|
|
|
Jersey mike
|
 |
« Reply #1 on: January 31, 2016, 08:52:41 PM » |
|
For the life of me I cannot believe she is still a viable candidate. There isn't much that scares me (I'm mostly afraid of vampires) but she (and those who will vote for her...or Sanders) scares the crap outta me. For all the BS she has pulled and gotten away with over the years how she can be a serious candidate for the presidency and not a stake through the heart is bewildering.
This election scares me because if either her or Sanders is elected neither will be a 1 term president and this country will have gone so far down a socialist/communist road that there will never be a recovery.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Daddie O
|
|
« Reply #2 on: January 31, 2016, 09:07:44 PM » |
|
Republicans don't seem to be very good at predicting outcomes of elections, nor the repercussions of electing said public officials. A quick recap:
In March 2012, on the floor of the United States Senate, Mike Lee (R-UT) predicted that if Obama was reelected gas would cost $6.05 per gallon by the start 2015. Lee said that gas prices would rise 5 cents for every month Obama was in office, ultimately reaching $6.60 per gallon.
Lee was not alone. Newt Gingrich, running for the GOP nomination, predicted that if Obama was reelected he would push gas to “$10 a gallon.” Gingrich said he would reduce gas prices dramatically by reversing Obama’s energy policies. Gingrich flanked himself with campaign signs promising $2.50 gas if he was elected.
Average price at the moment: About $2 a gallon.
In September 2012, Mitt Romney predicted that if Obama is reelected “you’re going to see chronic high unemployment continue four years or longer.” At the time, the unemployment rate was 8.1% and had been between 8.1% and 8.3% for the entire year.
What would breaking out of “chronic high unemployment” look like in a Romney presidency? Romney pledged that, if elected, he could bring the unemployment rate down to 6% by January 2017.
The unemployment rate currently stands at 5.5% and has been under 6% since September 2014. Since January 2013, the economy has created over 7.8 million new jobs.
Immediately after Obama won reelection in November 2012, many commenters predicted that the stock market was toast.
The stock market and US dollar are both plunging today. Welcome to @BarackObama’s second term.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 7, 2012
Charles Bilderman, the author of the “Intelligent Investing” column at Forbes, wrote that the “market selloff after Obama’s re-election [was] no accident,” predicting “stocks are dropping with no bottom in sight.” Bilderman said that the policies the Obama administration would pursue in his second term would “crash stocks.”
On Bloomberg TV, investor Marc Faber predicted that, because of Obama’s reelection, the stock market would drop at least 20%. According to Faber, “Republicans understand the problem of excessive debt better than Mr. Obama who basically doesn’t care about piling up debt.” Faber joked that investors seeking to protect their assets should “buy themselves a machine gun.”
The Dow Jones Industrial Average currently stands at 16,466.30 and is up over 35% since Obama was reelected.
Shall I go on about predictions on home values, or the seizing of guns etc? The Republican party should be renamed the Chicken Little party. You poor fellas are so scared!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Light moves faster than sound. That's why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.
|
|
|
|
Jersey mike
|
|
« Reply #3 on: February 01, 2016, 04:43:15 AM » |
|
Republicans don't seem to be very good at predicting outcomes of elections, nor the repercussions of electing said public officials. A quick recap:
In March 2012, on the floor of the United States Senate, Mike Lee (R-UT) predicted that if Obama was reelected gas would cost $6.05 per gallon by the start 2015. Lee said that gas prices would rise 5 cents for every month Obama was in office, ultimately reaching $6.60 per gallon.
Lee was not alone. Newt Gingrich, running for the GOP nomination, predicted that if Obama was reelected he would push gas to “$10 a gallon.” Gingrich said he would reduce gas prices dramatically by reversing Obama’s energy policies. Gingrich flanked himself with campaign signs promising $2.50 gas if he was elected.
Average price at the moment: About $2 a gallon.
In September 2012, Mitt Romney predicted that if Obama is reelected “you’re going to see chronic high unemployment continue four years or longer.” At the time, the unemployment rate was 8.1% and had been between 8.1% and 8.3% for the entire year.
What would breaking out of “chronic high unemployment” look like in a Romney presidency? Romney pledged that, if elected, he could bring the unemployment rate down to 6% by January 2017.
The unemployment rate currently stands at 5.5% and has been under 6% since September 2014. Since January 2013, the economy has created over 7.8 million new jobs.
Immediately after Obama won reelection in November 2012, many commenters predicted that the stock market was toast.
The stock market and US dollar are both plunging today. Welcome to @BarackObama’s second term.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 7, 2012
Charles Bilderman, the author of the “Intelligent Investing” column at Forbes, wrote that the “market selloff after Obama’s re-election [was] no accident,” predicting “stocks are dropping with no bottom in sight.” Bilderman said that the policies the Obama administration would pursue in his second term would “crash stocks.”
On Bloomberg TV, investor Marc Faber predicted that, because of Obama’s reelection, the stock market would drop at least 20%. According to Faber, “Republicans understand the problem of excessive debt better than Mr. Obama who basically doesn’t care about piling up debt.” Faber joked that investors seeking to protect their assets should “buy themselves a machine gun.”
