The Real Mitt Romney

[Lamplighter]

His statement was correct, but ONLY within the context of a political analysis.
As a front page 10 second sound byte, with no context, yeah,
it's something that should have remained in the room.

It certainly appears Adak has not yet watched the actual video of this event.
Romney's statement was in same context as the media and Dwellars here are stating.

How does Adak justify/rationalize saying it "should have remained in the room" ?

After Romney's statement about "not worried about" the poor,
I can easily believe his 47% statement is a good reflection of his true feelings.

As a public figure, if you don't want something made public by the media,
don't say it... even "in private"... or be prepared to be labelled a hypocrite.

[ZenGum]

As a public figure, if you don't want something made public by the media, don't say it... even "in private"... or be prepared to be labelled a hypocrite.

Yeah, there's a risk people may come to know The Real Mitt Romney.

[BigV]

Got to take these one at a time...

Originally Posted by Adak

BigV, thanks, and I know that some of those websites I linked to aren't the best for research, but others had the data in Excel spreadsheets and other formats, that I can't handle on this computer.

You're welcome. What I had in mind was this link:

The problem with Socialism, in a picture:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._1790-2009.png

The "CBO's Extended Baseline Scenario", is something for your pipe dreams. The "CBO's Alternative Fiscal Scenario", is much more likely.

I offer this constructive criticism of this link. It is just a picture. It has a title, but there's little there to go on, not a link back to the article, no legends on the axes, nothing. I did follow up on this picture's title, "Publicly held federal debt 1790-2009", and read some material though.

You say it is an picture of the problem with Socialism. That's not what I found.

Here's a link that has much more actual information than just that picture. It's a CBO report titled The 2012 Long-Term Budget Outlook. Here's the money shot:



Let me break that down for you. First of all, the graph, the report, nothing at all has anything at all to do with Socialism, or its supposed problems. I *suspect* that scare word came from some partisan bloviator who saw a report and then took the six or seven words in it that suited his panicky mood at the time, and mashed up that graph and slapped the label Socialism somewhere in the title of the blog post. I think you cribbed it from something like that.

Now that that is out of the way, let's talk about what the CBO is actually saying. They consider two scenarios, they call them extended baselines because they look at their projections for the budget for the next twenty-five or so years.

Originally Posted by Congressional Budget Office

What Is the Budget Outlook Under the Extended Baseline Scenario?

Under the extended baseline scenario, which generally adheres closely to current law, federal debt would gradually decline over the next 25 years—from an estimated 73 percent of GDP this year to 61 percent by 2022 and 53 percent by 2037. That outcome would be the result of two key sets of policy assumptions:

Under current law, revenues would rise steadily relative to GDP because of the scheduled expiration of cuts in individual income taxes enacted since 2001 and most recently extended in 2010, the growing reach of the alternative minimum tax (AMT), the tax provisions of the Affordable Care Act, the way in which the tax system interacts with economic growth, demographic trends, and other factors; revenues would reach 24 percent of GDP by 2037—much higher than has typically been seen in recent decades—and would grow to larger percentages thereafter.
At the same time, under this scenario, government spending on everything other than the major health care programs, Social Security, and interest—activities such as national defense and a wide variety of domestic programs—would decline to the lowest percentage of GDP since before World War II.

That significant increase in revenues and decrease in the relative magnitude of other spending would more than offset the rise in spending on health care programs and Social Security.

******

What is the Outlook Under the Extended Alternative Fiscal Scenario?

The budget outlook is much bleaker under the extended alternative fiscal scenario, which maintains what some analysts might consider “current policies,” as opposed to current laws. Federal debt would grow rapidly from its already high level, exceeding 90 percent of GDP in 2022. After that, the growing imbalance between revenues and spending, combined with spiraling interest payments, would swiftly push debt to higher and higher levels. Debt as a share of GDP would exceed its historical peak of 109 percent by 2026, and it would approach 200 percent in 2037.

