Languish.org

Will Romney's only talking point vanish?

Quote

Unemployment near three-year low

WASHINGTON (Reuters)   U.S. employment growth accelerated last month and the jobless rate dropped to a near three-year low of 8.5 percent, the strongest evidence yet the economic recovery is gaining steam.

Nonfarm payrolls increased 200,000 in December, the Labor Department said on Friday. It was the biggest rise in three months and beat economists' expectations for a 150,000 gain.

The unemployment rate fell from a revised 8.7 percent in November to its lowest level since February 2009, a heartening sign for President Barack Obama whose re-election hopes could hinge on the state of the labor market.

"The labor market is healing, but we still have a long way to go to recoup the losses we have endured. We may be close to a tipping point where gains can become more self-feeding," said Diane Swonk, chief economist at Mesirow Financial in Chicago.

A string of better-than-expected U.S. data in recent weeks has highlighted a contrast between the recovery in the world's biggest economy and Europe, where the economy is widely believed to be contracting.

The jobs data was overshadowed in financial markets by concerns over Europe's debt crisis. U.S. stocks ended mostly down, while Treasury debt prices rose on safe-haven bids.

The dollar rose to a near 16-month high against the euro.

Republican presidential hopefuls have blasted Obama's economic policies as doing more harm than good.

The latest economic signs, however, could offer him some political protection.

The economy added 1.6 million jobs last year, the most since 2006, and the jobless rate, which peaked at 10 percent in October 2009, has dropped 0.6 percentage point in the last four months.

Obama welcomed the news and urged Congress to extend a two-month payroll tax cut through 2012 to help sustain the recovery.

"We're moving in the right direction. When Congress returns they should extend the middle-class tax cut for all of this year, to make sure we keep this recovery going," he said.

LONG ROAD BACK

Employment remains about 6.1 million below its pre-recession level and at December's pace of job growth, it would take about 2-1/2 years to win those jobs back. There are roughly 4.3 unemployed people for every job opening.

Unseasonably mild weather last month helped fuel a hefty gain in construction employment. Courier jobs also rose sharply, a move the Labor Department pinned on strong online shopping for the holiday season.

Those jobs could be lost in January and the unemployment rate might rise as Americans who had abandoned the hunt for work are lured back into the labor market.

The drop in the jobless rate was mostly due to strong hiring. The labor force shrank only modestly.

A broad measure of unemployment, which includes people who want to work but have stopped looking and those working only part time but who want more work, dropped to an almost three-year low of 15.2 percent from 15.6 percent in November.

Still, all told, 23.7 million Americans are either out of work or underemployed.

With the labor market still far from healthy, the debt crisis in Europe unresolved and tensions over Iran threatening to drive up oil prices, the U.S. economy faces stiff headwinds.

FED STILL IN PLAY

Economists predict the recovery will lose a step early this year after expanding in the fourth quarter at what is expected to be the fastest pace in 1-1/2 years.

While the prospect of a further easing of monetary policy was damped a bit by the jobs data, the shaky outlook means a third round of asset purchases by the Federal Reserve remains an option.

"The Fed will be watching for further credible evidence that this improving trend is gaining traction," said Anthony Karydakis, chief economist at Commerzbank in New York.

New York Federal Reserve Bank President William Dudley on Friday suggested the U.S. central bank was still leaning toward buying more bonds to pull borrowing costs lower, describing the recovery as "frustratingly slow" and the unemployment rate as "unacceptably high."

"I believe it is also appropriate to continue to evaluate whether we could provide additional (policy) accommodation," said Dudley.

GOVERNMENT A DRAG

All the job gains in December came from the private sector, where payrolls rose 212,000 - the most in three months.

Government employment contracted 12,000, with most of the drag coming from local government layoffs. However, the pace of government job losses is moderating as some states report revenue growth after years of being in the red.

For all of 2011, the private sector added 1.9 million jobs, while government employment fell 280,000. A measure of the share of industries that showed job gains during the month rebounded to a five-month high in December after diving in November.

Construction payrolls increased 17,000 after falling 12,000 in November as mild weather has boosted groundbreaking for new homes.

Transportation and warehousing employment jumped 50,200. The bulk of the rise came from the messenger industry, which added 42,000 jobs, reflecting an increase in deliveries of online purchases made during the holiday season.

Manufacturing jobs rose 23,000, the largest increase since July. Factory employment rose 225,000 last year, sustaining gains for the first time since 1997.

But there were soft spots in retail, where payrolls growth slowed to 27,900 after hefty gains in November as retailers geared up for a busy holiday shopping season.

Temporary hiring, seen as a harbinger of future hiring, fell for the first time June, dropping 7,500 in December after gaining 11,200.

Hourly earnings rose a modest four cents, indicating that most of the jobs being created are low paying.

This is a potentially troubling sign for consumer spending, which has been largely supported by a reduction in savings, although it also signals a lack of inflation pressure.

"Firms need to grow wages faster if consumption is to accelerate. There is not a lot of appetite to give raises," said Joel Naroff, chief economist at Naroff Economic Advisors in Holland, Pennsylvania.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loBe0WXtts8

Next Tuesday is Election Day. Next Tuesday all of you will go to the  polls, will stand there in the polling place and make a decision. I  think when you make that decision, it might be well if you would ask  yourself, are you better off than you were four years ago? Is it easier  for you to go and buy things in the stores than it was four years ago?  Is there more or less unemployment in the country than there was four  years ago? Is America as respected throughout the world as it was? Do  you feel that our security is as safe, that we're as strong as we were  four years ago? And if you answer all of those questions yes, why then, I  think your choice is very obvious as to whom you will vote for. If you  don't agree, if you don't think that this course that we've been on for  the last four years is what you would like to see us follow for the next  four, then I could suggest another choice that you have.

Fuck Ronald Reagan.  I could have been born under the benevolent watch of Jimmy Carter.

But fuck Mitt Romney even harder.  He's evil.

QuoteWill Romney's only talking point vanish?

No and he wont win either

Quote from: Ideologue on January 07, 2012, 01:04:06 AM
Fuck Ronald Reagan.  I could have been born under the benevolent watch of Jimmy Carter.

How can you hate a man who told such wonderful stories?  :mad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qColFjbzoK0&feature=related

That's good news.
Back in December, I saw a news article that speculated an increase in unemployment for Q1 2012.
Granted, Q1 isn't over yet.

Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on January 07, 2012, 06:19:17 AM
That's good news.
Back in December, I saw a news article that speculated an increase in unemployment for Q1 2012.
Granted, Q1 isn't over yet.

Not if you want to get rid of Obama.  If the economy picks up then the GOP will be stuck hoping for a terrorist attack.

Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on January 07, 2012, 06:19:17 AM
That's good news.
Back in December, I saw a news article that speculated an increase in unemployment for Q1 2012.
Granted, Q1 isn't over yet.

The predictions I have seen forecast unemployment to remain static at 8.5-8.7% through the end of 2012.

Growth for the past year is estimated to be 2% of GDP instead of the original 4% projection made in January 2011.

Thus, the White House is noticeably cautious about touting the numbers since previous "summers of recovery" never came.

The biggest threats to the American economy are external, such as European debt crisis or a hard landing in China. Natural disasters might also fuck things up.
Internally, the biggest threat is politicians may destroy the country. But also for real, there is a large shadow housing inventory that banks have yet to unleash on the depressed market, the student debt bubble continues to skyrocket, and government contraction will also put a damper on things. Think about all those broken and crazy veterans being cut and thrown away to survive in this economic environment! :o

The past few months US (and UK data actually) has consistently been better than expected.  Hopefully that means there's a recovery gathering pace more quickly than it can be measured, similarly most revisions of past data has been upward.

If the Euro holds together and there's not Eurogeddon, then the US should do well.  Even estimates for the UK expect a pretty flat two quarters but, God-willing, real recovery in the last two. 

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 07, 2012, 07:08:29 AM
The past few months US (and UK data actually) has consistently been better than expected.  Hopefully that means there's a recovery gathering pace more quickly than it can be measured, similarly most revisions of past data has been upward.

If the Euro holds together and there's not Eurogeddon, then the US should do well.  Even estimates for the UK expect a pretty flat two quarters but, God-willing, real recovery in the last two. 

Most revisions have been downward. It was part of what precipitated the stock market crash this past summer. The recession numbers were worse and recovery less than initially thought, thus leading the market to "correct" itself. Last month, the housing numbers for when the bubble burst were also revised downward. Heck, this latest unemployment numbers announcement even says that November's unemployment figure was actually 8.7% instead of the previously stated 8.6% The stockmarket declined yesterday despite the numbers.

No Obama-bashing here. Just some warranted caution. :D

I think the combo of Europe and the genuinely horrifying debt ceiling debacle had more to do with it.  But to take that as an example initially the employment numbers for August were 0, we've since found out around 100k jobs were created that month.  Here's a graph of what I meant:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Frf%2Fimage_606w%2FWashingtonPost%2FContent%2FBlogs%2Fezra-klein%2FStandingArt%2Fjobs%2520report--%2520revisions.jpg%3Fuuid%3D95jMsjh1EeGd-4DDywXxTA&hash=83e111ffe1750103e53893d63806272277b54fe6)

I'm not sure what's happening in the stock market.  It just seems very volatile and emotional.  It'll fall by 2% one day and rise by the same the next on the same data.  I've read, in this country, that actually looking at, say, the FTSE 250 (which is still volatile) is more relevant to how our economies doing because so many of the FTSE 100 are very globalised companies - for example banks, financial services and lots of mining companies.

It's fair to be sceptical though.  Personally I'm more hopeful than I have been.  I think we should have a strong recovery underway by the end of the year - if there isn't, say, Eurogeddon, a revolution in Saudi, a war in Iran or whatever else. 

The Greatest Recession and unemployment have always been a double edged sword for Obama and the Democrats.  When it's there it gives them the chance to spend money and/or beat up Republicans for indifference to hard working middle class Americans, or middle class Americans who usually work hard but aren't at the moment.  But it leaves them open to the charge of "economic mismanagement," or "ineffective leadership."  If unemployment recedes they lose both the upside and the downside.

A number of pundits appear to be talking up 8% unemployment as the magic threshold that Obama needs to win reelection.  I think it will still be above 8 on election day and I think Obama will still win.  But then again, I was completely blindsided by the midterm GOP takeover of the House, so what do I know.

Quote from: Ideologue on January 07, 2012, 01:04:06 AM
Fuck Ronald Reagan.  I could have been born under the benevolent watch of Jimmy Carter.

But fuck Mitt Romney even harder.  He's evil.

I'll be the first to say Reagan is overrated (and I am a Reagan supporter), but come now, Carter was a failure and an abomination worse than a thousand Hitlers.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 07, 2012, 01:52:05 PM
The Greatest Recession and unemployment have always been a double edged sword for Obama and the Democrats.  When it's there it gives them the chance to spend money and/or beat up Republicans for indifference to hard working middle class Americans, or middle class Americans who usually work hard but aren't at the moment.  But it leaves them open to the charge of "economic mismanagement," or "ineffective leadership."  If unemployment recedes they lose both the upside and the downside.

A number of pundits appear to be talking up 8% unemployment as the magic threshold that Obama needs to win reelection.  I think it will still be above 8 on election day and I think Obama will still win.  But then again, I was completely blindsided by the midterm GOP takeover of the House, so what do I know.

I think Obama will be vulnerable in 2012, but as the saying in football goes, "you still have to play the games." For that reason I'd be very shocked if Obama actually loses. Not because I don't think he'll be vulnerable, but because a Presidential election isn't going to be Barack Obama against a generic candidate, it is going to be Barack Obama against a specific Republican candidate. I think the man is a flawed President, but given what we saw in his defeat of Hillary and then McCain, anyone who can't say that we're talking about one of the most masterful campaigners, organizers, and fund raisers in American electoral history is a damn fool and a liar. The fact that he's vulnerable means he could be beaten in spite of that, but because of his talents at campaigning it means that he's no featherweight who any Republican patsy is going to knock over with a strong wind. He's vulnerable but the Republicans needed to field a solid candidate to actually take advantage of that.

I don't dislike Romney, truth be told. But he's just an average candidate, he's not strong enough to beat the President. No one else in the field is moderate enough to beat the President.

For example if Chris Christie had thrown his hat into the ring, and had he won the nomination, I think he could beat Obama in 2012. Christie has everything it would take to beat Obama, none of his policies will totally alienate the middle, and he's a brawler who isn't afraid to go for the vicious body blows and has no fear of staking out his position on the issues.

Romney is gearing up to be a Dewey type candidate who I will try to commit as few errors as possible and will be banking on general dissatisfaction with the President winning the election. It didn't work for Dewey when the country was much less favorable towards the incumbent; and I don't see it working for Romney, who is already seen a bit more negatively than Dewey was.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 07, 2012, 02:47:36 PM
I think Obama will be vulnerable in 2012, but as the saying in football goes, "you still have to play the games." For that reason I'd be very shocked if Obama actually loses. Not because I don't think he'll be vulnerable, but because a Presidential election isn't going to be Barack Obama against a generic candidate, it is going to be Barack Obama against a specific Republican candidate. I think the man is a flawed President, but given what we saw in his defeat of Hillary and then McCain, anyone who can't say that we're talking about one of the most masterful campaigners, organizers, and fund raisers in American electoral history is a damn fool and a liar. The fact that he's vulnerable means he could be beaten in spite of that, but because of his talents at campaigning it means that he's no featherweight who any Republican patsy is going to knock over with a strong wind. He's vulnerable but the Republicans needed to field a solid candidate to actually take advantage of that.

I don't dislike Romney, truth be told. But he's just an average candidate, he's not strong enough to beat the President. No one else in the field is moderate enough to beat the President.

The conventional wisdom is that Obama is a masterful campaigner but I'm not all that convinced.  He generated heat during the primaries and the general, but how much of that was Obama and how much of that was throw out  Bush and his cronies?  Since getting elected his staged political events have been pretty flat.  Obama giving more or less the same stump speech against more or less the same backdrop of fat black women and white union guys.  Don't have any reason to doubt his fundraising ability.

I think Obama will win because it will be so much easier for him to demagogue the economic issues than for Romney or anyone else to.

Obama has a vaunted campaign machine, but I would not underestimate the now quite experienced Romney machine, especially one that can be self-funded to the tunes of hundreds of millions of dollars... (personal wealth + Super PACs)

While Romney is not dominating anything right now, Obama did not lock down his own nomination either until late spring 2008. As much as the media spun the narrative of invincible Obama (and blame Palin) during and afterwards, McCain and Obama stayed a near tie in national polls in spite of Bush fatigue all the way until September 2008. Then, the stock market crashed.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 07, 2012, 02:42:49 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on January 07, 2012, 01:04:06 AM
Fuck Ronald Reagan.  I could have been born under the benevolent watch of Jimmy Carter.

