jjamie12
-
Posts
622 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by jjamie12
-
-
Then, why would Bain file to the SEC that he was in charge of everything up until 2002? It's just a weird situation.
Personally, I don't care. But, the Obama campaign will have a field day with it. That's politics...
We've been through this before. Why is it so hard for everyone to believe Bain when they say that he left Bain in '99, they finished off the separation agreement in 2002, and in the interim he was still a signatory to certain deals? Does that just seem off-the-wall crazy to you?
And if that does seem off-the-wall crazy to you, I'd like you to consider: What reason would anyone have for lying about this?
-
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffaloo consumption does nothing for the economy? WTF dude.
Yo doood. Think of an example of 2 cavemen living together in same cave:
1. Both caveman hunt for 8 hours a day and feed themselves
2. One caveman is a lazy f#&% and doesn't hunt. The other doesn't object and must hunt 16 hours a day to feed the 2 of them
Except #2 doesn't have to hunt 16 hours a day to feed the 2 of them. He hunts 8 hours a day to feed himself. The other guy's dad died years ago and gave him a liftime supply of food. You don't even understand your own arguments.
-
Holy ****, where does the Government get the notion that taking a family members hard earned money that has already been taxed, taxing it again and screwing the heirs is "Fair"??? Why is there any tax on inheritances at all??
Welcome to the plight of investors who receive dividend income. You don't support raising the capital gains tax, do you?
-
The extension of the question should be "does the federal government need to be in the insurance business for people who live in flood plains?" If the answer is yes, then City of Buffalo should send a bill to DC for each snow plow purchase.
I don't really know the answer to that question, frankly.
In general and on principle, I say "No". I'm not sure what the economic ramifications for those areas would be and whether or not the the interference in the market is economically justified.
Since the government is involved, my guess is that they've effed this up, for sure and any 'good work' they were doing from before has long since gone the other way.
-
I thought it was just the opposite: everyone got insurance through NFIP, but rich people could buy extra private flood insurance. At least, ours is through NFIP, and we don't have a private policy.
My wife knows this **** cold. I'll have to ask her.
That makes sense to me, and is probably right... I just wanted to point out that it wasn't government handing out money to people who weren't smart enough to buy insurance.
-
So we're subsidizing being a retard? That is unfortunaly a bipartisan effort these days.
Just as a clarification -- I *think* what happens is that "Private Flood Insurance" in certain areas is extremely expensive, so the Feds subsidize State insurance to these areas, and that the amount of that subsidy is 'rich people welfare'. It's not 'insurance for people who don't buy it', it's that people in these areas have the option to purchase insurance from the state at rates lower than they otherwise would in the private sector.
I think.
-
And now you HAVE to buy his policies, or one of his buddies at Aetna or Cigna.... LOLOLOLOL...
but I'll take it. My wife had 35,000 in medical bills last month, paying premiums for the last 10 years has been worth it then some....
Only in America could be have such a messy, expensive HC system where private comapines get a capitive audience to bend over with no grease......
Thanks to, basically, the very same people who have now 'fixed' that for you. We'll see how it goes.
-
Is that their argument? I didn't think that it was. When do you consider Romney's date certain for leaving Bain?
From your link:
"[A] spokeswoman for Bain maintained that Romney was not involved in the Stericycle deal in 1999, saying that he had "resigned" months before the stock purchase was negotiated. The spokeswoman noted that following his resignation Romney remained only "a signatory on certain documents," until his separation agreement with Bain was finalized in 2002. And Bain issued this statement: "Mitt Romney retired from Bain Capital in February 1999. He has had no involvement in the management or investment activities of Bain Capital, or with any of its portfolio companies since that time."
I have no reason to believe that Bain is 'lying' about this, so I consider Romney's ex-Bain date to be February of '99. Do you really find it so hard to believe that?
-
2. Look around at posts I've started - I've started threads critical of Obama and the administration (admittedly only 2). And besides saying the man is personally a nice guy, my general consensus (documented for your reading pleasure) is that he is a guy unprepared and unready for the realities of the economy and the domestic disharmony.
What's your balance record?
You've posted a lot of copyright-infringed articles unoriginally co-opting everyone's opinion who may have a gripe against this administration.
So you know what, perhaps your "Hamlet" threads would carry a little more believability, if we could see one that wasn't about Obama.
But noooooo....that would be asking you to practice what you preach which fundamentally goes against your political agenda here.
