Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Here's how the democRATS won.
- Thread starter lonesomebob
- Start date
The IRS commissioner "has known for at least a year that this was going on," said Myers, "and that this had happened. And did he share any of that information with the White House? But even more importantly, Congress is going to ask him, why did you mislead us for an entire year? Members of Congress were saying conservatives are being targeted. What's going on here? The IRS denied it. Then when -- after these officials are briefed by the IG that this is going on, they don't disclose it. In fact, the commissioner sent a letter to Congress in September on this subject and did not reveal this. Imagine if we -- if you can -- what would have happened if this fact came out in September 2012, in the middle of a presidential election? The terrain would have looked very different."
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZqROJZTf3c&feature=player_embedded]IRS Deliberately Chose Not to Fess Up to Scandal Before Election - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZqROJZTf3c&feature=player_embedded]IRS Deliberately Chose Not to Fess Up to Scandal Before Election - YouTube[/ame]
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
Yo Bob! You lost this bet earlier in this thread. Proved you were a dupe who believed any right wing crackpot on the internet. You never honored your end of the bargain, and here you are again carrying on.
No honor?
No class?
Lose a bet and turn tail and hide?
Bad Bob! Bad!
First off, jeff, I never agreed to your "bet." You threw it out there and expected me to trust you with an internet monetary bet. Not likely, chum.
Second, the source of this is MSNBC. Probably too right wing for you, but there it is.
"what would have happened if this fact came out in September 2012, in the middle of a presidential election? The terrain would have looked very different."
Second, the source of this is MSNBC. Probably too right wing for you, but there it is.
"what would have happened if this fact came out in September 2012, in the middle of a presidential election? The terrain would have looked very different."
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
Wasn't a monetary bet. You were supposed to post "I am a dumbass" every Monday for a month if you were wrong in claiming the Democrats fixed the results in Port St. Lucie. You were wrong. you didn't honor the bet.
No class.
No honor.
No respect.
No independent thought.
You just like to rabble rouse
In short, you add nothing the country and our path forward, you simply detract from it.
No h
Whatever the terms, it takes two parties minimum to create a bet. I was wrong on the St. Luce percentages, but there obviously was cheating going on there, just review ALL the evidence I posted earlier.
Then, stop trying to turn this into an issue of my character.
The issue now is that there were cover ups of Benghazi, the IRS harassment of Conservative groups, and procuring of AP phone records in 2012 that would have shown a different light on the democratic candidate.
You call me a rabble rouser, but you, sir, are an apologist for an ever more corrupt regime.
Then, stop trying to turn this into an issue of my character.
The issue now is that there were cover ups of Benghazi, the IRS harassment of Conservative groups, and procuring of AP phone records in 2012 that would have shown a different light on the democratic candidate.
You call me a rabble rouser, but you, sir, are an apologist for an ever more corrupt regime.
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
Actually I'm calling you a bet-felcher, and a disgrace to your country.
And you are beloved by all here jeff. Keep spreading your fairy dust, Tinker.
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Romney lost because he didn't get enough votes to win.
That might seem obvious, but not for the obvious reasons. Romney lost because the conservative virtues - the traditional American virtues - of liberty, hard work, free enterprise, private initiative and aspirations to
moral greatness - no longer inspire or animate a majority of the electorate.
The simplest reason why Romney lost was because it is impossible to compete against free stuff.
That might seem obvious, but not for the obvious reasons. Romney lost because the conservative virtues - the traditional American virtues - of liberty, hard work, free enterprise, private initiative and aspirations to
moral greatness - no longer inspire or animate a majority of the electorate.
The simplest reason why Romney lost was because it is impossible to compete against free stuff.
With all due respect, Pete, there are a few of us who thought of it differently.
For me...and I hate to say it but I really sort of hoped that a moderate Republican could have won....the issue was one of not being able to trust him. He did not release his income tax returns as every other presidential candidate for decades had, something to hide. He would not answer questions, something to hide. He made statments before audiences he thought would be receptive and when they were taped, he groused that he should have hidden those, too...
