Languish.org

Like the poll says, who do you think will win? And why?

For bonus points, who's going to control each of the Houses?

I expect Obama to win.

I guess the Republicans will control the House and maybe the Senate, but (if that's even theoretically possible) not with a filibuster-proff supermajority.

I have absolutely no faith in the American political system anymore, or the sheer insipid ignorance of its uneducated electorate.

Romney, 5-4.

Polls seem to be trending slightly towards Romney, particularly the ones that focus on likely voters.

However, my gut still tells me that Obama will eke out a win but with the GOP taking the Senate and expanding its House majority.  MOAR GRIDLOCK and a shit-ton of executive orders for the following 4 years.

Obama.  Maybe a close popular vote but a comfortable electoral margin.  GOP loses House seats but maintains a majority.  No significant change in the Senate.

Probably Obama, but you never know with American voters.  Critical thinking skills are typically weak even among the non-insane ones.  Economic signs are looking ominous, and Americans don't tolerate presidents who happen to hold the job during a recession.

At this point Obama.

Eurogeddon would probably destroy that though.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 09, 2012, 01:12:00 PM
Romney, 5-4.

:lol:

You people have to be shitting me:  I'm the only one that chose the Romney option???

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 09, 2012, 02:04:52 PM
You people have to be shitting me:  I'm the only one that chose the Romney option???

Your irrational hatred of black people makes you hate black people irrationally.

QuoteUpdated 3:01 p.m. - President Obama endorsed the right of same-sex couples to marry on Wednesday, a landmark pronouncement made in light of mounting pressure from gay right advocates.

Obama became the first U.S. president to back the right of gay and lesbian couples to marry, a reversal from his own views as stated in the 2008 campaign, when he said he opposed same-sex marriage but favored civil unions as an alternative.

Obama told ABC News that, after reflection, he had "concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married."

I'd like to amend my previous statement.  Ignore the "5-4" part.  It won't get that far now.

Quote from: The Brain on May 09, 2012, 02:05:40 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 09, 2012, 02:04:52 PM
You people have to be shitting me:  I'm the only one that chose the Romney option???

Your irrational hatred of black people makes you hate black people irrationally.

:lol:  Yeah, I'm the bad guy.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 09, 2012, 02:06:34 PM
I'd like to amend my previous statement.  Ignore the "5-4" part.  It won't get that far now.

Remember Romney's national security adviser?  Obama just realized he can pick up the entire Log Cabin vote.

Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 09, 2012, 02:09:28 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 09, 2012, 02:06:34 PM
I'd like to amend my previous statement.  Ignore the "5-4" part.  It won't get that far now.

Remember Romney's national security adviser?  Obama just realized he can pick up the entire Log Cabin vote.

But he won't.

BTW, I'm going Obama.  People just generally dislike Obama, but Romney's got quite a few weeks to open up his mouth and actively offend even more key groups.  Let him open up his mouth on Catholics, blacks, or latinos, and let's see if the polls still favor him.

Well, Obama just came out in favour of gay marriage. I expect Romney to win.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 09, 2012, 02:04:52 PM
You people have to be shitting me:  I'm the only one that chose the Romney option???

If the election were held today, I think Romney would win.  I'm too pessimistic to think that will hold, however.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 09, 2012, 02:06:34 PM

QuoteUpdated 3:01 p.m. - President Obama endorsed the right of same-sex couples to marry on Wednesday, a landmark pronouncement made in light of mounting pressure from gay right advocates.

Obama became the first U.S. president to back the right of gay and lesbian couples to marry, a reversal from his own views as stated in the 2008 campaign, when he said he opposed same-sex marriage but favored civil unions as an alternative.

Obama told ABC News that, after reflection, he had "concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married."

I'd like to amend my previous statement.  Ignore the "5-4" part.  It won't get that far now.

I'm still giggling over the Politico dude's tweet that pink smoke was coming out of the White House chimney :D

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 09, 2012, 02:06:34 PM

QuoteUpdated 3:01 p.m. - President Obama endorsed the right of same-sex couples to marry on Wednesday, a landmark pronouncement made in light of mounting pressure from gay right advocates.

Obama became the first U.S. president to back the right of gay and lesbian couples to marry, a reversal from his own views as stated in the 2008 campaign, when he said he opposed same-sex marriage but favored civil unions as an alternative.

Obama told ABC News that, after reflection, he had "concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married."

I'd like to amend my previous statement.  Ignore the "5-4" part.  It won't get that far now.

Becoming a thread!

http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,7546.new.html

Quote from: Jacob on May 09, 2012, 03:14:34 PM
Well, Obama just came out in favour of gay marriage. I expect Romney to win.

As I said in the other thread, Obama did the right thing, which is a bad move when you're a politician. :sleep:

Let's hope that the gay marriage thing sinks Obama, so that no politician will ever attempt to treat gays as if they were the equals of people ever again.

Quote from: Neil on May 09, 2012, 07:23:59 PM
Let's hope that the gay marriage thing sinks Obama, so that no politician will ever attempt to treat gays as if they were the equals of people ever again.

Does this sort of thing still work on Mart? :hmm:

I would gladly support the gays if certain gays lose all their rights. Like Mart and Perez Hilton.

Quote from: Ed Anger on May 09, 2012, 07:54:22 PM
I would gladly support the gays if certain gays lose all their rights. Like Mart and Perez Hilton.

When gays become mainstream they will move to exclude the more embarrassing amongst them.  Dan Savage will be remembered like Marcus Garvey is.

Quote from: Razgovory on May 09, 2012, 08:08:28 PM

Quote from: Ed Anger on May 09, 2012, 07:54:22 PM
I would gladly support the gays if certain gays lose all their rights. Like Mart and Perez Hilton.

When gays become mainstream they will move to exclude the more embarrassing amongst them.  Dan Savage will be remembered like Marcus Garvey is.

Didn't he play for the Dodgers?

He did.

I wanted somebody to be so oblivious to the humor so I could have used this:

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_m3f5dtQSJQ1qlerqho1_500.jpg&hash=993694e56ae145cde8b10db53ff524a65e014800)

:(

At this point, I see Obama getting a narrow win.

That could change if the Euro implodes or something similarly dramatic happens.

Quote from: Neil on May 09, 2012, 07:23:59 PM
Let's hope that the gay marriage thing sinks Obama, so that no politician will ever attempt to treat gays as if they were the equals of people ever again.

Of course we aren't. I meet people everyday that I'm superior to.

Quote from: garbon on May 09, 2012, 08:36:55 PM

Quote from: Neil on May 09, 2012, 07:23:59 PM
Let's hope that the gay marriage thing sinks Obama, so that no politician will ever attempt to treat gays as if they were the equals of people ever again.

Of course we aren't. I meet people everyday that I'm superior to.

Are you a GINO?

Quote from: katmai on May 09, 2012, 08:46:19 PM

Quote from: garbon on May 09, 2012, 08:36:55 PM

Quote from: Neil on May 09, 2012, 07:23:59 PM
Let's hope that the gay marriage thing sinks Obama, so that no politician will ever attempt to treat gays as if they were the equals of people ever again.

Of course we aren't. I meet people everyday that I'm superior to.

Are you a GINO?

We aren't the equals of people, we're their superiors. (See: Oh! You Pretty Things, Bowie, David)

Great a gay Neil, just what we need.

Quote from: katmai on May 09, 2012, 08:56:08 PM
Great a gay Neil, just what we need.

He'll just tie his flannel shirt in a knot above his belly button.

Oh I don't claim to be a God.

Quote from: Jacob on May 09, 2012, 03:14:34 PM
Well, Obama just came out in favour of gay marriage. I expect Romney to win.

Glad to see I'm not the only one.  Way to go, O.

Quote from: derspiess on May 09, 2012, 03:19:03 PM
I'm still giggling over the Politico dude's tweet that pink smoke was coming out of the White House chimney :D

That was pretty fucking funny.

Quote from: katmai on May 09, 2012, 08:56:08 PM
Great a gay Neil, just what we need.

Wait, you mean neil's straight?

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 09, 2012, 09:01:43 PM

Quote from: Jacob on May 09, 2012, 03:14:34 PM
Well, Obama just came out in favour of gay marriage. I expect Romney to win.

Glad to see I'm not the only one.  Way to go, O.

Nope, Obama will win.

Obama will win, just barely. Senate flips to the Republicans. House goes bat shit and elects a Tea Party speaker. Even less will get done in the next 4 years relative to the previous 4 years.

I dunno...I kind of want to say Obama will win, but I right now, I got the feeling that the Democratic base is not as charged as it was for him the first time around...and nothing charges the GOP base/Tea Party-types like a Democrat in the White House.

Of course, the flaw in that theory is Bill Clinton.  :P

Obama; Democratic majorities in both the Congress and the Senate.

Right now Romney.  It's too soon to tell.
Same w/House and Senate.  Electorate angry and frusterated.

Quote from: Jacob on May 09, 2012, 01:04:02 PM
Like the poll says, who do you think will win? And why?

For bonus points, who's going to control each of the Houses?

Obama will win, he just got the gay vote to tip the balance.

I believe the House of Representative will be Republican, with Democrat Senate.

Quote from: viper37 on May 10, 2012, 02:39:33 PM
Obama will win, he just got the gay vote to tip the balance.

He already had that.

Obama has the incumbent advantage, and I just don't see Romney loved enough and Obama hated enough to get the swing voters vote for Romney.

In fact, if anything, Romney comes across as rather petty and despicable.

Quote from: derspiess on May 10, 2012, 02:42:22 PM

Quote from: viper37 on May 10, 2012, 02:39:33 PM
Obama will win, he just got the gay vote to tip the balance.

He already had that.

Not sure about it. A lot of gays were disappointed with him, and if Romney came across as sympathetic to gays and Obama didn't do anything in that area, they could have just stayed home.

But Romney fucked that up with the gay dude he threw under the bus and Obama has done some quick appeal work, so that vote is coming.

Incidentally, gay vote doesn't just mean gays but also their close families.

Paul Babeu made for fun.

Romney threw a gay under the bus AND reaffirmed his opposition to civil unions "if they are equal to marriage in all but name" (why else would anybody lobby for it then, moron?).  His score on domestic social issues is gonna be pretty damn low once they start tallying the scorecards.

Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 10, 2012, 03:51:24 PM
Romney threw a gay under the bus AND reaffirmed his opposition to civil unions "if they are equal to marriage in all but name" (why else would anybody lobby for it then, moron?).  His score on domestic social issues is gonna be pretty damn low once they start tallying the scorecards.

Once who starts tallying the scorecards?

Quote from: derspiess on May 10, 2012, 03:55:48 PM

Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 10, 2012, 03:51:24 PM
Romney threw a gay under the bus AND reaffirmed his opposition to civil unions "if they are equal to marriage in all but name" (why else would anybody lobby for it then, moron?).  His score on domestic social issues is gonna be pretty damn low once they start tallying the scorecards.

Once who starts tallying the scorecards?

Future historians of course.  They will be: absolootli apaled.

Quote from: Martinus on May 10, 2012, 02:51:52 PM
Incidentally, gay vote doesn't just mean gays but also their close families.

No it doesn't.  Plenty of people have the good sense to feel fear and shame because of a gay family member.

Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 10, 2012, 03:51:24 PM
Romney threw a gay under the bus AND reaffirmed his opposition to civil unions "if they are equal to marriage in all but name" (why else would anybody lobby for it then, moron?).  His score on domestic social issues is gonna be pretty damn low once they start tallying the scorecards.

The scorecards are not going to matter, as usual.

Mitt is now claiming that what he meant by the auto bailout comment is that he warned Wubya to not hand them a check without first forcing them in to bankruptcy so they could shed their union contracts.

Problem with this version is I don't remember Wubya talking about cutting the auto companies a check, with or without bankruptcy.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 10, 2012, 05:48:59 PM
Mitt is now claiming that what he meant by the auto bailout comment is that he warned Wubya to not hand them a check without first forcing them in to bankruptcy so they could shed their union contracts.

Problem with this version is I don't remember Wubya talking about cutting the auto companies a check, with or without bankruptcy.

Yeah, that doesn't make much sense.  I'll wait and see if tomorrow's version is more logical.

:D

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 10, 2012, 05:48:59 PM
Mitt is now claiming that what he meant by the auto bailout comment is that he warned Wubya to not hand them a check without first forcing them in to bankruptcy so they could shed their union contracts.

Problem with this version is I don't remember Wubya talking about cutting the auto companies a check, with or without bankruptcy.

:bleeding:

This is a positive in America?

Quote from: Zoupa on May 11, 2012, 01:16:40 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 10, 2012, 05:48:59 PM
Mitt is now claiming that what he meant by the auto bailout comment is that he warned Wubya to not hand them a check without first forcing them in to bankruptcy so they could shed their union contracts.

Problem with this version is I don't remember Wubya talking about cutting the auto companies a check, with or without bankruptcy.

:bleeding:

This is a positive in America?

It gives me a boner at least.

Unions delenda est.

The time is passed for Unions.

Quote from: 11B4V on May 11, 2012, 07:09:45 AM
The time is passed for Unions.

Oh, bullshit.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 11, 2012, 07:11:01 AM

Quote from: 11B4V on May 11, 2012, 07:09:45 AM
The time is passed for Unions.

Oh, bullshit.

A succinct and powerful rebuttal.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 11, 2012, 07:11:01 AM

Quote from: 11B4V on May 11, 2012, 07:09:45 AM
The time is passed for Unions.

Oh, bullshit.

Federal Govt should do away with collective barganing rights.

There is very little chance of Obama getting reelected, unless Romney is caught in bed with a dead girl or a life boy.

His record has been a trainwreck, he is embarrassed to talk about his main achievements because they are so unpopular.  The economy has been extremely weak while he has done nothing to improve it.  He has governed in a hyperpartisan fashion and is running for reelection in the same way.  Since the GOP will control Congress after the election no matter who wins in November it is unclear how he should suddenly be able to govern afterwards.  Not to mention that he has no agenda which he is fighting a bunch of silly battles over women, dogs, and gays, instead of issues people actually care about.

In short, he has no record to run on, and no agenda to run on.  Combine that with a crappy economy I don't see how anyone thinks he will get reelected.  "Stay the course" isn't exactly a winning motto at this time.

At the end it will come down to whether the country wants another 4 years of this, which in the end only the lunatic left will agree on.  The polls might be close for a while, but in the end it will all break against Obama because there is no hope and no change left.

 :lol:

So what is Hans on?

Quote from: Hansmeister on May 11, 2012, 09:01:18 AM
Not to mention that he has no agenda which he is fighting a bunch of silly battles over women, dogs, and gays, instead of issues people actually care about.

People do not care about women?  Aren't they the majority of the voters? :hmm:

Anyway social issues is all the Democrats and Republicans have.  What is Mitt's and the GOP's brillaint agenda again?  Oh right not cutting spending by only going after things they know the Democrats will block.  Then Hans will come on again and say how the deficit doesn't matter anyway and we should all STFU like last time.

Quote from: Hansmeister on May 11, 2012, 09:01:18 AM
His record has been a trainwreck, he is embarrassed to talk about his main achievements because they are so unpopular.

That's your read.  Another possible one is that he's too busy doing the actual work and we'll probably hear more about it in the run-up to November.  Of course, a President who actually works does seem to be pretty unpopular, hence Carter.  I digress.

QuoteThe economy has been extremely weak while he has done nothing to improve it.

This is strictly talking points.  Anybody who's had the most basic civics class knows that POTUSA has almost zero influence on the economy.  All he has is input, and when the Republicans seem to operate on the principle of "if he's for it, we're against it," there's not much to be had there.  Boehner, Geithner, and Bernanke are the ones that need to get their shit together to fix the economy.

QuoteHe has governed in a hyperpartisan fashion and is running for reelection in the same way.

Wow.  Usually, there's a kernel of truth in the spin, Hansi, but this one is just flat-out wrong.  Remember the 2010 State of the Union address?  If anything's slanting his administration, it's disillusionment.

QuoteNot to mention that he has no agenda which he is fighting a bunch of silly battles over women, dogs, and gays, instead of issues people actually care about.

I dunno what the fuck you're talking about with dogs, but the >50% of the country that's female and/or gay might like to have a word with you when you're done ranting.

Shortest possible rebuttal: I love when people whine about the President's lack of influence, while completely missing the point that we designed the system to work that way.  All the President has is leadership, and when the rest of his government is as resistant to leadership as the current Congress (hell, Boehner can't even wrangle his own supermajority), it's more of a reflection on the people that we've put in the House and the Senate than the ones we've put in the White House.

Yes I'm sure Obama is so busy doing amazing things that he doesn't have time to get sound bites out.

Quote from: garbon on May 11, 2012, 09:20:47 AM
Yes I'm sure Obama is so busy doing amazing things that he doesn't have time to get sound bites out.

Well, he has spent more time on fundraisers than the previous 5 Presidents combined.  He spent more time playing golf in his first year than Bush did in 8 years, not to mention all those luxury vacations.  He has also average a party every three days in the White House.  He of course also spent more time on TV than any other President in the past.

But I'm sure it is all that hard work that is keeping him from getting his message out.  :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: Wow, the left sure has gone delusional in a big way.

Alright.  I'm retracting the hypothetical, because that was just stupid.  Glad to see you guys prioritized by substance, though. <_<

Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 11, 2012, 09:19:02 AM

Quote from: Hansmeister on May 11, 2012, 09:01:18 AM
His record has been a trainwreck, he is embarrassed to talk about his main achievements because they are so unpopular.

