Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Clooney hosts "Hollywood Hypocrites for Obama"
15 views
Skip to first unread message
George Plimpton
May 10, 2012, 8:30:38 PM5/10/12
to
Liberal columnist Steve Lopez at the liberal L.A. Times blasts Clooney,
Hollywood Hypocrites:
They say tonight's soiree for President Obama at George Clooney's
house in Studio City is supposed to gross $15 million, and the
operative word is "gross."
Yeah, pardon me for being such a party pooper, but isn't it a
little offensive that 150 of L.A.'s high rollers would shell out
$40,000 to kiss Clooney's ring and get maybe 10 seconds of face
time with Obama?
And what about the thousands of saps who pumped an average of $23
into Obama's campaign coffers for the chance to be one of the two
peons chosen to break bread with the VIPs?
I'd rather watch the Lakers game from a bar stool, which in fact
is what I may do.
I haven't seen Clooney's guest list, but I'd bet $2 -– and not a
penny more –- that his house will be full of that particularly
unctuous strain of liberals who live for events like this that
make them feel good about themselves but don't really give a toss
for their own community. Los Angeles could end up declaring
bankruptcy and these posers will be telling friends about their
big night at George's house.
Fifteen million dollars -– a third of it raised by the local big
shots -– is peanuts to Obama, really. Another drop in a bucket the
size of Santa Monica Bay. And isn't money the root of all evil in
politics, whether it's from out-of-control "super PACs" or wanna-
be-seen moguls who might be expecting something in return for
ponying up?
Los Angeles is shutting school libraries, laying off teachers and
shutting down fire houses. And VIPs are paying $40,000 for a
Wolfgang Puck hors d'oeuvre and a silly photo with a president who
only now has come to think it might be OK for gay people to have
the same rights as straight people.
Open your eyes, Hollywood hypocrites!
If there's any justice, the traffic jam on Ventura Boulevard will
be so horrific that you'll miss the party and end up crying over a
Du-par's short stack.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/05/steve-lopez-george-clooney-obama-fundraiser.html
"unctuous strain of liberals who live for events like this" - very well put.
Hollywood Hypocrites:
They say tonight's soiree for President Obama at George Clooney's
house in Studio City is supposed to gross $15 million, and the
operative word is "gross."
Yeah, pardon me for being such a party pooper, but isn't it a
little offensive that 150 of L.A.'s high rollers would shell out
$40,000 to kiss Clooney's ring and get maybe 10 seconds of face
time with Obama?
And what about the thousands of saps who pumped an average of $23
into Obama's campaign coffers for the chance to be one of the two
peons chosen to break bread with the VIPs?
I'd rather watch the Lakers game from a bar stool, which in fact
is what I may do.
I haven't seen Clooney's guest list, but I'd bet $2 -– and not a
penny more –- that his house will be full of that particularly
unctuous strain of liberals who live for events like this that
make them feel good about themselves but don't really give a toss
for their own community. Los Angeles could end up declaring
bankruptcy and these posers will be telling friends about their
big night at George's house.
Fifteen million dollars -– a third of it raised by the local big
shots -– is peanuts to Obama, really. Another drop in a bucket the
size of Santa Monica Bay. And isn't money the root of all evil in
politics, whether it's from out-of-control "super PACs" or wanna-
be-seen moguls who might be expecting something in return for
ponying up?
Los Angeles is shutting school libraries, laying off teachers and
shutting down fire houses. And VIPs are paying $40,000 for a
Wolfgang Puck hors d'oeuvre and a silly photo with a president who
only now has come to think it might be OK for gay people to have
the same rights as straight people.
Open your eyes, Hollywood hypocrites!
If there's any justice, the traffic jam on Ventura Boulevard will
be so horrific that you'll miss the party and end up crying over a
Du-par's short stack.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/05/steve-lopez-george-clooney-obama-fundraiser.html
"unctuous strain of liberals who live for events like this" - very well put.
STEADY EDDY
May 10, 2012, 9:03:12 PM5/10/12
to
>
> "unctuous strain of liberals who live for events like this" - very well put.
George Clooney has raised a ton of money for charity. He is generous
> "unctuous strain of liberals who live for events like this" - very well put.
with his time and is a decent guy who worked hard for his place in the
world. I happen to think he is a decent guy. I have Hollywood
connections because my in-laws work in the movie business. George
Clooney is a decent human being by all accounts. I am reminded of a
story about Jackie Gleason. He gave 10,000 dollars a month to buy
medicine for a leper colony. Nobody knew who gave the money until it
leaked out. Gleason did this for years without any fanfare. Stars like
Jackie knew that they were blessed and they gave back without a lot
of publicity. Jerry Lewis is another example of a man who dedicated
his life to helping others.
de...@dudu.org
May 11, 2012, 11:14:58 AM5/11/12
to
On Thu, 10 May 2012 17:30:38 -0700, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not>
wrote:
>Liberal columnist Steve Lopez at the liberal L.A. Times blasts Clooney,
>Hollywood Hypocrites:
>
> They say tonight's soiree for President Obama at George Clooney's
> house in Studio City is supposed to gross $15 million, and the
> operative word is "gross."
As compared to all those secret SuperPACs supported by huge wealthy
corporations? At least the actors aren't afraid to show their faces.
Unlike the sick and evil right wing.
wrote:
>Liberal columnist Steve Lopez at the liberal L.A. Times blasts Clooney,
>Hollywood Hypocrites:
>
> They say tonight's soiree for President Obama at George Clooney's
> house in Studio City is supposed to gross $15 million, and the
> operative word is "gross."
corporations? At least the actors aren't afraid to show their faces.
Unlike the sick and evil right wing.
Too_Many_Tools
May 11, 2012, 2:54:02 PM5/11/12
to
>
> "unctuous strain of liberals who live for events like this" - very well put.
LOL...all that money...that will help Obama be reelected to a second
> "unctuous strain of liberals who live for events like this" - very well put.
term.
Oh yes...all that money.
Laugh..laugh..laugh...
Maybe you should go whine about the money Romney made laying off
thousands of Americans.
Can't blame him when his wife wears thousand dollar blouses while
little children go hungry.
TMT
TMT
JohnJohnsn
May 12, 2012, 12:13:12 AM5/12/12
to
On May 11, 1:54 pm, The_Fool_With_Too_Many_Tools
Obama’s money woes
By Amy Walter, David Chalian, Rick Klein, Richard Coolidge & Sherisse
Pham
Yahoo! News Power Players
President Obama has money troubles. The president's re-election
campaign was rumored to be a $1 billion juggernaut, it was supposed to
dominate the 2012 election. But it has fallen short of that lofty
number, by a lot.
The inability to reach the big B is a warning signal to the base. In
2008 Democrats had every reason in the world to donate, and they need
to be convinced of the same this time around.
Of course part of the problem stems from Super PACs, groups that can
raise and spend unlimited amounts of money on candidates, as long as
they do not co-ordinate with those candidates. The disparity between
the Super PAC backing Obama -- Priorities USA -- and the conservative
one affiliated with Karl Rove -- American Crossroads -- is stark:
American Crossroads has ten times as much money in the bank as
Priorities USA.
Once the general election begins, the Karl Rove group can start
dumping a lot of cash on Obama's head, which will lead to a wake-up
call for Democrats to start writing checks. Will the top fundraiser
also be the Electoral College winner? This will be a hard-fought
campaign where money is going to have to play.
-30-
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-players-abc-news/obama-money-woes-101447749.html
Subject: Re: Obama soooooooooooo loved
Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 14:18:04 -0500
Message-ID: <qepqq75huqretldmk...@4ax.com>
From: Lookout <mrlooko...@yahoo.com>
On Thu, 10 May 2012 22:22:08 -0700, "Oglethorpe" <antike...@go.com>
wrote:
> Obama's so beloved that a convict in a federal prison got 40% of the
> vote in the W. Virginia Democrat primary. Guess that's what happens
> when you wipe out thousands of coal jobs.
>
And I can't wait until he wipes out the rest of them.
[/Quote]
One of your fellow Looney Liberals gleefully wanting the Obuma
administration to wipe out even _more_ "thousands of coal jobs."
>
> Can't blame him when his wife wears thousand dollar blouses...
>
Which matters only to the Liberals and their media.
Meanwhile, Michell Obama's $1000 purse goes ignored by this same
media:
Pundits atwitter over Ann Romney's $990 blouse
By Dan Zak
Fri, May. 04, 2012 12:00 PM
The Washington Post
Ann Romney wore a $990 blouse on a morning TV show and the media want
to make sure you know about it, because — oh no, she didn’t!
Does the blouse prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Romneys are
out of touch with the people?
Or does the blouse merely prove that Ann Romney is, like many other
wives in politics, a presentable upper-class woman who purchased it
because she liked it and could afford it, and that we should focus
instead on matters that truly affect the United States of America?
The blouse on trial is a short-sleeved swath of colorful silk. It is
called “The Reed Audubon Silk Shirt.” A yellow-hued falcon (a
gyrfalcon, to be exact) swoops across the front; its prey appears to
be Ann Romney’s right tricep. It was designed by Reed Krakoff, the man
who turned Coach into a $4-billion purse enterprise and whose “most
abiding aesthetic interest is the use of design to convey privilege,”
according to a 5,500-word profile of him in the New Yorker last year.
Krakoff “100 percent didn’t send” the item to Ann Romney, a
representative for the designer told ABC News. “We don’t get involved
politically.”
Which means Ann Romney or a Romney associate bought it off the rack at
either Krakoff’s Madison Avenue boutique or another high-end retailer
that sells the top alongside other $1,000 tops, because that’s how
much some people spend on tops. Which is not, at this point in
American history, a crime.
But in American politics, a $1,000 blouse is at least a misdemeanor.
It is also grist for the 24-hour news cycle. The Cut, a blog for New
York magazine, first noticed the Krakoff within hours of the Romneys’
appearance on “CBS This Morning.” On Wednesday, MSNBC’s Lawrence
O’Donnell devoted several minutes of airtime to the blouse, which he
called “a really ugly T-shirt” that is “yet another example of how out
of touch the Romney family can be with how 99 percent of Americans
live.”
Ann Romney has been cast in the political narrative as the down-to-
earth spouse. Her struggles with multiple sclerosis, identity as a
stay-at-home mom and ease on the campaign stage have made her an asset
to her husband. But the pricey blouse is catnip for critics, who’ve
framed her husband as a rich guy whose beach-house renovation includes
an elevator for his cars.
“To some extent, the blouse is relevant because it’s one more example
of how wealthy she is,” says Jennifer Lawless, director of the Women &
Politics Institute at American University. “Class always matters a
lot, but it matters especially when one candidate is seen as out of
touch in economically vulnerable times.”
It was Michelle Obama who nudged Krakoff into the spotlight last
spring, when she wore his items on multiple occasions. In March 2011,
she carried a teal leather tote by the designer to a parent-teacher
conference, according to the Daily Mail.
The cost of the tote?
Ten dollars more than Ann Romney’s bird blouse.
Political wives have been criticized for their clothing since the days
of Mary Todd Lincoln, whose gowns were labeled extravagant during
wartime. Nearly 150 years later, the Republican National Committee
spent $75,000 at Neiman Marcus for Sarah Palin’s 2008 campaign
wardrobe, and Michelle Obama wore Lanvin cap-toe sneakers ($540-$565)
to volunteer at the Capital Area Food Bank in 2009.
“If you look at what Michelle wears . . . a lot of her things cost
that much, if not more” than Romney’s top, says Nancy Pearlstein,
owner of the high-end Georgetown boutique Relish. “If you’re going to
start picking on people, you’ve got to go all the way around. The fact
that the top is ugly, well — maybe there’s something to say about
that.”
The bird blouse recalls in both name and design the ornithologist-
naturalist John James Audubon, whose legacy evokes the American
wilderness. The gyrfalcon (Falco rusticolus) is the world’s largest
falcon and may grow up to two feet in length. It preys on hares and
rodents in polar regions. It is also the official mascot of the U.S.
Air Force Academy.
Memo to the Romney campaign: Ann Romney’s blouse stands with our proud
service members in the Air Force!
Memo to Barack Obama’s re-election committee: Ann Romney’s blouse
supports foreign birds that snack on tundra rats!
Perhaps the would-be first lady’s only offense was wearing such a
recognizable item of clothing on national television, especially when
the current first lady tries to balance her image by shopping at
Target. It’s a charade, though. Presidents, wannabe presidents and
their spouses are not — and will never be — average citizens with
average wardrobes.
Call it news, even though it’s not.
It doesn’t matter. Politicians pretend to be average. Blouses are
bought and worn. Pundits stoke their own ire. The 24-hour cycle
churns. The gyrfalcon cannot hear the falconer.
http://www.kansascity.com/2012/05/04/3593436/pundits-atwitter-over-990-blouse.html
>
> ...while little children go hungry.
>
So, Fool; what are _YOU_ doing to feed them?
Quit buying "Too_Many_Tools" and give that money to your local food
bank, you cheapskate numbnuts!
"I'm so happy because today I found my friend - it's `Lookout Andy'
Hull."
— Tool Fool
By Amy Walter, David Chalian, Rick Klein, Richard Coolidge & Sherisse
Pham
Yahoo! News Power Players
President Obama has money troubles. The president's re-election
campaign was rumored to be a $1 billion juggernaut, it was supposed to
dominate the 2012 election. But it has fallen short of that lofty
number, by a lot.
The inability to reach the big B is a warning signal to the base. In
2008 Democrats had every reason in the world to donate, and they need
to be convinced of the same this time around.
Of course part of the problem stems from Super PACs, groups that can
raise and spend unlimited amounts of money on candidates, as long as
they do not co-ordinate with those candidates. The disparity between
the Super PAC backing Obama -- Priorities USA -- and the conservative
one affiliated with Karl Rove -- American Crossroads -- is stark:
American Crossroads has ten times as much money in the bank as
Priorities USA.
Once the general election begins, the Karl Rove group can start
dumping a lot of cash on Obama's head, which will lead to a wake-up
call for Democrats to start writing checks. Will the top fundraiser
also be the Electoral College winner? This will be a hard-fought
campaign where money is going to have to play.
-30-
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-players-abc-news/obama-money-woes-101447749.html
>
> Maybe you should go whine about the money Romney made laying
> off thousands of Americans.
>
[Quote]
> Maybe you should go whine about the money Romney made laying
> off thousands of Americans.
>
Subject: Re: Obama soooooooooooo loved
Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 14:18:04 -0500
Message-ID: <qepqq75huqretldmk...@4ax.com>
From: Lookout <mrlooko...@yahoo.com>
On Thu, 10 May 2012 22:22:08 -0700, "Oglethorpe" <antike...@go.com>
wrote:
> Obama's so beloved that a convict in a federal prison got 40% of the
> vote in the W. Virginia Democrat primary. Guess that's what happens
> when you wipe out thousands of coal jobs.
>
And I can't wait until he wipes out the rest of them.
[/Quote]
One of your fellow Looney Liberals gleefully wanting the Obuma
administration to wipe out even _more_ "thousands of coal jobs."
>
> Can't blame him when his wife wears thousand dollar blouses...
>
Which matters only to the Liberals and their media.
Meanwhile, Michell Obama's $1000 purse goes ignored by this same
media:
Pundits atwitter over Ann Romney's $990 blouse
By Dan Zak
Fri, May. 04, 2012 12:00 PM
The Washington Post
Ann Romney wore a $990 blouse on a morning TV show and the media want
to make sure you know about it, because — oh no, she didn’t!
Does the blouse prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Romneys are
out of touch with the people?
Or does the blouse merely prove that Ann Romney is, like many other
wives in politics, a presentable upper-class woman who purchased it
because she liked it and could afford it, and that we should focus
instead on matters that truly affect the United States of America?
The blouse on trial is a short-sleeved swath of colorful silk. It is
called “The Reed Audubon Silk Shirt.” A yellow-hued falcon (a
gyrfalcon, to be exact) swoops across the front; its prey appears to
be Ann Romney’s right tricep. It was designed by Reed Krakoff, the man
who turned Coach into a $4-billion purse enterprise and whose “most
abiding aesthetic interest is the use of design to convey privilege,”
according to a 5,500-word profile of him in the New Yorker last year.
Krakoff “100 percent didn’t send” the item to Ann Romney, a
representative for the designer told ABC News. “We don’t get involved
politically.”
Which means Ann Romney or a Romney associate bought it off the rack at
either Krakoff’s Madison Avenue boutique or another high-end retailer
that sells the top alongside other $1,000 tops, because that’s how
much some people spend on tops. Which is not, at this point in
American history, a crime.
But in American politics, a $1,000 blouse is at least a misdemeanor.
It is also grist for the 24-hour news cycle. The Cut, a blog for New
York magazine, first noticed the Krakoff within hours of the Romneys’
appearance on “CBS This Morning.” On Wednesday, MSNBC’s Lawrence
O’Donnell devoted several minutes of airtime to the blouse, which he
called “a really ugly T-shirt” that is “yet another example of how out
of touch the Romney family can be with how 99 percent of Americans
live.”
Ann Romney has been cast in the political narrative as the down-to-
earth spouse. Her struggles with multiple sclerosis, identity as a
stay-at-home mom and ease on the campaign stage have made her an asset
to her husband. But the pricey blouse is catnip for critics, who’ve
framed her husband as a rich guy whose beach-house renovation includes
an elevator for his cars.
“To some extent, the blouse is relevant because it’s one more example
of how wealthy she is,” says Jennifer Lawless, director of the Women &
Politics Institute at American University. “Class always matters a
lot, but it matters especially when one candidate is seen as out of
touch in economically vulnerable times.”
It was Michelle Obama who nudged Krakoff into the spotlight last
spring, when she wore his items on multiple occasions. In March 2011,
she carried a teal leather tote by the designer to a parent-teacher
conference, according to the Daily Mail.
The cost of the tote?
Ten dollars more than Ann Romney’s bird blouse.
Political wives have been criticized for their clothing since the days
of Mary Todd Lincoln, whose gowns were labeled extravagant during
wartime. Nearly 150 years later, the Republican National Committee
spent $75,000 at Neiman Marcus for Sarah Palin’s 2008 campaign
wardrobe, and Michelle Obama wore Lanvin cap-toe sneakers ($540-$565)
to volunteer at the Capital Area Food Bank in 2009.
“If you look at what Michelle wears . . . a lot of her things cost
that much, if not more” than Romney’s top, says Nancy Pearlstein,
owner of the high-end Georgetown boutique Relish. “If you’re going to
start picking on people, you’ve got to go all the way around. The fact
that the top is ugly, well — maybe there’s something to say about
that.”
The bird blouse recalls in both name and design the ornithologist-
naturalist John James Audubon, whose legacy evokes the American
wilderness. The gyrfalcon (Falco rusticolus) is the world’s largest
falcon and may grow up to two feet in length. It preys on hares and
rodents in polar regions. It is also the official mascot of the U.S.
Air Force Academy.
Memo to the Romney campaign: Ann Romney’s blouse stands with our proud
service members in the Air Force!
Memo to Barack Obama’s re-election committee: Ann Romney’s blouse
supports foreign birds that snack on tundra rats!
Perhaps the would-be first lady’s only offense was wearing such a
recognizable item of clothing on national television, especially when
the current first lady tries to balance her image by shopping at
Target. It’s a charade, though. Presidents, wannabe presidents and
their spouses are not — and will never be — average citizens with
average wardrobes.
Call it news, even though it’s not.
It doesn’t matter. Politicians pretend to be average. Blouses are
bought and worn. Pundits stoke their own ire. The 24-hour cycle
churns. The gyrfalcon cannot hear the falconer.
http://www.kansascity.com/2012/05/04/3593436/pundits-atwitter-over-990-blouse.html
>
> ...while little children go hungry.
>
So, Fool; what are _YOU_ doing to feed them?
Quit buying "Too_Many_Tools" and give that money to your local food
bank, you cheapskate numbnuts!
"I'm so happy because today I found my friend - it's `Lookout Andy'
Hull."
— Tool Fool
Too_Many_Tools
May 12, 2012, 1:47:08 AM5/12/12
to
>
> > Maybe you should go whine about the money Romney made laying
> > off thousands of Americans.
>
> [Quote]
>
> Subject: Re: Obama soooooooooooo loved
> Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 14:18:04 -0500
> Message-ID: <qepqq75huqretldmkqn9utt040avq1k...@4ax.com>
> > Maybe you should go whine about the money Romney made laying
> > off thousands of Americans.
>
> [Quote]
>
> Subject: Re: Obama soooooooooooo loved
> Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 14:18:04 -0500
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
LOL...all that money...that will help Obama be reelected to a second
term.
Oh yes...all that money.
Oh yes...all that money.
Laugh..laugh..laugh...
