|
Post by reformeddaytrader on Oct 27, 2011 7:38:40 GMT -5
As I tried to explain earlier on your thread, it will NOT be either Romney or Cain who defeats Obama for the Presidency in 2012 but rather it will be the " ECONOMY".. And it will take more than Obamacare, or his Jobs Bill to change the economic recovery next year. So who do you want in the White House when we have another four years of economic stagnation?? Obama?? Romney?? Cain?? Perry??
|
|
handyman2
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 23:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 3,087
|
Post by handyman2 on Oct 27, 2011 9:07:34 GMT -5
RDT I agree. It matters not who will run against Obama. I have believed for some time that Obama's bungling and the economy is his biggest challanger.
|
|
|
Post by reformeddaytrader on Oct 27, 2011 9:25:06 GMT -5
A lot of guys at work like Ron Paul.
RP does garner a lot of support from younger voters but he is down in the national polls...
The so called political experts on CNN John King, and Wolf Blitzer and etc think the Republcan race is Romney's to lose.. he seems to be leading in most states but closely being followed by Herman Cain....but Hey we still have another 56 weeks before the Presidential Elections next year so anything can and may happen.
|
|
handyman2
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 23:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 3,087
|
Post by handyman2 on Oct 27, 2011 9:26:51 GMT -5
Ratchets you are correct. No matter who wins there is no instant fix. Pulling ourselves out of this mess is something of a long haul. The critical point will be to elect someone who can convince both sides of the isle to work to gather. All the infighting will accomplish nothing. We need someone who is a master of diplomacy.
|
|
|
Post by reformeddaytrader on Oct 27, 2011 9:37:59 GMT -5
I say it's the Republicans who ought to get whooped in 2012.
Then how do you explain why so many Dems and Independents are abandoning Obama??
|
|
skweet
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 13:49:27 GMT -5
Posts: 1,061
|
Post by skweet on Oct 27, 2011 9:38:50 GMT -5
The biggest problem with Cain, Perry and the super-committee, is that they accomplishing the debt reduction as the SC is suggesting would be near political suicide. The SC is starting to come out with plans that include 3/4 tax increases and 1/4 cuts. Under the current system they can attach those tax increases to a minority of high income earners, and the general voting population will not be overly upset. With a transparent tax system, they would have to increase some or all of the 9-9-9 or flat tax 23%, to say a 10-10-10 or flat 26%.
The reason that Cain and Flat Taxes are not as scary to people today, as they were when Forbes first brought them to national prominence, is that they realize a raise to taxes on one minority, is a raise to the cost of living to all consumers. The way the SC is proposing the tax increase will ultimately raise the cost of living (say 3%). This is an economic fact, as net profits are determined by market forces and input costs, and taxes are a simple input cost.
Personally I would prefer the SC to be forced to show the poor and middle classes, how they will be paying for the debt reduction, instead of claiming that they won't be paying for it.
Cain and Perry need to have some economists explain how their tax systems work, as they have analyzed Cain's-999, and past flat taxes, and have determined that both would be boosts to the economy (I have not heard if Perry's specific spin on th flat tax has been analyzed).
As for Cain specifically, I think he has a legitimate shot, primarily because of his tax plan. It has been analyzed by some noted economists, and it has shown to be a potential (revenue neutral) economic boost. Over the campaign I see where it will be more and more difficult for the general media to poo-poo these analysis.
|
|
|
Post by reformeddaytrader on Oct 27, 2011 9:40:23 GMT -5
Romney and Cain TIED What's Next??
I would say "What's Next" will be the early primaries in Iowa, New Hampshire and then South Carolina...if they are still tied then who knows?? But the latest projections show Romney taking those states but that could change..
