myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Windsurfing Videos Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
PROOF: Obama IS the end of the free world
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 349, 350, 351 ... 407, 408, 409  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
nw30



Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 1567
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast

PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mat-ty wrote:
Nw30
Just ignore the angry, frustrated, freak know as Mac. The man is full of rage and hate and relegated to calling people racist and bigots because no one buys the bullshit in his inbox.

I do, he's no different than other young snarky people, almost always on the left, that inhabit other political forums that I drop in on from time to time.
Water off this duck's back.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pueno



Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2587

PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mat-ty wrote:
My favorite response by Romney was when asked about healthcare in Mass, he reminded everyone that his plan was passed almost unanimously, while barry was the exact opposite. Round one Romney by a landslide!!!!!!!

Matty, even a nitwit like you knows why.

Massachusetts is a deeply blue state. OF COURSE the state legislature would unanimously pass Romneycare -- even though it came from a republican flip-flopper. Romneycare is a form of "socialism" that you love so much.

And, OF COURSE Obamacare ran into strong headwinds -- entirely from republicans in a deeply divided Congress that vowed to oppose everything Obama does.

To call that statement proof of anything is absurd -- unless it's proof that fools like you are easily fooled.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
boggsman1



Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 3489
Location: at a computer

PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2012 8:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

At one point in time, people considered Jack Welch the best CEO in America, now he has gone all batshit crazy Donald Trump birther.
http://www.businessinsider.com/jack-welch-obama-jobs-report-numbers-romney-2012-10
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mrgybe



Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 2553

PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2012 9:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

114K new jobs and the unemployment number falls by 0.3%! The WSJ describes the drop as "puzzling" particularly given the broader U6 number stayed flat. WSJ is being polite. Expect a revision November 7.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
boggsman1



Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 3489
Location: at a computer

PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2012 10:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I know you wont do it, but go read Jan Hatzius, he explains it, mostly because of massive part time worker growth which is in the Household survey, July-August were revised up, so the 114,000 probably goes up.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mrgybe



Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 2553

PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2012 10:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You're right. I won't read it. Someone rationalizing a meaningless so-called reduction in unemployment holds no interest for me. The employment picture is dire. Nothing improved in that picture from August to September. Indeed, 114K new jobs is not enough to keep pace with new people entering the workforce, so we are worse off. Part time workers at Walmart and MacDonalds won't do it no matter how brightly the fire is burning in your neck of the woods. However, the uniformed voter may be persuaded. We'll see.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
boggsman1



Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 3489
Location: at a computer

PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2012 10:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I recognize its the silly season, but I actually read the details because its an important part of my job. As long as we are de-leveraging, employment wont come back until the housing market recovers. As Jan Hatzius mentions, over and over again, housing is a huge part of our economy...so when you go from building 1,000,000 units a month to 300,000 it hurts. Spending in software is at RECORD highs, manufacturing is recovering, housing-both rental, and single family is firing, and R&D spending is super strong. If you have a strong resume, and can speak intelligently...then the world is your oyster!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nw30



Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 1567
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast

PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Getting pretty sick of this "new normal" bullshit.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
$4 gas: Get used to it
October 5, 2012: 5:00 AM ET

A new U.N. report says the massive bets placed on the commodities markets are the "root cause" of the volatility in oil and gas prices. And that's not about to change.
By Leah McGrath Goodman


FORTUNE -- President Obama may have a lot more to worry about than bombing the debate this week. Traders are starting to get particularly bullish over gasoline prices and that is bad news for the average driver, who may also be looking to vent his spleen at the voting booth.

Reports of gas shortages along the high-demand west and east coasts may be fleeting although deeply concerning but they highlight a problem that's expected to persist in the U.S.: our refineries are getting old. Given that a new refinery has not been built since 1976, commodities desks on Wall Street are bracing for more refinery outages and fires just as the nation needs to gear up for the busy winter heating season.

What does that mean? Probably more weeks where we'll see U.S. crude oil inventories hovering above the upper limit of the average range for this time of year, yet gasoline inventories tunneling into the lower half of their average range, as the U.S. Energy Information Administration reported Wednesday.

Translated in dollars and cents, retail gas prices likely won't be moving off the $4 needle anytime soon. In fact, some gasoline buyers think this may even usher in a run to $5 a gallon (especially out west where gas stations are shutting down because they cannot buy gas at price levels low enough to turn a profit).

The firmness in gasoline also is giving oil prices a boost, the knock-on effects of which cannot be understated.

Oil price spikes and consumer prices have been "highly correlated" over the past decade, according to the EIA, the nonpartisan statistics branch of the U.S. Department of Energy. The upshot? Americans are increasingly grappling with unchanged paychecks in the face of higher energy prices. Their money is buying them less, the EIA says, citing the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Chained Consumer Price Index.

Meanwhile, the U.N. recently released a report stating definitively that the "financialization" of commodities markets or "hundreds of billions of dollars of bets placed on expectations of temporarily rising prices" for energy, food and metals products is the "root cause" of the today's price volatility.

A key highlight of the U.N. report touched on how global oil prices this past summer were 65% higher than the averages reached during the commodity price boom of 2003 to 2008 (the period of the latest Iraq war to the Bush-era high near $150 a barrel). "Investors treat commodities as an asset class, which means that they are betting on a certain price trend during the period they are invested in commodity assets," the U.N. said. "They do not trade systematically on the basis of fundamental supply and demand relationships in single markets, even if shocks in those markets may influence their behavior temporarily."