The changes under this scenario would result in much lower revenues than would occur under the extended baseline scenario because almost all expiring tax provisions are assumed to be extended through 2022 (with the exception of the current reduction in the payroll tax rate for Social Security). After 2022, revenues under this scenario are assumed to remain at their 2022 level of 18.5 percent of GDP, just above the average of the past 40 years.

Outlays would be much higher than under the other scenario. This scenario incorporates assumptions that through 2022, lawmakers will act to prevent Medicare’s payment rates for physicians from declining ***; that after 2022, lawmakers will not allow various restraints on the growth of Medicare costs and health insurance subsidies to exert their full effect; and that the automatic reductions in spending required by the Budget Control Act of 2011 will not occur (although the original caps on discretionary appropriations in that law are assumed to remain in place). Finally, under this scenario, federal spending as a percentage of GDP for activities other than Social Security, the major health care programs, and interest payments is assumed to return to its average level during the past two decades, rather than fall significantly below that level, as it does under the extended baseline scenario.

*** the kind of reductions in payments to providers that comprise the hotly debated $176 billion dollars "stolen" from Medicare, according to Ryan/Romney.

So, you say that the problem with Socialism is ... something, but you point at the "extended alternative baseline scenario" as the scary bogeyman. It IS scary I agree. But if you read the CBO's own words, that scary prospect is what they project will happen if the tax cuts are permitted to stay in place.

...

Come on, Adak. This is Socialism? If you want to AVOID the "Socialist" outcome, fine--just keep extending the temporary Bush era tax cuts. This is what Comrade Romney has proposed, hasn't he? He won't increase anyone's taxes. "Absolutely." that was his *exact* statement on the issue, right? Socialist bastard. In fact, if you listen to him further, he says he will LOWER THE RATES. REALLY???? That scary graph was scary because the rates only stay the same, imagine how much faster and higher the Taxapolyse will hit if the rates are lowered? Oh, sure, Romney's gonna pay for them by eliminating funding for Big Bird and some other hand waving, but even taking him at his word, he's only aiming to make the changes "revenue neutral". He doesn't want to bring any more revenue to the Federal system. All cuts. No revenue increases.

You read the report. You look at the graphs. You listen to Romney's words. Then you come back and tell me which scenario his plan would take us to. And be prepared to substitute some numbers for his pitiful and unconvincing hand waving. You've shown your willingness and ability to support your statements to a degree far exceeding Romney's. Go on, convince me. I might vote for you.

[BigV]

Here's a link to a MUCH more informative graphic than the one line graph Adak posted.

It's big, you'll have to side scroll.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43289

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Adak

snip--

A hand up is any program that includes a central core protocol that stresses giving people a lift upward, in their ability to earn a living. Job retraining for disabled vets, is a good example.

A hand out is any program that lacks a central theme of lifting people upward in economic mobility, leading to regular dependency on the part of the recipient. Typically, they aren't even making an effort to get off the dole. Why should they?

Welfare recipients who could work but don't, living off welfare for decades, are a good example.

--snip

A program like this? TANF

[tw]

Originally Posted by Adak

Even if you took EVERY PENNY, from the top 10% of our income earners, in taxes, you wouldn't begin to break even on the spending we're doing, versus our income to the gov't.

When Clinton left office, we were on the verge of a surplus. We should restore the same people who ran up the debts this massive? Cheney said, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." So those same people will do something different if we elect Romney?

Extremist conservatives create debt messes. They did it under Nixon and George Jr. Republicans who were more moderate and responsible (Reagan, George Sr) raised taxes so as to not create massive debts.

We now have the "deficit that did not matter".

[Adak]

Originally Posted by tw

When Clinton left office, we were on the verge of a surplus. We should restore the same people who ran up the debts this massive? Cheney said, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." So those same people will do something different if we elect Romney?

Extremist conservatives create debt messes. They did it under Nixon and George Jr. Republicans who were more moderate and responsible (Reagan, George Sr) raised taxes so as to not create massive debts.

