Archive

Vice Presidential Debate

  • BoatShoes
    jmog;1295805 wrote:Only partisans and the facts...you forgot that the facts say Reagan came into a worse situation.

    But hey, don't let the facts interfere with those "non-partisan" media folks.
    I'm going to say it again. The facts DO NOT indicate Reagan's situation was worse...you need to grasp this. No one thinks otherwise. There is difference between a financial crisis and a fed caused recession.
  • BoatShoes
    jmog;1295810 wrote:U3, GDP, energy costs, etc all say other wise.
    You're not understanding...The FED was doing that on purpose to combat inflation.
  • jmog
    BoatShoes;1295811 wrote:I'm going to say it again. The facts DO NOT indicate Reagan's situation was worse...you need to grasp this. No one thinks otherwise. There is difference between a financial crisis and a fed caused recession.
    Numbers say you are wrong but you are right because of the letter next to the President's name. I understand completely.
  • BoatShoes
    If Paul Volcker hated 4% inflation as much as Ben Bernanke apparently does and would've kept rates higher for longer until inflation went even lower...Ronald Reagan would've left office a failed President. Just like FDR if the nazi's hadn't come to power. When inflation got under control and we'd suffered long enough, he lowered interest rates and predictably unemployment dropped and the economy grew. Rates were at zero when Obama got in office.
  • BoatShoes
    jmog;1295815 wrote:Numbers say you are wrong but you are right because of the letter next to the President's name. I understand completely.
    You don't understand at all. No economist agrees with you. Look it up. Figure out why your opinion doesn't mesh with the experts on the topic. I've made it easy to understand...a FED caused recession is not the same as one due to a financial crisis.
  • BoatShoes
    jmog;1295763 wrote:Wasn't the stimulus supposed to be a jobs act? That's the bill of goods the American people were sold anyway.
    It was a jobs act and it ended the recession. It wasn't large enough for a full recovery though given the underestimations by the economic team and the massive purge of public employees undertaken by Republican controlled state governments. Without the stimulus growth would've been slower and unemployment higher. I don't suppose you now think tax cuts don't work eh? lol.
  • BoatShoes
    jmog;1295809 wrote:You list 2 Senators, last I checked there were a lot more than 2 democratic Senators in the Senate at the time.

    A lot of those were not up for election this time around yet they ALL said the Obama budget wasn't good enough to vote for.
    The Republicans were completely United. The Democrats decided to act like Republicans for once and stand together. It would've made no sense for a liberal Senator in a safe state to take guys like Joe Manchin to task fighting for a budget that had no chance of getting through the House anyway or any reasonable middle ground in conference committee.

    It was the smart play.

    You're kidding yourself if you think that Barbara Boxer didn't agree with that budget in principle. Suddenly all these crazy liberals are supply side deficit scolds??? LOL.

    They decided to keep the government running with continuing resolutions and avoid the bad politics of infighting over the president's budget and it's looking like a good strategy. Joe Manchin would have no chance of reelection in WV if he'd voted with the President on that and yet he looks like a win.
  • HitsRus
    Lol. Of course a careful parsing of the facts doesn't make a difference.
    Let's parse those facts.

    1)Chris Stevens and 3 others died in what was a terrorist attack.
    2)Video is/was available almost immediately during and after.
    3) Requests for security were made by Stevens and others weeks before the attack.
    4)Requests were ignored.
    5) 5 days after the attacks Susan Rice is telling us the attacks were a spontaneous reaction from a an anti muslim video.


    Okay, your turn...Statements out of the mouth of unnamed state department sources or Jay Carney don't count.

    The only thing that I could 'parse' from what you posted was that the White House is trying to spin that even if they did listen to security concerns, they would have have allocated it to Tripoli and not Benghazi despite Steven's requests.

    Why do you stick up for this guy?
  • BoatShoes
    HitsRus;1295918 wrote:Let's parse those facts.

    1)Chris Stevens and 3 others died in what was a terrorist attack.
    2)Video is/was available almost immediately during and after.
    3) Requests for security were made by Stevens and others weeks before the attack.
    4)Requests were ignored.
    5) 5 days after the attacks Susan Rice is telling us the attacks were a spontaneous reaction from a an anti muslim video.


    Okay, your turn...Statements out of the mouth of unnamed state department sources or Jay Carney don't count.

    The only thing that I could 'parse' from what you posted was that the White House is trying to spin that even if they did listen to security concerns, they would have have allocated it to Tripoli and not Benghazi despite Steven's requests.

    Why do you stick up for this guy?
    They modeled their approach there based upon experience with the embassies in Yemen. And, the responses were handled by mid-level state department civil servants. Ultimately the buck stops with Obama so it was a bungle and it's a tragedy that a man died but there are U.S. citizens dying over in the Middle East every week.