But fuck Mitt Romney even harder.  He's evil.

I'll be the first to say Reagan is overrated (and I am a Reagan supporter), but come now, Carter was a failure and an abomination worse than a thousand Hitlers.

Well, he had his problems.  It's true.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 07, 2012, 02:42:49 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on January 07, 2012, 01:04:06 AM
Fuck Ronald Reagan.  I could have been born under the benevolent watch of Jimmy Carter.

But fuck Mitt Romney even harder.  He's evil.

I'll be the first to say Reagan is overrated (and I am a Reagan supporter), but come now, Carter was a failure and an abomination worse than a thousand Hitlers.

What exactly did Carter do that was "worse then a thousand Hitlers"?

Quote from: Phillip V on January 07, 2012, 03:27:08 PM
Obama has a vaunted campaign machine, but I would not underestimate the now quite experienced Romney machine, especially one that can be self-funded to the tunes of hundreds of millions of dollars... (personal wealth + Super PACs)

While Romney is not dominating anything right now, Obama did not lock down his own nomination either until late spring 2008. As much as the media spun the narrative of invincible Obama (and blame Palin) during and afterwards, McCain and Obama stayed a near tie in national polls in spite of Bush fatigue all the way until September 2008. Then, the stock market crashed.

Nonsense.  McCain knew he was in trouble well before then.  That's why he picked Palin as VP. 
It was clear that McCain wasn't getting an traction during the Summer.  He was switching strategies every few weeks.  He and his team understood that unless they did something drastic they would lose.  They did something drastic.  They picked a complete unknown for VP.  What some of them referred to as a "Hail Mary Pass".  The choice was a disaster for McCain, but he still would have lost.  Hell he would have lost if the Economy hadn't collapsed in 2008.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/04/opinion/polls/main4154051.shtml

Agree with Raz.  The nationwide numbers weren't that bad for McCain but the electoral map was very bad.

 :o

Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2012, 03:40:23 PM

Quote from: Phillip V on January 07, 2012, 03:27:08 PM
Obama has a vaunted campaign machine, but I would not underestimate the now quite experienced Romney machine, especially one that can be self-funded to the tunes of hundreds of millions of dollars... (personal wealth + Super PACs)

While Romney is not dominating anything right now, Obama did not lock down his own nomination either until late spring 2008. As much as the media spun the narrative of invincible Obama (and blame Palin) during and afterwards, McCain and Obama stayed a near tie in national polls in spite of Bush fatigue all the way until September 2008. Then, the stock market crashed.

Nonsense.  McCain knew he was in trouble well before then.  That's why he picked Palin as VP. 
It was clear that McCain wasn't getting an traction during the Summer.  He was switching strategies every few weeks.  He and his team understood that unless they did something drastic they would lose.  They did something drastic.  They picked a complete unknown for VP.  What some of them referred to as a "Hail Mary Pass".  The choice was a disaster for McCain, but he still would have lost.  Hell he would have lost if the Economy hadn't collapsed in 2008.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/04/opinion/polls/main4154051.shtml (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/04/opinion/polls/main4154051.shtml)

Once again. Look at the economic indicators. That June poll you linked to, look at gas prices and stock market at the time.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdl.dropbox.com%2Fu%2F51524%2F2008polls.png&hash=9164db51865cb8d227b5ad6f518ba58a0588cc9c)

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdl.dropbox.com%2Fu%2F51524%2F2008dowjones.png&hash=c655cf119a6d192b1032b9e3fc74cc248d494217)

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 07, 2012, 03:17:45 PM
The conventional wisdom is that Obama is a masterful campaigner but I'm not all that convinced.  He generated heat during the primaries and the general, but how much of that was Obama and how much of that was throw out  Bush and his cronies?  Since getting elected his staged political events have been pretty flat.  Obama giving more or less the same stump speech against more or less the same backdrop of fat black women and white union guys.  Don't have any reason to doubt his fundraising ability.

I think he's a pretty impressive campaigner.

I think Romney, on the other hand is a very unimpressive campaigner.  In a general election at his best I think he'll reach the heights of Kerry.  He could, of course, still win if the economy crashes but I think it looks increasingly unlikely.  This is one of the reasons I have with Romney.  If he's chosen I wouldn't be surprised to see the Republicans nominate, say, Rand Paul in 2016.

I think the party should nominate Huntsman who could win, or get the crazy out of their system.

QuoteAs much as the media spun the narrative of invincible Obama (and blame Palin) during and afterwards, McCain and Obama stayed a near tie in national polls in spite of Bush fatigue all the way until September 2008. Then, the stock market crashed.

Not true.  After Obama became candidate he held a consistent lead over McCain.  Then McCain announced Palin and had a very good convention (and she was magnificent).  That initially had a very positive effect, it then didn't work out so well and the stock market crashed.  September's the only time, after Obama got the nomination, that the two were equal or McCain was ahead.
http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/08-us-pres-ge-mvo.php?nr=1
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2008

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 07, 2012, 03:51:34 PM

QuoteAs much as the media spun the narrative of invincible Obama (and blame Palin) during and afterwards, McCain and Obama stayed a near tie in national polls in spite of Bush fatigue all the way until September 2008. Then, the stock market crashed.

Not true.  After Obama became candidate he held a consistent lead over McCain.  Then McCain announced Palin and had a very good convention (and she was magnificent).  That initially had a very positive effect, it then didn't work out so well and the stock market crashed.  September's the only time, after Obama got the nomination, that the two were equal or McCain was ahead.
http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/08-us-pres-ge-mvo.php?nr=1 (http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/08-us-pres-ge-mvo.php?nr=1)
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2008 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2008)

See my post above. What we have is the public was split on the two men in spite of Bush fatigue and McCain campaign ineptitude and lack of cash. Each time we saw major poll changes was in the context of economic conditions rather than Obama being *omg* awesome comapaigner. The Palin bump was humongous and quite impressive in the face of macro headwinds, but that was totally destroyed by the stock market crash in September (rather than blaming Palin, who I agree is an idiot).

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 07, 2012, 02:50:56 PM
For example if Chris Christie had thrown his hat into the ring, and had he won the nomination, I think he could beat Obama in 2012. Christie has everything it would take to beat Obama, none of his policies will totally alienate the middle, and he's a brawler who isn't afraid to go for the vicious body blows and has no fear of staking out his position on the issues.

Umm, so you don't know much about the nation then? We don't want a fattie nor do we want someone from New Jersey.

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 07, 2012, 03:51:34 PM
I think he's a pretty impressive campaigner.

If only he had the goal of being a pretty impressive president. :angry:

I only say Obama's an impressive campaigner.  I think Clinton and Reagan were probably better - aside from that he's the best recent President.

I kind-of like Palin.  But I think she was a choice that weakened McCain's campaign hugely.  Similarly I think McCain was probably the only Republican candidate who could run without being entirely tarred with Bush.

The economy matters, of course, but I think it's in the broad 'events, dear boy, events' category.  What matters is how politicians respond to and use stories about the economy and if they succeed in that.  McCain did huge damage to his campaign with his idea of stopping the campaign and everyone heading to DC.  I think that hurt his campaign more than the stock market crash did - it's not like the left worldwide's done well out of the economic crisis.

Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2012, 04:06:02 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 07, 2012, 03:51:34 PM
I think he's a pretty impressive campaigner.

If only he had the goal of being a pretty impressive president. :angry:

I think he has.  He's got more significant domestic legislation than any President since Reagan, at least, and I think his  foreign policy's been strong.  He's up there with Bush I on foreign policy in my view.

You may not think that what he's done is right but he has, for the most part, achieved it.

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 07, 2012, 04:09:08 PM
I only say Obama's an impressive campaigner.  I think Clinton and Reagan were probably better - aside from that he's the best recent President.

I kind-of like Palin.  But I think she was a choice that weakened McCain's campaign hugely.  Similarly I think McCain was probably the only Republican candidate who could run without being entirely tarred with Bush.

The economy matters, of course, but I think it's in the broad 'events, dear boy, events' category.  What matters is how politicians respond to and use stories about the economy and if they succeed in that.  McCain did huge damage to his campaign with his idea of stopping the campaign and everyone heading to DC.  I think that hurt his campaign more than the stock market crash did - it's not like the left worldwide's done well out of the economic crisis.

You can once again try and spin it, but looking at those poll numbers you yourself tried to use before, Obama broke away in polling starting in May/June when the Dow started dropping and then utterly ran away with victory when the economy totally went to hell in September.

Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2012, 04:03:32 PMUmm, so you don't know much about the nation then? We don't want a fattie nor do we want someone from New Jersey.

I don't necessarily agree with either of those things. Chris Christie has the right template to beat Obama but he may lack the particulars. The fat issue is one I thought was a no brainer as well, but I don't know that it's actually that big of a problem. Clinton was a major fatty in spirit (sending his aides on missions to get McDonald's regularly) and his first term jogging/weight loss program was pretty well known. Clinton was never as physically large as Christie (meaning he never actually had small planets orbiting around him), but America is a lot fatter in 2012 than it was in 1994. We're like a 70% fat, 35% obese country. I think it's prime time for a 350 lb President.

Quote from: Ideologue on January 07, 2012, 01:04:06 AM
Fuck Ronald Reagan.  I could have been born under the benevolent watch of Jimmy Carter.

Wouldn't that have just kicked the revolution down the road a bit, and possibly made it worse?

Quote from: Phillip V on January 07, 2012, 04:14:05 PMYou can once again try and spin it, but looking at those poll numbers you yourself tried to use before, Obama broke away in polling starting in May/June when the Dow started dropping and then utterly ran away with victory when the economy totally went to hell in September.

Yeah, the idea that Palin cost McCain the Presidency is, quite honestly, bullshit. His numbers went up when he chose Palin, and they went down when the economy tanked.

I hate Palin. All smart people on the internet hated Palin. However, most Americans are stupid, stupid people, and Palin energized McCain's base. After 2-3 straight years of "pundit Palin" and all the sordid details about her coming out, yeah, she looks like a stupid pick. However I think a lot of people's (justified) hatred of Palin has clouded their perception of what actually happened when McCain nominated her--it measurably helped his campaign.

Quote from: Phillip V on January 07, 2012, 04:14:05 PM

You can once again try and spin it, but looking at those poll numbers you yourself tried to use before, Obama broke away in polling starting in May/June when the Dow started dropping and then utterly ran away with victory when the economy totally went to hell in September.

It's not spin.  I don't think the economy's determinative. 

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 07, 2012, 04:09:08 PMI only say Obama's an impressive campaigner.  I think Clinton and Reagan were probably better - aside from that he's the best recent President.

No way we could ever know since Reagan and Clinton essentially ran in years in which almost any politician from their party would have won election.

Reagan won against a Jimmy Carter who was ripe with failure and all it took is a half hearted effort to warm the American people up to knocking him out of the Oval Office. Walter Mondale is probably the single worst candidate ever nominated by a major party for the Presidency. My great-grandmother could have beaten him in an election.

Clinton ran against H.W. Bush who was a good President but you had Perot as a spoiler and the economy was having trouble all at the same time.

In 1996 the GOP made the decision to nominate an honorable, decent man and a war hero. Unfortunately that was what Bob Dole was in life, in 1996 he was a reanimated zombie that had been restored to life by some GOP necromancer, and he was just simply not a viable candidate.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 07, 2012, 04:14:42 PM

Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2012, 04:03:32 PMUmm, so you don't know much about the nation then? We don't want a fattie nor do we want someone from New Jersey.

I don't necessarily agree with either of those things. Chris Christie has the right template to beat Obama but he may lack the particulars. The fat issue is one I thought was a no brainer as well, but I don't know that it's actually that big of a problem. Clinton was a major fatty in spirit (sending his aides on missions to get McDonald's regularly) and his first term jogging/weight loss program was pretty well known. Clinton was never as physically large as Christie (meaning he never actually had small planets orbiting around him), but America is a lot fatter in 2012 than it was in 1994. We're like a 70% fat, 35% obese country. I think it's prime time for a 350 lb President.

So yeah none of that rebuts what I said. Fattie in spirit can't compete with someone from New Jersey who recalls times of Presidents getting trapped in tubs.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 07, 2012, 04:17:07 PM
I hate Palin. All smart people on the internet hated Palin. However, most Americans are stupid, stupid people, and Palin energized McCain's base. After 2-3 straight years of "pundit Palin" and all the sordid details about her coming out, yeah, she looks like a stupid pick. However I think a lot of people's (justified) hatred of Palin has clouded their perception of what actually happened when McCain nominated her--it measurably helped his campaign.

It did, in the short-term and it possibly did with the GOP base for the election.  But her favourability rating and her approval rating plummeted during the election - they went from positive to negative in a month.  There was already concerns about her ability - remember the relish with which CdM looked forward to Biden debating with her and the general sense that he may go too hard and look sexist.  She attracted the wrong sort of press for a VP candidate (again compare with Romney, Cheney, Gore...).  The story that McCain picked her after one meeting fed into the narrative that he was a bit impulsive - a view that was furthered by the September freeze of his campaign.  She was potentially a wonderful pick, she didn't pan out.  Similarly I think, had she stayed as Governor, spent some time building her credibility on a few domestic issues (like energy) and building a foreign policy team she would have been a formidable Presidential candidate.  She decided not to in the end, which is a shame.

It wasn't the only, or even the main factor in losing the election but the Palin pick did hurt McCain's campaign. 

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 07, 2012, 04:12:37 PM

Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2012, 04:06:02 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 07, 2012, 03:51:34 PM
I think he's a pretty impressive campaigner.

If only he had the goal of being a pretty impressive president. :angry:

I think he has.  He's got more significant domestic legislation than any President since Reagan, at least, and I think his  foreign policy's been strong.  He's up there with Bush I on foreign policy in my view.

You may not think that what he's done is right but he has, for the most part, achieved it.

Okay. :rolleyes:

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 07, 2012, 04:20:03 PM
No way we could ever know since Reagan and Clinton essentially ran in years in which almost any politician from their party would have won election.

By that token surely the most successful recent campaigners were W, Carter and Nixon? :mellow:

Also I still think it takes ability to turn elections which someone should win into actually winning it.  Our last election was like that.  Despite running against Gordon Brown in the middle of a recession and being more trusted on the economy the Tories still couldn't win the election - I think that was because their campaign was an absolute mess.

Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2012, 04:03:32 PM
Umm, so you don't know much about the nation then? We don't want a fattie nor do we want someone from New Jersey.

Three years ago your pick for president was a woman with an ass the size of a Nimitz class carrier.

Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2012, 04:03:32 PMUmm, so you don't know much about the nation then? We don't want a fattie nor do we want someone from New Jersey.

I think this is right. Maybe Mitch Daniels or Jeb Bush?

Based solely on a couple of speeches I think the best candidate (although maybe for 2016) would be Rubio :mmm:

Edit:  And obviously this year the best GOP candidate would have been Huckabee :weep:

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 07, 2012, 04:20:03 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 07, 2012, 04:09:08 PMI only say Obama's an impressive campaigner.  I think Clinton and Reagan were probably better - aside from that he's the best recent President.

No way we could ever know since Reagan and Clinton essentially ran in years in which almost any politician from their party would have won election.

Reagan won against a Jimmy Carter who was ripe with failure and all it took is a half hearted effort to warm the American people up to knocking him out of the Oval Office. Walter Mondale is probably the single worst candidate ever nominated by a major party for the Presidency. My great-grandmother could have beaten him in an election.

Clinton ran against H.W. Bush who was a good President but you had Perot as a spoiler and the economy was having trouble all at the same time.

In 1996 the GOP made the decision to nominate an honorable, decent man and a war hero. Unfortunately that was what Bob Dole was in life, in 1996 he was a reanimated zombie that had been restored to life by some GOP necromancer, and he was just simply not a viable candidate.

Clinton never even won a majority of the vote in either election. 43% in 1992.

Prior to Obama, the last Democrat to win a majority was Carter in 1976 with 50.1%

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 07, 2012, 04:33:28 PM

Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2012, 04:03:32 PM
Umm, so you don't know much about the nation then? We don't want a fattie nor do we want someone from New Jersey.

Three years ago your pick for president was a woman with an ass the size of a Nimitz class carrier.

I like this notion that Christie's weight is in the norm for successful candidates.

Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2012, 04:38:19 PM
I like this notion that Christie's weight is in the norm for successful candidates.

I like your hard-wired genetic preference for women with gigantic asses.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 07, 2012, 04:39:37 PM

Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2012, 04:38:19 PM
I like this notion that Christie's weight is in the norm for successful candidates.

I like your hard-wired genetic preference for women with gigantic asses.

Yes because liking one woman whose ass isn't in Christie's league demonstrates that.

Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2012, 04:42:34 PM
Yes because liking one woman whose ass isn't in Christie's league demonstrates that.

You think Hill's ass is not in Christie's league?

I am not sure if Christ Christie is for the national stage. However, he only just got started as Governor of New Jersey in 2010, and he is young, so let's wait until 2016 or 2020 before making an assessment.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 07, 2012, 04:44:08 PM

Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2012, 04:42:34 PM
Yes because liking one woman whose ass isn't in Christie's league demonstrates that.

You think Hill's ass is not in Christie's league?

Probably not.  She doesn't appear morbidly obese.

Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2012, 04:46:36 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 07, 2012, 04:44:08 PM

Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2012, 04:42:34 PM
Yes because liking one woman whose ass isn't in Christie's league demonstrates that.

You think Hill's ass is not in Christie's league?

Probably not.  She doesn't appear morbidly obese.

And she's grown out her hair now. :wub:

Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2012, 04:25:32 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 07, 2012, 04:12:37 PM

Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2012, 04:06:02 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 07, 2012, 03:51:34 PM
I think he's a pretty impressive campaigner.

If only he had the goal of being a pretty impressive president. :angry:

I think he has.  He's got more significant domestic legislation than any President since Reagan, at least, and I think his  foreign policy's been strong.  He's up there with Bush I on foreign policy in my view.

You may not think that what he's done is right but he has, for the most part, achieved it.

Okay. :rolleyes:

I know, right?  Even I don't buy that.

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 07, 2012, 04:32:34 PM
By that token surely the most successful recent campaigners were W, Carter and Nixon? :mellow:

I'd accept W and Nixon, both of whom defeated serious opposition in their first election.

Quote from: Phillip V on January 07, 2012, 03:51:27 PM


Once again. Look at the economic indicators. That June poll you linked to, look at gas prices and stock market at the time.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdl.dropbox.com%2Fu%2F51524%2F2008polls.png&hash=9164db51865cb8d227b5ad6f518ba58a0588cc9c)

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdl.dropbox.com%2Fu%2F51524%2F2008dowjones.png&hash=c655cf119a6d192b1032b9e3fc74cc248d494217)

You know this doesn't really help your case don't you?  McCain is consistently below Obama by a decent margin up until his convention bump.  And then it falls back down again.  Obama's convention occurred shortly before McCain's and you can see the slight bump he gets from that.

Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2012, 04:03:32 PM


Umm, so you don't know much about the nation then? We don't want a fattie nor do we want someone from New Jersey.

You know that most of the people in the US aren't gay, right?  Being overweight may actually help him, in a country where more and more people are fat.

Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2012, 04:53:15 PM

Quote from: Phillip V on January 07, 2012, 03:51:27 PM


Once again. Look at the economic indicators. That June poll you linked to, look at gas prices and stock market at the time.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdl.dropbox.com%2Fu%2F51524%2F2008polls.png&hash=9164db51865cb8d227b5ad6f518ba58a0588cc9c)

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdl.dropbox.com%2Fu%2F51524%2F2008dowjones.png&hash=c655cf119a6d192b1032b9e3fc74cc248d494217)

You know this doesn't really help your case don't you?  McCain is consistently below Obama by a decent margin up until his convention bump.  And then it falls back down again.  Obama's convention occurred shortly before McCain's and you can see the slight bump he gets from that.

Obama broke away in polling starting in May/June when the Dow started dropping and then utterly ran away with victory when the economy totally went to hell in September.

Crop your goddamn quotes.  Nobody needs to see those two foot wide graphs another eight times. :bleeding:

Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2012, 04:56:31 PM

Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2012, 04:03:32 PM


Umm, so you don't know much about the nation then? We don't want a fattie nor do we want someone from New Jersey.

You know that most of the people in the US aren't gay, right?  Being overweight may actually help him, in a country where more and more people are fat.

Oh - can you point out for me many of the eminent politicians in America who are morbidly obese? We're talking about a guy who just last year was hospitalized for a few weeks because of his asthma condition exacerbated by his weight.

He starts doing well in June because that's when he wins the nomination.  After that the Democratcs can actually start running for the Presidency.  Though I think their long primary actually helped them because it sort-of sucked the oxygen out of political stories once McCain had already won and was campaigning.  In much the same way that right now it's tough for Labour to get in on a story when there's coalition infighting (though Labour's problems are deeper than that).

Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2012, 05:01:02 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2012, 04:56:31 PM

Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2012, 04:03:32 PM


Umm, so you don't know much about the nation then? We don't want a fattie nor do we want someone from New Jersey.

You know that most of the people in the US aren't gay, right?  Being overweight may actually help him, in a country where more and more people are fat.

Oh - can you point out for me many of the eminent politicians in America who are morbidly obese? We're talking about a guy who just last year was hospitalized for a few weeks because of his asthma condition exacerbated by his weight.

Nadler was pretty fat for a while.  So was Frank.  http://www.newser.com/story/79544/public-prefers-fat-politicians-if-theyre-men.html

Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2012, 05:07:27 PM

Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2012, 05:01:02 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2012, 04:56:31 PM

Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2012, 04:03:32 PM


Umm, so you don't know much about the nation then? We don't want a fattie nor do we want someone from New Jersey.

You know that most of the people in the US aren't gay, right?  Being overweight may actually help him, in a country where more and more people are fat.

Oh - can you point out for me many of the eminent politicians in America who are morbidly obese? We're talking about a guy who just last year was hospitalized for a few weeks because of his asthma condition exacerbated by his weight.

Nadler was pretty fat for a while.  So was Frank.  http://www.newser.com/story/79544/public-prefers-fat-politicians-if-theyre-men.html

So where are the examples of people as big as Christie?

Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2012, 05:09:30 PM
So where are the examples of people as big as Christie?

Also I don't think Nader or Frank, or Huck before he lost the weight count as really that 'eminent'.

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 07, 2012, 05:04:08 PM
He starts doing well in June because that's when he wins the nomination.  After that the Democratcs can actually start running for the Presidency.  Though I think their long primary actually helped them because it sort-of sucked the oxygen out of political stories once McCain had already won and was campaigning.  In much the same way that right now it's tough for Labour to get in on a story when there's coalition infighting (though Labour's problems are deeper than that).

It would help a lot if his graphs were labeled well enough to know what time frame we are actually looking at.  Also the Dow Jones isn't that good an indicator of the economy.  Truth be told the economy was never that strong under Bush.

Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2012, 05:09:30 PM


So where are the examples of people as big as Christie?

I don't know what Nadler or Frank's actual weight are, or what Christie's weight is.  I do know they were pretty heavy.

Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2012, 05:12:17 PM

Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2012, 05:09:30 PM


So where are the examples of people as big as Christie?

I don't know what Nadler or Frank's actual weight are, or what Christie's weight is.  I do know they were pretty heavy.

Oh okay so the I can't make visual comparisons game. How about a simpler question then. Which of our president's has had a body type similar to Christie's?

Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2012, 05:10:57 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 07, 2012, 05:04:08 PM
He starts doing well in June because that's when he wins the nomination.  After that the Democratcs can actually start running for the Presidency.  Though I think their long primary actually helped them because it sort-of sucked the oxygen out of political stories once McCain had already won and was campaigning.  In much the same way that right now it's tough for Labour to get in on a story when there's coalition infighting (though Labour's problems are deeper than that).

It would help a lot if his graphs were labeled well enough to know what time frame we are actually looking at.  Also the Dow Jones isn't that good an indicator of the economy.  Truth be told the economy was never that strong under Bush.

Correct. The stock market is a good indicator of perceived economic strength/weakness. Traders are quite emotional. Like voters. ;)

Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2012, 05:20:18 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2012, 05:12:17 PM

Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2012, 05:09:30 PM


So where are the examples of people as big as Christie?

I don't know what Nadler or Frank's actual weight are, or what Christie's weight is.  I do know they were pretty heavy.

Oh okay so the I can't make visual comparisons game. How about a simpler question then. Which of our president's has had a body type similar to Christie's?

OK I actually had no idea who this Christie dude is so I looked it

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcrooksandliars.com%2Ffiles%2Fvfs%2F2010%2F10%2Fchris-christie.jpg&hash=43dbaaee989e2b7f4b36e3ff5b2ec8e146802fe4)

GAH IT'S EARTHWORM JIM

The Dow Jones isn't even the best indicator of the Stock Market.

Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2012, 05:20:18 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2012, 05:12:17 PM

Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2012, 05:09:30 PM


So where are the examples of people as big as Christie?

I don't know what Nadler or Frank's actual weight are, or what Christie's weight is.  I do know they were pretty heavy.

Oh okay so the I can't make visual comparisons game. How about a simpler question then. Which of our president's has had a body type similar to Christie's?

Taft.  Of course that is a rather small pool.

Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2012, 05:25:07 PM

Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2012, 05:20:18 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2012, 05:12:17 PM

Quote from: garbon on January 07, 2012, 05:09:30 PM


So where are the examples of people as big as Christie?

I don't know what Nadler or Frank's actual weight are, or what Christie's weight is.  I do know they were pretty heavy.

Oh okay so the I can't make visual comparisons game. How about a simpler question then. Which of our president's has had a body type similar to Christie's?

Taft.  Of course that is a rather small pool.

:lol:

All of which is my point.

Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2012, 05:25:07 PM
Taft.  Of course that is a rather small pool.

And he got stuck in it :(

I think Christie was actually observed losing weight when there was speculation he might run. I think if he got down to James Gandolfini size he'd project gravitas and his weight wouldn't be a hindrance.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 09, 2012, 03:29:44 PM
I think Christie was actually observed losing weight when there was speculation he might run. I think if he got down to James Gandolfini size he'd project gravitas and his weight wouldn't be a hindrance.

You mean when he was hospitalized?

Quote from: garbon on January 09, 2012, 03:31:09 PM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 09, 2012, 03:29:44 PM
I think Christie was actually observed losing weight when there was speculation he might run. I think if he got down to James Gandolfini size he'd project gravitas and his weight wouldn't be a hindrance.

You mean when he was hospitalized?

No, I mean awhile back I read a news article saying he had slimmed down and people speculated it may have been to run for President.

Slimmed down is a relative term when talking about Chris Christie, though.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 09, 2012, 04:02:46 PM

Quote from: garbon on January 09, 2012, 03:31:09 PM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 09, 2012, 03:29:44 PM
I think Christie was actually observed losing weight when there was speculation he might run. I think if he got down to James Gandolfini size he'd project gravitas and his weight wouldn't be a hindrance.

You mean when he was hospitalized?

No, I mean awhile back I read a news article saying he had slimmed down and people speculated it may have been to run for President.

Slimmed down is a relative term when talking about Chris Christie, though.

Oh alright. Because last year near before announcing he wasn't going to run, the articles I saw were about the unhealthiness of his weight, especially for a relatively young father who had key moments in his children's lives to still see (or miss out on as the articles were suggesting).

'U.S. consumer borrowing rose by the most in a decade during November, surging 10% with Americans pulling out their credit cards as the holiday shopping season got rolling.'

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/01/09/consumer-credit-surged-in-november/

Quote from: Phillip V on January 09, 2012, 04:37:52 PM
'U.S. consumer borrowing rose by the most in a decade during November, surging 10% with Americans pulling out their credit cards as the holiday shopping season got rolling.'

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/01/09/consumer-credit-surged-in-november/

Wow, is it risk on now?


Hmmm... AmEx has good valuation. I wonder...

Quote from: Phillip V on January 09, 2012, 04:37:52 PM
'U.S. consumer borrowing rose by the most in a decade during November, surging 10% with Americans pulling out their credit cards as the holiday shopping season got rolling.'

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/01/09/consumer-credit-surged-in-november/

Lol.

Apparently the NJ Legislature's planning to propose a gay marriage law soon.  I imagine that would complicate things for Christie if he does decide to run for President.

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 09, 2012, 11:02:17 PM
Apparently the NJ Legislature's planning to propose a gay marriage law soon.  I imagine that would complicate things for Christie if he does decide to run for President.

Gay marriage was legalized in Massachusetts when Romney was governor.

And he's having such a smooth Primary. :lol:

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 07, 2012, 02:42:49 PM
but come now, Carter was a failure and an abomination worse than a thousand Hitlers.