We now have the "deficit that did not matter".

Clinton did one thing, very well. He freed up business from the bureaucratic nightmare that other administrations revel in. During his terms in office, our position in the scale of freedom to do business, increased significantly. We were in the #5 then. Those days are long gone now, of course. We rank about #20, now.

You're taking one sentence from Cheney, out of context, and pretending it's a Conservative Commandment. That's your argument, really?

Cheney saw, like everyone else, how Reagan used the increase in our spending, to counter the Soviets military build up, and thus compel them into bankruptcy by their need to feel ultra secure, which they are famous for.

Due to their history of invasions from the West (Germany, France, etc.), and their own propaganda, they thought we were going to invade or "conquer" them. Like we "conquered" the Philippines, Japan, West Germany, France, Morocco, Tunisia, Libya, Australia, The Solomon Islands, South Korea, and all the other countries we've had our troops land in.

That's not the same thing as saying that deficits don't matter - only that you have to be careful with it. Look at WWII - our national debt climbed to record high levels, but you would have to agree that it was a worthwhile reason to allow it to do so.

To have a Trillion dollar increase in our debt, year after year, is simply an irresponsible act that WILL crash our entire monetary system. Surely you know THAT much.

Let's base our decisions on facts, and not on out of context quotes from out of office politicians.

And you are lying about Reagan increasing taxes, as a whole. You've made that assertion, and have been shown incorrect with regard to individual income tax rates.

Do you want to investigate Corporate tax rates during Reagan's terms in office? Yeah, I thought not!

When you're wrong, you should at least have the decency to admit it.

Reagan was our last conservative President. If you wanted to look at just the fiscal policy, you'd see that Clinton was the most conservative President, on economic policy, since Reagan.

Bush II was socially conservative, but not fiscally conservative, at all.
Bush I made an agreement with Congressional Leaders from the Democrats, to raise taxes now, and they would agree to support cutting spending, in the next session of Congress.

So he did raise taxes - which immediately branded him a liar to the public because of his famous pledge: "read my lips, no new taxes". Of course, the Democrats would not support cutting spending, as they had promised they would. They increased spending, instead! And George H. Bush was toast.

We've seen that over and over. We call it the "I'll be glad to pay you next Tuesday, for a hamburger today" promise, after the cartoon character who said it so often.

I get it that you like Obama. If his fiscal policies worked, I'd support him for another term, gladly.

But they don't work, and I don't want to see another 4 years of economic slow-down. A lot of people are suffering right now.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by DanaC

What if you are talking about racism? Simply using the word to make a point about racism isn't propogating racist ideology.

If you are so sensitized to the language and mechanisms of racism, then you really should be able to spot the parrallels in the anti-muslim rhetoric and action, in which some people are engaging, and which is tacitly endorsed by much western media and mainstream politics.

You can talk all your want about racism -- there is no need to use racial epithets, in your talk. Are you awake yet, or what?

Yes, using words like "N", incite discrimination, and racial hatred. That's one of the basic tenets of propaganda.

Of course I see the racism aimed at Muslims. Unfortunately, Muslims have famously acted in ways to incite that hatred, by committing hundreds of violent acts (like 9/11 here in the US).

Pretty hard to be seen as a likable religion while we see their incidents of gang rape, murder, and terror, all around the world, against both non Muslims, and other Muslims, don't you think?

Islam does not teach equality with other religions and ethnic groups. As long as it teaches superiority over others, it is, by definition, a fascist organization.

Mind that Muslims have a GOOD REASON to hate the Jews, going back to a famous battle, where the Jewish army was pledged to fight with the Muslims, against a common enemy.

But the enemy captured the Jewish leader and his family, and the Jewish army, then refused to fight with the Muslims, breaking their pledge, and ensuring the defeat of the Muslims.