Maybe you should go whine about the money Romney made laying off
thousands of Americans.
thousands of Americans.
Can't blame him when his wife wears thousand dollar blouses while
little children go hungry.
Yeah....all that Obama money.
little children go hungry.
TMT
JohnJohnsn
May 12, 2012, 4:28:38 AM5/12/12
to
On May 12, 12:47 am, The_Fool_With_Too_Many_Tools
We all nooticed to failed to address your asshole buddy Lookout
wanting to lay off THOUSANDS MORE.
Hypocrite Liberal.
Memo to The_Fool_With_Too_Many_Tools: RTFT!
he's totally incapable of:
moving and setting up a lathe;
finding a portable HDTV; and,
dealing with that pesky "Hide quoted text-Show quoted text" thingy
when replying to Usenet postings.
quoted text-Show quoted text" thingy, and your habit of ignoring the
message of the reply and posting the very same Looney Liberal Crap™
would lead a person to believe that "TMT" and "*US*" are one and the
same Looney Liberals.
Tell us again how it's OK for Michelle Obama to buy and display her
$1,000 purses, but it's BAD for Ann Romney to buy and wear a special
blouse.
"Can you say `Liberal Hypocrites?" I knew you could." (Is that a
redundency in terms?)
Oh, BTW, Fool:
Rasmussen Poll: Momentous Breakthrough for Romney
By Martin Gould
Friday, 11 May 2012 11:27 AM
Mitt Romney surged to his largest opinion poll lead yet in the
presidential race on Friday, two days after President Barack Obama
came out in favor of gay marriage.
The GOP challenger reached 50 percent support for the first time in
the Rasmussen Reports daily tracking poll. That put him ahead of Obama
among likely voters by seven percentage points.
The poll, released on Friday, showed a three-point swing to Romney
from the previous day, when Romney had a four-point edge over the
president in a head-to-head contest.
Rasmussen’s daily poll is an aggregate of questions asked over three
days.
Friday’s covered respondents’ answers on Tuesday, Wednesday and
Thursday. As Obama’s same-sex statement was only released on Wednesday
afternoon, the results suggest Romney’s lead could grow even larger in
the next couple of days.
Rasmussen attributed the growing shift towards Romney to more than
just the gay marriage issue. “It comes a week after a disappointing
jobs report that raised new questions about the state of the economy,”
the company said as it released the results.
Romney has been leading in both Rasmussen’s daily poll and another
tracking poll run by Gallup for around a week, Gallup’s was standing
at three points, 47 percent to 44 percent on Thursday. However other
polls, not done on a daily basis, have mainly given the edge to Obama.
The Rasmussen poll moved the RealClearPolitics average of all polls
conducted over the past two weeks to a single percentage point lead
for Obama, proving how close the race has become.
Obama announced his support for gay marriage in an interview with
ABC’s Robin Roberts. It came after both vice president Joe Biden and
education secretary Arne Duncan announced they too were in favor
earlier in the week.
-30-
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Romney-Rasmussen-poll-half/2012/05/11/id/438776
2012 Presidential Election Polling Data
Poll Date Obama
Romney
Rasmussen Tracking 5/8 - 5/10 43% 50%
Gallup Tracking 5/4 - 5/10 45% 46%
Politico/GWU/Battleground 4/29 - 5/3 47% 48%
Democracy Corps (D) 4/28 - 5/1 47% 47%
President Obama Job Approval
Poll Date Approve
Disapprove
Rasmussen Reports 5/8 - 5/10 44% 55%
Gallup 5/8 - 5/10 49%
45%
Politico/GWU/Battleground 4/29 - 5/3 48% 48%
Democracy Corps (D) 4/28 - 5/1 45% 50%
Your guy ain't looking all that good, Fool; neither are your
congressional Dems:
Generic Congressional Vote
Poll Date
Republicans Democrats
Rasmussen Reports 4/30 - 5/6 44% 41%
Politico/GWU/Battleground 4/29 - 5/3 45% 43%
"If you voted for Obama in 2008 to prove you're not a racist you'll
have to vote for someone else in 2012 to prove you're not stupid!"
Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) - a system of government where the
least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing,
and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or
succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the
confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.
See: Obama Administration, 2009-2013
"Sunday, January 20th, 2013 - The End of an Error"
wanting to lay off THOUSANDS MORE.
Hypocrite Liberal.
>
>> Perhaps the would-be first lady’s only offense was wearing such
>> a recognizable item of clothing on national television, especially
>> when the current first lady tries to balance her image by shopping
>> at Target. It’s a charade, though. Presidents, wannabe presidents
>> and their spouses are not — and will never be — average citizens
>> with average wardrobes. Call it news, even though it’s not.
>
>> It doesn’t matter. Politicians pretend to be ...
>
Your reply shows that you didn't read the entire thread, Fool.
>> Perhaps the would-be first lady’s only offense was wearing such
>> a recognizable item of clothing on national television, especially
>> when the current first lady tries to balance her image by shopping
>> at Target. It’s a charade, though. Presidents, wannabe presidents
>> and their spouses are not — and will never be — average citizens
>> with average wardrobes. Call it news, even though it’s not.
>
>> It doesn’t matter. Politicians pretend to be ...
>
>
>> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
Here the Fool With Too Many Tools, El Stupido of the DNC proves that
>> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
he's totally incapable of:
moving and setting up a lathe;
finding a portable HDTV; and,
dealing with that pesky "Hide quoted text-Show quoted text" thingy
when replying to Usenet postings.
>
> LOL...all that money...that will help Obama be reelected to a second
> term.
>
> Oh yes...all that money.
>
> All that money...more than any Republican has.
>
> Oh yes...all that money.
>
> Laugh..laugh..laugh...
>
> Maybe you should go whine about the money Romney made laying off
> thousands of Americans.
>
> Can't blame him when his wife wears thousand dollar blouses while
> little children go hungry.
>
> Yeah....all that Obama money.
>
> TMT
>
The way you still cannot learn how to deal with that pesky "Hide
> LOL...all that money...that will help Obama be reelected to a second
> term.
>
> Oh yes...all that money.
>
> All that money...more than any Republican has.
>
> Oh yes...all that money.
>
> Laugh..laugh..laugh...
>
> Maybe you should go whine about the money Romney made laying off
> thousands of Americans.
>
> Can't blame him when his wife wears thousand dollar blouses while
> little children go hungry.
>
> Yeah....all that Obama money.
>
> TMT
>
quoted text-Show quoted text" thingy, and your habit of ignoring the
message of the reply and posting the very same Looney Liberal Crap™
would lead a person to believe that "TMT" and "*US*" are one and the
same Looney Liberals.
Tell us again how it's OK for Michelle Obama to buy and display her
$1,000 purses, but it's BAD for Ann Romney to buy and wear a special
blouse.
"Can you say `Liberal Hypocrites?" I knew you could." (Is that a
redundency in terms?)
Oh, BTW, Fool:
Rasmussen Poll: Momentous Breakthrough for Romney
By Martin Gould
Friday, 11 May 2012 11:27 AM
Mitt Romney surged to his largest opinion poll lead yet in the
presidential race on Friday, two days after President Barack Obama
came out in favor of gay marriage.
The GOP challenger reached 50 percent support for the first time in
the Rasmussen Reports daily tracking poll. That put him ahead of Obama
among likely voters by seven percentage points.
The poll, released on Friday, showed a three-point swing to Romney
from the previous day, when Romney had a four-point edge over the
president in a head-to-head contest.
Rasmussen’s daily poll is an aggregate of questions asked over three
days.
Friday’s covered respondents’ answers on Tuesday, Wednesday and
Thursday. As Obama’s same-sex statement was only released on Wednesday
afternoon, the results suggest Romney’s lead could grow even larger in
the next couple of days.
Rasmussen attributed the growing shift towards Romney to more than
just the gay marriage issue. “It comes a week after a disappointing
jobs report that raised new questions about the state of the economy,”
the company said as it released the results.
Romney has been leading in both Rasmussen’s daily poll and another
tracking poll run by Gallup for around a week, Gallup’s was standing
at three points, 47 percent to 44 percent on Thursday. However other
polls, not done on a daily basis, have mainly given the edge to Obama.
The Rasmussen poll moved the RealClearPolitics average of all polls
conducted over the past two weeks to a single percentage point lead
for Obama, proving how close the race has become.
Obama announced his support for gay marriage in an interview with
ABC’s Robin Roberts. It came after both vice president Joe Biden and
education secretary Arne Duncan announced they too were in favor
earlier in the week.
-30-
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Romney-Rasmussen-poll-half/2012/05/11/id/438776
2012 Presidential Election Polling Data
Poll Date Obama
Romney
Rasmussen Tracking 5/8 - 5/10 43% 50%
Gallup Tracking 5/4 - 5/10 45% 46%
Politico/GWU/Battleground 4/29 - 5/3 47% 48%
Democracy Corps (D) 4/28 - 5/1 47% 47%
President Obama Job Approval
Poll Date Approve
Disapprove
Rasmussen Reports 5/8 - 5/10 44% 55%
Gallup 5/8 - 5/10 49%
45%
Politico/GWU/Battleground 4/29 - 5/3 48% 48%
Democracy Corps (D) 4/28 - 5/1 45% 50%
Your guy ain't looking all that good, Fool; neither are your
congressional Dems:
Generic Congressional Vote
Poll Date
Republicans Democrats
Rasmussen Reports 4/30 - 5/6 44% 41%
Politico/GWU/Battleground 4/29 - 5/3 45% 43%
"If you voted for Obama in 2008 to prove you're not a racist you'll
have to vote for someone else in 2012 to prove you're not stupid!"
Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) - a system of government where the
least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing,
and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or
succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the
confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.
See: Obama Administration, 2009-2013
"Sunday, January 20th, 2013 - The End of an Error"
Hawke
May 12, 2012, 12:55:38 PM5/12/12
to
billions in donations from a handful of billionaires, to be criticizing
the Hollywood elite for donating to a Democratic president. Compared to
the really tiny group of billionaires and corporations that are footing
the bill to try to elect Romney the large number of Hollywood types
contributing to Obama seems like a grassroots effort.
Hawke
Jeff M
May 12, 2012, 12:59:02 PM5/12/12
to
Frank
May 12, 2012, 1:05:18 PM5/12/12
to
of attendees and Obama made less than half of what he said.
Contributions during period must have come from other sources.
Jeff M
May 12, 2012, 1:24:52 PM5/12/12
to
On 5/12/2012 12:05 PM, Frank wrote:
[snip]
> Heard Karl Rove on FOX run calculation on cost per attendee and number
> of attendees and Obama made less than half of what he said.
What a silly and wasted effort. Did he imagine he had a valid point to
make?
> Contributions during period must have come from other sources.
Or, more likely, from the same sources giving more than the minimum.
[snip]
> Heard Karl Rove on FOX run calculation on cost per attendee and number
> of attendees and Obama made less than half of what he said.
make?
> Contributions during period must have come from other sources.
Too_Many_Tools
May 12, 2012, 2:07:33 PM5/12/12
to
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
All that Hollywood money.....flowing into the Obama reelection
> - Show quoted text -
account.
All that Hollywood money....money that will be used to reelect Obama
to a second term.
All that Hollywood money.....liberal money that will not only counter
but overturn all those conservative laws on the books.
Ahhhhhhhhh...all that Hollywood money.
Laugh..laugh..laugh...
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
May 12, 2012, 2:10:57 PM5/12/12
to
On May 12, 11:55 am, Hawke <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
It is hypocritical.
And like a seed, the public will respond and contribute to Obama just
like their Hollywood friends.
Think of it as a multipler, one dollar of Hollywood money actually
brings in many times more from the public.
And all for the Obama reelection campaign.
I wonder when the Republicans will wheel out Bush and Cheny...and get
nothing from the public.
Laugh..laugh..laugh..
TMT
And like a seed, the public will respond and contribute to Obama just
like their Hollywood friends.
Think of it as a multipler, one dollar of Hollywood money actually
brings in many times more from the public.
And all for the Obama reelection campaign.
I wonder when the Republicans will wheel out Bush and Cheny...and get
nothing from the public.
Laugh..laugh..laugh..
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
May 12, 2012, 2:13:53 PM5/12/12
to
an all time high.
Bad news for conservatives.
TMT
Lookout
May 12, 2012, 2:25:05 PM5/12/12
to
On Sat, 12 May 2012 12:24:52 -0500, Jeff M <NoS...@NoThanks.org>
wrote:
Or the auction that was well publicized.
wrote:
Too_Many_Tools
May 12, 2012, 2:12:29 PM5/12/12
to
>
> > "unctuous strain of liberals who live for events like this" - very well
> > put.
>
> Heard Karl Rove on FOX run calculation on cost per attendee and number
> of attendees and Obama made less than half of what he said.
> Contributions during period must have come from other sources.- Hide quoted text -
> > "unctuous strain of liberals who live for events like this" - very well
> > put.
>
> Heard Karl Rove on FOX run calculation on cost per attendee and number
> of attendees and Obama made less than half of what he said.
>
> - Show quoted text -
LOL..yeah Rove...the Fountain of Truth.
> - Show quoted text -
How's that Rove created McCain/Palin ticket working for you wingers?
Laugh..laugh..laugh...
TMT
de...@dudu.org
May 12, 2012, 3:25:25 PM5/12/12
to
and support political candidates. Of course it's ok for them to do
it, but once again their double standards show.
>Hawke
JohnJohnsn
May 12, 2012, 4:07:42 PM5/12/12
to
On May 12, 1:13 pm, The_Fool_With_Too_Many_Tools
<too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote:
money that's coming in?
(and I don't mean that high you get from whatever it is you're smoking
there).
>
> Bad news for conservatives.
>
Here's a little "factoid" for you, Fool:
2012 presidential candidates' net worth
Mitt Romney
Political affiliation: Republican
Position: Former governor of Massachusetts
Net worth (excluding primary homw ) $190,000,000 to $250,000,000
Notable income sources:
Dividends, capital gains and interest from Bail Capital
($1,722,711 to $7,072,206).
Book royalties for `No Apololgy: The Case for American Greatness'
($100,001 to $1,000,000).
Speaker's fees: ($374,327.62).
Marriott International board director pay ($113,881).
Barack Obama
Political affiliation: Democrat
Position: President, 2009 to present
Net worth (excluding primary home) $2,801,012 to $11,839,000
Notable income sources:
Book royalites for `Dreams of My Father' ($1,000,001 to $5,000,000 ,
including a $225,000 advance). `The Audacity of Hope' ($100,001 to
$1,000,000), and `Of Thee I Sing: A Leter to my Daughters' ($133,334
advance).
http://www.bankrate.com/finance/personal-finance/2012-candidates-net-worth
IOW; if need be (which it won't), Romney can spend more than Obumba on
his campaign and not even feel a "pinch" in his lifestyle.
<too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> On May 12, 12:24 pm, Jeff M <jmla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/12/2012 12:05 PM, Frank wrote:
>> [snip]
>
>>> Heard Karl Rove on FOX run calculation on cost per attendee and
>>> number of attendees and Obama made less than half of what he said.
>
>> What a silly and wasted effort. Did he imagine he had a valid point to
>> make?
>
Maybe that Obama and the Liberal Media are lying about the amount of
>
> On May 12, 12:24 pm, Jeff M <jmla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/12/2012 12:05 PM, Frank wrote:
>> [snip]
>
>>> Heard Karl Rove on FOX run calculation on cost per attendee and
>>> number of attendees and Obama made less than half of what he said.
>
>> What a silly and wasted effort. Did he imagine he had a valid point to
>> make?
>
money that's coming in?
>
>>> Contributions during period must have come from other sources.
>
>> Or, more likely, from the same sources giving more than the minimum.
>
> It has been reported that the contributions collected at this event is
> an all time high.
>
Qualify and quantify the time frame of "all time" and "high," Fool
>>> Contributions during period must have come from other sources.
>
>> Or, more likely, from the same sources giving more than the minimum.
>
> It has been reported that the contributions collected at this event is
> an all time high.
>
(and I don't mean that high you get from whatever it is you're smoking
there).
>
> Bad news for conservatives.
>
Here's a little "factoid" for you, Fool:
2012 presidential candidates' net worth
Mitt Romney
Political affiliation: Republican
Position: Former governor of Massachusetts
Net worth (excluding primary homw ) $190,000,000 to $250,000,000
Notable income sources:
Dividends, capital gains and interest from Bail Capital
($1,722,711 to $7,072,206).
Book royalties for `No Apololgy: The Case for American Greatness'
($100,001 to $1,000,000).
Speaker's fees: ($374,327.62).
Marriott International board director pay ($113,881).
Barack Obama
Political affiliation: Democrat
Position: President, 2009 to present
Net worth (excluding primary home) $2,801,012 to $11,839,000
Notable income sources:
Book royalites for `Dreams of My Father' ($1,000,001 to $5,000,000 ,
including a $225,000 advance). `The Audacity of Hope' ($100,001 to
$1,000,000), and `Of Thee I Sing: A Leter to my Daughters' ($133,334
advance).
http://www.bankrate.com/finance/personal-finance/2012-candidates-net-worth
IOW; if need be (which it won't), Romney can spend more than Obumba on
his campaign and not even feel a "pinch" in his lifestyle.
whoyakidding
May 12, 2012, 4:40:33 PM5/12/12
to
On Sat, 12 May 2012 13:25:25 -0600, de...@dudu.org wrote:
>According to the right wing progressives aren't allowed to have money
>and support political candidates.
Hell some of the rightwing arseholes here deny that ANY liberals even
>According to the right wing progressives aren't allowed to have money
>and support political candidates.
work! The most arseholiest seem to believe that liberals are comprised
of welfare bums and celebrities and college professors that teach
communism without actually working plus one guy that had a chop saw
magically materialize.
George Plimpton
May 12, 2012, 5:00:50 PM5/12/12
to
On 5/12/2012 9:55 AM, Hawke wrote:
> On 5/11/2012 8:14 AM, de...@dudu.org wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 May 2012 17:30:38 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Liberal columnist Steve Lopez at the liberal L.A. Times blasts Clooney,
>>> Hollywood Hypocrites:
>>>
>>> They say tonight's soiree for President Obama at George Clooney's
>>> house in Studio City is supposed to gross $15 million, and the
>>> operative word is "gross."
>>
>> As compared to all those secret SuperPACs supported by huge wealthy
>> corporations? At least the actors aren't afraid to show their faces.
>> Unlike the sick and evil right wing.
>
>
> And it's just a tad hypocritical for the right, which is raising
> billions in donations from a handful of billionaires,
Prove it.
> On 5/11/2012 8:14 AM, de...@dudu.org wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 May 2012 17:30:38 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Liberal columnist Steve Lopez at the liberal L.A. Times blasts Clooney,
>>> Hollywood Hypocrites:
>>>
>>> They say tonight's soiree for President Obama at George Clooney's
>>> house in Studio City is supposed to gross $15 million, and the
>>> operative word is "gross."
>>
>> As compared to all those secret SuperPACs supported by huge wealthy
>> corporations? At least the actors aren't afraid to show their faces.
>> Unlike the sick and evil right wing.
>
>
> And it's just a tad hypocritical for the right, which is raising
> billions in donations from a handful of billionaires,
George Plimpton
May 12, 2012, 5:01:31 PM5/12/12
to
Frank
May 12, 2012, 7:16:59 PM5/12/12
to
Apparently that is not how Obama attributed the income - said it all
came from the event.
Personally, I don't care. I think Obama will be toast this fall no
matter how much campaign money he gets.
Too_Many_Tools
May 12, 2012, 11:29:19 PM5/12/12
to
On May 12, 3:07 pm, JohnJohnsn <TopCop1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 12, 1:13 pm, The_Fool_With_Too_Many_Tools<too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> On May 12, 1:13 pm, The_Fool_With_Too_Many_Tools<too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> IOW; if need be (which it won't), Romney can spend more than Obumba on
> his campaign and not even feel a "pinch" in his lifestyle.
> IOW; if need be (which it won't), Romney can spend more than Obumba on
> his campaign and not even feel a "pinch" in his lifestyle.
Too_Many_Tools
May 12, 2012, 11:33:23 PM5/12/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Meanwhile I expect Romney is be toast.
> - Show quoted text -
Polls indicate it too.
TMT
JohnJohnsn
May 13, 2012, 12:12:31 AM5/13/12
to
On May 12, 10:29 pm, The_Fool_With_Too_Many_Tools
Every day you get more and more like that Unglaublich Dumme
Schleppangel *US; constantly posting and reposting the exact same
drivel, while running away from "The Question:" in this case:
"How long do you think Obama can milk that Holleyweird cash cow," Fool/
Schleppangel *US; constantly posting and reposting the exact same
drivel, while running away from "The Question:" in this case:
"How long do you think Obama can milk that Holleyweird cash cow," Fool/
Too_Many_Tools
May 12, 2012, 11:31:21 PM5/12/12
to
On May 12, 3:40 pm, whoyakidding <whoyakidd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Meanwhile we have the case of Mark Wieber aka Gummer ....a typical
conservative.