That's your read.  Another possible one is that he's too busy doing the actual work and we'll probably hear more about it in the run-up to November.  Of course, a President who actually works does seem to be pretty unpopular, hence Carter.  I digress.

QuoteThe economy has been extremely weak while he has done nothing to improve it.

This is strictly talking points.  Anybody who's had the most basic civics class knows that POTUSA has almost zero influence on the economy.  All he has is input, and when the Republicans seem to operate on the principle of "if he's for it, we're against it," there's not much to be had there.  Boehner, Geithner, and Bernanke are the ones that need to get their shit together to fix the economy.

QuoteHe has governed in a hyperpartisan fashion and is running for reelection in the same way.

Wow.  Usually, there's a kernel of truth in the spin, Hansi, but this one is just flat-out wrong.  Remember the 2010 State of the Union address?  If anything's slanting his administration, it's disillusionment.

QuoteNot to mention that he has no agenda which he is fighting a bunch of silly battles over women, dogs, and gays, instead of issues people actually care about.

I dunno what the fuck you're talking about with dogs, but the >50% of the country that's female and/or gay might like to have a word with you when you're done ranting.

Shortest possible rebuttal: I love when people whine about the President's lack of influence, while completely missing the point that we designed the system to work that way.  All the President has is leadership, and when the rest of his government is as resistant to leadership as the current Congress (hell, Boehner can't even wrangle his own supermajority), it's more of a reflection on the people that we've put in the House and the Senate than the ones we've put in the White House.

It might be a short rebuttal, but it is also a dumb rebuttal.  let me throw some actual facts at you:

On his econd day in office Obama spoke to the Congressional leaders about a stimulus bill.  When the GOP leadership tried to offer some suggestions on it Obama shut them out with "I won, I think I'm going to trump you on that", and subsequently completely shut them out of the debate.  That's bipartisanship for you!

Obama spent the next year and a half refusing to invite the GOP leadership over for consultations.  Bipartisanship!

When it came to Obamacare the Republicans in the House were not even allowed to view the bill before the vote "you have to vote for it before you can see what is in it" Pelosi famously pronounced.  In the Senate Susan Collins (R-ME) helped cosponsor the health reform bll, only to have Harry Reid scrap it when it came to the floor and substitute his own bill in its place (of course written in secret like the House bill), promptly endorsed by Obama.  So where was the bipartisanship then?

The only times there has been bipartisanship in Congress has been in opposition to Obama.  The GOP is far more adept at winning over Democratic votes than the Democratic leadership and the White House have been at winning over GOP votes.  And people said bipartisanship is dead, it lives as long as Obama isn't included.

When is the last time Democrats passed a budget?  3 years!  Harry Reid has made it clear that he won't even try passing budgets anymore.  The GOP in the House has passed budgets with bipartisan support.  Congress has voted unanimously in the last two years to reject Obama's budgets.  Who would have thought, unanimity in the Congress!

@Shame - Why would I read the rest of a post when it started like that?

It's like watching Fox News or listening to a Rush broadcast.

Quote from: Valmy on May 11, 2012, 09:15:20 AM
People do not care about women?  Aren't they the majority of the voters? :hmm:

I think he was referring to the specific "women's issue" that was being advanced by the administration.  You know, forcing insurance companies to cover a certain type of pill ;)

Quote from: Hansmeister on May 11, 2012, 09:38:10 AM
On his econd day in office Obama spoke to the Congressional leaders about a stimulus bill.  When the GOP leadership tried to offer some suggestions on it Obama shut them out with "I won, I think I'm going to trump you on that", and subsequently completely shut them out of the debate.  That's bipartisanship for you!

LOL, ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES.

I had fun throwing that back at some people after the 2010 mid-terms.

Quote from: Zoupa on May 11, 2012, 01:16:40 AM
:bleeding:

This is a positive in America?

There are probably a lot of people here that would have preferred they just write the check, shaft the bond holders, fire the CEO, and not touch the union workers.

Quote from: 11B4V on May 11, 2012, 09:43:32 AM
It's like watching Fox News or listening to a Rush broadcast.

Better than sounding like some MSNBC loser.  It is funny how out of touch with reality languishites have grown.

I find it heartening that Obama has had difficulty fundraising, doing worse than in 2008 and even worse than Bush in 2004, despite spending far more time on it.  I'm also happy to see how he failed to fill the opening event to his official campaign, much to his embarrasment.  All the excitement, the personality cult, is gone and Obama is stumbling around campaigning on silly distractions since he can't campaign on the economy, which is what everybody cares about.  Make no mistake, this election will be all about the economy, and Obama hasn't been able to make any argument in his favour on that issue.  This is why in the end most likely everything will break heavily against Obama (just like it did with Jimmy Carter).  Obama doesn't have a plausible narrative for his reelection.  "It could've been worse" isn't a winning argument, particularly when you repeatedly promised after you were elected that things would turn out better than they have (unemployment will not exceed 8% with the stimulus, summer of recovery, etc.).

Obama can only offer more gridlock and more economic stagnation.  And of course more blaming everyone else but himself when things don't work out in the long run either.  Obama is an amateur and simply too incompetent for the job.  But if you don't want to take my word on it, take it from Bill Clinton:

Quote"Barack Obama," Bill Clinton said, according to book excerpts, "is an amateur."
The withering criticism is incredible, given the fact that Bill Clinton is actively campaigning for Obama's re-election.
But according to the book, Bill Clinton unloaded on Obama and pressed Hillary to run against her boss during a gathering in the ex-president's home office in Chappaqua last August that included longtime friends, Klein said.
"The economy's a mess, it's dead flat. America has lost its Triple-A rating . . . You know better than Obama does," Bill said.
Bill Clinton insisted he had "no relationship" with Obama and had been consulted more frequently by his presidential successor, George W. Bush.
Obama, Bill Clinton said, "doesn't know how to be president" and is "incompetent."

This is from "The Amateur", by Edward Klein, former editor-in-chief of the New York Times Magazine.

Wanna make it interesting Hans?

I would put some money on Intrade (Obama and no Iran attack) but they charge you a monthly fee.

Quote from: derspiess on May 11, 2012, 10:07:56 AM

Quote from: Hansmeister on May 11, 2012, 09:38:10 AM
On his econd day in office Obama spoke to the Congressional leaders about a stimulus bill.  When the GOP leadership tried to offer some suggestions on it Obama shut them out with "I won, I think I'm going to trump you on that", and subsequently completely shut them out of the debate.  That's bipartisanship for you!

LOL, ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES.

I had fun throwing that back at some people after the 2010 mid-terms.

Yep, payback's a bitch.  Obama spent the first two years saying "fuck you" to the GOP at every opportunity because he could with his super majorities, and after the mid-term is surprised that they are hostile to him.  Amateur.  Not to mention that he still is horrible at negotiating: Obama stakes out a position on the far left and pronounces it to be the compromise position, demanding that the GOP compromise with him by supporting his position 100%.  He then issues ultimatums saying that he will accept nothing but the "compromise" position and takes it to the brink.  When the brink arrives he then grows desperate, having maneuvered himself into a box and quickly caves to stave of catastrophe, earning him the enmity of the left.  He has followed the same amateurish approach several times, ending up pissing off everybody on both sides in the process.  Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans in Congress take Obama very serious anymore.  This is one reason Obama has been AWOL on the budget and most of everything else for the last year-and-a-half.

Quote from: Hansmeister on May 11, 2012, 10:18:37 AM
Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans in Congress take Obama very serious anymore.

To be fair nobody takes them seriously either.

What exact far left positions has Obama taken?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 11, 2012, 10:18:15 AM
Wanna make it interesting Hans?

I would put some money on Intrade (Obama and no Iran attack) but they charge you a monthly fee.

I don't gamble for money but I'm open to other suggestions.
               
Unless there is a huge event that completely transforms the nature of the election Obama will lose.  And it's not going to be close.

Quote from: Hansmeister on May 11, 2012, 10:22:09 AM
I don't gamble for money but I'm open to other suggestions.
               
Unless there is a huge event that completely transforms the nature of the election Obama will lose.  And it's not going to be close.

Well for your sake I hope this is more accurate than you babbling about how this is a conservative country that will vote Republican forever back around 2003.

Quote from: Valmy on May 11, 2012, 10:21:45 AM

Quote from: Hansmeister on May 11, 2012, 10:18:37 AM
Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans in Congress take Obama very serious anymore.

To be fair nobody takes them seriously either.

What exact far left positions has Obama taken?

For example, when he demanded not only an unconditional increase in the debt limit, but also a new stimulus bill to go along with it.  This was something neither party in Congress was willing to stomach.  Obama's deficit-reduction proposal actually increased the deficit!  :lmfao:

In the end he was all alone on that one.  presidential leadership matters, Obama's complete lack thereof has had a significant impact in Congress, particularly because control is split.

Instead Obama engages in silly symbolic battles, such as the "Buffett-rule".  Pure partisan demagoguery with no sensible policy.

Quote from: Hansmeister on May 11, 2012, 10:27:36 AM
For example, when he demanded not only an unconditional increase in the debt limit, but also a new stimulus bill to go along with it.  This was something neither party in Congress was willing to stomach.  Obama's deficit-reduction proposal actually increased the deficit!  :lmfao:

Increasing the deficit is a far left position?  Then I guess the Republicans are raging communists.  Anyway sounds like typical keynsian crap to temporarily boost the economy to save himself politically.  Typical US government garbage but not far left.

QuoteIn the end he was all alone on that one.  presidential leadership matters, Obama's complete lack thereof has had a significant impact in Congress, particularly because control is split.

I know Obama is the worst human being in the universe who is loathesome down to his terrorist bones but that is not a far left policy.

QuoteInstead Obama engages in silly symbolic battles, such as the "Buffett-rule".  Pure partisan demagoguery with no sensible policy.

Because he is a politician and symbolic battles cost no money.  But still not a far left position.

Quote from: Valmy on May 11, 2012, 10:27:19 AM

Quote from: Hansmeister on May 11, 2012, 10:22:09 AM
I don't gamble for money but I'm open to other suggestions.
               
Unless there is a huge event that completely transforms the nature of the election Obama will lose.  And it's not going to be close.

Well for your sake I hope this is more accurate than you babbling about how this is a conservative country that will vote Republican forever back around 2003.

The country is center-right and will vote for conservative ideas over liberal ones.  The problem for the GOP was that it had succumbed to big government activism and conservatives felt sold out.  The Democrats and Obama promised to govern conservatively and won.  Remember, Obama promised a "net-spending cut" when he ran for President.  When the Democrats governed liberally it didn't work out too well for them, did it?

However, unless Republicans can actually govern in a conservative manner (I mean mainly on fiscal and role of government matters, not social), we might end up having a generation that tilts to the left, putting the country on a path where the majority of the population become tax-eaters instead of tax-payers.  We are already dangerously close.  From there it is a short step to Greece.

Quote from: Valmy on May 11, 2012, 10:30:48 AM

Quote from: Hansmeister on May 11, 2012, 10:27:36 AM
For example, when he demanded not only an unconditional increase in the debt limit, but also a new stimulus bill to go along with it.  This was something neither party in Congress was willing to stomach.  Obama's deficit-reduction proposal actually increased the deficit!  :lmfao:

Increasing the deficit is a far left position?  Then I guess the Republicans are raging communists.  Anyway sounds like typical keynsian crap to temporarily boost the economy to save himself politically.  Typical US government garbage but not far left.

QuoteIn the end he was all alone on that one.  presidential leadership matters, Obama's complete lack thereof has had a significant impact in Congress, particularly because control is split.

I know Obama is the worst human being in the universe who is loathesome down to his terrorist bones but that is not a far left policy.

QuoteInstead Obama engages in silly symbolic battles, such as the "Buffett-rule".  Pure partisan demagoguery with no sensible policy.

Because he is a politician and symbolic battles cost no money.  But still not a far left position.

It was to the far left of where virtually everybody in Congress (and the nation overall) was.  And when you run massive and unprecedented deficits and you propose ever higher deficits that certainly puts you far out of the mainstream.  And the GOP never ran insane deficits like this.  Particularly since these deficits are structural, not cyclical.

Quote from: Hansmeister on May 11, 2012, 10:10:24 AM

Quote from: 11B4V on May 11, 2012, 09:43:32 AM
It's like watching Fox News or listening to a Rush broadcast.

Better than sounding like some MSNBC loser.  It is funny how out of touch with reality languishites have grown.

I find it heartening that Obama has had difficulty fundraising, doing worse than in 2008 and even worse than Bush in 2004, despite spending far more time on it.  I'm also happy to see how he failed to fill the opening event to his official campaign, much to his embarrasment.  All the excitement, the personality cult, is gone and Obama is stumbling around campaigning on silly distractions since he can't campaign on the economy, which is what everybody cares about.  Make no mistake, this election will be all about the economy, and Obama hasn't been able to make any argument in his favour on that issue.  This is why in the end most likely everything will break heavily against Obama (just like it did with Jimmy Carter).  Obama doesn't have a plausible narrative for his reelection.  "It could've been worse" isn't a winning argument, particularly when you repeatedly promised after you were elected that things would turn out better than they have (unemployment will not exceed 8% with the stimulus, summer of recovery, etc.).

Obama can only offer more gridlock and more economic stagnation.  And of course more blaming everyone else but himself when things don't work out in the long run either.  Obama is an amateur and simply too incompetent for the job.  But if you don't want to take my word on it, take it from Bill Clinton:

Quote"Barack Obama," Bill Clinton said, according to book excerpts, "is an amateur."
The withering criticism is incredible, given the fact that Bill Clinton is actively campaigning for Obama's re-election.
But according to the book, Bill Clinton unloaded on Obama and pressed Hillary to run against her boss during a gathering in the ex-president's home office in Chappaqua last August that included longtime friends, Klein said.
"The economy's a mess, it's dead flat. America has lost its Triple-A rating . . . You know better than Obama does," Bill said.
Bill Clinton insisted he had "no relationship" with Obama and had been consulted more frequently by his presidential successor, George W. Bush.
Obama, Bill Clinton said, "doesn't know how to be president" and is "incompetent."

This is from "The Amateur", by Edward Klein, former editor-in-chief of the New York Times Magazine.

It's OK, it wont be the end of the world if the GOP loses.  Just four more years of chances to piss and moan.

Sorry dont watch MSNBC or CNN. Stopped watching FOXNEWS in 2004.

Quote from: Hansmeister on May 11, 2012, 10:34:21 AM
The country is center-right and will vote for conservative ideas over liberal ones.  The problem for the GOP was that it had succumbed to big government activism and conservatives felt sold out.  The Democrats and Obama promised to govern conservatively and won.  Remember, Obama promised a "net-spending cut" when he ran for President.  When the Democrats governed liberally it didn't work out too well for them, did it?

However, unless Republicans can actually govern in a conservative manner (I mean mainly on fiscal and role of government matters, not social), we might end up having a generation that tilts to the left, putting the country on a path where the majority of the population become tax-eaters instead of tax-payers.  We are already dangerously close.  From there it is a short step to Greece.

Well Obama also promised a bunch of left wing things he didn't do either.

Totally agree with you on the second part but they won't.  The Republicans are completely corrupt and sold out, same with the Democrats.  They can only reform in a way where the interests who have bought them will not suffer too much and that is impossible.  The problem is not left vs. right really but the whole culture and system.  So really who wins does not bother me too much.  The only thing that seems to still shift is the social stuff and I am more with the Democrats on those (sort of, they just cannot help themselves but pass stupid crap even when I generally agree with them).  But hey the Republicans will get another shot if not this election but very soon and whenever they feel like getting the fiscal house in order I will support them again.

Not that it matters who I support of course, I do not live in a swing state.

Quote from: Valmy on May 11, 2012, 11:00:46 AM

Quote from: Hansmeister on May 11, 2012, 10:34:21 AM
The country is center-right and will vote for conservative ideas over liberal ones.  The problem for the GOP was that it had succumbed to big government activism and conservatives felt sold out.  The Democrats and Obama promised to govern conservatively and won.  Remember, Obama promised a "net-spending cut" when he ran for President.  When the Democrats governed liberally it didn't work out too well for them, did it?

However, unless Republicans can actually govern in a conservative manner (I mean mainly on fiscal and role of government matters, not social), we might end up having a generation that tilts to the left, putting the country on a path where the majority of the population become tax-eaters instead of tax-payers.  We are already dangerously close.  From there it is a short step to Greece.

Well Obama also promised a bunch of left wing things he didn't do either.

Totally agree with you on the second part but they won't.  The Republicans are completely corrupt and sold out, same with the Democrats.  They can only reform in a way where the interests who have bought them will not suffer too much and that is impossible.  The problem is not left vs. right really but the whole culture and system.  So really who wins does not bother me too much.  The only thing that seems to still shift is the social stuff and I am more with the Democrats on those (sort of, they just cannot help themselves but pass stupid crap even when I generally agree with them).  But hey the Republicans will get another shot if not this election but very soon and whenever they feel like getting the fiscal house in order I will support them again.

Not that it matters who I support of course, I do not live in a swing state.

Yeah, it's so easy to attack corrupt politicians, but I'm going to call bullshit on that one.  The problem is the voters, and the fact that they feel so comfortable feeling very strong opinions on things they don't even care to understand.  At the end of the days, voters are more powerful than influence peddlers.

Quote from: DGuller on May 11, 2012, 12:19:15 PM
Yeah, it's so easy to attack corrupt politicians, but I'm going to call bullshit on that one.