But the Muslims did, eventually prevail over the enemy army, in the battle. After that breaking of their pledge, (which could have easily resulted in the genocide of the Muslim people), the Muslims have had great disdain and dislike for the Jews, and never had them for allies, in battle (to my knowledge, but there have been tens of thousands of battles in the ancient Middle East, so it probably happened somewhere, sometime. But it's VERY rare).

Have the Muslims been mistreated? Yes. certainly in the case of the Palestinians.

Have the Muslims shot themselves in the foot too many times to be counted by their unwise actions in the Middle East?

Sadly, also yes.

We should STILL set up a state for the Palestinians, however. We may have to drag them kicking and screaming into their own country, but we should set it up. ( OK, no dragging )

Keeping them in a ghetto like Gaza, is wrong.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Adak

Clinton did one thing, very well. He freed up business from the bureaucratic nightmare that other administrations revel in. During his terms in office, our position in the scale of freedom to do business, increased significantly.

So, because government required auto companies to design hybrids, then that was freeing the auto industry from regulation? Because Clinton required all legacy providers to make broadband available (1996 Federal Communication Act), that deregulated the communication industry?

You paint with a broad brush. And ignore where that brush applies. The economy prospered because some industries were identified as unproductive. Then 'inspired' to perform or permit innovation. Other industries needed no regulation because they were innovative. In all your propaganda, you never once mention the only thing that makes good economic times: innovation. Extremists believe solutions are in money games and deregulating an industry that must never be deregulated - finance.

"Reagan proved that deficits don't matter" is why extremist conservatives in George Jr's administration massively increased debt and spending. Strange how they converted a surplus into the worst debt. And then spin myths about free spending Democrats. "Deficits don't matter" is their philosophy. Lying about it is also acceptable. You repeatedly ignore what created the worst recession since 1929. "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter" was a major reason.

We are paying today for a $3 trillion Mission Accomplished war. Obama did not create those debts. Obama is now paying for that boondoggle. What political agenda created those debts?

Lying is hate promoted by extremist Republicans in the name of religion. And by completely misrepresenting Islam. You are posting that propaganda. Hate of Muslims. Equating Islam with fascism. Even forgetting a history of Islam - tolerance of other religions. Classic propaganda. You even misrepresented why Clinton was so successful by using a propaganda paint brush. And forget the obvious. Massive debts are created by extremist conservatives who even lied about tax cuts.

George Jr created massive debts that we will be paying even ten year later. He even invented a war against a nation that was never a threat. And then so mismanaged that war (no phase four planning) as to waste 5,000 American lives as well as massively increase the nation's debt. My god. He even surrendered to the Taliban to invent a second war. As a result we are still paying about $1million per soldier per year for that mistake. Did the extremist propaganda machine forget to mention those facts?

You even misrepresented what debts existed during Reagan's time ($0.55 trillion) by comparing 1984 money to 2012 money. But again, that is why propaganda works so well. Tell half truths. Then get snippy about the word 'nigger' to avoid your obvious mistake. $0.55 trillion then is more than $1.3 trillion today. A list of military hardware are more trophies to investments that had little productive return. But then military hardware is good for 'big dic' thinking that extremists so love. 'Big dic' thinking even makes possible 'good' wars against evil Muslims.

It is called propaganda. If thinking like a moderate, then you would have seen all facts. And not confused $0.55 trillion with the real number: $1.3 trillion. You would have seen how the economy prospered because Clinton increased regulations where necessary and decreased them where necessary.

Tax games do not create a recovery. Governments cannot make an economy better - despite the propaganda. Governments can only make problems worse or avert some of the worst problems. We now have maybe ten more years to undo the mess created after 2000.

Another fact extremists forget. Reagan was the only president to ever be reelected when unemployment was high. Many forget that after four years, Reagan's economy was quite bad. A legacy inherited from a president who also believed deficits and money games (fiscal mismanagement) do not matter: Nixon. It took well over ten years to undo his mismanagement. As it will to undo the "deficits don't matter" philosophy of George Jr's administration.

