At 9/20/12 08:58 PM, Ravariel wrote: Romney's quote is basically giving an unapologetic finger to a large portion of the electorate. Those independent voters who may or may not reside in that 47% will see only that finger, not the misguided sympathy that they saw with Obama, so that's a huge blow to Romney in the swing vote.

I don't think so. The swing vote is most likely people of the same socio-economic status in that room: small business owners, middle and upper-middle class. According to the early Gallup data, not only is this not affecting the vote of 53% of independents, as you move up the socio-economic ladder the more these comments get him votes.

A broad-swath painted-as-moocher tin-ear comment like this will only help the Dems mobilize larger portions of this unlikely demographic, which can only help him in the election.

This is where it could help Obama, turn-out the base. The problem is this demographic is incredibly unstable and unreliable. So it is kind of a hail-mary, toss the ball and hope it's caught, way of winning an election.

Add to that the solidifying of the female demographic against him,

1) The female demographic is not going to win or loose this race, because it does not win or loose presidential races. They tack Democratic.

2) Obama won Ma by 25.8 last time and Kerry by 25.1 in '04. So if Romney is only running 14% behind...then he's not doing so bad. If you're talking about Michigan then Obama won by 16..4% in '08. And Mi is a Dem stronghold...so it doesn't matter what he's doing there or not.

At 9/20/12 09:23 PM, TheMason wrote: I don't think so. The swing vote is most likely people of the same socio-economic status in that room: small business owners, middle and upper-middle class. According to the early Gallup data, not only is this not affecting the vote of 53% of independents, as you move up the socio-economic ladder the more these comments get him votes.

The swing state vote is made up of LARGE populations of conservatives in the 47% Romney gave the finger. Don't underestimate the disdain for the arrogant wealthy among the poor white crowd.

At 9/20/12 09:07 PM, TheMason wrote: With a race that is so close...why imprint yourself on national symbols that will illicit emotional responses?

Elicit! I'm not calling you stupid here I just have to point out the difference because I have a problem okay.

And since they are plastering these all over social media, bumper stickers, t-shirts, etc...if they don't pull them they are going to be everywhere as a constant reminder and generating emotional responses from supporters, opponents and undecideds all the way to the election.

See, the thing with this is that I looked it up, and it's not really something that's being plastered around, it's a limited edition series of prints that you can buy from the Obama website, as part of a thing called "Artists for Obama," so presumably, it wasn't even created by his actual paid campaign, just some guys. Normally that wouldn't sound believable to me, but if there's anyone who provides unnecessary, raving support for Obama, it's graphic designers who make this kind of crap all the time.

So really, it's not as widespread as you're trying to make it seem, and without a major amount of use by the campaign (which it almost definitely won't be getting, now that it's been noticed by some critics), it'll be quickly forgotten, and in fact probably won't even see much awareness among the general public.

Romney's comments, on the other hand, are something that can be hammered on in the media for at least a couple of weeks, and it's the Obama campaign that's going to control the discussion. That's not great. Romney's position might not be dire right now, but the trend is pretty bad, he's been making a series of errors and the Obama campaign has been capitalizing on them.

It's certainly not impossible for Romney's campaign to turn it around this far out from the election, but they've got their work cut out for them. They have to stop the bleeding and then control the news cycle with their own message, and at the same time hope that Obama's campaign starts making a few more serious mistakes.

Honest question now for conservatives at this point: do you honestly believe in Mitt Romney as a candidate? Please have your answer not include the words "not" "Obama".

Well....

At 9/20/12 09:23 PM, TheMason wrote: I don't think so. The swing vote is most likely people of the same socio-economic status in that room: small business owners, middle and upper-middle class. According to the early Gallup data, not only is this not affecting the vote of 53% of independents, as you move up the socio-economic ladder the more these comments get him votes.

There is a big difference between "small business owners" and business(wo)men who can afford to attend a $50,000.00/plate fundraiser. Your average swing vote isn't in the top few percent, they're in the middle both in politics and in incomes. They're the ones who make $40-100,000/yr, who don't live high enough in the brackets to enjoy those 14% tax rates, who tend towards social and fiscal libertarianism, for whom tax breaks are welcome but not necessary for survival, but who are well-educated enough to realize that there's a difference between "paying no federal income tax" and "paying no taxes" as Romney was implying. They don't believe that their harried waitress who works another job at a daycare is somehow "not taking personal responsibility or care with her life." They're not high up the ladder enough to have such a disconnect with the working poor, the disabled and the elderly.