    It's not the unbelievable scandal you're desperately hoping it is to get Romney across the finish line.

    I spent the whole Bush presidency dealing with liberals overreacting and exaggerating like you are right now.
  • jmog
    BoatShoes;1295915 wrote:It was a jobs act and it ended the recession. It wasn't large enough for a full recovery though given the underestimations by the economic team and the massive purge of public employees undertaken by Republican controlled state governments. Without the stimulus growth would've been slower and unemployment higher. I don't suppose you now think tax cuts don't work eh? lol.
    The tax cuts part of it was ok, but the rest of it was completely wasted on public union jobs and failed private company loans (as in companies that quickly failed) instead of helping private company growth. Only you and other hardcore Keynesian's would want to double down on that wasted stimulus.
  • jmog
    BoatShoes;1295917 wrote:The Republicans were completely United. The Democrats decided to act like Republicans for once and stand together. It would've made no sense for a liberal Senator in a safe state to take guys like Joe Manchin to task fighting for a budget that had no chance of getting through the House anyway or any reasonable middle ground in conference committee.

    It was the smart play.

    You're kidding yourself if you think that Barbara Boxer didn't agree with that budget in principle. Suddenly all these crazy liberals are supply side deficit scolds??? LOL.

    They decided to keep the government running with continuing resolutions and avoid the bad politics of infighting over the president's budget and it's looking like a good strategy. Joe Manchin would have no chance of reelection in WV if he'd voted with the President on that and yet he looks like a win.
    Then they can't use the line anymore that the Rs are being obstructionists, if what you say is true (not likely) why in the world would Harry Reid even allow it to come to a vote? He wouldn't let anything passed in the House come to vote.

    That fact alone refutes your assertation, if that was the "plan" then just don't let it come to a vote at all and they get the same Senate election results you are saying they tried to do without getting egg on the face of the President. What you are suggesting would be even dumber for the D party than letting it go to a vote.
  • QuakerOats
    BoatShoes;1293982 wrote:Lol. Get the hell outta here guy. Democrats are fully behind this president.

    LOL, only the radical liberal democrats and the Marxists and communists hiding within the party are with obama. The rest of them will hang him out to dry.

    It's over.
  • QuakerOats
    BoatShoes;1295927 wrote:They modeled their approach there based upon experience with the embassies in Yemen. And, the responses were handled by mid-level state department civil servants. Ultimately the buck stops with Obama so it was a bungle and it's a tragedy that a man died but there are U.S. citizens dying over in the Middle East every week.

    It's not the unbelievable scandal you're desperately hoping it is to get Romney across the finish line.

    I spent the whole Bush presidency dealing with liberals overreacting and exaggerating like you are right now.

    So American civilians die in the middle east every week and that is apparently ok, and now American officials die in the middle east and that is apparently ok too.


    And yes, this is a scandal of monumental proportion, as you well know, but you are in such election panic mode that you cannot admit as much.

    Bungled security / bungled communication / terrorist assassinations / blame game / coverup / ................................. scandal.


    Is it any wonder why the obama/biden ticket is rightfully doomed?
  • QuakerOats
    And as for the debate, obviously Ryan won. But perhaps more importantly, Biden came off as a bombastic, inconsiderate, pompous jerk. Over 80 interruptions, incredible. I can't believe Ryan maintained his composure throughout; he should have finally come over the table and knocked out a few of those fat teeth. And the moderator was clearly lacking; she should have simply cut off Biden and asked him to please let the congressman finish. Biden clearly doomed himself with many (more) independants and women who simply get immediately turned off by that bs.

    In discussions later, I learned that the antics of Biden are often symptomatic of the onset of dementia. Either way, he has to go.
  • gut
    BoatShoes;1295747 wrote:This post is ironic. In it you say you change your views to the evidence. The IMF has come out and basically said that my views are warranted by the evidence as opposed to yours. This is especially credible in my opinion as the IMF has been the austerity/credible-path-to-balanced-budgets peddler for years.

    The deficit is 20% lower than last year and it's going to be cut in half next year...and yet growth is slow and we're projected to be in recession next year as we credibly approach a balanced budget. Investors are not imposing austerity and they haven't in countries with their own currency. Stop saying that you get your beliefs from evidence when nothing you say reflects that.
    LMFAO....Cut in half? You're smoking crack.

    Also, you continue to make the same tired arguments. This is the last time I'm going to repeat myself. No one is calling for a balanced budget tomorrow. No one is calling for the severe austerity IMPOSED BY CREDITORS that is hurting Spain and Greece. The IMF can whine about it all they want, there isn't anything those countries can do about it. Everyone knows you can only spend your way out of trouble until you can't. And what you refuse to acknowledge delaying the inevitable isn't productive - propping up a country to fail a few years down the road isn't evidence that of same magical Keynesian success.