I am not attacking the politicians really.  They do what they have to do.  The ones that don't are out of office.  I just have to be honest with myself about what I can expect from them.

Quotevoters are more powerful than influence peddlers.

:lol: If you say so dude.

What are you going to do...vote for the other corrupt guy in the other corrupt party?

Obama will win, it's a done deal. The Democrats will make great gains in both the Senate and Congress.

Heil Mittler

Quote from: Valmy on May 11, 2012, 11:00:46 AM

Quote from: Hansmeister on May 11, 2012, 10:34:21 AM
The country is center-right and will vote for conservative ideas over liberal ones.  The problem for the GOP was that it had succumbed to big government activism and conservatives felt sold out.  The Democrats and Obama promised to govern conservatively and won.  Remember, Obama promised a "net-spending cut" when he ran for President.  When the Democrats governed liberally it didn't work out too well for them, did it?

However, unless Republicans can actually govern in a conservative manner (I mean mainly on fiscal and role of government matters, not social), we might end up having a generation that tilts to the left, putting the country on a path where the majority of the population become tax-eaters instead of tax-payers.  We are already dangerously close.  From there it is a short step to Greece.

Well Obama also promised a bunch of left wing things he didn't do either.

Totally agree with you on the second part but they won't.  The Republicans are completely corrupt and sold out, same with the Democrats.  They can only reform in a way where the interests who have bought them will not suffer too much and that is impossible.  The problem is not left vs. right really but the whole culture and system.  So really who wins does not bother me too much.  The only thing that seems to still shift is the social stuff and I am more with the Democrats on those (sort of, they just cannot help themselves but pass stupid crap even when I generally agree with them).  But hey the Republicans will get another shot if not this election but very soon and whenever they feel like getting the fiscal house in order I will support them again.

Not that it matters who I support of course, I do not live in a swing state.

All of Obama's statements come with an expiration date. All of them.  Usually politicians at least go thru the motions of sticking to their campaign promises, Obama always operates as if nothing he says really means anything.

It used to infuriate me when Clinton used lawyerly parsings to wiggle out of promises, but at least he understood that his word has to mean something at some level, debates or interviews were like trying to nail jello to the wall.  Obama just doesn't give a fuck and say whatever is expedient, even though everybody knows full well its bullshit, confident that the msm is never going to call him on it.

As far as the GOP, there has been massive turnover within the party in the last few years, due to winning new seats, retirements, and incumbents being tossed in primaries for being out of touch.  The GOP in 2013 will be a very different party than it was in 2006.

Maybe this will give the GOP 2-4 years prior to succumbing to corruption and having to be reminded by the voters who is in charge.  There is little hope of the Democrats ever cleaning up on corruption since it goes to the very core of who they are, an outgrowth of the urban spoils system, which now dominates the party.

When I read Hans I miss mishca (or however it was spelled)

Quote from: HVC on May 12, 2012, 03:59:40 AM
When I read Hans I miss mishca (or however it was spelled)

I remember him. :lol:

Quote from: HVC on May 12, 2012, 03:59:40 AM
When I read Hans I miss mishca (or however it was spelled)

You really are sleep deprived.

Quote from: katmai on May 12, 2012, 04:09:15 AM

Quote from: HVC on May 12, 2012, 03:59:40 AM
When I read Hans I miss mishca (or however it was spelled)

You really are sleep deprived.

:lol: they both have the same semi-deluded pitbull lockjaw style hold on their beliefs. Mishca was just loony toons though. At least Hans is smart enough to know his stuff, even if I disagree with his slant.

Whatever happened to Hansmeister's blog?

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flaw.case.edu%2Ffaculty%2Ffriedman%2Fraw%2Fimages%2FI%2520used%2520to%2520have%2520a%2520blog.jpg&hash=ffc09c22dcaf5729d5c3074d9fb835ca28946d54)

Probably lost it's sponsors

Quote from: Syt on May 12, 2012, 04:46:25 AM
Whatever happened to Hansmeister's blog?

Alas, blogs for military members are now subject to monitoring and approval.

Not to mention that I'm quite busy most of the time.  I'm currently filling a half-dozen positions, half of which are Field Grade level.  So I end up working about 14 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Sucky hours, but its not like there is much else to do.

Quote from: Hansmeister on May 12, 2012, 07:48:51 AM

Quote from: Syt on May 12, 2012, 04:46:25 AM
Whatever happened to Hansmeister's blog?

Alas, blogs for military members are now subject to monitoring and approval.

Not to mention that I'm quite busy most of the time.  I'm currently filling a half-dozen positions, half of which are Field Grade level.  So I end up working about 14 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Sucky hours, but its not like there is much else to do.

That's pretty poor management by your boss by overloading you so heavily.  You should fire him.

Quote from: Strix on May 12, 2012, 02:09:48 AM
Obama will win, it's a done deal. The Democrats will make great gains in both the Senate and Congress.

I'm curious, what do you think Congress consists of?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 11, 2012, 10:18:15 AM
Wanna make it interesting Hans?

I would put some money on Intrade (Obama and no Iran attack) but they charge you a monthly fee.

I tried to make a wager with Hans over the Iraq war.  He didn't have the balls.  There wasn't any money involved just a concession.  Hans kept saying that the insurgency was dead or dying or something like that.  So I made him a wager that I would agree that he's correct if there are 4 or less American combat deaths in Iraq in one month six months from the bet.  That seemed to be a good indicator of pacification.  Hans wouldn't take it.  This was 2004 or 2005.

Quote from: Habbaku on May 12, 2012, 01:52:22 PM

Quote from: Strix on May 12, 2012, 02:09:48 AM
Obama will win, it's a done deal. The Democrats will make great gains in both the Senate and Congress.

I'm curious, what do you think Congress consists of?

Congressmen.

Quote from: Razgovory on May 12, 2012, 02:29:30 PM
I tried to make a wager with Hans over the Iraq war.  He didn't have the balls.  There wasn't any money involved just a concession.  Hans kept saying that the insurgency was dead or dying or something like that.  So I made him a wager that I would agree that he's correct if there are 4 or less American combat deaths in Iraq in one month six months from the bet.  That seemed to be a good indicator of pacification.  Hans wouldn't take it.  This was 2004 or 2005.

Why are you telling me this?

He doesn't have the guts to make a bet.

Neither do you, but I don't bring that fact up with random posters.

Quote from: Razgovory on May 12, 2012, 02:37:33 PM

Quote from: Habbaku on May 12, 2012, 01:52:22 PM

Quote from: Strix on May 12, 2012, 02:09:48 AM
Obama will win, it's a done deal. The Democrats will make great gains in both the Senate and Congress.

I'm curious, what do you think Congress consists of?

Congressmen.

Strix as your other personality makes a lot of sense.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 12, 2012, 06:48:24 PM
Neither do you, but I don't bring that fact up with random posters.

Does Raz even have the means to make a bet?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 12, 2012, 06:48:24 PM
Neither do you, but I don't bring that fact up with random posters.

You already lost a bet with me!

Quote from: Hansmeister on May 12, 2012, 07:48:51 AM
So I end up working about 14 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Sucky hours, but its not like there is much else to do.

You're either lying or your life sucks.

Or both?

Quote from: Zoupa on May 13, 2012, 12:47:26 AM

Quote from: Hansmeister on May 12, 2012, 07:48:51 AM
So I end up working about 14 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Sucky hours, but its not like there is much else to do.

You're either lying or your life sucks.

Or both?

:unsure:

Quote from: Caliga on May 11, 2012, 06:45:37 AM
Unions delenda est.

Soyuzi nerushimiy. :angry:

Quote from: Habbaku on May 12, 2012, 01:52:22 PM

Quote from: Strix on May 12, 2012, 02:09:48 AM
Obama will win, it's a done deal. The Democrats will make great gains in both the Senate and Congress.

I'm curious, what do you think Congress consists of?

Senate and Congress.  It's like a fractal!

Quote from: Hansmeister on May 12, 2012, 07:48:51 AM

Quote from: Syt on May 12, 2012, 04:46:25 AM
Whatever happened to Hansmeister's blog?

Alas, blogs for military members are now subject to monitoring and approval.

Not to mention that I'm quite busy most of the time.  I'm currently filling a half-dozen positions, half of which are Field Grade level.  So I end up working about 14 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Sucky hours, but its not like there is much else to do.

You should start a union.  :P

Quote from: Zoupa on May 13, 2012, 12:47:26 AM

Quote from: Hansmeister on May 12, 2012, 07:48:51 AM
So I end up working about 14 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Sucky hours, but its not like there is much else to do.

You're either lying or your life sucks.

Or both?

Salary or Hourly?

Quote from: Zanza on May 13, 2012, 01:11:26 AM

Quote from: Hansmeister on May 12, 2012, 07:48:51 AM

Quote from: Syt on May 12, 2012, 04:46:25 AM
Whatever happened to Hansmeister's blog?

Alas, blogs for military members are now subject to monitoring and approval.

Not to mention that I'm quite busy most of the time.  I'm currently filling a half-dozen positions, half of which are Field Grade level.  So I end up working about 14 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Sucky hours, but its not like there is much else to do.

You should start a union.  :P

I think the airfarce has one now.

Quote from: Strix on May 12, 2012, 02:09:48 AM
Obama will win, it's a done deal. The Democrats will make great gains in both the Senate and Congress.

The GOP will win the Senate even if Obama wins another landslide. The geography of the election is so against the Dems that it's impossible for them to keep it.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 13, 2012, 01:15:56 AM

Quote from: Strix on May 12, 2012, 02:09:48 AM
Obama will win, it's a done deal. The Democrats will make great gains in both the Senate and Congress.

The GOP will win the Senate even if Obama wins another landslide. The geography of the election is so against the Dems that it's impossible for them to keep it.

Wrong.

Quote from: Zoupa on May 13, 2012, 12:47:26 AM

Quote from: Hansmeister on May 12, 2012, 07:48:51 AM
So I end up working about 14 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Sucky hours, but its not like there is much else to do.

You're either lying or your life sucks.

Or both?

Last I remember, he was deployed in the sandbox (unless he has come back).  That kind of schedule is normal over there.

Quote from: Ideologue on May 13, 2012, 01:17:58 AM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 13, 2012, 01:15:56 AM

Quote from: Strix on May 12, 2012, 02:09:48 AM
Obama will win, it's a done deal. The Democrats will make great gains in both the Senate and Congress.

The GOP will win the Senate even if Obama wins another landslide. The geography of the election is so against the Dems that it's impossible for them to keep it.

Wrong.

Keep deluding yourself.  :D

Hans after learning Obama wins a second term.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.screened.com%2Fuploads%2F0%2F235%2F559423-khan_chesty.gif&hash=3c2328d95639dc67584aea093c1421571c7803c2)

Who stole my KHAN sthick?  :mad:

Lisping pansy.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 13, 2012, 07:43:59 AM
Lisping pansy.

You best stop talking smack about Ricardo boy.

Betty White has formally endorsed President Obama for reelection.  DEAL IS: SEALED.

ABSOLUTELY APPALLING  :mad: :mad: :mad:

QuoteMitt Romney uses Jimmy Carter as campaign weapon

FORT LUPTON, Colo. — For President Barack Obama, Mitt Romney is an obvious throwback to another era — a stiff Father Knows Best-type who straps the dog to the station wagon and marries his high-school sweetheart.

But Romney is pursuing his own strategy to puncture Obama's next-generation cool and paint the president as a retread, comparing him to Jimmy Carter and his fuzzy-headed liberal thinking. To the presumptive GOP presidential candidate, Carter is not just a former president, he's a potent metaphor and political weapon.

"When you mention Jimmy Carter, that lightens up certain regions of the mind and brings to mind ineptness and incompetence," said Peter Wehrer, who worked in the Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush administrations. "That's going to be one of the things that Romney is going to try and tie to Obama."

Romney has mentioned Carter periodically on the campaign trail: Twice this month, he has made unflattering references to the 39th president. When asked on the anniversary of the killing of Osama bin Laden whether he would have green-lighted the mission, Romney told reporters on a New Hampshire rope line that "even Jimmy Carter would have given that order" to kill bin Laden.

Two days later at a rally in northern Virginia, he explicitly referred to the Carter era as better for businesspeople than the Obama years have been.

"What the president has done, and I think unknowingly, never having spent any time in the private sector himself ... was one item after another make it harder and harder for small business to thrive and to grow and to start up," Romney said.

"It was the most anti-small business administration I've seen probably since Carter. Who would've guessed we'd look back at the Carter years as the good ol' days, you know? And you just go through the president's agenda over ... the last several years and ask yourself, did this help small business or did it hurt small business?"

The parallels between Obama and Carter — as Republicans see it — are too plentiful to ignore. There's a first-term Democratic president dealing with an economic recession, high gas prices, a prevailing sense of malaise following the hope-and-change election of 2008 and an executive Republicans have, almost since day one, painted as in over his head.

And then there's the best part: If you can frame yourself as Carter's foe, you get to lay claim to becoming Ronald Reagan.

It's unclear whether sticking Obama with a Carter label is an effective campaign tactic. A senior Romney aide said the campaign has not poll-tested Carter's name as a campaign touchstone and warned not to put too much stock in Carter as a Republican boogeyman.

A whole generation of young voters who were born after 1980 aren't familiar with the former Democratic president — and what they do know, they might like as Carter now works to alleviate global poverty and disease. On the other hand, middle-aged and older voters — who vote in larger numbers — might identify with the idea of Obama as a hapless president.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, Romney's chief Capitol Hill recruiter and a key surrogate on the campaign trail, said the Carter name gives him flashbacks to tough times with his father, who was briefly married to Kitty Dukakis.

"Even though I was a little squirt, I still remember sitting in line with my dad trying to fill up our car with gas," Chaffetz, 45, said this week. "I remember that. That's when we started the Department of Energy. Talk about an agency that's fundamentally failed. We had a major oil crisis, terrorism was looming, our military was getting weaker. The economy was sour. Unfortunately, it's the ideal parallel."

But even if voters don't identify Obama explicitly with Carter, Romney seems to hope they see Obama as belonging to a generation of old Democrats that has been firmly rejected.

Recently, in Michigan, Romney began what aides described as an effort to cleave the Democratic vote, separating centrists — whom the Republican identified with the prosperous 1990s Clinton era — from liberals like Carter and Obama, whose reelection campaign would not comment for this story.

Before Romney's remarks, a senior aide told reporters that the campaign aimed to "frame up the race a little bit about the past versus the future," with Carter and Obama as emblematic of past economic policies and Romney and Clinton representing the future.

"President Clinton in 1992 ran as a New Democrat," the aide said. "President Obama has really turned his back on all that. He's not run as a New Democrat, he's run as an old Democrat with old-school liberal solutions."

The aide didn't mention Carter during the brief conference call with the traveling press, but the implication was clear.

"There's a very clear difference in the approach of where Clinton was taking the party back in 1992 and where President Obama has taken the country over the last four years."

Here, at an oil-drilling site in the shadow of the Rocky Mountains, Romney twice declared that Obama's energy policies are "of the past."

"I happen to think that the president's policies are shaped by a perspective that's old and outdated," he said. "His policies are rooted in perspectives of the past. His ideas about energy are simply out of date. His other policies flow from the thinking of the liberals from years ago."

It's not too hard to figure out to whom Romney is referring.

No one younger than 45 would have been even a teenager while the Georgia peanut farmer was in the White House, and five presidents have served since Carter lost the 1980 election.

But among older Republican voters — Romney's base even in the primaries — the Carter line works.

In May 2011, after the bin Laden killing, Wehrer wrote in Commentary magazine that Obama would no longer be painted as weak like Carter.

"The specter of Jimmy Carter was beginning to haunt the Obama administration," he wrote then. "For now, at least, that narrative is stopped in its tracks."

But this week, Wehrer said touting a failed president from the other party is fair game in campaigns.

"Democrats ran against Herbert Hoover for decades after he had been president," Wehrer said. "Carter mentioned Hoover as well in '76. These things have a long half-life, failed presidents have a long half-life."

Republicans began making unflattering comparisons of Obama to Carter almost as soon as the Chicagoan was sworn in.

In February 2009, less than a month after Obama's inauguration, Newt Gingrich took to the "Today" show to suggest the stimulus proposal made the 44th president like the 39th.

"I think he is in real danger of becoming Jimmy Carter instead of Ronald Reagan," Gingrich said.

Rick Tyler, a former Gingrich aide who spoke for the former House speaker's super PAC during the presidential primary, said the allusions to the Carter years aren't aimed at young voters, in part because they don't matter as much as older ones.

"Not that you want to give up the under-40s, but we know that people over 50 vote five times as often as people 24 and under," said Tyler, who is 47. "To the average Republican who does remember him, Carter is shorthand for weakness in foreign policy, appeasement and policies that lead to joblessness, inflation, higher taxes, more regulation, more government. It's a quick shorthand, and it's a way of saying those things failed."

Carter's office declined requests to comment for this story, but Leo Ribuffo, a George Washington University professor who is writing a book titled "The Limits of Moderation: Jimmy Carter and the Ironies of American Liberalism," said it almost doesn't matter that the most negative picture of the Carter era is embellished, just as Carter's attempts to tether Gerald Ford to Hoover weren't grounded in the facts.

"It's basically partisan and wrong," Ribuffo said. "Historians know that Hoover didn't sit around and starve. He was an activist president. And historians know that Carter was more of a hawk, but historians don't have cable news shows."

