Political & Elections

busdriver11 · Guru

RE: Debate #3

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

Hiring more teachers doesn't fix this mess.

Or raise tax revenue.

Or pay back China.

pima · Guru

I agree with most Americans Obama won last night regarding the debate, but lost too from a bigger picture perspective.

All MR had to do was look presidential. That was MR's strategy, he didn't want to give Obama any in-roads, which is what he accomplished. When MR didn't take the bait, it took everything away from PBO's strategy, of making MR look like when Candy reprimanded him at the last debate.

His goal was to look presidential. He achieved that goal. I think his secondary goal was to not look like a hawk, and he accomplished that too. His third goal was not to look like a bully, he accomplished that too when he said Mr. President, attacking me is not a strategy. (2nd debate story line was they looked like bullies) Unfortunately, I thought Obama looked like a bully. I think he wasn't prepared for MR not to get into the fight when taunted, thus Obama had nothing left, but to continue to taunt.

My criticism of MR is I think he should have pressed harder against PBO regarding Israel.

In the end, I think most voters don't understand Syria, nor really care about Eqypt, or Muslim Brotherhood. In the end they care about jobs. Most voters took away that both candidates would leave Afghanistan, would not go to war as their 1st option. They basically looked the same. That means it comes back to the economy. MR scored points because he brought back a reminder that PBO uses all the time...Bin Laden. He stated in 2000 at the Presidential debate nobody saw 9/11 coming. He went onto say he wouldn't go into hypotheticals...reality right now is our economy.

CBS did a quick poll and Obama won. However if you go to youtube. CBS had a focus group of 8 people in Ohio (Stueben?} Asked who they would vote for now 6 said MR, 2 said Obama.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6URuvgL2CKA&feature=youtu.be

As I said, asking who won the debate is one thing, who you will vote for now is different. If that tiny focus group is even near what OH voters are thinking, than MR has what he needs right now...positive momentum

OBTW, I am also tired of hearing Obama saying he will hire 100K teachers for his economic/education plan. If anyone buys that, I have a bridge to sell you in NY, of course, I might have a problem getting a clean title according to NY, but I promise you, you can still buy it. Who pays the teachers salaries, and where do these funds originate from? I can tell you, the majority of it is from your RE taxes and your state taxes. How can he do this without an insane federal budget increase? 100K multiplied by 35K a yr, that is 3..5 BN a yr each and every yr, before providing benefits, so more like 4.5 BN. How long will the fed pay before the RE, county and state taxes have to pick up the tab?

That issue falls flat with me along with there will be NO SEQUESTRATION! Really, come Jan. 2nd there will be, and the last time I checked come Nov. 7th we will have a lame duck MOC session, MOC's wanting to get home for T-Day and Xmas. Another BS flag! Unlike the teachers fishing line, most undecideds probably looked up "sequestration" because in Iowa , MI, ND. etc. it really is not a biggie. It is a biggie in a purple state for VA.

-- Edited by pima on Tuesday 23rd of October 2012 07:20:47 AM

winchester · Guru

I think this is the correct overall assessment of the debates:

I think anyone scoring by points would probably say this was a tie and if pressed to declare a winner could easily choose Obama.

But this debate won’t be scored by points in the end, just as the first two debates weren’t. ...

Long ago, the Obama campaign decided that in order for the president to win re-election in a bad economy when people weren’t happy with his performance he would have to do all he could to make this election about whether Romney was electable and presidential, and to pound a negative answer into people’s heads. This is the ground they chose to fight on, and the three presidential debates have therefore added up to a disaster for them.

The Final Debate, by Yuval levin, National Review Online

-- Edited by winchester on Tuesday 23rd of October 2012 06:48:06 AM

longprime · Guru

I watch morning CNBC.

Commentarys on the slowing of the corporate earnings and small businesses are worried that economy is slowing.

So, how is MR going to grow 12million jobs? More stimuli, deficit spending, and wealth transfer? evileye

busdriver11 · Guru

Me too, blankmind. It must be potent.

blankmind · Senior Member

Enjoy my smoke.

You know, I've always wondered, just what exactly is it that you are smoking? confuse

pima · Guru

No he is going to do it by repealing parts of the Obamacare program and helping small businesses with taxes.

Small businesses are the thrust of our economy. They have not been hiring because many are filing personal taxes. Under Obama 3 yrs have passed since the Hill past a budget. They have no certainty and until they do they won't hire.

We don't need to have any stimulus programs, spending or transfer. Let small business owners have confidence that for the next few yrs this is what it will be, unlike the last 3 wondering will the tax cuts be available next yr, how will Obamacare 2 yrs from now impact my company.

This is business. Have you ever seen the movies Secretariat or Seabiscuit? Those horses were like our American society. Hold on too tight to the reins, and don't let them run, they will lose every time. Let them run they will win every time!

Obama is holding on too tight, MR is saying let them run. The horse (us) will do fine if the trainer (President) gets us. Seabiscuit was a small horse compared to War Admiral, but he beat him because of the trainer. Secretariat won against Sham because of his jockey(MOC) trainer and owner not understanding the horse.

Small business are the horses. Samuel Riddle, Sigmund Summer, and Obama don't get it. Howard, Chenery and MR do get it.

