U.S. Presidential Race 2012

[NewJazz4Mike]

Originally Posted by tpt1

I read it. The solitaire comment stood out for me.

In a good way I hope. Nobody can accuse me of being completely humorless!

[NewJazz4Mike]

Originally Posted by jazzbluescat

You 'sho got a way with words.

I can't take credit for it. I'm sorry, I should have said that I received it in an email from a friend. I did make a couple of edits to fit it into context here.
I agree that it's pretty clever though.

[NewJazz4Mike]

Originally Posted by dsschicago

That measure of unemployment has been going on for a long long time. Hell, I remember that from my first-year Microeconomics course. Way off the mark to make it some Obama thing.

EDIT: Oops, sorry, Jazz Oud already addressed that above. Overlooked it the first time.

Yes, I know the measuring of unemployment has been going on that way for some time. But then unemployment has rarely if ever been such a central issue in a critical election, so the methods of reporting weren't such an issue. I don't have the figures, but the sense is that unemployment has been so high for so long that there is a much higher and more consistent disparity these days between the figures. In simple terms, Obama's recovery has been so stagnant that a significantly higher number of people are out of work, and out of work for a very long time - so that the 8.2% figure, as bad as it is, is actually misleading. And it's an Obama thing because he promised at the outset of his term that he would get unemployment under 8% in his first year in office (let me interrupt for a moment here to point out that I realize I've started a new concept in this post, and should probably start a new paragraph, but I'm so resistant to the fucking formatting police around here right now, that I may never break my posts into paragraphs again, and furthermore I'll probably start including lots of run-on centenses and misspellings). Not only didn't Obama fulfill that campaign promise, not only has it remained over 8% for his entire term, but citing that figure (as I myself did in my offensively formatted "rant") seems to understate the seriousness of the actual situation in a disingenuous way. The scope and the effects of unemployment in our economy go far beyond the mere 8.2% figure, that's all. Thanks for bearing with me.

[flyin' brian]

Originally Posted by NewJazz4Mike

I think you, sir, are missing the point. The point is the message. That's the only point. I give most readers here credit for being intelligent enough and mentally disciplined enough to read through my post as it was. But they'd rather talk about window dressing. That's fine. As I said, its the perfect symbol of this election campaign, where those that refuse to accept the awful truth - the abject failure of Obama's presidency - will shift the discussion to ANY other superfluous topic... even engaging in something so trivial and petty as the formatting of the message is better to them than accepting the message's content.

Hmmm your not defining paragraphs somehow equates to the Obama presidency failure. I'd better check. The SOB may have made me forget to flush my toilet this morning.

[jonesy]

Originally Posted by NewJazz4Mike

I think you, sir, are missing the point. The point is the message. That's the only point. I give most readers here credit for being intelligent enough and mentally disciplined enough to read through my post as it was. But they'd rather talk about window dressing. That's fine. As I said, its the perfect symbol of this election campaign, where those that refuse to accept the awful truth - the abject failure of Obama's presidency - will shift the discussion to ANY other superfluous topic... even engaging in something so trivial and petty as the formatting of the message is better to them than accepting the message's content.

Abs olutel y mikedo n'tchangeif theycan'tundersta n. dyoufuck'e mthere 'snot h i ngwrongwithu r formattin g b y th ew ay, did u k nowthatfis handhumans canpeace.full y coexi st?

[tpt1]

Originally Posted by jonesy

abs olutel y mikedo n'tchangeif theycan'tundersta n. Dyoufuck'e mthere 'snot h i ngwrongwithu r formattin g b y th ew ay, did u k nowthatfis handhumans canpeace.full y coexi st?

+ 1

[jazzbluescat]

Originally Posted by jonesy

Abs olutel y mikedo n'tchangeif theycan'tundersta n. dyoufuck'e mthere 'snot h i ngwrongwithu r formattin g b y th ew ay, did u k nowthatfis handhumans canpeace.full y coexi st?

No shit?!

Now stop that!! :

[engelbach]

Originally Posted by NewJazz4Mike

Oh really, a writing lesson? What's next... criticize my punctuation or spelling maybe? Perfect responses in a way though... the message of my post, just like the past term of Obama is hard to endure, and yes, is quite depressing. So you distract attention away from the real problem, the crux of the matter. Sure, knock the grammar, and talk about the technical difference between profits or revenue, quibble over the math of tax brackets, discuss in depth Mitt Romney's offshore bank accounts, seize upon some idiot's "legitimate rape" comment in Missouri and try to paint the entire Republican party as misogynist. Those are all diversionary tactics and are designed to ignore the central issue. The central issue is the utter failure of this administration's policies, and the insanity it would be to inflict Obama on America for 4 more years.

