Support NeoGAF

[RDreamer]

Speaking of possible new senators, Herb Kohl of Wisconsin is retiring, so his seat is up for grabs. Tommy Thompson, 14 year governor of Wisconsin is running on the Republican side, so it's going to be a tough fight for Democrats. Right now I think Tammy Baldwin is down in the polls to him.

 

[eBay Huckster]

Also, if the economy starts picking up, all it will take is 6 million of those 86 million to start looking for jobs and the UE rate will jump to over 11%.

So what you're saying is that all it'll take is a jump in labour force participation rate that has heretoforth never happened (and in fact has never even come close to happening)

 

[Clevinger]

yup. when your position is "government doesn't work" and "any government is bad" and "any tax increase for any reason is unjustified" it sort of makes it impossible to embrace any kind of government solution to boost employment.

This is why the republican solution was nothing but "tax cuts!"

Don't forget killing regulations.

 

[Kad5]

Hey guys. I'm curious about the Bain Capital issue relating to Romney. what's that about?

 

[Clevinger]

Hey guys. I'm curious about the Bain Capital issue relating to Romney. what's that about?

extensive article about it

 

[Manmademan]

extensive article about it

That article is more than just a LITTLE slanted, but there's some nuggets of truth in there. The purpose of Bain (and companies like them) is to purchase companies and generate a positive return on the investment by the time they "flip" ownership elsewhere.

This generally is a positive thing for shareholders in the short term, but is typically done by moving jobs overseas, reducing headcount, eliminating capital investments that might make sense in the long term, that kind of thing.

When thinking about if romney's experience with Bain is a good thing, one has to ask what the measure of a successful business is, and if government should be run like one. Personally, i feel that government's responsibility is the welfare of its citizens, not strictly to maximize profit, so I'm not one of those that believes the Bain experience is a positive.

 

[Clevinger]

That article is more than just a LITTLE slanted, but there's some nuggets of truth in there. The purpose of Bain (and companies like them) is to purchase companies and generate a positive return on the investment by the time they "flip" ownership elsewhere.

This generally is a positive thing for shareholders in the short term, but is typically done by moving jobs overseas, reducing headcount, eliminating capital investments that might make sense in the long term, that kind of thing.

When thinking about if romney's experience with Bain is a good thing, one has to ask what the measure of a successful business is, and if government should be run like one. Personally, i feel that government's responsibility is the welfare of its citizens, not strictly to maximize profit, so I'm not one of those that believes the Bain experience is a positive.

And even if people want government to be run like a business, there's more than one type of business, and I doubt even the people who think like that would be enthusiastic about a Bain style government.

 

[Kad5]

That article is more than just a LITTLE slanted, but there's some nuggets of truth in there. The purpose of Bain (and companies like them) is to purchase companies and generate a positive return on the investment by the time they "flip" ownership elsewhere.

This generally is a positive thing for shareholders in the short term, but is typically done by moving jobs overseas, reducing headcount, eliminating capital investments that might make sense in the long term, that kind of thing.

When thinking about if romney's experience with Bain is a good thing, one has to ask what the measure of a successful business is, and if government should be run like one. Personally, i feel that government's responsibility is the welfare of its citizens, not strictly to maximize profit, so I'm not one of those that believes the Bain experience is a positive.

I can understand that but in a business is it not normal to maximize profit? I can see why this is a criticism of Romney running for president though.

But I would figure in that kind of business that is expected is it not?

Not trying to say I support Romney i'm just trying to understand this as much as I can cuz I hear different people with different points of view.

 

[ErasureAcer]

Go ahead and roll the dice, then. Get the known quantity in Lugar, who is "one of the better Republicans" and a guaranteed win. Or roll the dice that Mourdock would lose to Donnelly in the Senate race. Because if he doesn't lose, you're fucked even worse. You'll get someone more obstructionist, more polarized, and less willing to compromise.

Actually, looking at Donnelly's record, I'm pretty sure you won't like his stances on things either, unless Harry Reid can whip the Blue Dog out of him. lol

Yeah I checked out Donnelly a week ago when I saw him tied with Mourdock. Donnelly is Pro Life. I hope he wins or moreso Mourdock loses but I won't be supporting him with cash nor my vote as I don't live there. Even if I did live there I probably wouldn't vote for him.

 

[reggieandTFE]

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/voter-registration-down-among-minorities

Voter Registration Down Among Minorities

Something, something killing Acorn. Besides being communist abortionists, Acorn had an important place in registering voters.