Add to that the solidifying of the female demographic against him,

1) The female demographic is not going to win or loose this race, because it does not win or loose presidential races. They tack Democratic.

Whoa. Just..... whoa. "The female demographic... does not win or lose presidential races"? Just because they "tack" democratic? I'm sorry, but since when does 51% of the population shifting by multiple percent in one direction, REGARDLESS of their "tack". If 60% of them were blue (on average) before, 65% of them being blue now is not insignificant. That also treads close to the normal Rep stance of "women don't matter".

2) Obama won Ma by 25.8 last time and Kerry by 25.1 in '04. So if Romney is only running 14% behind...then he's not doing so bad. If you're talking about Michigan then Obama won by 16..4% in '08. And Mi is a Dem stronghold...so it doesn't matter what he's doing there or not.

MI, regardless of it's actual electoral allocations, is a very purple state. We've got a republican governor, a HEAVILY republican legislature (64R-46D in the House, 26R-12D in the senate) and most areas outside of Detroit, Traverse City, and Marquette are redder than Texas. A reasonable republican could easily take this state. Romney is from here, he should be rocking this state, but hell he only took the primary by 3% against Santorum. This should be a stronghold for him, even with his difficulty with rust-belt working class.

Edit...

At 9/21/12 08:53 PM, Ravariel wrote: I'm sorry, but since when does 51% of the population shifting by multiple percent in one direction, REGARDLESS of their "tack".

... constitute an event that "does not determine elections"?

It's always good to finish one thought before beginning another.... derp.

At 9/21/12 07:45 PM, Feoric wrote: Well....

I also find it ironic, because I was watching old debates of the '84 election and Reagan was giving a similar response like Obama is now, saying that while we haven't fully recovered that we were making progress. Granted it was a much different election, but the parallel seems striking. Although I guess this is intentional because that's what Democrats tend to do; emulate Reagan.

Really don't think Romney's winning this thing.

It should be obvious to everyone that Romney is going to lose now.

At 9/20/12 01:08 PM, TheMason wrote: Point 1 How GM paid off its loan.
[...]
So yes...the loan is paid back. However, the taxpayer was paid with money taken from the taxpayer.

This is really easy to understand and I'm not sure exactly what's going awry here. Let me put this in the simplest terms I can. The escrow account was an extension of TARP via the US Treasury and the Canadian government. GM assessed how much money was given to them and figured they had gotten too much. They said "hey, we don't need this" and they gave it back. It boggles my mind how anyone could think this is some fraudulent scheme. The whole 'taxpayers paid with taxpayer money' thing is a red herring. It's completely besides the point.

It also means that you are incorrect when you say: "They would have needed it if the company was struggling to make ends meet. The fact that they were able to pay back the loan in full means the company was turning around, which is reflected in their profits."

I don't see how that's the case, because the amount given to them via TARP was appropriated by the Treasury and the amount of the appropriations was derived from the Treasury and Obama's chief economists. GM was in better shape than they realized after the 'government takeover' took effect.

They did not and could not pay off their debt to the government on their own with their own profits and revenue...instead they used government money to pay a government loan. GM owes a debt to the American and Canadian taxpayer to pay back what was put into that escrow account...the debt is still owed.

You can look at the daily TARP updates for yourself and see that roughly 40 billion of the AIFP has been repaid, which is roughly half of the ~80 billion bailout of the automobile industry so far.

Point 2 Debt-for-equity.
[...]

When it became clear that GM was going to have to destroy 60-70% of itself rather than offload it to other businesses to run more successfully than GM's idiot management could, the government stepped in because the lowered demand on suppliers and vendors would have created an enormous wave of layoffs all over the world. For example, Toyota publicly supported the GM bailout. Even though GM going under would have eliminated their until-recently chief worldwide rival, the disruption to Toyota's supply chain from the stress on the suppliers would have caused them significant short term problems. Maybe worse than the earthquake did, for that matter, since it wouldn't have just been a matter of restoring roads and electricity. Demonstrate to me the loss we're likely to make to the tune of 14 billion is worse than that. Not only that, the car industry is subsidized as hell, so you'd also have to measure in if it's useful for you to pay GM through taxes so that car production continues in Detroit rather than buying a car built by GM in Germany subsidized by German tax payers.