To paraphrase a line from the movie Secretariet where Pnney Chenery talks to the horse the night before the Triple Crown she says:

This is your race.

Again, we are the horse. We need a leader that feels the same way regarding us as voters. I don't want a leader that acts like a parent.

Obama believes the govt knows best and won't let us be successful without their input. MR believes that we can be our best without the govt holding us back.

Just like why a tiny horse from CA beat a Triple Crown winner in the Depression. Why another horse that was not wanted in a coin toss became a Triple Crown winner. What the owners decided made the difference regarding success.

-- Edited by pima on Friday 19th of October 2012 01:44:04 PM

pima · Guru

longprime,

I am confused about R's being thrilled about sequestration.

Was it sarcasm?

I don't think anyone believes that a 3rd party system is a bad idea, the problem is politics is about money and both parties pour in tons of money through the DNC or RNC for their candidates. Buying air time in the media costs a lot, and unless the candidate is a Forbes or Bloomberg they don't have MNs upon MNs ready to go down the drain. Even if they are these types they do have a breaking point from a financial perspective.

longprime · Guru

Sequestors; Best Bill that has come out of this Congress.

No one is happy. evileye

We get redistribution from taxpayers to reducing the budget. What is wrong with that?

Shared sacrifice. biggrin

-- Edited by longprime on Friday 19th of October 2012 12:08:07 PM

-- Edited by longprime on Friday 19th of October 2012 12:08:48 PM

longprime · Guru

Didn't like MR's comment on Coal. Watching "Mad Money" CNBC, Jim Cramer. CEO's of CHK, SE, AEP.

Cheseapeake (CHK) says that there is enough NatGas in the Utica Shale (Ohio-Penn-NY) to last at least 100 years and even the wells of John D Rockefeller are still producing with new extraction techniques. CHK has developed so much NG that they are moving drill rigs to oil exploration. They can no longer make money on NatGas exploration and developement.

Spectra Energy (SE), NatGas distributor, says that they are putting in thousands of miles of new pipelines and spending $1.5Bill, for 14 miles of pipeline to NYC, Gas is so cheap that and the market for replacing fuel oil to gas, it's worth spending its own money,

American Electric Power (AEP) says that they are still committed to coal. But a brief search revealed that AEP built a gas plant in Dresden Ohio at 1/4 the cost of a comparable coal plant and without the headaches of pollution controls.

USA taxpayer has been paying for research for Clean Coal. Couple of Billion $$$, which made sense under Clinton and Bush when shale gas had not been exploited. But now with proven and increasing reserves are your taxdollars better spent on Defense ????

Disclaimer: My power utility is POR. Half of the electricity is from renewables and the other half from coal fired plants. The the big coal plants are in Boardman, OR, Jim Bridger, WY, and in Montana. Nearly all of the smokestack plume goes blows east, occasionally the Boardman plant has Easterly Winds, Not often.

Enjoy my smoke. evileye

-- Edited by longprime on Thursday 18th of October 2012 09:07:13 PM

longprime · Guru

Then R's should be rejoicing for 1. Sequest. 2. End to W's taxcuts.

I've always said that the fastest way to a balanced budget is to raise income and to cut expenses-something every family/student should know. PBO or Romney is going to have to come to terms of Government-builds character. evileye

Congress and the Nation is deadlocked in their respective Parties. We all can take shelter or power in this system. We need a third party that can broker legislation. You'll come around to this thinking.

pima · Guru

Just released

http://www.cnbc.com/id/49450057

This link is about Obama saying he doesn't look at his pension and calling out Romney for his blind trust.
"Let me give you some advice: Look at your pension. You also have investments in Chinese companies, you also have investments outside the United States," he said.

On that score, Romney is likely correct.

Many public pension funds have a diversified foreign investment portfolio that includes China. For instance, the California Public Employees Retirement System, or CalPERS, recently announced a $530 million investment in two real estate funds that target China.

Most other public pension funds have directed increasing allocations to emerging markets and alternative investment classes to generate returns and bridge exploding funding gaps.

As far as size?

From the standpoint of a public pension, Obama is well-heeled.

As president, he will receive $191,300 annually for life — win or lose in next month's election — and receives a travel allotment as well as mailing privileges. Should Obama lose, his presidential pension kicks in immediately after leaving office.

Given that the president enjoys a normal life span, the pension allotment would be worth upwards of $6 million.
In addition, Obama may be due a nice pension for the eight years he served in the Illinois Legislature as a state senator.

Illinois is infamous for its lavish pension plan for former lawmakers. A Freedom of Information Act request for Obama's pension amount submitted Wednesday to the General Assembly Retirement System of Illinois was not immediately answered, nor was a call to the Obama campaign.

191K/yr AT LEAST for the rest of his life, starting at 51 yo is pretty sweet!

But as for a strictly public pension? Zip, zero.

Romney only served one term as governor of the Bay State and did not take a salary, so he is eligible for nothing.

EWW that evil money grubbing Romney...he is so bad, he he didn't take a salary as Gov., he has no pension except what he gets from his personal investments

This is from CNBC.

So when we argue about investments, remember Obama is invested outside of the country and it is yours, mine and our tax dollars.

pima · Guru

longprime,

The fact is for the sequestration aspect deadline date is Jan 2. 500 TN will be cut if they don't do it now, they won't because it is an election, and come Nov. 7th they won't be singing songs, and mending fences.

