Newt or Mitt VS Obama. Can either of 'em beat him?

[Anotherkiwi]

Most all of it, except for maybe the part that you don't live in the USA of which I have no first hand knowledge. First of all, I am not a republican. I understand you'd love to rathole me into your generalizations of Americans. Sorry that doesn't work out for you. Second, you have no idea what I think of Obama, please don't think you do or attempt to think for me 

My apologies for the inference taken from so many of your posts.  Does that then make you a Democrat?  Nobody here has ever mentioned a third party (I'm assuming that the "Tea Party" doesn't count).  I thought you had made it patently clear what you thought of Obama, along with many other members of this forum.  I wouldn't dream of trying to think for you ! 
 

Exactly. He had no record except for a year and a half of being a freshman Senator and a career of a Chicago community organizer. THAT was his record. He had as much experience of running a world power country as I do. I wouldn't vote for me either.

Nobody has any experience of running a world power country until they get elected - unless they get a second term.  Just because someone has had years of being a Senator or Governor does not necessarily mean that they will be a good President.  They may - but, then again, they may be totally useless on the biggest stage.
 

Robber baron....LOL. Are you against making money kiwi? Is profit forbidden in your utopia?

Am I against making money?  Of course not, but I'm not thrilled when the person in question causes the loss of thousands of jobs while doing so.  Your job is presumably safe from such a scenario.
 

Enough of the name calling already.  Really, stop sounding like a hack if you wish to be taken seriously.

And you accuse me of name-calling?
 

Were your feelings hurt that badly? Name calling is the first sign of defeat in a logical, reasonable debate and a sign that you are not capable..

My feelings weren't hurt at all.  However, I get sick of people like you being so sure that the USA is the only country that matters.  I can't help it if you haven't previously encountered the term "ugly American."  Look it up, then you might realise why I used it.
 

You couldn't begin to comprehend my inner demons, none of which are associated with politics or political debate and you are no internet psychologist. Don't go there. I will however venture to guess  my world travels exceed yours, exponentially.

I have no wish to arouse your inner demons, whatever they may be.  Perhaps it was an unfortunate choice of words, given your response.  It's just that you have this knack of every so often blowing off at something which most people seem quite prepared to let go without comment, even though they may inwardly be muttering or cursing about that particular thing.  As far as world travel goes, the point would be moot unless you're an international airline pilot, in which case I will quite happily concede the point.  But, even if you have travelled more than me (which neither of us could possibly know), so what?

You feel inadequate because your country is insignificant on the world stage.

What a condescending piece of shit!
 

I get that. It's okay, everybody can't be first. It has no bearing on your personal inadequacies. Those are all yours. I am not angry and have no bone to pick with you or anyone else. However, when I see those, especially a foreigner with no dog in the hunt, intend to crown who you think should be president of the US well, I feel compelled to inject. Never mind from a knowitall with bad information. Deal with it or not. It's your problem, your choice

Why would you think that I have "personal inadequacies?"  Because I come from an "insignificant" country?  As usual, you totally miss the point because you haven't properly read what I wrote - which, to reiterate, is basically "why would you want a man such as Romney to be your President?" when he has brought so much heartache to so many people in his rise to where he is today?  I don't intend to "crown" anyone - I just find it weird that such a person should garner such support.
 

[Faux Pas]

My apologies for the inference taken from so many of your posts.  Does that then make you a Democrat?  Nobody here has ever mentioned a third party (I'm assuming that the "Tea Party" doesn't count).  I thought you had made it patently clear what you thought of Obama, along with many other members of this forum.  I wouldn't dream of trying to think for you ! 
   
Nobody has any experience of running a world power country until they get elected - unless they get a second term.  Just because someone has had years of being a Senator or Governor does not necessarily mean that they will be a good President.  They may - but, then again, they may be totally useless on the biggest stage.
 
Am I against making money?  Of course not, but I'm not thrilled when the person in question causes the loss of thousands of jobs while doing so.  Your job is presumably safe from such a scenario.
 
 
And you accuse me of name-calling?
 
My feelings weren't hurt at all.  However, I get sick of people like you being so sure that the USA is the only country that matters.  I can't help it if you haven't previously encountered the term "ugly American."  Look it up, then you might realise why I used it.
 
I have no wish to arouse your inner demons, whatever they may be.  Perhaps it was an unfortunate choice of words, given your response.  It's just that you have this knack of every so often blowing off at something which most people seem quite prepared to let go without comment, even though they may inwardly be muttering or cursing about that particular thing.  As far as world travel goes, the point would be moot unless you're an international airline pilot, in which case I will quite happily concede the point.  But, even if you have travelled more than me (which neither of us could possibly know), so what?
 
What a condescending piece of shit!
 
Why would you think that I have "personal inadequacies?"  Because I come from an "insignificant" country?  As usual, you totally miss the point because you haven't properly read what I wrote - which, to reiterate, is basically "why would you want a man such as Romney to be your President?" when he has brought so much heartache to so many people in his rise to where he is today?  I don't intend to "crown" anyone - I just find it weird that such a person should garner such support.

