2012 Presidential Election

Discussion in 'Mid Atlantic' started by Johnny Utah, Jul 14, 2011.

Who are you planning on voting for in the 2012 presidential election?

  1. Barack Obama

    25 vote(s)
  2. Mitt Romney

    5 vote(s)
  3. Ron Paul

    26 vote(s)
  4. Michele Bachmann

    1 vote(s)
  5. Herman Cain

    4 vote(s)
  6. Newt Gingrich

    1 vote(s)
  7. Tim Pawlenty

    2 vote(s)
  8. Rudi Giulliani

    1 vote(s)
  9. Rick Perry

    0 vote(s)
  10. Sarah Palin

    3 vote(s)
  1. yankee

    yankee Well-Known Member

    Sep 26, 2008
    Isn't the saying, "Then that can do, them that can't teach...?"
  2. yankee

    yankee Well-Known Member

    Sep 26, 2008
    So do the Sox.

  3. yankee

    yankee Well-Known Member

    Sep 26, 2008
    It's ok, kook, prance, er, run, down the beach. We get it.
  4. yankee

    yankee Well-Known Member

    Sep 26, 2008
    Fiscal disasters are everywhere, here & abroad. The debt problem won't disappear regardless of the social unrest whether it's in California or Athens.

    Looking longer term, without fiscal discipline, it's going to be either inflation or restructuring.

    To date, the govts here & Europe have absolutely picked loose monetary policy. Results? Currency debasement, which in & of itself could spell high inflation. In the past 5 years, the USD has declined 31% vs the SWF. The Euro has fallen 22% vs the SWF in the same period. Here in the USA, we're borrowing 40% of our annual spending & overall debt is approaching 100% of GDP (incredible). In a somewhat ironic turn, Swiss officials have complained of late that their currency is hurting their economy (exports). I guess that's the odd effect of running the sole fiscally responsible government entity on the planet.

    China's due for a hiccup. They're heavily dependent upon unsustainable infrastructure & construction investment.

    JohnnyboyUtah, don't try to understand any of this.
    Your local ER is already swamped with people complaining of headaches.
  5. BeachCruiser01

    BeachCruiser01 Well-Known Member

    Sep 14, 2007
    Monitary policy is a big problem to be sure. The American Dollar has lost over 50% of its value since 2001. Mainly due to the Federal Reserve printing more and more money.

    China is risking a huge bubble becuase they are growing at an unsustainable rate.

    The next major problem looming right after this debt ceiling debate, is Washington wants to pass trade deals with Columbia, South Korea and Panama. We do not need any more trade agreements unless the United State benefits FIRST from the agreement. Exporting more jobs to poorer countries that we cannot compete with is idiotic in the extreme.
  6. rodndtube

    rodndtube Well-Known Member

    May 21, 2006
    Two other major expansions in costs between 2003 and 2008 were Medicare Advantage (the Feds pay a subsidy to private insurance plans to cover medicare) and the unfunded prescription drug benefit. Notably, one of the things that the Health Care Reform Act modifies is the unfunded Medicare Advantage program (this program costs more for the government than Medicare but cost less to the consumer), the so called $500 billion Medicare cut in the Health Care Reform Act that Republican are so opposed to.
  7. rodndtube

    rodndtube Well-Known Member

    May 21, 2006
    The top 1 percent hold somewhere between 35 and 50 percent of the wealth. Go crunch the numbers. It would make a difference.

    Social Security recipients have not received COLAs the past couple of years because aggregate price inflation has not increased above the level it was a few years ago. COLA adjustments are made once a year. In Jan 2009, SS recipients received a COLA increase of around 5 percent due to the overall increase in the aggregate price level (CPI) between late 2007 and late 2008, e.g., the CPI increased from 100 to 105 during that time (the large increase was largely due to the huge increase in petroleum). During the past two pricing periods, the CPI had decreased (due again to general decreases in petroleum prices AND the general deflation of prices in the economy like housing), so no COLA adjustments were made (SS checks are not decreased due to decreases in the CPI). This year the CPI is forecast to be around 108 (relative to my 100 and 105 examples), so SS recipients would receive a COLA of around 3 percent. This process is established by law.

