Bwahahahahahaha!
Special Joe May Challenge Hillary in 2016 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/05/jill-biden-joe-biden-president-2016-wedding_n_1570684.html)
(http://images.politico.com/global/2012/01/120127_joe_biden_ap_328.jpg)
How quickly you forget the field on the GOP side just the last few months.
Not easy to vote in the primaries when you flinch at the mention of the candidates' names.
Quote from: Townsend on June 05, 2012, 01:15:43 PM
How quickly you forget the field on the GOP side just the last few months.
Not easy to vote in the primaries when you flinch at the mention of the candidates' names.
I'll start.
Trump. Ooh, almost dislocated a shoulder on that one.
Quote from: Hoss on June 05, 2012, 01:27:07 PM
I'll start.
Trump. Ooh, almost dislocated a shoulder on that one.
Right? Makes everything pucker.
I don't want to drift this thread, but I'm interested in knowing who the dems "up and comers" are? While the Repigs dusted off Newt and threw out a couple of tea party favs this cycle, they may not be looking to those in 2016 (except maybe the unmentioned pecker shrinker). More like Rubio, Rand Paul, Nikki Haley, Jindal, Christie, Paul Ryan etc. down the road. Maybe even this badass:
(https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQET3FwhJaYEHYgg7dFTOcyeuT9dXvs5VkNl2SqGeMR0xZsM-zgvA)
Quote from: guido911 on June 05, 2012, 01:42:51 PM
I don't want to drift this thread, but I'm interested in knowing who the dems "up and comers" are? While the Repigs dusted off Newt and threw out a couple of tea party favs this cycle, they may not be looking to those in 2016 (except maybe the unmentioned pecker shrinker). More like Rubio, Rand Paul, Nikki Haley, Jindal, Christie, Paul Ryan etc. down the road. Maybe even this badass:
I'm really hoping for a move away from the far right.
Quote from: Townsend on June 05, 2012, 01:46:02 PM
I'm really hoping for a move away from the far right.
Really T? Because I find it somewhat curious how democrats show interest in who the repubs run for office as if they would actually, EVER vote for one. Especially for president.
Anyway, back to the dems "up and comers". I'm kinda hoping they pick moderates like Bernie Sanders or Kucinich (like I'd ever vote for them).
Quote from: guido911 on June 05, 2012, 01:57:45 PM
Really T? Because I find it somewhat curious how democrats show interest in who the repubs run for office as if they would actually, EVER vote for one. Especially for president.
Republican. Just more moderate than the party's tended to go.
I wasn't raised in Oklahoma so this style of Republican is different than what I was familiar with before my nose was assaulted with the smell of uber-conservative right wing Oklahoma southern Republicanism.
Anyway, back to the dems "up and comers"...
I'd like to see the birth of a strong Libertarian party in the next election. One not run by crazy uncle Ron. But the chances are that Hillary will be our president in 2016. Joe Biden, bless his little heart, is simply not someone that the American people would be comfortable putting in charge of the management of a KFC.
Bill is already running around laying the groundwork (and the help). It's important to the Clintons that Obama doesn't see a second term. Bill is out today supporting opposing Democrat candidates in local elections, and establishing his philosophical divide from President Obama. Last night at a fund-raiser in NY, Bill reminded the attendees of the difference between him and President Obama by saying "I care about the long term debt of the country a lot. Remember me, I'm the only guy that gave you four surplus budgets out of the eight I sent." Ouch!
Bill keeps firing shots over the bow, but even a tiny remark from Bill Clinton is more powerful than 20 minutes of Teleprompter from President Obama.
Sorry to inject a little reality into the situation, but Clinton did not face a Congress that refused to raise taxes one iota. (unless it's on poor people, in which case love 'em..yes virginia, poor people already got their tax increase)
Quote from: guido911 on June 05, 2012, 02:05:34 PM
Anyway, back to the dems "up and comers"...
Well since I am getting no help from the dems in here, I'll toss out names Andrew Cuomo and Gavin Newsom.