1) Who cares about white flight...
[...]

I don't know how anyone can say this with a straight face so I won't even go there.

But in the end...the UAW is partially repsonsible for creating the business environment in Detroit that let the American auto industry decline. I think the future for the US auto industry is to look at BMW, KIA, Toyota moving into areas that have people who need jobs...but are not self-absorbed union members.

Already did so. If you re-read the sources I linked to the $44 billion originally came from Obama...not WSJ.

The issue with the 45 billion figure is that it's a tax break (what you're talking about is found here). Despite the vague tag line of "a tax break that could be worth as much as $45 billion," the actual value appears to be significantly lower. Essentially, the source of the tax break is the special dispensation to carry prior losses forward despite having gone through bankruptcy. While GM expects (expected?) tax savings from a variety of sources, only $19 billion of it was from this exception:

"The $45.4 billion in future tax savings consist of $18.9 billion in carry-forwards based on past losses, according to GM's pre-IPO public disclosure. The other tax savings are related to costs such as pensions and other post-retirement benefits, and property, plants and equipment."

This would seem to indicate that the tax savings due to loss carryforward ended up being $14 billion rather than the $19 billion predicted in new GM's pre-IPO disclosure. Based on this information, I would say that the losses to GM were $14 billion in special tax breaks, plus some additional unknown amount from investment we do not expect to be recouped, but I don't know for sure.

Who cares? It didn't make enough.

The US government made a few billion in profit when GM IPO'd for the second time in 2010.

To think that stocks are going to be immune from the second type of inflation (a devalued dollar) is naive and laughable. The stock market will adjust to reflect the devalued dollar.

I never said the stocks will be immune, I said the exact opposite. They do adjust. DOWNWARDS.Inflation, whether in the form of demand-pull or cost-push, compresses a company's P/E ratio. You said "The government can get stock prices to $53/share through inflation" which is beyond my imagination, really. You think the government hopes to get GM's stock to 53 dollars a share through fucking QE3? You're nuts.

Make a new thread if you still want to drag this on, I'm not going to clog this thread up with this anymore.

At 9/21/12 11:42 PM, Warforger wrote: Although I guess this is intentional because that's what Democrats tend to do; emulate Reagan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfelqZpapZA

At 9/22/12 06:10 AM, BumFodder wrote: It should be obvious to everyone that Romney is going to lose now.

Still over a month away in a very odd election where the incumbent had a first term that appears very underwhelming going against a candidate who just can't seem to stop snacking on his feet.

The dynamic here is quite new, and I wouldn't be surprised if this one took a few wild turns at the last minute.

If the trajectory stays the same as it has been the past couple weeks it will begin to look worse and worse for Romney, but with the odd dynamic, the Tea Party and its covertly overt racism, it's impossible to tell right now.

At 9/22/12 07:17 AM, Feoric wrote:

At 9/21/12 11:42 PM, Warforger wrote: Although I guess this is intentional because that's what Democrats tend to do; emulate Reagan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfelqZpapZA

Oh if you watched Clinton's speech you'd realize that. In fact he outright quoted Reagan to ridicule the Republicans. I don't think he mentioned any Democratic politician other than himself and Obama.

At 9/22/12 11:13 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 9/22/12 06:10 AM, BumFodder wrote: It should be obvious to everyone that Romney is going to lose now.

Still over a month away in a very odd election where the incumbent had a first term that appears very underwhelming going against a candidate who just can't seem to stop snacking on his feet.

The dynamic here is quite new, and I wouldn't be surprised if this one took a few wild turns at the last minute.

If the trajectory stays the same as it has been the past couple weeks it will begin to look worse and worse for Romney, but with the odd dynamic, the Tea Party and its covertly overt racism, it's impossible to tell right now.

Honestly doubt this will happen. Republicans/Tea Party have been throwning everything they can at Obama for 4 years now, the public is so use to it by now that a measly month and some change won't be a big thing. Also, they have been waiting what, 4 years for Obama to make a GIANT GAME changing mistake, it is pretty obvious he doesn't do that.

At 9/23/12 05:22 PM, Xcyper33 wrote:

At 9/22/12 11:13 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 9/22/12 06:10 AM, BumFodder wrote: It should be obvious to everyone that Romney is going to lose now.