The Dow Jones Industrial Average currently stands at 16,466.30 and is up over 35% since Obama was reelected.
Shall I go on about predictions on home values, or the seizing of guns etc? The Republican party should be renamed the Chicken Little party. You poor fellas are so scared!
you're like an illusionist, a modern day magician. watch what i'm doing here and pay no attention to what i'm doing over there. you talk about the $$ of gas and the stock market as though Obama did this himself and controls the free market...he doesn't. as for the UI #'s they are something the admin can manipulate. My concern is the integrity of the Presidency, the safety of the US, staying true to our Constitution and the beliefs and standards our Founding Fathers sought, fought and died for. Obama is a Communist Fascist. Hillary is a Communist hiding behind the guise of being progressive Democrat. She is a traitor, a murderer, a liar and a thief. She does not have the best interest of this country in her plans, only to weaken the Constitution further and slowly tear down our basic principles. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
bagelboy
|
|
« Reply #4 on: February 01, 2016, 04:53:36 AM » |
|
Well, Obama is going to a mosque today. Need we say more? Yes, I'm sure there is a good reason for it, We just don't know what! As far as being scared, I think you should be, too. Giving nukes to Iran, alone, should scare everyone. The fact that this terrorist country held our hostages, and country, for well over a year is a slap in our face, yes I'm scared Daddie O, I'm scared for my grandchildren. I hope they get to live a long, wonderful life like I have. This deal alone, besides all the other crap Obama has pulled, will indeed come back to haunt us all! Good Bless America!
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: February 01, 2016, 05:03:37 AM by bagelboy »
|
Logged
|
1997 Valkyrie Tourer, 2005 GL 1800, 1987 GL 1200 Aspencade.
|
|
|
|
The emperor has no clothes
|
|
« Reply #5 on: February 01, 2016, 05:04:00 AM » |
|
Best one yet......"Obama is a communist fascist"  Is it even possible to be a communist and a fascist at the same time ? In my opinion Obama has a LONG way to go just to be a good Socialist. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
DirtyDan
|
|
« Reply #6 on: February 01, 2016, 05:11:26 AM » |
|
Best one yet......"Obama is a communist fascist" Is it even possible to be a communist and a fascist at the same time ? In my opinion Obama has a LONG way to go just to be a good Socialist. Is it even possible to be a communist and a fascist at the same time ? YES it is, were Hitler and Stalin much different ? go far enough right or left you get to the same place as for being a socialist....... I got A's in history with a "kill a commie for mommie" T shirt so where does that leave us patriotic Americans ? dan |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Do it while you can. I did.... it my way
|
|
|
|
Pete
|
|
« Reply #7 on: February 01, 2016, 05:32:18 AM » |
|
Examples above of the liberal progressive ability to deny reality - read carefully avoid smoke and mirrors.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
The emperor has no clothes
|
|
« Reply #8 on: February 01, 2016, 05:40:58 AM » |
|
Best one yet......"Obama is a communist fascist" Is it even possible to be a communist and a fascist at the same time ? In my opinion Obama has a LONG way to go just to be a good Socialist. Is it even possible to be a communist and a fascist at the same time ? YES it is, were Hitler and Stalin much different ? go far enough right or left you get to the same place as for being a socialist....... I got A's in history with a "kill a commie for mommie" T shirt so where does that leave us patriotic Americans ? dan Yes Hitler and Stalin were different in ways and similar in ways. But as I remember school: Communism was where everybody was deemed the same and all shared equally (in their theory). Fascism was where the person or people in charge had complete power and everyone was not equal (in their theory). Dan as far as your tshirt you do know socialism and communism are not the same ? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Jess Tolbirt
|
|
« Reply #9 on: February 01, 2016, 05:57:43 AM » |
|
as far as unemployment goes, the numbers dropped because of the millions that are no longer on the welfare system because their unemployment ran out,, they are still unemployed but not counted anymore because the benefits ran out..
