2012 Elections in the USA

Vegas has the race being very close: [url]http://www.politicalbettingodds.com/2012-us-presidential-election-odds.html[/url]

Over / under popular vote for Obama 50. 5% and 49. 5% for Romney.

What are the odds?

I am in. Obama Wins.

I will take all bets, within my pocket book.

[QUOTE=Dickhead; 427798]Vegas has the race being very close:

[url]http://www.politicalbettingodds.com/2012-us-presidential-election-odds.html[/url]

Over / under popular vote for Obama 50. 5% and 49. 5% for Romney.[/QUOTE]

Nope. It doesn't matter to me who wins. They can set up whatever system they want, either one of them, and I will figure out how to beat it. I always do. I have already found a hole in the system to where I can get around $80k in free money so god bless america.

I Did not fall for It. You Did.

I Knew It! What the Answer would be.

If some of you did not understand it try again.

I did not mention Obama anywhere. Was it an affliction you have? Missing Things? Or Beer?
Mines Wine.

[url]http://www.romneytaxplan.com/[/url]

[QUOTE=Dickhead; 427795]So I think the website WT posted earlier is a spoof. Look what happens when you click through. It goes from saying it is approved by Obama to saying it is approved by nobody.

[url]http://www.romneytaxplan.com/[/url]

When you try to click on 'Get the details, ' the button starts running away from you. Pretty funny. Not surprising WT fell for it as he sets the standard for gullible.[/QUOTE]

Very articulate.

I wish you Luck.

AND Me.

[QUOTE=Dickhead;427800]Nope. It doesn't matter to me who wins. They can set up whatever system they want, either one of them, and I will figure out how to beat it. I always do. I have already found a hole in the system to where I can get around $80k in free money so god bless america.[/QUOTE]

57% of the senators and 39% of the congress have law degrees and that seems pretty darn high to me. I have nothing against lawyers but a surplus of them can only create problems. Maybe shoot half of them; that should get us to a more reasonable ratio. Interestingly a slightly higher percentage of congress have master's degrees as compared to senators, and while no senators have PhDs. 23 congress do. That is a weird piece of data and I have no idea what to make of it.

242 to 193 Republicans to Democrats in the House of Representatives after the 2010 election and 51-47-2 in the Senate, with the 2 independents leaning Democratic. So we can see why nothing ever gets done; nobody has the required level of majority. Nothing getting done is often a good thing, though. I am reminded of the Spanish king's instruction to the first viceroy he sent to México (Pedro de Mendoza):

'Do little and do it slowly.'

Given that politicians could fuck up a wet dream, I think this is a good political philosophy and one we should embrace.

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;427804]I wish you Luck.AND Me.[/QUOTE]Luck is not involved. Proper Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance. Or, to quote the visionary 20th century thinker Branch Rickey, 'luck is the residue of design. ' Vote and participate in the process, but realize that each individual voter is like a tiny turd in a vast outhouse. What you think matters, but it matters 1/6,000,000,000 so don't get your hopes up. That's why I recommend trying to fuck the system as opposed to changing it. Plus, economic theory tells me that if everyone tries to fuck the system for their own benefit, it will pull the system towards a stable equilibrium.

Doesn't the constitution protect people against this sort of thing?

[url]http://rt.com/usa/news/us-prostitution-clients-shame-426/[/url]

I wonder where Romney and his supporters stand on this issue.

[QUOTE=Lysander; 427809]Doesn't the constitution protect people against this sort of thing?

[url]http://rt.com/usa/news/us-prostitution-clients-shame-426/[/url]

I wonder where Romney and his supporters stand on this issue.[/QUOTE]I wonder where Obama and his supporters stand on this issue. I also wonder what this has to do with the 2012 election?

[QUOTE=Punter 127; 427789]Gee, I thought Al Qaida was taken out by Obama. [/QUOTE]


Thinking is obviously not your strong suit. Al Qaida has been severely diminished, but neither Obama nor anyone else with knowledge ever claimed that they had been eliminated. The fact is, being able to launch an attack against an Embassy located in an Arab nation with a government in flux and national security forces of dubious allegiances is quite a bit less of a task than launching a mass attack on American civilians on American soil. Their ability to do the latter is presently in serious doubt, but their ability to do the former, obviously still exists.

In any case, it remains instructive that you continue to give Ryan / Romney a pass on intentional lying, and feel the need to deflect the subject when questioned about it.

Slick Willie!

Wow! Did MSNBC screw up. MSNBC had a post 2nd debate panel of 8 'undecided' voters. You would think MSNBC would stack the deck with 8 stealth Obama supporters. Whoops, the 8 'undecided' voters became Romney supporters after the 2nd debate, and the biggest surprise, the 4 'undecided' women voters on the panel became the most adamant of the new romney supporters.