See post 30 above.
Ok, let's get on the same page.
I just updated the first page to contain the MotherJones piece. The first time I linked to the Salon piece in the original thread. Check out the updated link replacement.
It's possible I'm a moron (and please let me know where I've gone wrong if I'm being obtuse), but I've been referencing the Mother Jones piece by David Corn dated 7/2/12, which is the first link in the first post of this thread. Should I be looking somewhere else?
Edit: Now I've read a piece by David Corn on 7/3/12 (linked through from the original piece) that is really just a re-hash of what he's already stated. Several 'fact-checker' sites have basically said "David, you're wrong", as he admits in the article. Except he keeps the argument going by citing 'newspaper reports from the Boston Globe that say MR is 'taking a leave of absence' rather than resigning (as if newspaper accounts are never wrong).
Either way, I'll pose the question again: Is it really so unreasonable to assume that Mitt Romney remained as a signer to certain documents from the time he 'resigned' in '99 until his separation agreement was negotiated and executed in '02, as has been claimed repeatedly by Bain and the Romney campaign? Is that really so hard to believe?
-
Lol!
I know right, because I have an obligation to discuss things in a fashion that obliges the slant.
Thanks for that.
Discuss the politics or the merits or get the !@#$ out the thread. I've already acknowledged that I don't like the guy.
What does that have to do with an article that is substantiated by offical documents written by someone who is not me?
Leave the ad hominems elsewhere or just politely ignore the thread.
I updated the first post with the article that discusses the issue in more detail.
I'm referring to the Mother Jones piece in the first post. Even that piece stops short of saying that Romney had anything to do with it. The author uses all sorts of innuendo to put his spin on it, but only concludes that this "may lead to questions" about the end of Romney's time at Bain.
Again. Is it really that far-fetched of an idea that Romney needed to remain a signatory on certain deals between the time of his resigning operational contril in '99 and them signing their separation agreement in '02? Is that really so-far-out-there impossible?
-
I understand your analogy but the difference is that Romney was financially benefitting off of something that he claimed to be morally against.
It seems to vindicate that segment who claim that he will say and do anything for money/esteem/status/his immediate benefit - despite what he believes to be inherently true.
That article was really just a horecrap. 2/3 of it was talking about safety violations that occurred prior to Bain taking over. The rest of it is trying to paint Romney as still pulling strings and running things when everyone, including Bain denies it. Is it really that hard to believe the Bain spokesman when they say that he retired from day to day operations in 1999, but remained as a signer until they negotiated his separation agreement? I mean is that really so far-fetched?
-
Point of note: KB Toys liquidated under the ownership of Prentice Capital Management, not Bain.
So you're saying that we're arguing about the specifics of something that didn't even happen?
I really can't wait for this campaign to be over.
-
They knew KB Toys was doomed from the get go... They cannibalized them. Remember the video a while back... The kid with the backpack? He was getting beat, dazed and confused... Yet, it looked like someone was trying win his trust and help him... Only thing was that person's accomplice was robbing him... Stealing out of the backpack.
That's Bain Capital in a nutshell. The ends don't justify the means.
And this is the guy, RomneyMussolini, we want keeping the trains on time?... No thanks, I will walk and be late!
You, simply, don't know what you're talking about. I wish you'd educate yourself about this in a manner other than in 30 second soundbites.
How much money did they make? Was it a case of vulture capitalism like Romney engages in?
With all due respect, you just have no idea what you're talking about. I wish you'd educate yourself about this in a manner other than 30 second soundbites.
-
I think so, but I'm an unabashed Romney supporter:
"This was a Massachussets solution to a Massachussets problem. This solution worked well in the relatively wealthy (and the relative low rate of uninsured)state of Mass., but to try and use this model as the basis for health care reform for the US as a whole is madness. If anything, we should be trying to create MORE incentives for states to experiment on their own. No party, person, or President has a monopoly on good ideas, yet this bill supposes that the federal government has all the answers for everyone in the country, without allowing for experiments that would potentially be beneficial to all."
Yadda, yadda, yadda.
I'm already tired of this Presidential campaign and it hasn't really started yet.
-
The bolded part above proves your (lack of) credibility. When did we start electing Supreme Court Justices? You're just another MDP.
You've GOT to be kidding, right?
-
I've seen signs of a possible slow down over the past few months, and it seems as if it is pretty much confirmed, the question is how long will it last?