Nonsense.

Quote from: Razgovory on January 10, 2012, 06:35:04 AM
And he's having such a smooth Primary. :lol:

If he wins, yes.

Quote from: Razgovory on January 07, 2012, 03:31:12 PM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 07, 2012, 02:42:49 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on January 07, 2012, 01:04:06 AM
Fuck Ronald Reagan.  I could have been born under the benevolent watch of Jimmy Carter.

But fuck Mitt Romney even harder.  He's evil.

I'll be the first to say Reagan is overrated (and I am a Reagan supporter), but come now, Carter was a failure and an abomination worse than a thousand Hitlers.

What exactly did Carter do that was "worse then a thousand Hitlers"?

Synthetic Oil program.  Attempting to implement a policy that would allow us to generate 25% of our own oil for consumption domestically by 1990, and since panzers used synthetic oil, too, there ya go.  See?

Quote from: Phillip V on January 10, 2012, 06:36:50 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on January 10, 2012, 06:35:04 AM
And he's having such a smooth Primary. :lol:

If he wins, yes.

Even if he wins, no.  He's been battered by his opponents and forced to spend vast amounts of cash.

Quote from: Razgovory on January 10, 2012, 06:45:25 AM

Quote from: Phillip V on January 10, 2012, 06:36:50 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on January 10, 2012, 06:35:04 AM
And he's having such a smooth Primary. :lol:

If he wins, yes.

Even if he wins, no.  He's been battered by his opponents and forced to spend vast amounts of cash.

And Obama didn't?

In any case, Romney spent vast more money in 2008.

No, Obama didn't.  Obama was the insurgent candidate.  Clinton was the establishment candidate.  2008 and 20011 aren't comparable since there wasn't many elections in 2011.  And I can't find a total amount of money spent in 2011.  All I found was a Wikipedia entry where he spent nearly half what he spent in his 2008 run and it only went to September.  He's also able to funnel money into SuperPacs this year, something new this time around.

Obama broke the record at the time for most money raised for a presidential campaign in 2008, Raztarski.

Quote from: Phillip V on January 10, 2012, 04:51:10 AM

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 09, 2012, 11:02:17 PM
Apparently the NJ Legislature's planning to propose a gay marriage law soon.  I imagine that would complicate things for Christie if he does decide to run for President.

Gay marriage was legalized in Massachusetts when Romney was governor.

Imposed on him by a liberal activist court - a Republican dream.  If this comes through the legislature then Christie will either have to sign it and hurt his chances of national office, or veto it and hurt his chances of re-election.  It's a totally different situation.

QuoteAnd Obama didn't?

Not to do with the money but I think the Obama-Clinton primary strengthened both of them as candidates.  The Republican primary this time seems to be diminishing everyone.

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 10, 2012, 07:10:34 AM

QuoteAnd Obama didn't?

Not to do with the money but I think the Obama-Clinton primary strengthened both of them as candidates.  The Republican primary this time seems to be diminishing everyone.

Another revision. The narrative at the time was that Clinton needed to step aside early and let Obama focus on the general election; that her attacks like the March 2008 "3 AM phone call" were destroying Obama's election chances and irrevocably dividing the Democratic base.

I still think Hillary would've made a better president.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 10, 2012, 06:59:37 AM
Obama broke the record at the time for most money raised for a presidential campaign in 2008, Raztarski.

Well, there were only two presidential campaigns that went past the primary in 2008...  I think George W. set new records for campaign spending in 2004, and he didn't even have to worry about a Primary.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 10, 2012, 07:26:41 AM
I still think Hillary would've made a better president.

There's 2016.

Quote from: Phillip V on January 10, 2012, 07:25:27 AM


Another revision. The narrative at the time was that Clinton needed to step aside early and let Obama focus on the general election; that her attacks like the March 2008 "3 AM phone call" were destroying Obama's election chances and irrevocably dividing the Democratic base.

Nonsense.  People were saying what Sheilbh was saying in 2008.  It was also noted that the stuff about the crazy preacher guy came out in the spring, and had less impact in the fall.  If had come out in August, it would have hurt Obama much worse.

Quote from: Phillip V on January 10, 2012, 07:30:21 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 10, 2012, 07:26:41 AM
I still think Hillary would've made a better president.

There's 2016.

Yeah, I think she's burned out with from the SecState gig, and she's going to step aside from public service for 4 years. I think it'll be difficult for her to ramp up a presidential campaign after that.

I agree Hill would have made a better Pres.  Woman's tough as nails.

Quote from: Phillip V on January 10, 2012, 07:25:27 AM
Another revision. The narrative at the time was that Clinton needed to step aside early and let Obama focus on the general election; that her attacks like the March 2008 "3 AM phone call" were destroying Obama's election chances and irrevocably dividing the Democratic base.

But they didn't destroy Obama's election chance or divide the Democratic base.  Obama had to deal with the 3 AM call issue, and Jeremiah Wright, in April winning an election which was, as Raz says, far better than having to deal with it in August or, God forbid, October. 

Also you just need to look at the debates.  The first debates were underwhelming, especially for Obama, and by the end both Obama and Clinton were on another level.  You can see this in the Republican election now.  So far I think Romney's been on another level (except for Paul who, God bless him, is quite literally on another level) because he was strengthened by 2008.  But I think Gingrich, Santorum and Huntsman have got stronger as the campaign's gone on and are not at the same sort of place.

So apparently Huntsman is surging now. I love the fact that the GOP hates Romney so much, they will consider not only voting for Santorum instead, but also voting for someone who is essentially a Romney's clone.  :lol:

Quote from: Martinus on January 10, 2012, 07:52:45 AM
So apparently Huntsman is surging now. I love the fact that the GOP hates Romney so much, they will consider not only voting for Santorum instead, but also voting for someone who is essentially a Romney's clone.  :lol:

Huntsman's actually pretty conservative, possesses some charm and apparently has a set of core beliefs.  All of that distinguishes him from Romney.

The record of a Governor of Utah will always be different from a Governor of Massachussetts.  Huntsman just sounds moderate because he talks about 'civility' and other such insane concepts.

One thing I find really striking is that, with the exception of Perry who has no hope, all the remaining candidates are Mormon or Catholic.  That's impressive given the Republican party's history.  I think there's been a similar movement on the Supreme Court, they're all Catholics with a couple of Jews.

Edit:  For example Huntsman's been described as the most successful pro-life executive in America. 

Huntsman went down in my book yesterday when he demagogued Romney's gaffe about enjoying firing people who give him services.

Quote from: Martinus on January 10, 2012, 07:52:45 AM
So apparently Huntsman is surging now. I love the fact that the GOP hates Romney so much, they will consider not only voting for Santorum instead, but also voting for someone who is essentially a Romney's clone.  :lol:

Last Sunday morning's debate was Huntsman's best. Too bad it came so late and 10 hours directly after another debate the night before. :D

He was eloquent and right to start off and then laid out specific well-received proposals later on. He totally bested Romney on moral standing and virtue in defending his service as Ambassador to China. If people only saw his performance that morning, then he deserved a well-earned bump.

See the morning debate here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032553/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032553/)

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 10, 2012, 08:06:01 AM
Huntsman went down in my book yesterday when he demagogued Romney's gaffe about enjoying firing people who give him services.

The Huntsman-Romney family rivalry goes back decades and is quite bitter and under-handed. There is no room for two Mormons. :D

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 10, 2012, 08:06:01 AM
Huntsman went down in my book yesterday when he demagogued Romney's gaffe about enjoying firing people who give him services.

Oh, come on.  If he didn't do it, somebody else would've.  I blame Romney for laying his dick out to have a sound bite taken out of it.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 10, 2012, 08:25:28 AM
If he didn't do it, somebody else would've.

That's a pretty high standard.

I think regardless of the damagoguing that that was a gaffe that will hurt Romney.  Unfairly perhaps, but that's the game.

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 10, 2012, 09:22:26 AM
I think regardless of the damagoguing that that was a gaffe that will hurt Romney.  Unfairly perhaps, but that's the game.

Regardless of the game, people who demagogue unfairly should be held to account.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 10, 2012, 09:25:51 AMRegardless of the game, people who demagogue unfairly should be held to account.

I don't think so.  I think we'd have different ideas of demagoguing if it came to it. 

Anyway I find the personal attacks more troubling.  The sort of thing Palin or Gordon Brown had to endure is wrong.

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 10, 2012, 09:32:12 AM
I don't think so.

You think people who demagogue unfairly should be given a parade?

QuoteI think we'd have different ideas of demagoguing if it came to it. 

Hunstman said Romney enjoys firing people.  Hunstman knows that's not what Romney said and he knows that's not what Romney meant.

The only way I can see for you to get your golden boy off the hook here is to say it's not demagoguery if my guy does it.

Incidentally, Santorum was asked on CNN yesterday to respond to Romney's gaffe and chose to take the (relatively) high road.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 10, 2012, 09:44:12 AM
You think people who demagogue unfairly should be given a parade?

Only if they win.

QuoteHunstman said Romney enjoys firing people.  Hunstman knows that's not what Romney said and he knows that's not what Romney meant.

The only way I can see for you to get your golden boy off the hook here is to say it's not demagoguery if my guy does it.

Not really I don't have issues with this sort of thing.  I think it's part of politics. 

I support Obama but I think the stuff about his 'clinging to their guns' comment, recent ads were he said 'Americans are lazy' (he was referring to Congress, in context the remarks are fine) or even Romney's anti-Obama ad showing Obama saying 'if we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose' (it was from 2008, he was speaking about McCain) are fair game.

If you're a politician and you say something in public it will be used against you.  You need to be careful not to say things that feed into the perception of you (a la Romney and Kerry) or be very able and ready to defend yourself.  As I say what troubles me is the attack on a person or their family like Palin and Brown went through.  What you describe as demagoguing is politics, what I have problems with is when it goes beyond politics and you get the sense that one side's forgotten the other's human.

QuoteIncidentally, Santorum was asked on CNN yesterday to respond to Romney's gaffe and chose to take the (relatively) high road.

I like Santorum too.

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 10, 2012, 09:52:35 AM
Not really I don't have issues with this sort of thing.  I think it's part of politics. 

I support Obama but I think the stuff about his 'clinging to their guns' comment, recent ads were he said 'Americans are lazy' (he was referring to Congress, in context the remarks are fine) or even Romney's anti-Obama ad showing Obama saying 'if we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose' (it was from 2008, he was speaking about McCain) are fair game.

If you're a politician and you say something in public it will be used against you.  You need to be careful not to say things that feed into the perception of you (a la Romney and Kerry) or be very able and ready to defend yourself.  As I say what troubles me is the attack on a person or their family like Palin and Brown went through.  What you describe as demagoguing is politics, what I have problems with is when it goes beyond politics and you get the sense that one side's forgotten the other's human.

Read back what you wrote and take note of the abundant use of passive voice.  You keep changing the subject back to how the game is played.  I'm talking about a moral judgement of people who knowingly make untrue statements to further their own cause.  When Rush says Obama thinks Americans are lazy he's not "playing the game," he's saying something he knows is not true.  When HuffPost and Fathead Moore run with Romney loves to fire people the same will be true of them.  And the same is true of Hunstman now.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 10, 2012, 09:59:05 AMI'm talking about a moral judgement of people who knowingly make untrue statements to further their own cause.  When Rush says Obama thinks Americans are lazy he's not "playing the game," he's saying something he knows is not true.  When HuffPost and Fathead Moore run with Romney loves to fire people the same will be true of them.  And the same is true of Hunstman now.

I think that's morally better than personal attacks - even if they are true, or have a basis in truth.  I don't think any of these statements are untrue, I'd use Robin Butler's phrase that they're economical with the truth.  What they say is accurate they're just not giving you all the information around it.

Personally I've no time for moral judgements for this sort of thing.  It's part of politics.  I'd go further.  In theory, I'd like my politics to consist of deeply civilised, polite, policy based discourse.  I know in reality it would bore me to tears and I think it's a route to an elite stitch-up disguised as consensus.  I enjoy the blood sport nature of politics, I like attack ads and the Commons in full voice.  My view on politics are a bit like my views on the media.  I like tabloid and the tabloid sensibility in both sectors.

Having said that I've wondered before if it works in your system because you require cooperation, whereas I come from a winner takes all political system.

So Huntsman doing this doesn't bother me on a moral level (again for the most part I've very little time for morals in campaigning) but if other people see it as you do it'll be a stumble because it goes against what he's trying to sell.

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 10, 2012, 07:35:07 AM

Quote from: Phillip V on January 10, 2012, 07:25:27 AM
Another revision. The narrative at the time was that Clinton needed to step aside early and let Obama focus on the general election; that her attacks like the March 2008 "3 AM phone call" were destroying Obama's election chances and irrevocably dividing the Democratic base.

But they didn't destroy Obama's election chance or divide the Democratic base.  Obama had to deal with the 3 AM call issue, and Jeremiah Wright, in April winning an election which was, as Raz says, far better than having to deal with it in August or, God forbid, October. 

I am not contesting what we see in hindsight now. However, during the heat of the Democratic contest in 2008, the conclusion was the opposite: that the prolonged contest was "diminishing everyone". There were ravenous calls for Clinton to withdraw and concede. Thus, I am skeptical of your observation now during the heat of the Republican primary that "The Republican primary this time seems to be diminishing everyone."

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 10, 2012, 09:32:12 AM
The sort of thing Palin ... Brown had to endure is wrong.

Palin brought it on herself.

Disagree.  I think some of the attacks went over the line.  In particular the nasty rumors about her family.

Quote from: Phillip V on January 10, 2012, 11:17:36 AM

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 10, 2012, 07:35:07 AM

Quote from: Phillip V on January 10, 2012, 07:25:27 AM
Another revision. The narrative at the time was that Clinton needed to step aside early and let Obama focus on the general election; that her attacks like the March 2008 "3 AM phone call" were destroying Obama's election chances and irrevocably dividing the Democratic base.

But they didn't destroy Obama's election chance or divide the Democratic base.  Obama had to deal with the 3 AM call issue, and Jeremiah Wright, in April winning an election which was, as Raz says, far better than having to deal with it in August or, God forbid, October. 

I am not contesting what we see in hindsight now. However, during the heat of the Democratic contest in 2008, the conclusion was the opposite: that the prolonged contest was "diminishing everyone". There were ravenous calls for Clinton to withdraw and concede. Thus, I am skeptical of your observation now during the heat of the Republican primary that "The Republican primary this time seems to be diminishing everyone."

