Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: LurkerNoMore on January 17, 2012, 06:10:51 AM
-
Romney and Paul will pretty much stick it out til the end.
Who do you think is going to be the next one to quit?
Newt has too much pride and ego to be anything less than 3rd place in the pecking order before "suspending" his campaign.
Santorum is stupid enough to actually believe that his quirk in Iowa actually means anything.
Perry is dumb as a brick and will probably still be campaigning to be the GOP nominee in December 2012.
-
Romney and Paul will pretty much stick it out til the end.
Who do you think is going to be the next one to quit?
Newt has too much pride and ego to be anything less than 3rd place in the pecking order before "suspending" his campaign.
Santorum is stupid enough to actually believe that his quirk in Iowa actually means anything.
Perry is dumb as a brick and will probably still be campaigning to be the GOP in December 2012.
LOL
-
LOL
It's true. After Pat Robertson announced that God told him who the next POTUS was going to be, I bet Perry put his number on speed dial and calls a dozen times a day asking "is it me? it's me isn't it? c'mon...tell me..."
-
Perry needs to go. What is he doing?
-
Perry needs to go. What is he doing?
Not much. As the polls and general opinion indicate.
But he is too damn dumb to know when to quit.
-
Doesn't really matter, because whichever loser wins the nomination is going to be our next president.
-
Doesn't really matter, because whichever loser wins the nomination is going to be our next president.
Want to make a bet on that?
-
Want to make a bet on that?
lol. What is it with you wanting to bet all the time? No thanks. I think it will take an epic natural disaster, terrorist attack, or economic recovery the likes we have never seen over the next six months for Obama to get reelected.
-
Suddenly you don't seem so confident anymore. ::)
Typical as it is for people to change their tunes when given an opportunity to stand by their words.
Don't worry... I am sure you are just proclaiming that so boldly just to soothe your own worries.
-
Suddenly you don't seem so confident anymore. ::)
Typical as it is for people to change their tunes when given an opportunity to stand by their words.
Don't worry... I am sure you are just proclaiming that so boldly just to soothe your own worries.
What? lol . . . . How exactly did I change my tune? I've been saying the same thing about Obama for about two years already. He's toast.
And am I "worried"? Darn right I am. Because I love my country, I'm worried the least qualified and one of the worst presidents in American history may get reelected. Do I think he will? Absolutely not. Is it possible? Of course. Anything is possible, but I think it would take what I already said.
-
:'(
Obama is going to win and you are still pinning your hopes on the GOP coughing up someone that could beat him.
Then again, you thought Bachmann and Cain were qualified too. Guess that explains your reasoning.
Again, if you are so certain that Obama will lose, let's bet on it. Doesn't have to be money, can be something fun. :D
-
:'(
Obama is going to win and you are still pinning your hopes on the GOP coughing up someone that could beat him.
Then again, you thought Bachmann and Cain were qualified too. Guess that explains your reasoning.
Again, if you are so certain that Obama will lose, let's bet on it. Doesn't have to be money, can be something fun. :D
I'm not pinning my hopes on anyone. I'm voting for ABO, again.
Yes, I thought Bachmann and Cain were qualified, and immensely better than Obama.
I don't bet on anything. Has nothing to do with how certain I am. Just bump this thread after the election in November and we'll see who got it right. Could be me, could be you.
-
Doesn't really matter, because whichever loser wins the nomination is going to be our next president.
Sadly, I feel that if Romney wins, Obama will still be the next president.
Romney does not have the kind of following to beat Obama, even though Id take him over Hussein any day. (Like 333 says, Obama has a 100% chance of total destruction, whereas Romney at worst has an 20% chance of being different. Id say 50/50, but the fact is that everything Romney has said is identicle to Obama in almost every aspect.)
-
Sadly, I feel that if Romney wins, Obama will still be the next president.
Romney does not have the kind of following to beat Obama
People WANTED obama in 2008.
Repubs are SETTLING for Romney.
SO Romney definitely has some obstacles as a result.
-
People WANTED obama in 2008.
Repubs are SETTLING for Romney.
SO Romney definitely has some obstacles as a result.
Seems to me the majority of moderates/young/true conservatives (Not to mention a large number of middle/left people) WANT Ron Paul. But the GOP is TELLING us we cant have him. So theyre settlling for Romney.