No money, no job and owes society hundreds of thousands of dollars
that he actively tries not to pay.
TMT
conservative.
No money, no job and owes society hundreds of thousands of dollars
that he actively tries not to pay.
TMT
Hawke
May 13, 2012, 1:07:04 AM5/13/12
to
organization has billionaires like the Koch brothers and other
billionaires dumping tons of money into electing Romney. This is common
knowledge among those who know what is going on in American politics. No
wonder it's news to you. You're totally uninformed.
At this point no one is going to try to prove anything to a moron like
you. We all know that even if we present an overwhelming amount of
evidence you will just use a phony reason to reject it. You've pulled
that little game once too often. From now on all you are getting is the
real information and if you don't agree with it you can cram it up you
butt.
Hawke
Too_Many_Tools
May 13, 2012, 2:38:09 AM5/13/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
LOL...long enough to beat Romney in November.
> - Show quoted text -
All that Hollywood money.....flowing into the Obama reelection
account.
All that Hollywood money....money that will be used to reelect Obama
to a second term.
All that Hollywood money.....liberal money that will not only counter
but overturn all those conservative laws on the books.
Ahhhhhhhhh...all that Hollywood money.
Laugh..laugh..laugh...
George Plimpton
May 13, 2012, 11:03:49 AM5/13/12
to
On 5/12/2012 10:07 PM, Hawke wrote:
> On 5/12/2012 2:00 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 5/12/2012 9:55 AM, Hawke wrote:
>>> On 5/11/2012 8:14 AM, de...@dudu.org wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 10 May 2012 17:30:38 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Liberal columnist Steve Lopez at the liberal L.A. Times blasts
>>>>> Clooney,
>>>>> Hollywood Hypocrites:
>>>>>
>>>>> They say tonight's soiree for President Obama at George Clooney's
>>>>> house in Studio City is supposed to gross $15 million, and the
>>>>> operative word is "gross."
>>>>
>>>> As compared to all those secret SuperPACs supported by huge wealthy
>>>> corporations? At least the actors aren't afraid to show their faces.
>>>> Unlike the sick and evil right wing.
>>>
>>>
>>> And it's just a tad hypocritical for the right, which is raising
>>> billions in donations from a handful of billionaires,
>>
>> Prove it.
>
>
> You're so ignorant about politics.
Not a proof.
> On 5/12/2012 2:00 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 5/12/2012 9:55 AM, Hawke wrote:
>>> On 5/11/2012 8:14 AM, de...@dudu.org wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 10 May 2012 17:30:38 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Liberal columnist Steve Lopez at the liberal L.A. Times blasts
>>>>> Clooney,
>>>>> Hollywood Hypocrites:
>>>>>
>>>>> They say tonight's soiree for President Obama at George Clooney's
>>>>> house in Studio City is supposed to gross $15 million, and the
>>>>> operative word is "gross."
>>>>
>>>> As compared to all those secret SuperPACs supported by huge wealthy
>>>> corporations? At least the actors aren't afraid to show their faces.
>>>> Unlike the sick and evil right wing.
>>>
>>>
>>> And it's just a tad hypocritical for the right, which is raising
>>> billions in donations from a handful of billionaires,
>>
>> Prove it.
>
>
> You're so ignorant about politics.
You can't prove what you said.
STEADY EDDY
May 13, 2012, 12:21:18 PM5/13/12
to
Hawke
May 13, 2012, 1:17:52 PM5/13/12
to
said, anyone who knows the first thing about how political campaigns are
financed knows that most of the republican's money is coming from a few
very wealthy sources like the Koch brothers and other billionaires. I
don't expect you would know anything about that. You not being very
aware of what goes on in American politics.
Hawke
George Plimpton
May 13, 2012, 2:45:57 PM5/13/12
to
On 5/13/2012 10:17 AM, Hawke wrote:
> On 5/13/2012 8:03 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 5/12/2012 10:07 PM, Hawke wrote:
>>> On 5/12/2012 2:00 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 5/12/2012 9:55 AM, Hawke wrote:
>>>>> On 5/11/2012 8:14 AM, de...@dudu.org wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 10 May 2012 17:30:38 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Liberal columnist Steve Lopez at the liberal L.A. Times blasts
>>>>>>> Clooney,
>>>>>>> Hollywood Hypocrites:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They say tonight's soiree for President Obama at George Clooney's
>>>>>>> house in Studio City is supposed to gross $15 million, and the
>>>>>>> operative word is "gross."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As compared to all those secret SuperPACs supported by huge wealthy
>>>>>> corporations? At least the actors aren't afraid to show their faces.
>>>>>> Unlike the sick and evil right wing.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And it's just a tad hypocritical for the right, which is raising
>>>>> billions in donations from a handful of billionaires,
>>>>
>>>> Prove it.
>>>
>>>
>>> You're so ignorant about politics.
>>
>> Not a proof.
>>
>> You can't prove what you said.
>
> You never prove anything you say,
I do, because I can. You don't, because you never can.
> On 5/13/2012 8:03 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 5/12/2012 10:07 PM, Hawke wrote:
>>> On 5/12/2012 2:00 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 5/12/2012 9:55 AM, Hawke wrote:
>>>>> On 5/11/2012 8:14 AM, de...@dudu.org wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 10 May 2012 17:30:38 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Liberal columnist Steve Lopez at the liberal L.A. Times blasts
>>>>>>> Clooney,
>>>>>>> Hollywood Hypocrites:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They say tonight's soiree for President Obama at George Clooney's
>>>>>>> house in Studio City is supposed to gross $15 million, and the
>>>>>>> operative word is "gross."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As compared to all those secret SuperPACs supported by huge wealthy
>>>>>> corporations? At least the actors aren't afraid to show their faces.
>>>>>> Unlike the sick and evil right wing.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And it's just a tad hypocritical for the right, which is raising
>>>>> billions in donations from a handful of billionaires,
>>>>
>>>> Prove it.
>>>
>>>
>>> You're so ignorant about politics.
>>
>> Not a proof.
>>
>> You can't prove what you said.
>
> You never prove anything you say,
Too_Many_Tools
May 13, 2012, 3:26:52 PM5/13/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
But the economy HAS turned...and IS getting better.
> - Show quoted text -
That is one big reason why the conservatives are foaming at the mouth.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
May 13, 2012, 3:27:42 PM5/13/12
to
On May 13, 1:45 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 5/13/2012 10:17 AM, Hawke wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 5/13/2012 8:03 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
> >> On 5/12/2012 10:07 PM, Hawke wrote:
> >>> On 5/12/2012 2:00 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
> >>>> On 5/12/2012 9:55 AM, Hawke wrote:
> On 5/13/2012 10:17 AM, Hawke wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 5/13/2012 8:03 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
> >> On 5/12/2012 10:07 PM, Hawke wrote:
> >>> On 5/12/2012 2:00 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
> >>>> On 5/12/2012 9:55 AM, Hawke wrote:
> >>>>> On 5/11/2012 8:14 AM, d...@dudu.org wrote:
> >>>>>> On Thu, 10 May 2012 17:30:38 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
> >>>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> Liberal columnist Steve Lopez at the liberal L.A. Times blasts
> >>>>>>> Clooney,
> >>>>>>> Hollywood Hypocrites:
>
> >>>>>>> They say tonight's soiree for President Obama at George Clooney's
> >>>>>>> house in Studio City is supposed to gross $15 million, and the
> >>>>>>> operative word is "gross."
>
> >>>>>> As compared to all those secret SuperPACs supported by huge wealthy
> >>>>>> corporations? At least the actors aren't afraid to show their faces.
> >>>>>> Unlike the sick and evil right wing.
>
> >>>>> And it's just a tad hypocritical for the right, which is raising
> >>>>> billions in donations from a handful of billionaires,
>
> >>>> Prove it.
>
> >>> You're so ignorant about politics.
>
> >> Not a proof.
>
> >> You can't prove what you said.
>
> > You never prove anything you say,
>
> I do, because I can. You don't, because you never can.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>>> On Thu, 10 May 2012 17:30:38 -0700, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not>
> >>>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> Liberal columnist Steve Lopez at the liberal L.A. Times blasts
> >>>>>>> Clooney,
> >>>>>>> Hollywood Hypocrites:
>
> >>>>>>> They say tonight's soiree for President Obama at George Clooney's
> >>>>>>> house in Studio City is supposed to gross $15 million, and the
> >>>>>>> operative word is "gross."
>
> >>>>>> As compared to all those secret SuperPACs supported by huge wealthy
> >>>>>> corporations? At least the actors aren't afraid to show their faces.
> >>>>>> Unlike the sick and evil right wing.
>
> >>>>> And it's just a tad hypocritical for the right, which is raising
> >>>>> billions in donations from a handful of billionaires,
>
> >>>> Prove it.
>
> >>> You're so ignorant about politics.
>
> >> Not a proof.
>
> >> You can't prove what you said.
>
> > You never prove anything you say,
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
No you do not...you just lie.
> - Show quoted text -
You can't even post your real BP.
TMT
STEADY EDDY
May 13, 2012, 5:18:24 PM5/13/12
to
the pump are very high and Greece may leave the European Union. The
stock market reflects the poor performance of the economy. Job growth
has fallen the last 3 months. This indicates a slowing economy. We may
be heading toward a double dip. I just don't see a recovery before the
election. Obama is in serious trouble. The polls are running against
Obama. I remember what Clinton said to Bush "It's the economy stupid".
Obama is in the kitchen. Let's see if he can take the heat.
JohnJohnsn
May 13, 2012, 7:09:31 PM5/13/12
to
On May 13, 2:26 pm, The_Fool_of_the_DNC_Too_Many_Tools
We see that you _still_ haven't yet figured out how to deal with that
pesky "Hide quoted text-Show quoted text" thingy. <snicker> ;)
doesn't necessarily agree with you, Fool:
"It is rare for a government’s policies to have a major impact on the
economy immediately. These things usually take time. One cannot infer
the merit of a new president’s policies from the path of the economy
during his first few months in office. (For example, you cannot blame
George W. Bush for the recession that began two months after he took
office in 2001. There hadn’t yet been time for bad policies to damage
the economy.)"
> That is one big reason why the conservatives are foaming at the mouth.
>
No, Fool; we just understand what Frankels revealed here:
Bias in Government Forecasts
Apr 18th, 2012 by Jeff Frankels
Why do so many countries so often wander far off the path of fiscal
responsibility? Concern about budget deficits has become a burning
political issue in the United States, has helped persuade the United
Kingdom to enact stringent cuts despite a weak economy, and is the
proximate cause of the Greek sovereign-debt crisis, which has grown to
engulf the entire eurozone. Indeed, among industrialized countries,
hardly a one is immune from fiscal woes.
Clearly, part of the blame lies with voters who don’t want to hear
that budget discipline means cutting programs that matter to them, and
with politicians who tell voters only what they want to hear. But
another factor has attracted insufficient notice: systematically over-
optimistic official forecasts.
Such forecasts underlie governments’ failure to take advantage of boom
periods to strengthen their finances, including running budget
surpluses. During the expansion of 2001-2007, for example, the US
government made optimistic budget forecasts at each stage. These
forecasts supported enacting big long-term tax cuts and accelerating
growth in spending (both military and domestic). European countries
behaved similarly, running up ever-higher debts. Predictably, when
global recession hit in 2008, most countries had little or no “fiscal
space” to implement countercyclical policy.
In most cases, the problems have long been plain for objective
observers to see, but public officials kept their heads buried in the
sand. Over the period 1986-2009, the bias in official U.S. deficit
forecasts averaged 0.4 % of GDP at the one-year horizon, 1% at two
years, and 3.1% at three years. Forecasting errors were particularly
damaging during the past decade.
The U.S. government in 2001-03, for example, was able to enact large
tax cuts and accelerated spending measures by forecasting that budget
surpluses would remain strong.
The Office of Management and Budget long turned out optimistic budget
forecasts, no matter how many times it was proven wrong. For eight
years, it never stopped forecasting that the budget would return to
surplus by 2011, even though virtually every independent forecast
showed that deficits would continue into the new decade unabated.
How were American officials in the last decade able to make forecasts
that departed so far from subsequent reality? In three sorts of
ways. The first comes in the form of optimistic baseline
macroeconomic assumptions such as a high and everlasting growth rate.
OMB forecasts of economic growth were biased upward: by a huge 3.8%
at the three-year horizon.
Second, some politicians argued that tax cuts were consistent with
fiscal discipline by appealing to two fanciful theories: the Laffer
Proposition, which says that cuts in tax rates will pay for themselves
via higher economic activity, and the Starve the Beast Hypothesis,
which says that tax cuts will increase the budget deficit but that
this will put downward pressure on federal spending.
Sanguine macroeconomic assumptions will do the job in the context of
OMB forecasts and fanciful theories about the effects of tax cuts can
deliver the rosy scenarios of presidential speeches. But to get
optimistic fiscal forecasts out of the Congressional Budget Office a
third, more extreme, strategy was required. (In 2003, when some
Lafferite congressmen tried to get CBO to say that “dynamic scoring”
of the effects of tax rate cuts would show higher revenue, the
estimates from the independent agency did not give the answer they
wanted.)
To understand the third strategy, begin with the requirement that
CBO’s baseline forecasts must take their tax and spending assumptions
from current law. Elected officials in the last decade therefore
hard-wired over-optimistic budget forecasts from CBO by excising from
current law expensive policies that they had every intention of
pursuing in the future. Often they were explicit about the difference
between their intended future policies and the legislation that they
wrote down.
Four examples: (i) the continuation of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq
(which were paid for with “supplemental” budget requests when the time
came, as if they were an unpredictable surprise); (ii) annual
revocation of purported cuts in payments to doctors that would have
driven them out of Medicare if ever allowed to go into effect; (iii)
annual patches for the Alternative Minimum Tax (which otherwise
threatened to expose millions of middle class families to taxes that
had never been intended to apply to them); and (iv) the intended
extension in 2011 of the income tax cuts and estate tax abolition that
were legislated in 2001 with a sunset provision for 2010, which most
lawmakers knew would be difficult to sustain. All four are examples
of expensive policy measures that Congress fully intended would take
place, but that it excluded from legislation so that the official
forecasts would misleadingly appear to show smaller deficits and a
return to surplus after 2010.
Unrealistic macroeconomic assumptions, fanciful theories about tax
cuts, and legislation that deliberately misrepresented policy plans
all worked as intended, yielding over-optimistic forecasts. These in
turn help to explain excessive budget deficits. In particular, they
explain the failure to run surpluses during the economic expansion
from 2002-2007: if growth is projected to last indefinitely,
retrenchment is regarded as unnecessary.
Many have suggested that budget woes can best be held in check through
fiscal-policy rules such as deficit or debt caps. Some countries have
already enacted laws along these lines. The most important and well-
known example is the eurozone’s fiscal rules, which supposedly limit
budget deficits to 3% of GDP and public debt to 60% of GDP for
countries to join. The European Union’s Stability and Growth Pact
(SGP) dictated that member countries must continue to meet the
criteria. We have now seen how well that worked out.
Other countries have also adopted fiscal rules, most of which fail.
Switzerland’s structural budget rule (”debt brake”) is well-designed
to allow higher deficits in recessions automatically, counterbalanced
by surpluses in expansion periods. But the success of any budget rule
depends on accurate forecasts of government spending and revenues.
Getting those forecasts right has proven to be difficult for most
countries.
Part of the problem is that governments that are subject to budget
rules, such as Europe’s SGP, put out official forecasts that are even
more biased than the US or other countries. The Greek government, for
example, in 2000 projected that its fiscal deficit would shrink below
2% of GDP one year in the future and below 1% of GDP two years into
the future, and that the fiscal balance would swing to surplus three
years into the future. The actual balance was a deficit of 4-5% of GDP
- well above the EU’s 3%-of-GDP ceiling.
In almost all industrialized countries, official forecasts have an
upward bias, which is stronger at longer horizons. On average, the gap
between the projected budget balance and the realized balance among a
set of 33 countries is 0.2% of GDP at the one-year horizon, 0.8 % at
the two-year horizon, and 1.5 % at the three-year horizon. So, how
can governments’ tendency to satisfy fiscal targets by wishful
thinking be overcome? In 2000, Chile created structural budget
institutions that may have solved the problem. Independent expert
panels, insulated from political pressures, are responsible for
estimating the long-run trends that determine whether a given deficit
is deemed structural or cyclical.
The result is that, unlike in most industrialized countries, Chile’s
official forecasts of growth and fiscal performance have not been
overly optimistic, even in booms. The ultimate demonstration of the
success of the country’s fiscal institutions: unlike many countries
in the North, Chile took advantage of the 2002-2007 expansion to run
substantial budget surpluses, which enabled it to loosen fiscal policy
in the 2008-2009 recession. Perhaps other countries should follow its
lead.
http://content.ksg.harvard.edu/blog/jeff_frankels_weblog/2012/04/18/bias-in-government-forecasts/
"A statistician is a person who draws a mathematically precise line
from an unwarranted assumption to a foregone conclusion."
--C.J.Bradfield
"A statistical analysis, properly conducted, is a delicate dissection
of uncertainties, a surgery of suppositions."
~M.J. Moroney
pesky "Hide quoted text-Show quoted text" thingy. <snicker> ;)
>
> But the economy HAS turned...and IS getting better.
>
Harvard Professor Jeffrey Frankel of the Kennedy School of Government
> But the economy HAS turned...and IS getting better.
>
doesn't necessarily agree with you, Fool:
"It is rare for a government’s policies to have a major impact on the
economy immediately. These things usually take time. One cannot infer
the merit of a new president’s policies from the path of the economy
during his first few months in office. (For example, you cannot blame
George W. Bush for the recession that began two months after he took
office in 2001. There hadn’t yet been time for bad policies to damage
the economy.)"
> That is one big reason why the conservatives are foaming at the mouth.
>
Bias in Government Forecasts
Apr 18th, 2012 by Jeff Frankels
Why do so many countries so often wander far off the path of fiscal
responsibility? Concern about budget deficits has become a burning
political issue in the United States, has helped persuade the United
Kingdom to enact stringent cuts despite a weak economy, and is the
proximate cause of the Greek sovereign-debt crisis, which has grown to
engulf the entire eurozone. Indeed, among industrialized countries,
hardly a one is immune from fiscal woes.
Clearly, part of the blame lies with voters who don’t want to hear
that budget discipline means cutting programs that matter to them, and
with politicians who tell voters only what they want to hear. But
another factor has attracted insufficient notice: systematically over-
optimistic official forecasts.
Such forecasts underlie governments’ failure to take advantage of boom
periods to strengthen their finances, including running budget
surpluses. During the expansion of 2001-2007, for example, the US
government made optimistic budget forecasts at each stage. These
forecasts supported enacting big long-term tax cuts and accelerating
growth in spending (both military and domestic). European countries
behaved similarly, running up ever-higher debts. Predictably, when
global recession hit in 2008, most countries had little or no “fiscal
space” to implement countercyclical policy.
In most cases, the problems have long been plain for objective
observers to see, but public officials kept their heads buried in the
sand. Over the period 1986-2009, the bias in official U.S. deficit
forecasts averaged 0.4 % of GDP at the one-year horizon, 1% at two
years, and 3.1% at three years. Forecasting errors were particularly
damaging during the past decade.
The U.S. government in 2001-03, for example, was able to enact large
tax cuts and accelerated spending measures by forecasting that budget
surpluses would remain strong.
The Office of Management and Budget long turned out optimistic budget
forecasts, no matter how many times it was proven wrong. For eight
years, it never stopped forecasting that the budget would return to
surplus by 2011, even though virtually every independent forecast
showed that deficits would continue into the new decade unabated.
How were American officials in the last decade able to make forecasts
that departed so far from subsequent reality? In three sorts of
ways. The first comes in the form of optimistic baseline
macroeconomic assumptions such as a high and everlasting growth rate.
OMB forecasts of economic growth were biased upward: by a huge 3.8%
at the three-year horizon.
Second, some politicians argued that tax cuts were consistent with
fiscal discipline by appealing to two fanciful theories: the Laffer
Proposition, which says that cuts in tax rates will pay for themselves
via higher economic activity, and the Starve the Beast Hypothesis,
which says that tax cuts will increase the budget deficit but that
this will put downward pressure on federal spending.
