patrick.net

coriacci1 says

Homeboy says

You would rather have 4 years of someone who is contemptuous of 47% of the population?

i would rather have someone like this:

President Kennedy calls out the steel companies (1962)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zWNhWANkq0Q#!

If push came to shove
DAMN STRAIGHT.

Homeboy says

I don't think the rest of the population shares your view.

Yes, THAT is the problem.

George Romney worked to overhaul the state's financial and revenue structure, culminating in Michigan's first state income tax, and greatly expanded the size of state government. Romney was a strong supporter of the American Civil Rights Movement. He briefly represented moderate Republicans against conservative Republican Barry Goldwater during the 1964 U.S. presidential election. He requested the intervention of federal troops during the 1967 Detroit riot.

Romney was a candidate for the Republican nomination for President of the United States in 1968. While initially a front-runner, he proved an ineffective campaigner, and fell behind Richard Nixon in polls. Following a mid-1967 remark that his earlier support for the Vietnam War had been due to a "brainwashing" by U.S. military and diplomatic officials in Vietnam, his campaign faltered even more, and he withdrew from the contest in early 1968. Once elected president, Nixon appointed Romney Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. Romney's ambitious plans for housing production increases for the poor, and for open housing to desegregate suburbs, were modestly successful but often thwarted by Nixon. Romney left the administration at the start of Nixon's second term in 1973. Returning to private life, Romney advocated volunteerism and public service, and headed the National Center for Voluntary Action and its successor organizations from 1973 through 1991. He also served as a regional representative of the Twelve within his church.

Mitt Romney has become his fathers worse enemy Nixon!

Politicofact says

Mitt Romney has become his fathers worse enemy Nixon!

Trickey Dickey ROCKED

Cloud says

I don't object to raising taxes on "wealthier people" if the socialists in your party would agree to cut dramatically the size and growth of government.

Excellent, I assume you would start with a 50% cut in military spending.

bgamall4 says

Reader says

DREAMER they are all alike. They all work for the same Master you fool. Wake up. Lesser of two evils? I haven't seen that one yet.

They are similar, but not alike. Historically, rich presidents, like Teddy Roosevelt have challenged the wealthy and protected the middle class. Obama is doing that by keeping oil prices down as we speak. I guarantee you Romney would not do that. Why do you think the banksters want Obama out? Fool.

Gary Anderson strategicdefaultbooks.com

The bankstas could care less if Obama or Romney wins, they have both on their salary list. In fact they had no problem voting Obama in and spend roughly equal amounts on both candidates, making sure they own both.

coriacci1 says

i would rather have someone like this:

President Kennedy calls out the steel companies (1962)

JFK isn't running in this election. He's dead. Did you miss the memo?

Reader says

Homeboy says

I don't think the rest of the population shares your view.

Yes, THAT is the problem.

Your problem.

bgamall4 says

mell says

The bankstas could care less if Obama or Romney wins,

Then why are they trying very hard for Obama to lose. Especially the hedge funds, who want off the TBTF systemic risk list so they can gamble more. You can google that hedge fund systemic risk list and read up on it.

Gary Anderson strategicdefaultbooks.com

First of all, the proper phrase is they could NOT care less (which they couldn't.) Secondly, why are they trying "very hard" for Obama to lose? You must be blind because that is NOT the case at all. They are all in bed together. You saw who was in office during the bank bailout!

mell says

bgamall4 says

Reader says

DREAMER they are all alike. They all work for the same Master you fool. Wake up. Lesser of two evils? I haven't seen that one yet.

They are similar, but not alike. Historically, rich presidents, like Teddy Roosevelt have challenged the wealthy and protected the middle class. Obama is doing that by keeping oil prices down as we speak. I guarantee you Romney would not do that. Why do you think the banksters want Obama out? Fool.

Gary Anderson strategicdefaultbooks.com

The bankstas could care less if Obama or Romney wins, they have both on their salary list. In fact they had no problem voting Obama in and spend roughly equal amounts on both candidates, making sure they own both.

Yes, true. Besides the minor correction of (could NOT care less.)

bob2356 says

Cloud says

I don't object to raising taxes on "wealthier people" if the socialists in your party would agree to cut dramatically the size and growth of government.

Excellent, I assume you would start with a 50% cut in military spending.

Why are you spinning? That isn't what he asked you.

bgamall4 says

rich presidents, like Teddy Roosevelt have challenged the wealthy and protected the middle class.

Oh yes, they "protected" their pockets that's what they protected. They have you believing they are protecting the so-called middle class, how they love to sell that bullshite to you people and you eat it up.

Your party pushes "protecting" middle class because what is essentially lower income and welfare they make a fuckload a money off of ...starting with UNIONS, dues, fees, social programmes, clinics, Medicaid, educational bullshite, rights protections, etc. etc. etc. and all the real money put out results in Xtimes back which goes straight back into their Democratic pockets.