Its time for a change, and I think that the GOP is feeling that people are fed up and they are scared shitless theyre losing control.
-
People WANTED obama in 2008.
Repubs are SETTLING for Romney.
SO Romney definitely has some obstacles as a result.
YOU WANTED OBAMA!
Who the hell are you kidding!
Obama was a myth and made up story based on lies and propoaganda that you begged for.
-
Any GOP candidate that can't beat Romney has no dreaming chance of beating Obama.
-
Seems to me the majority of moderates/young/true conservatives (Not to mention a large number of middle/left people) WANT Ron Paul. But the GOP is TELLING us we cant have him. So theyre settlling for Romney.
Its time for a change, and I think that the GOP is feeling that people are fed up and they are scared shitless theyre losing control.
I just don't think the MAJORITY of americans fall into either "Anybody but obama" or "We love Mitt".
In 2008, the MAJORITY of americans certainly fell into either "Anybody but Bush" or "We love Obama".
In 2012, Obama's gallup numbers are 10-15 higher than Bush's were.
And I bet Mitt's overall approval rating in early 2012 is surely lower than Obama's approval in 2008 was?
EIther way, while getbiggers are "ABO" - the 2 points I made above show that the rest of america may not be.
-
YOU WANTED OBAMA!
Who the hell are you kidding
Obama was a myth and made up story based on lies and propoaganda that you begged for.
33, take a breath and read what I wrote. There are 2 reasons why Obama won the majority. people liked him, and people hated Bush.
This time, the "We hate the POTUS" numbers are lower.
This time, the "We love the new guy" numbers are lower.
So while YOUR emotions are running high on this, it's a stretch to just say "obama will lose" while ignoring these 2 things.
-
Sadly, I feel that if Romney wins, Obama will still be the next president.
Romney does not have the kind of following to beat Obama, even though Id take him over Hussein any day. (Like 333 says, Obama has a 100% chance of total destruction, whereas Romney at worst has an 20% chance of being different. Id say 50/50, but the fact is that everything Romney has said is identicle to Obama in almost every aspect.)
Out of the current group, Romney is the one who has the best chance to beat Obama. He'll attract the independents that Obama has already lost. That will be the primary difference between 2008 and 2012.
-
No one is going to be attracted to White Obama Lite. Hell, his own party isn't supporting him but instead just settling for him since Bachmann, Cain, Perry, Newt have all fizzled out and crashed.
-
No one is going to be attracted to White Obama Lite. Hell, his own party isn't supporting him but instead just settling for him since Bachmann, Cain, Perry, Newt have all fizzled out and crashed.
And despite that he still ties obama already. LOL at you gay messianic-complex dupes!
-
They say on the G&O board "it's only gay if you want it to be".
Judging from your daily gay remarks, you must want it to be gay nonstop. Though I can't think of anything gayer than a middle age fatty with an imaginary girlfriend.
-
No one is going to be attracted to White Obama Lite. Hell, his own party isn't supporting him but instead just settling for him since Bachmann, Cain, Perry, Newt have all fizzled out and crashed.
No one? Then why is he polling so well against Obama?
-
Polls change by the week.
Just ask Newt and Cain.
-
Doesn't really matter, because whichever loser wins the nomination is going to be our next president.
you're dreaming man
RP or Santorum are DOA in the general election
Romney doesn't really have a prayer either
-
you're dreaming man
RP or Santorum are DOA in the general election
Romney doesn't really have a prayer either
LOL> He is already tied w ghettobama now!
-
I'm not pinning my hopes on anyone. I'm voting for ABO, again.
Yes, I thought Bachmann and Cain were qualified, and immensely better than Obama.
I don't bet on anything. Has nothing to do with how certain I am. Just bump this thread after the election in November and we'll see who got it right. Could be me, could be you.
those two were the least qualified
-
Polls change by the week.
Just ask Newt and Cain.
Romney vs. Obama polls have been pretty consistent. So have the polls showing how badly Obama's standing is with independents.
-
LOL> He is already tied w ghettobama now!
ghettobama?
I thought you retards thought Obama was an out of touch elitist
can't you idiots at least make up your mind on that?