Sanguine macroeconomic assumptions will do the job in the context of
OMB forecasts and fanciful theories about the effects of tax cuts can
deliver the rosy scenarios of presidential speeches. But to get
optimistic fiscal forecasts out of the Congressional Budget Office a
third, more extreme, strategy was required. (In 2003, when some
Lafferite congressmen tried to get CBO to say that “dynamic scoring”
of the effects of tax rate cuts would show higher revenue, the
estimates from the independent agency did not give the answer they
wanted.)
To understand the third strategy, begin with the requirement that
CBO’s baseline forecasts must take their tax and spending assumptions
from current law. Elected officials in the last decade therefore
hard-wired over-optimistic budget forecasts from CBO by excising from
current law expensive policies that they had every intention of
pursuing in the future. Often they were explicit about the difference
between their intended future policies and the legislation that they
wrote down.
Four examples: (i) the continuation of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq
(which were paid for with “supplemental” budget requests when the time
came, as if they were an unpredictable surprise); (ii) annual
revocation of purported cuts in payments to doctors that would have
driven them out of Medicare if ever allowed to go into effect; (iii)
annual patches for the Alternative Minimum Tax (which otherwise
threatened to expose millions of middle class families to taxes that
had never been intended to apply to them); and (iv) the intended
extension in 2011 of the income tax cuts and estate tax abolition that
were legislated in 2001 with a sunset provision for 2010, which most
lawmakers knew would be difficult to sustain. All four are examples
of expensive policy measures that Congress fully intended would take
place, but that it excluded from legislation so that the official
forecasts would misleadingly appear to show smaller deficits and a
return to surplus after 2010.
Unrealistic macroeconomic assumptions, fanciful theories about tax
cuts, and legislation that deliberately misrepresented policy plans
all worked as intended, yielding over-optimistic forecasts. These in
turn help to explain excessive budget deficits. In particular, they
explain the failure to run surpluses during the economic expansion
from 2002-2007: if growth is projected to last indefinitely,
retrenchment is regarded as unnecessary.
Many have suggested that budget woes can best be held in check through
fiscal-policy rules such as deficit or debt caps. Some countries have
already enacted laws along these lines. The most important and well-
known example is the eurozone’s fiscal rules, which supposedly limit
budget deficits to 3% of GDP and public debt to 60% of GDP for
countries to join. The European Union’s Stability and Growth Pact
(SGP) dictated that member countries must continue to meet the
criteria. We have now seen how well that worked out.
Other countries have also adopted fiscal rules, most of which fail.
Switzerland’s structural budget rule (”debt brake”) is well-designed
to allow higher deficits in recessions automatically, counterbalanced
by surpluses in expansion periods. But the success of any budget rule
depends on accurate forecasts of government spending and revenues.
Getting those forecasts right has proven to be difficult for most
countries.
Part of the problem is that governments that are subject to budget
rules, such as Europe’s SGP, put out official forecasts that are even
more biased than the US or other countries. The Greek government, for
example, in 2000 projected that its fiscal deficit would shrink below
2% of GDP one year in the future and below 1% of GDP two years into
the future, and that the fiscal balance would swing to surplus three
years into the future. The actual balance was a deficit of 4-5% of GDP
- well above the EU’s 3%-of-GDP ceiling.
In almost all industrialized countries, official forecasts have an
upward bias, which is stronger at longer horizons. On average, the gap
between the projected budget balance and the realized balance among a
set of 33 countries is 0.2% of GDP at the one-year horizon, 0.8 % at
the two-year horizon, and 1.5 % at the three-year horizon. So, how
can governments’ tendency to satisfy fiscal targets by wishful
thinking be overcome? In 2000, Chile created structural budget
institutions that may have solved the problem. Independent expert
panels, insulated from political pressures, are responsible for
estimating the long-run trends that determine whether a given deficit
is deemed structural or cyclical.
The result is that, unlike in most industrialized countries, Chile’s
official forecasts of growth and fiscal performance have not been
overly optimistic, even in booms. The ultimate demonstration of the
success of the country’s fiscal institutions: unlike many countries
in the North, Chile took advantage of the 2002-2007 expansion to run
substantial budget surpluses, which enabled it to loosen fiscal policy
in the 2008-2009 recession. Perhaps other countries should follow its
lead.
http://content.ksg.harvard.edu/blog/jeff_frankels_weblog/2012/04/18/bias-in-government-forecasts/
"A statistician is a person who draws a mathematically precise line
from an unwarranted assumption to a foregone conclusion."
--C.J.Bradfield
"A statistical analysis, properly conducted, is a delicate dissection
of uncertainties, a surgery of suppositions."
~M.J. Moroney
Too_Many_Tools
May 13, 2012, 9:41:46 PM5/13/12
to
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Too_Many_Tools
May 13, 2012, 9:39:45 PM5/13/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
The economy is NOT in trouble.
> - Show quoted text -
Yes Europe is struggling...so is that Obama's fault?
The stock market is doing very well compared to what it was.
Job growth is growing...just not as fast as we want it to.
Obama is NOT in serious trouble...the Republicans ARE.
Look at who they have been able to field against Obama...LOL...if the
Republican Party was any kind of force to reckon with they should be
way ahead in the polls...they are not by any definitiion.
You keep using the word "may" ...well many thing "may" happen.
Oil prices are coming down along with the gas prices..and that money
is going back into the economy.
Reality is if nothing comes out of nowhere to hit the economy HARD,
Obama WILL be reelected.
And it sucks to be a conservative.
TMT
JohnJohnsn
May 14, 2012, 9:35:35 AM5/14/12
to
On May 13, 1:38 am, The DNC_Fool_With_Too_Many_Tools
By Dylan Stableford | The Ticket – Sunday, May 13, 2012
It won't be nearly as controversial as Time magazine's breastfeeding
cover, but
Newsweek's May 21 issue declares Barack Obama the country's "first gay
president."
http%3A//media.zenfs.com/en/blogs/theticket/newsweek-obama-gay-
president.jpg
The accompanying cover story was written by Andrew Sullivan, the
popular--and openly gay--political blogger. The magazine even gives
the commander-in-chief a rainbow halo.
Obama, Sullivan writes, "had to discover his black identity and then
reconcile it with his white family, just as gays discover their
homosexual identity and then have to reconcile it with their
heterosexual family."
The full cover story is not yet online, but in a blog post published
earlier this week, Sullivan wrote that Obama's support of gay marriage
brought him to tears:
I do not know how orchestrated this was; and I do not know how
calculated it is. What I know is that, absorbing the news, I was
uncharacteristically at a loss for words for a while, didn't know what
to write, and, like many Dish readers, there are tears in my eyes.
...
Today Obama did more than make a logical step. He let go of fear. He
is clearly prepared to let the political chips fall as they may.
That's why we elected him.
The New Yorker, which is also out with a cover story on gay marriage,
took a bit more subtle approach with its May 21 issue.
"It's a celebratory moment for our country, and that's what I tried to
capture," Bob Staake, the artist behind the New Yorker cover, said. "I
don't especially like those rainbow colors, but they are what they are—
I had to use them."
He added: "I wanted to celebrate the bravery of the President's
statement—a statement long overdue—but all the more appreciated in
this political year. We are on the right side of history."
-30-
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/
<too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> All that Hollywood money.....flowing into the Obama reelection
> account.
>
> All that Hollywood money....money that will be used to reelect Obama
> to a second term.
>
> All that Hollywood money.....liberal money that will not only counter
> but overturn all those conservative laws on the books.
>
> Ahhhhhhhhh...all that Hollywood money.
>
> Laugh..laugh..laugh...
>
> TMT
>
Newsweek cover: Obama ‘first gay president’
>
> All that Hollywood money.....flowing into the Obama reelection
> account.
>
> All that Hollywood money....money that will be used to reelect Obama
> to a second term.
>
> All that Hollywood money.....liberal money that will not only counter
> but overturn all those conservative laws on the books.
>
> Ahhhhhhhhh...all that Hollywood money.
>
> Laugh..laugh..laugh...
>
> TMT
>
By Dylan Stableford | The Ticket – Sunday, May 13, 2012
It won't be nearly as controversial as Time magazine's breastfeeding
cover, but
Newsweek's May 21 issue declares Barack Obama the country's "first gay
president."
http%3A//media.zenfs.com/en/blogs/theticket/newsweek-obama-gay-
president.jpg
The accompanying cover story was written by Andrew Sullivan, the
popular--and openly gay--political blogger. The magazine even gives
the commander-in-chief a rainbow halo.
Obama, Sullivan writes, "had to discover his black identity and then
reconcile it with his white family, just as gays discover their
homosexual identity and then have to reconcile it with their
heterosexual family."
The full cover story is not yet online, but in a blog post published
earlier this week, Sullivan wrote that Obama's support of gay marriage
brought him to tears:
I do not know how orchestrated this was; and I do not know how
calculated it is. What I know is that, absorbing the news, I was
uncharacteristically at a loss for words for a while, didn't know what
to write, and, like many Dish readers, there are tears in my eyes.
...
Today Obama did more than make a logical step. He let go of fear. He
is clearly prepared to let the political chips fall as they may.
That's why we elected him.
The New Yorker, which is also out with a cover story on gay marriage,
took a bit more subtle approach with its May 21 issue.
"It's a celebratory moment for our country, and that's what I tried to
capture," Bob Staake, the artist behind the New Yorker cover, said. "I
don't especially like those rainbow colors, but they are what they are—
I had to use them."
He added: "I wanted to celebrate the bravery of the President's
statement—a statement long overdue—but all the more appreciated in
this political year. We are on the right side of history."
-30-
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/
STEADY EDDY
May 14, 2012, 1:01:01 PM5/14/12
to
difference in the election if the economy does not get sorted out. If
the DOW is below 14000 by the time of the election then Romney will
win. CASE CLOSED
Too_Many_Tools
May 14, 2012, 2:56:24 PM5/14/12
to
Too_Many_Tools
May 14, 2012, 3:01:10 PM5/14/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
As polls show Obama is doing well considering the crap Bush handed
> - Show quoted text -
him...and the Republican Clown show that the GOP has been hosting has
just been helping. The American public is just shaking their heads at
the extremely poor showing that the conservatives have offered...are
there any good Republicans left?
Unless a severe blow occurs to the economy, Obama is as good as
reelected now.
Why else would the conservatives be foaming at the mouth?
You conservatives clowns just keep whining about birth certificates
and gay marriage and see how far you get in November.
TMT
Jeff M
May 14, 2012, 7:37:14 PM5/14/12
to
On 5/13/2012 4:18 PM, STEADY EDDY wrote:
[snip]
immediate state of the economy.
[snip]
> The economy is in trouble. Britain is in a double dip, gas prices at
> the pump are very high and Greece may leave the European Union. The
> stock market reflects the poor performance of the economy. Job growth
> has fallen the last 3 months. This indicates a slowing economy. We may
> be heading toward a double dip. I just don't see a recovery before the
> election. Obama is in serious trouble. The polls are running against
> Obama. I remember what Clinton said to Bush "It's the economy stupid".
> Obama is in the kitchen. Let's see if he can take the heat.
You may be right. Fairly or not, Presidents tend to be judged by the
> the pump are very high and Greece may leave the European Union. The
> stock market reflects the poor performance of the economy. Job growth
> has fallen the last 3 months. This indicates a slowing economy. We may
> be heading toward a double dip. I just don't see a recovery before the
> election. Obama is in serious trouble. The polls are running against
> Obama. I remember what Clinton said to Bush "It's the economy stupid".
> Obama is in the kitchen. Let's see if he can take the heat.
immediate state of the economy.
whoyakidding
May 14, 2012, 8:11:35 PM5/14/12
to
went to a yard sale and paid a dollar for a cheap fucked up spotting
scope. I pointed out that at his boast of earning $75 per hour he'd
only need a few hours to buy a really nice new spotting scope. Soon
after he claimed he already has a nice one... which I'm guessing he
stores next to his paid tax receipts and his DD214.
Too_Many_Tools
May 15, 2012, 3:14:17 AM5/15/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Gummer is a total loser...typical conservative hypocrite.
> - Show quoted text -
Given a second chance to live and he squanders that precious time
while stiffing the society that gave him the chance.
He is a waste of skin.
TMT
Lookout
May 15, 2012, 5:16:10 AM5/15/12
to
On Mon, 14 May 2012 18:37:14 -0500, Jeff M <NoS...@NoThanks.Org>
wrote:
And the economy IS improving. Private sector job growth IS continuing.
>
If the bad economy isn't enough to get Obama out of office for a
second term then what is the excuse when Obama beats Romney?
wrote:
>
If the bad economy isn't enough to get Obama out of office for a
second term then what is the excuse when Obama beats Romney?
George Plimpton
May 15, 2012, 10:33:10 AM5/15/12
to
On 5/15/2012 2:16 AM, Lookout wrote:
> On Mon, 14 May 2012 18:37:14 -0500, Jeff M<NoS...@NoThanks.Org>
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/13/2012 4:18 PM, STEADY EDDY wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> The economy is in trouble. Britain is in a double dip, gas prices at
>>> the pump are very high and Greece may leave the European Union. The
>>> stock market reflects the poor performance of the economy. Job growth
>>> has fallen the last 3 months. This indicates a slowing economy. We may
>>> be heading toward a double dip. I just don't see a recovery before the
>>> election. Obama is in serious trouble. The polls are running against
>>> Obama. I remember what Clinton said to Bush "It's the economy stupid".
>>> Obama is in the kitchen. Let's see if he can take the heat.
>>
>> You may be right. Fairly or not, Presidents tend to be judged by the
>> immediate state of the economy.
>>
> And the economy IS improving.
It isn't. Growth in GDP is anemic - barely 2.2% in Q1 2012, and rate of
> On Mon, 14 May 2012 18:37:14 -0500, Jeff M<NoS...@NoThanks.Org>
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/13/2012 4:18 PM, STEADY EDDY wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> The economy is in trouble. Britain is in a double dip, gas prices at
>>> the pump are very high and Greece may leave the European Union. The
>>> stock market reflects the poor performance of the economy. Job growth
>>> has fallen the last 3 months. This indicates a slowing economy. We may
>>> be heading toward a double dip. I just don't see a recovery before the
>>> election. Obama is in serious trouble. The polls are running against
>>> Obama. I remember what Clinton said to Bush "It's the economy stupid".
>>> Obama is in the kitchen. Let's see if he can take the heat.
>>
>> You may be right. Fairly or not, Presidents tend to be judged by the
>> immediate state of the economy.
>>
> And the economy IS improving.
growth *fell*. One of the key elements of the fall in growth was
business investment, and when business investment is down, the economy
grows even more slowly in future quarters. Economists say growth would
need to be at least 4% for a full year in order to reduce unemployment
from it's current rate of 8.2% by one full percentage point. The
election is less than six months away. The unemployment rate is falling
almost entirely because people without jobs are leaving the labor force,
*not* because employment is increasing.
The economy is not improving - it is getting worse.
Most important of all, the economy has not performed anything remotely
close to the way Obummah said he was going to make it perform. Among
other idiotic claims, Obummah said unemployment would peak at 8% if his
$767 billion stimulus bill - an increase in the deficit - passed. In
fact, the "stimulus" was $862 billion - a $95 billion "oops" - and
unemployment shot up well over 9% nationally. The economy wasn't
stimulated - Obummah just pissed away close to a trillion dollars.
Max Boot
May 15, 2012, 10:38:33 AM5/15/12
to
economy. The recession officially ended less than six months into his
term, meaning he had nothing to do with turning the economy around.
Since then, the economy has stagnated and came to a standstill in 2011,
all in his term. GDP growth is anemic, leading to essentially no growth
in employment.
Obummah made wild promises about where the economy would be now if the
country implemented his stimulus plan. The promises were shattered.
STEADY EDDY
May 15, 2012, 2:41:38 PM5/15/12
to
for the shape of the economy. Europe is our largest trading partner
and they are dropping like a rock. I suggest you look at the news.
>
> The stock market is doing very well compared to what it was.
at best 2%. Like it or not this is the Obama economy.
>
> Job growth is growing...just not as fast as we want it to.
>
> Obama is NOT in serious trouble...the Republicans ARE.
>
> Look at who they have been able to field against Obama...LOL...if the
> Republican Party was any kind of force to reckon with they should be
> way ahead in the polls...they are not by any definitiion.
Romney is ahead in most states.
> Job growth is growing...just not as fast as we want it to.
>
> Obama is NOT in serious trouble...the Republicans ARE.
>
> Look at who they have been able to field against Obama...LOL...if the
> Republican Party was any kind of force to reckon with they should be
> way ahead in the polls...they are not by any definitiion.
>
> You keep using the word "may" ...well many thing "may" happen.
>
> Oil prices are coming down along with the gas prices..and that money
> is going back into the economy.
The prices at the pump are what count. Prices are rising.
> You keep using the word "may" ...well many thing "may" happen.
>
> Oil prices are coming down along with the gas prices..and that money
> is going back into the economy.
>
> Reality is if nothing comes out of nowhere to hit the economy HARD,
> Obama WILL be reelected.
It doesn't look good for Obama. This is his economy now. Obama is
> Reality is if nothing comes out of nowhere to hit the economy HARD,
> Obama WILL be reelected.
falling like a rock in the polls.
STEADY EDDY
May 15, 2012, 3:44:52 PM5/15/12
to
Too_Many_Tools
May 15, 2012, 3:46:10 PM5/15/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Blah...blah...blah...
> - Show quoted text -
Obama is doing quite well in the polls.
It is Romney who has been slipping.
No one in their right mind would hand the economy back to the Party
responsible for the Bush Crash of '08.
Just the latest example...a 2 billion dollar and counting crash at
JPMorgan....because of lack of oversight.
Wanna guess which Party wants less oversight over the banks?
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
May 15, 2012, 3:47:05 PM5/15/12
to
Bush handed him.
He will do even better in his second term.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
May 15, 2012, 3:48:28 PM5/15/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hmmm....then why all that Hollywood money to Obama so he will be
> - Show quoted text -
reelected.
And when did Bush repay that TRILLION DOLLAR DEBT HE RAN UP?
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
May 15, 2012, 3:49:41 PM5/15/12
to
I am betting that "Obama ate dog" will be one of them.
TMT
whoyakidding
May 15, 2012, 4:38:57 PM5/15/12
to
Hollywood money. They may only talk amongst themselves but a good time
to overhear them whining is when they're standing in line at a movie
theater.
Max Boot
May 15, 2012, 4:57:27 PM5/15/12
to
economy is in serious trouble at present. Much of the trouble is due to
things Obummah directly did.
George Plimpton
May 15, 2012, 4:58:51 PM5/15/12
to
> Hmmm....then why all that Hollywood money to Obama so he will be
> reelected.
"All that Hollywood money to Obama" doesn't change the fact that the
> reelected.
economy is moribund, and is doing worse today than when he took office.
Darren C.
May 15, 2012, 5:41:10 PM5/15/12
to
In article <eba13a96-e22d-4f56-b47f-
1b81c0...@qg3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>
They are judged secondly by the company they keep.
In Obama's case, faggots.
1b81c0...@qg3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>
In Obama's case, faggots.
JohnJohnsn
May 15, 2012, 6:12:29 PM5/15/12
to
On May 15, 2:46 pm, The DNC_Fool_With_Too_Many_Tools
Tell us, you Useful Idiot of the DNC; since you constantly demonstrate
that you are Too_Stupid_To_Post_To_Usenet, seeing as how you _still_
haven't figured out how to deal with something as simple as that pesky
"Hide quoted text-Show quoted text" thingy, why in the wide wide world
of sports do you think that anyone here would believe you are "smart"
enough to discuss politics, finance, government policy _or_ (T.P.G.-
relevant) GUNS???
Tuesday, May 15
CBS News/NY Times
Obama 43%, Romney 46%
Rasmussen Tracking
Obama 45%, Romney 47%
Wash Times/JZ Analytics
Obama: 43%
Romney: 44%
Politico/GWU/Battleground
Obama: 47%
Romney: 48%
Democracy Corps (D)
Obama: 47%
Romney: 47%
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls
GALLUP DAILY POLLS
May 12-14, 2012 – Updates daily at 1 p.m. ET; reflects one-day change
Presidential Approval Poll
Approval: 45%
Disapproval: 48%
Presidential Election
Obama: 46%
Romney: 45%
7-day rolling average
Employed Full Time: 65.1%
Underemployed: 18.0%
Unemployed: 8.2%
Job Creation Index: 17
Eonomic Confidence: -18
Consumer Spending$80-
US Life Evaluation (Based on the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index)
Thriving: 54%
Struggling: 42%
Suffering: 3%
Happiness: 61%
Stress: 5%
Entrepreneurs Must Save America
They're the key to jumpstarting job creation and the U.S. economy
A GMJ Q&A with Jim Clifton, CEO of Gallup and author of The Coming
Jobs War
The United States has no shortage of great ideas and innovations. What
the country most needs right now are highly motivated entrepreneurs
who can turn those ideas into great businesses -- and thus create
millions of new jobs.