 

[GhaleonEB]

I sent a note to Greg Sargent regarding his latest post about Obama's jobs record. It makes some good points, but the graph he got from Kevin Drum is wrong. Obama's record (counting from February 2009) is still in the hole by 572k, as he could see easily if he'd checked the data. I think that might be only private sector employment, not offset by public job losses.

 

[Rocket Scientist]

I can understand that but in a business is it not normal to maximize profit? I can see why this is a criticism of Romney running for president though.

But I would figure in that kind of business that is expected is it not?

Not trying to say I support Romney i'm just trying to understand this as much as I can cuz I hear different people with different points of view.

It would be best to read the linked article first. I think it answers any questions you might have.

 

[Snake]

Actually Obama is to blame for the current UE rate. Government has lost 600k jobs in the last year. He helped that happen by advocating austerity. Reagan didn't have that kind of drag.

What are the losses in the Federal government versus State and Local?

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

So what you're saying is that all it'll take is a jump in labour force participation rate that has heretoforth never happened (and in fact has never even come close to happening)

That was an example from CNN. (see link in my original post). The fact of the matter is, if people start looking for jobs again with this kind of job growth, the UE rate will shoot up.
We haven't had this low of a participation rate in our lifetimes either, so who knows what will happen.

 

[Black Mamba]

I can understand that but in a business is it not normal to maximize profit? I can see why this is a criticism of Romney running for president though.

But I would figure in that kind of business that is expected is it not?

Not trying to say I support Romney i'm just trying to understand this as much as I can cuz I hear different people with different points of view.

These days it's often more about maximizing stock prices (at least in a short period of time) than actual profits.


But you're right in that, objectively from a economic perspective, a company's goal should be to maximize profits. At the same time, we're human and that means we could take slightly smaller profits if it means actual employing people or not exploiting people. In the long run, this is beneficial, too.

That was an example from CNN. (see link in my original post). The fact of the matter is, if people start looking for jobs again with this kind of job growth, the UE rate will shoot up.
We haven't had this low of a participation rate in our lifetimes either, so who knows what will happen.

Most have left the labor market for good. I don't think it would have a big difference. The long term unemployment is still high.

 

[faceless007]

That article is more than just a LITTLE slanted, but there's some nuggets of truth in there. The purpose of Bain (and companies like them) is to purchase companies and generate a positive return on the investment by the time they "flip" ownership elsewhere.

This generally is a positive thing for shareholders in the short term, but is typically done by moving jobs overseas, reducing headcount, eliminating capital investments that might make sense in the long term, that kind of thing.

When thinking about if romney's experience with Bain is a good thing, one has to ask what the measure of a successful business is, and if government should be run like one. Personally, i feel that government's responsibility is the welfare of its citizens, not strictly to maximize profit, so I'm not one of those that believes the Bain experience is a positive.

Holy crap, I just figured it out: When Romney gets elected, his plan is to outsource the whole federal government to China. Boom, government spending down to nothing, no more useless federal bureaucracies with expensive American employees, and we maintain good relations with China. ITS GENIUS.

 

[Chumly]

I can understand that but in a business is it not normal to maximize profit? I can see why this is a criticism of Romney running for president though.

But I would figure in that kind of business that is expected is it not?

Not trying to say I support Romney i'm just trying to understand this as much as I can cuz I hear different people with different points of view.

There is a difference between maximizing short term gains and growing a business for the long term. Romney style management is terrible for growing and expanding a business long term. Which is why people think he would be terrible as a president

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

It's silly, because the average person goes through about 10-20 gallons a week, which means they are spending about 20 more dollars a week. That's enough to bring you down, really?

$80-$100 a month is the difference between some people being able to pay their bills or live life comfortably and not being able to pay their bills or not live life comfortably.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

I can understand that but in a business is it not normal to maximize profit? I can see why this is a criticism of Romney running for president though.

But I would figure in that kind of business that is expected is it not?

Not trying to say I support Romney i'm just trying to understand this as much as I can cuz I hear different people with different points of view.

He is saying his experience at Bain will allow him to turn the country around and that is why the criticism stands. Running a country is not like running a private company.

 

[speculawyer]

So during Obama's time in office, private sector employment has recovered and public sector employment has gone down.


But he is constantly called a commie muslim that hates business and the only way he helps reduce employment is by growing government.

Go Figure.


Forget the silly racial stereotypes, Obama is a huge victim of political stereotypes.

