Just thought I'd beat RM to the punch.
This is a sad ad for both this gentleman and for President Obama. If you are gong to run a negative campaign, you probably want to shy away from cherry-picking things that are easily researched. The Obama campaign needs to continue to focus tax returns and their war on women memes, because they are just embarrassing themselves this this drivel, and taking advantage of people like this is deplorable.
In 1993 GST steel was in trouble. The steel industry in general had already lost 20,000 jobs, and Armco who owned GST was faced with selling it or shutting it down. The plant that originally employed 4,500 employees had scaled down to 750 and Armco had just let an additional 75 go. Bane came in and purchased the company for $80 million and invested an additional $100 million in new equipment and upgrades to the plant.
It worked! By 1996-1997 the company had generated $1 billion in revenue. But this didn't last long. The flood of cheep Chinese steel could not be overcome and by 1999 (the year Romney left Bain) GST was recording $53 million in losses. By 2001, the Bush administration imposed measures to limit China's ability to "dump" steel on the US markets. It was too late for GST. They went bankrupt. Bain could not save these jobs, but they did give the workers at GST 8 additional years of employment.
At the same time, Bain also purchased an Indiana start-up called Steel Dynamics. It today reports $6.3 billion in revenue—25 times what it claimed in its 1996 IPO, and now employs 6,000.
Romney was involved with the purchase of both companies but he was long gone when GST filed for bankruptcy. If this is the best attack that the Obama administration can launch against Mitt Romney, they've got some real challenges ahead.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303360504577410573651845802.html
Why wasn't Romney tried for manslaughter in this woman's death? He obviously needs to shoulder all the blame for it.
This guy lost his job, lost his health insurance and lost his wife.
But you guys make fun of it.
Real classy.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on August 07, 2012, 09:16:54 AM
This guy lost his job, lost his health insurance and lost his wife.
But you guys make fun of it.
Real classy.
Didn't make fun. Said it was unfortunate and sad. What is deplorable is that President Obama is politicizing it.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on August 07, 2012, 09:16:54 AM
This guy lost his job, lost his health insurance and lost his wife.
But you guys make fun of it.
Real classy.
Really?
I think it's tacky that either the Obama campaign or a Super PAC would parade a widower around and make his deceased wife a political pawn. Sorry my sarcasm in response to this despicable act was lost on you.
They literally would stoop so low as to make people think that Romney was personally responsible for this fellow having no health insurance. Nevermind that health insurance or not, his wife may have died anyhow.
Doesn't it piss you off that the DNC and large DNC donors think Democrat voters are dumb enough to believe this pap? This presumption of ignorance offends me.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 07, 2012, 10:01:28 AM
This presumption of ignorance offends me.
You get numb to it over time. It's part of the core, and helps both parties to maintain power structures built on layers of dependency or fear.
Even if you go back past the "granny off the cliff" advertising, all the way back to Thomas Nast's caricature of Democrats as Asses trying to scare voters into submission. His original cartoon from 1874 shows the Democrat donkey dressed as a lion frightening away all of the other animals, and was in response to the Democrats campaign to convince voters that Grant intended to run for a third term as president. It eventually led to the parties adopting the symbols of the Donkey and the Elephant. Prior to that the Donkey was adopted by Andrew Jackson because people called him an donkey. Republicans liked the concept of being portrayed as elephants strong enough to fend off the donkey's fear-mongering, however both parties engage in the act.
(http://www.printsoldandrare.com/thomasnast/227tnast.jpg)
Boil it down over the course of history and you find the very simple tenants of Democratic campaigns:
1. If you elect me, the government will give you _________.
2. If you do not elect me, the Republicans will take __________.
It's a simple dependent relationship, free of the burden of liberty or individual responsibility. It's simple for the simple to understand, and easy for the elite to employ. It uses the concept of "hope" to generate votes, and the fear of losing "hope" to preserve them.
Republican philosophy has grown to be similar, but slightly more complex:
1. If you elect me, the government will let you keep
your ________.
2. If you elect Democrats they will take
your _______.
It's a little more complex because it relies on the concept that individuals already have a resource (or resourcefulness) or can provide for themselves, and therefore does not appeal to a large segment of the public. It also requires liberty and individual responsibility. It uses "liberty" to generate votes, and the fear of losing "liberty" to preserve them.
Again, this is a distillation, but I think it accurately portrays how each party uses fear mongering.
The only humor and irony in this thread is anyone complaining about Democrats running negative campaigns. You guys hold the certificate of merit. Dems have a long way to go to make up for Swiftboating, Willie Horton, birthers etc.
Aquaman showing his idiocy once more:
Quote from: RecycleMichael on August 07, 2012, 09:16:54 AM
This guy lost his job, lost his health insurance and lost his wife.
But you guys make fun of it.
Real classy.
And you are being classy by apparently finding it okay to turn his grief into a tool to get votes?
Quote from: AquaMan on August 07, 2012, 11:25:55 AM
The only humor and irony in this thread is anyone complaining about Democrats running negative campaigns. You guys hold the certificate of merit. Dems have a long way to go to make up for Swiftboating, Willie Horton, birthers etc.
Sorry, had to share that one too. Thanks. :D
Quote from: Gaspar on August 07, 2012, 12:12:49 PM
Sorry, had to share that one too. Thanks. :D
Does everyone tell you the eye rolling is a medical condition?
When President Obama took over GM and shut down hundreds of dealerships across the country to cut costs, I bet there were tens of thousands of workers who lost their jobs and insurance. I hope they're all ok. I wonder if the Romney campaign is scouring the countryside to find one with a dead spouse? Guess we'll just have to wait and see. Of course they probably all found jobs right away during the summer of recovery.
And let's definitely not mention that Jonathan Levine, an Obama bundler was one of the directors at Bain when GST was shut down. Romney had left the day-to-day operations well before GST was shut down.
Isn't it hypocritical of Obama to accept money from a vulture capitalist, especially a director of a company the Obama campaign has sought to demonize?
Quote from: Conan71 on August 07, 2012, 01:09:36 PM
And let's definitely not mention that Jonathan Levine, an Obama bundler was one of the directors at Bain when GST was shut down. Romney had left the day-to-day operations well before GST was shut down.
Isn't it hypocritical of Obama to accept money from a vulture capitalist, especially a director of a company the Obama campaign has sought to demonize?
Hold it right there mister! Romney is supported by Super PACs, and they are funded by the Devil and the brothers Koch, and none of them have paid taxes in the last 10 years. The word is out!
Quote from: Gaspar on August 07, 2012, 01:13:14 PM
Hold it right there mister! Romney is supported by Super PACs, and they are funded by the Devil and the brothers Koch, and none of them have paid taxes in the last 10 years. The word is out!
queue eye rolls?
Lotta dicks hangin' loose in this thread. You should be more concerned about RMoney's platform. It's got no direction....
And what's with his Veep pick?
Priorities USA Action is no more the Obama campaign than all the Republican SuperPACs are Romney's. If you're going to complain, at least make it accurate, eh?
Quote from: nathanm on August 07, 2012, 03:18:24 PM
Priorities USA Action is no more the Obama campaign than all the Republican SuperPACs are Romney's. If you're going to complain, at least make it accurate, eh?
Oh, good, we can look forward to the Obama camp disavowing such sophomoric ads!
I'm Mitt Romney, let's go party.
Ann Romney Says Campaign Will 'Unzip' the Real Mitt
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/ann-romney-says-campaign-will-unzip-the-real-mitt/ (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/ann-romney-says-campaign-will-unzip-the-real-mitt/)
QuoteGREEN BAY, Wis. – Ann Romney defended her husband's sense of humor today during a radio interview, explaining that if people think the candidate seems too stiff at times as the host suggested, she thinks "we better unzip him and let the real Mitt Romney out."
Goodness gracious Ann...
Quote from: Townsend on August 07, 2012, 04:03:45 PM
Ann Romney Says Campaign Will 'Unzip' the Real Mitt
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/ann-romney-says-campaign-will-unzip-the-real-mitt/ (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/ann-romney-says-campaign-will-unzip-the-real-mitt/)
Goodness gracious Ann...
Reeeeooowww!
Cue the Bow Chicka Bow Wow soundtrack.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 07, 2012, 04:16:58 PM
Reeeeooowww!
Cue the Bow Chicka Bow Wow soundtrack.
Newsweek put her on the cover eating asparagus.
(http://jimromenesko.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/enhanced-buzz-13860-1344366745-13.jpg)
You do know Newsweek print is headed for the shredder.....
Might explain the great covers the past 3 weeks.
Quote from: guido911 on August 07, 2012, 11:34:26 AM
Aquaman showing his idiocy once more:
How does it feel to be irrelevant?
Quote from: AquaMan on August 07, 2012, 07:01:00 PM
How does it feel to be irrelevant?
1964 was the first Presidential election that I personally remember paying attention to. I remember the Nixon-Kennedy debates but didn't understand too much about it then.
Johnson successfully portrayed Goldwater as a war monger ready to push "the button" at any provocation. LBJ then escalated the Viet Nam police action to the level we either remember (if we are old enough) or read about and how it practically ripped the country apart.
Quote from: nathanm on August 07, 2012, 03:18:24 PM
If you're going to complain, at least make it accurate, eh?
Are you an illegal Canadian immigrant? It would explain a lot about your voting positions.
;D
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 07, 2012, 08:28:14 PM
Are you an illegal Canadian immigrant?
Sorry, I was born in Kansas according to my birth certificate, although I have no way of personally verifying that. The State Department seems to think it's good enough, though (even under Bush!). You should have heard me in Orlando over the weekend with some British expats. "Bollocks" was my new favorite word when I was getting my donkey kicked at snooker. The Yuengling and Stella Artois more than made up for the shame, however. Learning more than I ever thought I wanted to know about ADS-B and Mode S would have done it on its own, but beer makes everything even better.
Quote from: nathanm on August 07, 2012, 08:37:16 PM
Sorry, I was born in Kansas according to my birth certificate, although I have no way of personally verifying that. The State Department seems to think it's good enough, though (even under Bush!). You should have heard me in Orlando over the weekend with some British expats. "Bollocks" was my new favorite word when I was getting my donkey kicked at snooker. The Yuengling and Stella Artois more than made up for the shame, however. Learning more than I ever thought I wanted to know about ADS-B and Mode S would have done it on its own, but beer makes everything even better.