Of course, when supply shocks do happen to dovetail with bullish bets as is happening now that's when oil and gas prices really take off. Perhaps it's no coincidence that the first presidential debate was sponsored by ExxonMobil (XOM).

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/10/05/4-gas-get-used-to-it/?hpt=hp_t3
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5003

PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You righties mistake scorn for anger. For weeks I have challenged you to identify specific metrics by which you can conclude that Obama is unsuccessful. What comes back is complaining about the economy and name-calling. As most economists have said, and Boggsman again makes clear, the housing downturn is what has dragged on. Unlike the periodic cycles of boom and bust in the construction industry over the last 40 years I have been paying attention to, this one was fueled into a massive bubble by Republican de-regulatory furor, and is only now being a weak recovery. To blame Obama for the lack of recovery, when the damage was done by Republican policies, is fundamentally dishonest and unfair.

You folks can't even find the more legitimate criticism of Obama made by Romney, on issues like the health care initiative. As Pueno pointed out, the Republicans announced early on that they would not deliver a single vote on what is at heart a Republican-based health care bill, counting on their ability to tie the Senate in knots to defeat Obama. As Windoggie said, Obama was playing chess not checkers, and out-maneuvered them. But the more interesting and valid criticism of Obama is that he ignored the theater of politics, and failed to court the Republicans. As some have pointed out, he should have invited the Republican leadership to the White House, followed up with very specific questions about exactly what they would suggest--and who would vote for a bill with such compromises. The answer is no Republicans would ever vote for a health care bill proposed by Obama--they didn't care about health care, only about trying to defeat Obama. If he had worked the theater right, he could have made that very clear, and could have used the bully pulpit of the Presidency to make sure the public saw that nothing would sway a single Republican vote. At that point the obstruction of the Republicans would have been part of the daily dialogue, and the abysmal ratings of Congress would have focused on the obstruction--and given Obama coattails. Not too late, but we will need to see what he has actually learned.

The other criticism by Romney is over Obama's focus on health care; Romney disagrees with Obama's focus, and says that he made "legacy" type of changes such as healthcare and energy policy, rather than immediate economic stimulus his focus. He specifically criticizes Obama for letting Pelosi and Reid develop the stimulus bill rather than use the log-rolling techniques that have worked in the past. While this criticism is, at least in part, valid, the root problem is the same as the healthcare debate. It was clear to Obama, and to most Democrats, that the Republicans would not compromise on anything. So while Obama was correct to go into the fighting mode, he was mistaken in not using his bully pulpit, and weekly meetings, to make it clear to the American public that it was the Republicans that were unyielding. Most of the American public does not realize that 1/3 of the stimulus was tax cuts--orthodox Republican faith, and targeted to the Middle Class to stimulate spending, rather than to the rich, as Bush's cuts were. The stimulus did save jobs, and probably should have been more focused on the suffering construction sector. But even with that, and the tax cuts, the Republicans would not have supported it, and that needed to be made clear.

Now let me turn to that aspect of Romney that I cannot stomach. It is clear that he is very smart, and is a good mechanic in government and business. He has been effective, and is a master salesman. The question is whether he has the vision to think beyond mere mechanics. The health care question is a key case in point. As CB, our friend from Colorado has pointed out, health care costs have damaged the economic viability of both business and government in this country. While manufacturing remains one of the leading economic sectors in this country, our manufacturers (and other economic activities) are competing with businesses in other countries where those businesses do not absorb health insurance costs. I think that Obama correctly saw this as a key long term economic threat to the United States, and was masterful in finessing the politics of reform. I think he correctly saw that it would not be abandoned, and now Romney has made it clear that he also would not abandon many aspects of the approach adopted by Congress. The adult conversation that should have occured in 2008 and 2009 is, what specific changes and improvements need to be made. Romney simply parrots standard conservative talking points--let the states do it--and ignores the sad fact that the states would not do so as long as the lack of health care in a red state gave them an advantage in poaching businesses from health care states.

What Obama needs to make clear is that sensible changes in the Romney approach, which was scaled to the national level and modified to use Federal purchasing power to control costs (not to develop death panels), he would support. What he also needs to make clear is that the Republicans could have had many of those changes had they been willing to cooperate in the legislative effort.

We are then left with the dramatic difference between the candidates. Romney understood that health care costs threatened fiscal responsibility in government in Massachusetts, and understood that a veto-proof legislature would give him a bill he wouldn't like unless he played nice. I don't believe that he had the vision to appreciate that this is a national issue, not just a Massachusetts issue. Obama, I am certain, has both the vision and the legislative skills. We need to see whether or not he also has the sales ability to articulate that vision more effectively.

As long as the right on this forum continues to use the Drudge report as your "authoritative source", post racially insensitive videos crafted to resonate with bigots, and call Obama names, I will continue to compare your sources to the Easter Bunny.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
windoggie



Joined: 22 Feb 2002
Posts: 2369

PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mitt's debate team made good use of this.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

_________________
/w\
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 349, 350, 351 ... 407, 408, 409  Next
Page 350 of 409

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group