-
Romney vs. Obama polls have been pretty consistent. So have the polls showing how badly Obama's standing is with independents.
polls are almost meaningless at this point
Obama will dismantle Romney (and fitting description since he seems to be a robot) when they go head to head
Romney only hope is if he picks Christie as a running mate
-
polls are almost meaningless at this point
Obama will dismantle Romney (and fitting description since he seems to be a robot) when they go head to head
Romney only hope is if he picks Christie as a running mate
Just like those mid-terms right bro?
-
Just like those mid-terms right bro?
mid terms are not the general election but if you want to hang your hopes on that go right ahead but I don't even see why you would bother since you think Obama is going to withdraw from the race anyway (let's use that as 2nd reason on the list of why you're dumber than dumb)
-
mid terms are not the general election but if you want to hang your hopes on that go right ahead but I don't even see why you would bother since you think Obama is going to withdraw from the race anyway (let's use that as 2nd reason on the list of why you're dumber than dumb)
Between fast and furious and obamas fake BC, I think he will be forced to step down.
-
Between fast and furious and obamas fake BC, I think he will be forced to step down.
yes, we've already established that you're dumb
are you going for retarded now?
-
Between fast and furious and obamas fake BC, I think he will be forced to step down.
That is because you are an idiot. I can only guess thoughts like this keep you awake during the night while flicking your bean.
-
Between fast and furious and obamas fake BC, I think he will be forced to step down.
LOL 77 thousand posts mostly on obama and this guy is still asking for a birth certificate?
LOL you need serious help man, get a life, read a book.
-
LOL 77 thousand posts mostly on obama and this guy is still asking for a birth certificate?
LOL you need serious help man, get a life, read a book.
I read many books. Just finished the one about the navy seals, finished another about gold and silver, reading another on general economy, etc.
BTW - you are in no position whatsoever to call me out considering you still believe in obamacare and keynsian bullshit. Perhaps it is you who needs to read a few books, not me.
-
I'm thinking Newt might get a boost in SC, so Perry will be the next to go....maybe...
-
I read many books. Just finished the one about the navy seals, finished another about gold and silver, reading another on general economy, etc.
BTW - you are in no position whatsoever to call me out considering you still believe in obamacare and keynsian bullshit. Perhaps it is you who needs to read a few books, not me.
you have already showed that you do not understand keynes and his principles, the stimulus was keynes inspired yes but it is a bastard of his original thoughts. Tying keynes to obama and then bashing him like he isnt/was one of the most important economic minds of history is rather sad.
the fact that you are talking about birth certificates indicates you either are purposely acting and saying these things or you are completely submersed in propaganda.
people who request obamas BC are stupid, they are stupid people.
-
you have already showed that you do not understand keynes and his principles, the stimulus was keynes inspired yes but it is a bastard of his original thoughts. Tying keynes to obama and then bashing him like he isnt/was one of the most important economic minds of history is rather sad.
the fact that you are talking about birth certificates indicates you either are purposely acting and saying these things or you are completely submersed in propaganda.
people who request obamas BC are stupid, they are stupid people.
Tell that to the judge in GA who is demanding Obie produce his records.
-
you have already showed that you do not understand keynes and his principles, the stimulus was keynes inspired yes but it is a bastard of his original thoughts. Tying keynes to obama and then bashing him like he isnt/was one of the most important economic minds of history is rather sad.
the fact that you are talking about birth certificates indicates you either are purposely acting and saying these things or you are completely submersed in propaganda.
people who request obamas BC are stupid, they are stupid people.
Keynesian economics do not work in the real world though.
-
Keynesian economics do not work in the real world though.
how do you figure? the recent stimulus did its job, the obvious criticisms is that special interests were taken care of which completely undermines it's intent. It saved numerou industries from collapse, helped remove you guys from the plummet towards depression and didnt cause inflation like everyone said. It isnt meant to be an ongoing thing, its not meant to be a policy that is continuous, but instead it should be used in times of economic problems, once implemented other fiscal policies should take over to correct the problems. If you dont get to the etiology of the problem nothing will work, that is what we are seeing.
-
Tell that to the judge in GA who is demanding Obie produce his records.
What's going to be your little reaction when this doesn't pan out? Another 70,000 posts?