I don't believe I could write a post that proves my point any clearer than this one does.

 

[BC]

Hey guys, we're really treading on thin ice here with the heated exchanges..  Normally such threads are taboo around here so lets keep the discourse civil and drop the name calling so there is a chance it doesn't get shut down.

[Faux Pas]

Fair enough

[calmissile]

http://www.youtube.com/embed/KV-RqPtT2PU

[Anotherkiwi]

http://www.youtube.com/embed/KV-RqPtT2PU

Very interesting!  I know he's taking the piss, but there actually seem to be a couple of good ideas in there.

[The Natural]

Sweden has a social welfare system that exceeds the Netherlands.
They have free healthcare.
Cigarettes cost USD 10 for a pack of 24.
A liter of Vodka costs USD 30 (cheap vodka not the good stuff).
A liter (no not  gallon) of gas costs USD 3.00
Income tax is as stated on average of 33%, top income tax is 56%

And Norway has a social welfare system that exceeds Sweden as well as full employment for those that wish to work. There is a reason the Swedes go in large numbers to Norway to work, just go to Oslo and see how many Swedes work there, especially in the service sector.
Cigarettes here, USD 15, a bottle of Stoli USD 50. But near free healthcare. Income tax was for me 24% last year. 5 weeks of vacation. For June, the regular salary is cut and we instead get holiday money equal to 12% of the income the previous year which in my case is about 8000 dollars. So taxes and prices are high yes, but income reflects that and even though there is constant discussions over the level of the welfare state vs. individualism, the living standard for the middle class is very good. There are billionaires in Norway too, just not nearly as many billions per billionaire as in most countries.

I sincerely doubt that the US citizens will agree to this without revolution.

Given the complete picture, I doubt it. But continue the present policy of decimating the middle class and there will be a revolution IMHO.

[BC]

Given the complete picture, I doubt it. But continue the present policy of decimating the middle class and there will be a revolution IMHO.

Plutocracy?

[The Natural]

Plutocracy?

+ 1. Yes, I fear so.

[BC]

+ 1. Yes, I fear so.

In that case the revolution started in 2008..  guess we'll have to see if there is enough momentum to carry it through 2012.

I also think many are catching the 'drift' and are getting tired of it.

[The Natural]

In that case the revolution started in 2008..  guess we'll have to see if there is enough momentum to carry it through 2012.

I also think many are catching the 'drift' and are getting tired of it.

Must come to a point of critical mass of opposition at some point. How many times can regular folks be fooled by slogans of "hope" and "change" I wonder. Won't hold my breath just yet as even on this forum some sincerely believe that yet another insider billionaire will make a difference. Maybe it's necessary to hit rock bottom in order to really start from scratch again?

[BC]

Maybe it's necessary to hit rock bottom in order to really start from scratch again?

Indeed..  In fact I think that is what should have happened in the crash.

Band-aids are becoming very expensive.

[erikmagenta]

And Norway has a social welfare system that exceeds Sweden as well as full employment for those that wish to work. There is a reason the Swedes go in large numbers to Norway to work, just go to Oslo and see how many Swedes work there, especially in the service sector.
Cigarettes here, USD 15, a bottle of Stoli USD 50. But near free healthcare. Income tax was for me 24% last year. 5 weeks of vacation. For June, the regular salary is cut and we instead get holiday money equal to 12% of the income the previous year which in my case is about 8000 dollars. So taxes and prices are high yes, but income reflects that and even though there is constant discussions over the level of the welfare state vs. individualism, the living standard for the middle class is very good. There are billionaires in Norway too, just not nearly as many billions per billionaire as in most countries.

 


Given the complete picture, I doubt it. But continue the present policy of decimating the middle class and there will be a revolution IMHO.

Yes the Wall Street protestors would not be doing that if there was a thriving middle class and they all had good jobs.  In order for that to happen capital which has left this country by the billions and trillions to go to India and China must come back and be invested here.  I doubt if that will ever happen under Obama.  Romney is clearly the better choice in my opinion.  Obama is trying to criticize his record at Bain Capital.  Hmmmmmm?  A record of 78% success?  A record of success at running the Olympics as well.

[Daveman]

I think it's time we give in and go with the flow... let's ship the damn government to India....

[erikmagenta]

I think it's time we give in and go with the flow... let's ship the damn government to India....

No, let's privatize the government, and ship the damn politicians to India!!!

[calmissile]

I am curious if anyone disagrees with this non partisan analysis of the debt crisis in the US.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EW5IdwltaAc&feature=youtu.be

[calmissile]

Vote for whoever will repeal the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act and pass a new Glass-Steagal act. and get our banking system under control again.

Please supply some details and rationale for those of us not familiar with the acts.

[Gator]

I am curious if anyone disagrees with this non partisan analysis of the debt crisis in the US.

I agree that we must address the debt issue now.  And I agree that everyone's ox must be gored.
 