Cloud says

Patrick says "Why don't you ever object to non-productive rent-seeking the same way you object to taxes?

Why do you say that poor and middle class people should work, but rich people shouldn't have to?

Why do you always approve of the rich living off of the work of poor and middle class people?"

The leaders in your party are filthy rich why don't you ask them these questions?

Also what do you mean by "rich." And how do you define "living off" of the poor? Do you mean by making profit off a loaf of bread? Do you mean by making profit?

Are you giving away your new book for free?

It is ok for Nancy Pelosi to have private jets and a 100k airline booze bill paid by us because she is on your team? You really believe she is on your team.

Patrick, he has valid points here. Especially the examples provided.

Homeboy says

Reader says

Homeboy says

I don't think the rest of the population shares your view.

Yes, THAT is the problem.

Your problem.

I was agreeing with you MORON.

Cloud says

The Democrat leaders are filthy rich. They use the poor to gain power and don't care if they have to bankrupt the country in the process- with the broken system called socialism.

I know. I agree with you 100% above and beyond you are right. What part of what you say they don't want to accept is pure denial IMHO.

Let them fall for their utter bullshite full force.

We know better, and we are NOT alone.

According to Zfacts.com, 3/4th's of the National debt occurred under Republican Administrations. 20 out of 20 years were deficits. If Republicans had run balanced budgets, the debt would be around $4 trillion,not $16 trillion. According to Forbes, Obama had the slowest growth in Federal spending in over 30 years.
Romney proposes a $5 trillion addition to the National debt and a double down on the Bush tax cuts that are, at $4.3 trillion and counting, 1/4th of the entire National debt. I wish people on this blog would deal with facts in their posts.

In answer to your questions, 2009 was Bush's budget. At the time the US was in the deepest recession since the Great Depression. The stimulus saved jobs. We have over 4 million more jobs since the bottom. Two, in 12 of the 20 years, Republicans had control, in 8 years, Republicans had veto control. Three, the debt was $5.3 trillion starting 2002 and over $12 trillion starting 2010. The Tea Party started the debt talk in 2009, when Obama started his Presidency. It was only a few of us complaining in 2002,3,4. Certainly no Republican politician except Ron Paul was complaining. These facts are from Zfacts.com basically.

Reader says

Especially since they do NOT include food or gas into calculations of the CPI?

I can't believe how many people keep restating obvious lies like this.

They DO include both food and gas in the CPI.

They also publish something called the core CPI where they take out volatile items to try to smooth out the wild variations that sometimes occur in commodities. Like when there's a drought in the Midwest. Or when there's political instability in the Middle East. I assume that's what you are refering to.

tatupu70 says

Reader says

Especially since they do NOT include food or gas into calculations of the CPI?

I can't believe how many people keep restating obvious lies like this.

They DO include both food and gas in the CPI.

They also publish something called the core CPI where they take out volatile items to try to smooth out the wild variations that sometimes occur in commodities. Like when there's a drought in the Midwest. Or when there's political instability in the Middle East. I assume that's what you are refering to.

Core CPI
http://inflationdata.com/articles/category/inflation-2/quantitative-easing/

Reader says

tatupu70 says

Reader says

Especially since they do NOT include food or gas into calculations of the CPI?

I can't believe how many people keep restating obvious lies like this.

They DO include both food and gas in the CPI.

They also publish something called the core CPI where they take out volatile items to try to smooth out the wild variations that sometimes occur in commodities. Like when there's a drought in the Midwest. Or when there's political instability in the Middle East. I assume that's what you are refering to.

Core CPI
http://inflationdata.com/articles/category/inflation-2/quantitative-easing/

Reader

Glad you understand the difference now. Try to keep it straight.

tatupu70 says

Glad you understand the difference now.

I stand corrected on the above I meant to include CORE to the statement and will include it now so please cut your off the cuff arrogance over a single error as regards my understanding. Thank you.

Let's talk Core CPI is it not the Core CPI that is used by U.S. Fed Reserve's decisions about U.S. Monetary Policy? And do they NOT leave out food and gas and such when making such decisions? ??? And while we are at it let's get into the fractional reserve system (FRS) too!

As they say don't assume. I am not as ignorant as you thought.

It is all expained in a two word phrase TAX CREEP (look it up.)

Reader says

Let's talk Core CPI is it not the Core CPI that is used by U.S. Fed Reserve's decisions about U.S. Monetary Policy? And do they NOT leave out food and gas and such when making such decisions? ??? And while we are at it let's get into the fractional reserve system (FRS) too!

I don't know exactly which metrics the Federal Reserve uses when making decisions, but my assumption would be that they would weigh many, many data points. I think I've seen that they even look at purchases of men's ties and women's bras. I'm sure both CPI and core CPI are analyzed. And I'm also sure that they look very deep into both numbers--understanding why prices in each sector are either rising or falling.

To imply that the Federal Reserve policymakers are so lazy as to just use a single number in the analysis is beyond ridiculous.