Fox News had a post 2nd debate panel of about 30 'undecided' voters who had supported Obama in 2008. Surprise, surprise, almost all of the 30 'undecided' 2008 Obama supporters are no longer in the 'undecided' column. They became Romney supporters after the 2nd debate. MSNBC could learn something from Fox news about how to select panels of 'undecided 'voters that support the view of the news service that put them on the panel.

I noticed Obama got around to the 'Romney would have let GM go bankrupt' shot during the last debate. Well Obama let GM go 'bankrupt' sort of, they went into 'Obama-ruptcy'. I believe we can all agree NO ONE was talking about liquidation of GM as a starting point for the rest of this dicussion.

First.
You must remember the purpose of bankruptcy is to free productive assets from the burden of debts which can not be repaid or refinanced. This is the purpose of Chapter 13 and 12.

Second.
At the time of GM's bankruptcy it had $20 Billion in tangible assets and another $10 Billion in intellectual properties for a total of roughly $30 Billion. GM also had underfunded the healthcare benefit trust for current and retired employees by $20 Billion and another $10 Billion in underfunded pension contributions for a total of $30 Billion owed the employee union. GM also owed the Bondholders $30 Billion. All the creditors got screwed which is what happens in bankruptcy.

Third.
What should have happened in a straight forward bankruptcy was each party, union and bondholders would have received roughly $15 Billion in cash and equity in the 'New GM'. Remember GM was worth about $30 Billion at the time it entered bankruptcy. But that's not what happened, somehow via 'Obama-ruptcy' the government injected $50 Billion dollars of taxpayer funds into the 'New GM'.250% of what the tangible assets were at the time of the filing.

Fourth.
Who got what. Bondholders received about 10% of the stock in the 'New GM' but were sequestered from selling that stock until much later. The Union received 100% of the $10 Billion due the pension which was just rolled into the 'New GM', the union healthcare trust was awarded 17. 5% of 'New GM' stock in addition to $9 Billion in preferred stock and notes in the 'New GM'. In other words the Bondholders received about 10 cents on the dollar while the union ended up with $28 Billion of the $30 Billion in claims going into bankruptcy. In addition the unions have a total lock on all GM profits for the foreseeable future.

Conclusion.
What should have happened was the union pension, the union healthcare trust and the bondholders should have taken at hit from the bankruptcy and the company should have been able to lower their labor expense from the current $56 / hour to the industry standard of $47 / hour and become a competitive and profitable company under new management. But that did not happen under 'Obama-ruptcy'. GM is still unable to earn a profit, the taxpayers have lost about 50% of the value of the $50 Billion Obama so blithely kicked in so the unions walked away with most of the company and GM is still under unsupportable pension obligations.

[QUOTE=Member #2041;427814]Thinking is obviously not your strong suit.[/quote]These type of insults are uncalled for, but they reveal the type of person you really are, and your desperation. I won't however lower myself to your level by calling you a prick or an asshole, you've done an excellent job of exposing that yourself.

[QUOTE=Member #2041;427814] Al Qaida has been severely diminished, but neither Obama nor anyone else with knowledge ever claimed that they had been eliminated. The fact is, being able to launch an attack against an Embassy located in an Arab nation with a government in flux and national security forces of dubious allegiances is quite a bit less of a task than launching a mass attack on American civilians on American soil. Their ability to do the latter is presently in serious doubt, but their ability to do the former, obviously still exists.[/quote]The Obama team may not have said Al Qaida has been eliminated, but they sure tried to imply they were no longer a threat.

Why did Obama send his United Nations ambassador onto five TV shows to claim it was all just a Muslim protest of a video that got out of hand? When did they know, what did they know, and what did they do about it?

I'm not convinced Al Qaida is unable to attack on American soil, but on this one I hope you finally got one right.

[QUOTE=Member #2041;427814]In any case, it remains instructive that you continue to give Ryan / Romney a pass on intentional lying, and feel the need to deflect the subject when questioned about it.[/QUOTE]This from the king of ignore and deflect, talk to me after you address all of the Obama / Biden untruths.

[QUOTE=Sidney;427833]Industry sales volume had fallen from 16 to 11 million annual rate. Solutions were to fire top management and the board, provide sales incentives, and standardize to reduce costs[/QUOTE]I agree it was a management problem and I think the fact that Ford didn't take taxpayer money supports that thinking as well. However it's been suggested that thinking is not my strong suit. LOL

[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 427831]I.

