUOTE]I can't understand why anyone with a background in business would be a rabid supporter of Obama, except some special cases like the CEO's of alternative energy companies and Hollywood studios. So enlighten me, why are you? Is your experience in business or government? I'm not being flippant, I'm honestly curious. Maybe you'll teach me something.

This is great. Obama's response to a terrorist attack that killed our ambassador in Libya was to immediately go to a Las Vegas liquor soaked fundraiser event.

On the same theme, Obama might not take terrorist attacks seriously but Obama has enough time to reassure 'Big Bird' that the Obama administration will continue wasting taxpayer money to keep 'Big Bird' on the air. Nonchalantly oblivious to fact that that we have trillion dollar plus annual deficits.

Much to 'Big Birds' credit the response from 'Big Bird' was. 'Big Bird' to Obama. Shut the f* up and start taking your job seriously. Try attending more than one national security briefing in 3 years and think about creating jobs. I think 'Big Bird' has more on the ball than Obama and I am sure 'Big Bird' could have done a better than Obama during the first Romney / Obama debate. Whoops, I forgot, 'Bird bird' has already said that ' Big Bird' considers Obama to be a fake, fraud, phoney and huckster.

Or as Romney said "You have to scratch your head when the president spends the last week talking about saving Big Bird, I actually think we need to have a president who talks about saving the American people and saving good jobs."

I think Obama is revealing his true intellect which is somewhere between imbecile and moron and rapidly declining to idiot status

[QUOTE=Tiny12;427422]I can't understand why anyone with a background in business would be a rabid supporter of Obama, except some special cases like the CEO's of alternative energy companies and Hollywood studios. So enlighten me, why are you? Is your experience in business or government? I'm not being flippant, I'm honestly curious. Maybe you'll teach me something.[/QUOTE]My experience is as a director of marketing and business development for a couple of high tech companies, one of which I cashed out my stock options from, and retired circa 2005. I am also a graduate of the Economics Department and the MBA program at the highly conservative University of Chicago. I am a rare moderate to emerge from there, and while there, I studied under Gary Becker, George Stigler, Merton Miller, Eugene Fama, and several other notable folks. I am also somewhat of a student of Economic history over the past century.

First of all, I am NOT a rabid supporter of Obama. What I am is a person who is convinced that the laissez-faire, de-minimus regulatory policies, and the only recipe for growth being cutting taxes to the wealthy and to businesses that Mitt Romney espouses have been thoroughly discredited over the course of the past couple of decades, and if we were return to them, we will be well on the way to a trajectory toward becoming a failed state. I consider Romney and in particular, the agenda espoused by Paul Ryan, to be an unmitigated disaster for this nation if it were to take hold.

We only have two real choices in the present election. One of whom, Obama, I consider to be mediocre, but FAR less onerous than Romney / Ryan. Obama's POLICIES, BTW, I consider to be much more on the right track than Romney's. But I certainly will accept that Obama's personal execution of those policies, and his effectiveness in working with a hostile Congress to get things implemented, have been less than impressive. In this regard, he's no Bill Clinton. And would that we could actually vote for Clinton now, he'd DWARF both Romney and Obama as a positive choice to move this country forward.

That being said, IMHO, by far the biggest threat to the future prosperity of the American state is the ever-widening gulf of empowerment between the most affluent and the dwindling middle class. This trajectory was really started in earnest under Reagan, and only saw a brief respite during the Clinton years, before really kicking into gear during G. W. Bush's Presidency. The fact is, Obama has NOT been as ineffectual as the right wing claims. It was entirely unreasonable to assume that any sort of collapse of the magnitude that Obama inherited, could be recovered from in less than 6-7 years, and we are only half way into that time span. The ONLY recession that was EVER worse than the one Obama inherited was the Great Depression, and the Great Depression took 12 years and the buildup to WWII for that recovery to really take hold. It is unreasonable to assume that THIS recovery, from a downturn that was very nearly as bad, could be accomplished in less than half of that same timeframe. And during that time, what Obama HAS accomplished is the restoration of something on the order of 70% of the lost wealth of the last recession. And this restoration of lost wealth is the most important first step in the recovery process. The second most important step was to halt the job losses. Any serious analysis of the timing of the Obama stimulus package will demonstrate that the stimulus package beginning, and it's taking effect in earnest directly correlate with the inflection points of the unemployment curve. The main flaws of the stimulus package were that it was far too SMALL, given the magnitude of the problem it was intended to cure, and that it did not have a secondary phase that was almost entirely oriented toward beefing up the nation's infrastructure, rather than the significant portions of pork that the existing package doled out, which were so popular that even blowhards like Bobby Jindal found a means of accepting them even as he mocked the very program that was gilding his lilly. In particular, the infrastructure emphasis should have been oriented to enabling delivery of alternative energy sources rather than oil. In particular, enabling natural gas and later fuel cells, from being the replacement for petroleum-based fuels for our vehicles.

And finally, there is the age-old question, are you better off than you were 4 years ago? In my personal situation, the answer is unambiguously YES. 4 years ago, my personal wealth had been utterly gutted by the Bush financial collapse. Under Obama (with serious help from another student of economic history, Ben Bernanke) the lost value of my personal wealth has been roughly 80% restored.