Why am I so cynical? Ask yourself the last time the Hill passed a budget?

It was 3 yrs ago.

longprime · Guru

Okay... about this,

Yesterday, I was on a mission trip to Kroger's (Fred Meyer, locally, "The One Stop Shopping Center" ) for pie pans. Happens that the pie pans are located next to the discontinued item bin. Did you know that they make tabbed roll-on, Rubbers, "neater, faster, easier" . evileye

My biggest problem is not the above, or rather below, but of pie pans. I made another 3 pies after Tues debates, I've scrounged around for pie pans for the last week. I'm gonna make another 4 more apple pies then I got to worry about 19 butternuts-Big Nuts, too. biggrin

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

pp planned parenthood

longprime · Guru

What is "PP"? I'm guessing BlueCross/BlueCross?

Why are we discussing the "Sequesterization"? This is a Congress construct to force themselves to come to a budget agreement. If Congress wants to cut the Budget, including the Military which the Republicans agreed to, then the Budget is cut and the President will make do.

IMO, The day after the elections, We got a NEW game.

pima · Guru

[quote=winchester]I'll tell you exactly what happens to it. It ends up as food on the tables, roofs over the heads, and clothing on the backs, health care, and retirement savings of millions of Americans. It ends up in JOBS. It ends up in (way too low) salaries of members of the military and civilian government employees who support them. It ends up in the salaries of all the scientists, engineers, software developers, manufacturers, steelworkers, miners, oil workers, shippers, dockworkers, administrators, managers, office workers, janitors, and countless others who work in all the places that produce the tools and supplies our service members required to keep this country safe, and to protect the rights of brainless airheads who think we spend too much on the military to spout their senseless tripe.[/quote=winchester]

That was my point. If any voter believes GOOD cut the DOD budget by 1 TN, come back in 6 months and tell us how giving money to PP or PBS was a better investment from a fiscal perspective.

Tell that to Ft Worth TX when they release employees because the 35 line was cut. Tell that to the SAIC employees. L-3 Com janitors. They will do what PP or PBS needs to do, cut costs, to stay a float.

pima · Guru

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/18/welfare-spending-jumps-32-percent-four-years/

Welfare spending has grown substantially over the past four years, reaching $746 billion in 2011 — or more than Social Security, basic defense spending or any other single chunk of the federal government — according to a new memo by the Congressional Research Service.
The steady rise in welfare spending, which covers more than 80 programs primarily designed to help low-income Americans, got a big boost from the 2009 stimulus and has grown, albeit somewhat more slowly, in 2010 and 2011. One reason is that more people are qualifying in the weak economy, but the federal government also has broadened eligibility so that more people qualify for programs.

Read more: Welfare spending jumps 32 percent in four years - Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/18/welfare-spending-jumps-32-percent-four-years/#ixzz29f2XVGSb
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

There is also this:
http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/18/report-welfare-governments-single-largest-budget-item-in-fy-2011-at-approx-1-03-trillion/

Granted daily caller is a pro-R site, but come on it is still answers the question about better off. I don't think anyone wants to be on welfare. I think they would prefer not to be on it, but they have to do it because even the govt acknowledges that from an economic perspective.

What really is scary, is this link which is a blog, I am just taking the numbers, not the rhetoric
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/7-eleven-presidency_654846.html

In fiscal year 2012 (which ended on September 30), the federal government acquired $2.449 trillion in tax revenue and other receipts. It spent $3.538 trillion — 44 percent more than it had available to spend. The resulting deficit was $1.089 trillion.

In fiscal year 2011 (see table S-1), the federal government acquired $2.303 trillion in tax revenues and other receipts. It spent $3.603 trillion — 56 percent more than it had available to spend. The resulting deficit was $1.3 trillion.

What I liked from this blog was they put it in American voter terms regarding our deficit.
Under Obama, for every $7 we’ve had, we’ve spent nearly $11 (or, to be more exact, $10.95). That’s like a family that makes $70,000 a year — and is already knee-deep in debt — blowing nearly $110,000 a year.

We as citizens would have no pity for anyone that blows 40K on a credit card every yr above their salary. We would tell them to get rid of cable, don't buy an I phone, stop going out to dinner, brown bag lunch. Don't spend money where you don't have to spend. PBS and PP are NPFs they admit that the funding they get from the govt is less than 10% of their budget. They can live without federal funding. The question is can we, as citizens live with funding them? My answer is no.