 

[ToxicAdam]

$80-$100 a month is the difference between some people being able to pay their bills or live life comfortably and not being able to pay their bills or not live life comfortably.

Bullshit

The median household wage is around 40k. Which means you are bringing home about 750 dollars a week.

That's what my post was talking about .. the average working person.

 

[Black Mamba]

So during Obama's time in office, private sector employment has recovered and public sector employment has gone down.


But he is constantly called a commie muslim that hates business and the only way he helps reduce employment is by growing government.

Go Figure.


Forget the silly racial stereotypes, Obama is a huge victim of political stereotypes.

And I'll repeat, the gov't numbers are state funding cuts, mostly from Republican governors, especially in the area of education.

 

[speculawyer]

It's another crazy thing that people do. I have literally seen people's worldview shift because gas is 4.00 dollars versus below-3.00. They become more easily agitated or more fretful about the future.

It's silly, because the average person goes through about 10-20 gallons a week, which means they are spending about 20 more dollars a week. That's enough to bring you down, really?


edit: I should point out that it also increases prices of all other goods slightly, but I don't think people really think about that when they are bitching about gas prices.

Well, obviously I disagree. You hit on part of the issue in your edit . . . there are a lot of indirect energy costs. Maritime shipping of goods, pesticide prices, farm tractors, trucking, etc.

But also the fact that much of the increased oil costs is whisked out the country instead of being recirculated in the USA. Fortunately, this has been mitigated by the fact that imports have dropped from nearly 2/3s of our consumption down to 1/2 of our consumption due to the North Dakota tight oil.

It is really hard to have an economic recovery when a increasing amount of spending is sucked out of the country.

 

[Black Mamba]

This is true for public companies, not all companies.

explain.

 

[leroidys]

Hokuten wins. Lero and Phoenix in 2nd, 3rd.

What does Hoku win? A lost job. Thanks, Obama.

I wish I was farther off

 

[Black Mamba]

Public companies have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to maximize profits.

i meant the "not all companies" part.

 

[Tantric]

Bullshit

The median household wage is around 40k. Which means you are bringing home about 750 dollars a week.

That's what my post was talking about .. the average working person.

So the average household only pays around 20 dollars in taxes a week?

 

[faceless007]

Bullshit

The median household wage is around 40k. Which means you are bringing home about 750 dollars a week.

That's what my post was talking about .. the average working person.

Taxes, health care, SS, IRA say hi. I asked a friend whose salary is exactly 40K. His take-home definitely isn't 750.

 

[Hop]

i meant the "not all companies" part.

Not all companies are public, so not all companies have that fiduciary duty.

 

[platypotamus]

Public companies have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to maximize profits.

Which is a large part of what's fucked up with our economy

 

[GhaleonEB]

Taxes, health care, SS, IRA say hi. I asked a friend whose salary is exactly 40K. His take-home definitely isn't 750.

Yeah, his estimate is high. Take home is probably closer to $615 per week, which is a 20% effective tax rate, or $32,000 take home on a $40,000 salary. Take home might even be a bit less than that, I'm just ballparking.

An extra $100 per month does make a tangible difference - I've had years when that was about the size of my raise, or even less. But I think you have to earn a lot less, or have unusually high living expenses, for $100 to be a make or break amount.

 

[Black Mamba]

Not all companies are public, so not all companies have that fiduciary duty.

Right, but I said from an objective economic perspective, that is the what a company should do (public or private). he disagreed and I'm trying to figure out why.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

Well, obviously I disagree. You hit on part of the issue in your edit . . . there are a lot of indirect energy costs. Maritime shipping of goods, pesticide prices, farm tractors, trucking, etc.

But also the fact that much of the increased oil costs is whisked out the country instead of being recirculated in the USA. Fortunately, this has been mitigated by the fact that imports have dropped from nearly 2/3s of our consumption down to 1/2 of our consumption due to the North Dakota tight oil.

It is really hard to have an economic recovery when a increasing amount of spending is sucked out of the country.

What was that republican video you stole your avatar from?

 

[empty vessel]

So during Obama's time in office, private sector employment has recovered and public sector employment has gone down.

But he is constantly called a commie muslim that hates business and the only way he helps reduce employment is by growing government.

Go Figure.

Forget the silly racial stereotypes, Obama is a huge victim of political stereotypes.

Interesting trends: Federal employment 1939-1989:

Up, up, up! (Obviously, census spikes should be ignored.)

Federal employment 1990-1999:

Down, down, down.