Yes and people at the time said what Shelf says now.

Quote from: Razgovory on January 10, 2012, 02:28:33 PM

Quote from: Phillip V on January 10, 2012, 11:17:36 AM

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 10, 2012, 07:35:07 AM

Quote from: Phillip V on January 10, 2012, 07:25:27 AM
Another revision. The narrative at the time was that Clinton needed to step aside early and let Obama focus on the general election; that her attacks like the March 2008 "3 AM phone call" were destroying Obama's election chances and irrevocably dividing the Democratic base.

But they didn't destroy Obama's election chance or divide the Democratic base.  Obama had to deal with the 3 AM call issue, and Jeremiah Wright, in April winning an election which was, as Raz says, far better than having to deal with it in August or, God forbid, October. 

I am not contesting what we see in hindsight now. However, during the heat of the Democratic contest in 2008, the conclusion was the opposite: that the prolonged contest was "diminishing everyone". There were ravenous calls for Clinton to withdraw and concede. Thus, I am skeptical of your observation now during the heat of the Republican primary that "The Republican primary this time seems to be diminishing everyone."

Yes and people at the time said what Shelf says now.

Well they said it was good those things came out earlier, but I'm not sure that they were thus suggesting that the Dem primary should be long and drawn out.  More like it was fortuitous that they came out then.

Quote from: garbon on January 10, 2012, 02:45:21 PM
Well they said it was good those things came out earlier, but I'm not sure that they were thus suggesting that the Dem primary should be long and drawn out.  More like it was fortuitous that they came out then.

I don't think anyone thought it would be a good idea before it happened, because it had never really happened before.  I argued at the time - and I still think - that the primary sucked the oxygen out of McCain's campaign.  So the negative of the Dems not having a candidate was mitigated because no-one cared about the Republican candidate while this primary was going on.  Whereas I think in theory it should have worked the other way, McCain should've been able to build up a lead.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 10, 2012, 07:26:41 AM
I still think Hillary would've made a better president.

These days?  Concur.

Quote from: garbon on January 10, 2012, 02:45:21 PM


Well they said it was good those things came out earlier, but I'm not sure that they were thus suggesting that the Dem primary should be long and drawn out.  More like it was fortuitous that they came out then.

The GOP primary hasn't even had a chance to get drawn out yet, and it already looks like a train wreck.

Quote from: Razgovory on January 10, 2012, 03:11:09 PM

Quote from: garbon on January 10, 2012, 02:45:21 PM


Well they said it was good those things came out earlier, but I'm not sure that they were thus suggesting that the Dem primary should be long and drawn out.  More like it was fortuitous that they came out then.

The GOP primary hasn't even had a chance to get drawn out yet, and it already looks like a train wreck.

What does that have to do with my post? :huh:

That said, I agree. I'm not skeptical of that statement of yours. Of course, I wonder to what extent that stems from the candidates being so lackluster.

Oh, okay.  I think it's entirely due to the candidates being lackluster.  Nearly all of them have crippling short comings.

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 10, 2012, 09:32:12 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 10, 2012, 09:25:51 AMRegardless of the game, people who demagogue unfairly should be held to account.

I don't think so.  I think we'd have different ideas of demagoguing if it came to it. 

Ron Paul defends Mitt Romney on 'firing' comments.

'Speaking with reporters in New Hampshire, Ron Paul defended Mitt Romney against attacks on his comment about "firing people" -- and said any of his GOP rivals hitting Romney on the topic just don't understand the way the economy works:

Quote from: Phillip V on January 10, 2012, 04:38:48 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 10, 2012, 09:32:12 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 10, 2012, 09:25:51 AMRegardless of the game, people who demagogue unfairly should be held to account.

I don't think so.  I think we'd have different ideas of demagoguing if it came to it. 

Ron Paul defends Mitt Romney on 'firing' comments.

'Speaking with reporters in New Hampshire, Ron Paul defended Mitt Romney against attacks on his comment about "firing people" -- and said any of his GOP rivals hitting Romney on the topic just don't understand the way the economy works:

Quote"I think they're way overboard on saying that he wants to fire people and he doesn't care. I mean it seems a little weird, me coming to the defense of Romney, but I think they're wrong. I think they're totally misunderstanding of what the market works – because reorganization is a proper role. You save companies, you save jobs, you reorganize companies that are going to go bankrupt – and they don't understand. They're either just demagoguing or they don't have the vaguest idea of how the market works."[/q]

Paul's campaign also sent out a statement on the topic shortly after he spoke, hitting Santorum, Gingrich and Huntsman for "using the language of the liberal left" in their hits on Romney.[/q]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/01/paul-defends-mitt-on-firing-comments-110362.html (http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/01/paul-defends-mitt-on-firing-comments-110362.html)

Paul has difficulty remembering whether or not he saw and/or wrote some newsletters so...

Quote from: garbon on January 10, 2012, 04:40:47 PM

Quote from: Phillip V on January 10, 2012, 04:38:48 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 10, 2012, 09:32:12 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 10, 2012, 09:25:51 AMRegardless of the game, people who demagogue unfairly should be held to account.

I don't think so.  I think we'd have different ideas of demagoguing if it came to it. 

Ron Paul defends Mitt Romney on 'firing' comments.

'Speaking with reporters in New Hampshire, Ron Paul defended Mitt Romney against attacks on his comment about "firing people" -- and said any of his GOP rivals hitting Romney on the topic just don't understand the way the economy works:

Quote"I think they're way overboard on saying that he wants to fire people and he doesn't care. I mean it seems a little weird, me coming to the defense of Romney, but I think they're wrong. I think they're totally misunderstanding of what the market works – because reorganization is a proper role. You save companies, you save jobs, you reorganize companies that are going to go bankrupt – and they don't understand. They're either just demagoguing or they don't have the vaguest idea of how the market works."[/q][/q]

Paul's campaign also sent out a statement on the topic shortly after he spoke, hitting Santorum, Gingrich and Huntsman for "using the language of the liberal left" in their hits on Romney.[/q]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/01/paul-defends-mitt-on-firing-comments-110362.html (http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/01/paul-defends-mitt-on-firing-comments-110362.html)

Paul has difficulty remembering whether or not he saw and/or wrote some newsletters so...

Ron Paul on racist newsletters: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2z2LQMx9KY

Quote from: Phillip V on January 10, 2012, 04:43:09 PM

Quote from: garbon on January 10, 2012, 04:40:47 PM

Quote from: Phillip V on January 10, 2012, 04:38:48 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 10, 2012, 09:32:12 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 10, 2012, 09:25:51 AMRegardless of the game, people who demagogue unfairly should be held to account.

I don't think so.  I think we'd have different ideas of demagoguing if it came to it. 

Ron Paul defends Mitt Romney on 'firing' comments.

'Speaking with reporters in New Hampshire, Ron Paul defended Mitt Romney against attacks on his comment about "firing people" -- and said any of his GOP rivals hitting Romney on the topic just don't understand the way the economy works:

Quote"I think they're way overboard on saying that he wants to fire people and he doesn't care. I mean it seems a little weird, me coming to the defense of Romney, but I think they're wrong. I think they're totally misunderstanding of what the market works – because reorganization is a proper role. You save companies, you save jobs, you reorganize companies that are going to go bankrupt – and they don't understand. They're either just demagoguing or they don't have the vaguest idea of how the market works."[/q][/q]

Paul's campaign also sent out a statement on the topic shortly after he spoke, hitting Santorum, Gingrich and Huntsman for "using the language of the liberal left" in their hits on Romney.[/q]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/01/paul-defends-mitt-on-firing-comments-110362.html (http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/01/paul-defends-mitt-on-firing-comments-110362.html)

Paul has difficulty remembering whether or not he saw and/or wrote some newsletters so...

Ron Paul on racist newsletters: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2z2LQMx9KY

So what? He hasn't had a consistent tale on each of the many times that it was explained.

Quote from: Phillip V on January 10, 2012, 04:43:09 PM


Ron Paul on racist newsletters: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2z2LQMx9KY

He doesn't explain it at all.  It's just "I didn't do it".  He doesn't say why there are racist newsletters under his name.  And as garbon has pointed out, his story has changed over the years.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 10, 2012, 08:06:01 AM
Huntsman went down in my book yesterday when he demagogued Romney's gaffe about enjoying firing people who give him services.

Yeah, that was pretty cheap.  However, Romney demagogued himself, with the context of his line about firing providers.  Implying that Obamacare would mean no choice in healthcare providers is just the further promotion of the Big Lie that Obamacare is socialized healthcare.  It's also a promotion of another lie that we have a choice now, when in fact most people are tied to their job's insurance.

Quote from: DGuller on January 10, 2012, 05:11:00 PM
Yeah, that was pretty cheap.  However, Romney demagogued himself, with the context of his line about firing providers.  Implying that Obamacare would mean no choice in healthcare providers is just the further promotion of the Big Lie that Obamacare is socialized healthcare.  It's also a promotion of another lie that we have a choice now, when in fact most people are tied to their job's insurance.

You sure that was the context of his comment?

So it is an integral part of the free market system for the boss to "like" firing people?

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 10, 2012, 05:18:50 PM
So it is an integral part of the free market system for the boss to "like" firing people?

Firing wasteful negative people, yes.

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 10, 2012, 05:18:50 PM
So it is an integral part of the free market system for the boss to "like" firing people?

It's an integral part of the free market system that people who are unhappy with the service or goods they are receiving to vote with their wallets and take their business elsewhere.  I "like" not going back to places that I think sold me crappy goods or services. 

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 10, 2012, 05:24:55 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 10, 2012, 05:18:50 PM
So it is an integral part of the free market system for the boss to "like" firing people?

It's an integral part of the free market system that people who are unhappy with the service or goods they are receiving to vote with their wallets and take their business elsewhere.  I "like" not going back to places that I think sold me crappy goods or services.

"Liking" firing people has nothing to do with what you have just said.

So Romney didn't like his job or he did?

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 10, 2012, 05:26:00 PM
"Liking" firing people has nothing to do with what you have just said.

It has everything to do with what Romney said.  If there's no relationship between our two posts then yours was a total non-sequitor.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 10, 2012, 05:28:00 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 10, 2012, 05:26:00 PM
"Liking" firing people has nothing to do with what you have just said.

It has everything to do with what Romney said.  If there's no relationship between our two posts then yours was a total non-sequitor.

Making a decision to fire employees because of economic requirments has nothing to do with liking doing it.  Liking the act of firing employees just makes you a cruel bastard.

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 10, 2012, 05:32:26 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 10, 2012, 05:28:00 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 10, 2012, 05:26:00 PM
"Liking" firing people has nothing to do with what you have just said.

It has everything to do with what Romney said.  If there's no relationship between our two posts then yours was a total non-sequitor.

Making a decision to fire employees because of economic requirments has nothing to do with liking doing it.  Liking the act of firing employees just makes you a cruel bastard.

Depends on which definition of "like" is being using. :rolleyes:

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 10, 2012, 05:32:26 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 10, 2012, 05:28:00 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 10, 2012, 05:26:00 PM
"Liking" firing people has nothing to do with what you have just said.

It has everything to do with what Romney said.  If there's no relationship between our two posts then yours was a total non-sequitor.

Making a decision to fire employees because of economic requirments has nothing to do with liking doing it.  Liking the act of firing employees just makes you a cruel bastard.

I like firing people who give me incompetent service. I enjoyed firing the vendor the other day who was making me look bad as he took his sweet time. Was really the only enjoyable process of dealing with him.

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 10, 2012, 05:32:26 PM
Making a decision to fire employees because of economic requirments has nothing to do with liking doing it.  Liking the act of firing employees just makes you a cruel bastard.

:huh:

Have you read or seen what Romney said?

Quote from: Phillip V on January 10, 2012, 05:36:12 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 10, 2012, 05:32:26 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 10, 2012, 05:28:00 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 10, 2012, 05:26:00 PM
"Liking" firing people has nothing to do with what you have just said.

It has everything to do with what Romney said.  If there's no relationship between our two posts then yours was a total non-sequitor.

Making a decision to fire employees because of economic requirments has nothing to do with liking doing it.  Liking the act of firing employees just makes you a cruel bastard.

Depends on which definition of "like" is being using. :rolleyes:

Which definition would you use - without reading something into the defintion Romney didnt actually say.

Attacks on Romney Prompt Backlash

'Republican critics argue that the attacks on Mitt Romney over his role at Bain Capital are attacks on the free-market system and help the Democrats.'

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/11/us/politics/new-hampshire-vote-seen-as-gauge-as-rivals-try-to-slow-romney.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/11/us/politics/new-hampshire-vote-seen-as-gauge-as-rivals-try-to-slow-romney.html)

QuoteAttacks on Mitt Romney by some of his rivals set off outrage within the Republican Party on Tuesday as voters went to the polls and the candidates turned their attention to South Carolina.
Mr. Romney has been under attack for 48 hours over his role at Bain Capital, the investment firm he helped found. Gov. Rick Perry of Texas equated firms like Bain to "vultures," and Newt Gingrich demanded answers from Mr. Romney about how many jobs were lost on his watch.
Those statement prompted a backlash from other Republicans, much as similar comments were denounced several weeks ago. These critics argue that the attacks on Mr. Romney are attacks on the free-market system and help the Democrats.
"They are also using the language of the liberal left to attack private equity and condemn capitalism in a desperate and, frankly, unsavory attempt to tear down another Republican with tactics akin to those of MoveOn.org," said Jesse Benton, the campaign manager for Representative Ron Paul of Texas....Rush Limbaugh, the conservative radio host, accused Mr. Gingrich of sounding like Elizabeth Warren, the Democrat running for the United States Senate in Massachusetts against the Republican incumbent Scott Brown.
"This is not the kind of stuff you want said by Republicans," Mr. Limbaugh said on his show. "I mean, even the establishment Republicans don't go after conservatives this way."
"He's using language that the left uses, and he's attempting to make hay with this," he added. "You know, he's trying to dredge up and have long-lasting negatives attach to Romney — this is what's so unsettling about this — in the same way the left would say it." Mr. Perry and Mr. Gingrich offered no apologies on Tuesday for their rhetoric.

Given those backlashing out I gain confidence in the correctness of my position.

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 10, 2012, 05:26:00 PM
"Liking" firing people has nothing to do with what you have just said.

Romney was discussing purchasing insurance but used that language.  So it's not really anything to do with firing people.  But it's also a sentence that should just stop in the gap between mind and mouth if you're a politician.

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 10, 2012, 06:29:07 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 10, 2012, 05:26:00 PM
"Liking" firing people has nothing to do with what you have just said.