Mike, you should write in paragraphs or the bottom line is that you won't be read, no matter how much you insult people.

[engelbach]

Originally Posted by jonesy

Abs olutel y mikedo n'tchangeif theycan'tundersta n. dyoufuck'e mthere 'snot h i ngwrongwithu r formattin g b y th ew ay, did u k nowthatfis handhumans canpeace.full y coexi st?

M yfe eli ng sexa ctl y. M yfe eli ng sexa ctl y. M yfe eli ng sexa ctl y. MM yfe eli ng sexa ctl y. MM yfe eli ng sexa ctl y. MM yfe eli ng sexa ctl y. MM yfe eli ng sexa ctl y. MM yfe eli ng sexa ctl y. MM yfe eli ng sexa ctl y. MM yfe eli ng sexa ctl y. MM yfe eli ng sexa ctl y. MM yfe eli ng sexa ctl y. MM yfe eli ng sexa ctl y. MM yfe eli ng sexa ctl y. MM yfe eli ng sexa ctl y. MM yfe eli ng sexa ctl y. MM yfe eli ng sexa ctl y. MM yfe eli ng sexa ctl y. MM yfe eli ng sexa ctl y. MM yfe eli ng sexa ctl y. MM yfe eli ng sexa ctl y. MM yfe eli ng sexa ctl y. MM yfe eli ng sexa ctl y. MM yfe eli ng sexa ctl y. MM yfe eli ng sexa ctl y. MM yfe eli ng sexa ctl y. MM yfe eli ng sexa ctl y. MM yfe eli ng sexa ctl y. MM yfe eli ng sexa ctl y. MM yfe eli ng sexa ctl y. MM yfe eli ng sexa ctl y. MM yfe eli ng sexa ctl y. MM yfe eli ng sexa ctl y. MM yfe eli ng sexa ctl y. MM yfe eli ng sexa ctl y. MM yfe eli ng sexa ctl y. MM yfe eli ng sexa ctl y. MM yfe eli ng sexa ctl y. MM yfe eli ng sexa ctl y. MM yfe eli ng sexa ctl y. MM yfe eli ng sexa ctl y. MM yfe eli ng sexa ctl y. MM yfe eli ng sexa ctl y. MM yfe eli ng sexa ctl y. MM yfe eli ng sexa ctl y. MM yfe eli ng sexa ctl y. MM yfe eli ng sexa ctl y.

[Jeffrey Wozniak]

[jazz oud]

Not that the True Believers will accept it:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...-barack-obama/

[engelbach]

Originally Posted by jazz oud

Not that the True Believers will accept it:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...-barack-obama/

Yes, I saw this before.

And where is this article? In The Nation? Huffpost? The Daily Worker? The "liberal" Mainstream Press?

Nope. In Forbes. Whose motto is an ironic takeoff on a leftwing cliche: "Capitalist Tool."

The smart guys on the right don't fool themselves. It's important for business to know the true state of the economy, not live in fantasyland. That fantasy stuff is invented to fire up the dupes.

Nobody can run a successful business based on illusions (pronounced "l-i-e-s") about how the economy really works.

[Jeffrey Wozniak]

How Quantitative Easing Helps the Rich and Soaks the Rest of Us

Anthony Randazzo|Sep. 13, 2012 4:30 pm


The decision is in: Unlimited quantitative easing. That was the announcement from the Federal Open Market Committee this afternoon, launching a third round of purchases of securities in a bid to boost the economy and reduce unemployment. This time, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and crew are pledging to buy $40 billion per month until the economy improves. The Fed's policy committee also extended its zero-interest rate policy until “at least mid-2015.” If QE3 lasts that long, the Feds will be printing at least another $800 billion to buy mortgage-backed securities.

It won’t be a surprise to read conservatives lambasting this as unconventional monetary policy meant to help re-elect President Obama. And inflation hawks have already started screeching. But the loudest cry of “for shame” should be coming from the Occupy Wall Street movement.

Quantitative easing—a fancy term for the Federal Reserve buying securities from predefined financial institutions, such as their investments in federal debt or mortgages—is fundamentally a regressive redistribution program that has been boosting wealth for those already engaged in the financial sector or those who already own homes, but passing little along to the rest of the economy. It is a primary driver of income inequality formed by crony capitalism. And it is hurting prospects for economic growth down the road by promoting malinvestments in the economy.

How is the Federal Reserve contributing to regressive redistribution, income inequality, and manipulated markets? Let’s flesh this out a bit.

