In response to the thread title: Yeah, p much.

I like how one of Obamas' SuperPACs is already using race footage as attack ads, it's great.

Romney should view this as practice for 2016.

The never ending cycle of Republicans and Democrats, leading the country evermore towards failure, blaming the other side, and lamenting that it wouldn't be so if they had "more time".

If we could just repeal the 22nd Amendment and reelect Clinton everything would be ok.

Mitt Romney: "My business experience will help ordinary people get ahead."
Media: "How?"
Mitt Romney: "Because I have experience in the private sector."
Media: "Um... so, how will that make you a better president?"
Mitt Romney: "Because I have twenty five years in business."

Even Ben Stein says the Mitt Romney knows nothing about economics.

You know how the US government has gone deeper and deeper into debt, paying incompetent would-be financiers out of the principal with no long-term repayment plan other than default?

Mitt Romney has a lot of experience in this area.

It's only natural that Mitt Romney would associate with Donald Trump. They have so much in common: they both have a history of mismanaging companies into bankruptcy, they both made their personal fortunes by defrauding creditors and investors, and in spite of it all they both still call themselves successful businessmen.

And you wonder why the American economy is ****ed.

I don't disagree about Romney being a poor choice, but I'm curious; why is Obama any better? Under his administration, we've sank further into debt (significantly) and the economy has continued to flounder. As I see it, regardless of who wins, the American people are getting screwed.

It would be interesting to see what might happen if the majority of congress wasn't elected based on campaign promises (which they kept) to defy everything Obama tries to accomplish. You can say that he hasn't accomplished anything (he has) all you want. There's no doubt about it that more things would be changing if we simply outlawed filibusters.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/02/dueling-debt-deceptions/

Sarn, let's play a game.

You tell me exactly what you think a government can do to improve the economy while reducing debt. Then, I will explain exactly why it won't work. Then you correct your plan, and we repeat until a lesson is learned.

Sound fun?

Jon`C, do you have a point to make with that link? I get that it's not as bad as the supporters of either side would like to claim, and I get that it was also bad under Bush.


That's basically the point I was making. (Also, keep in mind, based on actual $ amount, the debt has increased in 4 years with Obama basically the same as what it did in 8 years with Bush.) And the projections are pretty awful.
[/COLOR][/COLOR]

The actual $ amount is a meaningless figure (as is percentage change) because it ignores both inflation and economic growth. Since the capacity to repay debt is a function of total output, it only makes sense to view debt as a percentage of GDP. While it's true that the amount of debt has increased during Obama's administration regardless of the metric used, the rate of increase has actually declined somewhat.

The point I was trying to make is that the United States of America costs more money to operate than the American public is willing to pay, so the situation cannot possibly improve regardless of which political party or politician is in power. The actual power the executive branch has to influence the economy is also pretty hugely limited so it's kinda ridiculous to claim that either Obama or Romney would be "worse" for the economy. Nothing gets through congress without a large enough majority to override a presidential veto so the position is completely irrelevant now.

My previous post was sincere, by the way.

I don't follow where you're going with this. You seem to suggest that all the current US costs are necessary. Perhaps the public might be willing to pay a bit more to cover a smaller bill?



It's not really true to say something can get through Congress without a large enough majority to override a presidential veto. Overriding a filibuster in the Senate requires 60 votes. However, overriding a veto requires 2/3 of both the Senate and the House.

Is it really the office of the president who is to blame for our woes? I thought it was the Congress! The best the president can do is have a high IQ and exercise good judgement, and also to stick it to the military bureaucracy. And also avoid being manipulated by Putin, I guess. Having said that, he is a Democrat, and I guess he just had to ram that health care bill through congress so that Republicans now eternally hate him. Although they probably would have anyway.

I think that people inside/outside the beltway live in different realities. The business world and the ayn rand people seem to think that they don't need the government, and if they could just get rid of it, they could pay zero taxes. This wet dream appears appears to be eternal.

Inside the beltway, on the other hand, you have completely insulated individuals responsible for dumping trillions of dollars into a military empire that arguably sustains the U.S. dollar and thus maintains the foundation the rest of us depend on, but... come on people! Trillions of dollars down the drain just because some jihadist in Afghanistan realized that hijacking airplanes is more cost effective than running an empire.