But it's also a sentence that should just stop in the gap between mind and mouth if you're a politician.

Yeah, that is the point.

Good Lord.

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 10, 2012, 06:29:07 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 10, 2012, 05:26:00 PM
"Liking" firing people has nothing to do with what you have just said.

Romney was discussing purchasing insurance but used that language.  So it's not really anything to do with firing people.  But it's also a sentence that should just stop in the gap between mind and mouth if you're a politician.

You are talking about what Romney actually said.  Crazy Canuck is talking about a strawman Romney comment that CC just made up out of thin air: "Making a decision to fire employees because of economic requirments has nothing to do with liking doing it."

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 10, 2012, 06:39:59 PM
Good Lord.

It's CC.  He will now try to weasel out of the fact that he was erroneously assuming Romney was taking about "making a decision to fire employees because of economic requirments."

It's an amusing little game.  This time, I will let you push him until he starts with the ad homs.  :D

Quote from: grumbler on January 10, 2012, 06:58:20 PM
This time, I will let you push him until he starts with the ad homs.  :D

No you won't.

CC, you need to work on your "Gotcha" debating tactics.  Then you won't have to put up with Grumbler's bullshit. :D

Quote from: grumbler on January 10, 2012, 06:58:20 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 10, 2012, 06:39:59 PM
Good Lord.

It's CC.  He will now try to weasel out of the fact that he was erroneously assuming Romney was taking about "making a decision to fire employees because of economic requirments."

It's an amusing little game.  This time, I will let you push him until he starts with the ad homs.  :D

The only other thing I can see, from his bit of agreement with Sheilbh, is a stance of "I'm wise enough to understand that what he actually said was x, but it could easily be misunderstood as y by other individuals, so it makes no practical difference whether he said x or y. He's at fault."

I don't really understand that position though.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 10, 2012, 07:12:51 PM
No you won't.

Cross my heart.

Quote from: garbon on January 10, 2012, 07:46:04 PM
The only other thing I can see, from his bit of agreement with Sheilbh, is a stance of "I'm wise enough to understand that what he actually said was x, but it could easily be misunderstood as y by other individuals, so it makes no practical difference whether he said x or y. He's at fault."

I don't really understand that position though.

There is no way I can see that one can take Romney's statement and interpret it in the way CC did.  He added a bunch of words Romney never used, and deleted a bunch that Romney did use.  Plus, he gets the context completely wrong.

Quote from: grumbler on January 10, 2012, 08:23:05 PM

Quote from: garbon on January 10, 2012, 07:46:04 PM
The only other thing I can see, from his bit of agreement with Sheilbh, is a stance of "I'm wise enough to understand that what he actually said was x, but it could easily be misunderstood as y by other individuals, so it makes no practical difference whether he said x or y. He's at fault."

I don't really understand that position though.

There is no way I can see that one can take Romney's statement and interpret it in the way CC did.  He added a bunch of words Romney never used, and deleted a bunch that Romney did use.  Plus, he gets the context completely wrong.

I'm pretty sure you're wrong.

If anyone is going to push CC to make ad hominem attacks in this thread it's you, not Yi.

Quote from: grumbler on January 10, 2012, 08:23:05 PM

Quote from: garbon on January 10, 2012, 07:46:04 PM
The only other thing I can see, from his bit of agreement with Sheilbh, is a stance of "I'm wise enough to understand that what he actually said was x, but it could easily be misunderstood as y by other individuals, so it makes no practical difference whether he said x or y. He's at fault."

I don't really understand that position though.

There is no way I can see that one can take Romney's statement and interpret it in the way CC did.  He added a bunch of words Romney never used, and deleted a bunch that Romney did use.  Plus, he gets the context completely wrong.

I can seeing that many other people have gleefully made the same misconstruction.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 10, 2012, 09:01:02 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 10, 2012, 08:25:28 AM
If he didn't do it, somebody else would've.

That's a pretty high standard.

You talk like politics is a noble profession.  You're so cute sometimes.

Quote from: Jacob on January 10, 2012, 08:56:04 PM
I'm pretty sure you're wrong.

If anyone is going to push CC to make ad hominem attacks in this thread it's you, not Yi.

I'm not even responding to CC in this thread.

Quote from: garbon on January 10, 2012, 08:58:05 PM
I can seeing that many other people have gleefully made the same misconstruction.

A bunch of people dishonestly used just the five-word soundbite and left the listeners to fill in the negative connotations.  They haven't actually claimed that the man said more, and that the additional stuff was about "making a decision to fire employees because of economic requirements."

It is dishonest to mislead by omission, but even more so to lie outright.

I agree with Shelf that a perfect politician would never be human enough to use visceral language like "fire people who don't give me good service," but think that the perfect politician wouldn't get elected.

There is a real issue lurking here - namely, whether Bain Capital as run under Mitt had a positive or negative impact on the American economy.  Mitt's campaign has put the matter in issue by citing his experience as a "turnaround" specialist and enterprise creator at Bain as evidence of his mangerial competence and ability to manage the economy as President.

Bain Capital ("BC") is what used to be called an LBO shop.  (Nowadays it is considered more polite to use the more generic and neutral term private equity)  The LBO model involves getting control of existing companies by using the assets of the target to finance the acquisition - that way the LBO firm limits its equity commitment and maximizes potential return on equity, albeit at the cost of heavy leverage and thus greater risk of a wipe out.  They way the LBO model works not every deal has to suceed.  In fact, LBO shops can make tons of money even if most their deals fail, because they only stand to lose a small amount of equity on each individual deal, but can make back many times that if a particular deal does well.  Bain Capital under Mitt worked like that.  Most of their deals didn't work out, and they made almost all their money on their 10 most successful deals.  And even with the latter, the successes sometimes consisted of BC stripping out assets by a special dividend or asset sale that brought a big return to BC but resulted in the company going belly up a few years later.

These kinds of transactions can bring nice profits to the LBO firm principals and their investors.  They are also good for the investment bankers that broker the transactions, the corporate lawyers who advise on the transactions, and of course the insolvency lawyers, trustees, and others who earn fees off the bankruptcy process if the leveraged company fails.  Whether there is a net benefit to anyone else is another question.  From a high-level POV of whether the productive forces of the American economy as a whole benefit, one could argue that all this activity is on a net basis diverting value from enterprises into income streams for fund managers, brokers, lawyers, accountants etc. for work that doesn't really add anything to the underlying business.  There are some that argue that the LBO model brings "discipline" and superior management to underperforming firms, but the empirical evidence supporting this is underwhelming to say the least.

The point to all this is not the Mitt was doing anything illegitimate - clearly he wasn't.  He did his job which was to make money for BC and its investors, and he did that job very well.  But having raised this experience as an affirmative qualification to be President, it is fair to consider the broader ramifications.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 11, 2012, 10:58:34 AM
There is a real issue lurking here - namely, whether Bain Capital as run under Mitt had a positive or negative impact on the American economy.  Mitt's campaign has put the matter in issue by citing his experience as a "turnaround" specialist and enterprise creator at Bain as evidence of his mangerial competence and ability to manage the economy as President.

Bain Capital ("BC") is what used to be called an LBO shop.  (Nowadays it is considered more polite to use the more generic and neutral term private equity)  The LBO model involves getting control of existing companies by using the assets of the target to finance the acquisition - that way the LBO firm limits its equity commitment and maximizes potential return on equity, albeit at the cost of heavy leverage and thus greater risk of a wipe out.  They way the LBO model works not every deal has to suceed.  In fact, LBO shops can make tons of money even if most their deals fail, because they only stand to lose a small amount of equity on each individual deal, but can make back many times that if a particular deal does well.  Bain Capital under Mitt worked like that.  Most of their deals didn't work out, and they made almost all their money on their 10 most successful deals.  And even with the latter, the successes sometimes consisted of BC stripping out assets by a special dividend or asset sale that brought a big return to BC but resulted in the company going belly up a few years later.

These kinds of transactions can bring nice profits to the LBO firm principals and their investors.  They are also good for the investment bankers that broker the transactions, the corporate lawyers who advise on the transactions, and of course the insolvency lawyers, trustees, and others who earn fees off the bankruptcy process if the leveraged company fails.  Whether there is a net benefit to anyone else is another question.  From a high-level POV of whether the productive forces of the American economy as a whole benefit, one could argue that all this activity is on a net basis diverting value from enterprises into income streams for fund managers, brokers, lawyers, accountants etc. for work that doesn't really add anything to the underlying business.  There are some that argue that the LBO model brings "discipline" and superior management to underperforming firms, but the empirical evidence supporting this is underwhelming to say the least.

The point to all this is not the Mitt was doing anything illegitimate - clearly he wasn't.  He did his job which was to make money for BC and its investors, and he did that job very well.  But having raised this experience as an affirmative qualification to be President, it is fair to consider the broader ramifications.

When did those companies go belly up? It seems many of them failed shortly after the 2000-2001 recession; perhaps some "broader ramifications" to consider.

The takeovers that went belly up are not the negative for Romney (although I suppose Perry and Huntsman could run ads claiming Mitt's a business failure); what makes him vulnerable is the Michael Douglas asset poaching.

Quote from: Phillip V on January 11, 2012, 11:05:54 AM
When did those companies go belly up? It seems many of them failed shortly after the 2000-2001 recession; perhaps some "broader ramifications" to consider.

Lots of businesses survive recessions, including that one.
But it turns out that a very key variable in determining a company's ability to survive a recession is its ability to draw upon financial reserves and conversely, the lack of an immediate need to roll over financing.  So highly leveraged companies are at much greater risk to fail in a downturn.

According to the WSJ of BC's 10 most succesful deals, 4 ended up in Chapter 11 within 3-4 years of BC's exit.  The most successful of these from Bain's perspective was Dade Behring.  BC invested $30 million in equity to acquire control of Dade in 1994.  By 1999, Dade was doing pretty well.  BC owned 6 million shares, or more than 1/3 of the company.  The company was carrying about $860 million in short term debt.  A few months later, BC sold $365 million of its shares back to the company.  To fund the repurchase, Dade took on another $450 million in debt.  As a result of the deal, BC ended up making a net return of about 6 times its initial investment.

Three years later, though Dade filed for Chapter 11.  The company ultimately reorganized; as it turned out, the organization plan involved reducing debt back to to prior level of $800 million, which was a managable level even under recessionary conditions.  I.e. had BC never leveraged the company up to cash out, most likely it would have been able to operate through the recession without filing Chapter 11.

I don't see how you can pin that one on Bain Joan.  A 30% stake doesn't hold a gun to Dade's head.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 11, 2012, 10:58:34 AM
There is a real issue lurking here - namely, whether Bain Capital as run under Mitt had a positive or negative impact on the American economy.  Mitt's campaign has put the matter in issue by citing his experience as a "turnaround" specialist and enterprise creator at Bain as evidence of his mangerial competence and ability to manage the economy as President.

Bain Capital ("BC") is what used to be called an LBO shop.  (Nowadays it is considered more polite to use the more generic and neutral term private equity)  The LBO model involves getting control of existing companies by using the assets of the target to finance the acquisition - that way the LBO firm limits its equity commitment and maximizes potential return on equity, albeit at the cost of heavy leverage and thus greater risk of a wipe out.  They way the LBO model works not every deal has to suceed.  In fact, LBO shops can make tons of money even if most their deals fail, because they only stand to lose a small amount of equity on each individual deal, but can make back many times that if a particular deal does well.  Bain Capital under Mitt worked like that.  Most of their deals didn't work out, and they made almost all their money on their 10 most successful deals.  And even with the latter, the successes sometimes consisted of BC stripping out assets by a special dividend or asset sale that brought a big return to BC but resulted in the company going belly up a few years later.

These kinds of transactions can bring nice profits to the LBO firm principals and their investors.  They are also good for the investment bankers that broker the transactions, the corporate lawyers who advise on the transactions, and of course the insolvency lawyers, trustees, and others who earn fees off the bankruptcy process if the leveraged company fails.  Whether there is a net benefit to anyone else is another question.  From a high-level POV of whether the productive forces of the American economy as a whole benefit, one could argue that all this activity is on a net basis diverting value from enterprises into income streams for fund managers, brokers, lawyers, accountants etc. for work that doesn't really add anything to the underlying business.  There are some that argue that the LBO model brings "discipline" and superior management to underperforming firms, but the empirical evidence supporting this is underwhelming to say the least.

The point to all this is not the Mitt was doing anything illegitimate - clearly he wasn't.  He did his job which was to make money for BC and its investors, and he did that job very well.  But having raised this experience as an affirmative qualification to be President, it is fair to consider the broader ramifications.

Thanks JR, fascinating viewpoint.

Maybe it would be appropriate if America elected an asset stripper to the Presidency, given it's role at the worlds largest debtor. 

2014 - USMC on 10 year contract to the PRC, anyone.  :P

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 11, 2012, 12:13:42 PM
I don't see how you can pin that one on Bain Joan.  A 30% stake doesn't hold a gun to Dade's head.

They controlled the company.  They had the largest equity stake (35.9%) and controlled a majority of the board seats, plus their guy was CEO.  The sole purpose of the deal was to allow BC and a couple others to cash out.

I want to be clear - there was nothing improper about the deal.  The other major shareholders consented.  It was a legit transaction.  It served the interest of Mitt's firm and the investors he acted as fiduciary for.  But I think one can question whether it was a net benefit for the US economy.

Quote from: Razgovory on January 10, 2012, 07:30:42 PM
CC, you need to work on your "Gotcha" debating tactics.  Then you won't have to put up with Grumbler's bullshit. :D

Grumber, isnt worth playing with.  Both he and Yi want to put words in Romney's mouth to make Romney's statment seem justifiable and then he uses his old tired tactic of accusing people of doing exactly what he has just done.

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 11, 2012, 02:26:36 PM
Grumber, isnt worth playing with.  Both he and Yi want to put words in Romney's mouth to make Romney's statment seem justifiable and then he uses his old tired tactic of accusing people of doing exactly what he has just done.

Jesus Fucking Christ.  I was willing to drop the whole thing because I couldn't see a way to continue without making it personal, but I see you're not. 

You're the one who has shown through his comments that you don't even know what Romney said, and are arguing on the basis of what his opponents mischaracterized his statement as.  Then when Shelf shows up and repeats what I said, but throws a line in about still Romney shouldn't have said what he said, you pretend that was your point all the time.  I'll bet you still don't know what Romney said.

I know what Romney said.  You and I disagree as to whether what he said was stupid.  You seem to think what he said its ok.  That says more about you then anything...