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Gavin_Sons
Member
Posts: 7109
VRCC# 32796
columbus indiana
|
|
« Reply #10 on: February 01, 2016, 06:03:39 AM » |
|
Anyone that supports that hildabeastbitch after that email scandal is an f-ing moron. You really want that running the country? She should be taken out back and shot by a firing squad. And obama should get the same treatment for letting this go on in his whitehouse. Yep, those are some quality leaders right there.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jersey mike
|
|
« Reply #12 on: February 01, 2016, 06:11:51 AM » |
|
Best one yet......"Obama is a communist fascist" Is it even possible to be a communist and a fascist at the same time ? In my opinion Obama has a LONG way to go just to be a good Socialist. Is it even possible to be a communist and a fascist at the same time ? YES it is, were Hitler and Stalin much different ? go far enough right or left you get to the same place as for being a socialist....... I got A's in history with a "kill a commie for mommie" T shirt so where does that leave us patriotic Americans ? dan Yes Hitler and Stalin were different in ways and similar in ways. But as I remember school: Communism was where everybody was deemed the same and all shared equally (in their theory). Fascism was where the person or people in charge had complete power and everyone was not equal (in their theory). Dan as far as your tshirt you do know socialism and communism are not the same ? it is not impossible to pull characteristics of different political ideologies and blend them into your own political stance or beliefs. The USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) now Soviet Union is a communist nation. Communism and Socialism do not make strange bedfellows. we were never intended to be a socialist nation, but I do believe some of the social programs we have do in theory serve a necessity for a portion of our people. Unfortunately most of these programs have been abused and reforming them now falls into the war cry of the Democrats that the "Republicans want to take away benefits". |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
The emperor has no clothes
|
|
« Reply #13 on: February 01, 2016, 06:27:55 AM » |
|
Dan, to say Socialism hasn't worked anywhere would be wrong. Would you not agree Canada is pretty much a socialist country ? It is working for them as it has for others. We have been quasi-socialist for decades. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
DirtyDan
|
|
« Reply #14 on: February 01, 2016, 06:36:54 AM » |
|
meathead I will agree that Canada leans left and is working....for now as for others..... please enlighten me PS meathead I DO enjoy our disagreements, spirited discussion is how we get to the truth I should be in Arizona late march early april ish looking for a place to live I want a picture of London bridge so I can "check" it off my list  dan |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Do it while you can. I did.... it my way
|
|
|
|
Daddie O
|
|
« Reply #15 on: February 01, 2016, 06:41:13 AM » |
|
In a communist country, there's no private business. There's no private property. The government decides.
In a capitalist society, the people, businesses, and the market decides how much products will cost, how many there are, where it will be made.
In the socialist system, there's a mix of both. The government operates the system to help all, but there is opportunity for private property and private wealth.
A socialist government could control all of the means of production — or it could, for example, use taxes to redistribute resources among the population.
The United States is not a purely capitalist society. There are and have long been socialist aspects to how the government makes decisions and applies its power, while still striving to keep the marketplace as free as possible. And, of course, while allowing democratic decisions to guide what it does.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Light moves faster than sound. That's why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.
|
|
|
|
Jersey mike
|
|
« Reply #16 on: February 01, 2016, 09:39:27 AM » |
|
In a communist country, there's no private business. There's no private property. The government decides.
In a capitalist society, the people, businesses, and the market decides how much products will cost, how many there are, where it will be made.
In the socialist system, there's a mix of both. The government operates the system to help all, but there is opportunity for private property and private wealth.
A socialist government could control all of the means of production — or it could, for example, use taxes to redistribute resources among the population.
The United States is not a purely capitalist society. There are and have long been socialist aspects to how the government makes decisions and applies its power, while still striving to keep the marketplace as free as possible. And, of course, while allowing democratic decisions to guide what it does.
And the question is how much further down the Socialist road are we willing to take this country. We are not South Canada or still part of the U.K. Socialism cannot self support tits elf. Socialism needs more and more funds from the working class not on the govt payroll. Govts produce nothing, all they do is take from those who do whether they be goods or services. Govts make laws to provide for those on social programs and increase its own size to provide those services which need to be paid for off the back of the real workers of this country. Remember "Redistribute the Wealth" Joe the Plumber? The country needs tax money to continue with its social programs and Clinton is hell bent on raising taxes. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
The emperor has no clothes
|
|
« Reply #17 on: February 01, 2016, 11:34:45 AM » |
|
meathead I will agree that Canada leans left and is working....for now as for others..... please enlighten me PS meathead I DO enjoy our disagreements, spirited discussion is how we get to the truth I should be in Arizona late march early april ish looking for a place to live I want a picture of London bridge so I can "check" it off my list dan Dan, I enjoy them too. You have always been respectful. As for the pic of London Bridge that will be pretty easy to arrange. The place to live will be a different matter.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Patrick
Member
Posts: 15433
VRCC 4474
Largo Florida
|
|
« Reply #18 on: February 01, 2016, 02:31:07 PM » |
|
In a communist country, there's no private business. There's no private property. The government decides.
In a capitalist society, the people, businesses, and the market decides how much products will cost, how many there are, where it will be made.
In the socialist system, there's a mix of both. The government operates the system to help all, but there is opportunity for private property and private wealth.
A socialist government could control all of the means of production — or it could, for example, use taxes to redistribute resources among the population.
The United States is not a purely capitalist society. There are and have long been socialist aspects to how the government makes decisions and applies its power, while still striving to keep the marketplace as free as possible. And, of course, while allowing democratic decisions to guide what it does.