    I continue to be amazed how you support Keynesian policies as being proven to work when you know damn well only half of the "policy" has ever been practiced. 10 years ago everyone was Keynesian, not it's mostly Kruger and a few crickets.
  • jhay78
    Jake Tapper exposes Biden's fable that he was a central figure in the Social Security reforms of 1983:

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/in-vp-debate-biden-seemed-to-overstate-his-role-in-social-security-reform/
    Former Social Security Commissioner Robert Ball, who was on the commission, wrote about the importance of other key players in the reforms who were not on the commission, including Rep. Dan Rostenkowski, D-Ill., chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, and Rep. J.J. Pickle, chair of the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security. He did not mention Biden.

    Moynihan’s personal records about 13 days of meetings surrounding the 1983 reforms — cited during a tribute to Dole and inserted into the Congressional Record — go into great detail about the meetings held in the final days of negotiations.

    “Tuesday, January 4, 1983 , 4:30 p.m.: Senators Dole and Moynihan meet with Robert J. Myers re Social Security,” the notes read. “Wednesday, January 5, 2:00 p.m.: Senator Moynihan meets privately with Alan Greenspan, Congressman Conable and Robert J. Myers re Social Security.” And so on. Biden is not mentioned.

    In March 1983, a Washington Post editorial heralded the “many heroes in the fight to rescue Social Security,” citing Greenspan, Ball, Moynihan and Dole. Biden is not mentioned.

    Biden in his memoir, “Promises to Keep,” makes no mention of this work on Social Security reform, nor is there any mention of it in Jules Witcover’s biography of the vice president. The 2005 biography of Robert Ball, “Robert Ball and the Politics of Social Security,” doesn’t mention Biden even once (as opposed to Dole, Moynihan, Pickle, Heinz, and so on.)
    1. Nice to see that most of the media care more about "binders of women" than exposing a legitimate case of the VP lying (again).

    2. Methinks Jake Tapper might not last too long at ABC.
  • believer
    jhay78;1297873 wrote: Nice to see that most of the media care more about "binders of women" than exposing a legitimate case of the VP lying (again).
    I see it as yet another sign that the left is desperate to find something - anything - to swing Big Mo in their direction.
  • Manhattan Buckeye
    believer;1298027 wrote:I see it as yet another sign that the left is desperate to find something - anything - to swing Big Mo in their direction.
    My God, don't get me started. I typically defended Obama in his "57 states gaffe." Obviously Barack Obama knows there are 50 states and got caught while he was tired and he made a mistake. He isn't an imbecile. That got about 5 seconds in the MSM and a lot more than that in the right wing blog media.

    Now the "binders" comment which is a similar verbal gaffe is all of a sudden national news to the point we have sociologists analyzing it?

    This country has lost its collective mind.
  • believer
    Manhattan Buckeye;1298032 wrote:This country has lost its collective mind.
    No question about that. Sometimes I wonder what the rest of the world thinks about us and then I remind myself that our cousins in Europe are too busy chowing down on a giant Zoloft pill of their own to worry too much about our lunacy.
  • Manhattan Buckeye
    Europe (at least Western Europe) is far worse off than the U.S. Take that for what it is.
  • gut
    believer;1298027 wrote:I see it as yet another sign that the left is desperate to find something - anything - to swing Big Mo in their direction.
    Seriously. Even the leftist media can't spin Obama's record. They're covering this election with all the zeal of TMZ.
  • sleeper
    Manhattan Buckeye;1298032 wrote:My God, don't get me started. I typically defended Obama in his "57 states gaffe." Obviously Barack Obama knows there are 50 states and got caught while he was tired and he made a mistake. He isn't an imbecile. That got about 5 seconds in the MSM and a lot more than that in the right wing blog media.

    Now the "binders" comment which is a similar verbal gaffe is all of a sudden national news to the point we have sociologists analyzing it?

    This country has lost its collective mind.
    I lol'd. So true. It's pretty easy to see what Romney's point was; although the words used were probably not the best.
  • Abe Vigoda
    BoatShoes;1295927 wrote:They modeled their approach there based upon experience with the embassies in Yemen. And, the responses were handled by mid-level state department civil servants. Ultimately the buck stops with Obama so it was a bungle and it's a tragedy that a man died but there are U.S. citizens dying over in the Middle East every week.

    It's not the unbelievable scandal you're desperately hoping it is to get Romney across the finish line.

    I spent the whole Bush presidency dealing with liberals overreacting and exaggerating like you are right now.
    This is a thinly veiled operation designed to link Obama to Carter to gained political points. Most intelligent people can see right through this.
  • gut
    It could have and should have been a fairly minor issue, a non-issue even. But then the administration started playing politics and went into a pattern of spin and denial, and it's blowing up in Obama's face. It's an issue completely of his own making.