Please don't play PP offers other things like cancer screening, I know they do, but if PP has to cut costs I suggest they start here:
the top eight officers of this nonprofit made over $2 million altogether in 2010, none less that $245,000:
Cecile Richards, President (pictured below right): $353,819
Maryana Iskander, Chief Operating Officer: $288,886
Maria Acosta, Chief Financial Officer: $263,443
Vanessa Cullins, VP of Medical Affairs: $257,115
Barbara Otten, VP of General Counsel: $251,379
Laurie Rubiner, VP of Public Policy: $248,438
Karen Ruffatto, VP of Operations: $247,932
Lisa David, VP of Affiliates: $245,322

According to ALL’s report, the average annual salary of a PP affiliate CEO is $158,797. Twenty-two (27%) made over $200,000 in 2010. The top dozen were:

PP North Texas, Dallas, TX (salary of previous CEO): $324,381
PP Mar Monte, San Jose, CA (Linda Williams): $315,950
PP Illinois, Chicago, IL (salary of previous CEO): $302,014
PP Hudson Peconic, Hawthorne, NY (Reina Schiffrin): $296,908
PP Northern New England, Williston,VT (Steve Trombley): $292,297
PP Orange & San Bernadino, Orange, CA (Joe Dunn): $278,i871
PP Treasure Coast, West Palm Beach, FL (Lillian Tamayo): $275,238
PP MN, SD & ND, St. Paul, MN (Sarah Stoesz): $268,710
PP Heartland, Des Moines, IA (Jill June): $265,389
PP Southern New England, New Haven, CT (Judy Tabar): $264,766
PP Great Northwest, Seattle, WA (Chris Charbonneau): $259,405
PP League of MA, Boston, MA (Dianne Luby): $256,474

I am not saying they should work for free, I am saying that with a working budget of 1 BN annually, they look at cutting their administrative costs. Maybe a pay freeze. This OMG MR wants to end PP is total BS. He is saying we need to cut costs and organizations like PP and PBS won't disappear. OBTW, since they are NPFs they also get a nice tax incentive too yrly.

I believe in PP and PBS, but honestly this is BS if you know the facts when it comes to a business model.

Yes, I know you can flip it back on the DoD budget, but I will flip it back. Cut the DoD unemployment, housing, student loans will be impacted more than cutting 10%, or 15% from PP. OBTW, cut the DoD budget, it will mean more women using PP because they don't have health care insurance, that is their only option. So now, you cut the DoD, and need to increase funding to PP. Cut PP funding, and it is up to them to do what is right... cut administrative costs, like the Fed. Pay raise freezes, job freezes, etc. Same thing many small business owners do everyday to say their employees jobs.

PP and PBS are not all about altruistic desires of only doing good for the less fortunate, they have their own greed like Wall Street when it comes to their hierarchy.

pima · Guru

I agree with winchester, times are much worse john doe.

The problem people don't get is many of the green energy companies that got BNs of tax dollars are going belly up weekly. A123 just declared bankruptcy on Tuesday, and they received 249 MN in tax dollars, Solyndra is gone. Where do those employees go? They are going to hit the unemployment line. Those are just 2 companies, and there are more on the list. So much for green energy bringing jobs and reducing our need for oil, coal. etc.

Additionally, we as Americans want our troops back, but the fact is in the next few yrs because of sequestration the DOD budget will be cut by 1 TN dollars, and the expectation is @1-2 MN will be unemployed. VA/MD alone will lose about 150K jobs before adding in the military troops. It is also before the trickle down effect regarding military hardware programs that will be cut. Companies like Boeing, Lockheed, Raytheon, will shut down lines in places like GA, TX, MO, WA, etc. Than add into that same scenario, subcontractors who make the paint, plastics, computer chips etc., will have to cut jobs. You think this won't take down the Dow?

Where does that leave us? Parents on unemployment, risking losing their homes again, and if they have kids in college more taking student debt for college because their folks have a choice drain their savings account to keep a roof over their head or pay for their kids college.

Whatever anyone feels about the DOD and how big of the budget it is, just realize cutting 1TN will impact each and everyone of us in the long run. You are naive to believe that doing this while we are still not recovered won't put us back to bad times like in 09.

I personally do not know 1 person who believes they or the country are better off today than 4 yrs ago. Not one.

winchester · Guru

Oh, I know that was your point. I was just expanding on it and emphasizing it.

A pet peeve of mine - and I'll struggle to say this properly so please allow me some benefit of the doubt - is that we conservatives are sometimes too polite in our conversations with liberals.

We believe too strongly in principles relating to letting everyone have their say in a conversation. We respond too often as if we are having an adult conversation when really we're not.

And liberals use our goodness and our fairness against us. It's even one of Saul Alinsky's rules. Indeed, it is a core principle of his which underlies many of his rules. And the liberal psyche has embraced it and internalized like the proverbial white on, and in, rice.

Current popular culture, which is essentially owned and controlled by liberals through the education system, the entertainment industry, and "journalism," has everyone walking on eggshells around everyone else, deathly afraid of "offending" each other. Unless, of course, one is a liberal, then one enjoys free reign to say pretty much anything. (e.g., the mostly silent response to Candy Crowley taking sides and defending Obama in the debate the other night.)

In reality, our current notions about being "offended" say more about the person taking offense, and about how incredibly far our culture has drifted away from anything close to a common sense grasp of the concept of tolerance, than they do about the person who made the supposedly offensive statement. These days, the real meaning of being "offended" is that somebody said something the offended person disagrees with. It is a ruse. It is a trump card, a rhetorical trick that is used to shut down discussion, and sometimes even to win arguments. Further, more often than not, if the supposedly offended person actually is offended, it says more about how thin skinned they are, and about how clueless they are about principles of free speech and tolerance, than it says about the offender.

It's just another venue in which the myopic world view and grasp of human nature of liberalism has turned common sense on its head and turned us into a nation of wussy appeasers more than a nation that actually stands for anything any more. The Obama administration has pushed this nation's culture farther down the road to wussydom than an other since Wilson or FDR.