Federal employment 2000-today:

Flat. There was a glimmer of hope that Obama would grow the size of the federal government (necessary to grow the economy), but if you look at the end it takes a dive back down around 2011.

I realize Obama is constrained by the budget Congress passes, but it's a shame he hasn't been able to grow the size of the federal government like all presidents pre Bush-I did (including Reagan). Besides improving job numbers, it would also be stimulative.

It's interesting that the downward trend actually starts just before the Republican (Dixiecrat) revolution in 1994. But, certainly, that particular disease--hopefully in its last throes, to borrow a phrase--has continued to slowly suffocate America.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

Interesting trends: Federal employment 1939-1989:

Up, up, up! (Obviously, census spikes should be ignored.)

Federal employment 1990-1999:

Down, down, down.

Federal employment 2000-today:

Flat. There was a glimmer of hope that Obama would grow the size of the federal government (necessary to grow the economy), but if you look at the end it takes a dive back down around 2011.

I realize Obama is constrained by the budget Congress passes, but it's a shame he hasn't been able to grow the size of the federal government like all presidents pre Bush-I did (including Reagan). Besides improving job numbers, it would also be stimulative.

It's interesting that the downward trend actually starts just before the Republican (Dixiecrat) revolution in 1994. But, certainly, that particular disease--hopefully in its last throes, to borrow a phrase--has continued to slowly suffocate America.

You're talking employee numbers. The outlays have doubled the last ten years. There's growing and there's groooooowing. We have twice as much spending with nothing to show for it. Are you twice as well off as ten years ago?

 

[empty vessel]

Right, but I said from an objective economic perspective, that is the what a company should do (public or private). he disagreed and I'm trying to figure out why.

What does it mean to say from an "objective economic perspective"? A company can maximize profits by paying 0 wages. Is that what a company should do from an "economic perspective"?

And, if so, why should we care about the "economic perspective" at all?

You're talking employee numbers. The outlays have doubled the last ten years. There's growing and there's groooooowing. We have twice as much spending with nothing to show for it. Are you twice as well off as ten years ago?

First, I realize it is employee numbers, that is what the discussion was about: jobs. The good thing about jobs is that (1) they feed people; and (2) they're stimulative.

Second, we have much to show for the increase in federal outlays (the injection of more money in the economy). Namely, the avoidance of a years-long depression, which would have hurt average Americans tremendously and resulted in an unrecoupable loss of wealth to future generations such as happened during the Great Depression. In fact, outlays should have been higher, because our current high unemployment is still inflicting damage not only on ourselves (weak economy) but also on future generations (your children and grandchildren).

Remember, when it comes to money, that's just something the government creates out of thin air. It doesn't really cost anything. What we have to "show" for its creation is a better economy. We always need to separate the imaginary (social constructions) from the real (real wealth--goods and services). "Federal outlays" are thoroughly imaginary.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

What does it mean to say from an "objective economic perspective"? A company can maximize profits by paying 0 wages. Is that what a company should do from an "economic perspective"?

And, if so, why should we care about the "economic perspective" at all?



First, I realize it is employee numbers, that is what the discussion was about: jobs. The good thing about jobs is that (1) they feed people; and (2) they're stimulative.

Second, we have much to show for the increase in federal outlays (the injection of more money in the economy). Namely, the avoidance of a years-long depression, which would have hurt average Americans tremendously and resulted in an unrecoupable loss of wealth to future generations such as happened during the Great Depression. In fact, outlays should have been higher, because our current high unemployment is still inflicting damage not only on ourselves (weak economy) but also on future generations (your children and grandchildren).

Remember, when it comes to money, that's just something the government creates out of thin air. It doesn't really cost anything. What we have to "show" for its creation is a better economy. We always need to separate the imaginary (social constructions) from the real (real wealth--goods and services). "Federal outlays" are thoroughly imaginary.

I'm always interested in your views on economics. Maybe because from an early age I've always seen the imaginary social construction aspects of it. But then entering the REAL world I've learned to think differently. I'd like to study up on the great depression sometime. What caused it... How avoidable was it...etc.

 

[Rocket Scientist]

So now we're not distinguishing between discretionary and non-discretionary spending when discussing the size of government? Cool.

 

[kehs]

Since people are talking about bigger government, Obama spoke at the Construction Trades Department Conference about building out the US' infrastructure.