Still over a month away in a very odd election where the incumbent had a first term that appears very underwhelming going against a candidate who just can't seem to stop snacking on his feet.

The dynamic here is quite new, and I wouldn't be surprised if this one took a few wild turns at the last minute.

If the trajectory stays the same as it has been the past couple weeks it will begin to look worse and worse for Romney, but with the odd dynamic, the Tea Party and its covertly overt racism, it's impossible to tell right now.

Honestly doubt this will happen. Republicans/Tea Party have been throwning everything they can at Obama for 4 years now, the public is so use to it by now that a measly month and some change won't be a big thing. Also, they have been waiting what, 4 years for Obama to make a GIANT GAME changing mistake, it is pretty obvious he doesn't do that.

But people are getting tired of Obama's lack of leadership. Hasn't passed a budget. Sits by and goes on Letterman while our soil is raided, and our people killed. He hasn't done anything to fix the economy like he said he would. Foreign policy is still a mess.

The only thing he has going for him, is he's an awesome rhetoric machine.

I'm no Romney fan...at all. But Obama has proven to be a failure. He had 4 years to take proper steps toward fixing the nation...and all he did was either copy Bush, or play toward the center so he didn't piss anyone off. He had his chance, and failed. Will Romney fix it? Who the hell knows. But what has been seen, is Obama has failed. So he should be gone.

At 9/24/12 12:46 AM, LemonCrush wrote:
But people are getting tired of Obama's lack of leadership. Hasn't passed a budget. Sits by and goes on Letterman while our soil is raided, and our people killed. He hasn't done anything to fix the economy like he said he would. Foreign policy is still a mess.

While our soil is raided?

The only thing he has going for him, is he's an awesome rhetoric machine.

I'm no Romney fan...at all. But Obama has proven to be a failure. He had 4 years to take proper steps toward fixing the nation...and all he did was either copy Bush, or play toward the center so he didn't piss anyone off. He had his chance, and failed. Will Romney fix it? Who the hell knows. But what has been seen, is Obama has failed. So he should be gone.

The American auto industry is running and posting great profits, unemployment dropped from over 11% to just about 8%, our one reason for being in the middle east was given the executive order to be taken out (it's disappointing that our troops havent been pulled out yet I'll be the first to admit), the first step has been taken to provide at least some form of optional healthcare to all American citizens. He has takled the major economic troubles that were putting Americans in panic mode when he first took office, auto industry and credit company bankruptcies and dangerously high unemployment.

If two major companies making a complete turnaround and unemployment falling from 11% to 8% aren't significant accomplishments within a 4-year presidencial term, we might as well keep yelling at each other about fetuses and their rights to life and guns.

At 9/24/12 01:06 AM, Saen wrote:
While our soil is raided?

US embassies are being attacked. Ambassadors killed. Kind of a big deal.

The only thing he has going for him, is he's an awesome rhetoric machine.

The American auto industry is running and posting great profits, unemployment dropped from over 11% to just about 8%, our one reason for being in the middle east was given the executive order to be taken out (it's disappointing that our troops havent been pulled out yet I'll be the first to admit), the first step has been taken to provide at least some form of optional healthcare to all American citizens. He has takled the major economic troubles that were putting Americans in panic mode when he first took office, auto industry and credit company bankruptcies and dangerously high unemployment.

One sector doing well (by the way, according to many auto CEO's, the bailouts haven't helped much), is not an "economic improvement". That's one sector doing okay, while smaller business eats shit. Unemployment numbers change depending on who they come from so...and Osama's dead, but I think more credit goes to the Marines/Sailors/Army Rangers who found him and took him out. Obama had to give the order, but eh...Obama gave the go ahead, but he didn't do the footwork. If it makes you feel any better I don't credit Reagan with tearing down the Berlin wall, or FDR/Truman for winning WW2. As I said, unemployment is still really high, and the economy is still shit. Helping our your campaign contributors is no a fix of the economy. Remember when Obama came in and said he was going to reverse the Corporatism of the Bush years. Guess not.

If two major companies making a complete turnaround and unemployment falling from 11% to 8% aren't significant accomplishments within a 4-year presidencial term, we might as well keep yelling at each other about fetuses and their rights to life and guns.