For me his wife was a real deal-breaker....she seemed ingenuous when she claimed to care about the average person but spent huge sums of money on race horses (yes, I know you dabble in race horses...nothing wrong with that....unless you think it makes you attractive to the vast majority of voters who were struggling every day in an economic downturn).
In the end, our country just rejected the conservative agenda...yes, many voted their pocketbooks, as did many of the conservatives who really believed in their heart that the conservative agenda would bring about a truly miraculous change in our economic situation. It was a very divisive race and neither side was a good choice...one was just worse than the other, sadly.....
Just one ol' cowboy's view......or, as we like to say.....IMHO.
Cheers!
Doug
For me...and I hate to say it but I really sort of hoped that a moderate Republican could have won....the issue was one of not being able to trust him. He did not release his income tax returns as every other presidential candidate for decades had, something to hide. He would not answer questions, something to hide. He made statments before audiences he thought would be receptive and when they were taped, he groused that he should have hidden those, too...
For me his wife was a real deal-breaker....she seemed ingenuous when she claimed to care about the average person but spent huge sums of money on race horses (yes, I know you dabble in race horses...nothing wrong with that....unless you think it makes you attractive to the vast majority of voters who were struggling every day in an economic downturn).
In the end, our country just rejected the conservative agenda...yes, many voted their pocketbooks, as did many of the conservatives who really believed in their heart that the conservative agenda would bring about a truly miraculous change in our economic situation. It was a very divisive race and neither side was a good choice...one was just worse than the other, sadly.....
Just one ol' cowboy's view......or, as we like to say.....IMHO.
Cheers!
Doug
Terry Oxandale
Skinny Man
I couldn't agree more with Doug's assessment. I certainly don't receive any free money (so that had nothing to do with my vote). Instead, I felt it was a trust issue, lack of connection with real people, and that he believed he "couldn't lose", and thus freely voiced what he actually thought (which turned out great). And I knew the economy would turn around regardless of the election.
Trust? economy? and you still voted for Obama..I don't get it.
Don't bother explaining I must be thick skulled:huh:
That's the whole point. You voted yourself in to giving ever more and more of what you produce. Of course you're not getting any free money.
Let's see who turned around the economy is when the Fed stops easing.
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Since Obama became President:
Stock Market....................+100%
Jobs................................+1,546,000
Border patrol agents..........+6%
Producing US oil wells........+13%
US crude oil production.......+29%
Solar and wind energy........+157%
New car gas mileage...........+17%
US Petroleum imports.........-33%
The Democrats energy policy seems to be a huge improvement over the most recent "oil expert" Republican administration. Their "energy policy" of invading several middle east countries and threatening the leaders of South American oil producers did not work out all that well.
We all have worried about foreign oil imports, finally someone has done something about it!
Stock Market....................+100%
Jobs................................+1,546,000
Border patrol agents..........+6%
Producing US oil wells........+13%
US crude oil production.......+29%
Solar and wind energy........+157%
New car gas mileage...........+17%
US Petroleum imports.........-33%
The Democrats energy policy seems to be a huge improvement over the most recent "oil expert" Republican administration. Their "energy policy" of invading several middle east countries and threatening the leaders of South American oil producers did not work out all that well.
We all have worried about foreign oil imports, finally someone has done something about it!
Last edited:
Imagine....all that goodness AND he's honest...:angel:
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
The TickerQuick Views on Politics, Economics and Finance
Is the U.S. Economy Slowing Again?
ByMatthew C. KleinApr 13, 2013 5:03 AM GMT+1000
The March employment report was the first indicator. As I wrote at the time, the news on jobs wasn’t quite as bad as the headlines suggested, but it wasn’t good, either. Surveys of business activity from the National Association of Purchasing Managers also contained some unwelcome news. The index of U.S. manufacturing activity fell to 51.3 in March from 54.2 in February. The index is still above 50, which means that manufacturing activity is still growing, but it implies a slowdown. Similarly, the index for services fell to 54.4 in March from 56.0 in February. Both indices are back to where they were last summer.
This morning we got to see the latest data on retail spending and consumer confidence. Both fell significantly more than expected. Retail spending is now growing at its slowest pace since the end of the recession. While this is hardly an indicator of imminent recession, the extent of the slowdown since the summer of 2011 is worrying.
Consumer confidence, as measured by the University of Michigan, declined sharply and unexpectedly, to 72.3 from 78.6 last month. Again, that doesn’t mean that recession is around the corner. In fact, the absolute level of confidence is similar to what it was throughout 2009 and 2010. Like employment and retail spending, the data suggest an economy that is continuing to grow at a slow and steady pace, rather than an economy that is about to finally take off.
The markets seem to have noticed. The price of copper, long considered to be the best proxy for global economic activity, has declined more than 8 percent since the middle of February. Similarly, the price of Brent crude oil has fallen almost 14 percent over the same period. Yields on 10-year government bonds have fallen to 1.7 percent from just over 2 percent since the beginning of March. Equity investors, on the other hand, seem to have shrugged off the disappointing data, perhaps in part because the profitability of large U.S. corporations is not linked as tightly to the health of the U.S. economy as in the past.
This is generally disappointing. Sluggish growth will not close the employment gap anytime soon. Millions of people who would otherwise be working will continue to drop out of the labor force, which will create even more long term costs for society. Policymakers, however, seem determined to keep doing what they have been doing, in the hopes that it will start producing significantly different results.
(Matthew C. Klein is a contributor to the Ticker. Follow him on Twitter.)
Is the U.S. Economy Slowing Again?
ByMatthew C. KleinApr 13, 2013 5:03 AM GMT+1000
- Facebook Share
- Tweet
- Google +1
- 7 Comments
- QUEUE
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-12/is-the-u-s-economy-slowing-again-.htmlQ
The March employment report was the first indicator. As I wrote at the time, the news on jobs wasn’t quite as bad as the headlines suggested, but it wasn’t good, either. Surveys of business activity from the National Association of Purchasing Managers also contained some unwelcome news. The index of U.S. manufacturing activity fell to 51.3 in March from 54.2 in February. The index is still above 50, which means that manufacturing activity is still growing, but it implies a slowdown. Similarly, the index for services fell to 54.4 in March from 56.0 in February. Both indices are back to where they were last summer.
This morning we got to see the latest data on retail spending and consumer confidence. Both fell significantly more than expected. Retail spending is now growing at its slowest pace since the end of the recession. While this is hardly an indicator of imminent recession, the extent of the slowdown since the summer of 2011 is worrying.
Consumer confidence, as measured by the University of Michigan, declined sharply and unexpectedly, to 72.3 from 78.6 last month. Again, that doesn’t mean that recession is around the corner. In fact, the absolute level of confidence is similar to what it was throughout 2009 and 2010. Like employment and retail spending, the data suggest an economy that is continuing to grow at a slow and steady pace, rather than an economy that is about to finally take off.
The markets seem to have noticed. The price of copper, long considered to be the best proxy for global economic activity, has declined more than 8 percent since the middle of February. Similarly, the price of Brent crude oil has fallen almost 14 percent over the same period. Yields on 10-year government bonds have fallen to 1.7 percent from just over 2 percent since the beginning of March. Equity investors, on the other hand, seem to have shrugged off the disappointing data, perhaps in part because the profitability of large U.S. corporations is not linked as tightly to the health of the U.S. economy as in the past.
This is generally disappointing. Sluggish growth will not close the employment gap anytime soon. Millions of people who would otherwise be working will continue to drop out of the labor force, which will create even more long term costs for society. Policymakers, however, seem determined to keep doing what they have been doing, in the hopes that it will start producing significantly different results.
(Matthew C. Klein is a contributor to the Ticker. Follow him on Twitter.)
Their will be fluctuations in the economy, but its clear that the path we are in is not sustainable. For instance, in 1968, for every person on disability, there was 51 people working. Today, it has shrunk to only 10.5...
This does not include people on welfare or any other kind of assistance.
Similar threads