Pilots?
Quote from: Hoss on August 07, 2012, 08:43:55 PM
Pilots?
Professional plane spotter, so the other end. ;)
Quote from: Hoss on August 07, 2012, 08:43:55 PM
Pilots?
All kinds of links if you google "Mode S Transponder"
Here's about the first one I found. It's easier for you to read about it than to try and explain it here.
Be sure, it will cost more money. Benefits will depend on how crowded the airspace is in a particular area.
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 07, 2012, 08:55:38 PM
All kinds of links if you google "Mode S Transponder"
Here's about the first one I found. It's easier for you to read about it than to try and explain it here.
Be sure, it will cost more money. Benefits will depend on how crowded the airspace is in a particular area.
Yes, I know about Mode S, hence my question. Isn't that considered passive TCAS really? It works in the same way as TCAS but doesn't use as many interrogations?
Quote from: nathanm on August 07, 2012, 08:53:57 PM
Professional plane spotter, so the other end. ;)
I wish I could get paid for watching airplanes. I do a lot of it now for free. Judging landings (of other pilots) is frequently entertaining. It helps to have a friend with a front row hangar at RVS.
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 07, 2012, 08:58:46 PM
I wish I could get paid for watching airplanes. I do a lot of it now for free. Judging landings (of other pilots) is frequently entertaining. It helps to have a friend with a front row hangar at RVS.
Doesn't hurt to have a friend who frequently buys blocks of hours at his local FBO for flight training/time either. From 2002 to about 2005 I cannot tell you how many hours of right-seat time I got in a 172 with every weekend or at least every-other weekend "100 dollar hamburger" flights.
Quote from: Hoss on August 07, 2012, 08:57:30 PM
Yes, I know about Mode S, hence my question. Isn't that considered passive TCAS really? It works in the same way as TCAS but doesn't use as many interrogations?
I don't think so. I believe Mode S just provides more information about the plane being interrogated to the same interrogations as Mode A/C. TCAS requires an interrogation device on the plane.
There are some passive "TCAS" devices that read the replies from aircraft interrogated from a third party.
http://www.zaon.aero/
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 07, 2012, 09:06:04 PM
I don't think so. I believe Mode S just provides more information about the plane being interrogated to the same interrogations as Mode A/C. TCAS requires an interrogation device on the plane.
There are some passive "TCAS" devices that read the replies from aircraft interrogated from a third party.
http://www.zaon.aero/
That's what I was thinking of. My friend thought about getting one of those when they first came out. I asked him why...mainly because you don't need to know so much about those a/c with the TCAS modes, but more about a/c with just plain Mode A/C since they'd be a little harder to spot.
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 07, 2012, 08:58:46 PM
I wish I could get paid for watching airplanes.
On this, we agree. ;D
Quote
It helps to have a friend with a front row hangar at RVS.
I bet. I'm stuck outside the fence except on the rare occasion when I'm a passenger. :P
FWIW, the "new" way of doing things, ADS-B, does not require interrogations. Aircraft so equipped broadcast their position, altitude, heading, and speed once a second or so. The FAA and people with ADS-B receivers then get that information. The FAA broadcasts it back out again for other aircraft. There are apparently two different frequencies, which is why it has to be rebroadcast. Additionally, Mode A and/or C data for the area near the broadcasting aircraft are sent back out, so that the pilot with the ADS-B equipment can get a complete picture, or as complete as the controller has, anyway.
I'm not certain on the technical details, after all I just had a long conversation about it and a lot of other topics and then some light reading when I got home last night because I was interested. It seems like it would be pretty nice to have as a pilot, especially since you get a bunch of other data that the FCC broadcasts for "free." It's definitely a boon for the spotters, or at least it will be when more aircraft here in the US are equipped.
Quote from: nathanm on August 07, 2012, 09:14:04 PM
There are apparently two different frequencies, which is why it has to be rebroadcast.
Regular Mode A/C transponders in aircraft receive interrogations on one frequency (1030 MHz) and reply on a different frequency (1090 MHz). Ground stations are reversed, of course.
QuoteIt seems like it would be pretty nice to have as a pilot, especially since you get a bunch of other data that the FCC broadcasts for "free."
Depends on what and where you are flying. The price of avionics adds up quickly and can quickly surpass the price of the rest of the aircraft. There are still a lot of Cubs, Champs, Taylorcraft, and more without an electrical system. Carrying batteries for some avionics is practical but a full IFR panel in a Cub is absurd. Busy places, even Tulsa Int'l, have equipment requirements like a regular Mode A/C transponder that aren't really needed at some place like Chandler.
QuoteIt's definitely a boon for the spotters, or at least it will be when more aircraft here in the US are equipped.
You might feel a bit different about that if/when similar equipment is required in everyone's automobiles. Hey everybody, Nathan just went to Quick Trip and then stopped by McNellies for 3 hours before going home. Better have local law enforcement stop him for a sobriety check. I know that recent model cars have tattle tale black boxes but I'm talking about full time reporting.
Quote from: nathanm on August 07, 2012, 09:14:04 PM
I'm stuck outside the fence except on the rare occasion when I'm a passenger.
There is actually a nice observation area at the south end of RVS accessible to the general public. There are a few parking spots and some picnic tables. There is a small gazebo type stand too. The entrance is off of 91st street, just east of Elwood.
Edit: add link to the observation area on Google maps. It's near the right side, just north of 91st.
http://goo.gl/maps/MnulT
Edit 2:
Larger view
http://goo.gl/maps/puABG
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 07, 2012, 09:52:42 PM
You might feel a bit different about that if/when similar equipment is required in everyone's automobiles. Hey everybody, Nathan just went to Quick Trip and then stopped by McNellies for 3 hours before going home. Better have local law enforcement stop him for a sobriety check. I know that recent model cars have tattle tale black boxes but I'm talking about full time reporting.
Luckily, it won't even be required for all aircraft even when the "mandate" takes effect in 2020. Only those with electrical systems operating within controlled airspace (roughly).
Quote from: nathanm on August 07, 2012, 10:01:38 PM
Luckily, it won't even be required for all aircraft even when the "mandate" takes effect in 2020. Only those with electrical systems operating within controlled airspace (roughly).
I'll have to look at which classes of controlled airspace will require it. There is very little uncontrolled airspace in the US.
http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aviation/instrument_flying_handbook/media/faa-h-8083-15a%20-%20chapter%2008.pdf
FYI, Tulsa International is Class C airspace, Riverside/Jones is Class D airspace.
Well well well...
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnn-fact-checks-priorities-usa-ad-blaming-mitt-romney-for-womans-death/
Those damned repubs and terrible ads...
Quote from: RecycleMichael on August 07, 2012, 09:16:54 AM
This guy lost his job, lost his health insurance and lost his wife.
But you guys make fun of it.
Real classy.
See my link on this poor guy's wife dying because of Romney & Bain.
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 07, 2012, 07:49:58 PM
1964 was the first Presidential election that I personally remember paying attention to. I remember the Nixon-Kennedy debates but didn't understand too much about it then.
Johnson successfully portrayed Goldwater as a war monger ready to push "the button" at any provocation. LBJ then escalated the Viet Nam police action to the level we either remember (if we are old enough) or read about and how it practically ripped the country apart.
It goes back farther. In the Nixon-Kennedy race it was Catholicism. I still remember vividly the chant that "the Pope will run the country". Truman was supposed to have been connected to the Kansas City mob and of course Stevenson was a closet Communist. Each of the negative, but low level, negative campaigns were related to fears the general populace held at those times.
The difference now is direct allegation vs inference or subtext. There may have been statements or policy issues back then that could be spun to infer an outcome. Thus, Goldwater's hard right anti-communist views were exploited to create a persona that was not real. The same happened to Kennedy. Johnson, not so much till 1968.
Now they are flat out manufactured and spread on the internet with impunity. Lies are truth, wrong is right, right is wrong as long as you have enough money and your opponent cannot respond in kind.
Quote from: AquaMan on August 08, 2012, 08:30:56 AM
It goes back farther. In the Nixon-Kennedy race it was Catholicism. I still remember vividly the chant that "the Pope will run the country". Truman was supposed to have been connected to the Kansas City mob and of course Stevenson was a closet Communist. Each of the negative, but low level, negative campaigns were related to fears the general populace held at those times.
The difference now is direct allegation vs inference or subtext. There may have been statements or policy issues back then that could be spun to infer an outcome. Thus, Goldwater's hard right anti-communist views were exploited to create a persona that was not real. The same happened to Kennedy. Johnson, not so much till 1968.
Now they are flat out manufactured and spread on the internet with impunity. Lies are truth, wrong is right, right is wrong as long as you have enough money and your opponent cannot respond in kind.
It really is sad, because now so much of the population gets their only news from Facebook, or sound-bytes on TV. That makes accusations like this even worse because the candidates no loner really care if they are true. Now it turns out that this poor guy, Joe Soptic, was hunted down for the sake of this ad, and the facts he was given to present did not actually occur.
It turns out that he was layed off in 2001 after Romney left Bain, but his wife was still working and had her own medical insurance. She continued to work until 2003 when she left due to a rotator-cuff injury. She wasn't diagnosed with cancer until 2006.
So this campaign had an agenda and a narrative and simply sought out someone they could fit into it. Now this poor guy Joe is a figurehead for the level of dishonesty, and careless disregard that this administration and their mouthpieces are willing to engage in. I understand that this was the work of an Obama SuperPAC, but it does not change the fact that the president did not choose to condemn such a vile action on his behalf.
I am happy to see that the liberal media is starting to condemn it, even if it is a bit too late.
When asked by the media to assess the validity of this ad, Jay Carney's response was: "my assessment will be, I have no assessment."
He's the perfect mouthpiece for President Obama!
Here's how a real president and/or his press secretary would respond to that: "The story of Mr. Soptic is heartbreaking, and wether the facts or timeline in this advertisement are ture or not, that does not change the fact that Mr. Soptic is grieving the loss of his wife. That said, if the facts and timeline proposed in this ad are indeed false or misleading, and take advantage of Mr. Soptic's grief directly or indirectly to benefit the president's campaign, we will condemn the PAC that created it, and return any money raised by members of that PAC. The Obama administration will not tolerate dishonesty and false attacks made in it's behalf by any political group or organization.
more ads...but this one's really good.