For some reason, many Americans want to bring back the people who created this mess. Because so many actually believe myths and half truths from extremist talk show hosts. So many even believe Reagan reduced taxes. And that Obama is a Muslim. Propaganda works because some are so easily brainwashed by extremist rhetoric. And forget the actual philosophy of extremist conservatives. "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter".

Extremists will even hype big buck military hardware (ie Nimitz class) as if that makes Americans economically stronger. Some still want to bring those problem extremists back into power. So they can invent more wars? So many never learn the lesson of history. Even foolishly equate Islam with fascism. Because hate inspired supporters. We don’t need extremist conservatives. We need moderates who ignore talk show host propaganda. And we need people who actually understand what makes jobs and growing economies - ie innovation. Extremist talk show hosts and their disciples never use that word.

[Adak]

Conservatives believe in the Constitution, as it was written, and support the more limited role it defines, for government. That includes all the Bill of Rights, not just a few of them.

Conservatives believe in a free market economy, rather than an economy tightly controlled and interfered with, by the government. Taxes, should be low, to allow the free market to expand and create jobs, and support a robust economy.

Conservatives believe in citizens supporting themselves, not citizens being dependent on the government for hand outs.

Conservatives believe a smaller government, dedicated to the roles defined for it by the Constitution, is best. Today, our federal government is too large, and spends far too much of the taxpayers money, far too inefficiently.

There are several values that are associated with conservatives:

Pro Life, Pro Family, Pro Business, Pro Strong Military, Con Gay Rights/Marriage, Pro Guns

Some of these are incorrect, and are NOT part of Conservatism, because they are NOT part of our Constitution.

Pro Life - hard to say you're AGAINST life, but it's not a part of the Constitution. I believe the decision to have an abortion is something the parents should discuss, and the woman should decide, in consultation with her doctor. The government should not be involved, PERIOD.**

Pro Family - it's hard to define EXACTLY what this means.

Pro Business - Without business, we lose our free economy, and cripple our country. The Constitution laid down the basics of commerce, but NOTHING like the intrusive governmental and union controls we have for nearly every business, today. Doesn't it just FEEL wrong that in many states, you can't work, unless you join a union first?

I especially loved it when the FAA Air Traffic Controllers all went out on a Union strike -- and Reagan promptly fired every one of them that refused to work.

It's pretty sad when you hear about the firemen on call at a burning house, but just now starting their strike - so they kick back and watch the house burn to the ground, refusing to fight the fire.

Pro Strong Military - Every country needs an adequate military, as we saw during our first war to get free from England. Still, there is no requirement that we have a military that can "bounce the rubble 10 times over". Strong? Yes. Absolutely overwhelming? No. We may get worried, and feel like we should have an overwhelmingly strong military, but that is NOT part of the Constitution, or of conservatism.

Gay Rights/Marriage - Homosexuals are not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. Therefore, they have the same rights as everyone else. As a practical matter, I believe in Gay Unions with equal rights to Marriages, but saving the term "Marriage" for heterosexual unions. Clearly, a partnership that is sanctioned by law, is a stronger union, and unions of some type, are the preferred state for most people to live and thrive in.

Gun Laws - The right to bear arms has been deemed to include gun ownership by individuals, by the Supreme Court. Conservatives support it, since it's right in the Constitution.

There are a LOT of people in the Republican party, who pose as conservatives. Maybe they're fanatics about one value - something like the abortion issue, or Gun ownership, etc. But one value in common, does not a true conservative, make.

**Let's be clear, Pro-Lifer's have no standing as conservatives, on this value. The Constitution doesn't mention it, AND abortions have been carried out with natural drugs and implements, since before recorded history. Abortions are horrid things, but to take away a woman's right to choose, is even worse.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by tw

So, because government required auto companies to design hybrids, then that was freeing the auto industry from regulation? Because Clinton required all legacy providers to make broadband available (1996 Federal Communication Act), that deregulated the communication industry?