LBGTLOLWTF?

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ft3.gstatic.com%2Fimages%3Fq%3Dtbn%3AANd9GcQWZASlNAQk28hW4QBu8f88swqq_SoSUZpbxTPx9NXLHvUBmtsEKA&hash=ae82bc624d55200a881f3243a771651ea01525a2)

Good.

Quote from: derspiess on May 11, 2012, 10:07:56 AM

Quote from: Hansmeister on May 11, 2012, 09:38:10 AM
On his econd day in office Obama spoke to the Congressional leaders about a stimulus bill.  When the GOP leadership tried to offer some suggestions on it Obama shut them out with "I won, I think I'm going to trump you on that", and subsequently completely shut them out of the debate.  That's bipartisanship for you!

LOL, ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES.

I had fun throwing that back at some people after the 2010 mid-terms.

Do a quote search on Google for Hansie's Obama quote, but, before you hit the search button, just guess how many hits you will get.

Try it; it's funny as hell, and while it leaves Hans with zero cred, it costs him no cred at all.

Quote from: grumbler on May 14, 2012, 12:36:20 PM

Quote from: derspiess on May 11, 2012, 10:07:56 AM

Quote from: Hansmeister on May 11, 2012, 09:38:10 AM
On his econd day in office Obama spoke to the Congressional leaders about a stimulus bill.  When the GOP leadership tried to offer some suggestions on it Obama shut them out with "I won, I think I'm going to trump you on that", and subsequently completely shut them out of the debate.  That's bipartisanship for you!

LOL, ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES.

I had fun throwing that back at some people after the 2010 mid-terms.

Do a quote search on Google for Hansie's Obama quote, but, before you hit the search button, just guess how many hits you will get.

Try it; it's funny as hell, and while it leaves Hans with zero cred, it costs him no cred at all.

Okay.  Here's the first result:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/01/i-won-president/

Looks like the actual quote was:

Quote"I won. So I think on that one, I trump you."

HANS, YOU MONSTER!!!!

Obama. Romney's too unlikable, and a cultist to boot.

Well,  I guess Romney's pretty credible on economics: http://www.romneyeconomics.com/gst/gst-intro

Quote from: Jacob on May 14, 2012, 02:13:38 PM
Well,  I guess Romney's pretty credible on economics: http://www.romneyeconomics.com/gst/gst-intro

The Free Marketards will proclaim that Mitt didn't murder jobs and companies, he simply euthanizes them for their own good.  And turning a profit on it?  Well, that's just being resourceful.

Maybe Romney will buy Europe, wreck it, flip it, and use the profits to pay off the national debt.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 14, 2012, 02:19:08 PM
The Free Marketards will proclaim that Mitt didn't murder jobs and companies, he simply euthanizes them for their own good.  And turning a profit on it?  Well, that's just being resourceful.

Obama took over GM and Chrysler, put 200,000 people out of work and lost $32 billion.

Who comes out ahead on that comparison?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 14, 2012, 06:10:37 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 14, 2012, 02:19:08 PM
The Free Marketards will proclaim that Mitt didn't murder jobs and companies, he simply euthanizes them for their own good.  And turning a profit on it?  Well, that's just being resourceful.

Obama took over GM and Chrysler, put 200,000 people out of work and lost $32 billion.

Who comes out ahead on that comparison?

Link, plz.

Some of the Bain Boys are Obama fundraisers. 

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 14, 2012, 06:10:37 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 14, 2012, 02:19:08 PM
The Free Marketards will proclaim that Mitt didn't murder jobs and companies, he simply euthanizes them for their own good.  And turning a profit on it?  Well, that's just being resourceful.

Obama took over GM and Chrysler, put 200,000 people out of work and lost $32 billion.

Who comes out ahead on that comparison?

Eh, the were mostly union workers....who cares.

:ultra:

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 14, 2012, 03:04:58 PM
Maybe Romney will buy Europe, wreck it, flip it, and use the profits to pay off the national debt.

:lol:

Quote from: citizen k on May 14, 2012, 06:29:59 PM
Some of the Bain Boys are Obama fundraisers.

Not to mention Romney quit Bain to run the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics before the company went bankrupt.

And of course the whole point of companies such as Bain is to buy up distressed companies, try to turn them around and seel them if you can do so successfully.  Of course that doesn't work all the time.  Socialist idiots of course don't understand that, but ignorant claptrap is the norm on the left.

Luckily the US has many companies like Bain, who perform an essential role in the creative destruction cycle of the economy, which is one of the core reasons for US corporate dominance.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT.

We need more Hansy around here.  I miss "socialist idiots" and "ignorant claptrap".  :(

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 15, 2012, 07:27:55 AM
We need more Hansy around here.  I miss "socialist idiots" and "ignorant claptrap".  :(

Meh. He doesn't even do insults as well as the commies.

"Socialist idiots" <<<< "running dogs of capitalism"

I knew a gut that got claptrap from a floozy.  Probably she was a Democrat.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 15, 2012, 07:27:55 AM
We need more Hansy around here.  I miss "socialist idiots" and "ignorant claptrap".  :(

Yeah, but it does throw things a bit off balance, what with all the respectful terms you use for those on the right.

Quote from: derspiess on May 14, 2012, 12:47:05 PM
Okay.  Here's the first result:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/01/i-won-president/

Looks like the actual quote was:

Did you read the whole article? Because it completely contradicts Hans' point.  Politely nodding and smiling while Eric Cantor -- "who brought handouts to the meeting"   (:lol:)  rants for half an hour - has got to rank among the top 5 personal sacrifices made in the name of bipartisanship in the last 10 years.

Compare this view of bipartisanship to soon to be Senator Mourdock . . .

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 15, 2012, 09:09:32 AM

Quote from: derspiess on May 14, 2012, 12:47:05 PM
Okay.  Here's the first result:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/01/i-won-president/

Looks like the actual quote was:

Did you read the whole article? Because it completely contradicts Hans' point.  Politely nodding and smiling while Eric Cantor -- "who brought handouts to the meeting"   (:lol:)  rants for half an hour - has got to rank among the top 5 personal sacrifices made in the name of bipartisanship in the last 10 years.

Compare this view of bipartisanship to soon to be Senator Mourdock . . .

But the article confirms that Obama did say those words.

Now I of course do not wish to put words in grumbler's mouth, but it sure seemed as if he was saying that Obama had never said those words.

Quote from: derspiess on May 15, 2012, 09:01:53 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 15, 2012, 07:27:55 AM
We need more Hansy around here.  I miss "socialist idiots" and "ignorant claptrap".  :(

Yeah, but it does throw things a bit off balance, what with all the respectful terms you use for those on the right.

:P  Here, have a whore pill.  Give it to someone you love.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 15, 2012, 09:17:43 AM

Quote from: derspiess on May 15, 2012, 09:01:53 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 15, 2012, 07:27:55 AM
We need more Hansy around here.  I miss "socialist idiots" and "ignorant claptrap".  :(

Yeah, but it does throw things a bit off balance, what with all the respectful terms you use for those on the right.

:P  Here, have a whore pill.  Give it to someone you love.

:hug:

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 14, 2012, 03:04:58 PM
Maybe Romney will buy Europe, wreck it, flip it, and use the profits to pay off the national debt.

Hmm...your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 15, 2012, 09:17:43 AM

Quote from: derspiess on May 15, 2012, 09:01:53 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 15, 2012, 07:27:55 AM
We need more Hansy around here.  I miss "socialist idiots" and "ignorant claptrap".  :(

Yeah, but it does throw things a bit off balance, what with all the respectful terms you use for those on the right.

:P  Here, have a whore pill.  Give it to someone you love.

That is a non-partisan term :contract:

Quote from: Hansmeister on May 15, 2012, 02:35:04 AM
And of course the whole point of companies such as Bain is to buy up distressed companies, try to turn them around and seel them if you can do so successfully.  Of course that doesn't work all the time.  Socialist idiots of course don't understand that, but ignorant claptrap is the norm on the left.

The original Bain strategy was to focus on small, potentially promising, capital constrained businesses.  It was during this phase, which Romney's people sometimes incorrectly characterize as "venture" financing, that Bain did many of the investments touted by the campaign, like Staples and Gartner Group.

While Bain made nice returns on these investments, the scale was small and hence the total profit was limited.  Staples is not even among the 10 most profitable investments made by Bain during Romney's watch.  These deals were basically just a test run using a relatively small amount of capital -- $37 million in the first fund , which is pretty small potatoes in the PE world.

Once Bain got its footing doing these local, small company deals, they transformed into a pretty standard model leverage shop.  The focus transitioned to larger, typically more mature companies that had established business and steady cash flows.  While typically these buisiness suffered from operational difficulties of one type or another, they usually were not "distressed" -- on the contrary, the targets were deliberately selected on the basis of being relatively under-leveraged.  The whole business model revolves around loading the company up with debt to gear up potential returns on equity.  The beauty of the strategy is that even if the company fails, the PE firm still can win, because dividends exceeding the total amount of equity can be paid out from bond proceeds.  This explains why it could be the case that 4 of the 10 most profitable Bain investments were companies that went bankrupt.

GS Steel is a decent illustration of the model.  It was a steel mill that faced big strategic challenges and needed an infusion of investment to upgrade its facilities and equipment.  Bain acquired control with an $8 million equity investment.  Within a year, they sold $125 million in bonds and had the company pay them a $36 million dividend.  So right away, they made four times the investment in a year, regardless of whether the company succeeded.   I do think they tried their best to make the company work - but they also used their controlling position to extract out gains including a distribution in a later merger, and a nice contract with Bain's management consulting arm for consulting services.  Ultimately the company failed under the weight of debt that Bain had layered on, and the PBGC had to pick up an eight figure tab for unfunded pension liabilities.

My own view is that this is not really Schumpeterian creative destruction in action; in fact, given the Austrian view about debt-fueled speculative financial investment, I doubt the this leveraged investment model would win awards from von Mises & Co.  That said, it is a legit business model.  As CEO of Bain Capital, Romney's job was to maximize Bain's return on its PE investments.  No one forced his counterparties to sell and no one forced lenders and investors to buy the junk bonds Bain used to finance its returns on capital.  Romney did his job and he did it very well - no one died and no laws were broken.

Given that - I would be inclined to give Romney a total pass on whatever fallout could be ascribed from any deals Bain did on his watch - except for the fact that Romney has decided to affirmatively tout his Bain experience as the principal piece of evidence proving why more American jobs will be created if he is elected President.  I assume that he has done this because the one item on his resume that actually does tend to show his competence as a potential President -- his experience as Massachusette governor -- was primary poison.  But it is a ludicruous claim and by making it, he has opened the door to legitimate critiques of the leveraged PE investment model, whose overall social utility can be questioned, and of the job impacts of the actual investments made during his time as CEO.

How can you pay a dividend from bond proceeds that's four times the amount of equity?  Isn't that embezzlement? 

I used to do that in Railroad Tycoon 3:  at the start of the game, start one company, have it take out loans, then buy back my shares for an inflated price, and have it go poof.  I take the proceeds from that, start a bigger company, have it take out a bigger loan, buy back a lot more shares from me at an inflated prices, and shockingly have it go poof again.  After those two times, my reputation would be ruined, but then I would have enough of my own funds to get started without needing other equity partners.  I always thought that this was a gamey tactic that wouldn't work in the real world.

Quote from: DGuller on May 15, 2012, 04:53:14 PM
I used to do that in Railroad Tycoon 3:  at the start of the game, start one company, have it take out loans, then buy back my shares for an inflated price, and have it go poof.  I take the proceeds from that, start a bigger company, have it take out a bigger loan, buy back a lot more shares from me at an inflated prices, and shockingly have it go poof again.  After those two times, my reputation would be ruined, but then I would have enough of my own funds to get started without needing other equity partners.  I always thought that this was a gamey tactic that wouldn't work in the real world.

That would never happen in the real world.
In the real world, your reputation would improve.   ;)

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 15, 2012, 05:03:42 PM

Quote from: DGuller on May 15, 2012, 04:53:14 PM
I used to do that in Railroad Tycoon 3:  at the start of the game, start one company, have it take out loans, then buy back my shares for an inflated price, and have it go poof.  I take the proceeds from that, start a bigger company, have it take out a bigger loan, buy back a lot more shares from me at an inflated prices, and shockingly have it go poof again.  After those two times, my reputation would be ruined, but then I would have enough of my own funds to get started without needing other equity partners.  I always thought that this was a gamey tactic that wouldn't work in the real world.

That would never happen in the real world.
In the real world, your reputation would improve.   ;)

apparently you could even become president :lol:

Quote from: DGuller on May 15, 2012, 04:53:14 PM
How can you pay a dividend from bond proceeds that's four times the amount of equity?  Isn't that embezzlement? 

more seriously: its hard to figure out what happened exactly because these deals are 20 years old and many of the transactions were private.

Bain got a big co-investment from GE Capital, but they (Bain) gained control.  So probably there was some dual share structure put in place or a shareholder's agreement that gave Bain operational control.  Which means they didn't pocket the whole dividend (GE Cap and other co-investors got some), and that the dividend was "only" about 50% of equity not 4X.

Still according to an FT article, Bain doubled their money before the company went under.  Not their best investment but still a decent outcome for them.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 15, 2012, 05:25:29 PM

Quote from: DGuller on May 15, 2012, 04:53:14 PM
How can you pay a dividend from bond proceeds that's four times the amount of equity?  Isn't that embezzlement? 

more seriously: its hard to figure out what happened exactly because these deals are 20 years old and many of the transactions were private.

Bain got a big co-investment from GE Capital, but they (Bain) gained control.  So probably there was some dual share structure put in place or a shareholder's agreement that gave Bain operational control.  Which means they didn't pocket the whole dividend (GE Cap and other co-investors got some), and that the dividend was "only" about 50% of equity not 4X.

Still according to an FT article, Bain doubled their money before the company went under.  Not their best investment but still a decent outcome for them.

Even still, paying excessive dividends out of bond proceeds seems to be such a clear and obvious scam that there must be plenty of laws against that, or it would be happening constantly.  You're essentially defrauding those who bought the bonds (and I would say that it is fraud, and not lack of due diligence by the bond investors, since they invested before the company's equity was raided and effective credit rating gutted).

I think Joan is talking about 4 X Bain's equity investment, not GS's total equity.

The question I've got Joan, is why would the ownership of a Bain target be interested in a deal that gives them a 40% chance of going under?  Possibly more to the story? 

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 15, 2012, 06:07:28 PM
I think Joan is talking about 4 X Bain's equity investment, not GS's total equity.

The question I've got Joan, is why would the ownership of a Bain target be interested in a deal that gives them a 40% chance of going under?  Possibly more to the story?

In another post, Joan said it may have been closer to 50%.  That's still embezzlement territory.  You basically bait and switch the bond market:  you pretend that there is equity there to back up fixed income instruments, but then you take that equity away once you complete the issue.

Quote from: DGuller on May 15, 2012, 06:10:36 PM
In another post, Joan said it may have been closer to 50%.  That's still embezzlement territory.  You basically bait and switch the bond market:  you pretend that there is equity there to back up fixed income instruments, but then you take that equity away once you complete the issue.

You're not paying attention.  Bain got a monster dividend that was 4 X their initial investment.  But that didn't wipe out GS' entire paid in capital.

If it had, the company would have had negative net worth and it's banca rota time.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 15, 2012, 06:15:49 PM
You're not paying attention.  Bain got a monster dividend that was 4 X their initial investment.  But that didn't wipe out GS' entire paid in capital.

I am paying attention, and drawing conclusions to the best of my ability.  Your interpretation seems to imply one of three things:

1)  Bain got a ridiculous discount on their initial investment, and got at least 36 million worth of equity for $8 million.
2)  Bain got a dividend out of proportion to their equity share.
3)  GS was able to grow more than fourfold in the space of time between Bain's investment and bond issue.

The first two conclusions imply that other equity stakeholders were the victims of embezzlement, and the third one is just improbable.  And, regardless of what was actually the case, paying a huge dividend after making a big bond issue doesn't look kosher under any circumstance.  At best, you're changing the capital structure of the company shortly after pitching the current capital structure to the bond market.  At worst, you're using bond principal to pay yourself.

Quote from: derspiess on May 14, 2012, 12:47:05 PM

Quote from: grumbler on May 14, 2012, 12:36:20 PM
Do a quote search on Google for Hansie's Obama quote, but, before you hit the search button, just guess how many hits you will get.

Try it; it's funny as hell, and while it leaves Hans with zero cred, it costs him no cred at all.

Okay.  Here's the first result:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/01/i-won-president/

Looks like the actual quote was:

Quote"I won. So I think on that one, I trump you."

HANS, YOU MONSTER!!!!

:lmfao:  Did you hear a loud "whoosh!" as my point went right over your head?

If you don't read for comprehension, you don't get the joke.  Since you can't follow directions, you don't get to laugh.  Too bad for you.  :hug:

Quote from: DGuller on May 15, 2012, 06:25:32 PM
I am paying attention, and drawing conclusions to the best of my ability.  Your interpretation seems to imply one of three things:

1)  Bain got a ridiculous discount on their initial investment, and got at least 36 million worth of equity for $8 million.
2)  Bain got a dividend out of proportion to their equity share.
3)  GS was able to grow more than fourfold in the space of time between Bain's investment and bond issue.