The liberal thought police have taken such control of our culture that simply calling a spade a spade, when the spade is contrary to "liberal sensibilities" (an ironic phrase if there ever was one), is grounds for vilification and ostracism.

The topic of military spending is a case in point, and one that is particularly easy to illustrate, so I took the opportunity to do so. The facts of the budget and economic crises, and the U.S. budget prove beyond a whiff of doubt that military spending has practically nothing - zero zip zilch nada - to do with our current predicament, and yet there it is, still a topic of discussion, and because of our belief in letting everyone have their say - even delusional crazy people - and our resulting ingrained cultural fear of "offending" anyone, we're too afraid to call that spade a spade and laugh off anyone who thinks curbing military spending will make even a tiny dent in the fiscal crisis like the idiots they are.

-- Edited by winchester on Thursday 18th of October 2012 09:58:23 AM

winchester · Guru

Whatever anyone feels about the DOD and how big of the budget it is, just realize cutting 1TN will impact each and everyone of us in the long run.

I would not be so gentle regarding those who believe military spending should be cut. Of all the functions a government is supposed to perform, defense is probably the most important. Without a safe and secure homeland, all the other priorities are meaningless. The Military should be the single greatest item on the government's budget, but it's not.

62% of the U.S. government budget is mandatory spending, and practically all of that is Entitlements.

Mandatory spending plus interest on debt is 68% of the budget.

Discrationary spending is 31% of the total budget, and military spending is 57% of that 31%. Said differently, military spending is 18% of the total budget.

How much of the 18% can be cut and still leave the U.S. with a viable military? The military is ALREADY stretched thin!

And, no matter how much of that 18% is cut, even ALL OF IT, how much of an affect with that have on the current economic and budget crises?

Somewhere between slim and none.

68% of the budget on entitlements and only 18% on the military is definitive proof that the priorities of this country are completely bass ackwards (sic).

Any suggestion that military spending is too high, or is a major contributing factor to the economic or budget crises, or that cutting military spending can contribute to alleviating either of those crises in any significant way is simply delusional. It is crazy talk. It comes from a world of fantasy with no relationship of any kind with anything that even resembles reality.

Oh, and by the way. Where does anyone think military money goes? When the government spends money on the military, what happens to that money?

I'll tell you exactly what happens to it. It ends up as food on the tables, roofs over the heads, and clothing on the backs, health care, and retirement savings of millions of Americans. It ends up in JOBS. It ends up in (way too low) salaries of members of the military and civilian government employees who support them. It ends up in the salaries of all the scientists, engineers, software developers, manufacturers, steelworkers, miners, oil workers, shippers, dockworkers, administrators, managers, office workers, janitors, and countless others who work in all the places that produce the tools and supplies our service members required to keep this country safe, and to protect the rights of brainless airheads who think we spend too much on the military to spout their senseless tripe.

And speaking of brainless airheads who (apparently) think we spend too much on the military, here are some numbers from Obama's 2013 budget. That man represents everything that is EXACTLY WRONG for this country, its priorities, its security, and its safety.

-- Edited by winchester on Thursday 18th of October 2012 08:42:51 AM

longprime · Guru

Older Bro, made a comment on my observation that MR wants to do a lot of stuff and will cost a lot of $$$$.

"yep, but Wall Street won't allow it."

FYI

winchester · Guru

Now you tell me if things are better than when Obama took office

No. They're much worse.

john doe · Guru

Here's the link: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001?output_view=net_1mth

john doe · Guru

john doe · Guru

Reinhart & Rogoff Reply to Team Romney

By Max Berley Oct 17, 2012 11:06 AM ET

Just in case you were left wanting by last night's presidential debate, here's a quick double-shot of heavy-duty substance to tide you over.

Yesterday, Bloomberg View published an op-ed by the Harvard economists Carmen M. Reinhart and Kenneth S. Rogoff. They take issue with the characterizations of their work on financial crises by economists who are either official advisers to the Republican nominee Mitt Romney, or who publicly support the candidate.

In particular, they dispute separate assertions in op-eds by Glenn Hubbard and Kevin Hassett, John Taylor and Michael Bordo that historically the U.S. has been "'different' in that its recoveries from recessions associated with financial crises have been rapid and strong." In their 2009 book, “This Time Is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly,” Reinhart and Rogoff compiled data from 224 historical banking crises and concluded that -- even for the U.S.-- it takes far longer to come back from a systemic financial crisis than it does to recover from less severe episodes known as "borderline" crises.

To them, there is no question that the most recent U.S. crisis was of the systemic kind, in fact, the first of such severity since the Great Depression. Given that, they say, the "recent recovery looks positively brisk" in historic terms.

Reinhart and Rogoff are very careful to insist that they have not "publicly supported or privately advised either campaign" in this election year. Yet their data and conclusions undermine the repeated claims by Romney and his economists that the slow growth and high unemployment of recent years are due in no small measure to President Barack Obama and his policies.

As befitting a dispute between academics, much of the argument involves questions about research methods and scholarship. Taylor, a Stanford University professor and a Romney adviser, responded to Reinhart and Rogoff with a blog post in which he defended his claim that data going back more than a century show that growth has been strong after several U.S. financial crises, the exact opposite of the Reinhart-Rogoff findings.

