Magox

Hey, do you guys remember when Obama signed his health care bill into law, and be brought Gary Coleman with him to the signing? That was awesome!

They would of gotten a better deal than what they received through managed bankruptcy. I remember this, I was following it very closely, what Obama did was bully them Chicago style. They basically told them what that they had to comply or feel the full wrath of the bully pulpit. But since the average (*^*&%^$^#doesn't know the good that bond investors do (Which is invest in schools, roads, businesses, allows companies to expand etc) they were just gonna lump them in with the rest of Wall Street. ANd the only thing more unpopular than government was wallstreet. Only a partisan putz or noninformed person believes that GM and Chrysler couldn't of restructured through a managed bankruptcy. But all the Obama koolaid drinkers believe "OBAMA SAVED GM!" Meanwhile, people like myself who knows more than people like you about these things knows the true score.

Ummm, could you be any more ignorant? It wasn't the bondholders that drove the "company into the ground" diphit! It was management I'm going to give you a little advice, if you don't know what you are talking about, then just shut the !@#$ up!

I agree, it never gets old

Come on! Tell us what you really feel? I think you're holding back.

A HAAAA! So you're the one providing them these dolty jokes! Hold on, no, that would mean you would have had to have come up with something on your own displaying some sort of creative, original thought process. Nevermind

You said that?

Wow! so young too!

You really shouldn't be making this statement. Just sayin' Where TPS has it wrong is he says "look at the bond markets, they say everything is ok". That's got to be the most dangerous view that any responsible policy holder can have. Luckily for all of us people like TPS or Krugmann who have no real stake, can just opine from the sidelines and continue to attempt to advance their leftist vision of America. Does anyone know where Greek Bond rates were just 1 year before their crash? I can tell you, they were in a sweet spot, very low by European standards, everything looked just fine until they weren't. That's the most insane, warped sort of thinking that anyone can come up with. WHat were fannie mae bonds trading at 6 months before the collapse? Give me an answer. What were GM bonds trading at 6-12 months before the collapse? With your way of looking at thing, you would of said "Gee, look at Greek bonds, or Fannie mae's, bond markets say they are just fine, so everything is fine. hahaha " well you would of been wrong. You think that there is a gradual decline when insolvency comes at the forefront? No! It happens rapidly, things come to light but more importantly FOCUS becomes singular, and then you have a rush to the exits causing a stampede of investors flowing into other assets causing rates to spike. That's how it worksin the REAL world TPS. Not in the ideological academic world. There is an old adage , Bond markets are fine until they aren't. Sorry your way of thinking is dangerous and deeply flawed and I just proved it. Of course what TPS fails to include, either dishonestly or just through sheer ignorance (I'm thinking the former) is that the US bond market has benefited greatly off of all this mess in Europe. Bond investors are bond investors period. So when bond investors see that the Greek, Italian, Spanish, Irish etc bond markets look like a nonviable place to park their money, they shift it somewhere else. So who has been the benificiaries of this dynamic? Well, the US and the Germans. It's not as if all of a sudden Bond investors have suddenly deemed the US a fiscally sound country, it was through default. Just like Bill Gross says, Bond investors are looking for "cleaner dirty shirts". The US dollar is the reserve currency of the world and that thankfully gives us an advantage. Having said that, the reliance of the dollar is declining, and the dangerous sort of thinking from people such as TPS and Krugmann is that for the most part they assume all will be well in the short-term and to just go out and have a myopic solution of racking up deficits to stabilize the economy. But you see, thats the problem, they don't criticize our government for implementing policies that aren't just short-term policies, but long-term budget busters such as the presidents health care bill. This bill does raise taxes, and it does increase spending by an enormous amount. We already have long-term structural problems and now we are gonna add yet another huge deficit spending entitlement? What about this supposedly short term pay roll tax cut? Does anyone really honestly believe that anyone now is going to want to take this tax cut away? Honestly. What about all the job killing regulations? We've heard over and over in how the presidents regulations are inhibiting job growth. Yet somehow, no mention of that from TPS. TPS and Krugmann happen to believe that stimulus spending will serve as a bridge or in some magical unicornesque way will thrust us into 5% sustained growth. That is the most ridiculous, insane, illogical sort of thinking that any economist can come up with. Stimulus spending; and I'm not saying can't serve a purpose, because I believe it can in certain circumstances be effective, but to somehow think that just for the sake of spending money to create short-term jobs will lead us to sustained prosperity on the other side of the bridge is nonsense. There is no basis in fact for that sort of thinking. In order for their to be sustained growth in the US, there is no sort of magic silver bullet sort of panacea. Sorry folks, thats just what it is. If you want to have growth here in the US, you have to address our structural employment issues. The reality is that we will not return to the high construction, manufacturing employment society we had before. That's just not going to happen. Employers are learning to do more with less. Technology is improving, so is software and robotics, and guess what? You don't have to pay healthcare benefits for these advances. So in order to grow we need a president who has the vision of where future demand will come from. So what does Obama do? He has a vision of green energy, which I believe there is a future there, but he miscalculated the feasibility of that ideological dream at this point in time. If anything you spend money on the research of technological advances, not on the actual non feasible implementation of it. Seems like every week you hear of another Government grant approved by Obama towards the green sector is going bankrupt. You know where the president can help create jobs in the PRIVATE sector right now? In domestic drilling. Did you know that the fossil fuel energy industry has seen the most increased percentage of employment? NO THANKS TO OBAMA! All this was approved in the Bush era, Obama with his extremist environmental activist Energy policies have in fact denied thousands of miles of drilling that would of been approved if he wasn't there. Yet the hypocrite touts that under his Administration more oil is being drilled! They say the president is a practical man, I say bull ****! If he was practical he would go where the private sector would create jobs RIGHT NOW! They would approve more oil drilling not only to create jobs now, but those actions would lower energy prices in the future. AND the kicker is that this would be ALL private sector money, not your money. You know where there could be another structural area where we could look to improve? How about the BRIC nations? These nations are growing rapidly, and their appetite for good products and services are rising even faster. A good president would have the vision to see this. They would do everything in their power to increase trade, supply their needs with our American products and services. HOnestly, how many times have you heard that this has been happening? If you have it hasn't been nearly enough. What about making out corporate tax code competitive with the rest of the world? Did you know that the presidents corporate tax plan has been shunned by his own economic council? No one is supporting it. You can find that on the web if you look for it. Why? Because at the end of the day, they found out that his corporate tax "cut" is actually a tax hike. What about the presidents idea to raise taxes on dividends for all Americans to near 40%? What do you think that will do? You think that will encourage more investment towards companies? You see these are structural issues, but the ideological deficit spending purists somehow believe that if you spend money just for the sake of creating a job, any job, that voilaaaaaaaa! SUSTAINED GROWTH!!! Guys like you TPS are very dangerous. They give people the false illusion that things are going well "Look at the bond markets, everything is fine". This ideology is what the president supports, the people he nominated to the FED are academics who hold the belief that stimulus IS the panacea. They're wrong.