-
how do you figure? the recent stimulus did its job, the obvious criticisms is that special interests were taken care of which completely undermines it's intent. It saved numerou industries from collapse, helped remove you guys from the plummet towards depression and didnt cause inflation like everyone said. It isnt meant to be an ongoing thing, its not meant to be a policy that is continuous, but instead it should be used in times of economic problems, once implemented other fiscal policies should take over to correct the problems. If you dont get to the etiology of the problem nothing will work, that is what we are seeing.
We're in the weakest post-recession recovery since the Great Depression. That doesn't seem like good evidence of the stimulus "working."
-
We're in the weakest post-recession recovery since the Great Depression. That doesn't seem like good evidence of the stimulus "working."
-
We're in the weakest post-recession recovery since the Great Depression. That doesn't seem like good evidence of the stimulus "working."
i assumed you would make the necessary assumptions to understand what i said, it seems however that you have not and you have thus but me in a terrible position, one of dominance, i dont like to fuck kids.
the stimulus was not big enough, it didnt off set the decline it merely slowed them down and halted them in certain industries (automotive for example). So saying the stimulus did not work is disingenuous and down playing the role keynes had in the economic recovery after war, and the great depression.\\=
-
i assumed you would make the necessary assumptions to understand what i said, it seems however that you have not and you have thus but me in a terrible position, one of dominance, i dont like to fuck kids.
the stimulus was not big enough, it didnt off set the decline it merely slowed them down and halted them in certain industries (automotive for example). So saying the stimulus did not work is disingenuous and down playing the role keynes had in the economic recovery after war, and the great depression.\\=
Fuck off Krugman
-
i assumed you would make the necessary assumptions to understand what i said, it seems however that you have not and you have thus but me in a terrible position, one of dominance, i dont like to fuck kids.
the stimulus was not big enough, it didnt off set the decline it merely slowed them down and halted them in certain industries (automotive for example). So saying the stimulus did not work is disingenuous and down playing the role keynes had in the economic recovery after war, and the great depression.\\=
Lol, no.
Not only no, but fuck no.
This has nothing to do with Keynesian econ, but still pertains.
Heres an idea, lets bail out a failing company instead of letting them reach their inevitable conclusion; failure.
If no one is buying their shitty cars, we should NOT bail them out so they can cripple on until they go bankrupt again because no one buys their shitty cars and because the Union makes them pay people they laid off 60%+ of their wage even though they arent doing shit.
Yeah, thats a great idea. Lol.
I understand those companies shutting down would have fucked a lot of employees.
BUT - the stimulous was fucked. The people that created the recession, giving out the loans, and essentially stealing our money, recieved MORE of our money because their bad business practices caused them to fail?
Not to mention, lets give companies that have lied and given their CEO's huge bonuses even while the company is going under MORE of the money they stole from tax payers, and then be completely shocked when they turn around and do the same thing again.
Sorry, but the stimulous was epic fail, all it did was take more of the tax payers money and funnel it directly into the pockets of those that caused the problem in the 1st place.
Hence the reason it may work in theory, but in the real world never.
-
i assumed you would make the necessary assumptions to understand what i said, it seems however that you have not and you have thus but me in a terrible position, one of dominance, i dont like to fuck kids.
the stimulus was not big enough, it didnt off set the decline it merely slowed them down and halted them in certain industries (automotive for example). So saying the stimulus did not work is disingenuous and down playing the role keynes had in the economic recovery after war, and the great depression.\\=
And how do you know that the stimulus was not big enough? How do you know that it worked and that without it, things would have been worse?
Because if you examine it theoretically; the idea of fiscal stimulus makes no sense. All that it amounts to is taking water from one end of the pool and pouring it into the other end. Every dollar the government borrows in order to deficit spend is a dollar that is not in the private economy. Moreover, even the Keynesians would say that in the long run, prices would fall in order to accommodate full employment and output. Yet four-five years later now, and the economy is hobbling along barely recovering and unemployment is still above 8% - despite the fact that Obama's economic team predicted that unemployment would not exceed 8% if the stimulus were passed. Hardly anyone would argue that the majority of prices in an economy stay "sticky" for four years at a time. If anything, just allowing prices to fall and businesses to fail would have returned us to full employment and output at a quicker rate.