The trouble is that Taylor claims to have found eight previous recessions with crises: 1882, 1893, 1907, 1913, 1929, 1973, 1981 and 1990. In a short follow-up to their op-ed, "Apples and Oranges," they say that only three of the episodes listed by Taylor should be considered legitimate U.S. financial crises-- 1893, 1907 and 1929.

All this is really wonky, but it matters -- a lot. How Americans understand their recent history could well be a central determinant of their choice at the ballot box. Some will decide Obama did the best he could with the terrible hand he was dealt and needs more time. Others will judge that he made matters worse through faulty analysis and bad policies. The facts are available.

john doe · Guru

Misery Index predicts Obama will win the election

By Annalyn CenskyOctober 17, 2012: 12:08 PM ET

Email Print

Are Americans feeling more miserable than they were four years ago? According to the so-called "misery index," they're not -- a fact that boosts President Obama's chances of winning re-election.

The misery index combines the unemployment rate and the annual inflation rate and has accurately predicted the outcome of nine of the last 12 presidential elections, according to economists at Deutsche Bank.

When it rises, it's considered a sign of a weaker economy and a bad omen for the incumbent president and his political party. When it falls, the outcome has been the opposite, with the incumbent or his party winning re-election.

(In the three cases when the index did not accurately predict the election, it was essentially flat, changing less than one percentage point over a four year period.)

Economist Arthur Okun invented the misery index in the early 1970s, and the indicator became famous when Jimmy Carter used it to criticize incumbent Gerald Ford in the 1976 election. Inflation was soaring during that time, and unemployment rose along with it.

Unfortunately for Carter, that trend continued throughout his own presidency, and four years later, challenger Ronald Reagan used the misery index to defeat him in the 1980 election.

"When he was a candidate in 1976, President Carter invented a thing he called the misery index," Reagan said in a debate a week before the election. "He added the rate of unemployment and the rate of inflation, and it came, at that time, to 12.5% under President Ford. He said that no man with that size misery index has a right to seek reelection to the Presidency. Today, by his own decision, the misery index is in excess of 20%, and I think this must suggest something."

Where does the misery index stand now? As of the third quarter, it was 9.8%, down from 11.3% four years ago.

"Our conclusion is that if voters choose their candidate based on this metric alone, the election will narrowly tilt in favor of the current President," said Carl Riccadonna, a Deutsche Bank economist who recently issued a report on the topic.

Riccadonna also analyzed where the misery index stands in the swing states. The battleground states of Michigan, Ohio, Virginia and Wisconsin have all shown improvement according to the misery index, suggesting Obama will win these states.

But four states -- Colorado, Missouri, Nevada and Pennsylvania -- are worse-off than they were four years ago. Florida is a toss-up.

"If these states go for Romney, his electoral tally will come in at a still-too-low 255," Riccadonna said. (At least 270 votes are needed to win.) He also notes however that Iowa, Minnesota and North Carolina have had very meek improvement in their misery levels. Romney would have to win two of these states, to push him over the edge.

Needless to say, the conclusion remains the same. The election remains a close one, and whomever wins is likely to do so only by a narrow margin.

longprime · Guru

Didn't like MR accusing PBO on not fullfilling promise for a Path to legal immigration.

It says that MR is for a Path?

He was for a Path, then he was agin-tit, and now for-rit?

-- Edited by longprime on Wednesday 17th of October 2012 08:58:49 PM

pima · Guru

[quote=winchester]And by the way, also relatively speaking, Obama's financial situation is probably a lot closer to Romney's than it is to yours or the several million. So all the complaining about Romney's success is nothing more than disingenuous, hypocritical, gas baggery. It is a distinction without a difference.
+1

[quote=winchester]It is amazing, truly amazing, that in the country built on the idea that anyone can rise to the top, those who do are, practically by definition, the villains

OBTW longprime, he and our MOCs have a life long pension as elected officials, that we as taxpayers pay for every yr. It is like a blind trust. They also have an amazig healthcare system that beats anything and everything.

Yet, like winchester stated these politicians that advocate for the poor give less than Romney in contributions, while they are in the 1% like them, but at the same time attack. They want the govt to dole out to soothe their own conscious.

If Obama/Biden and their ilk feel this way than be like Bloomberg...work for $1 a yr. Hand their salary back to the IRS to reduce the debt. Lead the country as an example, not as a divider. Come on you can't say Obama's books:

Dreams from My Father

Of Thee I sing

The Audacity of Hope

Or the other books didn't put some money in his wallet!

He is making 400K a yr and OBTW he doesn't pay for rent, groceries, car pmts, gas, utilities, insurance etc. Seriously, His perks puts him in a Million a yr gross category. I, as a women would never buy a pr of shoes for $400, let alone a pr of sneakers at that price. MO did!

Cry the river of Romney is a fat cat and Obama isn't to someone else.

If every 100k family had their rent, food, car, gas, utilities, insurance paid for and their spouses were donated clothes to wear for free we all would be happy, happy, happy as Phil from Duck Dynasty says. Heck if we were making 400K and paying fpr all of that we still would be happy, happy, happy.