From my estimations, the slow down here domestically speaking began almost two to three months ago. ISM, Factory orders, Chicago PMI, consumer confidence, weekly jobless claims, the unemployment report and a whole host of other reports suggest that we will continue to cool down. What was especially bad about those jobs numbers wasn't even so much the lousy numbers for May, but the dramatic revisions for the month prior.
JA brought up a point the other day that he believed the lowering of Oil prices would be a good thing for the president, and it is to a degree, but I argued that if the price of oil went down to $85 a barrel that it would indicate possible fractures in the economy, and that if oil came down, then so would stocks, and that is precisely what happened.
With China continuing to slow down and utter chaos and uncertainty in Europe, the external forces that were helping grow our exporting manufacturing base (primarily coming from China,India) now seems that it won't be an engine of growth for our exporters. Again, how long will China, India and Brazil continue to cool down? To be honest, I really don't know, but I would guess at least for a few more months, until China's stimulus kicks in, which they have shown that they are quite efficient when implementing these measures.
Europe is a disaster, there is no good outcome over there. The only outcomes are either really bad or catastrophic and anything in between. So the uncertainty and depressed growth rates over there will serve as a negative for what happens over here.
Then there is the "fiscal cliff", since it appears that neither the president or the house republicans have any desire in compromising on this serious issue, it looks like the best possible scenario we could possibly see is that at some point, months from now, we get an extension of current policies until a president is decided after the elections. In the meantime, this will be yet another layer of uncertainty that will cloud over US corporations and small businesses which of course will create another obstacle for Job hiring.
So what are the possible implications for the presidency? I would of said going into the May Jobs report, that Romney stood a 50/50 chance, I would say that his odds of winning have gone up. I may be wrong, but I believe we are going to have really weak economic numbers for at least the next three months. Now of course, these ultra low interest rates could spur more lending (doubtful but possible), these low oil prices could help consumers who don't have 401ks and stocks have more disposable income, which in turn creates more demand for certain goods and services and then of course the Federal Reserve could come in with another round of QE (Which I believe is highly likely) and that could jump start the stock market again, helping create another manufactured wealth effect, that could in turn increase consumer confidence.
Of course another round of QE would most likely increase oil and gasoline prices, so that is a double edged sword.
If what I believe will happen, which is stagnant growth, and subpar employment numbers, then that will increase Romney's chances of winning this fall. He has already dramatically made headway over the past two months, my guess is that the polling numbers will continue to go his way.
I am an unabashed Romney supporter, but his path to the Presidency is still pretty difficult. As long as there isn't a significant worsening of the economy, I think it's going to be really difficult for him, electorally speaking. I don't see significant worsening over the next 6 months or so, do you? I think all of the major issues are at about the 9-12 month window in affecting our economy.
We were talking at work about how there is now probably a significant chance of another Great Depression. In fact, if you look at how the 30's played out I *think* it was remarkably similar to how we've started out in this most recent crisis.
-
What I can't understand is how hasn't this been a law to begin with? Yes I know, it was "Civils rights" sort of deal back in the 50/60's, but that was then, this is now. Lets just get it right, it will have to be done some time, and no better time than now.
And in regards to your claim that it isn't a problem, how do you know? That's like saying a teacher only caught 2 students all year cheating on their tests in class, so since there were only two people caught, it's not a problem. Well, that just doesn't fly in the face of reason, what about all the kids that did cheat who didn't get caught? I can assure you, there are a whole lot more people getting away with **** than those who get caught.
So, I reject the premise of the case that you are making.
And I also reject that you believe that all the motives from these people is to suppress turnout. Are there some people who's main objective is to suppress turnout? For sure. Are there people who have an honest desire to ensure that they limit voter fraud? Without a doubt.
This is a common sense solution, and there is no rational basis to object to it, other than questioning peoples motives, which as I said is disprovable.
I support this idea, does that mean that I want to suppress voter turnout?
I think what you wrote is completely defensible. I also find the other side to be completely defensible, although I tend to agree with you.
And, strictly speaking, yes, you do want to suppress voter turnout. By making it more difficult for people to vote, you are for suppressing voter turnout. And THAT is why the other side has any sort of case at all. If you're seeking to limit voter turnout, in any way, then there should be a darn good reason to do so (so goes the argument against).
What if I lose my card? What if I'm mugged on the way to the voting booths? What if my house burns down two days before the election? What if...? In those instances, I would be denied my right to vote.