And the question is how much further down the Socialist road are we willing to take this country. We are not South Canada or still part of the U.K. Socialism cannot self support tits elf. Socialism needs more and more funds from the working class not on the govt payroll. Govts produce nothing, all they do is take from those who do whether they be goods or services. Govts make laws to provide for those on social programs and increase its own size to provide those services which need to be paid for off the back of the real workers of this country. Remember "Redistribute the Wealth" Joe the Plumber? The country needs tax money to continue with its social programs and Clinton is hell bent on raising taxes. You think hillary will raise taxes ? [ of course she will ]. Wait and see what happens if bernie gets his way ! Our debt will double. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
RP#62
|
|
« Reply #19 on: February 01, 2016, 03:18:52 PM » |
|
meathead I will agree that Canada leans left and is working....for now as for others..... please enlighten me PS meathead I DO enjoy our disagreements, spirited discussion is how we get to the truth I should be in Arizona late march early april ish looking for a place to live I want a picture of London bridge so I can "check" it off my list dan Dan, I enjoy them too. You have always been respectful. As for the pic of London Bridge that will be pretty easy to arrange. The place to live will be a different matter. Here you go.  -RP |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Patrick
Member
Posts: 15433
VRCC 4474
Largo Florida
|
|
« Reply #20 on: February 03, 2016, 05:10:31 AM » |
|
hillary is really playing up her 5 vote win over bernie. And, what is her main focus ? All she does is bitch about the republicans and how they are the democrats greatest enemy. So just how is she going to get along with them if she is elected. Seems as though she will be worse than what we have now in that respect. She is also talking about continuing obama's policies and increased spending. We are now $19 trillion in debt, $8 trillion of that within the last 7 years !
She keeps spewing about pay equity, but, it should be remembered she was caught paying her female employees 79% of what she paid her male employees all the while she was spouting off about this issue. As far as I know, I haven't heard that anything has changed.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Patrick
Member
Posts: 15433
VRCC 4474
Largo Florida
|
|
« Reply #21 on: February 03, 2016, 05:13:04 AM » |
|
as far as unemployment goes, the numbers dropped because of the millions that are no longer on the welfare system because their unemployment ran out,, they are still unemployed but not counted anymore because the benefits ran out..
Some folks don't want to talk about these phony numbers though, do they. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Patrick
Member
Posts: 15433
VRCC 4474
Largo Florida
|
|
« Reply #22 on: February 03, 2016, 05:34:38 AM » |
|
meathead I will agree that Canada leans left and is working....for now as for others..... please enlighten me PS meathead I DO enjoy our disagreements, spirited discussion is how we get to the truth I should be in Arizona late march early april ish looking for a place to live I want a picture of London bridge so I can "check" it off my list dan I've not had the chance to talk with too many Canadians about this until this year. There are many from the eastern and far western provinces [ haven't met any from the central portion of the country] and am surprised at what they have to say about the differences between our countries. Every single one I've talked with are far more conservative than I ever thought and also think we are on the wrong track with our growing socialism. In some respects they like their social medicine, but, in most respects they don't. I was aware of long waits for surgeries, but, not the age restrictions/limitations. Many have come to our country for such help. I've not found one single person that likes their new Prime Minister and they are concerned how much further left he will try to take the country. I get a kick out what they think about our current political structure/conditions, election shenanigans, and, especially our current administration. I've known the proper pronunciation of Quebec for a long time, but, was given a sharp lesson on that regarding Newfoundland. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
dinosnake
|
|
« Reply #23 on: February 03, 2016, 06:49:40 AM » |
|
In a communist country, there's no private business. There's no private property. The government decides.
In a capitalist society, the people, businesses, and the market decides how much products will cost, how many there are, where it will be made.
In the socialist system, there's a mix of both. The government operates the system to help all, but there is opportunity for private property and private wealth.
A socialist government could control all of the means of production — or it could, for example, use taxes to redistribute resources among the population.
The United States is not a purely capitalist society. There are and have long been socialist aspects to how the government makes decisions and applies its power, while still striving to keep the marketplace as free as possible. And, of course, while allowing democratic decisions to guide what it does.
And the question is how much further down the Socialist road are we willing to take this country. We are not South Canada or still part of the U.K. Socialism cannot self support tits elf. Socialism needs more and more funds from the working class not on the govt payroll. Govts produce nothing, all they do is take from those who do whether they be goods or services. Govts make laws to provide for those on social programs and increase its own size to provide those services which need to be paid for off the back of the real workers of this country. Remember "Redistribute the Wealth" Joe the Plumber? The country needs tax money to continue with its social programs and Clinton is hell bent on raising taxes. Your points are reasonable but they also contain some give-and-take. Remember: quite a bit of the modern GOP platform mentions how "great" things were in the 1950's for the average worker. In the 1950's, taxes were the highest ever for the top 10% of the population, and look...no epic Boom! to the economy. Actually, aren't they saying that it worked BETTER...yet they want all that again, but this time without taxing the rich? Hmmm, logically there is a gap there... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
dinosnake
|
|
« Reply #24 on: February 03, 2016, 07:10:16 AM » |
|
Republicans don't seem to be very good at predicting outcomes of elections, nor the repercussions of electing said public officials. A quick recap:
In March 2012, on the floor of the United States Senate, Mike Lee (R-UT) predicted that if Obama was reelected gas would cost $6.05 per gallon by the start 2015. Lee said that gas prices would rise 5 cents for every month Obama was in office, ultimately reaching $6.60 per gallon.
Lee was not alone. Newt Gingrich, running for the GOP nomination, predicted that if Obama was reelected he would push gas to “$10 a gallon.” Gingrich said he would reduce gas prices dramatically by reversing Obama’s energy policies. Gingrich flanked himself with campaign signs promising $2.50 gas if he was elected.
Average price at the moment: About $2 a gallon.
In September 2012, Mitt Romney predicted that if Obama is reelected “you’re going to see chronic high unemployment continue four years or longer.” At the time, the unemployment rate was 8.1% and had been between 8.1% and 8.3% for the entire year.
What would breaking out of “chronic high unemployment” look like in a Romney presidency? Romney pledged that, if elected, he could bring the unemployment rate down to 6% by January 2017.
The unemployment rate currently stands at 5.5% and has been under 6% since September 2014. Since January 2013, the economy has created over 7.8 million new jobs.
Immediately after Obama won reelection in November 2012, many commenters predicted that the stock market was toast.
The stock market and US dollar are both plunging today. Welcome to @BarackObama’s second term.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 7, 2012
Charles Bilderman, the author of the “Intelligent Investing” column at Forbes, wrote that the “market selloff after Obama’s re-election [was] no accident,” predicting “stocks are dropping with no bottom in sight.” Bilderman said that the policies the Obama administration would pursue in his second term would “crash stocks.”
On Bloomberg TV, investor Marc Faber predicted that, because of Obama’s reelection, the stock market would drop at least 20%. According to Faber, “Republicans understand the problem of excessive debt better than Mr. Obama who basically doesn’t care about piling up debt.” Faber joked that investors seeking to protect their assets should “buy themselves a machine gun.”
The Dow Jones Industrial Average currently stands at 16,466.30 and is up over 35% since Obama was reelected.
Shall I go on about predictions on home values, or the seizing of guns etc? The Republican party should be renamed the Chicken Little party. You poor fellas are so scared!
you're like an illusionist, a modern day magician. watch what i'm doing here and pay no attention to what i'm doing over there. you talk about the $$ of gas and the stock market as though Obama did this himself and controls the free market...he doesn't. as for the UI #'s they are something the admin can manipulate. Let's talk about illusionist: you want a double-standard. As directly quoted by Daddie O, the Republican platform for 2012 wanted to directly blame Obama for the 'coming economic explosion'. Now, when things did not go Boom! as they predicted...No, it's not Obama credit! He didn't do anything!! Either blame him when things go Boom! **AND** give him credit when things go right, or stop playing The Game and get off the potty. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Gavin_Sons
Member
Posts: 7109
VRCC# 32796
columbus indiana
|
|
« Reply #25 on: February 03, 2016, 11:04:47 AM » |
|
What has he done right? I'm still confused on this one.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
G-Man
|
|
« Reply #26 on: February 03, 2016, 12:28:50 PM » |
|
I love you guys,......... but you fell for the $hit again. The post started out about Clinton but in the third post, the deceiver in charge completely turned it around by decreeing that Republicans are this and that and can't do this or that right, and you guys ate it up.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
dinosnake
|
|
« Reply #27 on: February 03, 2016, 01:33:38 PM » |
|
I love you guys,......... but you fell for the $hit again. The post started out about Clinton but in the third post, the deceiver in charge completely turned it around by decreeing that Republicans are this and that and can't do this or that right, and you guys ate it up. That's because, as usual, the conservatives are in DENIAL https://youtu.be/FirI3_G_0JMhttps://youtu.be/yd0fVf5CsCcWhen even Europeans notice that one party is working its very best just to be obstructionist http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b041xdgtbut you decide to try to pin all of the system's failures on, only, the other guy... Yeah. Right   Not all of America is, simply, that stupid http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/jindal-takes-obama-challenges-republicans-redefine-party-020802357--election.html |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
DirtyDan
|
|
« Reply #28 on: February 03, 2016, 02:57:00 PM » |
|
I love you guys,......... but you fell for the $hit again. The post started out about Clinton but in the third post, the deceiver in charge completely turned it around by decreeing that Republicans are this and that and can't do this or that right, and you guys ate it up. you said in the third post the deceiver in charge.... Gman are you referring to daddieO ? dan |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Do it while you can. I did.... it my way
|
|
|
|
The emperor has no clothes
|
|
« Reply #29 on: February 03, 2016, 04:49:33 PM » |
|
I love you guys,......... but you fell for the $hit again. The post started out about Clinton but in the third post, the deceiver in charge completely turned it around by decreeing that Republicans are this and that and can't do this or that right, and you guys ate it up. you said in the third post the deceiver in charge.... Gman are you referring to daddieO ? dan I believe he is, but I will let G-Man speak for himself. If so I think he is mistaken on several points. 1) I don't see where Daddie O has deceived anybody. 2) Daddie O is not in charge of anything, at least not on here. You guys can run him down and dislike him all you want. But what he wrote in that 3rd post is all factual. If you disagree show where he is wrong . |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Rams
Member
Posts: 16684
So many colors to choose from yet so few stand out
Covington, TN
|
|
« Reply #30 on: February 03, 2016, 07:43:13 PM » |
|
Don't really care about any comparisons between any other candidates, I don't agree with Clinton on much, I believe she's a coward, a thief, a liar and a power hungry, wealth seeking witch that will steal the middle class blind while buying votes with her give away programs to those who will not pull their own weight and those who are here illegally.
Sorry if I held back too much to describe my real feelings about her. If I need to go into greater detail to clarify my position, please let me know.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
VRCC# 29981
Learning the majority of life's lessons the hard way.
Every trip is an adventure, enjoy it while it lasts.
|
|
|
|
Jersey mike
|
|
« Reply #31 on: February 03, 2016, 08:30:43 PM » |
|
In a communist country, there's no private business. There's no private property. The government decides.
In a capitalist society, the people, businesses, and the market decides how much products will cost, how many there are, where it will be made.
In the socialist system, there's a mix of both. The government operates the system to help all, but there is opportunity for private property and private wealth.
A socialist government could control all of the means of production — or it could, for example, use taxes to redistribute resources among the population.
The United States is not a purely capitalist society. There are and have long been socialist aspects to how the government makes decisions and applies its power, while still striving to keep the marketplace as free as possible. And, of course, while allowing democratic decisions to guide what it does.
And the question is how much further down the Socialist road are we willing to take this country. We are not South Canada or still part of the U.K. Socialism cannot self support tits elf. Socialism needs more and more funds from the working class not on the govt payroll. Govts produce nothing, all they do is take from those who do whether they be goods or services. Govts make laws to provide for those on social programs and increase its own size to provide those services which need to be paid for off the back of the real workers of this country. Remember "Redistribute the Wealth" Joe the Plumber? The country needs tax money to continue with its social programs and Clinton is hell bent on raising taxes. Your points are reasonable but they also contain some give-and-take. Remember: quite a bit of the modern GOP platform mentions how "great" things were in the 1950's for the average worker. In the 1950's, taxes were the highest ever for the top 10% of the population, and look...no epic Boom! to the economy. Actually, aren't they saying that it worked BETTER...yet they want all that again, but this time without taxing the rich? Hmmm, logically there is a gap there... To me (I can't speak for the entire GOP) the comparison to the '50's isn't one that comes simply. In that time we didn't have the huge illegal issue we have now and the drain they put on the economy. People here worked, the did the jobs illegals are now doing; washing dishes, labor work and so on. People bought America cars because that's all there was for the regular Joe. The saying "As goes GM so goes the economy"became popular. The tax rate for the top 10% allowed for the govt do more because there were less social programs to fund and less people not on the govt nipple. The country was beginning to grow, WWII was over and those GI's were working but we were involved in Korea so defense was still an issue. Our citizens were working here in the country and the money stayed in the country. IMO this is what that current want to return to is all about. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Jersey mike
|
|
« Reply #32 on: February 03, 2016, 08:41:00 PM » |
|
Republicans don't seem to be very good at predicting outcomes of elections, nor the repercussions of electing said public officials. A quick recap:
In March 2012, on the floor of the United States Senate, Mike Lee (R-UT) predicted that if Obama was reelected gas would cost $6.05 per gallon by the start 2015. Lee said that gas prices would rise 5 cents for every month Obama was in office, ultimately reaching $6.60 per gallon.
Lee was not alone. Newt Gingrich, running for the GOP nomination, predicted that if Obama was reelected he would push gas to “$10 a gallon.” Gingrich said he would reduce gas prices dramatically by reversing Obama’s energy policies. Gingrich flanked himself with campaign signs promising $2.50 gas if he was elected.
Average price at the moment: About $2 a gallon.
In September 2012, Mitt Romney predicted that if Obama is reelected “you’re going to see chronic high unemployment continue four years or longer.” At the time, the unemployment rate was 8.1% and had been between 8.1% and 8.3% for the entire year.
What would breaking out of “chronic high unemployment” look like in a Romney presidency? Romney pledged that, if elected, he could bring the unemployment rate down to 6% by January 2017.
The unemployment rate currently stands at 5.5% and has been under 6% since September 2014. Since January 2013, the economy has created over 7.8 million new jobs.
Immediately after Obama won reelection in November 2012, many commenters predicted that the stock market was toast.
The stock market and US dollar are both plunging today. Welcome to @BarackObama’s second term.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 7, 2012
Charles Bilderman, the author of the “Intelligent Investing” column at Forbes, wrote that the “market selloff after Obama’s re-election [was] no accident,” predicting “stocks are dropping with no bottom in sight.” Bilderman said that the policies the Obama administration would pursue in his second term would “crash stocks.”
On Bloomberg TV, investor Marc Faber predicted that, because of Obama’s reelection, the stock market would drop at least 20%. According to Faber, “Republicans understand the problem of excessive debt better than Mr. Obama who basically doesn’t care about piling up debt.” Faber joked that investors seeking to protect their assets should “buy themselves a machine gun.”
The Dow Jones Industrial Average currently stands at 16,466.30 and is up over 35% since Obama was reelected.
Shall I go on about predictions on home values, or the seizing of guns etc? The Republican party should be renamed the Chicken Little party. You poor fellas are so scared!
you're like an illusionist, a modern day magician. watch what i'm doing here and pay no attention to what i'm doing over there. you talk about the $$ of gas and the stock market as though Obama did this himself and controls the free market...he doesn't. as for the UI #'s they are something the admin can manipulate. Let's talk about illusionist: you want a double-standard. As directly quoted by Daddie O, the Republican platform for 2012 wanted to directly blame Obama for the 'coming economic explosion'. Now, when things did not go Boom! as they predicted...No, it's not Obama credit! He didn't do anything!! Either blame him when things go Boom! **AND** give him credit when things go right, or stop playing The Game and get off the potty. OPEC is to thank for current low gas prices to keep Iran from profiting. The stock market is (IMO) and has been floating on a bubble. Something isn't right and it's going to hit, when I can't say but the Fed keeping interest rates so low for such a long time sent a good thing. It se to be you could get a nice return in a money market acct, a CD, or a savings acct but not today. I bought my house in '93 w/ a 6 3/4% mortgage and I thought that was great but today rates are even lower but saving money in the bank pays next to nothing. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DirtyDan
|
|
« Reply #34 on: February 04, 2016, 05:17:14 PM » |
|
still waiting on clarification ......re Daddie O
dan
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Do it while you can. I did.... it my way
|
|
|
|
Jersey mike
|
|
« Reply #35 on: February 04, 2016, 05:53:36 PM » |
|
I'll be honest with you, I read those articles you posted and I'm not quite smart enough to fully understand where the authors are going with them, also,whether or not you're throwing in a dig at me, if you are, ha,ha you got me. I've posted my thoughts and opinions on the topic, whether or not we agree is fine by me but thanks for your input. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
dinosnake
|
|
« Reply #36 on: February 04, 2016, 06:12:36 PM » |
|
I'll be honest with you, I read those articles you posted and I'm not quite smart enough to fully understand where the authors are going with them, also,whether or not you're throwing in a dig at me, if you are, ha,ha you got me. I've posted my thoughts and opinions on the topic, whether or not we agree is fine by me but thanks for your input.
No, not taking a dig at you at all, with your previous comment you hit the nail right on the head. The important lines of the articles are: Alan Gross: “Today’s Fed and other model based central banks are, to my way of thinking, the ones that have more and more become ‘increasingly addled,’ ” Gross wrote in his monthly note. “They all seem to believe that there is an interest rate SO LOW that resultant financial market wealth will ultimately spill over into the real economy.” In other words, here's a banker saying that the Fed and their members are essentially believing in the Trickle Down theory, that focusing economic policy for the benefit of Wall Street will, after time, trickle down to the Average Joe as well as small businesses. Years of it...and Gross says it hasn't worked. Surprise! Not. Goldman Sachs: Manohar argued that profit margins have expanded, thanks to four key trends: strong commodities prices, emerging market cost arbitrage (companies making things more cheaply in emerging markets), demand growth from emerging markets, and improved corporate efficiency driven by the use of new technology. Continuing one of its major analytical themes of recent months, Goldman also noted that the market has rewarded companies that have undertaken mergers and share buybacks, as opposed to companies that have invested internally, further bolstering margins. This one's more complicated. The theory of capitalism is a certain level of "boom" and "bust" - well-running businesses cause the economy to expand and general wealth and business increases, which then causes entrepreneurs to enter the market in competition with those established players. This causes a "bust" cycle as the new supply exceeds demand; a shakeout of the weak and poor players eventually leads back to the beginning of the cycle, with a stability of players that cause the upsurge again. The problem? THAT CYCLE ISN'T HAPPENING. Why? Because, instead of taking the wealth from the boom and creating competition, they are taking the wealth and HIDING IT AWAY. In stocks, bonds, [over] pay to upper management, massive corporate cash reserves, increased dividends to themselves and, more urgently, buying out smaller competitors thereby intentionally BREAKING the competitive system in order to take the profits from their (smaller) competitors as their own and doing nothing more than increase their stock value (for, again, their own benefit due to options, etc.) The theory is that companies should not sit with $350m in cash reserves...because a cash reserve isn't working for anything, except for higher internal profits from investment returns that can be distributed to the lucky few who have a part of the system of high internal pay or stock dividends (in a lot of cases, those are the same people as upper management is now paid in stock options). So rather than better their business portfolio, the players are taking the money - acquired through average worker cutbacks, outsourcing of services and manufacturing, etc. - and using the money to line the pockets of the beneficial few, rather than grow the business towards a stronger, enhanced future. Continuing one of its major analytical themes of recent months, Goldman also noted that the market has rewarded companies that have undertaken mergers and share buybacks, as opposed to companies that have invested internally, further bolstering margins. In other words, profit margins should naturally mean-revert and oscillate. The existence of fat margins should encourage new competitors and pricing cycles that cause those margins to erode; conversely, at the bottom of the cycle, low margins should lead to weaker players exiting the business and giving stronger companies more breathing space. If that cycle doesn't continue, something strange is taking place. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: February 04, 2016, 06:20:47 PM by dinosnake »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Jersey mike
|
|
« Reply #37 on: February 04, 2016, 07:03:31 PM » |
|
I'll be honest with you, I read those articles you posted and I'm not quite smart enough to fully understand where the authors are going with them, also,whether or not you're throwing in a dig at me, if you are, ha,ha you got me. I've posted my thoughts and opinions on the topic, whether or not we agree is fine by me but thanks for your input.
No, not taking a dig at you at all, with your previous comment you hit the nail right on the head. The important lines of the articles are: Alan Gross: “Today’s Fed and other model based central banks are, to my way of thinking, the ones that have more and more become ‘increasingly addled,’ ” Gross wrote in his monthly note. “They all seem to believe that there is an interest rate SO LOW that resultant financial market wealth will ultimately spill over into the real economy.” In other words, here's a banker saying that the Fed and their members are essentially believing in the Trickle Down theory, that focusing economic policy for the benefit of Wall Street will, after time, trickle down to the Average Joe as well as small businesses. Years of it...and Gross says it hasn't worked. Surprise! Not. Goldman Sachs: Manohar argued that profit margins have expanded, thanks to four key trends: strong commodities prices, emerging market cost arbitrage (companies making things more cheaply in emerging markets), demand growth from emerging markets, and improved corporate efficiency driven by the use of new technology. Continuing one of its major analytical themes of recent months, Goldman also noted that the market has rewarded companies that have undertaken mergers and share buybacks, as opposed to companies that have invested internally, further bolstering margins. This one's more complicated. The theory of capitalism is a certain level of "boom" and "bust" - well-running businesses cause the economy to expand and general wealth and business increases, which then causes entrepreneurs to enter the market in competition with those established players. This causes a "bust" cycle as the new supply exceeds demand; a shakeout of the weak and poor players eventually leads back to the beginning of the cycle, with a stability of players that cause the upsurge again. The problem? THAT CYCLE ISN'T HAPPENING. Why? Because, instead of taking the wealth from the boom and creating competition, they are taking the wealth and HIDING IT AWAY. In stocks, bonds, [over] pay to upper management, massive corporate cash reserves, increased dividends to themselves and, more urgently, buying out smaller competitors thereby intentionally BREAKING the competitive system in order to take the profits from their (smaller) competitors as their own and doing nothing more than increase their stock value (for, again, their own benefit due to options, etc.) The theory is that companies should not sit with $350m in cash reserves...because a cash reserve isn't working for anything, except for higher internal profits from investment returns that can be distributed to the lucky few who have a part of the system of high internal pay or stock dividends (in a lot of cases, those are the same people as upper management is now paid in stock options). So rather than better their business portfolio, the players are taking the money - acquired through average worker cutbacks, outsourcing of services and manufacturing, etc. - and using the money to line the pockets of the beneficial few, rather than grow the business towards a stronger, enhanced future. Continuing one of its major analytical themes of recent months, Goldman also noted that the market has rewarded companies that have undertaken mergers and share buybacks, as opposed to companies that have invested internally, further bolstering margins. In other words, profit margins should naturally mean-revert and oscillate. The existence of fat margins should encourage new competitors and pricing cycles that cause those margins to erode; conversely, at the bottom of the cycle, low margins should lead to weaker players exiting the business and giving stronger companies more breathing space. If that cycle doesn't continue, something strange is taking place. I appreciate you not taking a swipe at me, those articles, in the way they're written are a bit over my comprehension but I do understand numbers and can tell when something isn't quite right. I never gave a thought to the "upper management" issue when I gave my opinion but it has been an ongoing disaster waiting to happen for quite sometime even after the big bailouts. My train of thought to the markets were based on the inability to get something for your money in your local savings bank. So either people are saving but have come to accept the fact they get little to nothing for their money or are not "saving" at all, they are "investing" any extra they can, maxing out their any type of retirement acct or using online resources to play the market. Granted the little guys cannot sway the market on large scale but the security of "having cash" (earning 4 or 5%) in the bank is mostly gone for average people. With a Fed rate at 1/2% how much lower can it go? It certainly can't go negative. Sure it's great to be able to get a mortgage at 3.5% but IMO people are going to freak and/or panic if loan rates ever climb again to 7-8%. Many people now don't remember those days, how many years now has the Fed rate been below 1%? How many people now are using some type of etrade sites and gambling on the market? The ability for people to start a simple savings plan for college is no longer available at their bank, it's become find a financial advisor to trust and get your money in the market, (because that's where it needs to be)let others play with it. I took that advice and lost years ago, college funds virtually gone. If I was able to have a savings acct for each at a decent interest things would be better for each of them. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Gavin_Sons
Member
Posts: 7109
VRCC# 32796
columbus indiana
|
|
« Reply #38 on: February 05, 2016, 02:39:26 AM » |
|
I'll just leave this here.
Voting for Hillary because she's a woman is like eating a turd because it looks like a tootsie roll.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Jersey mike
|
|
« Reply #39 on: February 05, 2016, 04:04:39 AM » |
|
I'll just leave this here.
Voting for Hillary because she's a woman is like eating a turd because it looks like a tootsie roll.
yes you are correct. just like those who voted (the 1st time) for BO because he is black, voting him in twice = leaving the rest of us |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