Quote from: Teatownclown on August 08, 2012, 10:25:51 AM
more ads...but this one's really good.
Ahh, old Louie Ludwig, musician, film maker, Occupier, and a guy that just loves the old days. . .just not here in America.
You can get his new album, Nachivo (old Russian slogan that meant "No Worries", or "Do Not Care") on Amazon. It's got lots of great folky tunes that harken back to better times.
(http://loulost.com/images/262_front_2.jpg)
http://loulost.com/loulostcomawebpage/nichevo.html
Odd that he doesn't mention that we were at war with Iraq before George Bush? Anywhoo, he seems like a top notch guy.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 08, 2012, 09:14:36 AM
It really is sad, because now so much of the population gets their only news from Facebook, or sound-bytes on TV. That makes accusations like this even worse because the candidates no loner really care if they are true. Now it turns out that this poor guy, Joe Soptic, was hunted down for the sake of this ad, and the facts he was given to present did not actually occur.
It turns out that he was layed off in 2001 after Romney left Bain, but his wife was still working and had her own medical insurance. She continued to work until 2003 when she left due to a rotator-cuff injury. She wasn't diagnosed with cancer until 2006.
So this campaign had an agenda and a narrative and simply sought out someone they could fit into it. Now this poor guy Joe is a figurehead for the level of dishonesty, and careless disregard that this administration and their mouthpieces are willing to engage in. I understand that this was the work of an Obama SuperPAC, but it does not change the fact that the president did not choose to condemn such a vile action on his behalf.
I am happy to see that the liberal media is starting to condemn it, even if it is a bit too late.
When asked by the media to assess the validity of this ad, Jay Carney's response was: "my assessment will be, I have no assessment."
He's the perfect mouthpiece for President Obama!
Here's how a real president and/or his press secretary would respond to that: "The story of Mr. Soptic is heartbreaking, and wether the facts or timeline in this advertisement are ture or not, that does not change the fact that Mr. Soptic is grieving the loss of his wife. That said, if the facts and timeline proposed in this ad are indeed false or misleading, and take advantage of Mr. Soptic's grief directly or indirectly to benefit the president's campaign, we will condemn the PAC that created it, and return any money raised by members of that PAC. The Obama administration will not tolerate dishonesty and false attacks made in it's behalf by any political group or organization.
You expect way too much from a system that elects based on money derived from PACs. Whether this was a Romney ad or an Obama ad is irrelevant. Both sides do it because if they don't the resulting loss of money means loss. Instead they usually quietly remove themselves from the acts of their supporters.
The problem is not the candidates. Its the money, the lobbyist system and a stupid population that is susceptible to those powers.
Quote from: AquaMan on August 08, 2012, 11:00:40 AM
You expect way too much from a system that elects based on money derived from PACs. Whether this was a Romney ad or an Obama ad is irrelevant. Both sides do it because if they don't the resulting loss of money means loss. Instead they usually quietly remove themselves from the acts of their supporters.
The problem is not the candidates. Its the money, the lobbyist system and a stupid population that is susceptible to those powers.
Ahem, in case you missed this post earlier.
QuoteWell well well...
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnn-fact-checks-priorities-usa-ad-blaming-mitt-romney-for-womans-death/
Those damned repubs and terrible ads...
Quote from: guido911 on August 08, 2012, 11:30:15 AM
Ahem, in case you missed this post earlier.
So how'd the fact check go? They hadn't done it yet when this article was written.
Quote from: AquaMan on August 08, 2012, 08:30:56 AM
It goes back farther. In the Nixon-Kennedy race it was Catholicism. I still remember vividly the chant that "the Pope will run the country".
I remember the "Pope will run the country" part too. We aren't Catholic but I don't remember whether or not dad made a big deal of it.
Tulsa in 1960 was John Birch country. I was only 10 but had to listen to the rants of my old neighbors when I mowed their lawns. They could not contain themselves. Since we had neighbors who also attended St Francis church and whose kids I played with, I listened to see what exactly was wrong with them. And who was this Pope guy.
Quote from: Townsend on August 08, 2012, 11:34:01 AM
So how'd the fact check go? They hadn't done it yet when this article was written.
I thought the video at the link showed the fact check showed the ad was to say the least misleading. The wife was dx with cancer on 2006, years after the husband lost his job. Then there is this:
QuoteMr. Soptic said that his wife was receiving health insurance through her employer at the time he lost his job at GST Steel, though she later suffered an injury, left her job and lost her insurance coverage. He could not say precisely when this occurred.
Mr. Soptic said that after he lost his job, he found work as a school custodian about six months later and had the option to put her on his insurance plan. But he opted not to, he said, because he could not afford the more than $350 monthly premium on the $25,000 salary he was making, on top of paying his mortgage and a daughter's college tuition. Ilyona Soptic was diagnosed with cancer in 2006 and died that year.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444900304577577600987192174.html
I am hoping this does not get all JtP. I think this guy got used.
So, had the guy not lost his job and stayed with the company for 20-30 years like most in that industry, he would have had insurance when his wife lost hers?
Everyone is using everyone. The one thing for sure is that the people at the bottom get used the most.
Quote from: AquaMan on August 09, 2012, 07:37:44 AM
So, had the guy not lost his job and stayed with the company for 20-30 years like most in that industry, he would have had insurance when his wife lost hers?
Everyone is using everyone. The one thing for sure is that the people at the bottom get used the most.
Eat your cake!
So. . .this has now turned into a horrible backfire. It's almost worse then when President Obama makes an economic speech.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-camp-denies-knowledge-cancer-tale-told-may-195237581.html
Oops? President Barack Obama's re-election campaign washed its hands Wednesday of an independent group's vicious (and misleading) ad effectively blaming Mitt Romney for the death of a laid-off steelworker's wife from cancer. Campaign officials flatly denied any knowledge of the facts in the case—but it turns out the widower told the same story on an Obama campaign conference call in mid-May. (The Obama campaign responded late in the day: See update below).
"We have nothing, no involvement, with any ads that are done by Priorities USA. We don't have any knowledge of the story of the family," Obama campaign spokeswoman Jen Psaki told reporters aboard Air Force One on Wednesday.
The ad features Joe Soptic, who lost his job and his health benefits after Romney's Bain Capital closed the GST Steel plant in Kansas City, Mo., in 2001. Soptic later told CNN that his wife had health insurance through her own employer from that point to 2002 or 2003, when she left that job because of an injury—a detail that undermines the ad's heartbreaking narrative.
"I don't know the facts about when Mr. Soptic's wife got sick, or the facts about his health insurance," deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter told CNN on Wednesday.
But there's a problem. As Politico first reported, Soptic told essentially the same story in a May 14, 2012, conference call hosted by the Obama campaign.
This is despicable. Not only is the ad false, but there is now clear evidence that the administration was cooperating with the SuperPAC to promote the story, and now they are simply denying knowledge of it, even though there is plenty of film and audio to the contrary. Now they're in to the lies so deep that all they can do is deflect or lie more. This will be another one for the history books!
Quote from: Gaspar on August 09, 2012, 07:39:32 AM
So. . .this has now turned into a horrible backfire. It's almost worse then when President Obama makes an economic speech.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-camp-denies-knowledge-cancer-tale-told-may-195237581.html
Oops? President Barack Obama's re-election campaign washed its hands Wednesday of an independent group's vicious (and misleading) ad effectively blaming Mitt Romney for the death of a laid-off steelworker's wife from cancer. Campaign officials flatly denied any knowledge of the facts in the case—but it turns out the widower told the same story on an Obama campaign conference call in mid-May. (The Obama campaign responded late in the day: See update below).
"We have nothing, no involvement, with any ads that are done by Priorities USA. We don't have any knowledge of the story of the family," Obama campaign spokeswoman Jen Psaki told reporters aboard Air Force One on Wednesday.
The ad features Joe Soptic, who lost his job and his health benefits after Romney's Bain Capital closed the GST Steel plant in Kansas City, Mo., in 2001. Soptic later told CNN that his wife had health insurance through her own employer from that point to 2002 or 2003, when she left that job because of an injury—a detail that undermines the ad's heartbreaking narrative.
"I don't know the facts about when Mr. Soptic's wife got sick, or the facts about his health insurance," deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter told CNN on Wednesday.
But there's a problem. As Politico first reported, Soptic told essentially the same story in a May 14, 2012, conference call hosted by the Obama campaign.
This is despicable. Not only is the ad false, but there is now clear evidence that the administration was cooperating with the SuperPAC to promote the story, and now they are simply denying knowledge of it, even though there is plenty of film and audio to the contrary. Now they're in to the lies so deep that all they can do is deflect or lie more. This will be another one for the history books!
Were you this upset when the lies about Kerry and the Swiftboating were paid for, fabricated and spread as truth?
Were you this upset when Romney purposefully cut sentences out of Obama speeches to totally change the meanings and ran the ads even though he was informed by reputable sources that they were in fact lies?
Is this bigger than Watergate?!
Quote from: AquaMan on August 09, 2012, 07:59:46 AM
Were you this upset when the lies about Kerry and the Swiftboating were paid for, fabricated and spread as truth?
Why? There were as many who claimed that Kerry's service, and medals were "exaggerated" as there were that said he deserved them. The other captains, his commander, and the doctor that treated him for his injury, as well as his own crew members were part of the attack against him. They were not fabricating dates and times, or attempting to show that he killed someone.
Were you this upset when Romney purposefully cut sentences out of Obama speeches to totally change the meanings and ran the ads even though he was informed by reputable sources that they were in fact lies?
Pot meet kettle. "I like firing people." Again, no one was implicating that President Obama was causing folks to die.
Is this bigger than Watergate?!
No. We are far too callus to the Chicago way. I think the President could probably come out and say just about anything, or lie about anything without eroding much support. If it doesn't hit Comedy Central, MSNBC, or air at the same time as Jersey Shore or Dancing With The Stars, the casual Obama supporter won't hear about it.
Quoteor air at the same time as Jersey Shore or Dancing With The Stars
I'm sure the Fox news watchers tend to lean more that way.