The first two conclusions imply that other equity stakeholders were the victims of embezzlement, and the third one is just improbable.  And, regardless of what was actually the case, paying a huge dividend after making a big bond issue doesn't look kosher under any circumstance.  At best, you're changing the capital structure of the company shortly after pitching the current capital structure to the bond market.  At worst, you're using bond principal to pay yourself.

#2 has to be correct.  It's metaphysically impossible to pay all shareholders a dividend that is orders of magnitude larger than their equity stake.

I assume they way they worked it was Bain got paid an extraordinary dividend for the management work the did.  Remember, the Bain model is not to be passive investors and wait to see what happened.  They are all about using their big gigantic brains to improve company performance.  Management consultants who take all their pay in back end points.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 15, 2012, 06:38:01 PM

Quote from: DGuller on May 15, 2012, 06:25:32 PM
I am paying attention, and drawing conclusions to the best of my ability.  Your interpretation seems to imply one of three things:

1)  Bain got a ridiculous discount on their initial investment, and got at least 36 million worth of equity for $8 million.
2)  Bain got a dividend out of proportion to their equity share.
3)  GS was able to grow more than fourfold in the space of time between Bain's investment and bond issue.

The first two conclusions imply that other equity stakeholders were the victims of embezzlement, and the third one is just improbable.  And, regardless of what was actually the case, paying a huge dividend after making a big bond issue doesn't look kosher under any circumstance.  At best, you're changing the capital structure of the company shortly after pitching the current capital structure to the bond market.  At worst, you're using bond principal to pay yourself.

#2 has to be correct.  It's metaphysically impossible to pay all shareholders a dividend that is orders of magnitude larger than their equity stake.

I assume they way they worked it was Bain got paid an extraordinary dividend for the management work the did.  Remember, the Bain model is not to be passive investors and wait to see what happened.  They are all about using their big gigantic brains to improve company performance.  Management consultants who take all their pay in back end points.

Then it's not a dividend, but a payment for services.  Even then, it is again iffy.  I can't start a $1 million company with 10% invested out of my pocket and 90% from everyone else, and then pay myself a $500,000 salary, without being convicted of embezzlement.  I hope. :unsure:

Quote from: DGuller on May 15, 2012, 06:41:18 PM
Then it's not a dividend, but a payment for services.  Even then, it is again iffy.  I can't start a $1 million company with 10% invested out of my pocket and 90% from everyone else, and then pay myself a $500,000 salary, without being convicted of embezzlement.  I hope. :unsure:

Of course you can, if the shareholders approve it.  Or grant you authority to determine your own salary.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 15, 2012, 06:43:17 PM

Quote from: DGuller on May 15, 2012, 06:41:18 PM
Then it's not a dividend, but a payment for services.  Even then, it is again iffy.  I can't start a $1 million company with 10% invested out of my pocket and 90% from everyone else, and then pay myself a $500,000 salary, without being convicted of embezzlement.  I hope. :unsure:

Of course you can, if the shareholders approve it.  Or grant you authority to determine your own salary.

would you like to invest in a company i'm starting? :P

"By the way, when I get rid of Obamacare and I get rid of Dodd-Frank and I get rid of Sarbanes-Oxley, it doesn't mean I don't want to have any law or any regulation.  It means I want to make sure it's modern, it's updated, it goes after the bad guys, but it also encourages the good guys."
—Mitt Romney, CEO candidate

Wonder how he's going to do that when he's CEO-in-Chief.  Fire the Legal Department?

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 15, 2012, 07:08:11 PM
and I get rid of Sarbanes-Oxley

:w00t:

I know who to vote for now. :cool:

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 15, 2012, 06:07:28 PM
The question I've got Joan, is why would the ownership of a Bain target be interested in a deal that gives them a 40% chance of going under?  Possibly more to the story?

They get bought out in cash funded in part by bond proceeds.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 15, 2012, 06:38:01 PM
#2 has to be correct.  It's metaphysically impossible to pay all shareholders a dividend that is orders of magnitude larger than their equity stake.

Sure it is.
10 kids each put $1 into a lemonade stand business.
One of the kids is Richie Rich.  Richie convinces Daddy to lend Acme Lemonade another $90.
The kids then use $20 of the $90 to buy lemonade mix, sugar, ice and cups.  They use the rest to pay themselves each $7 in cash. 7-to-1 cash return on equity before a single glass is served.

No laws of metaphysics broken. 

QuoteI assume they way they worked it was Bain got paid an extraordinary dividend for the management work the did.  Remember, the Bain model is not to be passive investors and wait to see what happened.  They are all about using their big gigantic brains to improve company performance.  Management consultants who take all their pay in back end points. 

I see the tongue is in cheek but will elaborate anyway.  All that is needed to pay an extraordianry dividend is board resolution to do it.  No great management acumen required.  In this particular case, the first big dividend was paid out within a year, well before the full impact from any management work could reasonably have been felt.  Historically it is true that LBO shops claim to add value with special management expertise.   Sometimes this is actually true - although usually it involves parachuting in talented outsiders they have relationships with.  But more typically in this model, the business is simply run to generate cash to service huge debt loads, the profitability model is based on leverage, not innovation and investment (which siphons off precious cash), and the mangagement acumen involves putting in managers who may lack industry experience but know how to read an expense line and make cuts.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 16, 2012, 09:06:22 AM
Sure it is.
10 kids each put $1 into a lemonade stand business.
One of the kids is Richie Rich.  Richie convinces Daddy to lend Acme Lemonade another $90.
The kids then use $20 of the $90 to buy lemonade mix, sugar, ice and cups.  They use the rest to pay themselves each $7 in cash. 7-to-1 cash return on equity before a single glass is served.

No laws of metaphysics broken. 

I guess Yi's point was that this lemonade stand would become insolvent, since the value of its equity would be -$60.  Therefore, it would not be done.

My point would be that if this did indeed happen, then Daddy got had.  Surely he did not expect to lend money to an entity with negative equity.

Quote from: DGuller on May 16, 2012, 09:29:00 AM
I guess Yi's point was that this lemonade stand would become insolvent, since the value of its equity would be -$60. 

It depends how much they charge for lemonade and how much they sell.  If there is a hot summer and tourists come into town, they might be able to generate sufficient cash to pay off the debt.  OTOH if weather is poor or if the kids from the neighboring block start a competing stand, their lender stands to lose quite a bit.  Either way the kiddy investors have septupled their allowance money.

There has to be something missing in this picture.  If you can do what the kids did, then why would any company not fleece the bondholders the first chance it gets?  As long as you have significantly more cash than equity outstanding, just use it all to pay the shareholders (I'm sure they'll vote for it), and leave the creditors with the empty shell of a company.

Quote from: DGuller on May 16, 2012, 10:19:14 AM
There has to be something missing in this picture.  If you can do what the kids did, then why would any company not fleece the bondholders the first chance it gets? 

1. Bond covenants, if they exist.
2.  Risk of fraudulent conveyance lawsuits if company later goes bankrupt.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 16, 2012, 10:34:22 AM

Quote from: DGuller on May 16, 2012, 10:19:14 AM
There has to be something missing in this picture.  If you can do what the kids did, then why would any company not fleece the bondholders the first chance it gets? 

1. Bond covenants, if they exist.
2.  Risk of fraudulent conveyance lawsuits if company later goes bankrupt.

Why does the second point not apply to the Bain example?

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 16, 2012, 09:06:22 AM
Sure it is.
10 kids each put $1 into a lemonade stand business.
One of the kids is Richie Rich.  Richie convinces Daddy to lend Acme Lemonade another $90.
The kids then use $20 of the $90 to buy lemonade mix, sugar, ice and cups.  They use the rest to pay themselves each $7 in cash. 7-to-1 cash return on equity before a single glass is served.

No laws of metaphysics broken. 

Wouldn't Daddy then proceed to break up the stand under the pretext of high labor costs, and ship lemonade production overseas to Chinese kids?

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 16, 2012, 11:02:19 AM
Wouldn't Daddy then proceed to break up the stand under the pretext of high labor costs, and ship lemonade production overseas to Chinese kids?

Where, instead of using lemon products, the Chinese would use some sort of toxic protein mixed with fetal parts to make lemonade.

Quote from: PDH on May 16, 2012, 12:01:58 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 16, 2012, 11:02:19 AM
Wouldn't Daddy then proceed to break up the stand under the pretext of high labor costs, and ship lemonade production overseas to Chinese kids?

Where, instead of using lemon products, the Chinese would use some sort of toxic protein mixed with fetal parts to make lemonade.

You're being far too cynical.  Daddy would just ship the mix, sugar, ice, and cups to China, have them assemble a lemonade there, and then ship the cup with the lemonade back to US.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 16, 2012, 09:06:22 AM
But more typically in this model, the business is simply run to generate cash to service huge debt loads, the profitability model is based on leverage, not innovation and investment (which siphons off precious cash), and the mangagement acumen involves putting in managers who may lack industry experience but know how to read an expense line and make cuts.

You mention make cuts as an afterthought, but that seems the key to the puzzle to me.

First we accept your assumptions that Bain replaced $X of previous ownership's capital with $38 million of their own money and a mountain of debt.  Generally speaking, debt is cheaper than equity, so Bain's $38 million gets paid more per dollar than old ownership's $X did.  But junk bond financing is not cheap capital.  So if Bain did *not* affect revenue and costs *apart* from the financing side, old ownership was receiving a return on equity at least as high as junk bond yields.  That's a pretty good return on equity, isn't it?  Junk bond lenders know there's a pretty good chance they'll never see their principal again, and charge accordingly.

So the puzzle is why would old ownership, recieving a return higher than a junk bond yield, sell out?  My thinking is the answer is they weren't.  Bain had to have improved the cash flow from operations.  Possibly by cutting unprofitable operations and jobs.

In other news, I just heard on NPR that Bill Maher donated a million clams to a Democratic SuperPAC or PACs.

Quote from: PDH on May 15, 2012, 08:58:22 AM
I knew a gut that got claptrap from a floozy.  Probably she was a Democrat.

Typo ruined joke.  :(

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 17, 2012, 06:25:14 PM
In other news, I just heard on NPR that Bill Maher donated a million clams to a Democratic SuperPAC or PACs.

Was that an NPR podcast from early March?  Because you're that far behind.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 17, 2012, 09:16:06 PM
Was that an NPR podcast from early March?  Because you're that far behind.

If NPR mentioned it during today's broadcast, how does that joke work?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 17, 2012, 09:18:41 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 17, 2012, 09:16:06 PM
Was that an NPR podcast from early March?  Because you're that far behind.

If NPR mentioned it during today's broadcast, how does that joke work?

If you pay as much attention to the radio like you do to TV and movies, you probably just dreamt it, that's all.

A metrosexual black Abe Lincoln.  How could that NOT work?

QuoteGOP super PAC rejects plan to invoke Jeremiah Wright

The founder of a conservative super PAC has rejected a proposal that would link President Obama to his former pastor Jeremiah Wright, a line of attack that the GOP rejected in 2008 and one which presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney repudiated today.

"It reflects an approach to politics that Mr. Ricketts rejects and it was never a plan to be accepted but only a suggestion for a direction to take," said Brian Baker, president of the Ending Spending Action Fund, who said the proposal was "one of several submitted ... by third-party vendors."

The New York Times got hold of the proposed campaign playbook, submitted by Republican strategists to TD Ameritrade founder Joe Ricketts, who has become increasingly involved in GOP politics of late.

The plan, called "The Defeat of Barack Hussein Obama: The Ricketts Plan to End His Spending for Good," would "do exactly what John McCain would not let us do," the strategists write, according to the Times report — tie Obama to Wright's controversial sermons.

Fred Davis, the ad man behind "I am not a witch," oversaw the proposal. Davis worked on the McCain campaign and argued in favor of a Wright ad then. 

Strategic Perception, Davis' firm, said in a statement that the "the Ricketts family, never approved" the proposal "and nothing has happened on it since the presentation."

In an interview with TownHall.com, Romney also rejected the idea.

"I repudiate the effort by that PAC to promote an ad strategy of the nature they've described," Romney said. "I think what we've seen so far from the Obama campaign is a campaign of character assassination. I hope that isn't the course of this campaign. So in regards to that PAC, I repudiate what they're thinking about." (Asked later which Obama attacks he was referring to, Romney pointed to the president's Bain Capital ads.)

Earlier, Romney campaign manager Matt Rhoades said "we repudiate any efforts" to run "a campaign of character assassination." But he did not specifically condemn the PAC. That response was not enough for Obama's campaign; Obama campaign manager Jim Messina said in a statement that Romney "has fallen short of the standard that John McCain set, reacting tepidly in a moment that required moral leadership."

In his statement, Baker said that "Mr. Ricketts intends to work hard to help elect a President this fall who shares his commitment to economic responsibility, but his efforts are and will continue to be focused entirely on questions of fiscal policy, not attacks that seek to divide us socially or culturally."

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) also weighed in, telling reporters, "I don't know what these other people will do or why they do it. All I know is the American people vote with their wallets."

The playbook prepared for Ricketts includes footage for a five-minute film called "Next," which includes footage of Wright declaring "God Damn America" and calls the pastor "the inspiration for Obama's campaign." Over an image of the two together, the ad declares that there's "simply a fundamental difference between his view of America and ours."

The document refers to Obama derisively as a "metrosexual black Abe Lincoln."

Wright was pastor of the president's Chicago church, Trinity United Church of Christ, and served a largely ceremonial role on Obama's 2008 African American Religious Leadership Committee until some of his more incendiary remarks came to light. Obama disavowed Wright's words in a March 2008 speech calling the sermons "a profoundly distorted view of this country."

McCain's campaign cut a Wright-themed ad in 2008 that never aired; the candidate decided he did not want to touch the subject. (The ad footage was later obtained by ABC News.)

"I remain proud of our campaign and proud of what we were able to accomplish," McCain said today. "I made my decision. I stand by that decision. The Romney campaign has repudiated that kind of strategy. It seems to me the matter is closed."

He laughed off descriptions in the playbook from some of his 2008 advisers that he was "crusty" and "confused" during the campaign. "It is what it is. My life has moved on. I moved on after, it's over. I enjoy being in the Senate. There's no reason for me to hold any grudges. It's a way for political operatives to continue to make money," he said.

Obama remains personally very well-liked. Republicans have shied away from attacks on his character, focusing instead on who best can handle the economy.

The proposal obtained by the Times suggests hiring an "extremely literate conservative African-American" to shield Republicans from accusations of race-baiting, the Times report says. (That same spokesman would claim that Obama presented himself, falsely, as a "metrosexual black Abe Lincoln.")

The $10 million plan would include television and newspaper ads as well as outdoor advertisements and aerial banners, according to the Times report.

Attacks on Obama using Wright did air in the 2008 campaign.

Late in the 2008 race, an outside group did spend millions on an ad in battleground states tying Obama to the controversial pastor. The North Carolina GOP also aired a TV ad attacking Obama for his past association with Wright, over McCain's objections.

Pollster Whit Ayres and Internet consultant Becki Donatelli, named as recommended hires for the project in the playbook, said they had nothing to do with the proposal.

Ricketts's super PAC was a player in state Sen. Deb Fischer's surprise victory in Tuesday's Nebraska Republican Senate primary. His son, Pete Ricketts, is a member of the Republican National Committee from Nebraska who ran against Sen. Ben Nelson (D) in 2006. His daughter, Laura Ricketts, is co-owner of the Chicago Cubs — making her the first openly gay owner of a Major League Baseball team. She is a major fundraiser to Obama's reelection campaign.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 17, 2012, 06:25:14 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 16, 2012, 09:06:22 AM
But more typically in this model, the business is simply run to generate cash to service huge debt loads, the profitability model is based on leverage, not innovation and investment (which siphons off precious cash), and the mangagement acumen involves putting in managers who may lack industry experience but know how to read an expense line and make cuts.

You mention make cuts as an afterthought, but that seems the key to the puzzle to me.

First we accept your assumptions that Bain replaced $X of previous ownership's capital with $38 million of their own money and a mountain of debt.  Generally speaking, debt is cheaper than equity, so Bain's $38 million gets paid more per dollar than old ownership's $X did.  But junk bond financing is not cheap capital.  So if Bain did *not* affect revenue and costs *apart* from the financing side, old ownership was receiving a return on equity at least as high as junk bond yields.  That's a pretty good return on equity, isn't it?  Junk bond lenders know there's a pretty good chance they'll never see their principal again, and charge accordingly.

So the puzzle is why would old ownership, recieving a return higher than a junk bond yield, sell out?  My thinking is the answer is they weren't.  Bain had to have improved the cash flow from operations.  Possibly by cutting unprofitable operations and jobs.

First, junk bond financing isn't always that expensive depending on credit conditions.  That was Milken's great contribution.  Even now junk yields are around 5% or so; I guarantee you any PE worth its salt targets ROE well above that.

Second, getting access to cheap financing is arguably in itself one the biggest competitive advantages of the PE industry.  The slick suits from Boston, NY, SF that do these dozens of these deals are going to have an easier time arranging mezzanine facilities than some old-time steel execs in Gary or Kansas City.

Third, typically the long-hanging fruit in terms of cuts is CAPEX and R&D.  In the short run, these can be cut without impacting the top line, but the cuts immediately free up cash flow from financing.  In the long run growth prospects are hurt, but since the usual exit target is within 5 years, that doesn't really matter.  To be fair to Bain/Romney, it's not clear they took that road with GS -- they seemed to have made some effort to invest and modernize.