The population is unemployed, gas/food prices are rising, dollar is inflating, Ambassadors are being killed with no retribution, the rest of the world still despises us...but hey, at least those two companies are okay

At 9/24/12 02:23 AM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 9/24/12 01:06 AM, Saen wrote:
While our soil is raided?

US embassies are being attacked. Ambassadors killed. Kind of a big deal.

Obama sent two warships and who knows what else. Not to mention the current army and numerous operatives in that area, the various CIA agents that are otherwise busy setting up more coo's. Most people who have died since the initial attacks have been protestors, only the first few were from an embassy.

At 9/24/12 12:46 AM, LemonCrush wrote: Hasn't passed a budget.

Kind of hard to pass a budget when Congress can't agree on a budget to send to Obama.

Sits by and goes on Letterman while our soil is raided, and our people killed.

Really? What do you expect him to do? Send the entire US military to Libya? Libya seems to have handled the issue pretty well on their own (much to their credit).

He hasn't done anything to fix the economy like he said he would.

He did quite a bit, but due to numerous factors you can't see it. One of those factors is that the drop off from 2008 to 2010 was nothing short of an abyss. You propose a plan that could have stopped the freefall and grown the economy to 1990s level in 4 years with little support across the aisle and little actual power to effect change economically.

Foreign policy is still a mess.

US foreign policy right now is doing quite well considering. China is being much friendlier than recent times. Europe is much more cooperative. The Middle East was doing well until the recent blow up, but then again, the Middle East is in the very infancy of modern governance. We haven't started any new wars. American soldiers are not dying nearly as fast as before. What exactly is the mess here?

At 9/24/12 02:23 AM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 9/24/12 01:06 AM, Saen wrote:
While our soil is raided?

US embassies are being attacked. Ambassadors killed. Kind of a big deal.

Well there's a way to completely twist an event towards a biased viewpoint. I interpreted "while our soil is being raided" as a statement implies that U.S. domestic territory is under siege.

One sector doing well (by the way, according to many auto CEO's, the bailouts haven't helped much), is not an "economic improvement". That's one sector doing okay, while smaller business eats shit. Unemployment numbers change depending on who they come from so...and Osama's dead, but I think more credit goes to the Marines/Sailors/Army Rangers who found him and took him out. Obama had to give the order, but eh...Obama gave the go ahead, but he didn't do the footwork. If it makes you feel any better I don't credit Reagan with tearing down the Berlin wall, or FDR/Truman for winning WW2. As I said, unemployment is still really high, and the economy is still shit. Helping our your campaign contributors is no a fix of the economy. Remember when Obama came in and said he was going to reverse the Corporatism of the Bush years. Guess not.

Posted data of profit records is really the only source us as consumers can determine whether or not a company is doing well, not the words of current and former Ceos. Obama gave the order, which was not an easy of a decision as we would think, granted not nearly as tough as the mission carried out by our special forces. 8%+ unemployment is still not great (with more desirable levels being below 5% or 6%), but it is a hell of a drop from over 11%.

The population is unemployed, gas/food prices are rising, dollar is inflating, Ambassadors are being killed with no retribution, the rest of the world still despises us...but hey, at least those two companies are okay

Unemployment have dropped 3% from four years ago, gas and food prices have always risen with inflation through our history, the dollar has always been inflating and is an inevitable process of an economy that has long outgrown the gold standard and based on credit. Do you even remember the crisis the country was in four years ago after Bush left office? We nearly fell into another depression! Afterwards Congress feuding over what budget to approve and limits of the debt ceiling while driving our country further to the edge! To think that we've at least gotten through of all of that mess, with the major consequence being a sharp increase to our national debt while retaining all three of our American car companies and unemployment dropping 3% is pretty damn good if you ask me.

Yes, we're still occupying the middle-east and the economy isn't perfect, but it's a long way from waking up in the morning terrified about your bank has going under and worried about what the hell will happen to your mortgage and investments.

At 9/22/12 07:15 AM, Feoric wrote:

At 9/20/12 01:08 PM, TheMason wrote:

Make a new thread if you still want to drag this on, I'm not going to clog this thread up with this anymore.

I agree. You've made your closing argument, I'll make mine and leave the issue be.

Point 1 How GM paid off its loan.
[...]
So yes...the loan is paid back. However, the taxpayer was paid with money taken from the taxpayer.