Quote from: nathanm on June 05, 2012, 05:30:57 PM
Sorry to inject a little reality into the situation, but Clinton did not face a Congress that refused to raise taxes one iota. (unless it's on poor people, in which case love 'em..yes virginia, poor people already got their tax increase)
He faced Newt, who had to shut down the federal government to get him to sign a balanced budget. He then, masterfully, took credit for signing that "landmark legislature."
No matter how you slice it, Bill Clinton was a cunning genius. For the most part he was very successful at getting congress to work with him because he was a friend to business & industry. He realized the direct connection between business, and the people, and congress. Make business grow, and you make people employed and happy, and therefore make friends in congress. Bill was never on a rampage to punish the wealthy or blame successful people for the failure of others. On the contrary, he celebrated success in all forms of industry, and touted the successful as "role-models" instead of "fat-cats." There is a very stark contrast between Clintonian politics and the politics of fairness.
Under Clinton you never heard about a war on women, though their may have been several women under him at the time.
Doh! He just did it again. Claiming a double dip!
http://www.cnbc.com/id/47693595
"Former President Bill Clinton told CNBC Tuesday that the US economy already is in a recession and urged Congress to extend all the tax cuts due to expire at the end of the year."
(http://media.cnbc.com/i/CNBC/Sections/News_And_Analysis/__Story_Inserts/graphics/__PEOPLE/C/clinton_bill_2_200.jpg)
I'm telling you, Romney may not win this election, it may be delivered to him by Bill Clinton.
Expect another faint walk-back today, and watch this trend continue.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 06, 2012, 10:07:01 AM
I'm telling you, Romney may not win this election, it may be delivered to him by Bill Clinton.
Well he can't win it without someone's help.
How did a thread about Biden in 2016 turn into a Clinton 2012 riff?
I don't see Biden as a candidate for president. I see him as becoming an effective campaigner for Obama near the end of the summer when the last third of America makes up their minds. He will spend the next four years as VP touring the country to help sell the Obama agenda.
Then, he will become an entertainer as a commenter on cable news shows.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on June 06, 2012, 11:25:14 AM
How did a thread about Biden in 2016 turn into a Clinton 2012 riff?
Then, he will become an entertainer as a commenter on cable news shows.
I think he will eventually be reduced to selling the slogan. "It's a big f__ing deal!"
Perhaps you are right, that could be the name of his commentary spot on the new CNN/FOX network.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 06, 2012, 10:07:01 AM
Doh! He just did it again. Claiming a double dip!
http://www.cnbc.com/id/47693595
"Former President Bill Clinton told CNBC Tuesday that the US economy already is in a recession and urged Congress to extend all the tax cuts due to expire at the end of the year."
(http://media.cnbc.com/i/CNBC/Sections/News_And_Analysis/__Story_Inserts/graphics/__PEOPLE/C/clinton_bill_2_200.jpg)
I'm telling you, Romney may not win this election, it may be delivered to him by Bill Clinton.
Expect another faint walk-back today, and watch this trend continue.
Now the battle begins. President Obama is ready to fight.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/06/obama-bush-tax-cuts-will-_n_1574165.html
(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/635191/thumbs/r-OBAMA-BUSH-TAX-CUTS-huge.jpg)
It's going to be a Clinton vs. Obama grudge match.
That's like taking a knife to a gun fight.
Obama is playing chicken now. This might get interesting.
Consistently robust economy under Clinton.
Consistently foundering economy under Obama.
Guess who I'd take the advice of?
Quote from: guido911 on June 05, 2012, 02:05:34 PM
Anyway, back to the dems "up and comers"...
Here you go, she predicted the recall vote......
(http://images.politico.com/global/news/110405_wasserman_schultz_ap_605.jpg)
Quote from: dbacks fan on June 06, 2012, 03:31:17 PM
Here you go, she predicted the recall vote......
(http://images.politico.com/global/news/110405_wasserman_schultz_ap_605.jpg)
I think they caught the snaggleteeth quite well in that photo, don't you?
Quote from: Conan71 on June 06, 2012, 03:53:32 PM
I think they caught the snaggleteeth quite well in that photo, don't you?