Gas, those involved with fabricating the Swiftboating have fessed up. Its past history. You keep thinking that your guys are above the fray and besieged by evil. It suits your politics but has no basis in reality. Glad to have gotten your juices flowing this morning.
You could learn a lot by simply reading and listening to the lyrics of "Sweet Dreams" by the Eurythmics.
Quote from: AquaMan on August 09, 2012, 08:50:08 AM
You could learn a lot by simply reading and listening to the lyrics of "Sweet Dreams" by the Eurythmics.
Sweet dreams are made of these
Who am I to disagree?
Travel the world and the seven seas
Everybody's looking for something
Some of them want to use you
Some of them want to get used by you
Some of them want to abuse you
Some of them want to be abused
Sweet dreams are made of these
Who am I to disagree?
Travel the world and the seven seas
Everybody's looking for something
Some of them want to use you
Some of them want to get used by you
Some of them want to abuse you
Some of them want to be abused
I wanna use you and abuse you
I wanna know what's inside you
Movin' on, movin' on, movin' on
Movin' on, movin' on, movin' on, movin' on
Sweet dreams are made of these
Who am I to disagree?
Travel the world and the seven seas
Everybody's looking for something
Some of them want to use you
Some of them want to get used by you
Some of them want to abuse you
Some of them want to be abused
I'm gonna use you and abuse you
I'm gonna know what's inside
Gonna use you and abuse you
I'm gonna know what's inside you
Hold your head up,
Movin' on
Hold your head up,
Movin' on.
Thanks. Simple lyrics but meaningful when attached to the melody.
Quote from: AquaMan on August 09, 2012, 09:07:24 AM
Hold your head up,
Movin' on
Hold your head up,
Movin' on.
Thanks. Simple lyrics but meaningful when attached to the melody.
I'm more of a Manson fan.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 09, 2012, 08:24:15 AM
AM and Gas exchange;
Were you this upset when the lies about Kerry and the Swiftboating were paid for, fabricated and spread as truth?
Why? There were as many who claimed that Kerry's service, and medals were "exaggerated" as there were that said he deserved them. The other captains, his commander, and the doctor that treated him for his injury, as well as his own crew members were part of the attack against him. They were not fabricating dates and times, or attempting to show that he killed someone.
It is amazing how Gas can put stuff out like this with a seemingly straight face. There is so much more than adequate information regarding this that he is either not doing ANY research, or is intentionally lying.
As fro the "doctor who treated him" - well that guy is named Louis Leston. The actual name on the report, signed and delivered by the guy who actually treated the wound was J. C. Carreon. Where was Leston? And what was he really doing?
As for the Bronze Star incident - well two of the "Swift Boaters" claim that there was no hostile fire during the incident. Despite the FACT that one of those was seriously wounded by this "no hostile fire" (concussion) and the other who left the scene before it was over to accompany the wounded. Sounds like a dereliction of duty or desertion in the face of the enemy by one of those lying about Kerry....
The other boat commander (Don Droz) told his wife the same story that Kerry tells. (He was KIA later.)
Jim Rassmann, the Special Forces captain Kerry rescued, wrote, "Machine-gun fire erupted from both banks of the river. ... When I surfaced, all the Swift boats had left, and I was alone taking fire from both banks. To avoid the incoming fire, I repeatedly swam under water."
Jim Russell, the Psychological Operations Officer of the unit, who was on PCF-43, wrote "All the time we were taking small arms fire from the beach... Anyone who doesn't think that we were being fired upon must have been on a different river."
Why do you keep repeating the lies about that?? (Trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here....)
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 09, 2012, 03:12:38 PM
AM and Gas exchange;
Were you this upset when the lies about Kerry and the Swiftboating were paid for, fabricated and spread as truth?
Why? There were as many who claimed that Kerry's service, and medals were "exaggerated" as there were that said he deserved them. The other captains, his commander, and the doctor that treated him for his injury, as well as his own crew members were part of the attack against him. They were not fabricating dates and times, or attempting to show that he killed someone.
It is amazing how Gas can put stuff out like this with a seemingly straight face. There is so much more than adequate information regarding this that he is either not doing ANY research, or is intentionally lying.
As fro the "doctor who treated him" - well that guy is named Louis Leston. The actual name on the report, signed and delivered by the guy who actually treated the wound was J. C. Carreon. Where was Leston? And what was he really doing?
As for the Bronze Star incident - well two of the "Swift Boaters" claim that there was no hostile fire during the incident. Despite the FACT that one of those was seriously wounded by this "no hostile fire" (concussion) and the other who left the scene before it was over to accompany the wounded. Sounds like a dereliction of duty or desertion in the face of the enemy by one of those lying about Kerry....
The other boat commander (Don Droz) told his wife the same story that Kerry tells. (He was KIA later.)
Jim Rassmann, the Special Forces captain Kerry rescued, wrote, "Machine-gun fire erupted from both banks of the river. ... When I surfaced, all the Swift boats had left, and I was alone taking fire from both banks. To avoid the incoming fire, I repeatedly swam under water."
Jim Russell, the Psychological Operations Officer of the unit, who was on PCF-43, wrote "All the time we were taking small arms fire from the beach... Anyone who doesn't think that we were being fired upon must have been on a different river."
Why do you keep repeating the lies about that?? (Trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here....)
Perhaps that is a good example to compare by. So lets compare.
The Swiftboat folks, some composed of other captains, some of people who served with him, and some probably operatives for the Koch brothers. Weave this story about Kerry being undeserving of his combat decorations. On the other side of the story are several who provide facts and a timeline that supports his story and refute the attack. It's damaging to his campaign, but at the end of the day his supporters have few doubts that he is in the right. Both sides to this day still claim their side is right.
Fast forward. The Obama Campaign finds a guy to claim that Mitt Romney caused his wife's death. Several months later, Obama's super PAC has this guy film an ad. The only true part of the story is that Joe's wife died of cancer. It's not a case of he-said-she-said. The facts and the timeline are the facts and the timeline. Romney left in 1999. Joe was laid off in 2001. Joe's Wife was still working and insured until 2003. She was diagnosed and passed away in 2006. You can't connect the dots because they are on different pieces of paper!
It's like blaming the 2008 recession on Rafael Ruiz Perdigones and Antonio Romero Monge because their 1994 hit "Macarena" failed to make platinum.
Bain was started with blood money. Not good. Let's see them lie around this too.
http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/item/11656-blood-money-helped-start-bain-capital
Back to the main issue of the thread.
Obviously the premise of the ad is pretty ridiculous. This is not the first this has happened. However, the interesting thing to me is that this guy Joe Soptic has now appeared in ads for the Obama campaign and for the super PAC. It even appears that both ads may have been filmed at the same time. I don't know the specifics of the rules with super PACs but I was under the impression that the campaigns could have nothing to do with the PACs.
And instead of throwing the swift boating what not in there, why not compare what Romney has done to Obama? Apples to apples.
It is quit comical to see team Obama try to pick away at what appears on the outside to be a pretty straight laced candidate like Romney. It's like they decided that they can't find any skeletons so they will just create some. For someone who claimed to be above board (Obama) he has truly been trolling the swamp lands this time around. To date, Romney has been pretty respectable in this regard.
Quote from: erfalf on August 09, 2012, 04:11:55 PM
To date, Romney has been pretty respectable in this regard.
Santorum, Gingrich and Perry would disagree with you. Romney was ruthless during the primaries.
And in regards to taking Obama out of context in the "you didn't build that" bit. I still think it is not entirely out of context. You all know how individual responsibility is something that resonates with Republican voters, and Obama's speech in my opinion was trying to make the point that nothing is possible without government. I believe it is the other way around, government does not exist without the people. So while it may have been out of context in some of you all's opinion, it was the most succinct line to convey the message in the whole speech. And it really did not distort the actual meaning all that much.
And to top it off none of those adds portrayed or inferred a democrat a) killing granny, b) killing wives c) boxing granny. Gotta give props for that huh? :)
Quote from: RecycleMichael on August 09, 2012, 04:15:25 PM
Santorum, Gingrich and Perry would disagree with you. Romney was ruthless during the primaries.
What did he do to them. Gingrich has been pretty open about saying that Romney was ruthless in that he wanted to win, but not that he did anything underhanded.
Quote from: DolfanBob on August 09, 2012, 03:57:11 PM
Charles or Marilyn?
Musically, Marilyn. I found Charles' attempts shallow and pedantic.
Er, Laugh.
Landslide coming.....
Quote from: erfalf on August 09, 2012, 04:18:23 PM
What did he do to them. Gingrich has been pretty open about saying that Romney was ruthless in that he wanted to win, but not that he did anything underhanded.
It was very, very negative.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/31/romney-ramps-up-attack-ads-against-gingrich-to-unprecedented-levels.html
94% of the ads bought in Florida were negative ads.
Romney ain't afraid to go negative and him and republican PAC will go after Obama.
Obama and democrat PAC money will do the same.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on August 09, 2012, 04:50:49 PM
Romney ain't afraid to go negative and him and republican PAC will go after Obama.
Obama and democrat PAC money will do the same.
Why would Obama and democrat PAC money go after Obama? Seems kind of counterproductive.
;D
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 09, 2012, 05:57:45 PM
Why would Obama and democrat PAC money go after Obama? Seems kind of counterproductive.
It's no secret that the liberals hate him with the passion of 999 fiery suns. (Romney only gets one extra fiery sun of hatred)
Romney implicated in Jon Benet Ramsey's death....
http://www.theonion.com/articles/romney-murdered-jonbenet-ramsey-new-obama-campaign,29114/
Quote from: RecycleMichael on August 09, 2012, 04:50:49 PM
It was very, very negative.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/31/romney-ramps-up-attack-ads-against-gingrich-to-unprecedented-levels.html
94% of the ads bought in Florida were negative ads.
Romney ain't afraid to go negative and him and republican PAC will go after Obama.
Obama and democrat PAC money will do the same.
Quoting an source that is bent on destroying the republican candidate doesn't really go all that far in perfuading me that he was somehow overly negative. While pointing out the negatively perceived flaws of opposing candidates is negative, what we are talking about in regards to the Obama PAC ad is a little beyond the pale. Linking a candidate by way of a firm he used to work at to the death of a woman who in all likelihood would have died anyways. Playing ads depicting Gingrich saying what Gingrich says during the primary I imagine will seem extremely tame in comparison to what I have a feeling we will see the next two months.
