Quote:
Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND
I'm not in the habit of taking Spence's side, and I have been staying out of here, because frankly, I have better things to do than argue with you clowns...
The quote in question starts with an acknowledgement that Bain had some successes (staples) and then continued....
"But the point is still sound, the objective of private equity is rarely to take long-term risk, it's to structure a short-term deal that they can derive profit from.
Romney has executive experience certainly, but to say his business background somehow gives him grand insight into what the US needs to be successful is a bit of a stretch.
-spence"
I read that as an opinion on Romney. Where did he say that Obama in 2008 was more or less qualified? Romney made a lot of money, a #^&#^&#^&#^& load actually. So did Trump, so did Perot. were they any more or less qualified? Romney was a governor, I think the success of his term depends on who you talk to in Massachusetts
To be honest, are you even sure Spence voted for Obama in 2008, or will vote for Obama?
I for one have been very clear in the past. I voted for Obama in 2008, but not in the primaries. I thought there were several candidates stronger them him, Hillary included. I, and most of the people I know, were not caught up in some mystical idea hope and change, but between Obama and McCain, Obama was closer to my personal beliefs, as he is again in this election.
Is he perfect? Far from it. Have I disagreed with some of what he has done? Absolutely, but most of the 'Messiah' idea comes from the right leaning media (and some left leaning pundits for sure) and a portion of the electorate on the left that is uninformed and frankly ignorant (and probably represents the same % as those on the right who are uninformed and ignorant).
The 2008 election was in the past. 2012 is about the last 4 years and the next 4 years.
Jobs have been added most months in a good, albeit slow, long-term trend (even though Romney would argue 'he would do better'). Obama came in during a serious slide in the economy. Romney can argue he would have done it better and faster, but both sides can argue the president actually has little control on the macro-scale economics
I am satisfied with our foreign policy. While not perfect, I don't want to see another round of neo-con nation building. I want us out of Afganastan yesterday. I do not want to get involved in a ground war with Iran or Syria. I don't think a Romney presidency will do anything different on Iran, as our current sanctions (as I just read/heard from Richard Haas has been fairly effective). Romney in one breath says he wants peace between Israel/Palestine, but in another behind closed doors admits he doesn't think he can do it, so basically status quo?
Social security is getting kicked down the road, but is the reasonably easy fix. Anyone close to retirement stays as is, those my age get the age extended 4 or 5 years added to it with some age steps in between. No one wants to do it, but it will be done eventually, I hope it happens in a second term when Obama is not running for reelection and has the 'brass' to do it.
Cutting PBS is not the answer to our deficit (for what it's worth, PBS costs $1.35 for every American/year, much of that goes to running local stations in rural areas. My son loves Elmo. I'll happily agree to that, and hell, I'll even chip in $10 of my taxes to cover Romney). Building a #^&#^&#^&#^&load of new warships is not the answer either. I am convinced Romney's foreign policy (and defense spending) ais rooted in 1985. He would have a serious 'come to Jesus' moment on his first day in office regarding Al Qaeda, just like Obama had. My guess is his mentality would change quickly.
Neither side has presented a realistic view on Medicare (including the Ryan Plan). I don't know what the right plan is, but I don't believe a voucher plan based on unrealistic growth based revenue is the answer.
Go dig up all the 'facts' (in quotes because there usually exist 'facts' to counteract your numbers Jim) and tell me how wrong, uniformed and how many more babies I want to kill Jim. You can argue and debate with Spence and Paul. Enough. I am going back into hiding. I have too much work to do.
|
Rockhound, this is not your best work here...
"To be honest, are you even sure Spence voted for Obama in 2008"
Yes. Unless he entered "Josef Stalin' as a write-in candidate.
"Jobs have been added most months in a good, albeit slow, long-term trend"
That's idiotic. Using that logic, I can say that during Bush's term, there were more months when the DJIA went up than when the DJIA went down. Does that mean the stock market improved during his term? Hell, no.
There is no upward or "good" trend in jobs during Obama's term, unless you throw out all the months when things were bad, and only judge him based on the months you select, when things improved.
Facts:
unemployment was 7.8% when Obama took office
unemployment is teh same 7.8% today
Oabma has been President for almost 4 years
in that time, he added $5 trillion to the debt
He had 4 years, during which time he spent $5 trillion more than he took in. How much has unemployment gone done in that time? Zero. More importantly, median household income is down about 10% since he has been in office (down from $55k to $50k).
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...e-study-shows/
If you call that a 'good' trend, that's your right. I call it enslaving future generations, and for no discernible benefit.
'but both sides can argue the president actually has little control on the macro-scale economics"
I can't believe you would type that with a straight face. All Obama and the media say is that the Bush administration caused what happened in 2008. The president signs tax laws and spending laws. You think those have very little effect on the macroeconomic landscape?
"Romney in one breath says he wants peace between Israel/Palestine, but in another behind closed doors admits he doesn't think he can do it"
How is that different from Obama's position? Are you saying that Obama either (1) doesn't want peace there, or (2) believes he can pull it off? Because if he
can pull it off, why
hasn't he?
"Social security is getting kicked down the road, but is the reasonably easy fix. "
I agree. But why do liberals attack conservatives who admit what must be done? Every time a conservative proposes a fix to SS, liberals make a commercial saying he hates old people.
"I don't believe a voucher plan...'
Like all liberals, you are falsely suggesting Ryan wants to force people into a voucher plan. Not true. Under Ryan's plan, seniors could freely choose either a voucher plan, or to stay in a Medicare type plan.
It's fair to say you don't agree with the plan. But again, the immediate liberal response to Ryan's plan was a commercial showing him pushing an old lady off a cliff. Is that honest?
"how many more babies I want to kill "
4,000 a day, to be precise. But why squabble over such trivial things...
"there usually exist 'facts' to counteract your numbers Jim"
OK, let's see you refute anything I posted here. I'll be waiting patiently...
Not your best work...
Threaded Mode