I can't help but think that the right's unwillingness to pay for their wars is part some sort of complex where they need to deny how mind numbing-ly wasteful the wars have been to start with.

Of course, there's other waste. To all our military veterans on the board who've never been deployed... there was this speaker on public radio the other night bemoaning the luxurious pensions for retired military who never saw combat.

Saying that costs are "unnecessary" is a lot like saying the Civil War was about states rights.

Somewhere, up near Juneau, there's a dead-end road to a bridge that was never built. The road goes nowhere, nobody uses it, and nobody ever will use it. The road was an unnecessary expense by any reasonable account. However, constructing the road funnelled a lot of money into local firms and households, alleviating some structural unemployment and preventing some otherwise-structurally unemployed laborers from being absorbed into other sectors. As a result, Alaska has retained a greater capacity to provide certain high-demand goods during market expansions.

The money is going to go somewhere, whether the government collects it from you or not. The only question is whether your imported consumer good is better for the country than a transfer payment.

Seems a little premature to be calling this, especially since they are using inaccurate delegate counts for all of the caucus states.

How is there any possibility that anyone else will get the nomination?

I was hoping for a brokered convention myself.

for Sarn and whoever else:

http://whattheheckhasobamadonesofar.com/?q=30

If only his reforms were as good as the new deal. ****ing GOP would probably kill everyone over it.

Even if he appears to have the required number of delegates, he doesn't actually have anything until those delegates vote on the floor. He doesn't have as many delegates as the media reports, and of the ones he does have, in many states 'bound' delegates are allowed to vote 'abstain' in the first round. In other states, the penalty for not voting the way you are bound is minor or non-existent. Romney supporters tend to vote and then go home. Ron Paul supporters tend to stick around and get elected to delegate slots and party positions. This nomination is just a battle in the war for the republican party and Romney is not winning that. It's going to be a very different party in four years no matter which way this goes.

(We can agree that Obama will beat Romney easily enough. Which is fine. Obama isn't the best choice, but he's a lot better than Romney. I'm hoping that in a second term, Obama would cut loose and get some **** done. He might even get a democratic congress too.)

PPPssssttt!!! he had that when he was first elected...

Not really, since the two people that cinched it also voted against him at times.

Please stop grasping at straws.

Tibby is correct. Lieberman kind of ruined it for him.

oh wait... you mean not that he didn't have a democrat congress. Just that he didn't have them all whipped.

As has happened so often in history, the entire future of a nation rested on an idiot.

Actually I just meant that he might get a democrat congress this fall.

Would you care to give several examples? I mean, it sounds nice, but unless you know some instances then you're just guessing.

I don't think he's grasping at straws, just mentioning that it is a possibility.. even if it is a long shot. (Obama would still most likely win either way)

But it's not a possibility. It's over. Barring some crazy information coming to light, or doing something insanely stupid, Romney is it. I say that mentioning it is grasping at straws because it very much is not a possibility. Seriously. Forget about it. Ron Paul is never going to be president.

oh, and Jon`C, I agree with your point about the economy not being much affected by the president. If anything I think the Federal Reserve needs reform. (I think I read something recently about an audit bill passing? can't find it now, only references to the audit in 2011. But I think that's a step in the right direction.) This is what originally attracted me to Ron Paul because at least he wanted to do something DIFFERENT, instead of continuing to allow the fed to throw money into corporate bailouts and driving the country further into debt. I'm willing to concede that Paul's plan is drastic and dangerous though.

Also, I'm not interested in playing your economics "game" because 1) I don't know enough to even take a stab at what you're looking for, or to understand well enough to form an opinion on anything you might say, 2) economics theory is "theory" for a reason; even if you tell me your opinion on what we should do as a nation, it's at best no more guaranteed to effect positive change than anyone else's (more qualified) opinion, and 3) while I would some day like to become more informed about economics than I am now, I don't have the time for it now, nor do I have the patience for your disdainful style of teaching.

sorry that was more directed at tibby.

a disdainful style of teaching/teacher can sometimes be beneficial. nothing says MOTIVATION like possibly proving that someone wrong.

I wish everyone would stop acting like the general election is in the bag. It makes me nervous.