What I did think was comical about some of the Romney negative ads during the primary was that many of the clips/quotes came from decidedly left wing sources.
Would it be fair for Romney to put our a similar add using employees of companies that this administration has put out of business?
Its a weak argument Erfalf. No one is going to engage in it because the nature of politics is negative.(I take that back. They shouldn't, but everyone seems to like to engage in it!) It is indefensible but systemic. If you don't participate, you're a loser with no guts for a fight. If you do participate it lowers your integrity but wins you office. If you stand back and let others do it for you it saves you some face but not much. I have never seen or read about a national political race that was positive, honest, direct, and based on principle. Even during war time races have been case histories in lies, propaganda and distraction.
IOW, unless you just like circular causation conversations, its worthless. At least the topic headline is humorous and unwittingly makes my point.
That was hilarious!
(http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/387039_432489333460372_1238184443_n.jpg)
^^
Even in a joke pic he's boring and losing the election.
Quote from: Townsend on August 10, 2012, 11:56:09 AM
Thing's got a new job.
That is funny. You can probably guess that I think it's less than truthful but it is funny.
Looks like the Obama campaign is matching blow for blow on misleading negative ads.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/10/factcheck-org-calls-low-blow-new-obama-son-of-boss-attack-ad/ (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/10/factcheck-org-calls-low-blow-new-obama-son-of-boss-attack-ad/)
FactCheck.org calls 'low blow' new Obama 'Son of Boss' attack adQuote(CNN) – An independent fact-checking group, FactCheck.org, claimed Friday that a new Obama campaign ad attacking Mitt Romney over a tax avoidance scandal is "badly misleading."
"The Obama campaign strikes another low blow with a TV spot accusing Mitt Romney of 'personally' approving a notoriously abusive tax-avoidance scheme and suggesting he may have paid 'zero' tax," the FactCheck.org article states. "That's badly misleading."
– Follow the Ticker on Twitter: @PoliticalTicker
– Check out the CNN Electoral Map and Calculator and game out your own strategy for November.
The spot, released Thursday by the president's re-election campaign, points to an op-ed by two tax experts who claim Romney was involved with the reporting of a $70 million fictional tax loss when he served on the board of Marriott International from 1993 to 1998.
"During that period, Marriott engaged in a series of complex and high-profile maneuvers, including 'Son of Boss,' a notoriously abusive prepackaged tax shelter that investment banks and accounting firms marketed to corporations such as Marriott," states the op-ed, which was published this week on CNN.com.
The authors –Peter C. Canellos, former chair of the New York State Bar Association Tax Section, and Edward D. Kleinbard, former chief of staff of Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation–wrote that the "Son of Boss" tax shelter marked "perhaps the largest tax avoidance scheme in history" and cost the U.S. "billions in lost corporate tax revenues."
While Romney did not face criminal charges, unlike others linked to the scandal, the authors wrote "his endorsement of this stratagem provides insight into Romney's professional ethics and attitude toward tax compliance obligations."
But FactCheck.org said Friday that Marriott wasn't the only company involved in the "Son of Boss" scheme.
"Viewers (of the ad) may get the mistaken impression that Romney – actually Marriott – is solely to blame for 'one of the largest tax avoidance schemes in history.' Not true. It was a strategy used by many taxpayers that resulted in billions in lost revenue," the article states.
The Obama ad also doesn't give context about Marriott, FactCheck said, and leads the viewer to believe it was Romney who personally handled the deal.
"The tax scheme didn't benefit Romney, and the fictional losses were not his," FactCheck says. "The company involved was Marriott Corp, not Romney or Bain Capital. But the ad gives no hint of this."
Furthermore, the website states that the term "tax avoidance" is technically legal, a distinction not easily communicated in the new spot.
"Combining 'avoidance' with loaded terms like 'scheme' and 'notorious' and 'scandal' and 'fictional losses' further suggests possible tax fraud, but there's no evidence Romney broke any law," the article states.
The spot comes at a time when top Democrats and Obama's campaign have actively worked to raise suspicion about Romney's tax history. They've unleashed a flood of calls urging the presumptive GOP nominee to release more tax returns as a way to answer questions about his financial portfolio.
The Republican candidate, whose estimated worth is valued up to $256 million, has made public his tax return for 2010 and an estimate for 2011, with a pledge to release the full year once the documents are complete. He filed an extension for October.
While Romney says he will not release further taxes than what he has already made public, a majority of Americans disagree with his decision. According to a CNN/ORC International poll released Thursday, 63% of Americans said Romney should release additional tax returns.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 10, 2012, 01:44:56 PM
(http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/387039_432489333460372_1238184443_n.jpg)
I'm not quite sure why we'd want a President who was one of the people in the industry that helped toss us off the cliff, but whatever.
Three polls show Obama widening lead over Romney
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/three-polls-show-obama-widening-lead-over-romney/2012/08/10/be8f68f4-e2e3-11e1-a25e-15067bb31849_story.html?wpisrc
Goldwater II....landslide.
Good point Nate. Why would people still support this clown in the white house after what he did. Here is the "ouch my @ss" ad of the day:
Maybe Mitt should run with this little gem. The White House sure does keep him under wraps.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2186782/Obamas-slumdog-brother-Meet-hopeless-drunk-Nairobi-shanty-town-U-S-Presidents-BROTHER.html
Quote from: DolfanBob on August 10, 2012, 05:26:30 PM
Maybe Mitt should run with this little gem. The White House sure does keep him under wraps.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2186782/Obamas-slumdog-brother-Meet-hopeless-drunk-Nairobi-shanty-town-U-S-Presidents-BROTHER.html
How does the White House keep him under wraps? I think Mitten's 10 grandparents are much more tribal.
Quote from: DolfanBob on August 10, 2012, 05:26:30 PM
Maybe Mitt should run with this little gem. The White House sure does keep him under wraps.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2186782/Obamas-slumdog-brother-Meet-hopeless-drunk-Nairobi-shanty-town-U-S-Presidents-BROTHER.html
Looks like the Obamavilles of the U.S.
Quote from: guido911 on August 10, 2012, 04:47:36 PM
Good point Nate. Why would people still support this clown in the white house after what he did.
After what, manning up and doing what needed to be done to keep us from ending up all the way at the bottom? I don't think either is a terribly great candidate. Obama is too interested in compromise to be really effective (although it's possible he learned his lesson) and Romney can't take a consistent position to save his life. It seems like every time he voices a complaint about Obama there's a video from a while back that has Romney clearly saying that whatever he's complaining about is actually the right thing to do.
At least Obama has thus far remained mostly consistent in his views.
Quote from: nathanm on August 10, 2012, 07:09:20 PM
At least Obama has thus far remained mostly consistent in his views.
Are you talking about President Obama? Some other Obama?
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 10, 2012, 09:24:53 PM
Are you talking about President Obama? Some other Obama?
He's talking about his "views" not his campaign promises, stance on issues, or economic pledges.
His views, born of Marx, steeped in Alinski, and nurtured by Ayers. I think those have been fairly consistent.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
(http://globetribune.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/forward3.png)
Quote from: Gaspar on August 13, 2012, 07:44:26 AM
He's talking about his "views" not his campaign promises, stance on issues, or economic pledges.
His views, born of Marx, steeped in Alinski, and nurtured by Ayers. I think those have been fairly consistent.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
(http://globetribune.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/forward3.png)
And yet again, the clairvoyant speaks. You might need an office on Bourbon Street.
Quote from: Hoss on August 13, 2012, 08:42:32 AM
And yet again, the clairvoyant speaks. You might need an office on Bourbon Street.
At least once a week, Gaspar further reinforces my belief that a significant portion of the US populace is completely unable to see the truth beyond their ideology. (I prefer to believe he's just screwing with us, but I'll go on anyway) I was listening to an economics podcast on the AEI's website and the economist they were talking to was eviscerating the Fed for its refusal to use the monetary policy tools at its disposal. Lots of stuff to agree with. Then he made the bizarre statement that fiscal stimulus doesn't work. This is in direct contravention to even Milton Friedman's math, not to mention simple thought experiments.
When very smart people can't see their hand in front of their face when their ideology says it's not there, I can only imagine what must be going on in other parts of the electorate. Sadly, I don't have to imagine. I was reading an article a couple of weeks back about the difficulties pollsters had with the Ryan budget. When they described some of the details to people, many refused to believe that the survey takers were telling the truth.
Are the issues too complex? Is our educational system to blame? Do people not have time to become informed? Is the mess that is the partisan media to blame? When we can't even agree on the reality we're inhabiting, how can we possibly tackle any of the major issues that need to be dealt with?
Quote from: nathanm on August 13, 2012, 09:20:18 AM
This is in direct contravention to even Milton Friedman's math, not to mention simple thought experiments.
From what I understand of Friedman, he felt government spending of any kind was detrimental to the economy. It cause dislocation. To be clear, he obviously didn't believe that the fed government should eliminate all spending. But his theory was that additional government spending usually was more of a problem than a benefit.
Quote from: erfalf on August 13, 2012, 09:26:45 AM
From what I understand of Friedman, he felt government spending of any kind was detrimental to the economy. It cause dislocation. To be clear, he obviously didn't believe that the fed government should eliminate all spending. But his theory was that additional government spending usually was more of a problem than a benefit.
Indeed. His
opinion was that the government
should not stimulate. Not that it has no effect, as many on the right claim. The math works the same whether the central bank injects new money or the government liberates stagnant money by spending it on things. The money could come from the central bank, from people who want to buy USG bonds for other reasons, from taxes, or anywhere. Obviously, where it comes from can make a difference, but when the options are central bank's money from thin air and government's money borrowed from people who refuse to invest it in anything less liquid than US government debt, it makes no difference.
He thought it was less effective than monetary policy, not that it was completely ineffective.
Monetary tools only work in an economic environment starved of cash. Companies have plenty of cash. Uncertainty is the problem, and all mechanical easing will accomplish is short term movement with no real momentum.