Mouth full of Chick-lets.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 06, 2012, 01:48:07 PM
Obama is playing chicken now. This might get interesting.
Consistently robust economy under Clinton.
Consistently foundering economy under Obama.
Guess who I'd take the advice of?
What on earth is a foundering economy?
I would have taken Summers advice and pump more money into the system through infrastructure upkeep ... had you obstructionists not been there, growth would be 3-4 % today. Oh well, the Fed through QE3 is a coming.... to hell with austerity mental illness.
Quote from: Teatownclown on June 06, 2012, 04:10:47 PM
What on earth is a foundering economy?
I would have taken Summers advice and pump more money into the system through infrastructure upkeep ... had you obstructionists not been there, growth would be 3-4 % today. Oh well, the Fed through QE3 is a coming.... to hell with austerity mental illness.
Clinton gets it. Keep your fingers out of the machine and everything works. Had he employed that same philosophy to women, there would be little to criticize him over.
Manipulation breeds artificial growth, bubbles, and deficits. The market is an organic system with far more moving parts than any central bank can understand. We keep proving that to ourselves over and over and over and over again. Free markets are a threat to politicians and social engineering projects because they promise the dynamic freedom of the individual.
The financial elites of this country, notably the Morgan, Rockefeller, and Kuhn Loeb interests, were responsible for putting through the Federal Reserve System, as a governmentally created and sanctioned cartel device to enable the nation's banks to inflate the money supply in a coordinated fashion, without suffering quick retribution from depositors or noteholders demanding cash.
--Murray N Rothbard. The Origins of the Federal Reserve
Ooh, a gold bug. You guys are so fun!
I haven't listened to Clinton's remarks, but I do find it interesting that he's running back some stuff he said last year about what he would do for the economy. (or maybe it was earlier this year, whenever the last CGI conference was) I also think it's interesting that he thinks tax cuts would be helpful, given that corporate balance sheets are loaded with cash with nothing to spend it on and they're making more profit than ever, even adjusted for inflation (even discounting the financial sector). Why would giving them more cash help? Businesses are complaining about a lack of demand, not a lack of supply.
I thought you guys were all for listening to what business wants?
Quote from: Gaspar on June 06, 2012, 04:21:09 PM
Clinton gets it. Keep your fingers out of the machine and everything works. Had he employed that same philosophy to women, there would be little to criticize him over.
Manipulation breeds artificial growth, bubbles, and deficits. The market is an organic system with far more moving parts than any central bank can understand. We keep proving that to ourselves over and over and over and over again. Free markets are a threat to politicians and social engineering projects because they promise the dynamic freedom of the individual.
The financial elites of this country, notably the Morgan, Rockefeller, and Kuhn Loeb interests, were responsible for putting through the Federal Reserve System, as a governmentally created and sanctioned cartel device to enable the nation's banks to inflate the money supply in a coordinated fashion, without suffering quick retribution from depositors or noteholders demanding cash.
--Murray N Rothbard. The Origins of the Federal Reserve
Most of the time, you make little sense.
Quote from: Teatownclown on June 06, 2012, 04:31:49 PM
Most of the time, you make little sense.
You do understand what that comment means when coming from you, right?
Quote from: dbacks fan on June 06, 2012, 03:31:17 PM
Here you go, she predicted the recall vote......
(http://images.politico.com/global/news/110405_wasserman_schultz_ap_605.jpg)
The November "dry run" turned into a "dry hump".
http://nation.foxnews.com/debbie-wasserman-shultz/2012/05/29/wasserman-schultz-wisconsin-recall-dry-run-november
As for the poodle, I guess she can be cute sometime. Other times, I have seen freight trains taking these after seeing her:
(https://encrypted-tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR0xFTxIu4ZM4M61eAsR63WMVCXDYCgTLk6QyfyRoPSXZXMNpSxFA)
Quote from: Conan71 on June 06, 2012, 01:48:07 PM
Obama is playing chicken now. This might get interesting.
Consistently robust economy under Clinton.
Consistently foundering economy under Obama.