This is really easy to understand and I'm not sure exactly what's going awry here. Let me put this in the simplest terms I can. The escrow account was an extension of TARP via the US Treasury and the Canadian government. GM assessed how much money was given to them and figured they had gotten too much. They said "hey, we don't need this" and they gave it back. It boggles my mind how anyone could think this is some fraudulent scheme. The whole 'taxpayers paid with taxpayer money' thing is a red herring. It's completely besides the point.

Thank you for the victory, even if you do not see it. If the escrow account is an extension of TARP and funds that came from the government...and then these funds were used to pay-off a loan to the federal government.

So then what did GM do? Did they pay-off their debt to the government/taxpayer with government/taxpayer hand-outs or did they simply give back money they did not need? If they simply said: "hey we got too much!" and gave back the money in the escrow account...then they would still owe the debt.

It boggles my mind how so many Obama supporters (I'm not necessarily pointing a finger at you) can point to corporate hand-outs under a Republican as bad...but then celebrate the exact same thing under a Democrat.

I never said the stocks will be immune, I said the exact opposite. They do adjust. DOWNWARDS.Inflation, whether in the form of demand-pull or cost-push, compresses a company's P/E ratio. You said "The government can get stock prices to $53/share through inflation" which is beyond my imagination, really. You think the government hopes to get GM's stock to 53 dollars a share through fucking QE3? You're nuts.

If I'm nuts; you can't read.

QE3 essentially increases the money supply by about $40Billion/month by buying bonds back from investors. It's printing money without having to aligning the printer! Furthermore, I'm not talking about demand-pull or cost-push inflation (which are dependent upon the cost and/or money being spent on goods relative to the intrinsic value of those good)...I'm talking about monetary inflation.

In other words: The value/cost of goods changing is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the value/cost of the dollar changing.

QE3 (the third round of Quantitative Easing) will increase the money supply by putting electronic dollars in ppl's accounts (we're not even printing it anymore), at the same time the Fed is keeping interest rates low. As you pointed out...the Fed will raise interest rates to keep inflation down and restrict the money supply. They're not doing this anymore. (And guess what: I'm NOT completely blaming Obama...this is more on Bernacke.) This drives the value of the dollar down which means that now it takes more dollars to buy something.

What you described was a situation where the value of goods is in flux and changing. However, this does not negate, challenge or answer my assertion that when the value of money is in flux and changing.

It's a simple concept really. If the cost (remember...we're talking about how many dollars it takes to buy something...not its intrinsic value) of something like a gallon of milk is $12 because we've increased the supply of dollars and now the dollar is weaker relative to the value of goods...that I can still buy Ford for $10.32/share? Hell, what you're arguing is in monetary inflation where increased money supply has caused price inflation (not the supply, demand or value of goods)...it should go down?

Yes...when inflation increases due to the intrinsic value/cost of goods increasing stock prices will go down. But you're batshit-joker insane to think that when prices go up because it's the value of money that is changing relative to goods the same economic principles apply.

At 9/21/12 07:45 PM, Feoric wrote: Well....

Feoric...

You win. I was nine when Reagan ran in '84 and either never saw that or don't remember it. So this is precedented. Honestly, thanks for showing it and w/o being a gloating ass...so thanks for the class.

At 9/24/12 04:33 PM, TheMason wrote: What you described was a situation where the value of goods is in flux and changing. However, this does not negate, challenge or answer my assertion that when the value of money is in flux and changing.

I was talking specifically about inflation's effects on stock prices, not anything else. Like I said, stock prices are effected differently than comic books and milk. It may go against common sense but yes, stock prices go down when there is high inflation. If you want a more in-depth discussion about QE3 and economics-related topics, make a thread for it, I'll be happy to participate.

At 9/24/12 04:40 PM, TheMason wrote: I was nine when Reagan ran in '84 and either never saw that or don't remember it. So this is precedented. Honestly, thanks for showing it and w/o being a gloating ass...so thanks for the class.

Sure! We all reserve the right to be wrong when it comes to our opinions, and I'd hope you (and others) put me in my place when I say something silly as well.

At 9/24/12 08:51 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 9/24/12 04:33 PM, TheMason wrote: What you described was a situation where the value of goods is in flux and changing. However, this does not negate, challenge or answer my assertion that when the value of money is in flux and changing.