So says Gallup Chairman Jim Clifton in his book, The Coming Jobs War.
Clifton is worried because America and much of the rest of the world
are trying to boost innovation while entrepreneurs -- living,
breathing, job-creating engines -- are neglected.
...
http://gmj.gallup.com/content/151865/Entrepreneurs-Save-America.aspx
controls you wanted over the banks and other financial institutions,
Fool?
That's _right_: the Democrat Party (2009-2010).
And what did they do?
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Senate Democrats introduce new financial regulation bill
Hillary Stemple at 9:23 AM ET
Democrats on the Senate Banking Committee [official website] on Monday
introduced the Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010 [S
3217], aimed at increasing financial regulation in the wake of the
recent financial crisis. The bill includes a provision meant to
protect consumers from predatory lending by creating a Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau housed within the Federal Reserve. The
proposed legislation would also give the government the power to break
up financial institutions that have been deemed "too big to fail" in
order to prevent future situations where the failing of one firm could
threaten the entire economy. The "Volcker Rule," prohibiting banks
from owning, investing in, or sponsoring hedge funds, private equity
funds, or proprietary trading funds for profit where the funds do not
benefit the banks' customers, was also included in the proposed
legislation. Other provisions included in the bill involve the
restructuring of the federal banking system, regulation of the credit-
rating agencies, and the creation of a committee to identify and
manage risks to the economy. The executive session to mark up the bill
is scheduled to begin on Monday.
This bill is the second financial reform bill to be proposed by the
Senate Banking Committee following the 2008 financial crisis. The 2009
bill was met with resistance and resulted in the committee's
development of the new bill. In December, the US House of
Representatives approved a similar bill. The US House Financial
Services Committee had approved a bill to create a consumer financial
protection agency in October, after originally delaying it at the
behest of financial industry leaders in July. The creation of the
agency is a key step in achieving the Obama administration's stated
goal of tightening financial industry regulations. In June, the
administration proposed a broad series of regulatory reforms aimed at
restoring confidence in the US financial system.
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2010/03/senate-democrats-propose-new-financial.php
OpenCongress Summary
This is the Democrats' financial regulatory reform bill. It seeks to
address the regulatory lapses that lead to the crisis of 2008 and fix
the problem of "too big to fail" that necessitated the bailouts. It
would create a process for the government to seize and break up
failing financial firms, create a new consumer protection agency
specifically for financial products, reform the derivatives market,
and more. An 11-page summary from the Banking Committee can be found
online here.
[http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/1718-Summary-of-the-Dodd-
Financial-Reform-Bill]
OpenCongress bill summaries are written by OpenCongress editors and
are entirely independent of Congress and the federal government. For
the summary provided by Congress itself, via the Congressional
Research Service, see the "Official Summary" below.
Official Summary
4/15/2010--Introduced.Restoring American Financial Stability Act of
2010 - Financial Stability Act of 2010 - Establishes the Financial
Stability Oversight Council to: (1) identify risks to the financial
stability of the United States; (2) promote market discipline; and (3)
respond to emergCloseOfficial Summary4/15/2010--Introduced.Restoring
American Financial Stability Act of 2010 - Financial Stability Act of
2010 - Establishes the Financial Stability Oversight Council to:
(1) identify risks to the financial stability of the United States;
(2) promote market discipline; and
(3) respond to emerging threats to the stability of the United States
financial markets. Establishes within the Department of the Treasury:
(1) the Office of Financial Research (Office) to support the Financial
Stability Oversight Council; and
(2) the Financial Research Fund to fund the Office. Grants the Board
of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) additional
authority to require reports and conduct examinations of certain
nonbank financial companies and bank holding companies. Revises
supervision and prudential standards for nonbank financial companies
supervised by the Board and for certain bank holding companies.
Establishes in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware
an Orderly Liquidation Authority Panel to authorize the Secretary of
the Treasury (Secretary), under specified circumstances, to appoint
the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) as receiver of a
financial company in default or in danger of default whose failure
would have serious adverse effects on financial stability in the
United States. Enhancing Financial Institution Safety and Soundness
Act of 2010 - Transfers all functions of the Office of Thrift
Supervision (OTS) and the OTS Director to the Board, to the Office of
the Comptroller of the Currency, and to the FDIC. Abolishes OTS.
Prohibits the issuance of charters for federal savings associations.
Private Fund Investment Advisers Registration Act of 2010 - Amends the
Investment Advisers Act of 1940 with respect to:
(1) the regulation of advisers to hedge funds;
(2) collection of systemic risk data; and
(3) the asset threshold for federal registration of investment
advisers. Office of National Insurance Act of 2010 - Establishes
within the Department of the Treasury the Office of National Insurance
to monitor all aspects of the insurance industry, including
identification of issues or gaps in the regulation of insurers that
could contribute to a systemic crisis in the insurance industry or the
United States financial system. Nonadmitted and Reinsurance Reform Act
of 2010 - Sets forth procedures for:
(1) reporting, payment, and allocation of nonadmitted insurance
premium taxes; and
(2) regulation of credit for reinsurance and reinsurance agreements.
Bank and Savings Association Holding Company and Depository
Institution Regulatory Improvements Act of 2010 - Imposes a moratorium
upon FDIC provision of federal deposit insurance for credit card
banks, industrial loan companies, and certain other companies under
the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956. Amends the Bank Holding Company
Act of 1956 to revise requirements for reports, examinations, and
regulation of functionally regulated subsidiaries, including
concentration limits on large financial institutions. Over-the-Counter
Derivatives Markets Act of 2010 - Amends the Commodity Exchange Act
to:
(1) extend joint rulemaking and regulatory authority of the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) to over-the-counter derivatives markets; and
(2) require large swap trader reporting. Amends the Gramm-Leach-Bliley
Act to repeal the prohibition against the regulation of security-based
swaps. Amends the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to set forth:
(1) clearing requirements for security-based swaps;
(2) registration and regulation procedures governing security-based
swap dealers and major security-based swap participants; and
(3) position limits and position accountability for security-based
swaps. Directs the SEC, the CFTC, the Financial Stability Oversight
Council, and the Treasury Department, individually and collectively,
to consult and coordinate with foreign regulatory authorities on the
establishment of consistent international standards with respect to
the regulation of certain SWAPS. Payment, Clearing, and Settlement
Supervision Act of 2010 - Directs the Financial Stability Oversight
Council to designate those financial market utilities or payment,
clearing, or settlement activities which it determines are, or are
likely to become, systemically important. Sets forth procedures
governing examination of and enforcement actions against financial
institutions subject to standards for designated activities,
including:
(1) financial and operational risks such activities may pose to other
financial institutions, critical markets, or the broader financial
system; and
(2) information to assess systemic importance of financial
institutions engaged in payment, clearing, or settlement activities.
Amends the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to:
(1) establish the Investor Advisory Committee and the Office of the
Investor Advocate;
(2) authorize the SEC to restrict mandatory predispute arbitration;
(3) prescribe securities whistleblower incentives and protection; and
(4) revise regulation, accountability, and transparency of nationally
recognized statistical rating organizations (NRSROs). Amends the
Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970 to increase the borrowing
limit on Treasury loans. Amends the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
to:
(1) direct the federal banking agencies and the SEC to prescribe joint
regulations to require any securitizer to retain an economic interest
in a portion of the credit risk for any asset that the securitizer,
through the issuance of an asset-backed security, transfers, sells, or
conveys to a third party;
(2) require procedures for annual shareholder approval of executive
compensation; and
(3) require disclosures regarding employee and director hedging.
Requires the SEC to report to certain congressional committees
regarding:
(1) its conduct of examinations of registered entities, enforcement
investigations, and review of corporate financial securities filings;
and
(2) its oversight of national securities associations. Prescribes
standards for:
(1) corporate governance; and
(2) regulation of municipal securities and changes to the Municipal
Securities Rulemaking Board. Establishes in the SEC the Office of
Municipal Securities. Amends the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 to
authorize the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board to share
certain information with foreign authorities. Amends the FDIA to
direct the Inspector General of each federal banking agency to report
to Congress semiannually on certain losses to the Deposit Insurance
Fund. Instructs the Comptroller General to study and report to
Congress on the risks and conflicts associated with proprietary
trading by and within specified entities. Directs the Office of
Financial Literacy of the Bureau to establish a program to make grants
to states for enhanced protection of seniors from being misled by
false designations. Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 -
Establishes:
(1) in the Federal Reserve System the Bureau of Consumer Financial
Protection (Bureau) to regulate the offering and provision of consumer
financial products or services under the federal consumer financial
laws;
(2) the Office of Fair Lending and Equal Opportunity;
(3) the Office of Financial Literacy; and
(4) the Consumer Advisory Board. Grants the Bureau supervisory powers
and enforcement authority over certain large-sized insured depository
institutions and insured credit unions. Excludes from Bureau oversight
certain merchants, retailers and other sellers of nonfinancial goods
or services. Grants the Bureau specific authorities, including
prohibiting unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices. Transfers
to the Bureau specified consumer financial protection functions.
Prescribes requirements for collection of deposit account data. Amends
the Equal Credit Opportunity Act regarding small business loan data
collection. Amends the Truth in Lending Act to prohibit certain
prepayment penalties. Amends the Federal Reserve Act with respect to
emergency lending authority. Authorizes the Comptroller General, under
specified circumstances, to conduct reviews of the Federal Reserve
Board, a federal reserve bank, or a credit facility. Improving Access
to Mainstream Financial Institutions Act of 2010 - Authorizes the
Secretary to establish a multiyear program of grants, cooperative
agreements, financial agency agreements, and similar contracts or
undertakings to promote initiatives to enable low- and moderate-income
individuals to:
(1) to establish one or more accounts in a federally insured
depository institution that are appropriate to meet their financial
needs; and
(2) gain improved access to the provision of accounts on reasonable
terms.
...Read the Rest
[http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s3217/show#]
OK, Fool; tell us what happened to this single piece of Democrat
legislation:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:SN03217:@@@X
Died on the vine; that's what.
Of course, as we all know; in LiberalLand:
Republican Congress + Republican President = Republicans' Fault;
Republican Congress + Democrat President = Republicans' Fault;
Democrat Congress + Republican President = Republicans' Fault;
and,
Democrat Congress + Democrat President = <Tada.wav> BUSH's Fault!
Right, "Too_Many_DNC_Excuses"?
that you are Too_Stupid_To_Post_To_Usenet, seeing as how you _still_
haven't figured out how to deal with something as simple as that pesky
"Hide quoted text-Show quoted text" thingy, why in the wide wide world
of sports do you think that anyone here would believe you are "smart"
enough to discuss politics, finance, government policy _or_ (T.P.G.-
relevant) GUNS???
>
>>>>>>> LOL..yeah Rove...the Fountain of Truth.
>
>>>>>>> How's that Rove created McCain/Palin ticket working for you wingers?
>
>>>>>>> Laugh..laugh..laugh...
>
>>>>>>> TMT
>
>>>>>> Obama may not get re-elected unless the economy turns around.-Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>> LOL..yeah Rove...the Fountain of Truth.
>
>>>>>>> How's that Rove created McCain/Palin ticket working for you wingers?
>
>>>>>>> Laugh..laugh..laugh...
>
>>>>>>> TMT
>
>
>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>
^More demonstration of Fool's stupidity^.
>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>
>
>>>>> But the economy HAS turned...and IS getting better.
>
>>>>> That is one big reason why the conservatives are foaming at the mouth.
>
>>>>> TMT
>
>>>> The economy is in trouble. Britain is in a double dip, gas prices at
>>>> the pump are very high and Greece may leave the European Union.
>>>> The stock market reflects the poor performance of the economy.
>>>> Job growth has fallen the last 3 months. This indicates a slowing
>>>> economy. We may be heading toward a double dip. I just don't see
>>>> a recovery before the election. Obama is in serious trouble. The polls
>>>> are running against Obama.
>
General Election: Romney vs. Obama
>>>>> But the economy HAS turned...and IS getting better.
>
>>>>> That is one big reason why the conservatives are foaming at the mouth.
>
>>>>> TMT
>
>>>> The economy is in trouble. Britain is in a double dip, gas prices at
>>>> the pump are very high and Greece may leave the European Union.
>>>> The stock market reflects the poor performance of the economy.
>>>> Job growth has fallen the last 3 months. This indicates a slowing
>>>> economy. We may be heading toward a double dip. I just don't see
>>>> a recovery before the election. Obama is in serious trouble. The polls
>>>> are running against Obama.
>
Tuesday, May 15
CBS News/NY Times
Obama 43%, Romney 46%
Rasmussen Tracking
Obama 45%, Romney 47%
Wash Times/JZ Analytics
Obama: 43%
Romney: 44%
Politico/GWU/Battleground
Obama: 47%
Romney: 48%
Democracy Corps (D)
Obama: 47%
Romney: 47%
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls
GALLUP DAILY POLLS
May 12-14, 2012 – Updates daily at 1 p.m. ET; reflects one-day change
Presidential Approval Poll
Approval: 45%
Disapproval: 48%
Presidential Election
Obama: 46%
Romney: 45%
7-day rolling average
Employed Full Time: 65.1%
Underemployed: 18.0%
Unemployed: 8.2%
Job Creation Index: 17
Eonomic Confidence: -18
Consumer Spending$80-
US Life Evaluation (Based on the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index)
Thriving: 54%
Struggling: 42%
Suffering: 3%
Happiness: 61%
Stress: 5%
Entrepreneurs Must Save America
They're the key to jumpstarting job creation and the U.S. economy
A GMJ Q&A with Jim Clifton, CEO of Gallup and author of The Coming
Jobs War
The United States has no shortage of great ideas and innovations. What
the country most needs right now are highly motivated entrepreneurs
who can turn those ideas into great businesses -- and thus create
millions of new jobs.
So says Gallup Chairman Jim Clifton in his book, The Coming Jobs War.
Clifton is worried because America and much of the rest of the world
are trying to boost innovation while entrepreneurs -- living,
breathing, job-creating engines -- are neglected.
...
http://gmj.gallup.com/content/151865/Entrepreneurs-Save-America.aspx
>
>>>> I remember what Clinton said to Bush "It's the economy stupid".
>>>> Obama is in the kitchen. Let's see if he can take the heat.-Hide quoted text -
>>>> I remember what Clinton said to Bush "It's the economy stupid".
>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>
^Tool Fool's stupidity^.
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>
>
>>> The economy is NOT in trouble.
>
>>> Yes Europe is struggling...so is that Obama's fault?
>
>> No but fault has nothing to do with it. The President takes the heat
>> for the shape of the economy. Europe is our largest trading partner
>> and they are dropping like a rock. I suggest you look at the news.
>
>>> The stock market is doing very well compared to what it was.
>
>> People have short memories. The growth rate of the economy is anemic
>> at best 2%. Like it or not this is the Obama economy.
>
>>> Job growth is growing...just not as fast as we want it to.
>
>>> Obama is NOT in serious trouble...the Republicans ARE.
>
>>> Look at who they have been able to field against Obama...LOL...if the
>>> Republican Party was any kind of force to reckon with they should be
>>> way ahead in the polls...they are not by any definitiion.
>
>> Romney is ahead in most states.
>
>>> You keep using the word "may" ...well many thing "may" happen.
>
>>> Oil prices are coming down along with the gas prices..and that money
>>> is going back into the economy.
>
>> The prices at the pump are what count. Prices are rising.
>
>>> Reality is if nothing comes out of nowhere to hit the economy HARD,
>>> Obama WILL be reelected.
>
>> It doesn't look good for Obama. This is his economy now. Obama is
>> falling like a rock in the polls.- Hide quoted text -
>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
^Well, Tool Fool; at least you are consistant in your stupidity here.^
>>> The economy is NOT in trouble.
>
>>> Yes Europe is struggling...so is that Obama's fault?
>
>> No but fault has nothing to do with it. The President takes the heat
>> for the shape of the economy. Europe is our largest trading partner
>> and they are dropping like a rock. I suggest you look at the news.
>
>>> The stock market is doing very well compared to what it was.
>
>> People have short memories. The growth rate of the economy is anemic
>> at best 2%. Like it or not this is the Obama economy.
>
>>> Job growth is growing...just not as fast as we want it to.
>
>>> Obama is NOT in serious trouble...the Republicans ARE.
>
>>> Look at who they have been able to field against Obama...LOL...if the
>>> Republican Party was any kind of force to reckon with they should be
>>> way ahead in the polls...they are not by any definitiion.
>
>> Romney is ahead in most states.
>
>>> You keep using the word "may" ...well many thing "may" happen.
>
>>> Oil prices are coming down along with the gas prices..and that money
>>> is going back into the economy.
>
>> The prices at the pump are what count. Prices are rising.
>
>>> Reality is if nothing comes out of nowhere to hit the economy HARD,
>>> Obama WILL be reelected.
>
>> It doesn't look good for Obama. This is his economy now. Obama is
>> falling like a rock in the polls.- Hide quoted text -
>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>
> Blah...blah...blah...
>
> Obama is doing quite well in the polls.
>
> It is Romney who has been slipping.
>
> No one in their right mind would hand the economy back to the Party
> responsible for the Bush Crash of '08.
>
> Just the latest example...a 2 billion dollar and counting crash at
> JPMorgan....because of lack of oversight.
>
> Wanna guess which Party wants less oversight over the banks?
>
Guess which party had TWO FULL YEARS to establish all the "oversight"
> Blah...blah...blah...
>
> Obama is doing quite well in the polls.
>
> It is Romney who has been slipping.
>
> No one in their right mind would hand the economy back to the Party
> responsible for the Bush Crash of '08.
>
> Just the latest example...a 2 billion dollar and counting crash at
> JPMorgan....because of lack of oversight.
>
> Wanna guess which Party wants less oversight over the banks?
>
controls you wanted over the banks and other financial institutions,
Fool?
That's _right_: the Democrat Party (2009-2010).
And what did they do?
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Senate Democrats introduce new financial regulation bill
Hillary Stemple at 9:23 AM ET
Democrats on the Senate Banking Committee [official website] on Monday
introduced the Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010 [S
3217], aimed at increasing financial regulation in the wake of the
recent financial crisis. The bill includes a provision meant to
protect consumers from predatory lending by creating a Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau housed within the Federal Reserve. The
proposed legislation would also give the government the power to break
up financial institutions that have been deemed "too big to fail" in
order to prevent future situations where the failing of one firm could
threaten the entire economy. The "Volcker Rule," prohibiting banks
from owning, investing in, or sponsoring hedge funds, private equity
funds, or proprietary trading funds for profit where the funds do not
benefit the banks' customers, was also included in the proposed
legislation. Other provisions included in the bill involve the
restructuring of the federal banking system, regulation of the credit-
rating agencies, and the creation of a committee to identify and
manage risks to the economy. The executive session to mark up the bill
is scheduled to begin on Monday.
This bill is the second financial reform bill to be proposed by the
Senate Banking Committee following the 2008 financial crisis. The 2009
bill was met with resistance and resulted in the committee's
development of the new bill. In December, the US House of
Representatives approved a similar bill. The US House Financial
Services Committee had approved a bill to create a consumer financial
protection agency in October, after originally delaying it at the
behest of financial industry leaders in July. The creation of the
agency is a key step in achieving the Obama administration's stated
goal of tightening financial industry regulations. In June, the
administration proposed a broad series of regulatory reforms aimed at
restoring confidence in the US financial system.
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2010/03/senate-democrats-propose-new-financial.php
OpenCongress Summary
This is the Democrats' financial regulatory reform bill. It seeks to
address the regulatory lapses that lead to the crisis of 2008 and fix
the problem of "too big to fail" that necessitated the bailouts. It
would create a process for the government to seize and break up
failing financial firms, create a new consumer protection agency
specifically for financial products, reform the derivatives market,
and more. An 11-page summary from the Banking Committee can be found
online here.
[http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/1718-Summary-of-the-Dodd-
Financial-Reform-Bill]
OpenCongress bill summaries are written by OpenCongress editors and
are entirely independent of Congress and the federal government. For
the summary provided by Congress itself, via the Congressional
Research Service, see the "Official Summary" below.