Fourth, one person's "unprofitable operations" is another's opportunity.  Sometimes a situation can't be fixed, but sometimes it can with enough effort and creativity.  But the LBO model tends to work against the latter because the constant need to meet interest payments tends to emphasize cutting bait over doubling down and fixing the problem.

Another aspect of this is by loading the companies full of debt you reduce taxable income (due to the interest payments).

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 17, 2012, 09:18:41 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 17, 2012, 09:16:06 PM
Was that an NPR podcast from early March?  Because you're that far behind.

If NPR mentioned it during today's broadcast, how does that joke work?

It is old news.  Broke about the same time as the Rush Limbaugh-Sandra Fluke controversy.

IIRC, he had originally cut the check to Obama's campaign directly, who politely refused it.  Mentioned it several episodes back.

One of the pro GOP groups is running a 'look at the scum supporting the nigger' ad with maher included in it.

What's CAPEX?

Not sure how much money a minimill spends on R&D Joan.

Capital expenses.

Stay Classy Arizona GOP :lol:

QuoteArizona elections chief seeks proof of Obama's citizenship
ReutersBy Tim Gaynor | Reuters – 1 hr 56 mins ago

 
(Reuters) - Arizona's secretary of state said Friday he had asked officials in Hawaii to verify that Barack Obama was born in their state in order for the president's name to appear on the November ballot in Arizona.

Ken Bennett, who is Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's campaign co-chairman in Arizona, said he made the request on behalf of a constituent.

Earlier this year, hardline Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio announced that an investigation by his office had found that Obama's birth certificate was a forgery.

Most Republican critics of Obama have given up pushing widely discredited long-running allegations that he was not born in the United States.

Bennett said he is attempting to confirm that Obama's name can appear on Arizona's presidential ballot, the Arizona Republic newspaper said.

While confirming on Friday that he had made the request, Bennett said he did not buy into the "birther" belief.

"First, I have been on the record since 2009 that I believe the president was born in Hawaii. I am not a 'birther,'" he said in a statement.

"At the request of a constituent, I asked the state of Hawaii for a for a verification in lieu of certified copy. We're merely asking them to officially confirm they have the president's birth certificate in their possession and are awaiting their response," he said.

The White House has denied repeated claims that Obama was not born in the United States.

In April 2011, Obama released a longer version of his birth certificate to try to put to rest speculation that he was not born in the country as required by the U.S. Constitution to become president.

The Arizona Republic said Bennett made the request about eight weeks ago and communicated with Hawaii officials as early as four weeks ago.

Bennett's office did not immediately return calls seeking further comment on Friday.

In March, Maricopa County Sheriff Arpaio declared Obama's birth certificate a forgery following an investigation by a volunteer posse, acting at the request of conservative Tea Party activists in the Phoenix valley.

The move reviving the birther controversy by Bennett - who is the state's elections chief - met with a weary response from local Democrats on Friday.

"Tea Party Republicans are at it again," Luis Heredia, the executive director of the Arizona Democratic Party, told Reuters.

"By catering to right-wing extremists, Bennett is trying to score cheap political points while sacrificing common sense. Arizona deserves better. It is time to move our state forward."

Man, I bet Hawaii is fucking glad to be as far away from the rest of us as they are.

I still don't understand what Obama's birth certificate is supposed to show this guy.  If he wants to challenge Obama's eligibility for the office, he needs to challenge the citizenship of Obama's mother.  The place of Obama's birth has no bearing, if his mother was a citizen.

Quote from: grumbler on May 19, 2012, 06:36:44 PM
I still don't understand what Obama's birth certificate is supposed to show this guy.  If he wants to challenge Obama's eligibility for the office, he needs to challenge the citizenship of Obama's mother.  The place of Obama's birth has no bearing, if his mother was a citizen.

Ditto.

It's not suppose to prove anything, except that Ken Bennett is willing to pander the worst elements of the GOP, which also happens to be near the majority of Republicans these days.

Quote from: grumbler on May 19, 2012, 06:36:44 PM
I still don't understand what Obama's birth certificate is supposed to show this guy.  If he wants to challenge Obama's eligibility for the office, he needs to challenge the citizenship of Obama's mother.  The place of Obama's birth has no bearing, if his mother was a citizen.

This is not true.

Right now, the election is too close to call with many more "swing" states than in the past. BOTH Romney and Obama are creating a lot of purple states. For example, recent polls (several each) show a slim Romney lead in Arizona while polls show a slim Obama lead in Wisconsin.

Arizona: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/az/arizona_romney_vs_obama-1757.html
Wisconsin: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/wi/wisconsin_romney_vs_obama-1871.html

However, my assessment has been that the economy will stagnate or slow down going into summer and fall, so that may have a downside for Obama. Many close Senate contests such as Massachusetts (Scott/Warren) and Virginia (Allen/Kaine) will depend on the strength of Romney and Obama at the top of the ticket.

Quote from: Phillip V on May 20, 2012, 08:46:53 AM
However, my assessment has been that the economy will stagnate or slow down going into summer and fall, so that may have a downside for Obama. Many close Senate contests such as Massachusetts (Scott/Warren) and Virginia (Allen/Kaine) will depend on the strength of Romney and Obama at the top of the ticket.

I think the economy will have to show clear signs of turning around before late summer, or the perception that we're in a bad economy will be stuck in people's heads come November.  Still, although it's a tossup in the polls right now I'm still considering it Obama's election to lose. 

He could be losing it though.  From this distance he's running a dreadful, dreadful campaign which shows why he should never listen to American liberals or the Democrats.

I still think the centre-right politician with most chance of defeating Obama is Merkel.  If Europe implodes then surely he's gone.

QuoteRomney feigns outrage at visa for Castro's niece
By Lee Hockstader

Mitt Romney's camp has come unglued because a gay rights advocate is on her way to San Francisco. Horrors! But it gets worse: she's coming from Cuba! And — brace yourself — her last name is Castro!

If you can think of a more perfect storm of Republican bogeymen, I'd be happy to hear it. But I doubt you can.

The terrifying apparition in question is Mariela Castro, the 50-year-old daughter of octogenerian Cuban dictator Raul Castro and niece of big brother Fidel. In Cuba, Mariela is best known as an outspoken champion of the LBGT community — which has never been in great favor with the regime, to put it mildly.

The State Department issued a visa to Mariela, along with dozens of other more or less prominent Cuban schoars, to attend the 30th Conference of the Latin American Studies Association, to be held starting Wednesday in San Francisco. They're among 5,000 people expected to attend, including 2,000 or so from Latin America.

The real scandal is that the State Department refused visas to 11 Cubans, including some of the country's best respected and most independent-minded scholars. But Romney and his allies had nothing to say about that. Instead, they've blasted the Obama Administration for issuing a visa to Mariela, suggesting it's outrageous to admit the daughter of a dictator for a short visit to the U.S..

Here's the full statement by Romney, who, in his dyspepsia, manages to get Mariela's name wrong: (Attention Florida voters: Pander Alert!)

I am greatly disturbed by the Obama Administration's decision to allow Mariel [sic] Castro, daughter of Raul Castro, to travel to the United States. We shouldn't be extending an open hand to a regime engaged in the systematic and flagrant denial of basic human rights. While the Cuban regime engages in a fierce crackdown on dissent and continues to unjustly imprison one of our own citizens, Alan Gross, the Obama Administration should not be welcoming the daughter of a dictator. The United States should be standing up for those on the island who are risking their very lives fighting for freedom.

In fact, Mariela isn't known as an "arm of [Castro's] regime" (as Marco Rubio charged). In fact, by Cuban standards, she comes tantalizingly close to being a dissident, albeit one with a particular cause.

As the director of the Cuban National Center for Sex Education, she is one of the country's best known activists on behalf of the LGBT community, who are the object of widespread popular scorn and occasional crackdowns by the regime. She's written nine books, in addition to adacemic articles. And in her visa application to attend the San Francisco conference, she indicated an interest to attend a panel discussion on sexual diversity. (She's also scheduled to attend an event at the New York Public Library before flying home.)

If denying visas to the relatives of dictators from entering or even living in the United States were official policy, I can think of a long list of people over many decades who'd have been ripe candidates for detention and deportation.

The only point in Romney's feigned outrage at Mariela Castro's brief trip is to prove his bona fides to the dwindling ranks of voters in south Florida for whom anyone vaguely connected to the Castro regime in anathema.

It's fair to call the Cuban regime what it is: a museum of failed communist semi-orthodoxy run by a decrepit gang of human rights abusers. It's fair to be outraged at the unjust detention of Alan Gross, the American who remains in Cuban custody for promoting internet access in Cuba. But it's absurd to make Mariela Castro a proxy for the regime in Havana and a symbol of America's residual dyspepsia where it comes to all things Cuban.

By that logic, we should've kept Svetlana Alliluyeva out of US.

QuoteNBC/WSJ poll: Obama, Romney locked in tight contest

Despite a volatile and eventful past few weeks in the early presidential contest, President Barack Obama continues to hold a small – and slightly narrowing – lead over Mitt Romney, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

But given the public's pessimism about the economy and the direction of the country, Romney finds himself well within striking distance in an election that has the potential to be as close as the 2004 race between Republican George W. Bush and Democrat John Kerry.

"Obama's chances for re-election ... are no better than 50-50," says Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart, who conducted this survey with Republican Bill McInturff.

"So much has happened, and so little has changed," Hart adds. "And it tells you this is a dead-even race."

This poll – which was taken after the anniversary of Osama bin Laden's death, Obama's announcement in support of gay marriage, fresh economic worries about Europe, and last month's tepid jobs report – shows the Democrat leading Romney by four points among registered voters, 47 percent to 43 percent.

In April, Obama's edge in the survey was two points higher, 49 percent to 43 percent.

In the newest poll, Obama leads Romney among African Americans (88 percent to 2 percent), 18 to 34 year olds (55 percent to 35 percent), women (53 percent to 38 percent), independents (44 percent to 36 percent), and seniors (46 percent to 44 percent).

Romney, meanwhile, holds the advantage with whites (52 percent to 39 percent), men (49 percent to 40 percent), suburban residents (47 percent to 41 percent), Midwest residents (48 percent to 43 percent), and high-interest voters (47 percent to 44 percent).

Down on the economy and nation's direction
Yet attitudes about the economy and country's direction appear to give Romney more than a puncher's chance to make up his deficits against Obama.

Only 33 percent of respondents believe the economy will get better in the next year, which is down five points from April, and seven points from March. In addition, approval of Obama's handling of the economy stands at 43 percent, down two points from last month.

"It feels a little tick worse" than it was earlier in the year, GOP pollster McInturff said about the economy.

What's more, just a third of respondents think the nation is headed in the right direction, which is virtually unchanged from this year's previous NBC/WSJ polls (but remains significantly higher than late last year, after Washington's debt-ceiling showdown).

And by a 48 to 45 percent margin, they think the U.S. is experiencing a long-term decline versus ordinarily tough times, while another 63 percent aren't confident that life for their children will be better than it's been for them.

Obama's high marks – and low ones
But Americans also give Obama high marks on key issues. By a 54 to 13 percent margin, they say his approach and policies have made the Iraq war better.

By a 48 to 18 percent margin, they say he's improved the war in Afghanistan. And by 47 to 18 percent margin, they say he's helped the U.S. auto industry.

But respondents give him negative marks on the budget deficit (47 percent say he's made things worse), health care (43 percent), partisanship in politics (39 percent) the economy (37 percent) and the housing market (32 percent).

The president's overall job-approval rating in the poll stands at 48 percent, which is virtually unchanged from April, and his foreign-policy handling is at 51 percent.

Advantages for Romney – and doubts about him
The NBC/WSJ poll also shows that respondents believe that Romney's business background is an asset that can be applied to several issues.

Nearly 60 percent say that business background can be a major or minor advantage for improving the country's economic and job conditions, and nearly six in 10 say it could help to reduce the federal budget deficit.

Another 57 percent believe it could be an advantage in signing trade deals with foreign countries.

But doubts remain about Romney. While just 32 percent say they are either "extremely" or "quite" confident that Obama has the right policies and goals for the country, only 19 percent say the same about Romney.

And regarding Romney's past work at the private-equity firm Bain Capital, the poll shows that 9 percent have a positive view of the firm and 19 percent have a negative view; 53 percent either weren't sure or weren't familiar with it.

In the last two weeks, the Obama campaign has pointed to examples where Bain – under Romney's leadership – took over companies, saddled them with debt, laid off workers, all while making big profits for the investors.

A replay of 2004?
Given all of these different elements – the president's approval rating, attitudes about the country's direction and economy, doubts about the challenger – this presidential race looks very similar to the 2004 one between Bush and Kerry.

According to the May 2004 NBC/WSJ poll, Bush's approval rating was 47 percent (Obama's is 48 percent); just 33 percent thought the nation was headed in the right direction (33 percent say that now); and approval of Bush's handling of the economy was at 41 percent (Obama's is 43 percent).

And also in May 2004, Bush was leading Kerry by three points, 48 percent to 45 percent (Obama is now leading Romney by four points).

Hart, the Democratic pollster, sees this additional parallel to 2004: Both Democrats and Republicans will spend an enormous amount of money to influence a sliver of undecided voters.

Paraphrasing Winston Churchill, Hart says, "Never will so much money be spent to persuade so few."

The NBC/WSJ poll was conducted May 16-20 of 1,000 adults (250 reached by cell phone), and it has an overall margin of error of plus-minus 3.1 percentage points; among registered voters, the margin of error is plus-minus 3.4 percentage points.

Obama campaign has increased Biden's profile this election, but the public is not warming to him. The VP instead now has a net negative approval rating. Would Clinton for VP have boosted Obama's reelection chances?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76683.html (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76683.html)

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.politico.com%2Fglobal%2F2012%2F05%2F120523_joe_biden_ap_605.jpg&hash=19c2bade33156cc7667148655eb8422e0b0e53e5)

Quote from: derspiess on May 20, 2012, 06:43:03 PM

Quote from: Phillip V on May 20, 2012, 08:46:53 AM
However, my assessment has been that the economy will stagnate or slow down going into summer and fall, so that may have a downside for Obama. Many close Senate contests such as Massachusetts (Scott/Warren) and Virginia (Allen/Kaine) will depend on the strength of Romney and Obama at the top of the ticket.

I think the economy will have to show clear signs of turning around before late summer, or the perception that we're in a bad economy will be stuck in people's heads come November.  Still, although it's a tossup in the polls right now I'm still considering it Obama's election to lose. 

Of course it's his election to lose.  Nobody is actually excited about the idea of a Romney Administration, so it all depends on how fed up people are with the Obama Administration.

Quote from: Phillip V on May 23, 2012, 06:17:11 PM
Obama campaign has increased Biden's profile this election, but the public is not warming to him. The VP instead now has a net negative approval rating. Would Clinton for VP have boosted Obama's reelection chances?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76683.html (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76683.html)

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.politico.com%2Fglobal%2F2012%2F05%2F120523_joe_biden_ap_605.jpg&hash=19c2bade33156cc7667148655eb8422e0b0e53e5)

Smartest thing (short of shitcanning Biden & putting Hillary in his slot) for the Obama camp is to tell Biden to shut the hell up and severely curtail any further public appearances for the next few months.

I told you guys he was fucking nuts.

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 20, 2012, 11:21:20 PM
He could be losing it though.  From this distance he's running a dreadful, dreadful campaign which shows why he should never listen to American liberals or the Democrats.

I still think the centre-right politician with most chance of defeating Obama is Merkel.  If Europe implodes then surely he's gone.

Where is Merkel's birth certificate?  :hmm:

Obama has been running a dreadful campaign.  The only thing that is saving him so far is that most people haven't started paying attention yet.  obama's team had started believing their own hype that they can't possibly lose and have half-assed their campaign to date.

Of course it doesn't help when you can't offer any serious rationale why you deserve to get reelected, or what you will do if you get reelested.

Well if he truly is running a dreadful campaign it could be down deep he just doesn't want another four years.

But then you are hardly a fair analyst of Democratic politics.

Quote from: Valmy on May 25, 2012, 08:29:35 AM
But then you are hardly a fair analyst of Democratic politics.

Hans is perfectly balanced - you just have to realize his fulcrum is far to the right.

Quote from: PDH on May 25, 2012, 08:32:46 AM
Hans is perfectly balanced - you just have to realize his fulcrum is far to the right.

That's the definition of unbalanced.

not if he has more weight to the right...damn you Yi making me explain my lame jokes.

Quote from: Hansmeister on May 25, 2012, 04:21:53 AM

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 20, 2012, 11:21:20 PM
He could be losing it though.  From this distance he's running a dreadful, dreadful campaign which shows why he should never listen to American liberals or the Democrats.

I still think the centre-right politician with most chance of defeating Obama is Merkel.  If Europe implodes then surely he's gone.

Where is Merkel's birth certificate?  :hmm:

Obama has been running a dreadful campaign.  The only thing that is saving him so far is that most people haven't started paying attention yet.  obama's team had started believing their own hype that they can't possibly lose and have half-assed their campaign to date.

Of course it doesn't help when you can't offer any serious rationale why you deserve to get reelected, or what you will do if you get reelested.

Well the fact that he hasn't really been running a campaign yet might have something to do with it.  Hell, he didn't know who he was going to run against until recently.  I suspect it'll kick into gear in the summer.  I suppose he can use the Bush rationale for why he deserves to be elected "He kept us safe".  Maybe he can just buy that old Bush commercial with the wolves.