I was talking specifically about inflation's effects on stock prices, not anything else. Like I said, stock prices are effected differently than comic books and milk. It may go against common sense but yes, stock prices go down when there is high inflation. If you want a more in-depth discussion about QE3 and economics-related topics, make a thread for it, I'll be happy to participate.

Dude, not going to make another topic when it's black-and-white. You described only certain types of inflation (value/cost changing on the part of goods)...and what's true in those situations But I'm talking about the value/cost of money changing...and changing quickly. If the value of the dollar is down and the cost of literally everything else is going up because now a dollar is only worth $0.50 when last year it was worth a $1...I'm going to take a huge loss if I'm selling Ford at $10.32/share when my wife is buying milk and comic books at $8.00 each.

What you say is irrelevant and I'm not going to spiral through an entire thread with you not acknowledging or deconstructing my point...you're just throwing up strawmen and burning them down.

At 9/24/12 02:02 PM, Saen wrote:
Well there's a way to completely twist an event towards a biased viewpoint. I interpreted "while our soil is being raided" as a statement implies that U.S. domestic territory is under siege.

Believe it or not, embassies are US soil. Therefore, US soil was attacked, and an ambassador was killed. And Obama did nothing.

Posted data of profit records is really the only source us as consumers can determine whether or not a company is doing well, not the words of current and former Ceos. Obama gave the order, which was not an easy of a decision as we would think, granted not nearly as tough as the mission carried out by our special forces. 8%+ unemployment is still not great (with more desirable levels being below 5% or 6%), but it is a hell of a drop from over 11%.

So CEO's who run the companies aren't qualified to say whether or not the bailouts worked or not? And as I said before, unemployment numbers change with every source, so I don't really find any numbers too reliable...taking them with a grain of salt I suppose. Both sides who report numbers are liars and manipulators of facts, so I see no reason to believe OBama's "facts" or Rush Limbaugh's "facts"

Unemployment have dropped 3% from four years ago, gas and food prices have always risen with inflation through our history, the dollar has always been inflating and is an inevitable process of an economy that has long outgrown the gold standard and based on credit. Do you even remember the crisis the country was in four years ago after Bush left office? We nearly fell into another depression! Afterwards Congress feuding over what budget to approve and limits of the debt ceiling while driving our country further to the edge! To think that we've at least gotten through of all of that mess, with the major consequence being a sharp increase to our national debt while retaining all three of our American car companies and unemployment dropping 3% is pretty damn good if you ask me.

Yes, we're still occupying the middle-east and the economy isn't perfect, but it's a long way from waking up in the morning terrified about your bank has going under and worried about what the hell will happen to your mortgage and investments.

And you credit Obama with the *tiny* amount of recovery. That tiny drop in unemployemnt outweighs the skyrocket of debt and spending?

At 9/24/12 11:53 PM, TheMason wrote: I'm talking about the value/cost of money changing...and changing quickly. If the value of the dollar is down and the cost of literally everything else is going up because now a dollar is only worth $0.50 when last year it was worth a $1...I'm going to take a huge loss if I'm selling Ford at $10.32/share when my wife is buying milk and comic books at $8.00 each.

...okay? I'm not even arguing that. This is what you said that I'm responding to:

At 9/18/12 01:47 PM, TheMason wrote: C) The government can get stock prices to $53/share through inflation

Which makes no sense. There are zero times in history where stock prices rose solely on inflation.

At 9/25/12 12:07 AM, LemonCrush wrote: Believe it or not, embassies are US soil. Therefore, US soil was attacked, and an ambassador was killed. And Obama did nothing.

First of all it was a consulate, and no, that's a myth. The soil an embassy/consulate is on belongs to the host country.

At 9/20/12 11:13 PM, BrianEtrius wrote: Honest question now for conservatives at this point: do you honestly believe in Mitt Romney as a candidate? Please have your answer not include the words "not" "Obama".

Sorry Brian, but it is NOT an honest question when you put that qualifier in there.

1st, let's say we have a scale. -1 is far left and 1 is far right and 0 is the center. Then you put Obama and Mitt Romney on the scale and then each conservative vote (I'll label them x, y & z.