It's ludicrous for Romney to claim that he understands how to create jobs, and how taxes disincentivize otherwise optimal business decisions, because he personally has only created jobs in OTHER countries, by outsourcing those from the USA, and all he understands about taxes is how to maximize his avoidance of them. And finally, the SINGULAR impressive accomplishment on Romney's record as it would relate to being President, would be the implementation of a universal health-care system in Massachussetts. But Romney has bowed to the politically craven winds of the Republican party, and disavowed his own principles and run away from his own accomplishment as far and as fast as he can, when in fact, the ONLY thing that would recommend him as a potential President would be were he to implement a nearly identical universal health-care plan nation-wide. Which, BTW, is exactly what Obama actually did, and what Romney has made clear he would NOT do as President, and in fact, would dis-assemble it.

Member 2041, If you're open minded and run across a copy of the New Yorker, the October 1 edition, you should read the article on Romney. It might change your mind about how well equipped he is to lead the country. I don't understand your criticism of Reagan. He and Volcker pulled us out of a situation at least as difficult as the one we're in now. Middle class incomes grew significantly during the Reagan years. I would fault Reagan for not balancing the budget and Clinton for raising taxes on ordinary income (he wisely dropped the capital gains tax rate) , but otherwise believe both were good presidents. Obama's performance has been abysmal compared to them.

We need at least six to seven years for a recovery? This is the worst recession in the history of the United States except for the great depression? Those aren't reasonable claims. There have been numerous recessions in USA history far worse than the one we went through. As you point out Obama and the Democrat congress did not design a good stimulus program -- too much pork and too little infrastructure -- and that is one of the reasons for a slow recovery.

I believe the reverse of what you do about taxation, and suspect you base your analysis too much on a 20 or 30 year period of USA history. If income taxes went down during the Bush presidency (and arguably became more progressive too) , that doesn't mean lower taxes reduce middle class incomes. Many countries have wisely reduced marginal tax rates on businesses, because they believe lower rates create better economies. Globalization and technology are the chief culprits for the long term decline in middle class incomes. Solutions include better education and a better trained work force, along with tax and regulatory policies that promote growth.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;427432]We need at least six to seven years for a recovery? This is the worst recession in the history of the United States except for the great depression? Those aren't reasonable claims.[/QUOTE]Not in USA history, but certainly it is within the past century. And the fact is, we barely averted the 2nd great Depression. They are not only reasonable claims, they are facts.

And sorry, but the only way one can make a case that Mitt Romney would NOT be a disaster would be if you take the position that everything he said during the Republican primaries was a lie.

And it is also a fact that while Reagan did lead an economic recovery, his policies did begin the era of deregulation that has resulted in the diminution of the Middle class in the USA at the expense of the wealthy. Middle class income did rise under Reagan, but nowhere near as much on a percentage basis as that of the affluent. And even that only happened because of the severity of the downturn we had been in. The fact is, the scenario we have now where the Middle Class is being left behind while the affluent prosper has it's roots in the deregulatory regime begun by Reagan, and now aggressively promoted by Romney.

Obviously, you are entitled to your beliefs on tax policy, but your beliefs happen to be erroneous, and not backed up at all by the empirical data. And it is also true that the periods of substantial prosperity in this nation occurred under Reagan and Clinton, where the highest bracket for the affluent was FAR higher than it presently is, and the progressiveness of the tax code in terms of rates was significantly more than it presently is as well.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;427422]I can't understand why anyone with a background in business would be a rabid supporter of Obama, except some special cases like the CEO's of alternative energy companies and Hollywood studios. So enlighten me, why are you? Is your experience in business or government? I'm not being flippant, I'm honestly curious. Maybe you'll teach me something.[/QUOTE]Pick out Bloomberg Video on October 9, 2012. CEO of Evercore Partners, Robert Scholsstein gives an rational explaination for the state of affairs today. And if the GOP do not take any responsiblity for the gridlock, then just fold the tent.

[QUOTE=Member #2041;427435]Obviously, you are entitled to your beliefs on tax policy, but your beliefs happen to be erroneous, and not backed up at all by the empirical data.[/QUOTE]That's not true. Your assumption that tax policy is the reason for stagnant or declining middle class incomes, if that's what you believe, is erroneous. Compare Hong Kong and Singapore to other Asian countries, or take a look at changes in tax rates and economic growth in Eastern Europe over time the way you've done in the USA and you'd decide that low stable income tax rates are good for everyone.

You can correlate stock market performance with whether an NFC or AFC team won the superbowl. That doesn't mean there's cause and effect.

You may or may not have a point about regulation. If you're writing about requiring banks to loan money to people who can't afford to repay loans and allowing financial institutions to operate with very little equity compared to their assets, then you're right. But if you're writing about the EPA trying to put a stop to hydraulic fracturing or the IRS making people spend a month a year filling out forms, you're wrong.

Blackshirt, I haven't seen the video yet, but will try to. Gridlock is good. It keeps politicians from screwing the rest of us over even worse.