We aren't. Want to believe he cares, fine with me, but ask yourself what is his net worth? Does he have a tax accountant/attorney like Joe Schmoe? Is he you and me? Or is he in the same league as MR, the person he critiicizes, but donates less to charities?

Last night we were told by both candidates to ask yourself questions. I asked and answered. I couldn't care less MRs tax rate, I respect that when it came to charity he beat Obama and Biden to a pulp when it comes to donating to our society. He believes in paying, but more importantly he believes in helping out too even after the tax man cometh.

geeps20 · Senior Member

weakest reply was obama stating gas prices were $1.86 4 years ago because the economy was bad...WHAT??? The economy is still bad and gas prices have doubled.

longprime · Guru

Yes it is all relative.

Yes, essentially MF are blind trusts.

Yes, I am in the 47%.

Yes, our sheltered trading account is up 20% YTD.

Yes, our sheltered MF accounts are up ~5% YoY.

Yes, MR and PBO are probably closer to together than to me.

Yes, I am taking on more risk than I should because, I have to, and a collapse of my current investments will hurt badly but when you are forced to make apple pies for the winter and as gifts, I will survive better than most.

Which is the difference between me and them-they can take on risk without regard to the outcomes or on their apple pies and the American Way. Now, if was only a Mom, then I would be completely armored against all attacks. evileye

Gotta run, doing laundry and need to get Mom to lunch.

pima · Guru

longprime.

The govt has an investment program for all fed employees. It is a blind trust per se,

Obama is not a pauper. How much did he earn regarding royalties for his books? Seriously he has millions in assets, enough to not concern himself with living off his pension.

Come on...PBO is not the 47% either. This is a guy that pays out of pocket to send his children to one of the most expensive private schools in the nation. Heck, at least Carter sent Amy to public!

PBO talks about believing in our public school system, yet when it comes to his 2 DDs he pays @60-70K a yr so they aren't in the system. Than on top of it he has the gall to criticize the R's for supporting charter schools so those that can't afford can get that private education like his own children.

Same with the fact that he never answered his own investments. Obama brought this into the conversation when he brought the blind trust issue up. Romney just turned the tables to remind him KETTLE MEET POT, POT MEET KETTLE.

The problem is most Americans don't understand what a blind trust is, their assumption is it exists for only the wealthy. Reality is if you invest in a mutual fund you have no voice in investment just like a blind trust. It is BLIND!

Reality is also for whatever reason voters think Obama lives by his Presidential salary, and forget he is a millionaire too with tax advisors so he can keep his own money.

Reality is MR pays less in income tax because he is like Buffet since it is gains/dividends, not income. Obama could have changed that law, but he didn't. MR should be blamed as a candidate for the failure of our current president Obama regarding taxes?

MR didn't make the rule, didn't enforce it, had no ability to change it. He just adhered to it, and now this administration wants to demonize him.

Please refresh my memory, how much did Obama donate to charities as a % of his income compared to MR, was it more/less/same?

Don't throw stones if you live in a glass house!

longprime · Guru

Didn't like MR comment on Federal Pensions in reference to China. Does PBO have any other pension program

Comment: MR's blind trust. If you have a wad of $$$$$, it is easy to build a diversified portfolio to get even a modest returns. Even if his trust Loses $$$, does it matter when it has so much? When the Great Recession hit, most of us lost ~30-40% of our savings/investment/realestate-and that amount hurts dearly. But if you have $$$$$, your trust still held $$ and $ to invest when shares are cheap relative to value. With $ to reallocate and invest, people/companies/companies could take the risk to make a lot more $$. The average investor (47%+) had their wad blown and had reserves to risk.

pima · Guru

OBTW,

I must ask am I the only one that notices how Obama is bringing up his grandmother with accolades now, but 4 yrs ago he threw her under the bus regarding race? Let's think about this...could it be now he needs the women's vote?

Again the question is how many people he will throw under the bus for his desires. Count right now I have 3 women, and he is the President that supports women? Grandma, Susan Rice, and Hillary Clinton. Granted Holder too, but as a woman, I am looking at my sex having tire tracks on our bodies and when it suits him he brings us back out again.

Romney is saying tax payer dollars, not putting Planned Parenthood out of business. It is a NPF organization just like PBS. They will survive. The pill is not expensive regarding cost, it is basically one dinner at McDonalds for 2 or 4 people depending if you supersize.

Sorry, but IMPO Obama is wrong regarding the demanding of employers and their health care bennies. I am Catholic, but how is it the govt agrees a Catholic hospital cannot be forced to do an abortion, because of religious beliefs, but a school teacher at a Catholic school must be allowed birth control coverage? They are both private. I agree if the company is county/state/fed they should, but not if they are private. The employee accepted this as terms of employment, they could say no. They are an NPF.

Romney campaign IMPO also gets a negative from me.

Obama has attacked this 47% issue, MR addressed it, but the problem is they are letting Obama to run roughshod over him in this issue.

Again, am I the only one that remembers Obama and being caught talking about the Rust belt clinging to guns and religion...basically in -bred at worst, at best not at his intellectual level?

Flip side MR gets points for not seeking to his level by reminding voters and the media that is what our current President said about Americans 4 yrs ago.

pima · Guru

I agree with what is becoming a topic among women...both lost last night due to their attitudes appearing to look like a bully. Both did this.

It is interesting to see this mornings discussions as I channel surfed. The points that I give to MR nobody has discussed.

1. Obama insinuating that he as a private citizen invests in China. MR struck back saying it is a blind trust, and OBTW you have a pension have you looked at your investments.
~~~ As an investor it illustrated to me exactly what MR has been talking about regarding our economy. How can I trust a President on the economy when he does not even look at his own investments? Many Joe Schmoes looks at their annual investments.
~~~ Of course he had to be silent because if he said yes, I am sure MR had already investigated the govt pension, and he would have been to say, you too invest in China. It is the same as a blind trust, they invest for you, and you don't pick or choose.

2. MR brought up Fast and Furious during the gun issue, which he was right to do so regarding his rebuttal. PBO is saying he is opposed, but than why did Fast and Furious occur, why do we still have the same AG who was in charge of the program. If you are opposed, you should have asked for Holder's resignation.

The real loser last night, and now is a topic in the media is Candy Crowley as a moderator. At times I felt like she was the substitute teacher for the day and lost control of the students. She also did the biggest mistake by agreeing with Obama. There are fact checkers out there and that is their job, not hers.

I think because of her agreeing this will be the hot topic and next Monday it is about foreign policy. That is going to be the 1st question out of the gate. The: PBO you stated at the last debate the next day you said it was terrorism, but as Gov Romney said last week, you went on for @2 weeks saying it wasn't. Your ambassador said it wasn't 6 days later.

Yes, it was an act of terror. Terror is creating extreme fear. That was an act of terror be it a protest or mob violence. An act of terrorism is IMPO pre-planned for political reasons. He did what he always does, played it both ways originally (Rose garden) so he could say if it was the film, he was saying that he was talking about creating fear, if it was pre-planned he could say he acknowledge it was terrorism minute one. The problem is he forgot that his spokespeople didn't get the memo, and as he said last night this is his administration, he takes responsibility in the end.

I hope he does, because than he can prove it by asking for Susan Rice's resignation. As I said on another thread, if this was a corporation and he was the CEO, 4 employees being killed on site due to the fact that they did not place in new safety measures when requested, the CEO would demand resignations ASAP.

Than again AG Holder is still at his desk today, so I am sure Rice's and Hillary's jobs are safe, not sure about their underlings though!

winchester · Guru

If you have a wad of $$$$$, it is easy to build a diversified portfolio to get even a modest returns. Even if his trust Loses $$$, does it matter when it has so much? When the Great Recession hit, most of us lost ~30-40% of our savings/investment/realestate-and that amount hurts dearly.

It's all relative.

There are undoubtedly several million people in this country who see the difference between themselves and you in the same way you see the difference between yourself and Romney. Those people will shed about as many tears for you as you do for Romney.

And by the way, also relatively speaking, Obama's financial situation is probably a lot closer to Romney's than it is to yours or the several million. So all the complaining about Romney's success is nothing more than disingenuous, hypocritical, gas baggery. It is a distinction without a difference.

Where's the line? Where's the cut off point? To the several million it is somewhere between you and them. To you, it is somewhere between you and Romney (and Obama gets a pass). Even within the several million, who are already in the bottom quintile, there are undoubtedly layers, and those in the bottom layers of the bottom quintile will shed no tears for those in the top layers of the bottom quintile.

This is part of the problem with this mentality. There is no line. It always wants more. If the top quintile is taxed at x% then, in order to pay its "fair share," it SHOULD be taxed at x% plus five more. And then, once that becomes the new normal, and the x+5 becomes the new x, then it should be taxed at x+5 AGAIN. And so it goes.

It is amazing, truly amazing, that in the country built on the idea that anyone can rise to the top, those who do are, practically by definition, the villains. It is totally backwards, absolutely 180 degress upside down, from not only that country's founding principles but also from any clear concept of human nature itself.

Alas, this is what comes from a psyche, a morality, an ideology, founded on maximizing autonomy and "care" of the individual. In the name of the bees it fouls the hive. And it will never, ever be totally satisfied. It will always, always demand more. And even if the ideal is ever reached, in which everyone makes the same amount and everyone has the same amount, this mentality will still find ways to see inequities. It will still try to find ways to force what it perceives to be the "haves" to "sacrifice" and fork over their "fair share" to what it perceives to be the "have nots."

The only exception to this rule is if you agree with this mentality. In that case you can "have" as much money as you can get your hands on and you get a pass. In that case you're "one of us." You "get it." And you'll be spared the criticism, and you'll probably be seen as a hero.

-- Edited by winchester on Wednesday 17th of October 2012 12:04:18 PM

john doe · Guru

interesting debate - romney is sounding like a liberal from massachusetts.

longprime · Guru

Well, Older Bro asked if I watched-I was making apple pies (scratch) from apples from our farm. New recipe. He still has a job, New President is his old boss. Anyhow, I listened.

Romney sounds positively Democratic- He wants to do so much, All of which will take $$$. A lot of $$$, Which if he ever became President, I don't think neither the Republican will be happy after vilifying PBO for deficit spending, nor the Democrats, because Romney is a reborn Republican. evileye

PBO, sounded like a steadfast Republican. evileye

Don't worry, Its only Politics. furious

Political & Elections

Now you tell me if things are better than when Obama took office:

Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National)