Last month, Bernanke said that quantitative easing had contributed to the rebound in stock prices over the past few years, and suggested this was a positive outcome. “This effect is potentially important, because stock values affect both consumption and investment decisions,” he argued, apparently under the belief that the Fed has a third mandate to support rising stock prices.

This is ironically a trickle down monetary policy theory, where rising stock prices mean more wealth and more consumption that trickles down the economic ladder. One problem with this idea is that there is a gigantic mountain of household debt—about $12 trillion worth—that is diverting away any trickle down. An even worse assumption is that the stock market really reflects what is going on in the real economy.

Where the Occupy movement should really be teed off is when you consider that most equity shares in America are owned by the wealthiest 10 percent. That is not inherently a problem—wealthier individuals with more disposable income will have more ability take ownership stakes in companies than those in lower income brackets. And it is not a call for class warfare. However, it does mean that when the Fed engages in quantitative easing it is providing a benefit to a very narrow segment of society at the expense of others (either through future inflation or through the cost of raising taxes to pay for increased federal debts). That is the definition of crony capitalism.

At the same time, all Americans have seen the prices of basic goods increase over the past few years in large part due to rising commodities prices. The whole idea of QE is to drive investors out of lower risk investments like mortgage backed securities and government debt and get them to put that money in “more productive” use—lend it, build skyscrapers, invest in technology, etc. Since there is little confidence about the future of the economy, many investors have crowded into the stock market with their money, and still others have invested in commodities.

The problem is that investing in commodities can push up prices on things like gas, meat (because of feed corn prices), bread (because of wheat prices), and even orange juice. There certainly have been other contributors to commodities prices going up, but if the Fed has boosted stocks, they've boosted commodities too. So not only are the cronies gaining from quantitative easing, there is a negative wealth effect too.

The cronyism doesn’t end there. In a Dallas Fed paper released in August, OPEC chief economist William White points out that easy monetary policy favors “senior management of banks in particular.” And even Bernanke himself suggested (as if it was a good thing) that quantitative easing purchases “have been found to be associated with significant declines in the yields on both corporate bonds and MBS.” Translation: the Federal Reserve has made it artificially cheaper for corporations to borrow money and has pushed up the prices of houses (benefiting homeowners but hurting homebuyers).

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought cheap loans allowing businesses to leverage up and juiced housing prices were key parts of what got us into this mess?

All of this might be acceptable to some if quantitative easing was helping the American economy recover. The reality is that quantitative easing has made it cheaper for the government to borrow, has artificially propped up the housing market (making it take longer to recover), and has dramatically manipulated the distribution of capital in financial markets. And the economy has not been in recovery.

The plans announced today will exacerbate pre-existing malinvestment and income inequality. What is this continuous round of purchases going to do? It won’t get banks lending any more than they already are. And even if it did, households and small business still have a lot of debt that will keep them in a deleveraging state for a while. It won’t help the housing market bottom out, clear away toxic debt, and end the wave of foreclosures that need to process. It is not going to push up incomes, create new jobs, or change the technological revolution that is altering the face of employment in America.

To put it simply: More quantitative easing is not going to move the dial much on the growth meter.

Taken together, the crony capitalism and negative wealth effects of quantitative easing should clearly give pause. The fact that QE promotes activities that led to the housing bubble should have stopped its progression as an idea a long time ago, especially since these problems are greater than any gain that would come from this now perpetual pace of money creation.

If there is a time to head down to Zuccotti Park and raise some cardboard in opposition to the continuation of such a devastatingly failed policy, it is now.


http://reason.com/archives/2012/09/1...-the-fed/print

[Homer]

Here we are, the night before the 1st debate. Polls range from Obama +5 to about even. This debate focuses on the economy but with the recent events in Libya, the UN Summit, the Koreas, China/Japan, Syria, and of course Israel/Iran we should expect international issues to seep into the conversation.

I'm looking at Drudge right now and am expecting a very intense debate:

DAILY CALLER: 'For nearly 40 minutes, using an accent he never adopts in public, Obama describes a racist, zero-sum society, in which the white majority profits by exploiting black America'

Something is up, this seems too wild to be true...

...and with Romney behind he too needs to make an impact on the few swing voters that remain.

My opinion: I don't trust the pundits, I don't trust the media.

I have made up my mind and will exercise a vote that my wife will surely cancel out.

This is crunch time.

[jazzbluescat]

The debate should be a hoot!

It's a shame, we're/the US is in such dire straits, with our gov system out of control, and neither candidate can be taken seriously, IMHO. Neither candidate could do anything positive even if he wanted to, except make empty promises, stroke us, make us feel good, and hope.....

I don't trust either candidate to do something for the common good. Obamacare is good but the politicians will screw it up, it will just be something else to be abused by those that have beating the system down to a science.