Guess who I'd take the advice of?
Jimmy Carter?
Quote from: Gaspar on June 06, 2012, 04:21:09 PM
without suffering quick retribution from depositors or noteholders demanding cash.
That was when you could still change your paper dollars for silver. Where they now say Federal Reserve Note, they used to say Silver Certificate.
Quote from: Teatownclown on June 06, 2012, 04:10:47 PM
What on earth is a foundering economy?
I would have taken Summers advice and pump more money into the system through infrastructure upkeep ... had you obstructionists not been there, growth would be 3-4 % today. Oh well, the Fed through QE3 is a coming.... to hell with austerity mental illness.
Like a foundering horse you idiot...No legs to stand on....
Quote from: Teatownclown on June 06, 2012, 04:10:47 PM
What on earth is a foundering economy?
Another definition:
Quote
foundering present participle of found·er (Verb)
Verb:
(of a ship) Fill with water and sink: "six drowned when the yacht foundered off the Florida coast".
(of a plan or undertaking) Fail or break down, typically as a result of a particular problem or setback.
More info »Merriam-Webster - The Free Dictionary
Quote from: Breadburner on June 06, 2012, 06:27:22 PM
Like a foundering horse you idiot...No legs to stand on....
Go easy. It's pernicious to poke fun at Tea.
Quote from: nathanm on June 06, 2012, 04:31:20 PM
Ooh, a gold bug. You guys are so fun!
I haven't listened to Clinton's remarks, but I do find it interesting that he's running back some stuff he said last year about what he would do for the economy. (or maybe it was earlier this year, whenever the last CGI conference was) I also think it's interesting that he thinks tax cuts would be helpful, given that corporate balance sheets are loaded with cash with nothing to spend it on and they're making more profit than ever, even adjusted for inflation (even discounting the financial sector). Why would giving them more cash help? Businesses are complaining about a lack of demand, not a lack of supply.
I thought you guys were all for listening to what business wants?
I'll give you a little anecdote that happened last week. A friend of mine owns a company with about 12 employees. He's sitting on a good sized pile of cash at the moment as he's had a few good years, he's paid off debt, and has a core of some really great people who all know their job and do their job, and he's got a huge back-log of work. At any rate, his truck is depreciated out and he was debating simply writing a check for $45 to $50K. He eventually went with taking Ford's money at .9% for 36 months plus a $1500 cash rebate. A lot can change in 36 months and he's of the mindset that if we end up in a double-dip, he'd better have cash on hand to survive it. He's legitimately worried about what impact Obamacare may have on his bottom line. His accountant and insurance company still can't tell him the financial impact so he really doesn't care to add more employees at this time. He has no confidence in Obama's leadership ability and he's one of those who is convinced that the president could severely screw things up in a lame duck term if he's re-elected in November.
Call him an idiot, out of touch with reality, overly scared, watches too much Faux, etc. The reality is, many small business owners have the same fears and are putting growth on hold for now. Sure, you can Google some CNN story with small business owners who are hiring like crazy right now, that doesn't negate those who are of similar mind-set to my friend. Business owners don't owe the economy jobs so there is no way to compel them to create them
unless the government either sends out signals it is business-friendly, you give them financial incentives to hire, or demand is so overwhelming they start to lose business because they can't deliver in a timely manner.
Another thing I'm not observing right now is a large number of small business start-ups. That's pretty common in a recessionary economy when people lose jobs and really have no other alternative. Tight credit and uncertainty about the economy and the economic policies of the current admin and Congress aren't helping the entrepreneur.
It's not the corporations who are hindering job growth. Give small business incentives to expand, relax their fears of over-regulation and over-taxation and they will expand and hire. Real or imagined, those are the folks who are far more influenced by what they read in the paper, hear on talk radio or in the bar after work. Call them idiots, or ignore their interpretation of every Obama bowel movement, but if the current administration isn't inspiring growth through it's actions and words, there are those who will simply hang in there either out of fear or deep seated spite, classic economic theory be damned. Remember that economic theory generally doesn't take into account behavioral issues.