    One of the proposals floating around in many of the debt reduction plans is changing the CPI used for calculating the COLAs. The CPI being proposed is called the chained-CPI. In recent times the chained-CPI results in a smaller COLA than the CPI set by law -- for this year it would result in something more like a 2 percent increase rather than a 3 percent increase. The chained-CPI, it is argued, more accurately reflects the costs for consumers (and applies "substitution" in the basket of goods purchased by consumers, i.e., consumers will buy more ground chuck than ground sirloin when they have less money or prices increase, so therefor they need less of a COLA [one could also argue that if you provide less of a CPI then you socially engineering SS recipients to buy ground chuck rather than ground sirloin]).

    There are plenty of other examples where assertions are not buttressed by the facts, e.g., on unemployment levels stability, "bail outs" (of the financial and automotive sectors), recovery act stimulus money (most of it was in the form of one-time reduced taxes), so on. You are correct that many of these actions were initiated during the prior administration.
  8. rodndtube

    rodndtube Well-Known Member

    May 21, 2006
    My Orioles suck but they are my team and I am sticking with them. The Yankees and Bosox are simply what makes major league baseball disgusting these days.
  9. rodndtube

    rodndtube Well-Known Member

    May 21, 2006
    Currency adjustments are how free markets operate. China has a rather fixed currency, it does not fluctuate, rather it is at a State-mandated rate. Our currency has been declining and in a sense that is good -- makes the USA more competitive in the export market which means more manufacturing jobs here in the USA -- it also means that jobs have been returning to the USA. Better trade agreements would help on that account as well.

    On the other hand, trade agreements are good for markets when they expand markets, i.e., make the pie larger for all to share in.
  10. BeachCruiser01

    BeachCruiser01 Well-Known Member

    Sep 14, 2007
    Declining dollar also makes imports more expensive, such as Oil.

    There is no such thing as a free market. Every country engages in protectionism with tarrifs and limits on goods and services allowed in/out of their country. The problem is we do not negotiate our trade deals in good faith for the American people but for American business'. China pays 2% tarrif to export into the US. We pay 20% tarrif to export there. Hardly free and hardly fair to us in being competitive. Our current trade agreement with South Korea allows S. Korea to ship 200,000 automobiles here a year. We get to ship them 20,000. That is not a free market. That is South Korea setting limits in the intrest of protecting their own economy. Something we here in the United states should consider.

    Even with a declining dollar to make exports easier to sell abroad, we can still not compete with manufacturing in countries that pay $1.00 a day and are exporting to the same countries we are trying to sell to.
  11. Ray F.

    Ray F. Well-Known Member

    Sep 13, 2009
    I agree that vast majority of the deficit was created under Republican leadership. Perhaps I would be more supportive of the Democratic plan if the details weren't so hard to come by & and they didn't pass the useless stimulus in the sneaky manner that they did. Pardon the anology, but it's like placing a few hundred more pounds on the camel's back because the previous loader unwisely loaded it up with a thousand pounds. When it's back breaks, who's to blame? I find it equally condemning to President Obama that any criticism of his policies are justified by a history lesson of the eight years of President Bush. It's my personal opinion that 3 years into a term, an improvement would be seen or even just a detailed plan laid out.

    Again, I don't claim to know the finer details of economics, but it would seem that taxing the top 2% would have a pretty significant increase to them. If their tax bracket is 35% now, how much would it take to make the "difference" required to stabilize the economy? 45%? 50%? Does anybody think that the top 2% percent would actually hand over half of their income without finding ways to maintain their quality of life without negatively impacting the lower 98%? When you start taking half of a person's income, the principle of working for half the pay comes into play...and I can't see that not having even more negative repercussions. Closing tax loopholes, on the other hand, make perfect sense. Luxury taxes on properties and houses over certain sizes, perhaps? Higher tariffs on imported goods? I don't know. I do know, however, that when you're in a hole that's getting too deep to get out of, you stop digging. To say that we have no federally-funded programs that could be cut is ignorant.

    In the end, it doesn't really matter because at this point, both sides know exactly where the budget is going to end. This latest fiasco is nothing more than early campaigning...on both parties' parts. They're both posturing for political gain. Unfortunately, I can't vote against Boehner, but I would if I could. He and President Obama are both, in my opinion, unworthy of their positions.
  12. LOSTsoul

    LOSTsoul Well-Known Member

    Apr 29, 2009
    the blame game solves nothing. Lead like a leader. Tackle the issues at hand. The degree to which Obama is a lefty progressive is really showing to the American people. Obama is doing what the media refused to do during the election, show his true colors.

    The debt ceiling has been passed every time since Reagan.....who gives a fu(k. Now is the time to change the ol' business as usual. Obama voted against the debt ceiling being raised under Bush to try to de-fund the war. You reap what you sow!! Regardless, all politics aside. If you spend more than you make...you have to start spending less. This is so freaking basic. Or......you make more money or the buzz phrase "increase revenue"...which just means raise taxes. Cut, Cap and Balance....so simple. I feel the American people are really beginning to see the govt through the eyes of the Tea Party. The eyes of sanity......

    btw..yankee, you are losing your argumentative platform by name calling and such. I'm just saying. Don't be a typical lib.
  13. surfrr

    surfrr Well-Known Member

    Sep 29, 2010
    I think you are dead one with these points. (Sorry for cutting out the other stuff). No matter what your ideology, or how you arrive from A to B, these 2 points stick in my mind.

    1.) Whatever blame is to be laid on the Bush administration, the time of blaming has long past. This has become a tired narrative 3 years into a presidency and in my mind speaks directly to the lack of substance of Obama's record, because if there was substance wouldn't one point to their own accomplishments and initiatives (this is the heart of politicking after all). When Obama lays blame at the Bush administration for our fiscal situation he appears weak, as a real leader would tout their own plans for action instead of pointing fingers and not sidestep any blame for the current fiscal situation.

    2.) Whether there are revenues raised through tax increases or spending cuts achieved, or a combination of the two, that would be a palpable solution, but raising the debt limit is a non starter. After all what is the purpose of a limit if it is only to be raised? Raising the limit would truly prove to the world that our government is out of control in terms of spending and cannot reign itself in. And this translates to a further loss of credibility. Raising the limit is akin to "kicking the can down the road", and that is not leadership, that is screwing future generations.

    BTW, is is just me or have any of y'all noticed alot of political ads like "Chris Christie for President", or "Ron Paul for President", or "Help Stop Obamacare" seem to appear on this thread more than others?? Just wondering aloud....
  14. scotty

    scotty Well-Known Member

    Aug 26, 2008
    I do. I think the casual way congess has increased the debt limit dozens of times, with little thought of the consequences, is exactly what has gotten us into the situation we're in. Those two bozos last night, first Obama then Boehner, using a crisis to make political speeches, were pathetic.
  15. motivated2surf

    motivated2surf Well-Known Member

    Dec 10, 2009
    I\'m not trying to be a jerk but you need to brush up on some reading. You obviously know nothing about monetary policy. Also, the USD has not loss 50%, it\'s loss 99% of it\'s value since we got off of the Gold Standard. The only thing holding the USD by a thread is some minor confidence in it. Since it\'s no longer backed by gold, it\'s only paper and only confidence in it creates its value. Inflation is essentially a decrease in the value of the dollar and actually a tax on us. Since the dollar is completely devalued and inflation/stagnation, we have less purchasing power and can buy less with the dollar. That\'s why inflation is a tax because the dollars in our pocket aren\'t worth much. If the dollar was backed by some commodity that is a tangible item, the same item 100 years ago would go for the same price today. Inflation wouldn\'t exist.

    Regarding manufacturing. That\'s long gone and it will never come back to the United States until we stop outsourcing jobs. I don\'t know where you get your information. You say the dollar decline helps create manufacturing jobs in the USA. Give me some of what your smoking or what causes these grand delusions. I never heard anything this absurd.

    It\'s only a matter of time until a really enormous recession hits. We keep prolonging it by borrowing more money from the FED and the dirty bankers. That just increases this country\'s debt and prolongs the inevitable. Stop taking tax payer dollars for social programs and these bull**** stimulus bills which don\'t do anything. They just increase our debt and haven\'t helped the economy at all. It\'s time to change the monetary policy in this country. We need to have the dollar backed by something so it\'s not just paper. This will prevent the devalue of the dollar and help get our economy get back on track. We need to completely abolish the FED who are in bed with the Democrats and Republicans and let Congress create our currency that is backed by a commodity. Then, we no longer have to borrow from the FED (private banks) and won\'t have any debt. This will take some time. We have to let the recession happen now which will be less painful than prolonging it. Then, the economy will come back and this country can finally become independent from private bankers. Until then, we will keep having the FED print our own money. Then, loaning the paper to us with interest attached. It\'s a pretty good gig the FED has going. Take paper/ink and print some dollars. Say it costs .02 to create one dollar with the paper and ink. Then, they turn around and charge us one dollar plus interest. Before interest is tacked on, they just made 98 cents for each dollar. Now, when they create trillions, these low life cock suckers are making the real money and are essentially the real leaders of this country.

    History is an amazing lesson. The American Revolution was fought primarily because we were being taxed by England and didn\'t have control over our monetary policy. It\'s very sad that these people fought for us to issue our own money and warned never to let banks control money supply. It\'s funny how we stepped back now to being slaves to the bankers just like we were to England.

    So go vote in 2012 if it makes you feel good. They make you think you have a choice but you don\'t. This country was bought and sold to private bankers ages ago. You have no choice until they are abolished.

    Here are some good quotes regarding the issuance of money from some of our great leaders.

    "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.\" -- Thomas Jefferson, U.S. President.

    "If Congress has the right [it doesn\'t] to issue paper money [currency], it was given to them to be used by...[the government] and not to be delegated to individuals or corporations.\" -- President Andrew Jackson, Vetoed Bank Bill of 1836

    "History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and it\'s issuance.\" -- James Madison
  16. Johnny Utah

    Johnny Utah Well-Known Member

    Sep 5, 2010
    Great post. All the arguing and bickering over numbers is ridiculous. It's real simple...Our government has a spending problem and it needs to stop. We cannot give Obama a "blank check" as Boehner said last night. He will just continue to spend which is not the solution.
    Obama's true colors are finally showing and hopefully people are smart enough to see through him.
  17. BeachCruiser01

    BeachCruiser01 Well-Known Member

    Sep 14, 2007
  18. LOSTsoul

    LOSTsoul Well-Known Member

    Apr 29, 2009

    ????????????????????????????????????????? What? Hello??? Beuller??? WOW!!!
  19. BeachCruiser01

    BeachCruiser01 Well-Known Member

    Sep 14, 2007
    We have a spending problem because Boehner, et al, cut taxes and spent on 2 wars and expanded gov't. Boehner has no credibility on the "blank check" statement because he gave Bush a blank check for 6 years when Rs controlled the house last time. The same house leadership that gave Bush everything he ever wanted and more the last time they were in charge are now crying about how Obama spent us here. No, Obama did not. Obama spending is 20% of the problem.

    Its not bickering over numbers, its debating the facts of where we are and how we got here.

    Once again We have a revenue problem just as much as a spending problem because Rs voluntarily CUT taxes while INCREASING spending.
  20. BeachCruiser01

    BeachCruiser01 Well-Known Member

    Sep 14, 2007
    Study up on lefty progressive positions and get back to me. Like the ones I listed as examples.