[QUOTE=Tiny12; 427441]That's not true. Your assumption that tax policy is the reason for rising gaps in income in the USA over the last 30 years is erroneous. Compare Hong Kong and Singapore to other Asian countries, or take a look at changes in tax rates and economic growth in Eastern Europe over time the way you've done in the USA and you'd decide that low stable income tax rates are good for everyone.

You can correlate stock market performance with whether an NFC or AFC team won the superbowl. That doesn't mean there's cause and effect.

You may or may not have a point about regulation. If you're thinking about requiring banks to loan money to people who can't afford to repay loans and allowing financial institutions to operate with very little equity compared to their assets, then you're right. But if you're thinking about the EPA trying to put a stop to hydraulic fracturing or the IRS making people spend a month a year filling out forms, you're wrong.

Blackshirt, I haven't seen the video yet, but will try to. Gridlock is good. It keeps politicians from screwing the rest of us over even worse.[/QUOTE]First of all, I did not say that the tax policy was responsible for the rising gaps in income over the past 30 years. What I said was, that that was predominantly due to the broad-scale deregulation of commerce that occurred during that timeframe, and which has enabled the wealthy to exploit the workers and outsource the higher value jobs from this country. The tax policy does, however help to maintain and exacerbate the WEALTH gap, if not the income gap.

Secondly, it's fascinating for me to see the sort of cognitive dissonance that is pervasive among many mindless Romney supporters out there. You asked a question, with the very ridiculous underlying assumption that there is no plausible basis for supporting Obama in this election if one is in favor of economic growth. You were given a straightforward answer to that question. But one that has it's underpinnings on an entirely different set of underlying assumptions than you seem to accept as gospel despite there not being any credible evidence. The claim that tax cuts for the wealthy has been the catalyst for economic growth in the USA simply does not stand up to scrutiny. Quite simply, I've done the diligence, as have quite a few other economists such as Paul Krugman, and the majority of your deeply held assumptions about what has caused, and what has impeded prosperity within the USA economy over the past 30+ years are simply not borne out in the actual empirical data. See the 2nd link, below for the gory details.

[url]http://www.ctmirror.org/story/17498/nonpartisan-congressional-study-tax-breaks-rich-dont-grow-jobs[/url]

[url]http://www.ctmirror.org/sites/default/files/documents/0915taxesandeconomy.pdf[/url]

[QUOTE=Member #2041;427443] What I said was, that that was predominantly due to the broad-scale deregulation of commerce that occurred during that timeframe, and which has enabled the wealthy to exploit the workers and outsource the higher value jobs from this country. The tax policy does, however help to maintain and exacerbate the WEALTH gap, if not the income gap.[/QUOTE]You've got it backwards by the way. Regulation causes jobs to leave the country. That and a screwed up corporate tax system, with high marginal rates and penalties for repatriating profits back to the USA, that would be used to invest and create jobs here.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;427446]You've got it backwards by the way. Regulation causes jobs to leave the country. That and a screwed up corporate tax system, with high marginal rates and penalties for repatriating profits back to the USA, that would be used to invest and create jobs here.[/QUOTE]Except that does NOT even begin to explain why the most prosperous periods in this nation's history were during times when the highest tax rates on the wealthy and on corporations were MUCH higher than they are now. What you believe will happen, has actually never happened in recorded history, despite having been well and truly tried.

I presented you with the analysis that has been done on this issue, and which conclusively rebuts your unsubstantiated belief system, which I see you did not bother to address. You might just as well base your positions on a belief in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. Just because your mommy told you that these things exist when you were 3 years old did not actually make it so.

For the 5th time, look at the world, not just the USA. And look at other considerations, or variables or whatever you want to call them, besides just USA personal income taxes, USA income and USA GDP and you'll come to different conclusions. You're right about the income gap and taxes by the way. I actually edited my post before you posted my original quote. If you have a sharply progressive tax system, where you tax those at the top at 90%, you will decrease the gap. I'm out of here, this is a big time waster. You can have the last word if you so choose.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;427458]this is a big time waster.[/QUOTE]We have found the common ground. This discussion, in this particular venue, most assuredly is a big time waster.

I dunno who's going to win the presidential election but my local congress race is sure interesting. Both guys are poli sci graduates of my alma mater. How those two apples fell so far apart from the same tree is a mystery. One could not be farther right and the other is well left of center. I wonder how many times two guys that graduated from the same school majoring in the same thing ever ran against each other for public office. They are a generation apart so they didn't study from the same people, but it is still pretty interesting.

Political "science", except one in China or Soviet Union, does not advocate, if explain, particular values or policy solutions. How could you teach that a dollar spent for soda is more valuable than a dollar spent for a donut. It is just a preference (ideology). Poli sci teaches how to analize and assess policy solutions, and how governmental institutions interact.

[QUOTE=Dickhead;427474]I dunno who's going to win the presidential election but my local congress race is sure interesting. Both guys are poli sci graduates of my alma mater. How those two apples fell so far apart from the same tree is a mystery. One could not be farther right and the other is well left of center. I wonder how many times two guys that graduated from the same school majoring in the same thing ever ran against each other for public office. They are a generation apart so they didn't study from the same people, but it is still pretty interesting.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Member #2041;427431]My experience is as a director of marketing and business development for a couple of high tech companies, one of which I cashed out my stock options from, and retired circa 2005.[/quote]No offense to marketeers, but weren't you making some quip about the HBS program? I took my first company public in '96, sold my next one to a group out of LA in '01. I'd like to say it was because I am so f'cking smart, however, the truth of the matter is that you could make money falling off a bar stool, in those days (I'm not opining on the validity of your personal experience, of which I have no knowledge).

[quote=]I am also a graduate of the Economics Department and the MBA program at the highly conservative University of Chicago.[/quote]Poor uncle Milty must be turning in his grave. What a waste of money seeing that you missed out on some of the finest that institution has to offer.

[quote=]I am a rare moderate to emerge from there,[/quote]I'd say that you are more rare than you think (and less moderate).

[quote=]and while there, I studied under Gary Becker, George Stigler, Merton Miller, Eugene Fama, and several other notable folks. I am also somewhat of a student of Economic history over the past century.[/quote]Please stop. You are like fingernails on a chalkboard. The thought of a close-minded Keynesian academic like yourself and the SOE are completely incongruous (that means the two things don't go together that well).

[quote=]First of all, I am NOT a rabid supporter of Obama. What I am is a person who is convinced that the laissez-faire, de-minimus regulatory policies, and the only recipe for growth being cutting taxes to the wealthy and to businesses that Mitt Romney espouses have been thoroughly discredited over the course of the past couple of decades, and if we were return to them, we will be well on the way to a trajectory toward becoming a failed state. I consider Romney and in particular, the agenda espoused by Paul Ryan, to be an unmitigated disaster for this nation if it were to take hold.[/quote]Tres bien "laissez-faire" vous êtes si drôle. Only a complete buffoon would suggest that any business (in the US) in 2012 (or 2000, for that matter) is unregulated or free of the hand of the federal govt.

Do you have any idea how this:

[quote=]I am also somewhat of a student of Economic history over the past century.[/quote]And this:

[quote=]and the only recipe for growth being cutting taxes to the wealthy and to businesses[/quote]Are somewhat mutually exclusive (unless you're a really poor student)?

I don't care if you love Obama or hate him. It is his policies that are the problem. Very simply put, removing wealth from the private sector has cyclical effect of reducing economic activity, which negatively impacts federal revenues, which causes politicians to try to squeeze more out of the golden goose, only to find that they kill it. If you, as a self-proclaimed economic expert, can't accurately read the economic foibles of the past 100 years, there isn't much hope for you. It's like reading Barney stories (I. E. Pretty simple and straight forward).

[quote=]We only have two real choices in the present election. One of whom, Obama, I consider to be mediocre, but FAR less onerous than Romney / Ryan.[/quote]Mediocre? Clearly, you concentrated your studies on subjects other than actual business (e. G corporate finance, accounting and operations management) since you seem to be unaware of the effect of rising costs on profitability and the inexorable relationship between profitability and corporate sustainability. Further, as a student of economics, I'd expect you to have a slightly better understanding of the concept of "risk" and the role it plays in fostering and inhibiting economic activity. Check my '08-'09 postings on the subject. I predicted that Obama put loads of new regulations onto the private sector. He did. In fact, he heaped countless (more than 1600) new regulations on businesses, many of which were (and still are) impossible to fully quantify. Unquantifiable (that means you can't calculate its value with any amount of certainty) future costs are one of the most dangerous forms of risk a company can face. Judicious management doesn't roll the dice in the face of unquantifiable risk, it sticks to its knitting and hopes to whistle past the graveyard. The reason why no one has been hired, since Obama was elected, is that prospective employers can't quantify how much an additional hire will cost and therefore can't determine if it is a good business decision to add to head count. Therefore, they do more with less.

[quote=]Obama's POLICIES, BTW, I consider to be much more on the right track than Romney's.[/quote]Wait, now I know who you are. You work at BLS, don't you?

The US has lost over 3 million full-time jobs, since 2007. You can hide behind the mathematical gymnastics and play hide-the-sausage with the people who have given up on finding work but, you can't change the truth. The phony BLS numbers are a great indication of how Obama and Christina think alike.

[quote=]But I certainly will accept that Obama's personal execution of those policies, and his effectiveness in working with a hostile Congress to get things implemented, have been less than impressive.[/quote]Wow, you must have been out smokin' pot when they taught basic math. Obama had super majorities in the house and senate for the first two years of his reign of terror. Hostile congress? Really? That is all you can come up with? Since the 2010 midterms, he just waves his "Executive Order" wand and makes those things de facto laws without any Congressional participation or oversight.

Please, Mr. Economic expert, point to any major Obama economic policy that has a successful, historical precedent (don't forget to cite the precedent).

[quote=]In this regard, he's no Bill Clinton.[/quote]You mean the guy that has a hostile congress to thank, for his legacy?

[quote=]And would that we could actually vote for Clinton now, he'd DWARF both Romney and Obama as a positive choice to move this country forward.[/quote]"Oooooh, Dream Waever, I believe you can get me through the night."

[quote=]That being said, IMHO, by far the biggest threat to the future prosperity of the American state is the ever-widening gulf of empowerment between the most affluent and the dwindling middle class.[/quote]So, we'd be better off if everyone was poor?

[quote=]This trajectory was really started in earnest under Reagan, and only saw a brief respite during the Clinton years, before really kicking into gear during G. W. Bush's Presidency.[/quote]You are talking out your ass. Please, don't bother citing Gini, I can't bear to hear about that Nazi propagandist, again.

[quote=]The fact is, Obama has NOT been as ineffectual as the right wing claims.[/quote]

That's the problem is that despite being an anti-social, dim-witted, former-burn out, Marxist, he was successful in enacting some of the most harmful legislation that this country has every seen.


[quote=]It was entirely unreasonable to assume that any sort of collapse of the magnitude that Obama inherited,[/quote]

False. I lived through it at ground zero (intricately involved on Wall St and Main St when it all came down), In October '08 there was no one, no one, who didn't know what a giant f'ing whole we were in (in large part due to people that think like you being mistakenly trusted with positions of power).

I don't have the energy to go through the rest of your blather but, I wish you well. Monger on.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye; 427477]No offense to marketeers, but weren't you making some quip about the HBS program? I took my first company public in '96, sold my next one to a group out of LA in '01. I'd like to say it was because I am so f'cking smart, however, the truth of the matter is that you could make money falling off a bar stool, in those days (I'm not opining on the validity of your personal experience, of which I have no knowledge).

Poor uncle Milty must be turning in his grave. What a waste of money seeing that you missed out on some of the finest that institution has to offer.

I'd say that you are more rare than you think (and less moderate).

Please stop. You are like fingernails on a chalkboard. The thought of a close-minded Keynesian academic like yourself and the SOE are completely incongruous (that means the two things don't go together that well).

Tres bien "laissez-faire" vous êtes si drôle. Only a complete buffoon would suggest that any business (in the US) in 2012 (or 2000, for that matter) is unregulated or free of the hand of the federal govt.

Do you have any idea how this:

And this:

Are somewhat mutually exclusive (unless you're a really poor student)?

I don't care if you love Obama or hate him. It is his policies that are the problem. Very simply put, removing wealth from the private sector has cyclical effect of reducing economic activity, which negatively impacts federal revenues, which causes politicians to try to squeeze more out of the golden goose, only to find that they kill it. If you, as a self-proclaimed economic expert, can't accurately read the economic foibles of the past 100 years, there isn't much hope for you. It's like reading Barney stories (I. E. Pretty simple and straight forward).

Mediocre? Clearly, you concentrated your studies on subjects other than actual business (e. G corporate finance, accounting and operations management) since you seem to be unaware of the effect of rising costs on profitability and the inexorable relationship between profitability and corporate sustainability. Further, as a student of economics, I'd expect you to have a slightly better understanding of the concept of "risk" and the role it plays in fostering and inhibiting economic activity. Check my '08-'09 postings on the subject. I predicted that Obama put loads of new regulations onto the private sector. He did. In fact, he heaped countless (more than 1600) new regulations on businesses, many of which were (and still are) impossible to fully quantify. Unquantifiable (that means you can't calculate its value with any amount of certainty) future costs are one of the most dangerous forms of risk a company can face. Judicious management doesn't roll the dice in the face of unquantifiable risk, it sticks to its knitting and hopes to whistle passed the graveyard. The reason why no one has been hired, since Obama was elected, is that prospective employers can't quantify how much an additional hire will cost and therefore can't determine if it is a good business decision to add to head count. Therefore, they do more with less.

Wait, now I know who you are. You work at BLS, don't you?

Wow, you must have been out smokin' pot when they taught basic math. Obama had super majorities in the house and senate for the first two years of his reign of terror. Hostile congress? Really? That is all you can come up with?

Please, Mr. Economic expert, point to any major Obama economic policy that has a successful, historical precedent (don't forget to cite the precedent). Since the 2010 midterms, he just waves his "Executive Order" wand and makes those things de facto laws without any Congressional participation or oversight.

You mean the guy that has a hostile congress to thank, for his legacy?

"Ohhhhh, Dream Waever, I believe you can get me through the night."

So, we'd be better off if everyone was poor?

You are talking out your ass. Please, don't bother citing Gini, I can't bear to hear about that Nazi propagandist, again.

That's the problem is that despite being an anti-social, dim-witted, former-burn out, Marxist, he was successful in enacting some of the most harmful legislation that this country has every seen.

I don't have the energy to go through the rest of your blather but, I wish you well. Monger on.

It was entirely unreasonable to assume that any sort of collapse of the magnitude that Obama inherited, could be recovered from in less than 6-7 years, and we are only half way into that time span. The ONLY recession that was EVER worse than the one Obama inherited was the Great Depression, and the Great Depression took 12 years and the buildup to WWII for that recovery to really take hold. It is unreasonable to assume that THIS recovery, from a downturn that was very nearly as bad, could be accomplished in less than half of that same timeframe. And during that time, what Obama HAS accomplished is the restoration of something on the order of 70% of the lost wealth of the last recession. And this restoration of lost wealth is the most important first step in the recovery process. The second most important step was to halt the job losses. Any serious analysis of the timing of the Obama stimulus package will demonstrate that the stimulus package beginning, and it's taking effect in earnest directly correlate with the inflection points of the unemployment curve. The main flaws of the stimulus package were that it was far too SMALL, given the magnitude of the problem it was intended to cure, and that it did not have a secondary phase that was almost entirely oriented toward beefing up the nation's infrastructure, rather than the significant portions of pork that the existing package doled out, which were so popular that even blowhards like Bobby Jindal found a means of accepting them even as he mocked the very program that was gilding his lilly. In particular, the infrastructure emphasis should have been oriented to enabling delivery of alternative energy sources rather than oil. In particular, enabling natural gas and later fuel cells, from being the replacement for petroleum-based fuels for our vehicles.

And finally, there is the age-old question, are you better off than you were 4 years ago? In my personal situation, the answer is unambiguously YES. 4 years ago, my personal wealth had been utterly gutted by the Bush financial collapse. Under Obama (with serious help from another student of economic history, Ben Bernanke) the lost value of my personal wealth has been roughly 80% restored.

It's ludicrous for Romney to claim that he understands how to create jobs, and how taxes disincentivize otherwise optimal business decisions, because he personally has only created jobs in OTHER countries, by outsourcing those from the USA, and all he understands about taxes is how to maximize his avoidance of them. And finally, the SINGULAR impressive accomplishment on Romney's record as it would relate to being President, would be the implementation of a universal health-care system in Massachussetts. But Romney has bowed to the politically craven winds of the Republican party, and disavowed his own principles and run away from his own accomplishment as far and as fast as he can, when in fact, the ONLY thing that would recommend him as a potential President would be were he to implement a nearly identical universal health-care plan nation-wide. Which, BTW, is exactly what Obama actually did, and what Romney has made clear he would NOT do as President, and in fact, would dis-assemble it.[/QUOTE] Yadda Yadda Yadda. I'd say more, but the post doesn't warrant any more, other than to point out that anyone who genuinely believes that Obama is a Marxist is, quite simply, a blithering idiot, who really has no business opining on anything related to Finance or Economics.

[QUOTE=Member #2041;427478]Yadda Yadda Yadda. I'd say more, but the post doesn't warrant any more, other than to point out that anyone who genuinely believes that Obama is a Marxist is, quite simply, a blithering idiot, who really has no business opining on anything related to Finance or Economics.[/QUOTE]Clearly, you do not know what a Marxist is. Did you ever manage to attend any classes while at the SOE?

[QUOTE=Member #2041;427478]Yadda Yadda Yadda. I'd say more, but the post doesn't warrant any more, other than to point out that anyone who genuinely believes that Obama is a Marxist is, quite simply, a blithering idiot, who really has no business opining on anything related to Finance or Economics.[/QUOTE]You are correct.

Some people are simply incapable of understanding the concept of responsible Capitalism.

[QUOTE=Esten; 427481]You are correct.

Some people are simply incapable of understanding the concept of responsible Capitalism.[/QUOTE]Some people don't know what capitalism is.

'The US has lost over 3 million full-time jobs, since 2007. '

Who was president in 2007 and 2008? Might want to do a better job of data mining.

[QUOTE=Dickhead; 427485]

Who was president in 2007 and 2008? [snip][/QUOTE]That guy is NOT running for office.

[QUOTE=Punter 127;427486]That guy is NOT running for office.[/QUOTE]Right, but he IS the guy who is overwhelmingly responsible for the job losses since 2007, since the vast preponderance of those took place in 2007 and 2008, when he WAS President, and the first half of 2009, before the next guy's policies could kick in to ameliorate the crisis that occurred on the first guy's watch.

The simple truth is that anyone who quotes a jobs statistic that starts in 2007 and tries to hang it on Obama is either simply a disingenuous liar, or so stupid and ill-informed about economics that he doesn't understand that unemployment is actually a lagging indicator, to the tune of about 9 months. I'd agree that Obama owns the jobs number from 2H 2009 on. In any case, this sort of deception and misrepresentation of reality by righties is what we've come to expect from a bunch of folks who recognize that they can't make their case on the merits and reality, and so resort to outright deceptions like these, and stupid batshit crazy stuff like Obama being a Kenyan-born Muslim Marxist who didn't legitimately get his degrees from Columbia and Harvard. It's all cut from the same cloth.

As my lawyer friend says, when you have the facts, you argue the facts, when you have the law, you argue the law. When you have neither, you baffle them with bullshit. The degree to which the right has had to resort to baffling with bullshit is quite telling.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;427477]No offense to marketeers, but weren't you making some quip about the HBS program? I took my first company public in '96, sold my next one to a group out of LA in '01. I'd like to say it was because I am so f'cking smart, however, the truth of the matter is that you could make money falling off a bar stool, in those days (I'm not opining on the validity of your personal experience, of which I have no knowledge).[/QUOTE]Give up Walleye. He probably was a good man once but he drank the Kool Aid and he's not coming back. He believes marginal tax rates on corporations should be higher, which puts him to the left of mainstream Democrats. Just be thankful it's Obama and not Member #2041 that's running for president.

By the way, I have reconsidered my choice for president. As indicated in an earlier post, I was considering writing your name in. But based on the above I have determined that your success in life was largely due to luck. Ability, skill and intelligence played a larger part in Romney's success in turning around companies, a government and the Olympics. Therefore I will be voting for him. Sorry.

[QUOTE=Tiny12; 427493]Give up Walleye. He probably was a good man once but he drank the Kool Aid and he's not coming back. He believes marginal tax rates on corporations should be higher, which puts him to the left of mainstream Democrats. Just be thankful it's Obama and not Member #2041 that's running for president.

By the way, I have reconsidered my choice for president. As indicated in an earlier post, I was considering writing your name in. But based on the above I have determined that your success in life was largely due to luck. Ability, skill and intelligence played a larger part in Romney's success in turning around companies, a government and the Olympics. Therefore I will be voting for him. Sorry.[/QUOTE]That's right, I have no plans to run for President, because I fuck hookers with a high rate of frequency, and that's a disqualifier for the office. But, in any case, I certainly appreciate Tiny12 mustering all of his intellectual prowess to come up with this post.

[QUOTE=Dickhead; 427485]'The US has lost over 3 million full-time jobs, since 2007. '

Who was president in 2007 and 2008? Might want to do a better job of data mining.[/QUOTE]Why? I didn't cherry pick a number to just show Obama's ineptitude, just pointing out that the US economy has and continues to shed full-time jobs while the numbers that get published by the proletariat say that things are improving. I have never said that Obama caused the initial recession, he just turned it into the Great Recession. The weekly and monthly numbers are pure political propaganda. They have been revised, each and every period, to show that the situation was worse than reported. However, we are lead to believe that things are getting better. The only reason that things might be getting better is that Romney is looking strong (you can go back to my '08 election posts and you'll see that I'm not a life long Romney fan. In this election, I'd vote for Homer Simpson before I'd vote for the Marxist candidate, Obama).

[QUOTE=Member #2041;427490]Right, but he IS the guy who is overwhelmingly responsible for the job losses since 2007, since the vast preponderance of those took place in 2007 and 2008, when he WAS President, and the first half of 2009, before the next guy's policies could kick in to ameliorate the crisis that occurred on the first guy's watch.[/quote]Gee I thought Obama was elected to fix the problem, not just blame the other guy, I also believe he promised to do that in his first term.

BTW The Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers of congress between January 3, 2007, and January 3, 2009. (Yes, two independent senators caucused with the Democrats)

[QUOTE=Member #2041;427490]The simple truth is that anyone who quotes a jobs statistic that starts in 2007 and tries to hang it on Obama is either simply a disingenuous liar, or so stupid and ill-informed about economics that he doesn't understand that unemployment is actually a lagging indicator, to the tune of about 9 months. I'd agree that Obama owns the jobs number from 2H 2009 on. In any case, this sort of deception and misrepresentation of reality by righties is what we've come to expect from a bunch of folks who recognize that they can't make their case on the merits and reality, and so resort to outright deceptions like these, and stupid batshit crazy stuff like Obama being a Kenyan-born Muslim Marxist who didn't legitimately get his degrees from Columbia and Harvard. It's all cut from the same cloth.[/quote]LOL, same old tired leftwing BS, but since it looks like the wheels are starting to come off the Obama cart I understand your anxiety and the need to lash out.

[QUOTE=Member #2041;427490] As my lawyer friend says, when you have the facts, you argue the facts, when you have the law, you argue the law. When you have neither, you baffle them with bullshit. The degree to which the right has had to resort to baffling with bullshit is quite telling.[/QUOTE]I don't think 'baffling with bullshit' is limited to the right, please refer to your previous paragraphs.

[QUOTE=Member #2041;427490]Right, but he IS the guy who is overwhelmingly responsible for the job losses since 2007, since the vast preponderance of those took place in 2007 and 2008, when he WAS President, and the first half of 2009, before the next guy's policies could kick in to ameliorate the crisis that occurred on the first guy's watch.[/quote]If you were in any way consistent in your way of thinking about things, you'd be banging on the table to throw the current administration out of office.

In your way of thinking, Bush is responsible for everything that happened under his watch (a sentiment, with which, I am mostly in agreement), while Obama is responsible for nothing that transpired during his watch, except that he led the mission to kill Bin Laden.

What color is the sky, in your world?

[quote=]The simple truth is that anyone who quotes a jobs statistic that starts in 2007 and tries to hang it on Obama is either simply a disingenuous liar, or so stupid and ill-informed about economics that he doesn't understand that unemployment is actually a lagging indicator, to the tune of about 9 months.[/quote]Why? Is Obama's reign the only period of relevance here? Who ever said that unemployment was a leading indicator (assuming that you have any clue what that might mean)? You do not need to be an economist to drive down the street and see what seems to be every other house with a "for sale" sign in front of it. Why would all these people sell their houses at the worst possible time? Why don't they just stay put and do it in a few years? Why are so many shops at the Mall boarded up? Why are almost 50 million people on food stamps? Why are so many former white collar workers on Medicaid? You can cherry pick numbers all day long but, it won't change the reality of our situation.

[quote=]I'd agree that Obama owns the jobs number from 2H 2009 on. In any case, this sort of deception and misrepresentation of reality by righties is what we've come to expect from a bunch of folks who recognize that they can't make their case on the merits and reality, and so resort to outright deceptions like these, and stupid batshit crazy stuff like Obama being a Kenyan-born Muslim Marxist who didn't legitimately get his degrees from Columbia and Harvard. It's all cut from the same cloth.[/quote]This was no normal transition of power and the incoming president's impact preceded his inauguration. Obama's influence on the economy started when McCain pulled out of the campaign to get back to Washington to [I have no f*cking idea what he thought he was going to do]. Obama, Reid and Pelosi were up to their eyeballs in TARP (Q4'08) and the $1T of payoffs to his supports (unions and bundlers) that some people euphemistically called "Stimulus" (Feb '09). He didn't own the profligate spending of the Bush administration (at that point) rather he doubled down on it as soon as possible. Rather than cut the deficit by 50%, as promised, he increased it by 50%.

I didn't say that Obama was born outside the US, I said that I believe he told Columbia and HLS that he was from a foreign country in order to better his treatment from admissions to scholarship. I also stated very clearly that degrees acquired by the beneficiaries of racial preferences are not illegitimate.

Please, don't let the facts get in the way of your narrative, after all, you're a liberal and it would be unfair of us to expect you to act otherwise.

[quote=]As my lawyer friend says, when you have the facts, you argue the facts, when you have the law, you argue the law. When you have neither, you baffle them with bullshit. The degree to which the right has had to resort to baffling with bullshit is quite telling.[/QUOTE]Why then is it so difficult for you to actually insert a few facts into any of your posts? I would argue that the guy with the facts seems to be gaining on the guy trying to win via smoke and mirrors.

[QUOTE=Member #2041;427494]That's right, I have no plans to run for President, because I fuck hookers with a high rate of frequency, and that's a disqualifier for the office.[/quote]Since when? Womanizing and wh*re mongering are completely acceptable traits, so long as the candidate is a liberal. In fact, through some strange form of magic, these traits actually make you an untouchable protector of women (like Ted Kennedy).

[quote=]But, in any case, I certainly appreciate Tiny12 mustering all of his intellectual prowess to come up with this post.[/QUOTE]His post is spot on. He can clearly see that you can't be deprogrammed by conventional methods, like the truth. However, being the humanitarian that I am, I find it difficult to give up on anyone, including lost souls, like yourself.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;427499]However, being the humanitarian that I am, I find it difficult to give up on anyone, including lost souls, like yourself.[/QUOTE]Well, good luck with that, because, conveniently, this forum has an ignore list, which I use for the folks who's political discourse tends to veer into the batshit crazy space that I described earlier.

[QUOTE=Member #2041;427501]Well, good luck with that, because, conveniently, this forum has an ignore list, which I use for the folks who's political discourse tends to veer into the batshit crazy space that I described earlier.[/QUOTE]It is your prerogative to insulate yourself from those with differing opinions and a firmer grasp on the facts. That seemed to work well for Obama in the first debate.

Why did you chose to respond just to that part of my posts as opposed to maybe this part:

[quote=]Why then is it so difficult for you to actually insert a few facts into any of your posts?[/quote]

Is will there be enough time and intestinal fortitude for the House to impeach the President?

So many high crimes and misdemeanors, it an abundance of riches: fast and furious (the first POTUS to be directly complicit in the murder of more than 100 nonmilitary, foreign nationals) ; Bengazigate (the cover up of the intentional misinformation program foisted on the US public) ; the deliberate manipulation of national labor and unemployment statistics for political and personal gain; the intentional solicitation and collection of illegal foreign campaign contributions (RICO-caliber conspiracy to circumvent federal election laws) and the payoffs to Obama's cronie capitalists like Solyndra and Fisker (Al Gore).

This administration if so corrupt, it is hard to believe. If this had taken place during a Republican administration, not only would the press be banging the impeachment drum, so would I.

Even if Obama wins reelection, his second term is going to be gridlocked because he and his minions are going to be hamstrung by the proliferation of meritorious Congressional investigations. Had this been a Republican, in addition to the press drumbeat, Holder, Rice, Jarret and Axlerod would have all been forced out (and / or sacrificed) , by now. Could you imagine how the press would howl about the fact that one of our ambassadors was killed because the State Department was cutting their protection detail at the same time it was further subsidizing Government Motors (beyond the oversight of Congress) by purchasing Chevy Volts for the Austrian Embassy. Yep, the administration and its State Department willfully contributed to the conditions that enabled Islamic terrorists to kill a US Ambassador in exchange for political window dressing in the form of artificial sales of Obama's electric cars. Wow, I can't believe no one is interested in this story.

Sadly, if Obama loses, I suspect that the Congress will not have the time nor the moral will to fully prosecute these crimes and the bad actors (criminals) will escape responsibility for their crimes and will make millions in the private sector.