GM is still unable to earn a profit, the taxpayers have lost about 50% of the value of the $50 Billion Obama so blithely kicked in so the unions walked away with most of the company and GM is still under unsupportable pension obligations.[/QUOTE]Of course, to be fair, taxpayers have lost nothing until the sale of the stock is actually made. I have also read that the loss currently would be $13b not $25b because some of the money was repaid in 2010. Good question for the next debate. Should the government sell its GM stock at the current $25 a share? Why talk about 2008 when we could talk about 2013? We are just Monday morning quarterbacking now.

Sidney, I agree with you the problems with GM have to do with management but also with the union labor contract, pension costs and healthcare costs. Had the bankruptcy gone according to law, management would have been changed; labor contracts / pension / healthcare would have had to be renegotiated, prior pension and healthcare costs would not have been carried over to the new company, the very concept of bankruptcy relief precludes them from being carried over. GM has many problems but one of the largest which keeps it from being a competitive company is labor costs. Other companies come here from Japan, set up shop, us non-union labor and continue to kick GM's ass.

It appears GM is headed back to bankruptcy court in the near future due to labor costs and bad management. A great example is the Chevy Volt, costs $80K to build but they sell it for $40K, another Obama 'green' gone south along with A123 batterys.

BBM, yes GM paid back a portion of the original debt but they did so WITH ANOTHER LOAN FROM UNCLE SUGAR. Sort of like transfering balance on your credit card, the debt is still there just changed the name a bit.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;427840]A great example is the Chevy Volt, costs $80K to build[/QUOTE]Is that based on the average cost with the overhead spread over the current number of units produced (absorption cost)? Because that would way overstate it. If you price closer to marginal cost (the cost to build the next car) , sometimes you can build up a break even volume when you otherwise would not. I am not arguing for subsidies here, necessarily, but you do sometimes have to produce below absorption cost in the first few years of a product.

Sorry DH, it was $89K.

Here is the article.

[url]http://theweek.com/article/index/233140/the-chevy-volts-89000-production-cost-a-waste-of-money[/url]

[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 427843]Sorry DH, it was $89K. Here is the article.

[url]http://theweek.com/article/index/233140/the-chevy-volts-89000-production-cost-a-waste-of-money[/url][/QUOTE]Okay, so first of all, cost information particular product lines is not public information. Second of all, the information was provided to Reuters by 'industry analysts and manufacturing experts. ' Third, and most importantly, the cost figure includes development costs. It's against the accounting rules to do that. So this is a cost figure that not only includes factory depreciation (a sunk cost) and a portion of fixed manufacturing costs that aren't even traceable to the model (both of those two are required under accounting rules but are not additional costs to produce the model), and an allocation of years and years of development costs that never should have been included. In other words it is a case of a journalist making up numbers to suit his or her purpose. All this can be found by working backwards from the article to its sources. That is how you debunk non-credible statements like the 'Volt costs $89k to make.' Nonsense. The development cost was all sunk by the time you started production, so not only does it not make sense from an economic standpoint to include it, it's PROHIBITED from an accounting standpoint to include it.

So shitcan that article and ignore the point it is trying to make.

DH, development costs have to be allocated, you know this as well as I do. It appears you wish to segregate these costs and assign them to what? Somehow you think calling them 'sunk costs' makes them disappear? It also appears you wish to segregate the Volt production line from all other production lines to which both fixed and variable overhead and administrative expenses are assigned to reduce production costs to support a preconceived conclusion. This is exactly the fuzzy math that got GM in trouble to start with. You want to argue you are making a profit on a product line and ignore the development costs associated with it, as well as overhead costs assigned to all product lines? An example of your argument is say GM made a $100 Million profit on sales of the Volt but ignores the $200 Million in development costs. My friend in the real world that translates into a $100 Million LOSS. While this might be mitigated over time via a long production run, it just is not happening with the Volt.

The only thing that will make an electric vehicle a reality is a quantum leap in battery technology and the advent of a room temperature super conductor which can be produced at a financially viable cost. You folks seem to forget our electric grid will simply not handle widespread use of electric vehicles, not to mention the power plants to produce the energy which are all fossil fuel fired. Sort of a Catch 22 for the Greenies.

I hate to say it, but the greenies are living with Alice in Wonderland. The latest data has shown that there has been absolutely no global warming from 1996 to now. Since 1876, or something like that, global temperatures increased about 0.75 degrees Celsius. This increase did not occur during the last 16 years. Rather it occurred arround the turn of the century when the world was less industrialized. This emphasizes that global temperatures normally go up and down. No doubt global warming and global cooling occurs. However, man made global warming and man made global cooling is not occurring.