We have a crisis of confidence. Not confidence in the economy as much as confidence in leadership. Looming debt and a healthcare program that no one can wrap their heads around even enough to provide a short term forecast of expenses. As long as everyone is waiting for the other shoe to drop, no one is willing to spend. Furthermore, additional attempts at stimulus only serve to fuel uncertainty and reinforce the failures.
The issues are actually quite simple, as are the solutions. Emancipate markets, eliminate the mechanisms of uncertainty, and pledge to dismantle the burdens imposed. Unfortunately, doing so, means plotting a path diametrically opposite of the philosophy of the current administration, therefore, it will not happen on President Obama's watch.
Wether you support him or not, deep down you have to understand that an additional term for this president will be accompanied by a poorly performing economy, and perhaps another recession. The problem is an emotional one now, not mechanical.
As for Ryan's budget, I see it as rather one dimensional and simple. It isolates the primary problem, Medicare, and fixes it. It focuses on nothing else. Unfortunately I believe there are additional budgetary concerns that should also be addressed, or they risk growing into the same size problem. What I do like about Ryan's solution is that is introduces a degree of free-market competition back into healthcare, still somewhat similar to the health exchange program in Obamacare, but different in that no such structure existed before. It also removes a massive amount of administrative expense through the transition to a vouchered program. Currently Medicare boasts of an army of nurses and bean-counters responsible for review of individual coding. With Ryan's plan, that disappears (or at least transitions to the private sector).
Economic history is a long record of government policies that failed because they were designed with a bold disregard for the laws of economics. – Ludwig von Mises
Quote from: nathanm on August 13, 2012, 09:20:18 AM
At least once a week, Gaspar further reinforces my belief that a significant portion of the US populace is completely unable to see the truth beyond their ideology. (I prefer to believe he's just screwing with us, but I'll go on anyway) I was listening to an economics podcast on the AEI's website and the economist they were talking to was eviscerating the Fed for its refusal to use the monetary policy tools at its disposal. Lots of stuff to agree with. Then he made the bizarre statement that fiscal stimulus doesn't work. This is in direct contravention to even Milton Friedman's math, not to mention simple thought experiments.
When very smart people can't see their hand in front of their face when their ideology says it's not there, I can only imagine what must be going on in other parts of the electorate. Sadly, I don't have to imagine. I was reading an article a couple of weeks back about the difficulties pollsters had with the Ryan budget. When they described some of the details to people, many refused to believe that the survey takers were telling the truth.
Are the issues too complex? Is our educational system to blame? Do people not have time to become informed? Is the mess that is the partisan media to blame? When we can't even agree on the reality we're inhabiting, how can we possibly tackle any of the major issues that need to be dealt with?
I think he really does believe a good portion of that stuff, despite 80+ years of evidence to the contrary. When something is repeated to you long enough, it starts to become true. (Like the lies that tax cuts bring in more revenue, or that gun control laws reduce crime.)
Direct experience with family members and friends/acquaintances show that no, they don't believe the survey takers are telling the truth - it is unimaginable that these people actually believe, let alone act on, what they say (Inhofe, Sullivan, Ryan, Murdoch and their ilk.)
It is the problem of the concentration of information flow. And getting worse.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 13, 2012, 09:52:03 AM
Monetary tools only work in an economic environment starved of cash. Companies have plenty of cash. UncertaintyLack of competent management is the problem, and all mechanical easing will accomplish is short term movement with no real momentum.
Fixed it for you.
The solutions obviously are NOT that simple - else they would have worked by now. Cutting taxes without a revenue plan, and letting corporations run rampant are not solutions. They are two sources of problems.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 13, 2012, 10:00:59 AM
Fixed it for you.
The solutions obviously are NOT that simple - else they would have worked by now. Cutting taxes without a revenue plan, and letting corporations run rampant are not solutions. They are two sources of problems.
No, the source of the problem was a rather large bubble, created by government intervention. Decried against, and warned about 17 times before congress. Dismissed 17 times. Inevitable is inevitable, that's whats inevitable about it.
(http://s3.vidimg.popscreen.com/original/10/M0hoT2g1bFRhaEkx_o_barney-frank-in-2005-there-is-no-housing-bubbleflv.jpg)
You really can't make government look like the hero here. :D
"There is no bubble" - Barney Frank
Quote from: Gaspar on August 13, 2012, 09:52:03 AM
Uncertainty is the problem
Hey, we agree on something! Uncertainty is indeed a problem. As long as we continue to have an overhang of consumer debt with no end in sight and the Eurozone continues to dance around any real solution, there can be no certainty. No business in its right mind would be sitting on anything less than a mountain of cash. Do you not remember 2008, when short term lending went essentially to zero, bankrupting many businesses and nearly bankrupting a whole raft more? Cutting taxes on the wealthy and eliminating regulation does absolutely nothing to address this fundamental problem.
Quote
Looming debt and a healthcare program that no one can wrap their heads around even enough to provide a short term forecast of expenses. As long as everyone is waiting for the other shoe to drop, no one is willing to spend. Furthermore, additional attempts at stimulus only serve to fuel uncertainty and reinforce the failures.
There have been no additional attempts at stimulus. We even had a tax increase thanks to the Republicans in Congress. Facts unfortunately seem to evade any consideration in your grand philosophical screeds. You may not remember this because you seem to have forgotten all of the Bush years, but the budget and health care have both been issues for the past decade. Perhaps you don't remember all the stories of massive and unpredictable increases in health care premiums year after year. None of this is new. There is no good reason to believe that either of these issues are a significant economic drag at the present time.
Quote
The issues are actually quite simple, as are the solutions. Emancipate markets, eliminate the mechanisms of uncertainty, and pledge to dismantle the burdens imposed.
Funny how this is your refrain no matter how the economy is performing, and no matter what the problem is to be solved. When the economy is doing well, deregulate and lower taxes. When it's doing poorly, deregulate and lower taxes. If inflation is high, deregulate and lower taxes. If inflation is low, deregulate and lower taxes. I guess when all you've got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Gaspar, if you still believe the government created the housing bubble, you are absolutely one of the people who refuses to face facts. The fact of the matter is that most subprime lending was not done by regulated entities under the CRA. The fact of the matter is that during the bubbliest of the bubble years, Fannie and Freddie's lending was at its lowest relative to non-GSE funding. Below 50%, IIRC. The fact of the matter is that the only reason the banks aren't where Fannie and Freddie are is that we decided that the Fed should prop them up with trillions of dollars worth of lending, and not make them solely use equity funding.
Government regulators dropped the ball. That is not at all the same thing as creating the crisis, and you know it.
I know no presidential candidate, vice-presidential candidate, political party, et al really cares about you, me or our families.
I just can't want someone to win when their minions posts things like:
QuoteLets put a AMERICAN back in the White House and give Kenya their GOAT Organizer back !!
I don't want them to think they have a call to arms with any kind of win.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 13, 2012, 10:06:23 AM
No, the source of the problem was a rather large bubble, created by government intervention. Decried against, and warned about 17 times before congress. Dismissed 17 times. Inevitable is inevitable, that's whats inevitable about it.
You really can't make government look like the hero here. :D
Just to be crystal clear, I certainly wouldn't lift a finger to make the government look like a hero.
As for the bubble, well that is just one of many items that have been decried against and warned about for decades. And yet, so many companies still seem to continue and operate and thrive. If a company cannot figure out how to make the business work when the economic world around it is improving every day, as has been happening for over 3 years, then that company probably doesn't deserve to continue in business. In particular, as relates to hiring people to do a job that needs to be done right now - well, the "uncertainty" defense is beyond lame.
Specifically, Gaspar, you have mentioned looking for people a couple of times. Why would you need to hire someone if there is all that uncertainty?? Just make the existing personnel do until there is less uncertainty. They must have plenty of hours in the evening and very early morning when they can do more.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 14, 2012, 01:38:26 PM
Specifically, Gaspar, you have mentioned looking for people a couple of times. Why would you need to hire someone if there is all that uncertainty?? Just make the existing personnel do until there is less uncertainty. They must have plenty of hours in the evening and very early morning when they can do more.
Funny that you asked. We opted to hold off until someone can give us an idea of costs are going to be. We can contract until then. We're also splitting some contract labor with one of our biggest venders. Everyone is waiting.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 14, 2012, 01:43:45 PM
Funny that you asked. We opted to hold off until someone can give us an idea of costs are going to be. We can contract until then. We're also splitting some contract labor with one of our biggest venders. Everyone is waiting.
But you still hired someone - as a contractor. Most likely costing dramatically more, incrementally, than hiring a full time, but it is expedient. And your vendor has either hired, or temped out the work.
We kind of do similar thing. At any given time, probably 5% are temps. Then become full time after a time. One of the things about seasonal manufacturing is that we can "load level" by building stock during off times, then run behind during peak, but have inventory to cover the difference. Works well. Saves us a ton of money and keeps the employee level very near the needed levels.
Waiting is still a retrograde maneuver at this point - you can be getting someone up to speed, getting "ahead" on projects, maybe put some "infrastructure" in place. Test, integration, documentation, ?? - since I don't really know what your company does, hard to say what would benefit by some extra man hours (or woman hours), but there IS something. At this point, the only problem is that you probably won't be able to get that added resource as cheap as you could have some time ago.
Now, if you market is going away, or someone taking business and/or the company is less "survivable", then yeah, no point in hiring anyone at all...just ride it into the ground and then look for the next big thing...
Obama, Romney Campaign Ads Hit New Level of Dishonestyhttp://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/susan-milligan/2012/08/15/obama-romney-campaign-ads-hit-new-level-of-dishonesty (http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/susan-milligan/2012/08/15/obama-romney-campaign-ads-hit-new-level-of-dishonesty)
(http://www.usnews.com/pubdbimages/image/35056/EC_120808_summers425x283.jpg)
QuoteThe most frustrating job in politics or journalism these days must be working for the campaign ad fact-checking operations at major newspapers and places like PolitiFact. Oh, it's not that these scrubbers lack material—quite the opposite, in fact. But it seems it doesn't matter what they find or report. People want to believe what they want to believe, and all of the cold, hard facts in the world won't shake that. The fact that a substantial group of people still believes President Barack Obama is a Muslim proves that. But this campaign has taken the misinformation to a new level.