Quote from: Valmy on May 25, 2012, 08:29:35 AM
Well if he truly is running a dreadful campaign it could be down deep he just doesn't want another four years.

And it is clear from Romney's campaign that Romney wants to avoid the job at all costs. Gonna be interesting to see which guy fails to stick the other with the job.

At least they cannot claim Obama is Osama Bin Laden's man like those bumper stickers during the 2004 election.

Quote from: grumbler on May 25, 2012, 08:59:50 AM

Quote from: Valmy on May 25, 2012, 08:29:35 AM
Well if he truly is running a dreadful campaign it could be down deep he just doesn't want another four years.

And it is clear from Romney's campaign that Romney wants to avoid the job at all costs. Gonna be interesting to see which guy fails to stick the other with the job.

Concession speech: :nelson: sucker!

Quote from: Valmy on May 25, 2012, 08:29:35 AM
Well if he truly is running a dreadful campaign it could be down deep he just doesn't want another four years.

But then you are hardly a fair analyst of Democratic politics.

Neither am I to be fair.  I hate American liberals.  But I also think Obama's running a dreadful campaign so far, which is a shame because I like Obama.

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 25, 2012, 09:14:10 AM
I hate American liberals.

They are a thoroughly smug and repulsive group of people.

Quote from: Valmy on May 25, 2012, 09:17:36 AM

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 25, 2012, 09:14:10 AM
I hate American liberals.

They are a thoroughly smug and repulsive group of people.

HEY NOW

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 25, 2012, 09:14:10 AM
But I also think Obama's running a dreadful campaign so far,

I don't see how.

Obama is running a largely negative campaign so far, with a little pork thrown in for garnish.  That's exactly what I would do if I were Obama.

Quote from: Valmy on May 25, 2012, 09:17:36 AM

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 25, 2012, 09:14:10 AM
I hate American liberals.

They are a thoroughly smug and repulsive group of people.

:huh:  Considering their inherent superiority to conservatives on every trait that counts, I'd say they have been the model of modesty.

Quote from: DGuller on May 25, 2012, 10:04:30 AM:huh:  Considering their inherent superiority to conservatives on every trait that counts, I'd say they have been the model of modesty.

Well, when you put it like that...

Quote from: DGuller on May 25, 2012, 10:04:30 AM

Quote from: Valmy on May 25, 2012, 09:17:36 AM

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 25, 2012, 09:14:10 AM
I hate American liberals.

They are a thoroughly smug and repulsive group of people.

:huh:  Considering their inherent superiority to conservatives on every trait that counts, I'd say they have been the model of modesty.

The Central Democrat Party Directorate requires you to raise your pom-poms higher, DGuller.

Quote from: citizen k on May 25, 2012, 02:49:25 PMThe Central Democrat Party Directorate requires you to raise your pom-poms higher, DGuller.

As if the Democrat has any kind of central structure capable of that sort of control :lol:

All the talking heads over the past week and this weekend have been doing a lot of bemoaning over the President's perceived "negative campaigning".

QuoteGive 'em hell, Barry
That liberal fag from WashPost, E.J. Dionne

Progressives have yearned for President Obama to follow Harry Truman's strategy from the 1948 campaign by giving his Republican opponents hell. Now that Obama is doing just that, his critics say he's not looking presidential.

As a longtime advocate of the Truman approach (and a fan of Give 'Em Hell Harry and his way of doing politics), I think Obama is doing the right thing. Critics of the battling style miss what Obama needs to get done in this campaign and also ignore the extent to which so many of his foes refuse to treat him in a presidential way. Far better for him to be a fully engaged fighter with passion for what he's saying than a distant, regal figure pretending that the other side is playing by a dainty set of rules.

But if 1948 is to be the model, what can we learn from Truman's experience, and how does that election relate to the one we're having in 2012?

The similarities are important. Truman in 1946, like Obama in 2010 (and, for that matter, Bill Clinton in 1994), suffered a severe setback in midterm elections that substantially strengthened the hands of his congressional adversaries. Truman's opponent, Thomas E. Dewey, was a Northeastern Republican governor who, like Mitt Romney, was not a favorite of the most conservative wing of his party. But unlike Romney, Dewey was a genuine moderate trying hard not be ensnared in the agenda of the GOP Congress.

For Truman, tying the "do-nothing" Republican Congress around Dewey's neck was essential to reminding the many New Dealers in the electorate of the identity of FDR's true heir. Dewey spent the whole campaign in a box. If he danced away from congressional Republicans, he looked unprincipled. If he embraced them, he put himself right where Truman wanted him.

To the extent that Romney can be tied to an unpopular Republican House and an obstructionist minority in the Senate, their unpopularity will rub off on him. But unlike Dewey, Romney has largely endorsed his congressional colleagues' agenda. Obama's task is to argue that whatever moderate sounds Romney made during his career in Massachusetts politics, these are irrelevant to how he would govern with the GOP likely to be in the congressional saddle. Obama wants to paint Romney as someone who would be a pawn of a runaway right-wing Congress, thus challenging both Romney's strength of conviction and his ideology. As Truman did with Dewey, Obama wants to offer Romney the unpalatable choice of offending his party or offending swing voters.

There is also an advantage in Obama directly taking on Romney's background in private equity at Bain Capital. By raising these questions himself, Obama signaled that he would not let criticisms from such Democrats as NewarkMayor Cory Booker force him to back down from a challenge he knows he needs to lodge against Romney's claims as a "job creator." By the end of last week, Booker had eased off while the Bain issue was still alive, to the point that even Rush Limbaugh was forced to acknowledge that private equity was about profit-making, not job creation.

And if Republicans wish to argue that Obama's vigorous anti-Romney campaigning is un-presidential, they have to answer for George W. Bush's unashamed attacks against Democrat John Kerry in 2004. Sara Fagen, an adviser to Bush in that campaign, recently told Peter Baker of the New York Times that Bush "almost never mentioned" Kerry, "certainly not this early."

The truth of this depends on what the meaning of the word "almost" is. In February 2004, for example, Bush mocked Kerry — he referred to him as "one senator from Massachusetts" — as being "for tax cuts and against them. For NAFTA and against NAFTA. For the Patriot Act and against the Patriot Act. In favor of liberating Iraq and opposed to it." The next month, Bush accused Kerry by name of being "willing to gut the intelligence services" with a "deeply irresponsible" proposal to cut intelligence spending. There is no record of Republicans complaining that these political assaults were beneath a president.

Like Truman — and, for that matter, like Bush — Obama confronts a sharply divided country, the need to rally his own supporters and the imperative of convincing undecided voters that electing his opponent would be a dangerous risk. What Truman taught is that Americans would rather see a president with the strength to fight than a politician with such sensitive sensibilities that he leaves all the tough stuff to others.

I wish there was no need for negative campaigning, as it's the most disgusting and devoid of information kind of campaigning imaginable.  However, it is also unfortunately the most effective type in US, so eschewing it is akin to unilaterally disarming.  It seems like Obama has finally learned the lesson that unilaterally disarming against an opponent waging total war on him is a strategy with some downsides.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 29, 2012, 08:10:32 AM
All the talking heads over the past week and this weekend have been doing a lot of bemoaning over the President's perceived "negative campaigning".

Bill Clinton praises Romney's business record.

"I don't think that we ought to get into the position where we say 'This is bad work. This is good work,'" Clinton said. "The man who has been governor and had a sterling business career crosses the qualification threshold."

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/05/clinton-romneys-business-record-sterling-124980.html
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.politico.com%2Fglobal%2F2012%2F05%2F120531_clinton_romney_ap.jpg&hash=adc9797488ba17a6e937aa7b914b9b2b0203b523)

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 25, 2012, 09:14:10 AM

Quote from: Valmy on May 25, 2012, 08:29:35 AM
Well if he truly is running a dreadful campaign it could be down deep he just doesn't want another four years.

But then you are hardly a fair analyst of Democratic politics.

Neither am I to be fair.  I hate American liberals.

And I hate dumb British Tories.








:(

:weep:

Quote from: DGuller on May 25, 2012, 10:04:30 AM

Quote from: Valmy on May 25, 2012, 09:17:36 AM

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 25, 2012, 09:14:10 AM
I hate American liberals.

They are a thoroughly smug and repulsive group of people.

:huh:  Considering their inherent superiority to conservatives on every trait that counts, I'd say they have been the model of modesty.

I know I have.

Quote from: Phillip V on June 01, 2012, 02:36:39 AM
Bill Clinton praises Romney's business record.

"I don't think that we ought to get into the position where we say 'This is bad work. This is good work,'" Clinton said. "The man who has been governor and had a sterling business career crosses the qualification threshold."

What, one caretaker President sees caretaker qualities in another?  That's just super.  I'm sure Mittens would've been a great Presidential nominee in 1996, but not now.

Quote from: derspiess on May 20, 2012, 06:43:03 PM

Quote from: Phillip V on May 20, 2012, 08:46:53 AM
However, my assessment has been that the economy will stagnate or slow down going into summer and fall, so that may have a downside for Obama. Many close Senate contests such as Massachusetts (Scott/Warren) and Virginia (Allen/Kaine) will depend on the strength of Romney and Obama at the top of the ticket.

I think the economy will have to show clear signs of turning around before late summer, or the perception that we're in a bad economy will be stuck in people's heads come November.  Still, although it's a tossup in the polls right now I'm still considering it Obama's election to lose. 

'The U.S. economy added 69,000 jobs in May, well below expectations, in a further indication the economy has lost momentum. The jobless rate rose to 8.2%.'

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303552104577440023931752902.html

Quote from: Phillip V on June 01, 2012, 07:54:04 AM
'The U.S. economy added 69,000 jobs in May, well below expectations, in a further indication the economy has lost momentum. The jobless rate rose to 8.2%.'

Consumer spending numbers were released: rose in April rose by 0.3 percent, and personal income up by 0.2 percent.

In short, the same people that are out of work are still out of work, companies that have contracted are still staying contracted and not hiring, and everybody else with a job has their fingers crossed while they go to Best Buy.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 01, 2012, 05:34:39 AM

Quote from: Phillip V on June 01, 2012, 02:36:39 AM
Bill Clinton praises Romney's business record.

"I don't think that we ought to get into the position where we say 'This is bad work. This is good work,'" Clinton said. "The man who has been governor and had a sterling business career crosses the qualification threshold."

What, one caretaker President sees caretaker qualities in another?  That's just super.  I'm sure Mittens would've been a great Presidential nominee in 1996, but not now.

Hey now.  Clinton had a lot going on in his first term.

Quote from: Ideologue on June 01, 2012, 02:42:31 AM
And I hate dumb British Tories.

Don't worry I hate the Tories too :)

Quote from: Phillip V on June 01, 2012, 07:54:04 AM'The U.S. economy added 69,000 jobs in May, well below expectations, in a further indication the economy has lost momentum. The jobless rate rose to 8.2%.'

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303552104577440023931752902.html

I thought the US had decoupled from Europe and would, as has happened in the past, drag the rest of the world up.  Maybe not.  Europe's staring into the abyss - it'll be far worse than 2008 if the Euro implodes - India's GDP growth is down very sharply and there's increasing warnings of a hard landing in China.  Worrying times.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 01, 2012, 08:39:42 AM
I thought the US had decoupled from Europe and would, as has happened in the past, drag the rest of the world up.  Maybe not.  Europe's staring into the abyss - it'll be far worse than 2008 if the Euro implodes - India's GDP growth is down very sharply and there's increasing warnings of a hard landing in China.  Worrying times.

US and TNC businesses are sitting on massive piles of cash reserves, and profits are way up; these numbers here in the US are nothing more than hesitant panic and fear of the market, and business is reticent on expansion.

And so much of the unemployment % are the chronically unemployed--and the chronically unemployable.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 01, 2012, 08:45:37 AM
business is reticent on expansion.

Thanks to your mom jeans-wearing prez.

Quote from: derspiess on June 01, 2012, 09:10:04 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 01, 2012, 08:45:37 AM
business is reticent on expansion.

Thanks to your mom jeans-wearing prez.

Presidents can't force companies to invest and grow.  Only CEOs can do that.

Oh, wait.  I was just downsized to increase shareholder value nvm.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 01, 2012, 09:29:03 AM

Quote from: derspiess on June 01, 2012, 09:10:04 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 01, 2012, 08:45:37 AM
business is reticent on expansion.

Thanks to your mom jeans-wearing prez.

Presidents can't force companies to invest and grow.  Only CEOs can do that.

Oh, wait.  I was just downsized to increase shareholder value nvm.

No, they're scared to expand, hire, invest, etc. because of the uncertain business climate fostered by your Prez who wants to raise taxes on TEH RICH, many of whom are small business owners.

Quote from: derspiess on June 01, 2012, 09:30:36 AM
No, they're scared to expand, hire, invest, etc. because of the uncertain business climate fostered by your Prez who wants to raise taxes on TEH RICH, many of whom are small business owners.

Oh, bullshit.  Every company, once it figures out it can reduce its workforce and still see productivity, doesn't expand unless absolutely necessary.  Get rid of 15,000 jobs, and still see results? PROFIT!

Quote from: derspiess on June 01, 2012, 09:30:36 AM
No, they're scared to expand, hire, invest, etc. because of the uncertain business climate fostered by your Prez who wants to raise taxes on TEH RICH, many of whom are small business owners.

Really?  The world's largest market is on the edge of self-destruction.  The developing world's growth is rapidly slowing.  But the reason the business climate's uncertain is because Obama supports Clinton-era tax rates?

The comparison's never perfect but our economy's gone back into recession and businesses have huge stockpiles of cash right now.  We've got a government that's cutting corporate and income tax.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 01, 2012, 10:10:12 AM
Really?  The world's largest market is on the edge of self-destruction.  The developing world's growth is rapidly slowing.  But the reason the business climate's uncertain is because Obama supports Clinton-era tax rates?

Going by his class warfare rhetoric, Obama seems to support much higher tax rates than that.  TEH RICH HAVE TO PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE.

Quote from: derspiess on June 01, 2012, 10:17:42 AMGoing by his class warfare rhetoric, Obama seems to support much higher tax rates than that.  TEH RICH HAVE TO PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE.

For a man who occasionally reads Granma you clearly don't know a great deal about class warfare :P

Quote from: derspiess on June 01, 2012, 10:17:42 AM

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 01, 2012, 10:10:12 AM
Really?  The world's largest market is on the edge of self-destruction.  The developing world's growth is rapidly slowing.  But the reason the business climate's uncertain is because Obama supports Clinton-era tax rates?

Going by his class warfare rhetoric, Obama seems to support much higher tax rates than that.  TEH RICH HAVE TO PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE.

Eisenhower: a fucking commie.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 01, 2012, 10:19:33 AM

Quote from: derspiess on June 01, 2012, 10:17:42 AMGoing by his class warfare rhetoric, Obama seems to support much higher tax rates than that.  TEH RICH HAVE TO PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE.

For a man who occasionally reads Granma you clearly don't know a great deal about class warfare :P

It's more subtle over here, but it exists.

Spicey is being subtle using the Seedy Method.

% chance this fucking election will drive me insane(as of 6-1-12): 60%

Quote from: Ed Anger on June 01, 2012, 11:37:09 AM
% chance this fucking election will drive me insane(as of 6-1-12): 60%

Turn off the TV and focus on your knitting.

Quote from: Ed Anger on June 01, 2012, 11:37:09 AM
% chance this fucking election will drive me insane(as of 6-1-12): 60%

It is perpetual "day before the election" doom that we face.

Quote from: Ed Anger on June 01, 2012, 11:37:09 AM
% chance this fucking election will drive me insane(as of 6-1-12): 60%

$20 bucks on the under.

Quote from: PDH on June 01, 2012, 12:11:43 PM

Quote from: Ed Anger on June 01, 2012, 11:37:09 AM
% chance this fucking election will drive me insane(as of 6-1-12): 60%

It is perpetual "day before the election" doom that we face.

With all the GOP voter registration games a lot of battleground states are playing, I think the "day after the election" doom will be even more painful.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 01, 2012, 09:35:16 AM
Oh, bullshit.  Every company, once it figures out it can reduce its workforce and still see productivity, doesn't expand unless absolutely necessary.  Get rid of 15,000 jobs, and still see results? PROFIT!

Why don't more clever CEOs reduce their workforce to zero?

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 01, 2012, 01:13:48 PM

Quote from: PDH on June 01, 2012, 12:11:43 PM

Quote from: Ed Anger on June 01, 2012, 11:37:09 AM
% chance this fucking election will drive me insane(as of 6-1-12): 60%

It is perpetual "day before the election" doom that we face.

With all the GOP voter registration games a lot of battleground states are playing, I think the "day after the election" doom will be even more painful.

Surely the Democrats aren't that dependent on Daley-esque voting the graveyard, are they?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 01, 2012, 01:16:27 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 01, 2012, 09:35:16 AM
Oh, bullshit.  Every company, once it figures out it can reduce its workforce and still see productivity, doesn't expand unless absolutely necessary.  Get rid of 15,000 jobs, and still see results? PROFIT!

Why don't more clever CEOs reduce their workforce to zero?

They try to get as close to it as possible, now don't they?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 01, 2012, 01:16:27 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 01, 2012, 09:35:16 AM
Oh, bullshit.  Every company, once it figures out it can reduce its workforce and still see productivity, doesn't expand unless absolutely necessary.  Get rid of 15,000 jobs, and still see results? PROFIT!

Why don't more clever CEOs reduce their workforce to zero?

You must have missed the bolded part of the post.

Quote from: Neil on June 01, 2012, 01:17:24 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 01, 2012, 01:13:48 PM

Quote from: PDH on June 01, 2012, 12:11:43 PM

Quote from: Ed Anger on June 01, 2012, 11:37:09 AM
% chance this fucking election will drive me insane(as of 6-1-12): 60%

It is perpetual "day before the election" doom that we face.

With all the GOP voter registration games a lot of battleground states are playing, I think the "day after the election" doom will be even more painful.

Surely the Democrats aren't that dependent on Daley-esque voting the graveyard, are they?

No, they're doing just fine eliminating real, live voters.

QuoteMaureen Russo was born in Akron, Ohio. For the last 40 years she's operated a dog boarding and grooming business — Bobbi's World Kennels — with her husband in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. Maureen is 60 years old and has been a registered voter in the state for the last four decades. She regularly votes at the church around the corner from her home.

Two weeks ago she received a letter from the State of Florida informing her that they had received information that she was not born in this country and, therefore, was ineligible to vote.

She was given an option to request "an administrative hearing to present evidence" disputing the determination of the State of Florida that she was ineligible to vote. Unless Maureen returned a form requesting such a hearing within 30 days, she was told, it would result in "the removal of your name from the voter registration rolls."

She immediately sent off a registered letter to the State with a copy of her passport. She hasn't heard anything back.

It's unclear precisely how Maureen was identified by the state as an ineligible voter.

Maureen's story raises serious questions about the integrity of the massive voter purge being conducted under the direction of Gov. Rick Scott. Last year, Scott instructed his former Secretary of State, Kurt Browning, to compile a list of people who were registered in Florida but ineligible to vote. Browning resigned in February after struggling to find reliable data, stating "We were not confident enough about the information for this secretary to hang his hat on it."

Congressman Ted Deutch (D-FL), who represents Ms. Russo, has called on the Governor Scott to "immediately suspend" the voting purge because of widespread inaccuracies and a lack of transparency.

Unfortunately, Maureen's situation is not an isolated incident. Earlier this week, ThinkProgress reported Seminole County Supervisor of Elections Mike Ertel, a Republican, posted a picture on Twitter of a voter on the list falsely identified as ineligible, with his passport. Congressman Deutch also told ThinkProgress he's heard from several other constituents who have been removed from the rolls without justification.

It is unclear what legitimate purpose Gov. Scott has to move forward with the voting purge in the face of multiple documented errors. Florida has no history of mass voter fraud. It does have a history, however, of mass voter disenfranchisement. By one estimate, 7000 Florida voters were wrongfully removed from the voter rolls for the 2000 presidential election — 13 times George W. Bush's margin of victory in that state after the Supreme Court halted the post-election recount.

Quote from: Neil on June 01, 2012, 01:20:49 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 01, 2012, 01:16:27 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 01, 2012, 09:35:16 AM
Oh, bullshit.  Every company, once it figures out it can reduce its workforce and still see productivity, doesn't expand unless absolutely necessary.  Get rid of 15,000 jobs, and still see results? PROFIT!

Why don't more clever CEOs reduce their workforce to zero?

You must have missed the bolded part of the post.

And you've confused productivity with increased shareholder value.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 01, 2012, 01:27:43 PM

Quote from: Neil on June 01, 2012, 01:20:49 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 01, 2012, 01:16:27 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 01, 2012, 09:35:16 AM
Oh, bullshit.  Every company, once it figures out it can reduce its workforce and still see productivity, doesn't expand unless absolutely necessary.  Get rid of 15,000 jobs, and still see results? PROFIT!

Why don't more clever CEOs reduce their workforce to zero?

You must have missed the bolded part of the post.

And you've confused productivity with increased shareholder value.

They're your words.

Quote from: Neil on June 01, 2012, 01:29:39 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 01, 2012, 01:27:43 PM

Quote from: Neil on June 01, 2012, 01:20:49 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 01, 2012, 01:16:27 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 01, 2012, 09:35:16 AM
Oh, bullshit.  Every company, once it figures out it can reduce its workforce and still see productivity, doesn't expand unless absolutely necessary.  Get rid of 15,000 jobs, and still see results? PROFIT!

Why don't more clever CEOs reduce their workforce to zero?

You must have missed the bolded part of the post.

And you've confused productivity with increased shareholder value.

They're your words.

Here's some more of my words: eat me.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 01, 2012, 01:22:15 PM

Quote from: Neil on June 01, 2012, 01:17:24 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 01, 2012, 01:13:48 PM

Quote from: PDH on June 01, 2012, 12:11:43 PM

Quote from: Ed Anger on June 01, 2012, 11:37:09 AM
% chance this fucking election will drive me insane(as of 6-1-12): 60%

It is perpetual "day before the election" doom that we face.

With all the GOP voter registration games a lot of battleground states are playing, I think the "day after the election" doom will be even more painful.

Surely the Democrats aren't that dependent on Daley-esque voting the graveyard, are they?

No, they're doing just fine eliminating real, live voters.

They can have their administrative hearing.  That's how bureaucracy works.  There's always going to be some problems with inaccuracy, but that doesn't mean it's not a noble goal to try and prevent non-citizens from voting Democrat.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 01, 2012, 01:30:31 PM

Quote from: Neil on June 01, 2012, 01:29:39 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 01, 2012, 01:27:43 PM

Quote from: Neil on June 01, 2012, 01:20:49 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 01, 2012, 01:16:27 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 01, 2012, 09:35:16 AM
Oh, bullshit.  Every company, once it figures out it can reduce its workforce and still see productivity, doesn't expand unless absolutely necessary.  Get rid of 15,000 jobs, and still see results? PROFIT!

Why don't more clever CEOs reduce their workforce to zero?

You must have missed the bolded part of the post.

And you've confused productivity with increased shareholder value.

They're your words.

Here's some more of my words: eat me.

You seem to have become confused and disoriented.  Maybe you should put yourself down for a nap.

Quote from: Neil on June 01, 2012, 01:31:23 PM
They can have their administrative hearing.  That's how bureaucracy works.  There's always going to be some problems with inaccuracy, but that doesn't mean it's not a noble goal to try and prevent non-citizens from voting Democrat.

You're a foreigner, so I can understand your inability to grasp such a fundamentally American concept as the right to vote.

Quote from: Neil on June 01, 2012, 01:32:11 PM
You seem to have become confused and disoriented.  Maybe you should put yourself down for a nap.

My narcolepsy has absolutely nothing to do with

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 01, 2012, 01:22:15 PM

Quote from: Neil on June 01, 2012, 01:17:24 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 01, 2012, 01:13:48 PM

Quote from: PDH on June 01, 2012, 12:11:43 PM

Quote from: Ed Anger on June 01, 2012, 11:37:09 AM
% chance this fucking election will drive me insane(as of 6-1-12): 60%

It is perpetual "day before the election" doom that we face.

With all the GOP voter registration games a lot of battleground states are playing, I think the "day after the election" doom will be even more painful.

Surely the Democrats aren't that dependent on Daley-esque voting the graveyard, are they?

No, they're doing just fine eliminating real, live voters.

QuoteMaureen Russo was born in Akron, Ohio. For the last 40 years she's operated a dog boarding and grooming business — Bobbi's World Kennels — with her husband in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. Maureen is 60 years old and has been a registered voter in the state for the last four decades. She regularly votes at the church around the corner from her home.

Two weeks ago she received a letter from the State of Florida informing her that they had received information that she was not born in this country and, therefore, was ineligible to vote.

She was given an option to request "an administrative hearing to present evidence" disputing the determination of the State of Florida that she was ineligible to vote. Unless Maureen returned a form requesting such a hearing within 30 days, she was told, it would result in "the removal of your name from the voter registration rolls."

She immediately sent off a registered letter to the State with a copy of her passport. She hasn't heard anything back.

It's unclear precisely how Maureen was identified by the state as an ineligible voter.

Maureen's story raises serious questions about the integrity of the massive voter purge being conducted under the direction of Gov. Rick Scott. Last year, Scott instructed his former Secretary of State, Kurt Browning, to compile a list of people who were registered in Florida but ineligible to vote. Browning resigned in February after struggling to find reliable data, stating "We were not confident enough about the information for this secretary to hang his hat on it."

Congressman Ted Deutch (D-FL), who represents Ms. Russo, has called on the Governor Scott to "immediately suspend" the voting purge because of widespread inaccuracies and a lack of transparency.

Unfortunately, Maureen's situation is not an isolated incident. Earlier this week, ThinkProgress reported Seminole County Supervisor of Elections Mike Ertel, a Republican, posted a picture on Twitter of a voter on the list falsely identified as ineligible, with his passport. Congressman Deutch also told ThinkProgress he's heard from several other constituents who have been removed from the rolls without justification.

It is unclear what legitimate purpose Gov. Scott has to move forward with the voting purge in the face of multiple documented errors. Florida has no history of mass voter fraud. It does have a history, however, of mass voter disenfranchisement. By one estimate, 7000 Florida voters were wrongfully removed from the voter rolls for the 2000 presidential election — 13 times George W. Bush's margin of victory in that state after the Supreme Court halted the post-election recount.

You guys have the world's most convoluted voting system.

What's wrong with good old-fashioned enumerators going door to door to create the voting list, then marking a good old fashioned X on a piece of paper?

Quote from: Barrister on June 01, 2012, 01:43:01 PM
What's wrong with good old-fashioned enumerators going door to door to create the voting list, then marking a good old fashioned X on a piece of paper?

Not as easy eliminating voters that way.

Quote from: Barrister on June 01, 2012, 01:43:01 PM
What's wrong with good old-fashioned enumerators going door to door to create the voting list

You mean, other than the fact that I'm not likely to be home when they show up to register me?

Quote from: Neil on June 01, 2012, 01:20:49 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 01, 2012, 01:16:27 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 01, 2012, 09:35:16 AM
Oh, bullshit.  Every company, once it figures out it can reduce its workforce and still see productivity, doesn't expand unless absolutely necessary.  Get rid of 15,000 jobs, and still see results? PROFIT!

Why don't more clever CEOs reduce their workforce to zero?

You must have missed the bolded part of the post.

I did not.  The bolded part and the part that precedes it are the crux of my response.

Quote from: derspiess on June 01, 2012, 01:48:04 PM

Quote from: Barrister on June 01, 2012, 01:43:01 PM
What's wrong with good old-fashioned enumerators going door to door to create the voting list

You mean, other than the fact that I'm not likely to be home when they show up to register me?

They come in the evening, and they leave a card if you're not there.

Quote from: Barrister on June 01, 2012, 01:51:19 PM

Quote from: derspiess on June 01, 2012, 01:48:04 PM

Quote from: Barrister on June 01, 2012, 01:43:01 PM
What's wrong with good old-fashioned enumerators going door to door to create the voting list

You mean, other than the fact that I'm not likely to be home when they show up to register me?

They come in the evening, and they leave a card if you're not there.

Oh, great. Then I have to call them back, try to get a hold of someone and set another appointment. 

I'd prefer if we had a system where I can just check a box to register to vote when I get my driver's license.  OH WAIT, WE ALREADY HAVE THAT :D

Quote from: derspiess on June 01, 2012, 01:54:33 PM

Quote from: Barrister on June 01, 2012, 01:51:19 PM

Quote from: derspiess on June 01, 2012, 01:48:04 PM

Quote from: Barrister on June 01, 2012, 01:43:01 PM
What's wrong with good old-fashioned enumerators going door to door to create the voting list

You mean, other than the fact that I'm not likely to be home when they show up to register me?

They come in the evening, and they leave a card if you're not there.

Oh, great. Then I have to call them back, try to get a hold of someone and set another appointment. 

I'd prefer if we had a system where I can just check a box to register to vote when I get my driver's license.  OH WAIT, WE ALREADY HAVE THAT :D

Well up here the alternative is you can show up with picture ID, swear a declaration, and be given a ballot - even if you're not on the list.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 01, 2012, 01:51:01 PM

Quote from: Neil on June 01, 2012, 01:20:49 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 01, 2012, 01:16:27 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 01, 2012, 09:35:16 AM
Oh, bullshit.  Every company, once it figures out it can reduce its workforce and still see productivity, doesn't expand unless absolutely necessary.  Get rid of 15,000 jobs, and still see results? PROFIT!

Why don't more clever CEOs reduce their workforce to zero?

You must have missed the bolded part of the post.

I did not.  The bolded part and the part that precedes it are the crux of my response.

Can you see productivity with zero workforce?

Quote from: Barrister on June 01, 2012, 02:16:43 PM
Well up here the alternative is you can show up with picture ID, swear a declaration, and be given a ballot - even if you're not on the list.

A lot of states have same-day registration as well.

Quote from: Razgovory on June 01, 2012, 02:17:39 PM
Can you see productivity with zero workforce?

Of course not.  But Seedy apparently can.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 01, 2012, 02:19:20 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on June 01, 2012, 02:17:39 PM
Can you see productivity with zero workforce?

Of course not.  But Seedy apparently can.

Hey, jobs shipped to China = zero American workforce.


And after posting an increase from 1Q2012 to 2Q2012, HP has no problem jettisoning 27,000 jobs to save $3.5 billyuns to increase shareholder value.

But I'm sure the irony of the layoffs announcement the same week as the $50,000-a-plate fundraiser for Mittens by HP CEO and fellow former Bain Capital co-worker Meg Whitman was just an extra special treat for your GOP jizz-stained shorts.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 01, 2012, 03:14:20 PM
And after posting an increase from 1Q2012 to 2Q2012, HP has no problem jettisoning 27,000 jobs to save $3.5 billyuns to increase shareholder value.

I should fucking hope so. If a company I owned shares in was paying 3.5 billion a year just to keep people on payroll I would want the CEO's head on a spike.

You know, if you want to live in a country that believes in make-work jobs for everyone, the lefty populist party looks set to win the election in Mexico.  And you'd have no problem passing.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 01, 2012, 03:21:10 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 01, 2012, 03:14:20 PM
And after posting an increase from 1Q2012 to 2Q2012, HP has no problem jettisoning 27,000 jobs to save $3.5 billyuns to increase shareholder value.

I should fucking hope so. If a company I owned shares in was paying 3.5 billion a year just to keep people on payroll I would want the CEO's head on a spike.

Then don't give me any shit about the private sector contracting for value, when it's precisely what they do.  Ergo, don't bitch about the fucking jobs.  Oh wait, you're not.  Lack of jobs is good for Mittens.

QuoteYou know, if you want to live in a country that believes in make-work jobs for everyone, the lefty populist party looks set to win the election in Mexico. And you'd have no problem passing.

But I don't even look Mexican.

:unsure:

sure you do blackie.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 01, 2012, 03:24:11 PM
Then don't give me any shit about the private sector contracting for value, when it's precisely what they do.  Ergo, don't bitch about the fucking jobs.  Oh wait, you're not.  Lack of jobs is good for Mittens.

I've never given you any shit about "the private sector contracting for value" and I never will, because it's one of those Mother Jones sound bytes that you think sounds really cool when you read it but which doesn't mean anything.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 01, 2012, 03:27:48 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 01, 2012, 03:24:11 PM
Then don't give me any shit about the private sector contracting for value, when it's precisely what they do.  Ergo, don't bitch about the fucking jobs.  Oh wait, you're not.  Lack of jobs is good for Mittens.

I've never given you any shit about "the private sector contracting for value" and I never will, because it's one of those Mother Jones sound bytes that you think sounds really cool when you read it but which doesn't mean anything.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.  It's all about tax cuts and killing unions and getting the nigger out.  Save it for Tampa, Yibagger.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 01, 2012, 03:21:10 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 01, 2012, 03:14:20 PM
And after posting an increase from 1Q2012 to 2Q2012, HP has no problem jettisoning 27,000 jobs to save $3.5 billyuns to increase shareholder value.

I should fucking hope so. If a company I owned shares in was paying 3.5 billion a year just to keep people on payroll I would want the CEO's head on a spike.

You know, if you want to live in a country that believes in make-work jobs for everyone, the lefty populist party looks set to win the election in Mexico.  And you'd have no problem passing.

What if you were the employee?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 01, 2012, 02:19:20 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on June 01, 2012, 02:17:39 PM
Can you see productivity with zero workforce?

Of course not.  But Seedy apparently can.

I didn't get that from his post.  How did you come to that conclusion from what he wrote in that post?

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 01, 2012, 04:20:49 PM
Yeah, yeah, yeah.  It's all about tax cuts and killing unions and getting the nigger out.  Save it for Tampa, Yibagger.

Oh no, clearly not.  It's all about the private sector contracting for value. :lol:

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 01, 2012, 04:24:42 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 01, 2012, 04:20:49 PM
Yeah, yeah, yeah.  It's all about tax cuts and killing unions and getting the nigger out.  Save it for Tampa, Yibagger.

Oh no, clearly not.  It's all about the private sector contracting for value. :lol:

I'm not talking to you anymore today.

Now, now.  That's rude.  Don't make me put you on the list.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 01, 2012, 04:25:03 PM
I'm not talking to you anymore today.

OK, but if you start off on an invigorating discussion of the private sector contracting for value with some other poster I reserve the right to jump in.  One of my favorite topics; all that value and all that contracting.

Quote from: Razgovory on June 01, 2012, 04:23:39 PM
What if you were the employee?

I would start looking for a job.

edit: Wait a mo.  If HP were paying out 3.5 billion a year to keep me and 27,000 other guys in money-losing jobs, I would be psyched.  Pumped up.  Enthousiastic.