-1 ....................-0.5......................0.............
.........0.5.....................1
O R X Y Z

Now, if the posting doesn't screw it up...you've got Obama at -0.39 and Romney at 0. (Got these positions from The New York Times' 538 Blog.) Now X, Y and Z, our conservative voters, are going to look at Romney. No he's not a conservative. BUT in terms of ideology...he is significantly closer to their position than Obama. May not be who they wanted or the candidate who came closest to their position in the primary, but he is not the candidate who is furthest from their position. That would be Obama. So in this case they are voting for the lesser of two evils...who happens to be Barack Obama...and therefore they are voting (legitimately) for the 'Not Obama' candidate.

But Mason...hold on a minute...aren't there Libertarian and Constitutional party candidates? Good question Brian, and I'm glad you would've brought it up.

True, the Libertarian Constitutional party candidate may be closer to X, Y & Z's position on the aforementioned graph. However, people vote not only based on proximity of the candidate's ideology...but strategically as well. Those candidates, along with Rosanne Barr on the Left, do not stand a chance of winning. So why cast a vote that will get you the worst (from X, Y & Z's position) case scenario?

====

Secondly, ANY election is about voting for either the incumbent person or party. It doesn't matter if it's Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter....Jefferson, Adams, or Washington. So yeah...every vote is technically because Candidate X is not Candidate Y.

====

Thirdly, while I am a Republican...I'm not really considered a conservative because of my opinions on social issues. Furthermore, Bush was a cold bucket of water poured on me. Bush expanded government spending and reduced tax rates. Obama expanded government spending, kept income tax rates where they are and lowered Social Security tax rates.

And I had such hope for the man. See in 2008 I looked at my absentee ballot for weeks as I tried to decide who to vote for. But it took a CNN special on the candidates that highlighted Obama's lack of experience and naivete that made me go with my gut and vote for McCain.

I wish I could say I was wrong.

Obama is the president who came to office with the thinnest resume of any of his predecessors (including W.). He was a state legislator in a state where state politics is firmly controlled by his part...and he did not have a record of leadership or taking bold stands. Then he was a Senator for two years.

So he comes to Washington and becomes president. He didn't know (and still doesn't) what he's doing. Sure Republicans oppossed him. BUT HE CAME TO OFFICE WITH THE MOST FRIENDLY CONGRESS OF JUST ABOUT ANY PRESIDENT!! I mean the Republicans, especially in the House, were completely powerless to stop the Democratic agenda.

What has ground Washington into gridlock is that he did not provide any leadership to his party. He left the major legislation to Reid and Pelosi...with no admin support from 1600. See most presidents will write a law they want passed...especially ones like ACA and his stimulus which would be his historic and signature policies that he would then execute...and a friendly Representative and Senator would introduce the bill into their respective house. This kind of helps keep his party unified.

Obama did not do this...and his own party fell apart under his leadership. (The president is the de facto head of his party...albeit unofficially.) So we have a guy who cannot lead his own party. (Which if I'm ever lost in a wet paper sack with Obama...I'm not giving him the compass or the map!)

Then in 2010 he loses the House to Republicans...badly.

Now I know there are going to be cries of outrage: THE REPUBLICANS ARE OBSTRUCTIONISTS!

I draw your attention to 1994. Clinton lost both houses, and then fought Republicans. Both sides realized this was stupid.

Unfortunately...no one up in DC remembers 1994. Reid is fighting a highly partisan fight...with amateur hour at the Oval Office backing him up. Maybe it's a combination of hard nosed Republicans vs and incompetent president? One of these has to go...and it's highly unlikely to be the House turns blue.

Then there is his foreign policy. He dithered in Afghanistan and people needlessly died. The much vaunted Arab Spring skipped summer and fall and went right into winter.

He ordered the SeALs to kill some pirates and UBL (yay!). But let's face it...after 9/11 that's a call any president would make.

And then there's Iraq...he pulled us out of Iraq!

No he didn't. He just didn't screw with the timetable Bush set-up.

In the end, I voted for Romney (sent in my ballot today...but don't worry I live in Missouri so my vote doesn't really matter.) Why? Because he's not Obama. Not because I think he's going to wave a magic wand or use Republican Pixie Dust (trying not to make a Log Cabin Republican joke) and suddenly the economy is going to great and everyone is going to get a unicorn that farts rainbows. It's because I think he's infinitely more competent than a guy who lied about his mother's insurance woes to pass ACA.

Figured out how I should've done this.

-1 ....................-0.5...(O)...................0 (R)...........(X)...........0.5 (Y)....................(Z).1