Overall, Clinton made good policy, for commerce. Better than most of our Presidents, for sure.

You paint with a broad brush. And ignore where that brush applies. The economy prospered because some industries were identified as unproductive. ... Extremists believe solutions are in money games and deregulating an industry that must never be deregulated - finance.

Finance? Our entire melt down in the economy, was due to government interfering stupidly, with finance!

FHA loan buying FAMOUSLY was loosened up to promote home ownership, loan regulations forced banks into accepting applications for loans that NEVER should have been accepted - but now the gov't made it profitable to accept them, and they got sued if they did not.

Meanwhile, on Wall St., the ridiculous derivatives market, which is more gambling that anything in Las Vegas, was allowed to speculate with Billions of dollars, and subsequently sold, all around the world!

When I saw the loan applications for a home buyer, I was speechless at the obvious misrepresentations being made. But the gov't had a program to buy those loans, just that way, and you were in trouble if you failed to do so - so everyone got in line, and everyone made money.

And like most things that the gov't interferes with, it came crashing back down to earth, in a burning heap of shit. Barney Franks, and those other idiots, know next to NOTHING about how to run a business. How can they possibly make good laws for it?

Obama is in the same boat - never ran so much as a lemonade stand. Out of his entire cabinet, only a few had business experience.

...
Lying about it is also acceptable. You repeatedly ignore what created the worst recession since 1929. "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter" was a major reason.

This is the third time that you've beaten this dead horse of a sentence by an ex-politician, that you've taken out of context. Get a clue: Every politician lies. They wouldn't be elected without them.

We are paying today for a $3 trillion Mission Accomplished war. Obama did not create those debts. Obama is now paying for that boondoggle. What political agenda created those debts?

It started with the attack on 9/11/2001. We followed the same "let's rebuild" philosophy that worked in rebuilding Germany & Japan., in WWII. They didn't work nearly as well, since the locals supported attacks against us, but we tried, and nation building is never cheap.

Lying is hate promoted by extremist Republicans in the name of religion. And by completely misrepresenting Islam. You are posting that propaganda. Hate of Muslims. Equating Islam with fascism. Even forgetting a history of Islam - tolerance of other religions. Classic propaganda.

Islam: Read your Koran lately? Read up on Sharia Law?
No, you haven't. If you did, you would know that a Muslim is given privileges which non-Muslims are not allowed - like serving in the Army, for instance. A higher tax bracket (way higher), as well. Access to the courts, etc.

You can call it "Religious Aristocracy" or whatever, but at it's root, it's a form of Fascism. Muslim > Christian > Infidel > pig > Jew is how the Saudi Textbook put it, iirc.

Tax cuts:
True, according to government figures. If you have contrary evidence, I've asked you to post it. Crickets from you on supporting that argument, however.

George Jr created massive debts that we will be paying even ten year later. He even invented a war against a nation that was never a threat.

George Jr. may have impressed you as a conservative. He was not, as his wild spending spree's proved. Yes, he was socially conservative, but I saw no reason to go to war with Iraq, and he lied about the reason we should go to war - and unfortunately, got all his administration to lie about it, as well.

No, George Jr. is not well liked among conservatives, for starting the Iraq war, and his out of control spending in general - but he is well liked for the tax cuts he passed. Those were significant.

You even misrepresented what debts existed during Reagan's time ($0.55 trillion) by comparing 1984 money to 2012 money. But again, that is why propaganda works so well. Tell half truths. Then get snippy about the word 'nigger' to avoid your obvious mistake. $0.55 trillion then is more than $1.3 trillion today.

Those were the actual "nominal" figures, from the gov't. If you want adjusted money values, just scroll up or down the page on the url I gave, to find them - for the income tax figures.

For the national debt figures, you'd have to look at the footer to see what dollar year they were representing.