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 11, 2012, 02:43:49 PM
I know what Romney said.  You and I disagree as to whether what he said was stupid.  You seem to think what he said its ok.  That says more about you then anything...

You and I disagree as to what he said based on your posts.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 11, 2012, 02:23:45 PM
They controlled the company.  They had the largest equity stake (35.9%) and controlled a majority of the board seats, plus their guy was CEO.  The sole purpose of the deal was to allow BC and a couple others to cash out.

I want to be clear - there was nothing improper about the deal.  The other major shareholders consented.  It was a legit transaction.  It served the interest of Mitt's firm and the investors he acted as fiduciary for.  But I think one can question whether it was a net benefit for the US economy.

You gotta wonder why the other shareholders would consent to let one shareholder make off with all of their equity as its profits.  Is it because none of them had a big enough stake to care?

Or, for that matter, why would debt-holders agree to be freerolled like that?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 11, 2012, 02:45:16 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 11, 2012, 02:43:49 PM
I know what Romney said.  You and I disagree as to whether what he said was stupid.  You seem to think what he said its ok.  That says more about you then anything...

You and I disagree as to what he said based on your posts.

I dont think so.  You and I can both read.  Its just that some people, including you come to his defence and say that his comment can be justified as saying it is a good thing that people can fire service providers if they are not providing a good service blah blah blah.

The problem is he didnt exactly say that.  But you know that so dont go all Grumbles on me.

You are dressing up his comment as saying freedom of choice in a competitive market is a good thing.   He would have been well served if he had said that.  His choice of words was poor and so the people that immediately sprang to his defence by saying that an attack on Romney was an attack on free markets (eg Paul) really missed the point.

I have to give it to you, CC, Romney wouldn't ever fire you if he hired you to dig a hole.

Quote from: grumbler on January 11, 2012, 03:44:29 PM
You gotta wonder why the other shareholders would consent to let one shareholder make off with all of their equity as its profits.  Is it because none of them had a big enough stake to care?

The other big shareholder was Hoechst (now Aventis).
Why did they do it?  I don't know.  But this was right around the same time that Hoechst merged with Rhone-Poulenc to create Aventis.  I think the idea was to fold the Dade business into the combined entity and Hoechst probably needed to secure a majority stake to do that.  This was in the late 90s when pharma and medical diagnostics were booming and players were merging left and right.  People thought that everything associated with health care would keep going up forever.

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 11, 2012, 05:35:28 PM
I dont think so.  You and I can both read.  Its just that some people, including you come to his defence and say that his comment can be justified as saying it is a good thing that people can fire service providers if they are not providing a good service blah blah blah.

The problem is he didnt exactly say that.  But you know that so dont go all Grumbles on me.

You are dressing up his comment as saying freedom of choice in a competitive market is a good thing.   He would have been well served if he had said that.  His choice of words was poor and so the people that immediately sprang to his defence by saying that an attack on Romney was an attack on free markets (eg Paul) really missed the point.

He came pretty close to saying that, except the blah blah blah part.  He said something very close to "I enjoy firing people who provide me services, if I don't like the services."  He sure as fuck didn't come anywhere close to saying "enjoying firing employees is an integral part of the free market."  It's that characterization that makes me (and apparently others) think you're basing your comments off of others' comments, not his statement.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 11, 2012, 05:58:23 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 11, 2012, 05:35:28 PM
I dont think so.  You and I can both read.  Its just that some people, including you come to his defence and say that his comment can be justified as saying it is a good thing that people can fire service providers if they are not providing a good service blah blah blah.

The problem is he didnt exactly say that.  But you know that so dont go all Grumbles on me.

You are dressing up his comment as saying freedom of choice in a competitive market is a good thing.   He would have been well served if he had said that.  His choice of words was poor and so the people that immediately sprang to his defence by saying that an attack on Romney was an attack on free markets (eg Paul) really missed the point.

He came pretty close to saying that, except the blah blah blah part.  He said something very close to "I enjoy firing people who provide me services, if I don't like the services."  [/b] He sure as fuck didn't come anywhere close to saying "enjoying firing employees is an integral part of the free market."  It's that characterization that makes me (and apparently others) think you're basing your comments off of others' comments, not his statement.

Yeah, you need to add in the bit at the end which is bolded to make your point.  But he didnt say that.  His one line gaffe was " "I like to be able to fire people who provide services to me."  Its later that he mentions the bit about medical coverage and being able to replace it.  Political campaigns have been about sound bites for what - the last 20 years or so.

People who "provide services" can be either employees or third party contractors.  But you dont even have to analyze it that far.  Simply saying I like to be able to fire people.... is a pretty stupid thing to say even for a politician.

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 11, 2012, 06:44:24 PM
Yeah, you need to add in the bit at the end which is bolded to make your point.  But he didnt say that.  His one line gaffe was " "I like to be able to fire people who provide services to me."  Its later that he mentions the bit about medical coverage and being able to replace it.  Political campaigns have been about sound bites for what - the last 20 years or so.

People who "provide services" can be either employees or third party contractors.  But you dont even have to analyze it that far.  Simply saying I like to be able to fire people.... is a pretty stupid thing to say even for a politician.

:lol:

I don't need to add shit.  He fucking said it.

Now, pretty please, tell us at what line he says "enjoying firing people is an integral part of the free market."

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 11, 2012, 06:46:29 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 11, 2012, 06:44:24 PM
Yeah, you need to add in the bit at the end which is bolded to make your point.  But he didnt say that.  His one line gaffe was " "I like to be able to fire people who provide services to me."  Its later that he mentions the bit about medical coverage and being able to replace it.  Political campaigns have been about sound bites for what - the last 20 years or so.

People who "provide services" can be either employees or third party contractors.  But you dont even have to analyze it that far.  Simply saying I like to be able to fire people.... is a pretty stupid thing to say even for a politician.

:lol:

I don't need to add shit.  He fucking said it.

Now, pretty please, tell us at what line he says "enjoying firing people is an integral part of the free market."

I was reacting to what Paul said...  Please pretty please dont turn into Grumbler.

And if he "fucking said it" Then why is the quote I pulled up the quote set out in all the major news sources I can find as to what was actually said in that sentence?

You want the sentence to be something else.  It isnt.  The part you are looking for came after that sentence.  Which is the Fucking Problem.

Oh, for fuck's sake, CC.  Just because I really dislike grumbler, and I hate seeing you continue to unconditionally embarass yourself, I'm going to post Romney's actual quote.  I'm not putting you out of your misery because I'm hostile to you, I'm putting you out of your misery because I'm compassionate towards you.

Quote"I want individuals to have their own insurance," Romney said. "That means the insurance company will have an incentive to keep you healthy. It also means if you don't like what they do, you can fire them. I like being able to fire people who provide services to me. You know, if someone doesn't give me a good service that I need, I want to say I'm going to go get someone else to provide that service to me."

It took me about 30 seconds to find it in Google.

Quote from: DGuller on January 11, 2012, 06:55:11 PM
Oh, for fuck's sake, CC.  Just because I really dislike grumbler, and I hate seeing you continue to unconditionally embarass yourself, I'm going to post Romney's actual quote.  I'm not putting you out of your misery because I'm hostile to you, I'm putting you out of your misery because I'm compassionate towards you.

Quote"I want individuals to have their own insurance," Romney said. "That means the insurance company will have an incentive to keep you healthy. It also means if you don't like what they do, you can fire them. I like being able to fire people who provide services to me. You know, if someone doesn't give me a good service that I need, I want to say I'm going to go get someone else to provide that service to me."

It took me about 30 seconds to find it in Google.

Yes, it's here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/9004683/US-election-2012-Mitt-Romneys-I-like-to-fire-people-gaffe-draws-fire-from-opponents.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/9004683/US-election-2012-Mitt-Romneys-I-like-to-fire-people-gaffe-draws-fire-from-opponents.html)

but it's not exactly as quoted, right after saying "I like being able to fire people who provide services to me" he stumbles quite a bit, because I think he instantly knew what he said could sound bad, especially if it was taken out of context.

Even if taken out of context, "I like to fire people" is a positive quality in a President.  If a President's advisors/cabinet secretaries do a shit job, he should fire them and get better people.  I don't understand why anyone would view his statement as a negative in any context.

Quote from: Caliga on January 11, 2012, 07:57:08 PM
Even if taken out of context, "I like to fire people" is a positive quality in a President.  If a President's advisors/cabinet secretaries do a shit job, he should fire them and get better people.  I don't understand why anyone would view his statement as a negative in any context.

The out of context would be, it's being said by a mergers and acquisitions guy who likes asset stripping* 

In that context it opens up questions about his corporate behaviour, which wouldn't play well in an election year, especially at a time of recession and yet incongruously large CEO remunerations etc.




* according to JR.

More Conflict Seen Between Rich And Poor

'Conflict between rich and poor now eclipses racial strain and friction between immigrants and the native-born as the greatest source of tension in American society.'

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/us/more-conflict-seen-between-rich-and-poor-survey-finds.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/us/more-conflict-seen-between-rich-and-poor-survey-finds.html)

QuoteAbout two-thirds of Americans now believe there are "strong conflicts" between rich and poor in the United States, a survey by the Pew Research Center found, a sign that the message of income inequality brandished by the Occupy Wall Street movement and pressed by Democrats may be seeping into the national consciousness.

The share was the largest since 1992, and represented about a 50 percent increase from the 2009 survey, when immigration was seen as the greatest source of tension. In that survey, 47 percent of those polled said there were strong conflicts between classes.

Quote from: mongers on January 11, 2012, 08:16:56 PM
The out of context would be, it's being said by a mergers and acquisitions guy who likes asset stripping* 

I don't know about that.  I doubt that he gets positive utility just from selling off assets.  That would be weird.  I think what he likes making money and one way to make money is buy companies on the cheap, leverage them and cash out.  As it happens that is how he made much of his money and he did a pretty good job at it.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 12, 2012, 02:21:24 PM
I don't know about that.  I doubt that he gets positive utility just from selling off assets.  That would be weird.  I think what he likes making money and one way to make money is buy companies on the cheap, leverage them and cash out.  As it happens that is how he made much of his money and he did a pretty good job at it.

What you're describing is quite a bit different than the Wall Street story of asset poaching.  Of course private equity firms want to cash out.  They buy into dying companies, build them up, and sell them off at a profit.  The fact that in the Dade case the end buyers were doofuses shouldn't change that.

I heard an ad today from what turns out was a conservative PAC (the name sounded progressive, something like Imagine the Future or some effeminate Dem-friendly shit like that, but they ran an ad later endorsing Newt Gingrich, so).  It was the most class warfare-tastic thing ever.  It was along the lines of "MITT ROMNEY IS A RICH SON OF A RICH MAN WHO DESTROYED JOBS FOR FUN."

I guess even a broken clock is right twice a day.  I realize that it's not exactly the same as saying "I masturbate to layoffs," but as a gaffe with mileage, it's pretty great.  I hope it sticks throughout his campaign; I might have to change my primary vote to Romney. :)

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 12, 2012, 02:33:34 PM
What you're describing is quite a bit different than the Wall Street story of asset poaching.  Of course private equity firms want to cash out.   

But a fair question to ask is whether that is a socially useful activity.
Sure in a free society a person is free to make a living in any lawful way they wish.
But if a candidate for high public office specifically cites his private sector experience as a qualification, then IMO it is more than fair to raise that question.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 12, 2012, 04:40:32 PM
But a fair question to ask is whether that is a socially useful activity.

Isn't that what we've been talking about?

These guys are still in power :D : http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204409004577157001537763864.html


(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsi.wsj.net%2Fpublic%2Fresources%2Fimages%2FP1-BE338_FED_NS_20120112181819.jpg&hash=cfa8d08ec82653da2d1e7a80633c904ee27c03a4)


(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsi.wsj.net%2Fpublic%2Fresources%2Fimages%2FNA-BO967A_FED_j_NS_20120112191206.jpg&hash=916fc3ee820b5066d7e761489e2f49b43a6a9f26)

To be fair, Fed can't really speak its mind (not that I don't think that they completely misjudged the housing bubble all the way through its inflation).  If Ben Bernanke says "shit", the whole economy takes a dump.

Quote from: DGuller on January 13, 2012, 11:51:38 AM
To be fair, Fed can't really speak its mind (not that I don't think that they completely misjudged the housing bubble all the way through its inflation).  If Ben Bernanke says "shit", the whole economy takes a dump.

These words were said behind closed doors. These transcripts have only now just been released to the public, 5+ years later.

Quote from: mongers on January 11, 2012, 07:06:29 PM

Quote from: DGuller on January 11, 2012, 06:55:11 PM
Oh, for fuck's sake, CC.  Just because I really dislike grumbler, and I hate seeing you continue to unconditionally embarass yourself, I'm going to post Romney's actual quote.  I'm not putting you out of your misery because I'm hostile to you, I'm putting you out of your misery because I'm compassionate towards you.

Quote"I want individuals to have their own insurance," Romney said. "That means the insurance company will have an incentive to keep you healthy. It also means if you don't like what they do, you can fire them. I like being able to fire people who provide services to me. You know, if someone doesn't give me a good service that I need, I want to say I'm going to go get someone else to provide that service to me."

It took me about 30 seconds to find it in Google.

Yes, it's here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/9004683/US-election-2012-Mitt-Romneys-I-like-to-fire-people-gaffe-draws-fire-from-opponents.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/9004683/US-election-2012-Mitt-Romneys-I-like-to-fire-people-gaffe-draws-fire-from-opponents.html)

but it's not exactly as quoted, right after saying "I like being able to fire people who provide services to me" he stumbles quite a bit, because I think he instantly knew what he said could sound bad, especially if it was taken out of context.

Yep, if people actually watch the video they will see that as soon as the words "I like to fire people" came out of his mouth he had an "Oh Crap! What did I just say" moment.

And that is the point.  It was a silly thing to say no matter how much people want to dress it up.

Quote from: Phillip V on January 13, 2012, 11:58:43 AM

Quote from: DGuller on January 13, 2012, 11:51:38 AM
To be fair, Fed can't really speak its mind (not that I don't think that they completely misjudged the housing bubble all the way through its inflation).  If Ben Bernanke says "shit", the whole economy takes a dump.

These words were said behind closed doors. These transcripts have only now just been released to the public, 5+ years later.

Shit.

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 13, 2012, 12:01:24 PM
Yep, if people actually watch the video they will see that as soon as the words "I like to fire people" came out of his mouth he had an "Oh Crap! What did I just say" moment.