Furthermore, when you look at the historical record, it seems to go against what you're saying. The Great Depression truly lasted till 1945, when the war ended, government spending was slashed, the economy was deregulated, taxes were cut, and there was a budget surplus. Keynesians predicted a massive depression after WWII, yet the private economy boomed. It seemed like all throughout the Great Depression, policymakers tried fiscal stimuli yet repeatedly failed. Likewise, if you look at the experience of Japan and its "lost decade," it seems like multiple fiscal stimuli failed. And this seems to pair up perfectly with the current economy which is sluggish at best "despite" a fiscal stimulus that was at least 7% of GDP, if not more when you accurately include all automatic stabilizers. And then of course, there also was multiple extensive and aggressive monetary stimuli which apparently didn't work.
Compare that to an episode like the Depression of 1920-21: there was a bank panic, there was no monetary stimulus, the money supply shrunk significantly, unemployment initially skyrocketed, the initial decline in output was greater than the initial decline in output in 1929-30, the price level fell by 50%, the government slashed spending and cut taxes while running a budget surplus, and guess what? The economy quickly returned to full employment and output despite the fact that the initial downturn was more severe than that of the Great Depression and despite the fact that the government did everything "wrong" by allowing the money supply to shrink, cutting spending, and running budget surpluses.
Doesn't this perhaps prove that the Keynesians were wrong while the classical economists (e.g. Say, Ricardo, Mill, etc.) were right?
-
And how do you know that the stimulus was not big enough? How do you know that it worked and that without it, things would have been worse?
Because if you examine it theoretically; the idea of fiscal stimulus makes no sense. All that it amounts to is taking water from one end of the pool and pouring it into the other end. Every dollar the government borrows in order to deficit spend is a dollar that is not in the private economy.
End of thread.
Our brain dead Kenyan swindler in chief and the rest of you brainwashed shit stains either don't comprehend basic economics or you think destroying the American economy is evidence that Keynesian economics work.
Unless you have monopoly money ( which our currency is turning into anyway) or are examining the theory in a classroom, Keynesian economics is a complete and utter farce.
-
So Perry is gone.
Who will be the next loser to drop out? As long as Newt is still in the running, he is splitting the votes that Santorum needs to pull ahead in a decisive fashion.
-
We're in the weakest post-recession recovery since the Great Depression. That doesn't seem like good evidence of the stimulus "working."
this recession is unique in that you had a worldwide collapse of the financial system coupled with a collapse in RE values worldwide (and with many different countries exposed to fraudulent RE debt in this countrytoo) that we have never seen before (and which was caused in large part by lack of regulation of the financial markets)
At present there are more $$$'s sitting on the sidelines (private economy) not being invested than ever before
what good is it going to do to give even more tax breaks to the uber wealthy so they can sit on even more idle money?
-
Santorum is next. If Newt does not win SC and gets drubbed in FL, he'll probably quit. I doubt he has the money to win FL or compete much outside of FL. Paul will probably stay in until the end, like he did in 08.
-
Santorum is next. If Newt does not win SC and gets drubbed in FL, he'll probably quit. I doubt he has the money to win FL or compete much outside of FL. Paul will probably stay in until the end, like he did in 08.
true - he's got the money and he's alreayd said he's not running for re-election and this is more about idealogy for him than anything else
-
Santorum is next. If Newt does not win SC and gets drubbed in FL, he'll probably quit. I doubt he has the money to win FL or compete much outside of FL. Paul will probably stay in until the end, like he did in 08.
So far, it's (after further review) Santorum winning Iowa; Romney won New Hampshire; and South Carolina is on deck.
And, since it's no longer winner-take-all, Santorum can hang with Romney and Gingrich, if he does well in SC.
-
plus, what if ron paul stays in it... and for some reason, the frontrunner romney has to pull out.
some scandal or whatever which the delegates deem unacceptable.
Ron paul would be sitting pretty at #2. It woudl be crazy for him not to stay in it until the end. Newt as well, actually.
-
this recession is unique in that you had a worldwide collapse of the financial system coupled with a collapse in RE values worldwide (and with many different countries exposed to fraudulent RE debt in this countrytoo) that we have never seen before (and which was caused in large part by lack of regulation of the financial markets)
At present there are more $$$'s sitting on the sidelines (private economy) not being invested than ever before
what good is it going to do to give even more tax breaks to the uber wealthy so they can sit on even more idle money?