It is called propaganda. If thinking like a moderate, then you would have seen all facts. And not confused $0.55 trillion with the real number: $1.3 trillion. You would have seen how the economy prospered because Clinton increased regulations where necessary and decreased them where necessary.

Yes, politicians give you propaganda - count on it. It's cherry picked, it's misleading, it's distracting, it's "spun" to give it to you so they look to be Good and Wise. Yawn. And the sun rises in the East, what's new about it?

Yes, Clinton was generally well liked by conservatives, on business policies.

Tax games do not create a recovery. Governments cannot make an economy better - despite the propaganda. Governments can only make problems worse or avert some of the worst problems. We now have maybe ten more years to undo the mess created after 2000.
...
So many even believe Reagan reduced taxes. And that Obama is a Muslim. Propaganda works because some are so easily brainwashed by extremist rhetoric. And forget the actual philosophy of extremist conservatives. "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter".
...
So many never learn the lesson of history. Even foolishly equate Islam with fascism. Because hate inspired supporters. We don’t need extremist conservatives. We need moderates who ignore talk show host propaganda. And we need people who actually understand what makes jobs and growing economies - ie innovation. Extremist talk show hosts and their disciples never use that word.

1) Reagan did cut taxes, and the economy did have a significant recovery during his two terms. No, it wasn't all sweetness and light, and pennies from heaven. There were set backs, especially in his first term. Still, our unemployment rate fell by the end of his first term.

With Reagan though, you knew it was going to work. You had confidence in his plans, because he spoke plainly about his philosophy of conservative government. Even people who didn't like him, knew his policies would work - damnit!

I don't care if Obama is a Muslim. (And no, I don't believe he is a Muslim.) I would not support a candidate, because of his religion, or because he was an atheist. He's running for President, not to be a preacher, priest, or Iman.

This year, I'd prefer Obama run for Dog Catcher, however. Just because his policies have failed over the last 3 1/2 years.

It's clear that Obama and his Cabinet, don't know enough about business, to develop policies that will help us recover. That's just the plain truth.

And that's the plain reason, I want him out of the White House!

Yeah!!! << Go Mitt and Paul!! >>

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Adak

Finance? Our entire melt down in the economy, was due to government interfering stupidly, with finance!

...

Meanwhile, on Wall St., the ridiculous derivatives market, which is more gambling that anything in Las Vegas, was allowed to speculate with Billions of dollars, and subsequently sold, all around the world!

Classic overregulation, huh. Big, bad government going around allowing Wall St. to speculate.

When I saw the loan applications for a home buyer, I was speechless at the obvious misrepresentations being made. But the gov't had a program to buy those loans, just that way, and you were in trouble if you failed to do so - so everyone got in line, and everyone made money.

The government had a program to buy loans "just that way".
Banks lied in order to make their loans look "just that way".
Amazingly, the lies turned out not to be true.

If only there had been less regulation, maybe they could have lied better.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Adak

Finance? Our entire melt down in the economy, was due to government interfering stupidly, with finance!

Your every example are fraud, corruption, fiscal mismanagment, etc all made possible by deregulation or by subverting the regulators. My god. Glass Stegall was created to stop corrupt finance people from gaming the economy. What did America do to make this recession? We even recinded Glass Stegall so that corrupt finance people could enrich themselves at the expense of America. Extremist Republicans threatened to remove all SEC financing if the SEC enforced the laws (ie making possible Bernie Madoff). Why do you not even know these basics?

That reality is only disputed by wacko extremist talk show hosts and their disciples. I will not even try to list the details. Reams of previous posts here have described the corruption created by reducing regulation to enrich finance people. A corrupt admniistration literally permitted corrupt finance people to steal money from most all Americans.

Only a fool sees everything in terms or more regulation or less regulation. In some industries, little regulation makes a stronger America. In other industries (ie finance), we cannot regulate it enough to make a stronger American economy. That contradicts the broad paint brush (deregulation) advocated by extremist rhetoric. Is probably too complex for their extremist disciples (ie Tea Party) who need every answer in a soundbyte or 'liberal verses conservative' rhetoric.