First, there's an ad on behalf of the Obama campaign, done by the super PAC Priorities USA, that essentially blames Mitt Romney for a woman's cancer death. The ad is misleading on so many levels, it's difficult to know how to dissect it. The man in the ad says he lost his job at a steel company Bain Capital had a part in closing, lost his health insurance, and years later, his wife died of cancer. Iffy enough as it is, the ad is even worse—Romney was working on the Olympics at the time of the steel plant closure, the wife had gotten health insurance from her own employer, and it appears she waited a while before seeking treatment. It's a sad story, to be sure, and we can all feel sorry for this widower. But to throw her blood on Romney's face is over the top.
It doesn't matter, either, that the ad was roundly criticized in the media and by the Romney campaign. In fact, the controversy just ended up drawing more attention to the ad, which was only available on the web anyway.
Then we have Romney's campaign accusing Obama of trying to "gut" welfare reform by taking out the requirement that people work or enter a job training program. This is patently untrue; the Obama administration merely issued rules allowing states to get waivers so they have more flexibility in reaching the goals and rules of the law (oh—and Romney sought a different sort of waiver on the welfare reform law when he was governor of Massachusetts). Obama, in this case, was forced to run his own ad repudiating the Romney ad.
Maybe the ads will work; maybe they won't. But it made a lot for money for campaign ad-makers, and both ads helped reassure committed Romney and Obama supporters of what they believe—even if it's not based in fact. So either Obama is just another liberal giving away hard-working taxpayers' money to (substantially African-American) poor people, or Romney's a mean-spirited liar.
Is it any wonder people are turned off by politics?
OK, let's just imagine if this shoe were on the other foot and it was POTUS OBAMA raising funds utilizing this character.
Quote
TUE AUG 14, 2012 AT 03:12 AM PDT
Romney event hosted by convicted cocaine trafficker
Heckuva way to start your Florida campaign swing, Willard.
According to local and national press reports, the Republican nominee held a campaign event in Miami last night hosted by Reinaldo Bermudez, a convicted cocaine trafficker.
The AP reports that Bermudez was part of a conspiracy uncovered by a federal investigation that seized over a ton of cocaine smuggled from Colombia:
Bermudez was identified as one of 12 people accused in a Colombian drug smuggling operation. The arrests followed a seven-month investigation led by the FBI and U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Agents seized about 2,850 pounds of cocaine at three South Florida ports over several months.
Bermudez pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine and served three years in a federal prison.
The campaign has thus far not answered media inquiries about Romney's ties to Bermudez, but the cocaine trafficker was succinct in his explanation: "Here in Miami there are a lot people with money who have had problems with the law."
Well -- Willard's gonna need a lot of that money. He's running for office, for Pete's sake!
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/14/1119948/-Romney-event-hosted-by-convicted-cocaine-trafficker
I plan to keep pounding away at the mirror reflecting back on all those viscous mean spirited spineless people who convicted POTUS OBAMAS' affiliation with Wright, Ayers etc. We have grounds to ask, "what's up with this connection?" If Mittens were in bed with past drug traffickers then would that mean he has been bought by them? If he were Amish, would that mean his intention might be to take us back to the horse and buggy? I just wonder if his blatant and constant lying is a product of his church or being a descender of multiple partners.
If Bermudez served his time, he's not currently engaged in the illicit drug trade, and he's not funneling drug funds into Romney's campaign, what's the issue?
I have a better question for you Clown:
If the venture capital industry and Bain Capital in particular are so evil, what the hell is President Obama doing accepting money from Jonathan Lavine and other execs at Bain and the VC industry?
Quote from: Conan71 on August 16, 2012, 10:18:56 AM
If Bermudez served his time, he's not currently engaged in the illicit drug trade, and he's not funneling drug funds into Romney's campaign, what's the issue?
I have a better question for you Clown:
If the venture capital industry and Bain Capital in particular are so evil, what the hell is President Obama doing accepting money from Jonathan Lavine and other execs at Bain and the VC industry?
NOT ANOTHER FALSE EQUIVALENCY, COCO!
Quotehttp://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/top-obama-donor-tied-to-bain-layoffs/
Alex Stanton, a spokesperson for Bain Capitol, does not dispute that Lavine was on the board of Ampad, but insists that he had nothing to do with the workers being laid off in Marion, Indiana.
"Jonathan Lavine was not at Bain Capital when Ampad was acquired by the firm, and was not involved on the investment during the challenging situation at the Marion plant. The assertion he had any involvement with those events is totally false," said Stanton in a statement.
You do realize that to carry on lies makes you a liar too, don't you?
When will all this dishonesty stop? Nov.7th for a day....maybe.
(http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/medicare-madness-171.png)
CUT DEFENSE! If we can't afford Medicare and Social Security, which are mainly self supporting, we sure as hell can't afford to spend over half our income on defense. I'm sick of this 20% of the GDP crap. It is over half of the taxes and fees collected by the Federal government and that doesn't include costs incurred because of defense such as interest on previous spending, veterans benefits and homeland security. Hell, Eisenhower justified the Interstate system on defense. We should count it, too. Too much defense spending bankrupted the Soviet Union.
Teabaggers/GOP are such liars. The American Public will wake up to these shenanigans. And then you will witness GoldwaterII!
Quote from: Teatownclown on August 16, 2012, 11:06:33 AM
NOT ANOTHER FALSE EQUIVALENCY, COCO!
You do realize that to carry on lies makes you a liar too, don't you?
When will all this dishonesty stop? Nov.7th for a day....maybe.
CUT DEFENSE! If we can't afford Medicare and Social Security, which are mainly self supporting, we sure as hell can't afford to spend over half our income on defense. I'm sick of this 2% of the GDP crap. It is over half of the taxes and fees collected by the Federal government and that doesn't include costs incurred because of defense such as interest on previous spending, veterans benefits and homeland security. Hell, Eisenhower justified the Interstate system on defense. We should count it, too. Too much defense spending bankrupted the Soviet Union.
Teabaggers/GOP are such liars. The American Public will wake up to these shenanigans. And then you will witness GoldwaterII!
Busted on your original point so change the topic when your candidate is busted for his outright lies and hypocrisy? Were you aware that although Romney was no longer at the helm of Bain, Lavine was a director when GST was shut down (also getting back to relevance with the original thread topic.)
QuoteBut there is another major problem with linking the end of GST to Mitt Romney's work with Bain. Romney wasn't with Bain when GST went down. Romney had left Bain Capital in 1999, two years before GST's 2001 collapse.
But there was at least one guy linked to today's political landscape that was still at Bain when GST went down the tubes. Obama donor and a Bain managing director Jonathan Levine was working at Bain when GST went belly up.
So, the only person that worked for Bain when GST died was an Obama bundler that raised over $100,000 for Obama.
Curiously enough, that fact wasn't in the Obama ad video, either.
Then there's this. Even former Obama economic adviser Steve Rattner thinks the ad is "unfair."
Interesting anecdote from a former GST employee who relates how the unions were getting their fair share of blood out of GST:
QuoteAlong those lines, a former GST worker told the National Review, the unions were the ones bleeding GST dry, not Bain.
I nearly choked on my Cheerios when I read that GST employees were blaming Bain for their downfall. I worked at GST Steel in Kansas City for four months in 1997 immediately after leaving the Navy.
Why only four months? Quickly after I started, I surprised to learn that several of my fellow USW Local 13-represented employees, mostly millwrights and electricians, we're making between $100-130k. This was mainly due union-mandated overtime which, at least on a few occasions, consisted of the employees bringing in sleeping bags and pillows and sleeping in the shop. It would be hard for any company to stay competitive while paying double-time union wages to get their beauty sleep, but that's not the half of it. The union employees obviously didn't think they had it easy enough, so they went on strike in March of '97. The plant shut down for a couple of weeks until it re-started under the operation of management and non-union workers. The strike lasted a couple more months. I had a family to support, so I couldn't afford to wait. I took another (non-union) job with another company. They shuttered the plant for good a few years later.
That's Bain's fault? Just classic.
http://www.chicagonow.com/publius-forum/2012/05/fail-obama-ad-attacks-romney-for-bain-bought-company-that-laid-people-off...-but-romney-didnt-work-there-then/
Lies on top of lies.....Is this the type of people we want in the highest office of the land? It is getting to a point that those on the right will say anything to justiify their radical positions......These are the same people who had no problem running up the deficit under Bush and involving us in two unjustified wars....without the slightest intent on paying for them.
Quote from: Teatownclown on August 16, 2012, 11:24:34 AM
Lies on top of lies.....Is this the type of people we want in the highest office of the land? It is getting to a point that those on the right will say anything to justiify their radical positions......These are the same people who had no problem running up the deficit under Bush and involving us in two unjustified wars....without the slightest intent on paying for them.
Gee, what about all of Obama and his handler's lies? Is that the sort of leadership we want? Doesn't seem to have worked very well so far.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 16, 2012, 10:18:56 AM
If the venture capital industry and Bain Capital in particular are so evil, what the hell is President Obama doing accepting money from Jonathan Lavine and other execs at Bain and the VC industry?
I have an even better question for you. Why do you and the other right wingers who post around here insist on conflating LBO and VC? LBO shops make money by arbitraging the tax code and shifting risk away from equity owners and onto debt holders. VCs lose money (on average) by supporting crazy ideas in the hopes of striking it rich in the market. How long do you think any of Bain's acquisitions would have lasted were it not for the implicit 35% rebate on the cost of capital?
Quote from: Conan71 on August 16, 2012, 10:18:56 AM
If Bermudez served his time, he's not currently engaged in the illicit drug trade, and he's not funneling drug funds into Romney's campaign, what's the issue?
THAT is the attitude that thinks Oliver North is a "great American hero".
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 16, 2012, 01:01:28 PM
THAT is the attitude that thinks Oliver North is a "great American hero".
So you don't believe one can
ever repay their debt to society and start fresh?
Quote from: nathanm on August 16, 2012, 12:31:29 PM
I have an even better question for you. Why do you and the other right wingers who post around here insist on conflating LBO and VC? LBO shops make money by arbitraging the tax code and shifting risk away from equity owners and onto debt holders. VCs lose money (on average) by supporting crazy ideas in the hopes of striking it rich in the market. How long do you think any of Bain's acquisitions would have lasted were it not for the implicit 35% rebate on the cost of capital?