I think it's a sad state of affairs when people begrudge others for having a couple cadillacs. Having said that, if this is the best the DNC and all their rank and file meatpuppets can come up with, then all Romney has to do (assuming he wins the primaries) is have a razor like focus on the economy and he'll stand a good chance in winning.

It's worse than a naughty word, it's a big BOOGEY MAN! BOOOGAA BOOGAA BOOOGAA

Santo recieved 52% to 18% of Romney's of the total Democratic Votes. Approximatey 10% of total votes were from Democrats, there was a concerted effort from the DNC, DailyKos, Santo and Michael Moore, if you would of eliminated the differential between Rombo and Santo, Romney's lead would of been closter to 7%. Also another fact, which you won't hear reported, simply because the left and right wing blogs and media all dislike Romney, is that Romney in fact attracted almost 100,000 more votes and that he recieved a larger percentage of the total vote than he did in 08.

Santorum is gonna win. Exit polls so far have 10% of the total voters are Democrats and he has more than a 3 to 1 advantage with these voters. My guess is that Santorum wins by about 3-5%

Well if you ask me which do I prefer a 17.5% corporate tax rate or at 28%? or only 2 income tax rates of 10% and 28% as opposed to what we have now? or Keeping all the regulations of the Presidents Health Care law, some of the EPA's regulations and all of Dodd Frank as opposed to what we have today? or allowing the expansion of domestic oil drilling and approving the keystone over this presidents policies? or An effort to cut spending more than this president? or attempting to reform entitlements, whereas this president doesn't even try? or keeping taxes at dividends at the current rates as opposed to north of 40%? Which do you prefer? Substance JA, Substance....

That's ok Eric, you're not alone, most people don't understand what a managed bankrupcty is, just take solice that you and DiN fall in this category.

No, that's what he meant. Read it!

Usually works well for me, better than doing what we have been doing. Oh, and guess what there LA? The idea that I'm floating, would be much better for all the concerns that you listed than the status quo.

I originally read it on the hill, but it's now on Politico http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73349.html

For any of you dipshits on this board that are thinking about voting for Santorum Yeah, like he'd have a real shot at beating Obama.

Just because you say its as simple as that doesn't make it so. There has never been a real effort to protect the borders while having a sensible approach to allowing a pathway to citizenship. By Just doing it!

Well I call bull **** to your bull **** of my bull ****! So there! In regards to what sort of pathway to citizenship? I don't know enough details to give you a specific answer, but I layed out a general idea. Off of that framework with a serious committment of protecting the borders in a deal that works hand inhand with that idea, I would say is the best way to move forward. Also, unless you want to live in a world of high debt, high taxes, free **** for everyone, then the conservative movement better get on the ball on this issue, because latinos are moving away from conservatives and they are doing it in droves, and that is a fact! Well, it's not gonna happen.

I'm not going to get into the complexities of it, but the idea that so and so has to happen first is a bunch of bull ****! I will tell you this, what stopped Bush from being able to make this happen was the hardcore anti immigrant wing of his own party and the cynical political calculation of the liberals knowing this fact and using it to their benefit.

I think that having a comprehensive immigration bill that includes these pathways to citizenship that I mentioned along with more protection at the border can both be done simultaneously.

Best "candidates" for who? For those that have narrow definitions of what "conservatives" should mean? Or best "candidate" out of the lot to run the country?