|
|
|
Post by reformeddaytrader on Oct 27, 2011 9:47:30 GMT -5
|
|
skweet
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 13:49:27 GMT -5
Posts: 1,061
|
Post by skweet on Oct 27, 2011 9:57:25 GMT -5
Honestly I think that this is Obama's to lose, and he is heading in the wrong direction. He seems to be following the Carter malaise philosophy of leadership. We elected the guy because he was optimistically supporting "Hope", then he gets into office and seems to become depressed. Everything was Bush's fault, then the congress is not doing its job, then the Republicans are the party of "No", now he is sympathizing with OWS. The "hope" is gone from his rhetoric. I disagree with his politics, but at least he was inspiring as a candidate, now he is just sad as a POTUS. The leader that can successfully convince the voter that the best days of the US are in our future, is the one that will be elected. I don't know if that is Cain, Romney or whether Obama can turn it around.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Oct 27, 2011 10:40:36 GMT -5
... The leader that can successfully convince the voter that the best days of the US are in our future, is the one that will be elected. .... I fully agree that the person who can most successfully feed this line to the American people is who they will elect. It worked well for Reagan in 1980. (Of course, it was during Reagan's term that we reversed the trend line of decreasing the national debt as a percentage of the GDP and became a debtor nation but man did he convince us we were doing great.)
|
|
pepper112765
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 9, 2011 15:55:30 GMT -5
Posts: 1,812
|
Post by pepper112765 on Oct 27, 2011 12:05:23 GMT -5
Ratchets you are correct. No matter who wins there is no instant fix. Pulling ourselves out of this mess is something of a long haul. The critical point will be to elect someone who can convince both sides of the isle to work to gather. All the infighting will accomplish nothing. We need someone who is a master of diplomacy. Well this depends on your POV of course. The stated agenda of the Republican Party is that their number 1 goal is the defeat of President Obama in 2008, as stated by Minority Leader McConnell. To that end, Congressional Republicans have done everything they can to prevent any economic recovery. They put politics above the national interest, and above jobs. I say it's the Republicans who ought to get whooped in 2012. Aside from the economy, most of the campaign promises President Obama made, he did keep. www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-kept/?page=1
|
|
skweet
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 13:49:27 GMT -5
Posts: 1,061
|
Post by skweet on Oct 27, 2011 15:07:11 GMT -5
... The leader that can successfully convince the voter that the best days of the US are in our future, is the one that will be elected. .... I fully agree that the person who can most successfully feed this line to the American people is who they will elect. It worked well for Reagan in 1980. (Of course, it was during Reagan's term that we reversed the trend line of decreasing the national debt as a percentage of the GDP and became a debtor nation but man did he convince us we were doing great.) Sorry that the 80s and 90s were so tough on Bill, while the 70s were a boom. They were pretty good for Skweet, so we may be arguing personal experiences. It seems that we have been a debtor nation since we borrowed to fund the revolution, so I don't really equate prosperity and national debt, myself.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Oct 27, 2011 15:46:59 GMT -5
I fully agree that the person who can most successfully feed this line to the American people is who they will elect. It worked well for Reagan in 1980. (Of course, it was during Reagan's term that we reversed the trend line of decreasing the national debt as a percentage of the GDP and became a debtor nation but man did he convince us we were doing great.) Sorry that the 80s and 90s were so tough on Bill, while the 70s were a boom. They were pretty good for Skweet, so we may be arguing personal experiences. It seems that we have been a debtor nation since we borrowed to fund the revolution, so I don't really equate prosperity and national debt, myself. "... myself." Sweet. But for everyone else in the world, here is what they consider reality: What Does Creditor Nation Mean? A nation with a cumulative balance of payment surplus. A creditor nation has positive net investment after recording all of the financial transactions completed between it and the rest of the world.
Creditor nations have invested more resources in other countries than the rest of the world has invested in them. To determine if a country is a creditor nation, one must account for the the nation's overall debt balance when calculating the balance of payments.
Creditor nations can sometimes lose their status and become debtor nations. This happened to the United States in 1988 when its balance of payments turned negative.
Read more: www.investopedia.com/terms/c/creditor_nation.asp#ixzz1c16gCS3m
|
|
diamonds
Senior Member
Not as Tame as I Look!!