That has nothing to do with the question I asked and I wasn't conflating LBO and VC. Again, why is Obama accepting money from these sorts if they are evil?
Quote from: Conan71 on August 16, 2012, 01:08:45 PM
That has nothing to do with the question I asked and I wasn't conflating LBO and VC. Again, why is Obama accepting money from these sorts if they are evil?
Yes you did. He has never, as far as I'm aware, expressed any problem with VCs. He hasn't even expressed any broad disapproval of LBO outfits, only Romney's record at one So even if you generalize his attacks on Romney to the whole industry, he's still not talking about VC. Hence, you are conflating VC and LBO.
Bain was a VC firm at the outset. That changed in 1986.
Quote from: nathanm on August 16, 2012, 06:01:26 PM
Yes you did. He has never, as far as I'm aware, expressed any problem with VCs. He hasn't even expressed any broad disapproval of LBO outfits, only Romney's record at one So even if you generalize his attacks on Romney to the whole industry, he's still not talking about VC. Hence, you are conflating VC and LBO.
Bain was a VC firm at the outset. That changed in 1986.
The only thing you seem to love more than the word "conflate" is severe mental gymnastics. The Obama camp and their surrogates have run a complete smear campaign against VC since you obviously have not been paying attention to the attack ads and rhetoric from the left.
Quote
Obama's Venture-Capitalist Hypocrisy
By Alexander Kazam
May 16, 2012 6:38 P.M.
As Dan noted today, the Obama reelection campaign is increasingly backing itself into a corner with its attacks on private-equity and venture-capital industries. The Wall Street Journal pointed out yesterday that on the same night the GST Steel ad debuted, Obama was courting big private-equity donors at a $35,800-a-head fundraiser at the Manhattan home of Blackstone Group president Tony James. The Blackstone Group is one of the largest players in the private-equity business that the Obama campaign has vilified in its caricature of Romney as a "vampire" capitalist.
Worse, Blackstone is the very same firm Obama's team singled out to shame GOP donors who "benefit from betting against America."
In recent press briefings, White House press secretary Jay Carney has strayed from "official business" and waded into campaign territory in order to attack Romney's private-sector record. But that seems to be backfiring too. As one of the press corps reporters asked today, what about the risks the Obama administration took with taxpayer-funded venture-capitalist experiments like Solyndra?
Way back in August 2010, before the Solyndra scandal broke, Businessweek ran an article calling President Obama our "venture-capitalist-in-chief" for his $69 billion gamble on a "new American industrial policy" to promote green tech.
That article contained a revealing quote from a Harvard Kennedy School professor: "What determines success in industrial policy is not the ability to pick winners but the capacity to let the losers go."
The ace venture capitalists in the federal government didn't know how to let Solyndra and other losers go.
So who will win this debate? Take your pick: Romney's private-sector venture capitalism or Obama's public-sector crony capitalism.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/300202/obamas-venture-capitalist-hypocrisy-alexander-kazam
QuoteWhile President Obama's reelection campaign continues attacking Mitt Romney's former work with Bain Capital, its own spokesman and national co-chair is also a private equity manager whose firm has reportedly shut down several factories and laid off hundreds of workers.
The Daily Caller's Neil Munro reports that Federic Pena's work with Vestar Capital Partners is strikingly similar to that which Obama's campaign so openly criticizes Romney for:
Pena's private-equity role was highlighted by CompleteColorado.com, a Drudge-mimicking news aggregator.
Pena has already contributed $5,000 to Obama's campaign, even though Vestar laid off 1,000 workers from Del Monte this month, closed three factories and laid off 540 people at Solo Cup Co., and fired another 500 workers at BirdsEye food-processor in 2006, according to the report.
The Pena revelation follows reports highlighting the venture capital careers of two people on the president's jobs council.
Richard Parsons, chairman of Citigroup, is a senior adviser at Providence Equity Partners, and Mark Gallogly is a co-founder of Centerbridge Partners.
Pena joined Vestar in 1998. "Our strategy is simple: We look for strong management teams at successful companies with excellent growth potential," according to the company's website. "We back those teams with the capital and global resources they need to realize that potential and take their companies to the next level."
The company is based in Denver, in New York near Wall Street and in Boston, which is also home to Romney's Bain Capital company.
http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2012/05/25/hypocrisy-alert-obamas-top-spokesman-is-a-venture-capitalist/
Wow...the difference is really lost on you, Conan.
"Presidential campaigns have long been a magnet for big money accumulated in somewhat questionable ways. (Think of the bootlegger Joe Kennedy and how he helped his son become president.) What's different this year is the highly accelerated pace of spending spurred on by the disastrous Citizens United decision, and the legitimate civic fear that a very few, very wealthy individuals, Adelson among them, may determine not only the election outcome, but the shape of policy in the next administration."
http://forward.com/articles/160867/adelsons-ethics/
The reasons for such opposition are clearly laid out in an unofficial Mormon website that Edsall quotes: Gambling "undermines the value of work and motivates one to think that they can get something for nothing."
That describes Romney perfectly.
Quote from: Teatownclown on August 17, 2012, 11:03:15 AM
Gambling "undermines the value of work and motivates one to think that they can get something for nothing."
So if we were to completely outlaw gambling, we could cure liberalism.
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 17, 2012, 12:41:08 PM
So if we were to completely outlaw gambling, we could cure liberalism.
Nope.
As long as one person has a penny more than another there will be liberals.
As long as government offers the power to pillage to those willing to vote for it, there will be liberals.
As long as their are men and women who believe themselves solely capable of making decisions for the benefit of other individuals, there will be liberals.
Part of the burden of living in a free society is enduring those who fear that freedom. Ultimately the disease consumes the host.
Tyranny=>Revolution=>Freedom=>Dependence=>Tyranny
Liberalism can only be slowed, but the progressive march towards relinquishing more and more responsibility to government, and creating deeper and deeper dependencies, until production is only managed by a small controlled minority of individuals is natural. We've just been lucky enough to have a constitution that binds government so tightly from granting additional rights and privileges, that we're having a pretty good run of it. But, ultimately it will unravel.
Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure. – Robert LeFevre
Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry. – Thomas Jefferson
There is no worse crime than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him. – Robert Heinlein
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. – C. S. Lewis
The fact throughout history is that whenever government dominates the economic affairs of its citizenry, a free society is eroded, then destroyed, and a minority government ensues. Personal liberty without economic liberty is an absolute contradiction; the one cannot exist without the other. – William E. Simon
As the state grows, one's sense of self-ownership is destroyed, liberty is traded for "security," the human spirit diminishes, and the citizenry increasingly thinks and behaves like dependent children. – Eric Englund
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. – Alexander Tytler
Lotta' poop on this thread. Smells kinda bad. Here's some more.
Heard an interesting concept yesterday from a Harvard professor. Probably had R&R as students.
He suggests that the end result of the passion for marketizing everything that Libertarians and right wingers worship would be marketizing the vote itself. Many people don't care to vote, aren't knowledgeable enough to vote and would rather not be pushed into voting. Rather than go to the expense and hypocrisy of delegitimizing their votes, changing your positions for each state and buying all those negative ads.... they could be allowed to sell their votes at market value.
Of course, Oklahoma rates would be quite low as we're so deeply red. But in states like Florida and Ohio there could be some money to be made. If states had reciprocal rights, then OK could sell their votes to Romney supporters in Ohio and we all get rich.
Its purely market driven. Gas et al should love it.
Quote from: AquaMan on August 17, 2012, 02:32:26 PM
Lotta' poop on this thread. Smells kinda bad. Here's some more.
Heard an interesting concept yesterday from a Harvard professor. Probably had R&R as students.
He suggests that the end result of the passion for marketizing everything that Libertarians and right wingers worship would be marketizing the vote itself. Many people don't care to vote, aren't knowledgeable enough to vote and would rather not be pushed into voting. Rather than go to the expense and hypocrisy of delegitimizing their votes, changing your positions for each state and buying all those negative ads.... they could be allowed to sell their votes at market value.
Of course, Oklahoma rates would be quite low as we're so deeply red. But in states like Florida and Ohio there could be some money to be made. If states had reciprocal rights, then OK could sell their votes to Romney supporters in Ohio and we all get rich.
Its purely market driven. Gas et al should love it.
Voting is a privilege extended to the individual and regulated by the states (not the federal government). It is not transferrable.
It is the duty of the candidate to stimulate the casual voter. ;)
Quote from: Gaspar on August 17, 2012, 02:45:21 PM
Voting is a privilege extended to the individual and regulated by the states (not the federal government). It is not transferrable.
It is the duty of the candidate to stimulate the casual voter. ;)
Or ACORN
Quote from: Gaspar on August 17, 2012, 02:45:21 PM
Voting is a privilege extended to the individual and regulated by the states (not the federal government). It is not transferrable.
It is the duty of the candidate to stimulate the casual voter. ;)
That is the key word. As soon as our public schools start teaching that we don't live in a democracy maybe that will start to sink in to everyone.
Quote from: erfalf on August 17, 2012, 02:58:55 PM
That is the key word. As soon as our public schools start teaching that we don't live in a democracy maybe that will start to sink in to everyone.
. . .Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy. – US House Congressional Resolution 48
At least it's taught in the military.
"Democracy – A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any form of direct expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic – negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it is based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard for consequences. Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy." – U.S. Army Training Manual
This just in. "Paul Ryan cures Cancer" so it's all kind of a wash huh? ;D
Quote from: DolfanBob on August 17, 2012, 03:24:18 PM
This just in. "Paul Ryan cures Cancer" so it's all kind of a wash huh? ;D
What cures erfalfian Gas?
Quote from: Gaspar on August 17, 2012, 02:45:21 PM
Voting is a privilege extended to the individual and regulated by the states (not the federal government). It is not transferrable.
It is the duty of the candidate to stimulate the casual voter. ;)
Its a concept doofus. Of course you can't do it. He used it to make fun of this movement to privatize and marketize. Once it is offered as a solution, it sets their minds reeling and the whole movement seems suspect.
So how do you feel about our marvelous governor and legislature, who pass the most inane laws in the country, having the power to decide whether you are worthy to vote? A bit unsettling isn't it?