Some fiscal restraint and tax increases are scheduled to take place in 2012-2013.  These are referred to collectively as the "fiscal cliff." 
 
An austerity and fiscal restraint program will likely harm our fragile recovery, adding to the debt problem.  We are on the horns of a dilemma.  We really need a good President.
 
Here is the summary of a CBO report about this issue, released two days ago.
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43264
 

[calmissile]

I agree that we must address the debt issue now.  And I agree that everyone's ox must be gored.
 
Some fiscal restraint and tax increases are scheduled to take place in 2012-2013.  These are referred to collectively as the "fiscal cliff." 
 
An austerity and fiscal restraint program will likely harm our fragile recovery, adding to the debt problem.  We are on the horns of a dilemma.  We really need a good President.
 
Here is the summary of a CBO report about this issue, released two days ago.
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43264

With the current congress, would it really make any difference who is president?

[TheTraveler]

if a guy falls between average and bum, and he's fine with that, then i guess socialism and obama might make sense for him.

under socialism, average and below are generally 'net takers'.  and when average and below courts a RW, he can point to the comfy social safety net as part of his 'sales pitch'... a safety net that is paid for by 'net givers'.

but most RW aren't interested in the socialist dreamer or the 'occupy' deadbeat.  this type of man is perceived by RW as weak and an unreliable provider.

hope this info is useful to those men seeking a RW!!!

[BC]

With the current congress, would it really make any difference who is president?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/05/24/MN6J1ONAKT.DTL

So both candidates want to freeze the student loan rates for another year but still can't get it done for political reasons / agenda so it sure looks like there is indeed little difference.

[Gylden]

Please supply some details and rationale for those of us not familiar with the acts.

Here is some basic info from Wikipedea:
 
"
The Banking Act of 1933 (Pub.L. 73-66, 48 Stat. 162, enacted June 16, 1933) was a law that established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in the United States and imposed banking reforms, several of which were intended to control speculation.^[1] It is often referred to as the Glass–Steagall Act, after its Congressional sponsors, Senator Carter Glass (D) of Virginia, and Representative Henry B. Steagall (D) of Alabama.
The term Glass–Steagall Act, however, is most often used to refer to four provisions of the Banking Act of 1933 that limited commercial bank securities activities and affiliations between commercial banks and securities firms.^[2] Starting in the early 1960s federal banking regulators interpreted these provisions to permit commercial banks and especially commercial bank affiliates to engage in an expanding list and volume of securities activities.^[3] By the time the affiliation restrictions in the Glass–Steagall Act were repealed through the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999 by President Bill Clinton, many commentators argued Glass-Steagall was already “dead.”^[4] Most notably, Citibank’s 1998 affiliation with Salomon Smith Barney, one of the largest US securities firms, was permitted under the Federal Reserve Board’s then existing interpretation of the Glass-Steagall Act.^[5]
Many commentators have stated that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act’s repeal of the affiliation restrictions of the Glass-Steagall Act was an important cause of the late-2000s financial crisis.^[6][7][8] Some critics of that repeal argue it permitted Wall Street investment banking firms to gamble with their depositors' money that was held in affiliated commercial banks.^{[9][10][11][12][13][14]} Others have argued that the activities linked to the financial crisis were not prohibited (or, in most cases, even regulated) by the Glass-Steagall Act.^[15] Commentators, including the American Bankers Association in January 2010, have also argued that the ability of commercial banking firms to acquire securities firms (and of securities firms to convert into bank holding companies) helped mitigate the financial crisis.^{[16]"
 
Of course note that the ABA is claiming that this is good news and contributed to the fixing of the crisis, but as far as I am concerned fixing out of control speculation is not cured with more wild speculation. and are we out of the woods yet?   I don't think so....}

[Gylden]

Here is a good bedtime story!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=Lvl5Gan69Wo
 

[Gylden]

Excerpts from: http://bizfinance.about.com/od/smallbusinessissues/a/Glass-Steagall-Act.htm
 
"One of the arguments for repealing the Glass-Steagall Act was that the banking industry was losing market share to securities firms. Another was that the securities activities the banks were seeking were low risk by their nature and could provide diversification for the banks. Obviously, the types of risky, exotic securities like credit default swaps had not been thought of at that time."
 
"When 2008 came and the Great Recession occurred, the FDIC increased its depositor insurance amount to $250,000 from $100,000 per bank per depositor to increase consumer confidence. That limit will expire at the end of 2013 and will revert back to $100,000."

[Gylden]

Here is also a good read:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-kuttner/credit-default-swaps_b_1067152.html
 
"You may recall that credit default swaps were the prime instrument in the nearly $200 billion collapse of AIG, which had to be bailed out by the U.S. government. AIG, the world's largest insurance company, in effect wrote insurance against sub-prime securities going bad, but without setting aside reserves against that risk.
Reserving against possible loss is the fundamental pillar of the insurance business. AIG could get away with breaking that rule because industry has successfully lobbied for a loophole holding that a swap was not quite insurance, not quite a security, not quite illegal gambling -- it conveniently fell between the cracks."