Here is a link to a story a bit similar to your anecdote conan.
http://wearegreenbay.com/1fulltext-news?nxd_id=134322
Quote from: Conan71 on June 07, 2012, 08:59:42 AM
I'll give you a little anecdote that happened last week. A friend of mine owns a company with about 12 employees. He's sitting on a good sized pile of cash at the moment as he's had a few good years, he's paid off debt, and has a core of some really great people who all know their job and do their job, and he's got a huge back-log of work. At any rate, his truck is depreciated out and he was debating simply writing a check for $45 to $50K. He eventually went with taking Ford's money at .9% for 36 months plus a $1500 cash rebate. A lot can change in 36 months and he's of the mindset that if we end up in a double-dip, he'd better have cash on hand to survive it. He's legitimately worried about what impact Obamacare may have on his bottom line. His accountant and insurance company still can't tell him the financial impact so he really doesn't care to add more employees at this time. He has no confidence in Obama's leadership ability and he's one of those who is convinced that the president could severely screw things up in a lame duck term if he's re-elected in November.
...
It's not the corporations who are hindering job growth. Give small business incentives to expand, relax their fears of over-regulation and over-taxation and they will expand and hire. Real or imagined, those are the folks who are far more influenced by what they read in the paper, hear on talk radio or in the bar after work. Call them idiots, or ignore their interpretation of every Obama bowel movement, but if the current administration isn't inspiring growth through it's actions and words, there are those who will simply hang in there either out of fear or deep seated spite, classic economic theory be damned. Remember that economic theory generally doesn't take into account behavioral issues.
I don't disagree with any of that, but would note that the vast majority of jobs do not come from small business, except in the sense that most large businesses were once small businesses. That's not to diminish their importance, because they do provide millions of jobs and god knows the last thing we need is to send another million or two people out of work.
So yeah, I think it in a large way is corporations sitting on piles of money with nothing worth investing in that are hindering the economy. Credit isn't nearly as tight as it was a couple of years ago. I know people who got bit hard by banks pulling their lines of credit. Not so bad they had to fire anybody or anything, but bad enough they had to put expansion and hiring plans on hold. Plenty of folks have been there over the last few years, but that part of it is easing somewhat.
I'm sure your friend can make more than .9% on his money, so the loan was probably a good idea. ;)
There is a lot of uncertainty out there, but I don't buy that it's government-based. Health care costs have been out of control for years. Obamacare may be the insurance company's current excuse, but it's not as if they needed them when they were doing the same price hikes 5 years ago. Nobody has any idea what costs will be next year because insurance has been going up between 5 and 20 percent a year since I can remember. Luckily, the health care stuff will work itself out in a couple more years when it's fully implemented. Whether it gets costs under control or not, the uncertainties will be right back where they were before ACA passed.
I agree that more can be done, but Congress deserves much of the blame here. The Republicans are too busy trying to make sure Obama doesn't get anything through Congress that could be claimed as a success to really care about the plight of the country as a whole. Maybe that will change if Romney wins, I sure hope so. Even so, we've had tax cuts, we've got incentives, we've got most everything but demand.
If only there was a party in Washington who actually cared to listen to the people instead of spending all their energy creating loopholes and special favors for their donors. Clearly, neither of the present two are that party.
We have no way of forecasting the secondary employment costs under Obamacare. All we know is to expect somewhere between 7% and 38% increase in cost, but the estimates are all over the map. That is the primary seed of all the current uncertainty. You won't see real job growth until that is a known.
Because the sticks outweigh the carrots, growth will continue to be anemic, unemployment will continue to be high, and the longer this lasts the wider the divide will grow, and the harder it will be for companies who have already tooled to operate with fewer employees, to re-invest in human capital.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 07, 2012, 01:31:24 PM
We have no way of forecasting the secondary employment costs under Obamacare. All we know is to expect somewhere between 7% and 38% increase in cost, but the estimates are all over the map. That is the primary seed of all the current uncertainty. You won't see real job growth until that is a known.
I suspect insurers have much better numbers, since they wrote the regulations. ;)