It's interesting how broad the base of his speech is. He hasn't said anything new since he started giving speeches this year, but he just expounds on his speech depending on who he is talking to. Really captures just how aware he and his administration are about the economy problem being smaller problems in different areas.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Since people are talking about bigger government, Obama spoke at the Construction Trades Department Conference about building out the US' infrastructure.

It's interesting how broad the base of his speech is. He hasn't said anything new since he started giving speeches this year, but he just expounds on his speech depending on who he is talking to. Really captures just how aware he and his administration are about the economy problem being smaller problems in different areas.

No shit.

that's why he's also said we need to invest in all kinds of energy solutions. Some areas of the country will be better suited for wind. Some will benefit greatly from hydroelectric. Some will depend on nuclear. And even others will rely on oil (Alaska and Texas being the big ones).

For most, there isn't a one size fits all solution to the economy. Just as health care and education are better handles with centralized solutions and standard applied uniformally, energy is best handled with a diversified approach tailored to each location's geographical features and natural resources.

 

[Oblivion]

So Romney wrote a stupid op-ed for a probably stupid newspaper. It was filled with the usual Romney-isms, but ma boy Steve Benen noted something that was oddly missing:

The first is that Romney had a chance to put his know-how to use when he, after making a similar pitch, got elected governor of Massachusetts. And yet, Romney's entire op-ed doesn't include any references at all to his only leadership experience in public office. How can Romney boast about his background, and pretend his life experiences stopped in 2002?

Perhaps because while Romney was in office, applying all of those lessons he learned about the economy, Massachusetts' job creation was "one of the worst in the country," ranking 47th out of 50 states in job growth.

If Romney's such a turnaround artist, aside from the mass layoffs he orchestrated at his vulture capital firm, shouldn't Massachusetts have fared far better under his leadership? Wouldn't he have been able to leave Boston as a success, rather than a wildly unpopular one-term governor?

The second angle has to do with what we talked about yesterday: Romney still can't engage in any meaningful form of transactional politics.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Romney's op-ed says he's constantly meeting Americans "who are tired of being tired" -- a line his speechwriters appear to have stolen from Joe Biden -- but note just how little he has to offer those who are struggling. Romney's "path forward," as he puts it, is to simply "get government out of the way."

That's nice enough rhetoric, I suppose, but it reinforces an unavoidable truth: there are no public constituencies with which Romney has anything constructive to offer.

When he talks to students, "getting government out of the way" means cutting off their college aid and health insurance.

When he talks to seniors, "getting government out of the way" means raising the cost of prescription drugs and turning Medicare into a voucher scheme.

When he talks to firefighters, teachers, and police officers, "getting government out of the way" means massive layoffs and pay cuts.

When he talks to those worried about foreclosure or hospital bills or paying for groceries, "getting government out of the way" means wishing them luck, because a Romney administration plans to tell them they're on their own.

As we discussed yesterday, campaign politics, especially at the national level, tends to have a definite transactional quality. A candidate will identify a group of voters and offer to make what is, in effect, a trade -- in exchange for your support in the election, the candidate will deliver a policy that will make a material difference in your life.

But Romney's appeal to the American mainstream, reinforced by today's op-ed, is to tell them that public institutions will simply stop trying to offer them benefits, protections, and safeguards. He doesn't have anything to offer in exchange for votes, except a pat on the back and best wishes when already-struggling people find themselves more isolated and on their own.

His is an agenda of austerity, a sharp reduction in public investments, and hostility towards government activism in general. In a transactional sense, Romney has to hope most voters aren't looking to make a traditional electoral trade, because he doesn't intend to give them anything.

http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_ne...gubernatorial-term-romney-no-longer-remembers

 

[Byakuya769]

I'm always interested in your views on economics. Maybe because from an early age I've always seen the imaginary social construction aspects of it. But then entering the REAL world I've learned to think differently. I'd like to study up on the great depression sometime. What caused it... How avoidable was it...etc.

Haha! Same as I left it here, I see.

 

[RDreamer]

So Romney wrote a stupid op-ed for a probably stupid newspaper. It was filled with the usual Romney-isms, but ma boy Steve Benen noted something that was oddly missing:
http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_ne...gubernatorial-term-romney-no-longer-remembers

That op ed is kind of crazy and just sounds like nonsense to me... I mean do people really believe this guy?

I have a path forward to accomplish that. I have spent much of my life in business, turning around troubled enterprises. I can do the same for the most troubled of all enterprises: our federal government.

Your life in business consisted of making companies more "efficient," which usually means downsizing the amount of people you have working, perhaps outsourcing that altogether, or in worse cases just giving up, breaking off pieces and selling the whole lot.