Joined: Feb 8, 2011 11:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 3,522
|
Post by diamonds on Oct 27, 2011 16:21:31 GMT -5
Honestly I think that this is Obama's to lose, and he is heading in the wrong direction. He seems to be following the Carter malaise philosophy of leadership. We elected the guy because he was optimistically supporting "Hope", then he gets into office and seems to become depressed. Everything was Bush's fault, then the congress is not doing its job, then the Republicans are the party of "No", now he is sympathizing with OWS. The "hope" is gone from his rhetoric. I disagree with his politics, but at least he was inspiring as a candidate, now he is just sad as a POTUS. The leader that can successfully convince the voter that the best days of the US are in our future, is the one that will be elected. I don't know if that is Cain, Romney or whether Obama can turn it around. I don't see Obama turning it around in the next year. Not gonna happen. I lost my faith in him, and was hoping he would only be a one-term President as he had said in the past. I tune out his promises now, as he promised "shovel ready jobs" and he and his corrupt buddy Jeffrey Immelt laughed at that. The reason Cain is popular is he is for the creation of small business, that's how we create jobs. Not by borrowing and then rewarding greedy CEO's. Mitch McConnell said there are bills laying on Obama's desk for years to be singed to lift regulations.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Oct 27, 2011 16:28:37 GMT -5
... Mitch McConnell said there are bills laying on Obama's desk for years to be singed to lift regulations. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
|
|
skweet
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 13:49:27 GMT -5
Posts: 1,061
|
Post by skweet on Oct 27, 2011 17:26:20 GMT -5
creditor nation = prosperity and growth? Or not, necessarily? The 90s were good? Or bad?
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Oct 27, 2011 17:26:32 GMT -5
RFD hit the nail on the head. Obama's mortal enemy in this election isn't going to be the republican candidate, it's going to be the economy, and his actions during his first term.
This election is all going to boil down to a referendum on Obama.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Oct 27, 2011 17:31:38 GMT -5
creditor nation = prosperity and growth? ... Long term.
|
|
skweet
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 13:49:27 GMT -5
Posts: 1,061
|
Post by skweet on Oct 27, 2011 19:51:11 GMT -5
creditor nation = prosperity and growth? ... Long term. Disagree.
|
|
skweet
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 13:49:27 GMT -5
Posts: 1,061
|
Post by skweet on Oct 27, 2011 19:58:06 GMT -5
I know what you are saying, and theoretically, it is correct. I look at it like this: fear not the fall but the sudden stop at the end. Certainly, in theory, we should have to pay the debt back, but when does that happen? We know that is after we have used the money for enough war power to destroy the world many times over, and growth beyond any organic economic estimation, and that we don't have to pay it back yet. We have cash flow to continue for the forseeable future (downgrade or not), and, really, what group of countries is going to call the debt? We should convert green pieces of paper to actual wealth, named Honda, Toyota or Samsung, until the rest of the world realizes that green pieces of paper aren't even good for wiping their
|
|
diamonds
Senior Member
Not as Tame as I Look!!
Joined: Feb 8, 2011 11:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 3,522
|
Post by diamonds on Oct 27, 2011 21:30:44 GMT -5
RFD hit the nail on the head. Obama's mortal enemy in this election isn't going to be the republican candidate, it's going to be the economy, and his actions during his first term. This election is all going to boil down to a referendum on Obama. ... Exactly!!! Sure isn't looking good in that area for Mr. President. Guess he's too busy campaigning now to worry about such trivial things...Wonder what his new slogan will be? "Give me your Change, I will turn it into printed dollars"....
|
|
SweetVirginia
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 17:56:15 GMT -5
Posts: 1,360
|
Post by SweetVirginia on Oct 27, 2011 21:59:43 GMT -5
Well, we headed for another downgrade if the super-committee doesn't come up with some significant cuts. The madness of spending has got to stop, which Obama ignores. Yes. If only Obama would be as fiscally conservative as the republican congress (2001 to 2006) and the republican president were back when they controlled government, then this country would be in great financial shape.
|
|
diamonds
Senior Member
Not as Tame as I Look!!
Joined: Feb 8, 2011 11:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 3,522
|
Post by diamonds on Oct 27, 2011 22:44:44 GMT -5
SV: Four trillion in 3 years? No other President has accomplished this or a downgrade on their watch. Stop looking backwards and accept the present debacle. You thought processes seem to be stuck in the past. Try to keep current, my dear.
|
|
SweetVirginia
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 17:56:15 GMT -5
Posts: 1,360
|
Post by SweetVirginia on Oct 27, 2011 22:49:20 GMT -5
SV: Four trillion in 3 years? No other President has accomplished this or a downgrade on their watch. Stop looking backwards and accept the present debacle. You thought processes seem to be stuck in the past. Try to keep current, my dear. You are misinformed diamonds. And please do not conveniently forget how the republicans looked "backwards" when 9 11 happened and blamed it on Pres. Clinton, and when Pres. Reagan blamed his recession on Carter. Please be fair.
|
|
SweetVirginia
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 17:56:15 GMT -5
Posts: 1,360
|
Post by SweetVirginia on Oct 27, 2011 23:03:23 GMT -5
And Diamonds, did you "accept" the past DEBACLE that was enacted by the past republican president and republican congress? I dont think so. Perhaps instead of urging me to "keep current," you should look backward so you will not AGAIN vote for and support the disaster that was Pres Bush and the Republican congress of 2001 to 2007.
|
|
diamonds
Senior Member
Not as Tame as I Look!!
Joined: Feb 8, 2011 11:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 3,522
|
Post by diamonds on Oct 27, 2011 23:23:12 GMT -5
Fair? We took a community organizer that had no other experience and hung out with the likes of Ayres and Rezko. Bush was hated for the Iraq war, however there was a Democratic Congress in there at the time and they all voted to go and invade Iraq. Now, Obama bypassed the vote of Congress and sent drones over Libya. Fair? He's getting shit from Louis Farrakhan now as he was friends with Mumar Gaddafi and is calling BO an assasin. In 2007, Pelosi's first day as speaker, the national debt was 8.6 trillion. It has doubled now. I bid you adieu... FYI;Try to stay on topic...
|
|
SweetVirginia
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 17:56:15 GMT -5
Posts: 1,360
|
Post by SweetVirginia on Oct 27, 2011 23:48:51 GMT -5
Fair? We took a community organizer that had no other experience and hung out with the likes of Ayres and Rezko. Bush was hated for the Iraq war, however there was a Democratic Congress in there at the time and they all voted to go and invade Iraq. Now, Obama bypassed the vote of Congress and sent drones over Libya. Fair? He's getting shit from Louis Farrakhan now as he was friends with Mumar Gaddafi and is calling BO an assasin. In 2007, Pelosi's first day as speaker, the national debt was 8.6 trillion. It has doubled now. I bid you adieu... FYI;Try to stay on topic... You are advising me to stay on topic after you mentioned the Ayers, Community Organizer, the war in iraq, Louis Farrakhan, Mumar Gaddifi and the national debt in one breath? LOL!!! Your are too funny Diamonds. Talking points/ dittohead comes to mind
|
|
|
Post by reformeddaytrader on Oct 28, 2011 7:19:18 GMT -5
The main reason for the downgrade was the disgrace of the Republicans in Congress allowing the United States to come within a hair of default. Anything to hurt the economy and Obama's chances of re-election. What about all of the Dems who are also anti-Obama and his policies??? Those Dems who are up for re election next year are all abandoning the leader of their party and who can blame them for voting against his Jobs Bill or rather his "Save My Job Bill"...
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Oct 28, 2011 7:54:59 GMT -5
The main reason for the downgrade was the disgrace of the Republicans in Congress allowing the United States to come within a hair of default. Anything to hurt the economy and Obama's chances of re-election. Why the default drama again? We have plenty of revenue to service our debt. This is a prime example of the main difference between liberal mindset and the conservative mindset. You think it's a disgrace we came close to "default" by not almost not allowing our out of control government to take on even more debt that we cannot afford. I think it's a disgrace that our out of control government spends so damned much that this is even an issue.
|
|
|
Post by reformeddaytrader on Oct 28, 2011 8:08:11 GMT -5
The answer to our revenue problems is obviously a combination of spending cuts and tax increases. One half of congress can't abide the tax increases, and the other half can't stand the cuts. If they were adults they would reason that we need to move toward both, carefully, slowly and deliberatively. If. What about the fact that Ms Pelosi has not been in lock step with Obama over the cuts to medicare and social security?? Pelosi wants bigger tax increases for the wealthy before she will go along with cuts to medicare and social security and not all of her dem colleagues agree with her.... one could say the dems are dysfunctional again or don't all vote with their leaders....so blaming the republicans for the dysfunctional congress is a bit of a stretch or just BS again.
|
|