Official Summary
4/15/2010--Introduced.Restoring American Financial Stability Act of
2010 - Financial Stability Act of 2010 - Establishes the Financial
Stability Oversight Council to: (1) identify risks to the financial
stability of the United States; (2) promote market discipline; and (3)
respond to emergCloseOfficial Summary4/15/2010--Introduced.Restoring
American Financial Stability Act of 2010 - Financial Stability Act of
2010 - Establishes the Financial Stability Oversight Council to:
(1) identify risks to the financial stability of the United States;
(2) promote market discipline; and
(3) respond to emerging threats to the stability of the United States
financial markets. Establishes within the Department of the Treasury:
(1) the Office of Financial Research (Office) to support the Financial
Stability Oversight Council; and
(2) the Financial Research Fund to fund the Office. Grants the Board
of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) additional
authority to require reports and conduct examinations of certain
nonbank financial companies and bank holding companies. Revises
supervision and prudential standards for nonbank financial companies
supervised by the Board and for certain bank holding companies.
Establishes in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware
an Orderly Liquidation Authority Panel to authorize the Secretary of
the Treasury (Secretary), under specified circumstances, to appoint
the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) as receiver of a
financial company in default or in danger of default whose failure
would have serious adverse effects on financial stability in the
United States. Enhancing Financial Institution Safety and Soundness
Act of 2010 - Transfers all functions of the Office of Thrift
Supervision (OTS) and the OTS Director to the Board, to the Office of
the Comptroller of the Currency, and to the FDIC. Abolishes OTS.
Prohibits the issuance of charters for federal savings associations.
Private Fund Investment Advisers Registration Act of 2010 - Amends the
Investment Advisers Act of 1940 with respect to:
(1) the regulation of advisers to hedge funds;
(2) collection of systemic risk data; and
(3) the asset threshold for federal registration of investment
advisers. Office of National Insurance Act of 2010 - Establishes
within the Department of the Treasury the Office of National Insurance
to monitor all aspects of the insurance industry, including
identification of issues or gaps in the regulation of insurers that
could contribute to a systemic crisis in the insurance industry or the
United States financial system. Nonadmitted and Reinsurance Reform Act
of 2010 - Sets forth procedures for:
(1) reporting, payment, and allocation of nonadmitted insurance
premium taxes; and
(2) regulation of credit for reinsurance and reinsurance agreements.
Bank and Savings Association Holding Company and Depository
Institution Regulatory Improvements Act of 2010 - Imposes a moratorium
upon FDIC provision of federal deposit insurance for credit card
banks, industrial loan companies, and certain other companies under
the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956. Amends the Bank Holding Company
Act of 1956 to revise requirements for reports, examinations, and
regulation of functionally regulated subsidiaries, including
concentration limits on large financial institutions. Over-the-Counter
Derivatives Markets Act of 2010 - Amends the Commodity Exchange Act
to:
(1) extend joint rulemaking and regulatory authority of the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) to over-the-counter derivatives markets; and
(2) require large swap trader reporting. Amends the Gramm-Leach-Bliley
Act to repeal the prohibition against the regulation of security-based
swaps. Amends the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to set forth:
(1) clearing requirements for security-based swaps;
(2) registration and regulation procedures governing security-based
swap dealers and major security-based swap participants; and
(3) position limits and position accountability for security-based
swaps. Directs the SEC, the CFTC, the Financial Stability Oversight
Council, and the Treasury Department, individually and collectively,
to consult and coordinate with foreign regulatory authorities on the
establishment of consistent international standards with respect to
the regulation of certain SWAPS. Payment, Clearing, and Settlement
Supervision Act of 2010 - Directs the Financial Stability Oversight
Council to designate those financial market utilities or payment,
clearing, or settlement activities which it determines are, or are
likely to become, systemically important. Sets forth procedures
governing examination of and enforcement actions against financial
institutions subject to standards for designated activities,
including:
(1) financial and operational risks such activities may pose to other
financial institutions, critical markets, or the broader financial
system; and
(2) information to assess systemic importance of financial
institutions engaged in payment, clearing, or settlement activities.
Amends the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to:
(1) establish the Investor Advisory Committee and the Office of the
Investor Advocate;
(2) authorize the SEC to restrict mandatory predispute arbitration;
(3) prescribe securities whistleblower incentives and protection; and
(4) revise regulation, accountability, and transparency of nationally
recognized statistical rating organizations (NRSROs). Amends the
Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970 to increase the borrowing
limit on Treasury loans. Amends the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
to:
(1) direct the federal banking agencies and the SEC to prescribe joint
regulations to require any securitizer to retain an economic interest
in a portion of the credit risk for any asset that the securitizer,
through the issuance of an asset-backed security, transfers, sells, or
conveys to a third party;
(2) require procedures for annual shareholder approval of executive
compensation; and
(3) require disclosures regarding employee and director hedging.
Requires the SEC to report to certain congressional committees
regarding:
(1) its conduct of examinations of registered entities, enforcement
investigations, and review of corporate financial securities filings;
and
(2) its oversight of national securities associations. Prescribes
standards for:
(1) corporate governance; and
(2) regulation of municipal securities and changes to the Municipal
Securities Rulemaking Board. Establishes in the SEC the Office of
Municipal Securities. Amends the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 to
authorize the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board to share
certain information with foreign authorities. Amends the FDIA to
direct the Inspector General of each federal banking agency to report
to Congress semiannually on certain losses to the Deposit Insurance
Fund. Instructs the Comptroller General to study and report to
Congress on the risks and conflicts associated with proprietary
trading by and within specified entities. Directs the Office of
Financial Literacy of the Bureau to establish a program to make grants
to states for enhanced protection of seniors from being misled by
false designations. Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 -
Establishes:
(1) in the Federal Reserve System the Bureau of Consumer Financial
Protection (Bureau) to regulate the offering and provision of consumer
financial products or services under the federal consumer financial
laws;
(2) the Office of Fair Lending and Equal Opportunity;
(3) the Office of Financial Literacy; and
(4) the Consumer Advisory Board. Grants the Bureau supervisory powers
and enforcement authority over certain large-sized insured depository
institutions and insured credit unions. Excludes from Bureau oversight
certain merchants, retailers and other sellers of nonfinancial goods
or services. Grants the Bureau specific authorities, including
prohibiting unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices. Transfers
to the Bureau specified consumer financial protection functions.
Prescribes requirements for collection of deposit account data. Amends
the Equal Credit Opportunity Act regarding small business loan data
collection. Amends the Truth in Lending Act to prohibit certain
prepayment penalties. Amends the Federal Reserve Act with respect to
emergency lending authority. Authorizes the Comptroller General, under
specified circumstances, to conduct reviews of the Federal Reserve
Board, a federal reserve bank, or a credit facility. Improving Access
to Mainstream Financial Institutions Act of 2010 - Authorizes the
Secretary to establish a multiyear program of grants, cooperative
agreements, financial agency agreements, and similar contracts or
undertakings to promote initiatives to enable low- and moderate-income
individuals to:
(1) to establish one or more accounts in a federally insured
depository institution that are appropriate to meet their financial
needs; and
(2) gain improved access to the provision of accounts on reasonable
terms.
...Read the Rest
[http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s3217/show#]
OK, Fool; tell us what happened to this single piece of Democrat
legislation:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:SN03217:@@@X
Died on the vine; that's what.
Of course, as we all know; in LiberalLand:
Republican Congress + Republican President = Republicans' Fault;
Republican Congress + Democrat President = Republicans' Fault;
Democrat Congress + Republican President = Republicans' Fault;
and,
Democrat Congress + Democrat President = <Tada.wav> BUSH's Fault!
Right, "Too_Many_DNC_Excuses"?
Too_Many_Tools
May 15, 2012, 8:21:18 PM5/15/12
to
On May 15, 3:38 pm, whoyakidding <whoyakidd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 May 2012 12:49:41 -0700 (PDT), Too_Many_Tools
>
> On Tue, 15 May 2012 12:49:41 -0700 (PDT), Too_Many_Tools
>
Obama via the Hollywood conduit.
Tell us conservatives...how does it feel to know that your own money
is being used to reelect Obama?
It must feel great to know that you are at least doing one thing right
in this world.
Laugh.laugh..laugh..
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
May 15, 2012, 8:22:02 PM5/15/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Nope..the economy is doing very well considering the near death blow
> - Show quoted text -
that George Bush gave it.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
May 15, 2012, 8:23:18 PM5/15/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Lie..lie...lie.
> - Show quoted text -
Got that BP figured out yet?
The economy is doing better than when Obama took the steaming pile of
crap that Bush handed him.
And the voters know it.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
May 15, 2012, 8:26:07 PM5/15/12
to
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
All that Holloywood money going to Obama.
> - Show quoted text -
All those fans of Hollywood donating even more to Obama.
Tough luck for Romney...the Candidate for the Bully Party.
Got that psych test down yet?
Laugh..laugh..laugh..
TMT
Max Boot
May 15, 2012, 8:48:05 PM5/15/12
to
> Nope..the economy is doing very well considering the near death blow
> that George Bush gave it.
The economy is *not* doing well. Three years after the end of a
> that George Bush gave it.
recession, it should be growing at a rapid clip. It isn't. It's stagnant.
The economy was beginning to turn around *before* Obummah became
president. It continued, *not* due to anything Obummah did, until the
third quarter of 2010. Then, the rate of growth began to fall, and by
the first quarter of 2011, growth was effectively *zero* - Obummah all
but killed the recovery. Growth began to accelerate again, reaching 3%
at the end of last year, but it fell *again* in the first quarter of
this year to 2.2%.
The economy is flat. Employment is stagnant - all the reductions in the
unemployment rate are due to people dropping out of the labor force,
*not* because people are getting jobs.
George Plimpton
May 15, 2012, 8:51:21 PM5/15/12
to
> The economy is doing better than when Obama took the steaming pile of
> crap that Bush handed him.
Obama was inaugurated, and he obviously had nothing to do with that. It
continued to for the next year and a half, and *then* the growth rate
began to fall...and fall...and fall...until it was essentially *ZERO* in
the first quarter of 2011, two years after his inauguration.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth
Too_Many_Tools
May 15, 2012, 8:24:22 PM5/15/12
to
On May 15, 4:41 pm, "Darren C." <darr...@yahoox.com> wrote:
> In article <eba13a96-e22d-4f56-b47f-
> 1b81c0627...@qg3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>
> In Obama's case, faggots.- Hide quoted text -
Of course you are.
TMT
> In article <eba13a96-e22d-4f56-b47f-
> 1b81c0627...@qg3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Are you telling us that George Bush should be judged by Larry Craig?
> - Show quoted text -
Of course you are.
TMT
Lookout
May 15, 2012, 9:50:24 PM5/15/12
to
On Tue, 15 May 2012 07:38:33 -0700, Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com>
wrote:
>On 5/14/2012 4:37 PM, Jeff M wrote:
>> On 5/13/2012 4:18 PM, STEADY EDDY wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> The economy is in trouble. Britain is in a double dip, gas prices at
>>> the pump are very high and Greece may leave the European Union. The
>>> stock market reflects the poor performance of the economy. Job growth
>>> has fallen the last 3 months. This indicates a slowing economy. We may
>>> be heading toward a double dip. I just don't see a recovery before the
>>> election. Obama is in serious trouble. The polls are running against
>>> Obama. I remember what Clinton said to Bush "It's the economy stupid".
>>> Obama is in the kitchen. Let's see if he can take the heat.
>>
>> You may be right. Fairly or not, Presidents tend to be judged by the
>> immediate state of the economy.
>
>This president decidedly earns low marks for his handling of the
>economy.
Nope. Wrong again.
wrote:
>On 5/14/2012 4:37 PM, Jeff M wrote:
>> On 5/13/2012 4:18 PM, STEADY EDDY wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> The economy is in trouble. Britain is in a double dip, gas prices at
>>> the pump are very high and Greece may leave the European Union. The
>>> stock market reflects the poor performance of the economy. Job growth
>>> has fallen the last 3 months. This indicates a slowing economy. We may
>>> be heading toward a double dip. I just don't see a recovery before the
>>> election. Obama is in serious trouble. The polls are running against
>>> Obama. I remember what Clinton said to Bush "It's the economy stupid".
>>> Obama is in the kitchen. Let's see if he can take the heat.
>>
>> You may be right. Fairly or not, Presidents tend to be judged by the
>> immediate state of the economy.
>
>This president decidedly earns low marks for his handling of the
>economy.
Too_Many_Tools
May 15, 2012, 10:00:01 PM5/15/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Liar.
> - Show quoted text -
And you can't even get your BP right
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
May 15, 2012, 9:59:34 PM5/15/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
BS...the economy is growing and employment is gaining.
> - Show quoted text -
Try watching real news and leave Faux News for your kinky bedroom sex.
TMT
STEADY EDDY
May 15, 2012, 10:29:00 PM5/15/12
to
Obama's pro gay agenda has fucked him up in the South. Obama needs the
South to win. Personally, I think gay folks should be able to marry.
However, I am not running for President. The fact is that the economy
sucks. GDP is at an anemic 2% and gas pump prices are still to damn
high.
Max Boot
May 16, 2012, 12:18:59 AM5/16/12
to
his term. People are suffering.
You're a shrill partisan who just can't accept the facts.
Max Boot
May 16, 2012, 12:56:53 AM5/16/12
to
a clue.
George Plimpton
May 16, 2012, 12:58:01 AM5/16/12
to
Nope. That's not a refutation.
The economy is moribund. Everyone knows it.
Too_Many_Tools
May 16, 2012, 2:03:37 AM5/16/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
So now you are saying that Obama is responsible for the entire world's
> - Show quoted text -
economy?
Better look again at your analysis.
He is responsible for the United State's economy at best...along with
the Congress..especially the Republican component.
Obama is doing quite well in the polls.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
May 16, 2012, 2:05:17 AM5/16/12
to
The public still remembers who handed Obama a crap sandwich....the
Republicans.
The public has also noted that the Republicans has fought him tooth
and nail over improving the economy.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
May 16, 2012, 2:13:00 AM5/16/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
"The economy is *not* doing well. Three years after the end of a
recession, it should be growing at a rapid clip. It isn't. It's
stagnant. "
LOL...where the hell have you been for the last four years?
recession, it should be growing at a rapid clip. It isn't. It's
stagnant. "
The recession along with the Bush Crash of '08 is the WORST one since
The Great Depression.
Let me repeat that...
The recession along with the Bush Crash of '08 is the WORST one since
The Great Depression.
What that means is that Obama has done very well in terms of recovery
despite of the roadblocks the Republicans have been placing in front
of him. (ex.Remember that 500 billion dollar tax break the Republicans
gave the rich)
If he had not, you could very likely be in a soup line now.
In all seriousness, you need to study history of The Great Depression
to understand the reality of today.
Or if you are a conservative, you can just keep whining about a
subject you have no knowledge of.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
May 16, 2012, 2:15:37 AM5/16/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Liar.
> - Show quoted text -
Can't even get your BP right.
Economy is doing better and it is just killing a loser like you.
Can't use the economy as an excuse for you not having a job anymore.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
May 16, 2012, 2:19:37 AM5/16/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Strange...I remember reading that Obama is leading in southern states.
> - Show quoted text -
The gay agenda...well since the majority of Americans approve of gay
marriage and vote that premise is faulty.
The economy is doing very well considering the headwinds it has been
experiencing...take a look around and you will see that the United
States is doing quite well compared to the rest of the world.
Gas prices...lower than when Bush was in charge and still dropping.
Obama will be reelected.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
May 16, 2012, 2:26:06 AM5/16/12
to
On May 15, 11:18 pm, Max Boot <max.b...@lathymes.com> wrote:
> On 5/15/2012 6:50 PM, Lookout wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 15 May 2012 07:38:33 -0700, Max Boot<max.b...@lathymes.com>
> On 5/15/2012 6:50 PM, Lookout wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes people are suffering...and fewer than under Bush.that is called
> - Show quoted text -
improvement.
When Obama became President, the economy was in freefall..damned
scary.
He has been able to turn it around...between 2-3% growth...amazing
considering where we were headed.
Consider the American economy to an aircraft...Bush had it in a death
spiral and Obama has been able to pull it out of the dive and is
slowly gaining altitude.
As a passenger of that aircraft, I know who I want at the controls and
it sure is not a sucidical Republican.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
May 16, 2012, 2:28:26 AM5/16/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
I recommend that you research the economic history of The Great
> - Show quoted text -
Depression and then thank God that Obama was elected.
If McCain/Palin were in power, you would deep into The Great
Depression 2.0.
TMT
Lookout
May 16, 2012, 5:22:05 AM5/16/12
to
On Tue, 15 May 2012 19:29:00 -0700 (PDT), STEADY EDDY
<steady...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On May 15, 2:16 am, Lookout <mrlooko...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 May 2012 18:37:14 -0500, Jeff M <NoS...@NoThanks.Org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On 5/13/2012 4:18 PM, STEADY EDDY wrote:
>> >[snip]
>> >> The economy is in trouble. Britain is in a double dip, gas prices at
>> >> the pump are very high and Greece may leave the European Union. The
>> >> stock market reflects the poor performance of the economy. Job growth
>> >> has fallen the last 3 months. This indicates a slowing economy. We may
>> >> be heading toward a double dip. I just don't see a recovery before the
>> >> election. Obama is in serious trouble. The polls are running against
>> >> Obama. I remember what Clinton said to Bush "It's the economy stupid".
>> >> Obama is in the kitchen. Let's see if he can take the heat.
>>
>> >You may be right. Fairly or not, Presidents tend to be judged by the
>> >immediate state of the economy.
>>
>> And the economy IS improving. Private sector job growth IS continuing.
>>
>> If the bad economy isn't enough to get Obama out of office for a
>> second term then what is the excuse when Obama beats Romney?
>
>The polls show that Romney is in the lead in the key southern states.
>
There are no "key Southern states". Romney is expected to take all the
<steady...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On May 15, 2:16 am, Lookout <mrlooko...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 May 2012 18:37:14 -0500, Jeff M <NoS...@NoThanks.Org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On 5/13/2012 4:18 PM, STEADY EDDY wrote:
>> >[snip]
>> >> The economy is in trouble. Britain is in a double dip, gas prices at
>> >> the pump are very high and Greece may leave the European Union. The
>> >> stock market reflects the poor performance of the economy. Job growth
>> >> has fallen the last 3 months. This indicates a slowing economy. We may
>> >> be heading toward a double dip. I just don't see a recovery before the
>> >> election. Obama is in serious trouble. The polls are running against
>> >> Obama. I remember what Clinton said to Bush "It's the economy stupid".
>> >> Obama is in the kitchen. Let's see if he can take the heat.
>>
>> >You may be right. Fairly or not, Presidents tend to be judged by the
>> >immediate state of the economy.
>>
>> And the economy IS improving. Private sector job growth IS continuing.
>>
>> If the bad economy isn't enough to get Obama out of office for a
>> second term then what is the excuse when Obama beats Romney?
>
>The polls show that Romney is in the lead in the key southern states.
>
deep south.
>
>Obama's pro gay agenda has fucked him up in the South. Obama needs the
>South to win.
>
The South has been republican for over 10 years
>Obama's pro gay agenda has fucked him up in the South. Obama needs the
>South to win.
>
Lookout
May 16, 2012, 5:22:49 AM5/16/12
to
On Tue, 15 May 2012 21:18:59 -0700, Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com>
wrote:
>On 5/15/2012 6:50 PM, Lookout wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 May 2012 07:38:33 -0700, Max Boot<max....@lathymes.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/14/2012 4:37 PM, Jeff M wrote:
>>>> On 5/13/2012 4:18 PM, STEADY EDDY wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>>> The economy is in trouble. Britain is in a double dip, gas prices at
>>>>> the pump are very high and Greece may leave the European Union. The
>>>>> stock market reflects the poor performance of the economy. Job growth
>>>>> has fallen the last 3 months. This indicates a slowing economy. We may
>>>>> be heading toward a double dip. I just don't see a recovery before the
>>>>> election. Obama is in serious trouble. The polls are running against
>>>>> Obama. I remember what Clinton said to Bush "It's the economy stupid".
>>>>> Obama is in the kitchen. Let's see if he can take the heat.
>>>>
>>>> You may be right. Fairly or not, Presidents tend to be judged by the
>>>> immediate state of the economy.
>>>
>>> This president decidedly earns low marks for his handling of the
>>> economy.
>>
>> Nope. Wrong again.
>
>In fact, I showed that he does. The economy has languished for most of
>his term. People are suffering.
>
No, you gave your opinion. That's not fact.
>On 5/15/2012 6:50 PM, Lookout wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 May 2012 07:38:33 -0700, Max Boot<max....@lathymes.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/14/2012 4:37 PM, Jeff M wrote:
>>>> On 5/13/2012 4:18 PM, STEADY EDDY wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>>> The economy is in trouble. Britain is in a double dip, gas prices at
>>>>> the pump are very high and Greece may leave the European Union. The
>>>>> stock market reflects the poor performance of the economy. Job growth
>>>>> has fallen the last 3 months. This indicates a slowing economy. We may
>>>>> be heading toward a double dip. I just don't see a recovery before the
>>>>> election. Obama is in serious trouble. The polls are running against
>>>>> Obama. I remember what Clinton said to Bush "It's the economy stupid".
