kimmy Posted September 26, 2012 Report Share Posted September 26, 2012 Not hoping, putting in place pro-growth economic policies, as opposed to the current President's economic wet blanket. America still hasn't recovered from the effects of the "pro-growth economic policies" that wrecked the economy in 2008. I don't think America can survive more "pro-growth policies". -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kraychik Posted September 26, 2012 Report Share Posted September 26, 2012 America still hasn't recovered from the effects of the "pro-growth economic policies" that wrecked the economy in 2008. I don't think America can survive more "pro-growth policies". -k Considering that you don't know what a "pro-growth" policy is, and probably assume that the former President was must've also implemented conservative economic policies because he was a Republican, I think we can pass on your economic analysis. Or you can try to tell us all about the fairy of "deregulation" (which never happened) and its contributions to the economic decline of 2008. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted September 26, 2012 Report Share Posted September 26, 2012 Considering that you don't know what a "pro-growth" policy is, I keep hoping Willard will tell us what they are, but all he will commit to is "cutting regulations" and tax cuts. and probably assume that the former President was must've also implemented conservative economic policies because he was a Republican, I think we can pass on your economic analysis. Or you can try to tell us all about the fairy of "deregulation" (which never happened) and its contributions to the economic decline of 2008. Deregulation did happen, though much of it done under Clinton rather than Dubya. And I think we're all aware that there wasn't anything very conservative about Dubya's economic policies. There's nothing very conservative about Willard's either. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kraychik Posted September 26, 2012 Report Share Posted September 26, 2012 I keep hoping Willard will tell us what they are, but all he will commit to is "cutting regulations" and tax cuts. If he's serious about that, that's the core of economic recovery. Deregulation did happen, though much of it done under Clinton rather than Dubya. No, it didn't. In fact the CRA was ramped up during Clinton's tenure. You're already demonstrated that you have no idea what caused the financial decline of 2008. You're literally parroting the nonsense from the Obama reelection campaign of "the same old policies that got us in the mess in the first place". You're also quite childish with your use of "Willard" and "Dubya". Perhaps you think it's cute or endearing, who knows? And I think we're all aware that there wasn't anything very conservative about Dubya's economic policies. There's nothing very conservative about Willard's either. Considering that conservative approaches to economy policy have a lot to do with deregulation, and you just stated that Bush Jr.'s administration implemented deregulation (it didn't), your above comment is a contradiction. Overregulation is what caused the 2008 financial decline, which I explained to you in detail in an earlier thread. The taxpayer was guaranteeing irresponsible loans that banks were forced to issue to borrowers at the behest of government regulation initiated by Carter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted September 26, 2012 Report Share Posted September 26, 2012 If he's serious about that, that's the core of economic recovery. No, it didn't. In fact the CRA was ramped up during Clinton's tenure. You're already demonstrated that you have no idea what caused the financial decline of 2008. You're literally parroting the nonsense from the Obama reelection campaign of "the same old policies that got us in the mess in the first place". You're also quite childish with your use of "Willard" and "Dubya". Perhaps you think it's cute or endearing, who knows? Considering that conservative approaches to economy policy have a lot to do with deregulation, and you just stated that Bush Jr.'s administration implemented deregulation (it didn't), your above comment is a contradiction. Overregulation is what caused the 2008 financial decline, which I explained to you in detail in an earlier thread. The taxpayer was guaranteeing irresponsible loans that banks were forced to issue to borrowers at the behest of government regulation initiated by Carter. This is fiction no matter how often you guys repeat it. Banks lent out far more risky mortgages than any government regulation or quota required, and they did it because they were able to make a fortune doing so. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kraychik Posted September 26, 2012 Report Share Posted September 26, 2012 This is fiction no matter how often you guys repeat it. Banks lent out far more risky mortgages than any government regulation or quota required, and they did it because they were able to make a fortune doing so. -k No, they didn't. And the risky mortgages were guaranteed to be covered to compensate the banks in the event that the borrower defaulted. That's the crux of the problem, and that's overregulation any way you slice it. It's obvious that you have no idea what caused the 2008 financial crisis. Well, you're more clued in now that I've explained it to you. You're welcome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted September 26, 2012 Report Share Posted September 26, 2012 No, they didn't. And the risky mortgages were guaranteed to be covered to compensate the banks in the event that the borrower defaulted. That's the crux of the problem, and that's overregulation any way you slice it. It's obvious that you have no idea what caused the 2008 financial crisis. Well, you're more clued in now that I've explained it to you. You're welcome. Explain this statement because it makes no sense in the context of the 2008 mortgage crisis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted September 26, 2012 Report Share Posted September 26, 2012 And the risky mortgages were guaranteed to be covered to compensate the banks in the event that the borrower defaulted A nice story but its completely untrue. The vast majority of subprime loans were not made by institutions subject to the CRA. They were not protected by the government at all. Lenders (most of them not bank lenders who were not even subject to FDIC regulations) protected themselves from these risky loans by moving them off their balance sheets completely. They sold these loans through investment banks who bundled them into the junior tranches of complexed multi-tranche asset backed securities. So when Bob Jones defaulted in his subprime loan his lender didnt lose a dime! A hedge fund somewhere lost the money, or a german pension fund, or anyone that bought collateralized debt obligations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted September 26, 2012 Report Share Posted September 26, 2012 A nice story but its completely untrue. The vast majority of subprime loans were not made by institutions subject to the CRA. They were not protected by the government at all. Lenders (most of them not bank lenders who were not even subject to FDIC regulations) protected themselves from these risky loans by moving them off their