And that is the point.  It was a silly thing to say no matter how much people want to dress it up.

Seriously.  Being comfortable with firing might be a positive for a potential POTUS, but an ability to misspeak that badly?  The guy would be the public face of the US- how long did it take foreigners to realize we were saddled with an inarticulate speaker in GW again?

Quote from: Phillip V on January 13, 2012, 11:39:22 AM
These guys are still in power :D : http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204409004577157001537763864.html

If the argument is that they shouldn't be, the charts do a very poor job in making that case.
On Chart 1, Bernanke's 3/06 statement was correct.  The housing market didn't collapse in 06 and growth was solid.  The chart actually shows housing prices holding stable for about a year after the statement.  The Fed rarely attempts to forecast much beyond that timeframe.

On the second chart, there are three statements:

1) The June 06 "staff report" - the context of the quoted line was ARM repricing and the staff member explained (accurately) that most ARMs would not reprice until 08 or later.  However, immediately after the quoted line, the staff member continued: "That said, there are some indications of stress among subprime borrowers . . . In particular, we are seeing a deterioration among subprime borrowers with variable-rate mortgages . . . the increases for those subprime borrowers experiencing resets could be striking: We estimate increases of something like 25 to 30 percent of their original payment. . . . the greater stress evident among the most financially vulnerable segment of the household sector presents a downside risk to the forecast."  But that didn't make for a strong a sound bite for the WSJ.

2. Geithner's June 2006 comment:  The context is Geithner's discussion of GDP estimates for the next 18 months, i.e. to December 2007.  He estimated about 3 percent.  That was too high because as it turned out 3rd Q of 06 and 1st Q of 07 were very weak.  But the last three quarters of 07 had growth rates of 3.6, 3.0, and 1.7 percent.  As economic forecasts go, it wasn't too terrible.

3.  Bernanke's December 06 comment:  This was responding in part to Janet Yellen's comment about a "soft landing" being the most likely outcome; her full comment was: "In summary, I continue to view a soft landing with moderating inflation as my best-guess forecast . . . But there are sizable risks on both sides to the outlook for growth, and the downside risks are now more palpable."  Bernanke basically said the same thing, adding for good measure: "I think I took a bit more weakness from the data in the first part of the economy than some people around the table." Based on the information available in 12/06, this conclusion -- a soft landing recession as the most likely outcome but with significant downside risk -- seems reasonable.

It's not clear to me what the WSJ's point is in all this.  What exactly do they think the Fed should have been doing in 2006?  Panicking the markets by preaching doom about the housing market and slashing rates at the very same time that core inflation indicators were rising sharply?  It is safe to say if the Fed did that in 06, Bernanke would have been lynched and Ron Paul sent in with a wrecking ball.

You guys realize that it wasn't the housing bubble that broke the economy, right?   We've had housing bubbles before.   
It was all the gambling surrounding it that made crisis affecting millions turn into one involving billions.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 13, 2012, 06:00:34 PM
You guys realize that it wasn't the housing bubble that broke the economy, right?   We've had housing bubbles before.   
It was all the gambling surrounding it that made crisis affecting millions turn into one involving billions.

Yes, but in this context, it doesn't matter.  It was known in 2005, at least, that the real danger of the housing bubble bursting were the financial instruments tied to it.  I said as much in my 2005 thread about the coming financial disaster.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 13, 2012, 06:00:34 PM
You guys realize that it wasn't the housing bubble that broke the economy, right?   We've had housing bubbles before.   
It was all the gambling surrounding it that made crisis affecting millions turn into one involving billions.

No.  The only housing related financial instrument that can be reasonably construed as gambling is CDS.  I'm pretty sure the losses suffered on CDS were a fraction of total losses.

And when have we had a housing bubble before?  We had a commercial real estate bubble (regionalized) that ended in the S&L crisi, but I can't think of another housing bubble in the US.

Quote from: DGuller on January 13, 2012, 06:07:27 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 13, 2012, 06:00:34 PM
You guys realize that it wasn't the housing bubble that broke the economy, right?   We've had housing bubbles before.   
It was all the gambling surrounding it that made crisis affecting millions turn into one involving billions.

Yes, but in this context, it doesn't matter.  It was known in 2005, at least, that the real danger of the housing bubble bursting were the financial instruments tied to it.  I said as much in my 2005 thread about the coming financial disaster.

The thread that is somehow impossible to find now?

Quote from: The Brain on January 13, 2012, 07:04:56 PM
The thread that is somehow impossible to find now?

I have a PDF of it (old FSB habits die hard).  :ph34r:

Quote from: DGuller on January 13, 2012, 07:10:02 PM

Quote from: The Brain on January 13, 2012, 07:04:56 PM
The thread that is somehow impossible to find now?

I have a PDF of it (old FSB habits die hard).  :ph34r:

Did you write your posts yourself?

Here is that thread from 2005.  I got some small things wrong, but overall I find my predictions eerily accurate.  I originally printed it when the shit hit the fan in 2008.

http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/78201279?access_key=key-y5bj9p0bqhwhec4xpyn

Maybe I should apply for a Fed Chairman position.  :hmm:

Wow.  Why did you do this?  Did I make a fool of myself?

Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 13, 2012, 06:00:34 PM
You guys realize that it wasn't the housing bubble that broke the economy, right?   We've had housing bubbles before.   
It was all the gambling surrounding it that made crisis affecting millions turn into one involving billions.

It was a credit bubble.  Housing was just a part of it.

Quote from: DGuller on January 13, 2012, 07:30:09 PM
Here is that thread from 2005.  I got some small things wrong, but overall I find my predictions eerily accurate.  I originally printed it when the shit hit the fan in 2008.

http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/78201279?access_key=key-y5bj9p0bqhwhec4xpyn

Maybe I should apply for a Fed Chairman position.  :hmm:

I miss Camper :(

Quote from: IdeologueSo, if I understand this right, if I can get a decent job right on the cusp of the meltdown, AFTER the meltdown I can buy a cheap house? And there might even be a revolution? Rock on.

I miss me. :(

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 13, 2012, 08:05:41 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 13, 2012, 06:00:34 PM
You guys realize that it wasn't the housing bubble that broke the economy, right?   We've had housing bubbles before.  
It was all the gambling surrounding it that made crisis affecting millions turn into one involving billions.

It was a credit bubble.  Housing was just a part of it.

Heck, credit is still probably too cheap and easy to get.

Cheap, yes, but definitely not easy to get.

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 13, 2012, 08:10:07 PM

I miss Camper :(

Me too.  I wish he'd come back.  I hope he has a job.

Whoa, what happened to Camper?  Did something happen to Camper when I was gone?  I mean, I know he's not here now, but I thought he was one of the ones who just wandered off (like Vinraith, or Hamilcar, or me, for that matter).

Quote from: Ideologue on January 13, 2012, 11:24:43 PM
Whoa, what happened to Camper?  Did something happen to Camper when I was gone?  I mean, I know he's not here now, but I thought he was one of the ones who just wandered off (like Vinraith, or Hamilcar, or me, for that matter).

Hamilcar didn't exactly just "wander off." :contract:

And wow at the archived thread; Skippy, Yi, and Grumbles all lost big on that argument. :P

Quote from: DontSayBanana on January 14, 2012, 12:10:27 AM

Quote from: Ideologue on January 13, 2012, 11:24:43 PM
Whoa, what happened to Camper?  Did something happen to Camper when I was gone?  I mean, I know he's not here now, but I thought he was one of the ones who just wandered off (like Vinraith, or Hamilcar, or me, for that matter).

Hamilcar didn't exactly just "wander off." :contract:

And wow at the archived thread; Skippy, Yi, and Grumbles all lost big on that argument. :P

Did you not get to the bottom of the thread?  Lemonjello clearly wins the the Nostradamus Award in a virtual blowout.

And I'm pretty sure I'd already predicted an economic collapse by that point. :hmm:

Quote from: DGuller on January 14, 2012, 01:13:54 AM
Did you not get to the bottom of the thread?  Lemonjello clearly wins the the Nostradamus Award in a virtual blowout.

Actually, I did see that, just after I posted that comment. :blush:

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 13, 2012, 06:33:04 PM
I'm pretty sure the losses suffered on CDS were a fraction of total losses.

You'd be wrong.

Quote from: Ideologue on January 13, 2012, 11:24:43 PM
Whoa, what happened to Camper?  Did something happen to Camper when I was gone?  I mean, I know he's not here now, but I thought he was one of the ones who just wandered off (like Vinraith, or Hamilcar, or me, for that matter).

He worked at Washington Mutual...

Quote from: Razgovory on January 14, 2012, 01:36:29 AM

Quote from: Ideologue on January 13, 2012, 11:24:43 PM
Whoa, what happened to Camper?  Did something happen to Camper when I was gone?  I mean, I know he's not here now, but I thought he was one of the ones who just wandered off (like Vinraith, or Hamilcar, or me, for that matter).

He worked at Washington Mutual...

Ah.  Actually, I think I kind of remember this now.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 14, 2012, 01:31:35 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 13, 2012, 06:33:04 PM
I'm pretty sure the losses suffered on CDS were a fraction of total losses.

You'd be wrong.

He is right, of course.  CDS losses were a fraction of total losses.  A fraction close to 1, but a fraction nonetheless.

Quote from: Ideologue on January 14, 2012, 01:17:15 AM
And I'm pretty sure I'd already predicted an economic collapse by that point. :hmm:

No doubt.
You've successfully predicted ten of the last two economic collapses.   ;)

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 14, 2012, 12:26:11 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on January 14, 2012, 01:17:15 AM
And I'm pretty sure I'd already predicted an economic collapse by that point. :hmm:

No doubt.
You've successfully predicted ten of the last two economic collapses.   ;)

:D

Quote from: Ideologue on January 13, 2012, 11:24:43 PM
Whoa, what happened to Camper?  Did something happen to Camper when I was gone?  I mean, I know he's not here now, but I thought he was one of the ones who just wandered off (like Vinraith, or Hamilcar, or me, for that matter).

I remember Camper too.

Malthus predicted the collapse of China back in 2001.

We are still waiting.

Half of U.S Lives in Household Receiving Government Benefits

'The pool of Americans relying on government benefits rose to record highs last year as an increasing share of families tapped aid in a weak economy.

Some 48.6% of the population lived in a household receiving some type of government benefit in the second quarter of 2010, up from 48.5% in the first quarter.'

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/01/17/nearly-half-of-u-s-lives-in-household-receiving-government-benefits/ (http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/01/17/nearly-half-of-u-s-lives-in-household-receiving-government-benefits/)

QuoteTo combat prolonged economic weakness, Congress extended unemployment benefits to a record 99 weeks (up from the normal 26-weeks offered in most states). The food stamp program was tweaked so it was more generous. Americans flocked to Social Security disability, a last bastion of support for some of the long-term unemployed.

I was one in 2010! :w00t:

Lemonjello was a pretty big optimist back then.

Fed Signals That a Full Recovery Is Years Away

'The Federal Reserve said it was not likely to raise interest rates until the end of 2014, adding 18 months to the expected duration of its response to the slump.'

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/26/business/economy/fed-to-maintain-rates-near-zero-through-late-2014.html?hp (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/26/business/economy/fed-to-maintain-rates-near-zero-through-late-2014.html?hp)

Lowering the interest rates: a complete and total solution to all economic problems.

Quote from: Razgovory on January 14, 2012, 01:36:29 AM

Quote from: Ideologue on January 13, 2012, 11:24:43 PM
Whoa, what happened to Camper?  Did something happen to Camper when I was gone?  I mean, I know he's not here now, but I thought he was one of the ones who just wandered off (like Vinraith, or Hamilcar, or me, for that matter).

He worked at Washington Mutual...

He was actually retained there a bit longer than most due to his specific skill set.  Last I heard from him he was getting ready to take a job at UW.

We are getting into backroom confidences.  If such a place existed that is.

The economy won't recover.

Obama disses crazy bitch at airport:

QuoteArizona governor, Obama in 'tense' exchange over book

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmsnbcmedia.msn.com%2Fj%2FMSNBC%2FComponents%2FPhoto%2F_new%2F120125-obamabrewer-522p.photoblog600.jpg&hash=13d88653b88d81b10bd173026f04be7ad6d8e7f4)

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer and President Barack Obama engaged in an apparently tense exchange on an airport tarmac shortly after Air Force One touched down outside Phoenix on Wednesday.

The two leaders could be seen talking intently at the base of Air Force One's steps. Both could be seen smiling, but speaking at the same time.

Obama appeared to walk away from the Republican governor while they were still talking, according to a White House pool reporter. Brewer confirmed that by saying she didn't finish her sentence.

Asked moments later what the conversation was about, Brewer said: "He was a little disturbed about my book."

On a Phoenix radio talk show after their meeting, Brewer said Obama was "tense."

Brewer recently published a book, "Scorpions for Breakfast," something of a memoir of her years growing up and defends her signing of Arizona's controversial law cracking down on illegal immigrants, which Obama opposes.

Obama was objecting to Brewer's description of a meeting he and Brewer had at the White House, where she described Obama as lecturing her. In an interview in November Brewer described two tense meetings. The first took place before his commencement address at Arizona State University. "He did blow me off at ASU," she said in the television interview in November.

In a statement after the meeting, Brewer didn't mention the airport conversation, and would only say that she discussed economic issues with Obama in a brief meeting.

"Don't be mistaken, I'm bullish on our nation's future," Brewer said in a statement issued later. "But I'm convinced the path the president has pursued is the wrong one. I hope he takes some of the lessons of Arizona back with him to Washington."

On the tarmac Wednesday, Brewer handed Obama an envelope with a handwritten invitation to return to Arizona to meet her for lunch and to join her for a visit to the border.

"I said to him, you know, I have always respected the office of the president and that the book is what the book is," she told reporters Wednesday. She said Obama complained that she described him as not treating her cordially.

"I said that I was sorry that he felt that way. Anyway, we're glad he's here, and we'll regroup."

A White House official said Brewer handed Obama a letter and said she was inviting him to meet with her. The official said Obama told her he would be glad to meet with her again. The official said Obama told her that in her book, she inaccurately described their last meeting, which the official described as a cordial discussion in the Oval Office. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to describe a private conversation between the president and the governor.

Obama: I'm sorry, who?

Home Prices Tumble

'U.S. home prices fell again in November, according to the Standard & Poor's Case-Shiller indexes, which reported Tuesday that the majority of metropolitan markets posted declines.'

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204652904577194752102528744.html (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204652904577194752102528744.html)

Affordable housing is great news for poor people. :)