A simple rule. A finance guy should be paid same as an equivalent worker in any utility. A stock broker or investment banker only does what an electric, gas, or water company employee does. Move money, electriciity, gas, or water. Nothing in finance creates jobs. But when we overpay a water company or finance company employee, then productive jobs are subverted or destroyed. Again, posted examples are longer than this entire thread. But that should have been obvious if ignoring extremist talk show hosts.

Did talk shows mention these realities? Of course not. They know where their money comes from. Better is to enrich at the expense of America. How curious. Exactly what happened during George Jr's tenure. Government removed or even subverted regulation to all but print money using CDOs, SIVs, and other derivatives. But again, all this was explained here previously and in great detail.

How uninformed were George Jr people? As the American economy was going over a cliff, where were any of George Jr's extremists? All were silent. Or did the moderates (Paulson, Bernake, etc) tell the wackos to shut up? George Jr had no idea what was happening. In a crisis meeting, he literally lost control and just walked out. His own people even yelling and accusing in panic. George Jr would make public statements saying our economy was sound. When at one point we were hours away from a meltdown that would have created 40% unemployment. Or did extremist talk show hosts forget to discuss this?

So after George Jr walked out and John McCain demonstrated no grasp of the problem, then who took over the meeting? Obama. Only he had been properly informed and understood the ongoing catastrophy on Wall Street. But again, did extremist talk show host forget to discuss that meeting?

The people in government who created this crisis by enriching Wall Street had no idea how bad they were making things even back in 2002. And had no idea what to do. Because they were not moderates.

A wacko extremist without a soundbyte is powerless; is left to confront reality. This recession obviously was created when wacko extremists removed or subverted finance industry regulations.

If your sources were honest, then you knew $0.55 trillion back then is more than $1.3 trillion today. That is the point. You keep posting half truths promoted by extremist talk show hosts. Do not even know who intentionally created this recession using blantant fiscal mismanagement and subverting regulations.

[Adak]

This recession obviously was created when wacko extremists removed or subverted finance industry regulations.

You are exactly correct!

And the wacko extremists were -- drum roll please -- the Dods Franks Bill, and other laws like it, that was signed into law by idiots in Washington, to promote home ownership for people who could NOT afford it, and then promoted derivatives which basically were gambling on whether the homeowner would go into default, or not.

There were BILLIONS of dollars made on these finance instruments, as they were sold for a profit, all around the world, in huge bundles.

Everybody made money at first - the Real Estate Agent, the Appraiser, the Bank or Savings and Loan, the Wall St. firm like Goldman Sachs, that bundled them up into large groups, and sold them world-wide.

The politicians loved it because it induced people to vote for, and support them.

Like Socialism itself, it all looked GLORIOUS - until the reality of the situation caused the money to start drying up, and people started defaulting. Like a house of cards, it all came crashing back down.

[Adak]

I'm in favor of early term abortions, if that is what the mother chooses. But late term abortions are clearly done after the fetus has become a fully aware individual. Really ugly.

Partial birth abortions are the worst of the lot. Here an infant is almost fully born - it's head is out of the birth canal. Then the "doctor" kills the baby by destroying the infant's brain, (usually by sucking out the brain), and finishes delivering the infant. Then tossing it's dead body into the medical waste bin, to be disposed of.

This is what Barrack has voted in favor of, and of course, it was kept quiet by nearly all the media. His so-called church, by the way, approves of this practice, as a member of the World Council of Churches.

I wonder how many of the regulars here, can support this practice of Partial Birth Abortion? Don't you wonder that Obama supports it?

Not only is it SO close to murder it's ridiculous, but it's the ugliest thing I can imagine. That baby could be adopted if the mother or father didn't want it!

Mitt Romney will NEVER support Partial Birth Abortion. Frankly, I'm shocked that anyone does. You watch a video of it, and you will be SICK SICK SICK.