balance sheets completely. They sold these loans through investment banks who bundled them into the junior tranches of complexed multi-tranche asset backed securities. So when Bob Jones defaulted in his subprime loan his lender didnt lose a dime! A hedge fund somewhere lost the money, or a german pension fund, or anyone that bought collateralized debt obligations. Thayer was my understanding as well. Mortgage swaps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 1, 2012 Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 (edited) Based on the most recent polls and adjusting for electoral votes, Obama leads Romney 347-191 in the electoral college. The winner needs 270 to win. Romney is going to need a miracle here. This is how they sit when you convert the close states to be in favour of the candidate leading there. http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=CZS'>http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=CZS This is the map without those adjustments. http://www.270towin.com There are 39 possible winning combinations for Obama and 27 winning combinations for Romney with 5 possible tie combinations. Out of Romney's possible winning combinations he must captures at least 5 of the contested states or more. Out of Obama's possible winning combinations all of his combinations except for one are less than 5 states. Obama also has 9 possible 2 state combinations for the win. Edited October 1, 2012 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 1, 2012 Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 As the polls sit right now, it seems unlikely that Romney can win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted October 1, 2012 Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 As the polls sit right now, it seems unlikely that Romney can win. What hasn't been tested lately, though, is the fastest speed at which things can change. Also, there is the matter of the debates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 1, 2012 Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 What hasn't been tested lately, though, is the fastest speed at which things can change. Also, there is the matter of the debates. Of course. Nothing is over until it's over in politics. Nevertheless, stories like this don't help matters... A 70-year-old Republican voter from Ohio recently said, “I don’t know why any woman or gay would ever vote for Romney. All you have to do is look at the Republican platform. I’ve never seen such HATE this year in the Republican Party, national or state.” This is bad for Romney. It seems actual conservatives in the US are beginning to realize that their party was taken over by wingnuts. The honeymoon with The Tea Party is over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 1, 2012 Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 (edited) In related news, when Paul Ryan was recently pressed about the math behind Romney's tax plan, Ryan said, "It would take me too long to explain." Vote for me! I can't really explain the platform to you. But take my word for it. IT'S AWESOME! He also said that if Obama is re-elected it's because the media wants him re-elected. It's the media bias, you see... not the fact that Romney has run quite possibly the worst campaign in at least a generation. Edited October 1, 2012 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePoliticalBouillon Posted October 1, 2012 Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 I pretty much thought Romney had this in the bag, and in fact, did most of the people who posted earlier in this thread. I think it's Romney's cold disposition in the end that killed the race for him. American's want someone they can relate to, and that unfortunately wins elections, instead of their capacity to fix economic issues despite the recession. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 1, 2012 Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 Oh and while I'm posting in this thread.... Here's a bunch of conservatives giving their opinions of Mitt Romney. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 Mark Shields: Romney is the first presidential candidate, certainly in the last 35 years, who wherever he campaigns does worse. The more they see him, the less they like him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 (edited) It looks like the GOP electoral fraud isn't simply isolated to Florida. The GOP or its supporters seem to be messing with things in California as well. Edited October 2, 2012 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-TSS- Posted October 5, 2012 Report Share Posted October 5, 2012 I didn't watch the first presidential debate but everyone says that Romney totally outclased Obama. Perhaps that was what this election needed in order to become interesting again as Romney has really done his best to destroy his own chances. Romney can only blame himself if he loses as the election was there for him to be won because there is missing the essential feelgood-factor that every incumbent president needs to get re-elected. The economy is not doing fine and people are in general disillusioned with Obama. In similar circumstaces Bush senior lost to Clinton 20 years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted October 6, 2012 Report Share Posted October 6, 2012 I'm not sure how the economy is going to be in good shape by election time. Not with the current economic-illiterate-in-chief smothering it. Haha the person who thinks the President cooked the BLS jobs numbers is calling some an econimc-illiterate. The nerve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 Haha the person who thinks the President cooked the BLS jobs numbers is calling some an econimc-illiterate. The nerve. I'm not saying the president had anything to do with any "cooked" books. Anyways... Updated election forecasting model still points to Romney win, University of Colorado study saysLink And... VEGAS REVIEW JOURNAL ENDORSES ROMNEYLink Mitt-mentum!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 Not only that, but Dems have a huge problem with Republican enthusiasm. In '08, Dems had an enthusiasm edge of 13% points. Right now, Republicans have a 5% enthusiasm edge. That's an 18% point swing from 4 years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 (edited) Not only that, but Dems have a huge problem with Republican enthusiasm. In '08, Dems had an enthusiasm edge of 13% points. Right now, Republicans have a 5% enthusiasm edge. That's an 18% point swing from 4 years ago. Too bad there are less Republicans now then 4 years ago though. 50 percent of 100 is 50 but 100 percent of 50 is still 50. This is where your side does not understand math hurts you. Edited October 8, 2012 by punked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 We can all agree that Obama got crushed in the debates and if that continues it is going to hurt Obama. He simply cannot look as weak as he did and expect to win the election. People follow strong leaders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 We can all agree that Obama got crushed in the debates and if that continues it is going to hurt Obama. He simply cannot look as weak as he did and expect to win the election. People follow strong leaders. Up next, old man Biden! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.