Anyway, it appears that greenies fixated on man made global warming have way too much time on their hands. Maybe because the greenies have nothing better to do than wait for government handouts to sustain their fragile and delicate sensibilities.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;427849]DH, development costs have to be allocated, you know this as well as I do.[/QUOTE]No. It is prohibited to allocate them. They must be expensed entirely in the year of occurrence. I know you aren't particularly concerned with facts, but that is Statement of Financial Accounting Standards #2 in case you would like to verify, and it has been the rule for nearly 40 years in the US.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;427849]Somehow you think calling them 'sunk costs' makes them disappear?[/QUOTE]They are already gone. It appears you don't understand the concept of a sunk cost. That is unfortunate.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;427849]It also appears you wish to segregate the Volt production line from all other production lines to which both fixed and variable overhead and administrative expenses are assigned to reduce production costs to support a preconceived conclusion.[/QUOTE]No, what I said was that there is no way for the costs of Volt production to be segregated based on public information.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 427849]You want to argue you are making a profit on a product line[/QUOTE]I never said they were making a profit. I have no idea whether they are or not. But, I know for sure that the numbers presented were based on accounting that is both theoretically unsound (never allocate sunk costs as it creates a death spiral) AND prohibited.

Apparently Obama still has not admitted that the assault in Libya was a terrorist attack. Obama does not have enough information to make that determination. However, Obama had enough information to immediately blame the Libya attack on an obscure Utube video that had been online for months.

I would like to know the person who, in a matter of minutes, was able to convince Obama that the Libya attack was due to this obsure video. Probably the same clever person who sold the Brooklyn Bridge, was able to convince investors that he could change lead into gold and the same person who is now selling trees that grow greenbacks.

[QUOTE=El Alamo;427856]Apparently Obama still has not admitted that the assault in Libya was a terrorist attack. Obama does not have enough information to make that determination. However, Obama had enough information to immediately blame the Libya attack on an obscure Utube video that had been online for months. I would like to know the person who, in a matter of minutes, was able to convince Obama that the Libya attack was due to this obsure video. Probably the same clever person who sold the Brooklyn Bridge, was able to convince investors that lead could be changed into gold and the same person who is selling trees that grow greenbacks.[/QUOTE]Benghazi is a non-issue. Just some dust being kicked about for distraction. If Romney pursues the fact that he can work with Democrats, then his appeal will broaden and he can win. But the tea-baggers are controlling his every move, Ryan is okying when he can pee!

DH, the only one here without any concept of "sunk costs" is you, you might notice R&D is not something that is usually considered "sunk cost". Here is the definition:

[url]http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sunkcost.asp#axzz29h0QTL57[/url]

While you admit you don't know what the true costs are for the Volt you are ready to dismiss a well founded trade publication's assessment of the costs. While you may not have access to this information you may be assured others in the business do and leak it frequently. GM even complained the R&D costs cited in the articale were applied over a period of time shorter then GM allotted for those costs. Even GM did not call the R&D costs 'sunk costs'.

With GM having to idle plants which produce the Volt due to falling sales, battery and other supply firms going out of business due to lack of demand for the parts they supply for the Volt, somehow I just doubt you have a clue what you are talking about. Support the unions all you want, GM is still mismanaged, its work force is still over paid vs the industry standard and they are still trying to produce a vehicle no one wants and is by no stretch of the imagination profitable.

DH there is Obama-nomics and then there is the REAL WORLD, please stop confusing the two.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt; 427861]Benghazi is a non-issue. Just some dust being kicked about for distraction.

Really! I think I have heard it all now.

A President who is clueless on the economy is now clueless on foreign affairs.

Tell the families of those brutalized in Benghazi that Benghazi is a non issue.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 427862]DH, the only one here without any concept of "sunk costs" is you, you might notice R&D is not something that is usually considered "sunk cost". Here is the definition:

[url]http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sunkcost.asp#axzz29h0QTL57[/url][/QUOTE]And it says,"A cost that has already been incurred and thus cannot be recovered. A sunk cost differs from other, [B]future[/B] costs that a business may face, such as inventory costs or [B]R&D expenses[/B], because it has already happened. Sunk costs are independent of any event that may occur in the future."

I bolded the parts you don't seem to understand. [B]Past[/B] R & D is sunk, whether or not it ultimately proves productive. It occurred in the past and can never be recovered. Future R & D, while it may or may not be productive, is not a sunk cost.

