The Debates!

[StrangeSox]

And no one is doing that. Stop embellishing the arguments that have been made in this thread.

 

Even if we assume that F&F were the prime buyers of s***ty MBS's that caused the bubble (they weren't), they still did not force anyone to create and sell them for substantial profit. The blame still does not lie with them.

[BigSqwert]

“I’ve got to tell you, having done as many as I’ve done, usually the side that’s perceived as having lost the debate is the one that complains about the moderator” - Frank Fahrenkopf, Commission on Presidential Debates co-chairman (and former RNC chairman)

[mr_genius]

I think Romney's idea of capped deductions is very interesting and a quality idea to look into.

 

But what's the time frame here? The GOP congress of 2010-2012? They haven't done anything. They've voted 212 times to repeal obamacare for no reason.

 

I also like the capped deductions. if the Republicans have voted 212 times to repeal obamacare then they are idiots.

Edited October 12, 2012 by mr_genius

[StrangeSox]

The AMT is pretty much a deduction cap, isn't it?

[Soxbadger]

Im really concerned about Romney's tax ideas to be honest.

 

What is kind of being hidden in there are the "small businesses" that are nothing more than Family LLC's for rich people that are used as a way to not pay taxes.

 

The only deduction that I can think of that you can remove without it involving more funny accounting is the standard deduction and that is the deduction what most lower income people use. Almost no high earners take the standard deduction.

 

Its really hard to tell though without a specific plan.

[MexSoxFan#1]

haha good point. they are more than happy to make compromises that help their political donors/ lobbyists/bribe givers.

I finally agree with Mr. Genius on something

[Cknolls]

Thank you, Biden...this is exactly the sort of thing that Joe can say that is more difficult for Barack....and what needed to be said.

 

 

Biden voted against Iraq and Afghanistan?

[Cknolls]

That comparison doesn't make sense. We didn't invade Libya with ground forces and then set up shop there.

 

 

We don't really know what the f*** we are doing with regards to Libya, besides lying our ass off about why our Ambassador was murdered.

[bmags]

The AMT is pretty much a deduction cap, isn't it?

 

He wanted to cap deductions at like 17k, which would be more meaningful the higher you go up in income than the AMT.

[Cknolls]

Define your metric for "historic"

 

 

How about a 5000+ Nasdaq.

 

[iamshack]

How about a 5000+ Nasdaq.

Yeah, it was a fairly large occurrence, but I don't think it had nearly the effect that the housing crisis, banks collapsing, and the auto industry nearly collapsing had, do you?

[Y2HH]

Yeah, it was a fairly large occurrence, but I don't think it had nearly the effect that the housing crisis, banks collapsing, and the auto industry nearly collapsing had, do you?

 

That doesn't make it not historic. I hate double negatives.

 

[Cknolls]

I am completely on-board with a massive jobs program structured around infrastructure that needs to be built and rebuilt anyway.

 

Done, but with Davis Bacon removed.

[EvilMonkey]

I am completely on-board with a massive jobs program structured around infrastructure that needs to be built and rebuilt anyway.

Why is it when Democrats talk about 'jobs', they always seem to be jobs that only benefit construction workers, teachers or other civil service employees?

[iamshack]

That doesn't make it not historic. I hate double negatives.

I know you tech and financial folks like to think it was historic, but in 75 years, in the history books in school, the .com bust will only be relevant in that it showed that the proliferation of the internet and the tech industry did have some limits. It will be absolutely nowhere near as an important of an event as the housing and banking collapse in '08-'09.

 

But if you want to insist it was historic, heck, I won't stop you.

[Y2HH]

I know you tech and financial folks like to think it was historic, but in 75 years, in the history books in school, the .com bust will only be relevant in that it showed that the proliferation of the internet and the tech industry did have some limits. It will be absolutely nowhere near as an important of an event as the housing and banking collapse in '08-'09.

 

But if you want to insist it was historic, heck, I won't stop you.

 

You keep comparing it to other historic moments to make it appear less historic. In comparison to other historic events, such as the Great Depression, it hardly registers, but the same can be done by comparing the current recession to things like WW2, which by comparison is also a blip. That isnt the point, regardless of your continued attempts to lessen the significance of one event by comparing it to another unrelated event.

 

I'm simply stating, that the .com boom/bust was historic, memorable, and books have been written about it...because it was historic, and not just to tech/finance types.

Edited October 13, 2012 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

Why is it when Democrats talk about 'jobs', they always seem to be jobs that only benefit construction workers, teachers or other civil service employees?

 

Because we're talking about the context of a massive federal jobs program and needed infrastructure spending? Infrastructure would employ an awful lot of engineers, planners, managers, etc. aside from construction crews anyway.

[cabiness42]

I am completely on-board with a massive jobs program structured around infrastructure that needs to be built and rebuilt anyway.

 

It's worked very well in Indiana. We're getting a lot of roads built, which is employing a lot of people, and since the economies of the surrounding states are so awful that none of them can afford to build anything, Indiana is getting bargain prices on the work. Best thing is that it's being mostly paid for by trucks going back and forth between Illinois and Ohio.

[iamshack]

You keep comparing it to other historic moments to make it appear less historic. In comparison to other historic events, such as the Great Depression, it hardly registers, but the same can be done by comparing the current recession to things like WW2, which by comparison is also a blip. That isnt the point, regardless of your continued attempts to lessen the significance of one event by comparing it to another unrelated event.

 

I'm simply stating, that the .com boom/bust was historic, memorable, and books have been written about it...because it was historic, and not just to tech/finance types.

Yeah, I do keep doing that. Probably because my point in calling this a historic collapse was directly in regards to the challenges it has posed to the Obama Administration, and the challenge it would have been to any Administration that took Office in '09. One simply cannot view Obama's Administration in a vacuum, as if nothing that came before it had any impact on things.