>>>>> Obama is in the kitchen. Let's see if he can take the heat.
>>>>
>>>> You may be right. Fairly or not, Presidents tend to be judged by the
>>>> immediate state of the economy.
>>>
>>> This president decidedly earns low marks for his handling of the
>>> economy.
>>
>> Nope. Wrong again.
>
>In fact, I showed that he does. The economy has languished for most of
>his term. People are suffering.
>
>
>You're a shrill partisan who just can't accept the facts.
>
I didn't vote for him and said I wasn't BEFORE the election.
>You're a shrill partisan who just can't accept the facts.
>
Lookout
May 16, 2012, 5:24:25 AM5/16/12
to
On Tue, 15 May 2012 21:56:53 -0700, Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com>
wrote:
23 months of private sector growth. Or did you miss that fact that's
been repeated over and over again?
wrote:
been repeated over and over again?
Max Boot
May 16, 2012, 10:24:43 AM5/16/12
to
in the pot co-op?
> The recession along with the Bush Crash of '08 is the WORST one since
> The Great Depression.
> What that means is that Obama has done very well in terms of recovery
> despite of the roadblocks the Republicans have been placing in front
> of him. (ex.Remember that 500 billion dollar tax break the Republicans
> gave the rich)
after his inauguration, it stopped growing altogether, although it has
since resumed tepid growth that is *again* slowing.
Sorry, Obummah simply can't claim any credit for turning the economy
around. He said unemployment would peak at under 8% if his "stimulus"
passed, and in fact it went more than two percentage points higher. He
lied.
George Plimpton
May 16, 2012, 10:25:21 AM5/16/12
to
Max Boot
May 16, 2012, 10:34:02 AM5/16/12
to
inaugurated. I already gave you the chart showing GDP growth rates.
GDP "growth" was negative when Obummah was inaugurated, but the
turnaround had already begun, and the recession officially ended less
than six months after he took office. He didn't "do" anything to end it
- it already was ending.
> He has been able to turn it around...between 2-3% growth...amazing
> considering where we were headed.
around" - it already had turned, which means that second, we already
were headed in the right direction. Third, 2-3% growth is abysmal - not
enough to reverse the steep growth in unemployment. Fourth,
unemployment went two percentage points higher than Obummah said it
would if he got his "stimulus" passed. In fact, his "stimulus" was $95
billion more than he requested, and *STILL* unemployment got to over
10%, not stopping at or below 8% as he guaranteed.
Obummah cannot claim any credit for the economy - it's in the doldrums.
You really ought to lay off the weed.
Ed Huntress
May 16, 2012, 10:40:19 AM5/16/12
to
On Wed, 16 May 2012 07:24:43 -0700, Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com>
wrote:
WTF are you talking about? The economy didn't bottom out until the end
of the first quarter after Obama's inauguration. Since then, it's been
on a steady, slow growth curve.
I don't know what you're looking at, but here's the GDP as reported by
the Fed:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?id=GDPC1
(Change the "observation date range to start in 2007 or so to see
what's been going on.)
>
>Sorry, Obummah simply can't claim any credit for turning the economy
>around. He said unemployment would peak at under 8% if his "stimulus"
>passed, and in fact it went more than two percentage points higher. He
>lied.
As John McCain's top economic advisor said in mid-2009, Obama did
exactly what McCain would have done -- or what any president would
have had to do. It's the only thing that's known to work. But it
doesn't always work.
And what's your bright idea for getting an economy out of a recession?
--
Ed Huntress
wrote:
of the first quarter after Obama's inauguration. Since then, it's been
on a steady, slow growth curve.
I don't know what you're looking at, but here's the GDP as reported by
the Fed:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?id=GDPC1
(Change the "observation date range to start in 2007 or so to see
what's been going on.)
>
>Sorry, Obummah simply can't claim any credit for turning the economy
>around. He said unemployment would peak at under 8% if his "stimulus"
>passed, and in fact it went more than two percentage points higher. He
>lied.
exactly what McCain would have done -- or what any president would
have had to do. It's the only thing that's known to work. But it
doesn't always work.
And what's your bright idea for getting an economy out of a recession?
--
Ed Huntress
Lookout
May 16, 2012, 10:42:41 AM5/16/12
to
Let's see some proof that the economy was recovering.
If you don't respond then you're just another lying asshole and it's
in the filter for you.
Put up or shut up
Max Boot
May 16, 2012, 11:08:10 AM5/16/12
to
negative growth had been much steeper - worse than -6% - in the quarter
before that, and worse than -8% two quarters earlier. Clearly, an
improvement from -8.x% to -0.7% is the beginning of a turnaround, and
that all occurred before his inauguration. Going from -0.7% to +1.7%
within six months of his inauguration *clearly* was not due to anything
he did; the economy simply does not change that rapidly from fiscal
policies.
>
> I don't know what you're looking at, but here's the GDP as reported by
> the Fed:
>
> http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?id=GDPC1
But it doesn't matter whose numbers are used - the inflections of
whatever graph you want to look at match the dates I gave. Change the
date interval of the graph at your Fed site and redraw the graph. You
clearly see GDP falling steeply in 2008, then the curve dramatically
flattens at the very beginning of 2009 before turning mildly positive at
the end of the first quarter. Obummah had nothing to do with that.
Then you see GDP growth all but stopping at the end of 2010 / beginning
of 2011, two years into his term. He clearly *did* have something to do
with that.
>> Sorry, Obummah simply can't claim any credit for turning the economy
>> around. He said unemployment would peak at under 8% if his "stimulus"
>> passed, and in fact it went more than two percentage points higher. He
>> lied.
>
> As John McCain's top economic advisor said in mid-2009, Obama did
> exactly what McCain would have done -- or what any president would
> have had to do. It's the only thing that's known to work. But it
> doesn't always work.
>
> And what's your bright idea for getting an economy out of a recession?
for current economic conditions, and what those conditions are. The
economy is not healthy. It isn't collapsed, but it isn't healthy.
Obummah promised that if his stimulus passed, unemployment would peak at
8%. In fact, it got more than two percentage points higher than that,
and it now is more or less stuck at above 8%. Furthermore, reductions
in the rate have occurred largely due to jobless people leaving the
workforce rather than getting jobs.
Max Boot
May 16, 2012, 11:10:44 AM5/16/12
to
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?id=GDPC1
Both show the change in GDP as steeply negative in 2008, then becoming
only mildly negative in January 2009, right when Obummah was
inaugurated. He clearly had nothing to do with that - his "stimulus"
didn't pass until late February, and it takes months for it to have an
effect.
JohnJohnsn
May 16, 2012, 12:16:47 PM5/16/12
to
On May 16, 1:03 am, The_DNC_Fool_Too_Stupid_To_Post_To_Usenet, a/k/a
National Average Gasoline Prices
Regular Mid Premium Diesel E85
Current Avg. $3.728 $3.888 $4.026 $4.032 $3.238
Yesterday Avg. $3.727 $3.887 $4.024 $4.037 $3.274
Week Ago Avg. $3.750 $3.904 $4.040 $4.070 $3.271
Month Ago Avg. $3.907 $4.046 $4.178 $4.147 $3.338
Year Ago Avg. $3.955 $4.096 $4.221 $4.123 $3.334
12 Month Average for Self-Serve Regular
[ National Average / Wholesale / Crude ]
http://fuelgaugereport.opisnet.com/images/NAT_grph.jpg
http://fuelgaugereport.opisnet.com/index.asp
That being said:
Oil and gasoline prices
May 16, 2012
Supplies are up:
http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2012/05/oil_sands_nd_may_12.gif
and demand is down:
http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2012/05/gasoline_demand_may_12.gif
So the result is that gasoline prices are lower due to that old
`bugaboo' of capitalism (so hated by the Left): "The law of supply and
demand."
that you are Too_Stupid_To_Post_To_Usenet, seeing as how you _still_
haven't figured out how to deal with something as simple as that pesky
"Hide quoted text-Show quoted text" thingy, why in the wide wide world
of sports do you think that anyone here would believe you are "smart"
enough to discuss politics, finance, government policy _or_ (T.P.G.-
relevance) GUNS???
May 16, 2012
Gallup finds several indicators of national mood -- including U.S.
satisfaction, economic confidence, and presidential job approval --
holding steady in May at levels that don't bode particularly well for
Barack Obama's re-election.
http://www.gallup.com/home.aspx
GALLUP DAILY POLLS
May 12-14, 2012 – Updates daily at 1 p.m. ET; reflects one-day change
Presidential Approval Rating
Approval: 45%
Disapproval: 48%
Presidential Election
Obama: 46%
Romney: 45%
7-day rolling average
Employment/Unemployment
Employed Full Time: 65.1%
Underemployed: 18.0%
Unemployed: 8.2%
Job Creation Index: 17
Economic Confidence: -18
Consumer Spending: $80
Thriving: 54%
Struggling: 42%
Suffering: 3%
Happiness: 61%
Stress: 5%
All on Obama's watch, Fool.
>
> Republican Congressmen are not.
>
Generic 2012 Congressional Vote
Poll Date Republicans Democrats Spread
RCP Average
4/11 - 5/13 44.7% 42.8% Republicans
+1.9%
USA Today/Gallup
5/10 - 5/13 50% 44% Republicans
+6%
Rasmussen Reports
5/7 - 5/12 45% 38% Republicans
+7%
Politico/GWU/Battleground
4/29 - 5/3 45% 43% Republicans
+2%
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/generic_congressional_vote-2170.html
Seems as though Ronnie was right about The_DNC_Fool here:
"The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they're
ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
— Ronald Wilson Reagan
"Confronting Liberals with the facts of reality is very much akin
to clubbing baby seals. It gets boring after a while, but because
Liberals are so stupid it is easy work."
— Steven M. Barry
The_DNC_Fool_With_Too_Many_Tools <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> On May 15, 1:41 pm, STEADY EDDY <steadyedd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On May 13, 6:39 pm, Too_Many_Tools <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> Obama is NOT in serious trouble...the Republicans ARE.
>
>>> Look at who they have been able to field against Obama...LOL...if
>>> the Republican Party was any kind of force to reckon with they should
>>> be way ahead in the polls...they are not by any definitiion.
>
They are, Fool: you just want to ignore that fact (see below).
>
>
> On May 15, 1:41 pm, STEADY EDDY <steadyedd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On May 13, 6:39 pm, Too_Many_Tools <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> Obama is NOT in serious trouble...the Republicans ARE.
>
>>> Look at who they have been able to field against Obama...LOL...if
>>> the Republican Party was any kind of force to reckon with they should
>>> be way ahead in the polls...they are not by any definitiion.
>
>
>> Romney is ahead in most states.
>
>>> You keep using the word "may" ...well many thing "may" happen.
>
>>> Oil prices are coming down along with the gas prices..and that money
>>> is going back into the economy.
>
>> The prices at the pump are what count. Prices are rising.
>
The average price today is 3¢ lower than they were a week ago:
>> Romney is ahead in most states.
>
>>> You keep using the word "may" ...well many thing "may" happen.
>
>>> Oil prices are coming down along with the gas prices..and that money
>>> is going back into the economy.
>
>> The prices at the pump are what count. Prices are rising.
>
National Average Gasoline Prices
Regular Mid Premium Diesel E85
Current Avg. $3.728 $3.888 $4.026 $4.032 $3.238
Yesterday Avg. $3.727 $3.887 $4.024 $4.037 $3.274
Week Ago Avg. $3.750 $3.904 $4.040 $4.070 $3.271
Month Ago Avg. $3.907 $4.046 $4.178 $4.147 $3.338
Year Ago Avg. $3.955 $4.096 $4.221 $4.123 $3.334
12 Month Average for Self-Serve Regular
[ National Average / Wholesale / Crude ]
http://fuelgaugereport.opisnet.com/images/NAT_grph.jpg
http://fuelgaugereport.opisnet.com/index.asp
That being said:
Oil and gasoline prices
May 16, 2012
Supplies are up:
http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2012/05/oil_sands_nd_may_12.gif
and demand is down:
http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2012/05/gasoline_demand_may_12.gif
So the result is that gasoline prices are lower due to that old
`bugaboo' of capitalism (so hated by the Left): "The law of supply and
demand."
>
>>> Reality is if nothing comes out of nowhere to hit the economy HARD,
>>> Obama WILL be reelected.
>
>> It doesn't look good for Obama. This is his economy now. Obama is
>> falling like a rock in the polls.- Hide quoted text -
>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
Tell us, you Useful Idiot of the DNC; since you constantly demonstrate
>>> Reality is if nothing comes out of nowhere to hit the economy HARD,
>>> Obama WILL be reelected.
>
>> It doesn't look good for Obama. This is his economy now. Obama is
>> falling like a rock in the polls.- Hide quoted text -
>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
that you are Too_Stupid_To_Post_To_Usenet, seeing as how you _still_
haven't figured out how to deal with something as simple as that pesky
"Hide quoted text-Show quoted text" thingy, why in the wide wide world
of sports do you think that anyone here would believe you are "smart"
enough to discuss politics, finance, government policy _or_ (T.P.G.-
relevance) GUNS???
>
> So now you are saying that Obama is responsible for the entire world's
> economy?
>
> Better look again at your analysis.
>
> He is responsible for the United State's economy at best...along with
> the Congress..especially the Republican component.
>
> Obama is doing quite well in the polls.
>
National Mood a Drag on Obama's Re-Election Prospects
> So now you are saying that Obama is responsible for the entire world's
> economy?
>
> Better look again at your analysis.
>
> He is responsible for the United State's economy at best...along with
> the Congress..especially the Republican component.
>
> Obama is doing quite well in the polls.
>
May 16, 2012
Gallup finds several indicators of national mood -- including U.S.
satisfaction, economic confidence, and presidential job approval --
holding steady in May at levels that don't bode particularly well for
Barack Obama's re-election.
http://www.gallup.com/home.aspx
GALLUP DAILY POLLS
May 12-14, 2012 – Updates daily at 1 p.m. ET; reflects one-day change
Presidential Approval Rating
Approval: 45%
Disapproval: 48%
Presidential Election
Obama: 46%
Romney: 45%
7-day rolling average
Employment/Unemployment
Employed Full Time: 65.1%
Underemployed: 18.0%
Unemployed: 8.2%
Job Creation Index: 17
Economic Confidence: -18
Consumer Spending: $80
Thriving: 54%
Struggling: 42%
Suffering: 3%
Happiness: 61%
Stress: 5%
All on Obama's watch, Fool.
>
> Republican Congressmen are not.
>
Generic 2012 Congressional Vote
Poll Date Republicans Democrats Spread
RCP Average
4/11 - 5/13 44.7% 42.8% Republicans
+1.9%
USA Today/Gallup
5/10 - 5/13 50% 44% Republicans
+6%
Rasmussen Reports
5/7 - 5/12 45% 38% Republicans
+7%
Politico/GWU/Battleground
4/29 - 5/3 45% 43% Republicans
+2%
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/generic_congressional_vote-2170.html
Seems as though Ronnie was right about The_DNC_Fool here:
"The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they're
ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
— Ronald Wilson Reagan
"Confronting Liberals with the facts of reality is very much akin
to clubbing baby seals. It gets boring after a while, but because
Liberals are so stupid it is easy work."
— Steven M. Barry
Ed Huntress
May 16, 2012, 1:19:54 PM5/16/12
to
On Wed, 16 May 2012 08:08:10 -0700, Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com>
Looking at growth rates, rather than at actual values, you've
concluded that the recession was ending before he took office. But the
GDP was still going down, and it only looks like an impending
turnaround in retrospect; growth was still negative. It DID turn
around, which tells us...that it did turn around. It doesn't tell us
that "the economy was recovering," because it wasn't. All it was doing
was slowing its race to the bottom. It was still going down after
Obama took office.
It could as well have taken a short breather and gone down further, as
is characteristic of double-dips, or it could have just laid there
until we had a full-blown depression -- which some economists at the
time were predicting.
> Clearly, an
>improvement from -8.x% to -0.7% is the beginning of a turnaround, and
>that all occurred before his inauguration.
Not clearly -- except in retrospect.
> Going from -0.7% to +1.7%
>within six months of his inauguration *clearly* was not due to anything
>he did; the economy simply does not change that rapidly from fiscal
>policies.
That one is too complicated for a Usenet-sized answer. From looking at
inventories and the CPI, one can conclude that there was a shift in
consumer attitudes after Obama was elected, and they slowly,
painfully, started consuming again. That moved the curve, as business
activity in general lagged but eventually followed the trend in
consumption. There was a lot of inventory that had to be worked off.
>
>
>>
>> I don't know what you're looking at, but here's the GDP as reported by
>> the Fed:
>>
>> http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?id=GDPC1
>
>http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth
>
>But it doesn't matter whose numbers are used - the inflections of
>whatever graph you want to look at match the dates I gave.
It DOES matter. You're looking at growth rates. The Fed graph, in
contract, is actual values of GDP. The growth rates don't tell you
where you are or how deep the hole is. The rates only tell you how
fast you're getting there.
You need both to get a broader picture, but it's all embedded in the
GDP figures. That's where curves are so handy.
> Change the
>date interval of the graph at your Fed site and redraw the graph. You
>clearly see GDP falling steeply in 2008, then the curve dramatically
>flattens at the very beginning of 2009 before turning mildly positive at
>the end of the first quarter. Obummah had nothing to do with that.
>
>Then you see GDP growth all but stopping at the end of 2010 / beginning
>of 2011, two years into his term. He clearly *did* have something to do
>with that.
But it DIDN'T stop. There was no double-dip. It was just a brief
slowdown in the RATE of growth, not in growth itself. That, too, is
clear only in retrospect.
As for what he had anything to do with or not, no president has a
great deal to do with it. We know we can ameliorate the effects of a
recession by getting money into consumers' hands. We assume we can
stimulate growth by making productive investments with that money or
by cutting taxes, but it's clear that nothing happens until
consumption starts rising, and stimulus spending is the way to do it
fast, while it can do some good. Thus, Japan's and our inability to
stimulate much investment even with record-low interest rates, because
no investors expand operations without the prospect of customers. As
business economists were reporting in 2009 and 2010, their companies'
number one problem was a *lack* of customers.
>
>
>>> Sorry, Obummah simply can't claim any credit for turning the economy
>>> around. He said unemployment would peak at under 8% if his "stimulus"
>>> passed, and in fact it went more than two percentage points higher. He
>>> lied.
Nobody lied. That was the best forecast that any economist could
provide him at the time. Stiglitz and Krugman were some of the few who
said it wasn't going to work...because they both calculated that the
stimulus should have been just over $2 Trillion, not $1 Trillion. It
appears that they were probably right.
>>
>> As John McCain's top economic advisor said in mid-2009, Obama did
>> exactly what McCain would have done -- or what any president would
>> have had to do. It's the only thing that's known to work. But it
>> doesn't always work.
>>
>> And what's your bright idea for getting an economy out of a recession?
>
>That's not the issue. The issue is how much responsibility Obummah has
>for current economic conditions, and what those conditions are.
The issue you stated above was that "The economy was recovering before
Obummah was inaugurated,"
It wasn't. It was still sinking.
....and that "Two years after his inauguration, it stopped growing
altogether"
It didn't. It was still growing. The RATE of growth just slowed down
for a quarter or so.
"... although it has since resumed tepid growth that is *again*
slowing."
Bumps and wiggles is all we see so far.
> The
>economy is not healthy. It isn't collapsed, but it isn't healthy.
>Obummah promised that if his stimulus passed, unemployment would peak at
>8%. In fact, it got more than two percentage points higher than that,
>and it now is more or less stuck at above 8%. Furthermore, reductions
>in the rate have occurred largely due to jobless people leaving the
>workforce rather than getting jobs.
Perhaps you haven't looked at the number of layoffs among state and
municipal workers. The Economic Policy Institute says that state
employee rolls increase by an average of 1.7% in previous, fairly
recent recoveries. This time they went down. The last estimate I saw
from EPI said we're down by 1,000,000 jobs for that reason alone.
Again, if you have a better solution, there are a lot of people who
will be all ears. I notice that Romney is avoiding the issue like it
had cooties. He apparently hasn't a clue, either.
--
Ed Huntress
concluded that the recession was ending before he took office. But the
GDP was still going down, and it only looks like an impending
turnaround in retrospect; growth was still negative. It DID turn
around, which tells us...that it did turn around. It doesn't tell us
that "the economy was recovering," because it wasn't. All it was doing
was slowing its race to the bottom. It was still going down after
Obama took office.