The thought of me as a liberal accountant is really quite laughable. I certainly am seeing some interesting words being put into my mouth. You say, "support the unions all you want." I have never mentioned one single thing about unions. These types of straw-man attacks really detract from your credibility.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt;427861]Benghazi is a non-issue. Just some dust being kicked about for distraction. If Romney pursues the fact that he can work with Democrats, then his appeal will broaden and he can win. But the tea-baggers are controlling his every move, Ryan is okying when he can pee![/QUOTE]Distraction from what, just what part of Obamas record would they want to distract from?

DH if you can not read and understand the definition, there is no reason to continue the discussion. As stated earlier, even GM did not classify the Volt's R&D costs as "sunk costs" but complained the article failed to spread the cost over, in GM's opinion, a large enough production run / time period.

I can recommend several universities with good accounting programs if you're interested. Once you understand the principles of accounting, especially cost accounting, then go to GAAP at some point the meaning and uses of the concept of "sunk costs" will become clear.

I would be open to considering Obama's $5+ Trillion in new debt "sunk costs". By the way didn't Obama promise to reduce the deficit, which was $10 Trillion and change when he took office, by half and yet it's now $16 Trillion and climbing? I guess Member would call that $10 Trillion delta another 'forecast' not a promise. Perhaps it's time to change 'forecasters'.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;427874]I can recommend several universities with good accounting programs if you're interested. Once you understand the principles of accounting, especially cost accounting, then go to GAAP at some point the meaning and uses of the concept of "sunk costs" will become clear.[/QUOTE]Yeah, I've been meaning to take an introductory accounting class.

No matter what side you're on, I think most people agree the second debate was great if not exceptional. I'm no debate historian, but I did read one article quoting someone who said he'd seen all the debates for the past 3 decades or so and thought Tuesday's debate was the best. I found it riveting television. About 65 million viewers, just slightly less than the first. Both sides scored points and had plenty to be happy with.

Ultimately I am influenced by substance, policy. But with all the emphasis on style and the build-up to the debate, I can also appreciate the importance of style and effect. And this was clearly in play Tuesday night. Both Obama and Romney were strong.

'Riveting television' is a classic oxymoron.

Obama let it slip in debate that he'd push for a gun ban in a second term, this puts Obama in a bit of a pickle. IMHO.

The NRA is stepping up its attack on the president in Ohio, Virginia, Florida and Wisconsin with a new [b]"we told you so"[/b] Theme. They're also blanketing those states with mailings and ads, trying to persuade pro-gun, non-NRA members to vote for Romney. They made a similar effort during the recent Wisconsin gubernatorial recall effort and several analysts credited the NRA with helping to save Gov. Scott Walker.

Obama suggested more than just an assault weapons ban when he said [i]"What I'm trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced. But part of it is also looking at other sources of the violence. Because frankly, in my hometown of Chicago, there's an awful lot of violence and they're not using AK-47s. They're using cheap handguns."[snip][/i]

Washington Times said 'It's a revelation that could sway the election'.

You can bet the NRA and other Pro-Second Amendment groups will be working overtime to get the gun vote fired up.

A lot of gun owners believed Obama four years ago, when he said he wouldn't take their guns away, now he has admitted he wants to take them away. Thanks for coming clean Mr President.


BTW I'm still expecting an October Obama surprise, probably Iran connected.

The highlight was Obama's masterful trap that caught Romney in his own lie.

Romney and the entire Fox News operation had been saying for weeks that Obama had attempted a coverup by waiting so long to call the Libya attack terrorism. Now there are legitimate questions about the Benghazi attack. But what Romney and conspirators had been doing was shameless, opportunistic bullshit. This was obvious to anyone with half a brain.

So in the debate, Obama just says very plainly, he called it an act of terror the day after.

Romney, incredulous, says WAAAHHHHT?

Obama: Please proceed, Governor.

Romney: Hey everyone, this is amazing, I just want to make sure we get this on the record, the President is saying he called it an act of terror the day after.

Moderator: Actually, that is true.

Audience: APPLAUSE

Just EPIC! That is a debate moment that will go down in history. Romney got his ass handed to him, and his attempt to deceive the public was exposed in front of 65 Million Americans.

[QUOTE=El Alamo; 427863]

[QUOTE=Black Shirt; 427861]Benghazi is a non-issue. Just some dust being kicked about for distraction.

Really! I think I have heard it all now.

A President who is clueless on the economy is now clueless on foreign affairs.

Tell the families of those brutalized in Benghazi that Benghazi is a non issue.[/QUOTE]Compared to the Beirut Barracks bombings and the USS Cole, a Benghazi possibility is like driving on Interstate 5 in Los Angeles. How many people do you think die each year on Interstate 5?