I fully respect your rejection of the premise of 'since there isn't reported voter fraud, there isn't voter fraud'. I would disagree with a 'well, that settles it, then. We need voter id!' conclusion based on something that is 'absence of evidence'. I wouldn't spend two seconds of energy on this issue if it was me 'in power'. I just don't see where this is any significant problem at all.
-
From my perspective, the intentions are a secondary issue that is virtually disprovable one way or another. If we are going to elect people who have tremendous power, so much power that it affects peoples lives, then what matters most is that we get it right and that we do everything that we reasonably can to limit fraud. Asking someone for a freaking ID isn't unreasonable!
I agree. It's also not unreasonable for some to say this: Voting is such a fundamental right that to put restrictions on it, in ANY way, should only be done if there is some problem that needs to be addressed. At this point, there is NO problem, so why should we be limiting, in any way, people's right to vote?
Again -- intentions can and do matter. If there isn't a problem with voter fraud, what are we trying to fix? The very simple answer (and really, Magox -- disprovable? You know better than this) is that the ONLY reason this is an issue is because Republicans think it will limit Democrat turnout and Democrats think it will limit Democrat turnout. Complicating the issue is that there is a 'moral high ground' argument for both sides, neither of which is unreasonable. Why does anyone on this board give a rip about voter id laws? There is NO problem. What are you trying to solve? Because it's a partisan issue that both sides use to rile up their base. Stop being played. Vote the issues. This is so far away from being an issue it's comical.
Especially when it's free and easy to obtain. The "discrimination" argument is a lie perpetuated by the Dems so that voter fraud, although maybe not massive in scale, can continue.
What voter fraud!?!
Edit: I hate it when you guys force me to argue the other sides of these things. I think there should be voter ID laws. If I were 'in power', I wouldn't think about this for even two seconds in my first four years. This is just not anything to be all riled up about. There are so many more issues that need to be dealt with. Voter fraud is NOT a problem.
-
You are correct. I am sure that the reason most GOP politicians are for ID laws, is that it will will cut down on fraud and most likely help Republicans to win more elections.
But shouldn't the goal of having fair elections be everyone's goal ?
No matter who it "benefits" more ?
.
Of course it should!
Please point me to all of the giant problems we've had with unfair elections due to voter fraud and, specifically, to voter fraud that would be stopped by having ID cards.
Again. I'm for this idea of voter id cards, but this issue is only alive because Republicans think it will suppress Democrat turnout. That's the reason, and they're probably right.
Fraud is fraud. Doesn't matter who benefits from it and who is hurt by it. But obviously the ones being hurt by it will want it changed, while those being helped will claim nothing should be done about it.
Same to you: Please point me to somewhere where I can see all this giant voter fraud epidemic that is actually disenfranchising 'true' voters because the 'fraudsters' are changing elections.
-
That is opinion, not fact.
In fact, in my opinion, its about as far away from fact as can be.
Firstly, let me say that I support Voter ID laws. I don't see what the big deal is -- if they're free and reasonably available I think it makes sense to ask people to present their ID before they vote.
Secondly -- If you think that Republican *politicians* are doing this for any other reason than that they think it will help them win more often, you're deluding yourself. It doesn't take a genius to realize that folks who don't have ID are more likely to vote Democrat than Republican.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates
you can take out a loan, you can work through another computer company, or you can build one out of your garage slowly...
either way you have to work...
Never mind. I quit. No, really this time.
-
...bill gates idea would have come together regardless. he would have sold it for profit.
Let's assume you mean that he would sell computers for a profit.
Where did he get the money to buy the component parts the computers he was to sell?
-
what you right wing hacks dont want to admit, either because you know capitalism is really welfare for the rich, or you are too stupid, is that surplus value is exploitation.
What you call 'exploitation' is the very engine by which our living standards continue to rise. It is also called 'incentive'. Without the investment incentive or 'exploitation' in your terms, rising living standards grind to a halt. Stop quoting books, internet sites or whatever it is you're quoting and THINK about the practical implications of implementing your economic system where employees vote themselves the profits of a company. Just think about it. It may not seem 'fair' to you, but it is, most assuredly, the best way to increase prosperity and living standards for ALL. Without this incentive, Bill Gates doesn't drop out of Harvard and start Microsoft. He goes to work for IBM.
-
It was the Norwegian!
Edit: That's wrong.
Romney Booed by NAACP
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
Then you are really not paying attention.
Enjoy the soundbites.