 

You chose to compare the .com bust to the housing and banking crisis of '08-'09.

 

It's simply not on par, not even close. Call it historic all you want. I don't really mind. But the two events are not particularly comparable.

[Y2HH]

Yeah, I do keep doing that. Probably because my point in calling this a historic collapse was directly in regards to the challenges it has posed to the Obama Administration, and the challenge it would have been to any Administration that took Office in '09. One simply cannot view Obama's Administration in a vacuum, as if nothing that came before it had any impact on things.

 

You chose to compare the .com bust to the housing and banking crisis of '08-'09.

 

It's simply not on par, not even close. Call it historic all you want. I don't really mind. But the two events are not particularly comparable.

 

In no way did I do this, but thanks.

 

I merely stated that every President enters office with his share of problems, which is a fact. I never compared the impact of them, nor was it my attempt to do so.

 

My point was pretty simple. Every President inherits some sort of mess, or some sort of mess occurs when they're in office. What bothers me about Obama is his incessant blaming of Bush, DESPITE the fact that Obama knew what he was getting into BEFORE he took office. It's not like he inhered some mess he wasn't expecting. Not only did he expect it, but promised to fix it. I have no problem with that. But that's what he needs to do instead of playing the blame Bush game constantly. It may just be my opinion, but when a leader blames others for failure, they're a failure as a leader. And I'll even ignore the first two years of blame...I'm human, I can at least get that. But it's still going on today, and to me, that's a sign of a weak leader. Or maybe it's the people he surrounded himself with, but in either case, it's time he moves forward, instead of constantly looking back and invoking the name of Bush simply to dismiss any complaints people have. Be a man, tell people it takes time...stand up for your vision and push forward. But falling back to the blame game time after time has become irksome to me. Man up already and stop being a weeny, Mr. President.

Edited October 15, 2012 by Y2HH

[iamshack]

In no way did I do this, but thanks.

 

I merely stated that every President enters office with his share of problems, which is a fact. I never compared them.

 

My point was pretty simple. Every President inherits some sort of mess, or some sort of mess occurs when they're in office. What bothers me about Obama is his incessant blaming of Bush, DESPITE the fact that Obama knew what he was getting into BEFORE he took office. It's not like he inhered some mess he wasn't expecting. Not only did he expect it, but promised to fix it. I have no problem with that. But that's what he needs to do instead of playing the blame Bush game constantly. It may just be my opinion, but when a leader blames others for failure, they're a failure as a leader. And I'll even ignore the first two years of blame...I'm human, I can at least get that. But it's still going on today, and it's a sign of a weak leader.

Well if you didn't bring it up for comparison's sakes, then why did you bring it up? You wanted to form a list of other historic events of the 21st century? Were you playing Jeopardy!?

 

I don't think Obama blames Bush too much at all. I do agree (and I think he would too) that he made too many promises in his last campaign, but every candidate makes a bunch of promises he can't keep, let's be honest. To simply look at his Administration now and say "He didn't keep his promises! Unemployment is still at 8%! The average worker earns less! The economy is in the crapper!" is a bit naive.

 

I really, really don't care to argue about this anymore though, because we both have pointed out that political arguments are pointless. Why waste our time?

 

[Y2HH]

Well if you didn't bring it up for comparison's sakes, then why did you bring it up? You wanted to form a list of other historic events of the 21st century? Were you playing Jeopardy!?

 

I don't think Obama blames Bush too much at all. I do agree (and I think he would too) that he made too many promises in his last campaign, but every candidate makes a bunch of promises he can't keep, let's be honest. To simply look at his Administration now and say "He didn't keep his promises! Unemployment is still at 8%! The average worker earns less! The economy is in the crapper!" is a bit naive.

 

I really, really don't care to argue about this anymore though, because we both have pointed out that political arguments are pointless. Why waste our time?

 

I brought it up because of Obama's constant use of the blame card, which he seems to pull on a daily basis. I thought I've made this pretty clear by now. The example I used was just one example out of the hundreds I could have used. I could have named many previous presidents that inherited a mess, of lesser or even greater impact that the one Obama inherited. Does it matter which example is used? Presidents of the past have inherited wars, depressions, etc...and like I said, I'll even ignore the blame card for a year or two, I'm sure they've all done it at one point or another...but after a time, it's time to march on. Obama doesn't seem to want to do that.

 

Like I said, maybe it's just his advisers, but whatever it is, let's move on. I think the entire universe gets it already and it's too the point that it need not be mentioned again.

[Y2HH]

Well if you didn't bring it up for comparison's sakes, then why did you bring it up? You wanted to form a list of other historic events of the 21st century? Were you playing Jeopardy!?

 

I don't think Obama blames Bush too much at all. I do agree (and I think he would too) that he made too many promises in his last campaign, but every candidate makes a bunch of promises he can't keep, let's be honest. To simply look at his Administration now and say "He didn't keep his promises! Unemployment is still at 8%! The average worker earns less! The economy is in the crapper!" is a bit naive.

 

I really, really don't care to argue about this anymore though, because we both have pointed out that political arguments are pointless. Why waste our time?

 

Seriously? Well, he does.

[NorthSideSox72]

Regardless of what you think of Obama... no President has come into office facing an economic situation as dire as Obama did, since the Great Depression at least. And few enter office with two major wars ongoing. He had both. I don't think there has been a President since FDR that inherited a mess on anything like the same scale as Obama did. So I don't begrudge ObamaCo pointing to that regularly.

 

The big questions of course are about what he's done about it, and/or not done.

 

[Soxbadger]

Both sides already complaining about moderator. Guess that is a good way to set up your explanation for why your respective candidate lost.