And why do you think that there is more money sitting on the sidelines than ever before? Because of uncertainty. This uncertainty is caused by several things:
1. All of the bailouts and stimuli have kept poorly managed businesses from bankruptcy. However, that is ultimately unsustainable and the market realizes it, so people are keeping their money on the sidelines and waiting for the market to finally clear.
2. The federal government has been pumping out harmful regulations like there is no tomorrow. This makes businesses reluctant to invest for fear of a future regulation taking away their profitability.
3. The massive debt and deficits indicate that future tax increases are on the horizon. Thus, businesses are reluctant to invest because they know their profits will be taxed away.
-
So far, it's (after further review) Santorum winning Iowa; Romney won New Hampshire; and South Carolina is on deck.
And, since it's no longer winner-take-all, Santorum can hang with Romney and Gingrich, if he does well in SC.
Santorum could stay, although if he comes in third in SC, and he's being realistic, he should quit. I don't think he has the money to compete either.
-
Santorum could stay, although if he comes in third in SC, and he's being realistic, he should quit. I don't think he has the money to compete either.
He didn't have that much money in Iowa. Yet, he won there.
-
He didn't have that much money in Iowa. Yet, he won there.
He benefited from a last-minute surge - the same kind of surge that benefited Bachmann, then Perry, then Newt... see what I'm getting at here?
Honestly, Santorum is not in a position to be running a national campaign. No money, no real support. He should drop out after SC. Newt at least has enough money and support to possibly pull off a last-minute win in SC, something that could give him momentum.
-
He didn't have that much money in Iowa. Yet, he won there.
True. He also spent more time there than any other candidate. He went to every county in Iowa. Grassroots campaigning works. The problem is he doesn't have the time or money to do that in SC and definitely not in FL or beyond.
-
And why do you think that there is more money sitting on the sidelines than ever before? Because of uncertainty. This uncertainty is caused by several things:
1. All of the bailouts and stimuli have kept poorly managed businesses from bankruptcy. However, that is ultimately unsustainable and the market realizes it, so people are keeping their money on the sidelines and waiting for the market to finally clear.
2. The federal government has been pumping out harmful regulations like there is no tomorrow. This makes businesses reluctant to invest for fear of a future regulation taking away their profitability.
3. The massive debt and deficits indicate that future tax increases are on the horizon. Thus, businesses are reluctant to invest because they know their profits will be taxed away.
the uncertainty argument is horseshit. there has always been uncertainty. that's what business is all about
I would like to see a Repub win just so he can declare there is no more "uncertaintly" in the world and if there is still no demand that money will still be as idle as before
there are companies that are expanding right and hiring people but there is also fear of a continuing worldwide economic slowdown (mostly due to lack of consumer demand) and in that situation most companies are going to go into safe mode and not make huge capital investments or take any big risks.
-
I read many books.
-
the uncertainty argument is horseshit. there has always been uncertainty. that's what business is all about
I would like to see a Repub win just so he can declare there is no more "uncertaintly" in the world and if there is still no demand that money will still be as idle as before
there are companies that are expanding right and hiring people but there is also fear of a continuing worldwide economic slowdown (mostly due to lack of consumer demand) and in that situation most companies are going to go into safe mode and not make huge capital investments or take any big risks.
So you say that "the uncertainty argument is horseshit," but then you turn around and say "but there is also fear of a continuing worldwide economic slowdown." You cannot say that there is no uncertainty and at the same time that the economy is not growing as quickly as it should be thanks to uncertainty.
Regardless, do you really think that a massive federal debt, record deficits, increasing micro-management of the economy by the federal government, and prospects of future tax hikes are all ignored by entrepreneurs and businessmen when making decisions?
-
So you say that "the uncertainty argument is horseshit," but then you turn around and say "but there is also fear of a continuing worldwide economic slowdown." You cannot say that there is no uncertainty and at the same time that the economy is not growing as quickly as it should be thanks to uncertainty.
Regardless, do you really think that a massive federal debt, record deficits, increasing micro-management of the economy by the federal government, and prospects of future tax hikes are all ignored by entrepreneurs and businessmen when making decisions?
fair enough but when Repubs say "uncertaintly" their implication is, often explicitly (and I'm not saying this is yours) is that Obama has created it and as soon as he is gone an Repub will come in and all uncertainty will go away
that is the part that is horeshit (and to be clear I'm not attributing this belief to you)
-
fair enough but when Repubs say "uncertaintly" their implication is, often explicitly (and I'm not saying this is yours) is that Obama has created it and as soon as he is gone an Repub will come in and all uncertainty will go away
that is the part that is horeshit (and to be clear I'm not attributing this belief to you)
Not solely Obama's fault, but a lot of it is. I'd say that there is a lot of other factors that have helped cause this uncertainty as well, including Bush's failed stimuli, failed monetary stimuli by the Fed, the failed Bush/Obama bailouts which have prevented the market from clearing, deficits caused by the natural growth of government and the work of automatic stabilizers (something that can't be entirely laid at the feet of Obama), etc.
I think any Republican will do a better job than Obama, but none really has an understanding of any of this with the exception of Ron Paul.
-
Not solely Obama's fault, but a lot of it is. I'd say that there is a lot of other factors that have helped cause this uncertainty as well, including Bush's failed stimuli, failed monetary stimuli by the Fed, the failed Bush/Obama bailouts which have prevented the market from clearing, deficits caused by the natural growth of government and the work of automatic stabilizers (something that can't be entirely laid at the feet of Obama), etc.
I think any Republican will do a better job than Obama, but none really has an understanding of any of this with the exception of Ron Paul.
how do you account for the crash in RE values which has been the primary factor (IMO) crippling this economic recovery
what should/could Obama have done to mitigate that when he got into office?
btw - just so I get a basic understanding of your beliefs. Do you think the government should do nothing (or not much except) enforcing contracts and securing the border? Other than that there should be little or no regulation of business and basically an economic free for all inside the country with the belief that this will actually create more prosperity for eveyrone at all levels?
-
how do you account for the crash in RE values which has been the primary factor (IMO) crippling this economic recovery
what should/could Obama have done to mitigate that when he got into office?
btw - just so I get a basic understanding of your beliefs. Do you think the government should do nothing (or not much except) enforcing contracts and securing the border? Other than that there should be little or no regulation of business and basically an economic free for all inside the country with the belief that this will actually create more prosperity for eveyrone at all levels?
He should have allowed RE prices to crash, since those prices were not sustainable. He also should have allowed the banking sector to fail, prices on the whole to fall, and failing businesses to go under. The result would have been a sustainable basis for future economic growth. By propping up RE prices and bad businesses, the government has prevented resources from being reallocated to lines of production where they would be the most useful.
And yes, I do not believe the government should have any role aside from protecting individual rights.
-
how do you account for the crash in RE values which has been the primary factor (IMO) crippling this economic recovery
what should/could Obama have done to mitigate that when he got into office?
btw - just so I get a basic understanding of your beliefs. Do you think the government should do nothing (or not much except) enforcing contracts and securing the border? Other than that there should be little or no regulation of business and basically an economic free for all inside the country with the belief that this will actually create more prosperity for eveyrone at all levels?
Real Estate prices being propped up are the problem!
-
He should have allowed RE prices to crash, since those prices were not sustainable. He also should have allowed the banking sector to fail, prices on the whole to fall, and failing businesses to go under. The result would have been a sustainable basis for future economic growth. By propping up RE prices and bad businesses, the government has prevented resources from being reallocated to lines of production where they would be the most useful.
And yes, I do not believe the government should have any role aside from protecting individual rights.
so basically you would have recommended that Obama do nothing to try to help homeowners and just sit back and let the devastation roll over everyone and your assumption is that we would all come out the other end for the better
Do you think any POTUS could have taken that position in Feb 2009 (keep in mind the bailouts were already underway)?
btw - your last line of your post confirms what I suspected all along
classic Randian economic fantasy (or maybe it's just the unwritten belief that this will benefit a few at the top and fuck everyone else..... but so what...isn't that what the virtue of selfishness is all about anyway)
-
Next will be lucky to get second in any state that borders GA. Other than that, he is out of options and hope.
-
so basically you would have recommended that Obama do nothing to try to help homeowners and just sit back and let the devastation roll over everyone and your assumption is that we would all come out the other end for the better
The bulk of the pain would not have been felt by the homeowners, but by the banks. It were the investment banks who had made bad investments and had their balance sheets destroyed. They would have had to declare bankruptcy and sell off their assets at firesale prices. The new owners of those assets could have then turned around and written off a large portion of the debt in order to prevent homeowners from going underwater.
Regardless, we are now feeling more pain than we would have had we allowed the market to correct itself. The market correction will take place either way; the question ultimately is whether or not we delay it. The fact of the matter is that the government has delayed the full extent of the correction, but at the expense of a bloated national debt, large federal deficits, high unemployment, creeping inflation, and slow economic growth. Had the government allowed the correction, then we'd be roaring away with a strong economy and low unemployment by now.
Do you think any POTUS could have taken that position in Feb 2009 (keep in mind the bailouts were already underway)?
IDK, I'm not an expert on politics.
btw - your last line of your post confirms what I suspected all along
classic Randian economic fantasy (or maybe it's just the unwritten belief that this will benefit a few at the top and fuck everyone else..... but so what...isn't that what the virtue of selfishness is all about anyway)
First of all, go read some Ayn Rand before you spout your bullshit.
Secondly, Ayn Rand and Objectivism take no position on economics. Economics is a science independent of philosophy.
Thirdly, my position on economics as a science is not at all influenced by Rand or Objectivism (unless you take my stance on epistemology as "influencing"). I came to economics before I ever became an Objectivist.
-
so basically you would have recommended that Obama do nothing to try to help homeowners and just sit back and let the devastation roll over everyone and your assumption is that we would all come out the other end for the better
Do you think any POTUS could have taken that position in Feb 2009 (keep in mind the bailouts were already underway)?
btw - your last line of your post confirms what I suspected all along
classic Randian economic fantasy (or maybe it's just the unwritten belief that this will benefit a few at the top and fuck everyone else..... but so what...isn't that what the virtue of selfishness is all about anyway)
Not to beleaguer the point, but when a business cannot operate without receiving government handouts to stay afloat, that business should fail. Delaying the inevitable only makes things worse. You act as if allowing poorly managed and unprofitable companies to fail is worse than having poorly managed and unprofitable companies be supported by the American taxpayer in perpetuity. What ends up happening ( and Howard is obviously more knowledgeable on this subject than I am) is that markets are no longer operating on whether businesses will grow because of innovation or demand or potential gains / losses-- Instead we are seeing investors hedge their bets on whether the flow of government monopoly money continues. This artificial government intrusion into the economy is only going to take us to the abyss. Throw in the obscene amount of regulations, tax hikes, Osamacare, the fact that this is an election year and US monetary policy and it is obvious to anyone except a complete moron why there is uncertainty.
-
Paul is like the little engine that could... he just keeps rolling along, slowly picking up momentum, slowly moving up, people slowly waking up to him...
The only question is, will he be able to gather enough momentum and supporters to catch Romney by the end?
I think probably not - unless Romney has a scandal come out that makes him lose steam... then I think Paul will overtake him and keep plugging along, picking up supporters every state and every primary.
That is not counting GOP intervention of course, I think if it gets close they will make sure he doesnt win.
-
Santorum is out next. If Newt doesnt get SC, (probably will), he will conisder dropping after Florida. This will be a two man race, Paul vs Romney. The media will still probably talk about someone else at that point. lol
-
Santorum is out next. If Newt doesnt get SC, (probably will), he will conisder dropping after Florida. This will be a two man race, Paul vs Romney. The media will still probably talk about someone else at that point. lol
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!! No doubt.
-
given romney's tendency to put foot in mouth every time he talks off script..
i wouldnt doubt it if he said/did something to become unelectable, and ron paul woudl be right there.
for example, what if he lost his temper. Mitt is an uptight dude. does he punch a podium or just let out a "g*d dammit newt!" out of the blue?
he's impuulsive - "wanna bet ten grand'' was a huge emotional leak.
my own guess is that he's changed up his meds or is caffeinated or something - he's way more jumpy and wound up in 2012 than he was in 2008. look at the old videos. he's a ball of pissed off politician 24/7 now. can't grit those teeth any tighter.
so yeah, ron paul, stay in that race!
-
Santorum is out next. If Newt doesnt get SC, (probably will), he will conisder dropping after Florida. This will be a two man race, Paul vs Romney. The media will still probably talk about someone else at that point. lol
When do you think Santorum will drop out? I doubt he'll do it after SC... he's probably waiting for Florida.