It could as well have taken a short breather and gone down further, as
is characteristic of double-dips, or it could have just laid there
until we had a full-blown depression -- which some economists at the
time were predicting.
> Clearly, an
>improvement from -8.x% to -0.7% is the beginning of a turnaround, and
>that all occurred before his inauguration.
> Going from -0.7% to +1.7%
>within six months of his inauguration *clearly* was not due to anything
>he did; the economy simply does not change that rapidly from fiscal
>policies.
inventories and the CPI, one can conclude that there was a shift in
consumer attitudes after Obama was elected, and they slowly,
painfully, started consuming again. That moved the curve, as business
activity in general lagged but eventually followed the trend in
consumption. There was a lot of inventory that had to be worked off.
>
>
>>
>> I don't know what you're looking at, but here's the GDP as reported by
>> the Fed:
>>
>> http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?id=GDPC1
>
>http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth
>
>But it doesn't matter whose numbers are used - the inflections of
>whatever graph you want to look at match the dates I gave.
contract, is actual values of GDP. The growth rates don't tell you
where you are or how deep the hole is. The rates only tell you how
fast you're getting there.
You need both to get a broader picture, but it's all embedded in the
GDP figures. That's where curves are so handy.
> Change the
>date interval of the graph at your Fed site and redraw the graph. You
>clearly see GDP falling steeply in 2008, then the curve dramatically
>flattens at the very beginning of 2009 before turning mildly positive at
>the end of the first quarter. Obummah had nothing to do with that.
>
>Then you see GDP growth all but stopping at the end of 2010 / beginning
>of 2011, two years into his term. He clearly *did* have something to do
>with that.
slowdown in the RATE of growth, not in growth itself. That, too, is
clear only in retrospect.
As for what he had anything to do with or not, no president has a
great deal to do with it. We know we can ameliorate the effects of a
recession by getting money into consumers' hands. We assume we can
stimulate growth by making productive investments with that money or
by cutting taxes, but it's clear that nothing happens until
consumption starts rising, and stimulus spending is the way to do it
fast, while it can do some good. Thus, Japan's and our inability to
stimulate much investment even with record-low interest rates, because
no investors expand operations without the prospect of customers. As
business economists were reporting in 2009 and 2010, their companies'
number one problem was a *lack* of customers.
>
>
>>> Sorry, Obummah simply can't claim any credit for turning the economy
>>> around. He said unemployment would peak at under 8% if his "stimulus"
>>> passed, and in fact it went more than two percentage points higher. He
>>> lied.
provide him at the time. Stiglitz and Krugman were some of the few who
said it wasn't going to work...because they both calculated that the
stimulus should have been just over $2 Trillion, not $1 Trillion. It
appears that they were probably right.
>>
>> As John McCain's top economic advisor said in mid-2009, Obama did
>> exactly what McCain would have done -- or what any president would
>> have had to do. It's the only thing that's known to work. But it
>> doesn't always work.
>>
>> And what's your bright idea for getting an economy out of a recession?
>
>That's not the issue. The issue is how much responsibility Obummah has
>for current economic conditions, and what those conditions are.
Obummah was inaugurated,"
It wasn't. It was still sinking.
....and that "Two years after his inauguration, it stopped growing
altogether"
It didn't. It was still growing. The RATE of growth just slowed down
for a quarter or so.
"... although it has since resumed tepid growth that is *again*
slowing."
Bumps and wiggles is all we see so far.
> The
>economy is not healthy. It isn't collapsed, but it isn't healthy.
>Obummah promised that if his stimulus passed, unemployment would peak at
>8%. In fact, it got more than two percentage points higher than that,
>and it now is more or less stuck at above 8%. Furthermore, reductions
>in the rate have occurred largely due to jobless people leaving the
>workforce rather than getting jobs.
municipal workers. The Economic Policy Institute says that state
employee rolls increase by an average of 1.7% in previous, fairly
recent recoveries. This time they went down. The last estimate I saw
from EPI said we're down by 1,000,000 jobs for that reason alone.
Again, if you have a better solution, there are a lot of people who
will be all ears. I notice that Romney is avoiding the issue like it
had cooties. He apparently hasn't a clue, either.
--
Ed Huntress
Hawke
May 16, 2012, 1:51:53 PM5/16/12
to
On 5/14/2012 4:37 PM, Jeff M wrote:
> On 5/13/2012 4:18 PM, STEADY EDDY wrote:
> [snip]
>> The economy is in trouble. Britain is in a double dip, gas prices at
>> the pump are very high and Greece may leave the European Union. The
>> stock market reflects the poor performance of the economy. Job growth
>> has fallen the last 3 months. This indicates a slowing economy. We may
>> be heading toward a double dip. I just don't see a recovery before the
>> election. Obama is in serious trouble. The polls are running against
>> Obama. I remember what Clinton said to Bush "It's the economy stupid".
>> Obama is in the kitchen. Let's see if he can take the heat.
>
> You may be right. Fairly or not, Presidents tend to be judged by the
> immediate state of the economy.
Unless it's a "choice" election. In that case it boils down to which
> On 5/13/2012 4:18 PM, STEADY EDDY wrote:
> [snip]
>> The economy is in trouble. Britain is in a double dip, gas prices at
>> the pump are very high and Greece may leave the European Union. The
>> stock market reflects the poor performance of the economy. Job growth
>> has fallen the last 3 months. This indicates a slowing economy. We may
>> be heading toward a double dip. I just don't see a recovery before the
>> election. Obama is in serious trouble. The polls are running against
>> Obama. I remember what Clinton said to Bush "It's the economy stupid".
>> Obama is in the kitchen. Let's see if he can take the heat.
>
> You may be right. Fairly or not, Presidents tend to be judged by the
> immediate state of the economy.
candidate do the people want to choose. In a head to head match up
between the two Obama wins easily. People just don't like Romney, even
republicans don't care much for him. So if it turns out to be a choice
election Romney will lose. The truth is everything has to go right for a
Romney win. I doubt that's going to happen. Things that aren't foreseen
always come up to mess things up. That's probably what will happen to
Romney and when people see the debates between the two the "choice" will
be an easy one. Obama.
Hawke
Hawke
May 16, 2012, 3:04:49 PM5/16/12
to
On 5/15/2012 2:16 AM, Lookout wrote:
> On Mon, 14 May 2012 18:37:14 -0500, Jeff M<NoS...@NoThanks.Org>
> On Mon, 14 May 2012 18:37:14 -0500, Jeff M<NoS...@NoThanks.Org>
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/13/2012 4:18 PM, STEADY EDDY wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> The economy is in trouble. Britain is in a double dip, gas prices at
>>> the pump are very high and Greece may leave the European Union. The
>>> stock market reflects the poor performance of the economy. Job growth
>>> has fallen the last 3 months. This indicates a slowing economy. We may
>>> be heading toward a double dip. I just don't see a recovery before the
>>> election. Obama is in serious trouble. The polls are running against
>>> Obama. I remember what Clinton said to Bush "It's the economy stupid".
>>> Obama is in the kitchen. Let's see if he can take the heat.
>>
>> You may be right. Fairly or not, Presidents tend to be judged by the
>> immediate state of the economy.
>>
>
>> On 5/13/2012 4:18 PM, STEADY EDDY wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> The economy is in trouble. Britain is in a double dip, gas prices at
>>> the pump are very high and Greece may leave the European Union. The
>>> stock market reflects the poor performance of the economy. Job growth
>>> has fallen the last 3 months. This indicates a slowing economy. We may
>>> be heading toward a double dip. I just don't see a recovery before the
>>> election. Obama is in serious trouble. The polls are running against
>>> Obama. I remember what Clinton said to Bush "It's the economy stupid".
>>> Obama is in the kitchen. Let's see if he can take the heat.
>>
>> You may be right. Fairly or not, Presidents tend to be judged by the
>> immediate state of the economy.
>>
> And the economy IS improving. Private sector job growth IS continuing.
>>
> If the bad economy isn't enough to get Obama out of office for a
> second term then what is the excuse when Obama beats Romney?
republicans suck?
>>
> If the bad economy isn't enough to get Obama out of office for a
> second term then what is the excuse when Obama beats Romney?
Hawke
Hawke
May 16, 2012, 3:17:50 PM5/16/12
to
On 5/15/2012 7:33 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
> On 5/15/2012 2:16 AM, Lookout wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 May 2012 18:37:14 -0500, Jeff M<NoS...@NoThanks.Org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/13/2012 4:18 PM, STEADY EDDY wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>> The economy is in trouble. Britain is in a double dip, gas prices at
>>>> the pump are very high and Greece may leave the European Union. The
>>>> stock market reflects the poor performance of the economy. Job growth
>>>> has fallen the last 3 months. This indicates a slowing economy. We may
>>>> be heading toward a double dip. I just don't see a recovery before the
>>>> election. Obama is in serious trouble. The polls are running against
>>>> Obama. I remember what Clinton said to Bush "It's the economy stupid".
>>>> Obama is in the kitchen. Let's see if he can take the heat.
>>>
>>> You may be right. Fairly or not, Presidents tend to be judged by the
>>> immediate state of the economy.
>>>
>> And the economy IS improving.
>
> On 5/15/2012 2:16 AM, Lookout wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 May 2012 18:37:14 -0500, Jeff M<NoS...@NoThanks.Org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/13/2012 4:18 PM, STEADY EDDY wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>> The economy is in trouble. Britain is in a double dip, gas prices at
>>>> the pump are very high and Greece may leave the European Union. The
>>>> stock market reflects the poor performance of the economy. Job growth
>>>> has fallen the last 3 months. This indicates a slowing economy. We may
>>>> be heading toward a double dip. I just don't see a recovery before the
>>>> election. Obama is in serious trouble. The polls are running against
>>>> Obama. I remember what Clinton said to Bush "It's the economy stupid".
>>>> Obama is in the kitchen. Let's see if he can take the heat.
>>>
>>> You may be right. Fairly or not, Presidents tend to be judged by the
>>> immediate state of the economy.
>>>
>> And the economy IS improving.
>
> It isn't. Growth in GDP is anemic - barely 2.2% in Q1 2012, and rate of
> growth *fell*. One of the key elements of the fall in growth was
> business investment, and when business investment is down, the economy
> grows even more slowly in future quarters. Economists say growth would
> need to be at least 4% for a full year in order to reduce unemployment
> from it's current rate of 8.2% by one full percentage point. The
> election is less than six months away. The unemployment rate is falling
> almost entirely because people without jobs are leaving the labor force,
> *not* because employment is increasing.
>
> The economy is not improving - it is getting worse.
>
> Most important of all, the economy has not performed anything remotely
> close to the way Obummah said he was going to make it perform. Among
> other idiotic claims, Obummah said unemployment would peak at 8% if his
> $767 billion stimulus bill - an increase in the deficit - passed. In
> fact, the "stimulus" was $862 billion - a $95 billion "oops" - and
> unemployment shot up well over 9% nationally. The economy wasn't
> stimulated - Obummah just pissed away close to a trillion dollars.
You are foolish and ignorant. First off, you of all people ought to know
> growth *fell*. One of the key elements of the fall in growth was
> business investment, and when business investment is down, the economy
> grows even more slowly in future quarters. Economists say growth would
> need to be at least 4% for a full year in order to reduce unemployment
> from it's current rate of 8.2% by one full percentage point. The
> election is less than six months away. The unemployment rate is falling
> almost entirely because people without jobs are leaving the labor force,
> *not* because employment is increasing.
>
> The economy is not improving - it is getting worse.
>
> Most important of all, the economy has not performed anything remotely
> close to the way Obummah said he was going to make it perform. Among
> other idiotic claims, Obummah said unemployment would peak at 8% if his
> $767 billion stimulus bill - an increase in the deficit - passed. In
> fact, the "stimulus" was $862 billion - a $95 billion "oops" - and
> unemployment shot up well over 9% nationally. The economy wasn't
> stimulated - Obummah just pissed away close to a trillion dollars.
the president of the U.S. has jack shit to do with how the economy runs.
Second off, you ought to know that Europe's economy is not doing well
and China's economy is about as low as it has been in decades. So do you
blame Obama for their slow growing economies too? The fact is the
world's economies are not growing very well right now, that has nothing
to do with Obama's policies, and ours is no different except it's doing
better than most. Our businesses are still raking in great profits and
are sitting on 2 trillion in cash. So we're actually doing pretty well
considering where we started when hurricane Bush left town.
The deficit is the direct result of the policies passed when Bush was in
office. No one can change that at this time. The recession, the tax
cuts, the drug benefits plan for Medicare, and the war in Afghanistan,
have made it to where deficits are built into the economy no matter who
is the president. In other words, Obama is powerless to stop the
policies Bush put in place that are causing the deficits to continue.
You slant every statistic to make it look bad for Obama. Well slant
this. Every single year a republican has been president since 1980 they
have increased the deficits massively, they have also grown the size of
the government every single year. Never has the government shrunk under
a republican president. Now Romney says he's going to shrink government,
cut the deficit, and get the economy roaring. But then Romney has a
reputation for saying anything he thinks people want to hear. So the
question is do you actually believe Romney will do any of those things?
Don't forget, no republican president has in 33 years. Actually, if you
believe it you are one stupid rube.
Hawke
Hawke
May 16, 2012, 3:21:53 PM5/16/12
to
are blocking all kinds of bills that would create a lot of jobs.
republicans are sabotaging the economy in the hopes that will hurt
Obama. They're stinking, putrid, traitors, just like the southerners
were in 1860. Pure white trash that cares only about themselves and
their rich donors. They all ought to be wearing orange jumpsuits.
Hawke
Hawke
May 16, 2012, 3:24:39 PM5/16/12
to
November and will take over everything. Considering how much most people
hate congress I wonder how many of them will be sent packing?
Hawke
Hawke
May 16, 2012, 3:41:56 PM5/16/12
to
On 5/15/2012 1:57 PM, Max Boot wrote:
> On 5/15/2012 12:47 PM, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
>> On May 15, 9:38 am, Max Boot<max.b...@lathymes.com> wrote:
> On 5/15/2012 12:47 PM, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
>> On May 15, 9:38 am, Max Boot<max.b...@lathymes.com> wrote:
>>> On 5/14/2012 4:37 PM, Jeff M wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/13/2012 4:18 PM, STEADY EDDY wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>>> The economy is in trouble. Britain is in a double dip, gas prices at
>>>>> the pump are very high and Greece may leave the European Union. The
>>>>> stock market reflects the poor performance of the economy. Job growth
>>>>> has fallen the last 3 months. This indicates a slowing economy. We may
>>>>> be heading toward a double dip. I just don't see a recovery before the
>>>>> election. Obama is in serious trouble. The polls are running against
>>>>> Obama. I remember what Clinton said to Bush "It's the economy stupid".
>>>>> Obama is in the kitchen. Let's see if he can take the heat.
>>>
>>>> You may be right. Fairly or not, Presidents tend to be judged by the
>>>> immediate state of the economy.
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 5/13/2012 4:18 PM, STEADY EDDY wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>>> The economy is in trouble. Britain is in a double dip, gas prices at
>>>>> the pump are very high and Greece may leave the European Union. The
>>>>> stock market reflects the poor performance of the economy. Job growth
>>>>> has fallen the last 3 months. This indicates a slowing economy. We may
>>>>> be heading toward a double dip. I just don't see a recovery before the
>>>>> election. Obama is in serious trouble. The polls are running against
>>>>> Obama. I remember what Clinton said to Bush "It's the economy stupid".
>>>>> Obama is in the kitchen. Let's see if he can take the heat.
>>>
>>>> You may be right. Fairly or not, Presidents tend to be judged by the
>>>> immediate state of the economy.
>>>
>>> This president decidedly earns low marks for his handling of the
>>> economy. The recession officially ended less than six months into his
>>> term, meaning he had nothing to do with turning the economy around.
>>> Since then, the economy has stagnated and came to a standstill in 2011,
>>> all in his term. GDP growth is anemic, leading to essentially no growth
>>> in employment.
>>>
>>> Obummah made wild promises about where the economy would be now if the
>>> country implemented his stimulus plan. The promises were shattered.
>>
>> Obama had done quite well considering the crap that REPUBLICAN George
>> Bush handed him.
>
> Obummah did not come close to keeping his promises on the economy. The
> economy is in serious trouble at present. Much of the trouble is due to
> things Obummah directly did.
We know Bush torpedoed the economy with his right wing trickle down
>>> economy. The recession officially ended less than six months into his
>>> term, meaning he had nothing to do with turning the economy around.
>>> Since then, the economy has stagnated and came to a standstill in 2011,
>>> all in his term. GDP growth is anemic, leading to essentially no growth
>>> in employment.
>>>
>>> Obummah made wild promises about where the economy would be now if the
>>> country implemented his stimulus plan. The promises were shattered.
>>
>> Obama had done quite well considering the crap that REPUBLICAN George
>> Bush handed him.
>
> Obummah did not come close to keeping his promises on the economy. The
> economy is in serious trouble at present. Much of the trouble is due to
> things Obummah directly did.
policies. They led directly to the financial mess and the recession.
It's not Obama's fault that the economy has not bounced back from where
it was when it hit bottom, and it only went down that far because of the
policies of the Bush administration.
It's clear that all republicans want it to be Obama's fault that the
economy has not roared back from the great recession. The reality is the
damage to the economy was so severe that no president could have brought
us back any faster especially with the republicans obstructing him all
the way along. The simple fact is that Bush did so much damage to the
economy that it will take near a decade to get back to anywhere close to
normal. It's not Obama's fault, it's Bush's.
Hawke
Hawke
May 16, 2012, 3:48:26 PM5/16/12
to
On 5/15/2012 9:18 PM, Max Boot wrote:
> On 5/15/2012 6:50 PM, Lookout wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 May 2012 07:38:33 -0700, Max Boot<max....@lathymes.com>
> On 5/15/2012 6:50 PM, Lookout wrote:
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/14/2012 4:37 PM, Jeff M wrote:
>>>> On 5/13/2012 4:18 PM, STEADY EDDY wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>>> The economy is in trouble. Britain is in a double dip, gas prices at
>>>>> the pump are very high and Greece may leave the European Union. The
>>>>> stock market reflects the poor performance of the economy. Job growth
>>>>> has fallen the last 3 months. This indicates a slowing economy. We may
>>>>> be heading toward a double dip. I just don't see a recovery before the
>>>>> election. Obama is in serious trouble. The polls are running against
>>>>> Obama. I remember what Clinton said to Bush "It's the economy stupid".
>>>>> Obama is in the kitchen. Let's see if he can take the heat.
>>>>
>>>> You may be right. Fairly or not, Presidents tend to be judged by the
>>>> immediate state of the economy.
>>>
>>> This president decidedly earns low marks for his handling of the
>>> economy.
>>
>>
>>> On 5/14/2012 4:37 PM, Jeff M wrote:
>>>> On 5/13/2012 4:18 PM, STEADY EDDY wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>>> The economy is in trouble. Britain is in a double dip, gas prices at
>>>>> the pump are very high and Greece may leave the European Union. The
>>>>> stock market reflects the poor performance of the economy. Job growth
>>>>> has fallen the last 3 months. This indicates a slowing economy. We may
>>>>> be heading toward a double dip. I just don't see a recovery before the
>>>>> election. Obama is in serious trouble. The polls are running against
>>>>> Obama. I remember what Clinton said to Bush "It's the economy stupid".
>>>>> Obama is in the kitchen. Let's see if he can take the heat.
>>>>
>>>> You may be right. Fairly or not, Presidents tend to be judged by the
>>>> immediate state of the economy.
>>>
>>> This president decidedly earns low marks for his handling of the
>>> economy.
>>
>> Nope. Wrong again.
>
> In fact, I showed that he does. The economy has languished for most of
> his term. People are suffering.
>
> You're a shrill partisan who just can't accept the facts.
Unemployment would be 2 percentage points lower right now if the
>
> In fact, I showed that he does. The economy has languished for most of
> his term. People are suffering.
>
> You're a shrill partisan who just can't accept the facts.
republicans would pass the legislation they have bottled up in the
House. Obama would be hiring over a million people to work on
infrastructure projects right now. That would put a million people to
work. republicans won't allow it. They wont' allow anything to pass that
will cause unemployment to drop. They want it high. You don't believe
that? You don't think those people would sink the economy if it meant
they got back in power? If you don't know they would do that then you
have no idea what it means to be a republican. Winning comes ahead of
everything. That means our economy. If people have to be unemployed, oh
well, that's necessary so we can get Romney if office so he can put the
Bush trickle down policies back in again. You want that? Are you nuts?
Hawke
Lookout
May 16, 2012, 4:27:27 PM5/16/12
to
On Wed, 16 May 2012 08:10:44 -0700, Max Boot <max....@lathymes.com>
Both relied on the stimulus promise from Obama.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages