Magox

One problem with that argument, Clinton signed the repeal in 99 along with the expansion of CRA.

I do agree, that the main risk this economy is facing right now, are outside of Obama's control. But hey, that's politics, I mean the 08 Obama campaign, blamed Bush's deregulation and tax policies for the financial crisis, and as a result, that crushed McCain. When I ask some of the mouthbreathing wingnuts from the left, which regulation did Bush deregulate that caused the financial crisis? Of course there is no plausible answer. Then when I ask, how did the Bush tax cuts cause the crisis? Then the answers get even sillier. The point is that, to a degree, if the economy slows down further, it probably would have a good bit to do with Europe. However, it's politics and the one at the helm is the one who usually the one held accountable. Having said that, the Obama's economy is a 2-2.5% GDP growth economy, it is a stagnant one that has virtually no dynamism or vigor to it. So what I would say is that if the economy remains the same as what we are seeing today, it will be a matter of who wins the messaging war. If the economy improves from where it is right now, Obama most likely win, if it slows, Romney wins.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76752.html#ixzz1vsx6XCCc

Well, I'm not going to answer that question, because that wasn't my point. Don't you think it's a bit hilariously hypocritical to on one hand criticize that private equity is a function that serves investors needs through short-term gains at the expense of middle-class workers and on the other hand, go visit a factory, and tout that factories importance to the economy that happened to be primarily funded through private equity? In other words, without private equity he wouldn't of even been there campaigning.

That's not the point, the point is that the Obama administration is ripping Private Equity, in the sense that the primary function of the business is to create wealth for it's investors at the expense of hard working people of the middle class. Here you have a case where Obama is set to tout this company in Iowa today in a campaign style speech, with money that the government provided, yet it was because of Private Equity, which funded the vast majority of the company that is making it all possible. This is dripping with irony.

You wanna read some funny ****? check this out Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/24/obama-visiting-wind-turbine-factory-where-private-equity-blows-govt-financing-away/#ixzz1vpo0zX2j You can't make this **** up

I actually respect the typical "swing voters", they aren't so ideologically driven and will turn out for whoever they believe have the best message. From my perspective, the worst kind of voters are the hard core Right and left wingers, the ones who subscribe to the rigid philosophies endorsed by The Limbaughs and Ed Schultz's of the world. ughhh Yeah, they've been running a good campaign and today in an interview with Mark Halperin, he went into a little more specifics, which is something that the left have been whining about recently.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/christian-heinze/229009-romney-rocks-the-independent-vote

Cramer is what I call a stock cheerleader. Ever since the time Jon Stewart pwnd him on his show, from my perspective he became irrelevant, not to mention that he's a Democrat and happens to think Tim Geithner is doing a good job . If you want to do a fair analysis, look at the companies that Bain Capital purchased, try to research how many people were employed when Bain Capital stepped in and how many people were employed when Romney left in 1999. I've gone over this a few times, and I keep getting somewhere 60,000-90,000 net jobs created. That doesn't even include all the jobs that were saved, but for the sake of not using the Obama administrations metric of success, we won't include that, plus it would be virtually impossible for someone like me to come up with an accurate number. Just between Sports Authority, Staples and the Steel Company there were over 55,000 net jobs created, and the amount of jobs lost aren't that significant, even the companies that the Obama administration likes to highlight didn't even have 1000 jobs between the two of them.

The best way to figure out how many jobs that were created as a result of Bain Capital's involvement, in my opinion, is to see when Romney was in control of Bain and when he departed, and then add all the jobs created and subtract it by the ones lost during his tenure. That to me sounds like the logical thing to do. Here is a detailed look into Bain.

It's not, aside from N.H. That will go to the wire.

Believe it or not, the link I provided there is a Dailykos/PPP poll that has Obama up 1 point over Romney that was taken less than 2 weeks ago.

How does one go through life being this stupid?

No he's not dipshit. Obama and Romney are virtually tied Not to mention that the last three polls have Walker up 5, 6 and 9 points.

I was sure that you were gonna link a John Deere

I haven't even paid for that, I pay $10 a month for some tire protection program and I've received at least 10 tires out of it over the past 9 years.

This weekend, the Wisconsin Journal which is their largest newspaper in the state, endorsed Walker. You should of seen the vitriol coming from the head of the Democratic Wisconsin party Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76599_Page2.html#ixzz1vcxCLZlF

I lease, I never paid a dollar in my life for an oil change with BMW.

I said its fair game. Obviousy an issue like this riles up the left wingers like social issues do for the hard right. The question is how many down scale working class whites will buy into this. My guess is some, but on the otherhand, Obama risks alienating people who believe in capitalism. So it's going to be who wins the messaging war? Since Obama doesn't have much of a record to run on, he'll try to have this election focus on his campaigns distortions of Romney's record. Truth is, the totality of Bain Capital did create alot more jobs than were lost, and that doesn't even include all the jobs preserved because of their capital infusions that sustained those companies. Then of course there is the impact that it has done for investors, which include pension funds. Romney just needs to keep touting his job creations, business record and continue messaging things he'd do, such as the ad of the keystone pipeline, taxes and repealing and replacing Obama's signature legislation. He also needs to rip apart Obamas attack on Bain, it's not that hard to do, there are so many easy areas to attack. Such as the hypocrisy of Obama pandering to these Private equity investors for campaign funds, even the ex head of Bain that was the one who actually made the decision to close down the plant Then make strong argument of how Private equity is an important role in the American economy, not just for investors, but for the companies they invest in, and then tout that he was one of the best in the business. This shouldn't be that hard, so much low-hanging fruit to work with.

I read this three times, and I still don't know what you are trying to say.

Except they won't listen to your advice, because they did create lots of jobs. So too bad Delusional much?

Well, round 1 didn't go as planned. But he made it quite clear yesterday, that in his words, this will be the issue of the election. Of course, the issue of this election will be a referendum on his lousy stewardship of this economy, but he will go after Romney's record, and the calculations they are making is if they can discredit enough of Romney's strong point, which is the economy and shave off a few independents, than that may be enough for him to win the elections. What Romney should do is not just dodge these haymaker punches, but counterpunch hard. In other words, use these attacks from Obama's campaign as further proof that "he just doesn't understand capitalism", and run with that, and run with it hard.

Over priced my ass. BMW's are very affordable, you don't have to be well off to afford one of their vehicles, plus their customer service is top of the line, no long waits to have your vehicle serviced, and they rarely break down.

I'm guessing you are one of the traditional "swing voters". Liberal on the social issues yet fiscally conservative. I happen to believe it is fair game as well, it is one of Romneys main arguments to why he is better equipped to create a more vibrant economy. My issue, which I don't blame them for trying, are the distortions and cherry picking of his experience. One could do the exact same thing, and interview a Delphi worker and have him come out and say "Obama made a deal to save Union workers in the auto industry, but he left me high and dry". It's silly, it's not representative of an accurate portrayal of the overall record. Obviously this line of attack is going to play well with 75% of the Democratic party, because the hard wingers from both sides of the aisle are a bunch of lemmings, so it riles them up. It will also play well with a segment of independents, because they simply don't know enough about Private equity and will buy into the "vulture capitalism" narrative. However, most swing voter indendents are fiscally conservative and they recognize that not everyone wins in capitalism, and they also don't place nearly as much stock into Obama's theme of this elecion, which is "fairness". Most swing voter independents to not share Obamas ideology of wealth distribution. So Romney will win the independent vote this November, the question is by how much. My guess is he will win it by 10% + which would hand him the elections. If he only wins it by 5%, and Obama gets a good turnout, then Obama wins.