Everywhere I go, I meet Americans who are tired of being tired, and many of those who are fortunate enough to have a job are working harder for less. This is not the way it is supposed to be in America. This is not the way it needs to be.

Precisely this. People are tired of being tired? Well that's the free market approach. What the hell does he expect? People are tired of having to scrape themselves up, clawing by only their fingernails, hoping they don't fall into the shrinking safety net. But that's just the fast paced, profit and efficiency are key sort of life he advocates for.

This is what businesses that Romney's been involved in do. That's the consequences of unrestrained capitalism. People work harder for less. And is he really trying to say he'd make this a country where people work less hard for more? Isn't that kind of what he's against? I just don't get this at all. This guy just doesn't fucking get it.

So he's going to do the same for government... He's unashamed in what he wants to do. Basically he's just going to throw government jobs out the window and who cares the free market might take them, but at least the government might be efficient! Fuck this shit. Efficiency isn't and shouldn't be our top aim with a government. That's fine for a business. I don't blame a business for doing that. That's what they're there for. They compete and accelerate things. Fine. But a government? Why do I want my government to throw people out and not give a shit? Why are we binding together as a whole people in order to create a monster that only cares about efficiency. We have plenty of that in the private sector. We band together to form a government to accomplish that which we can't do on our own. We band together so we have a way to pick those of us that are downtrodden back up, so they can carry on. We didn't form societies back in ancient times so we could still be fucked over by a dog-eat-dog type of world. If we wanted that, then we would just continue on our own. We did it for fucking safety and security, and it's about goddamned time we start admitting this. A government should, first and foremost, be there for its citizens and their collective future, not for profit.

 

[speculawyer]

In TDS yesterday Aasif Mandvi destroyed Missouri congresswoman Wanda Brown for "preventative protection" of gun owner discrimination whilst voting against a bill that would outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation. So good.

SOOOOooooo Good.

It was so awesome when she asked him for some examples and he just started rattling them off. It was such an ambush but she fucking deserved it.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Go ahead and roll the dice, then. Get the known quantity in Lugar, who is "one of the better Republicans" and a guaranteed win. Or roll the dice that Mourdock would lose to Donnelly in the Senate race. Because if he doesn't lose, you're fucked even worse. You'll get someone more obstructionist, more polarized, and less willing to compromise.

Actually, looking at Donnelly's record, I'm pretty sure you won't like his stances on things either, unless Harry Reid can whip the Blue Dog out of him. lol

Oh, Donnelly's far from perfect. But he is the kind of Democrat that could win in Indiana, and I'd rather have him than either Lugar or Mourdock.

If Democrats are going to claw their way anywhere near a supermajority again, we've got slim pickings for the next two cycles.

He also voted to repeal DADT, which is surprisingly (and disgustingly) a rarity amongst the blue dogs. So hey, he's already better than Lugar on one issue!

 

[speculawyer]

What was that republican video you stole your avatar from?

Santorum stole from ME!



I stole from some British book about oil production. Man . . . think about the Brits situation . . . they went from being an oil exporter to being an oil importer. Not only that but to add insult to injury, they sold oil for $20/barrel just a few years ago and now they have to buy oil for $110/barrel (Brent price) to import.

This is where Chavez being incompetent may end up greatly benefiting Venezuela. All that oil that did not get dug up out of the ground has become much more valuable. 5X as valuable in 10 years . . . better than most investments.

 

[speculawyer]

You're talking employee numbers. The outlays have doubled the last ten years. There's growing and there's groooooowing. We have twice as much spending with nothing to show for it. Are you twice as well off as ten years ago?

There is this thing called inflation. And the retiring of the baby-boomers (with Medicare).

And there is also this person called George W. Bush that started two wars and passed Medicare Part D . . . and didn't pay for ANY of it. As much as the deficits are under Obama, the Dems continue to be the more fiscally conservative party.

 

[Oblivion]

There is this thing called inflation. And the retiring of the baby-boomers (with Medicare).

And there is also this person called George W. Bush that started two wars and passed Medicare Part D . . . and didn't pay for ANY of it. As much as the deficits are under Obama, the Dems continue to be the more fiscally conservative party.

Don't forget decreased revenues from both the Bush tax cuts and the recession.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Don't forget decreased revenues from both the Bush tax cuts and the recession.

You mean the Obama tax cuts </GOP>

 

[SomeDude]

why is ron paul stil in the race? heh, why doesn't he step out?