PLYMOUTH — In a partial defeat for the socially conservative wing of the Massachusetts GOP, the Republican State Committee effectively rejected the national party platform's strict language on abortion Tuesday night.

A Republican move to the political middle is inevitable after losing elections this fall. Now, how the northern social liberals are going to corral the ignomious southern social conservative (bible belt folk), is the real fight that is brewing.

In the 1960's, southern politics were either socially liberal Republicans or the socially conservative Democrats. Those southern conservatives became Republicans by Reagan's era. Today's southern liberals are Democrats.

I believe the social liberal northern Republicans have had enough of their disgusting social conservative southern counterparts.

I'd like to see them run the southern racists out of the GOP wholesale so that they can form their own southern white t-party - perhaps those racist Republican university students at Ol' Miss can champion a new redneck t-party and give the educated and decent northerner back his GOP.

1 minute ago, cbae wrote

@JohnAskew: The GOP would be far more successful if it were to dump its religious right "base". But we wouldn't want that to happen now, would we?

Actually I would.

Transparency++, the northerners don't seem to know what they have been supporting all this time...

The main problem with Repub voters seem to be their insistence on wasting so much money on American military empire. The money wasted leaves no room for them to reduce the spending....and they are left to ridiculous tactics like cutting funding for the big bird and other such inane things. How much does the big bird cost ? those funds are not even enough to cover a day's worth of Fed Government spending. 

Of course, this does not mean Dems are any better when it comes to the Fed government budget. It is a foregone conclusion that Dems/Liberals are economically challenged.

Repubs had a true chance in electing a genius when it comes to Economics.

 He bought the youth in to Republican party and the mental comprehension challenged Repub voters (both north and south)  did not want any of that. In defense of the North though, I would like to point out one Brownie point, Ron Paul did come in second in New Hampshire primary.

55 minutes ago, spivonious wrote

@Srikanth_t: I like Ron Paul, but his ideas were a bit too far out there to have any chance of being elected President. Maybe his son will have a better chance in 2016, but I think many "Paulites" were turned off by Rand Paul's endorsement of Romney.

Rand is as batshit crazy as ole Ron is.

28 minutes ago, TexasToast wrote

I like Ron Paul too.   Switch bodies with Mitt Romney and Ron Paul would win.   Lots of people judge on appearances and not content.  I think a third party is needed.  By the way,  what state does Ron Paul come from ?  Yes the best state in the country.

Outward appearance can't mask batshit crazy.

26 minutes ago, TexasToast wrote

I like Ron Paul too.   Switch bodies with Mitt Romney and Ron Paul would win.   Lots of people judge on appearances and not content.  I think a third party is needed.  By the way,  what state does Ron Paul come from ?  Yes the best state in the country.

I never got to know Ron Paul. He failed to send his message my way. I'm not an ostrich, but I don't look under every rock at fringe candidates, and he is/was a fringe candidate.

I can see what Romney's plan is by looking at his lifestyle... he's at least predictable.

Ron Paul? What mini-van did he emerge from? What are his hobbies? He looks a bit like a mad scientist and that's not predictable, nothing is predictable with this guy... who is he, really? Perot?

Texas is what it is.

Ron Paul, September 6, 2001.. On the floor of the Congress.

   He pleaded with the Congress and the president Bush not to embark on yet another Government engineered economic bubble called Housing bubble. He predicted the exact trajectory of commodity prices, interest rates, FX rates, GSE securities, you name it.... all of that 7 years in advance. His  many speeches on economics (over many years)are part of the official congressional records and can be accessed at www.house.gov.

 On the other hand, we have the Economically challenged keynesian called Paul Krugman, who, in 2001 advocated for a housing bubble in response to the Dot Com Crash. Yet another clueless Keynesian, Fed Chariman Ben Bernanke, as late as 2007 was on primetime CNBC saying "sub-prime crisis is contained" and there is no financial crisis. That's right. He was on Primetime CNBC making this Economically challenged claim.
 

 Now, I understand that Economics is not everybody's subject of interest. But then, everybody seems to chime in on subject they know nothing about ( by electing economically challenged Obama).

@cbae:

Yes, I would be glad to explain. Let's take today's topic for example. Today Obama proposed raising $1.6 trillion revenue over the next decade by means of Tax increases on "those rich" people.

 Lot of Dem voters seem to have hard time deciphering Obama's today's lie. You see, Obama is running $1 trillion deficit PER YEAR. His proposed tax increases on "those rich" people amounts to nothing on a PER YEAR basis. As usual, he offers KoolAid, and Dem voters just drink it. If Obama were not a liar, he would tell the truth. If he intends to fill the deficit by Taxes only...then taxing "those rich" amounts to nothing. He really needs to tax "us middle class" people. Then, only then, can his $1trillion/year deficit can be covered. Comprende' ?

Now, I understand that lot of Liberals believe that if only the taxes on "those rich" can be increased  and spending not reduced, we can all hold hands and enjoy the milk and honey. But sometimes, Liberals need to drink coffee and smell their "batshit" ( to use your language).

Given that I work with commodity prices, interest rates, FX rates data and use advanced statistical models to perform option valuation and risk metrics on millions of dollars of my customers commodity portfolios for my "daily" living ( and actually make a pretty good living at that), I would be glad to explain any other economic topic of interest to you. Do let me know what topic you need a little bit teaching on.

6 hours ago, JohnAskew wrote

http://www.boston.com/metrodesk/2012/11/14/state-republican-party-rejects-national-party-stance-abortion/WyJVmN1EfdHbYpOgcFaemK/story.html

PLYMOUTH — In a partial defeat for the socially conservative wing of the Massachusetts GOP, the Republican State Committee effectively rejected the national party platform's strict language on abortion Tuesday night.

A Republican move to the political middle is inevitable after losing elections this fall. Now, how the northern social liberals are going to corral the ignomious southern social conservative (bible belt folk), is the real fight that is brewing.

Democrats have yet to move to the middle on social issues, either, so its a bit of a double standard expecting Republicans to. Extreme is extreme, doesn't matter if its extreme liberal or extreme conservative.

11 hours ago, Proton2 wrote

The democrats got cloberd in the election, with House Speaker John Boehner now leader. He will not raise taxes including any form of a carbon tax.

How is gaining 6 or 7 seats in the House of Representatives and winning every close Senate race "got cloberd"?

Democrats may not have emerged with a mandate, but they certainly clobbered the Republicans.

17 hours ago, Srikanth_t wrote

The economically challenged anti-Ron paul  NeoCon republicans seem to like wasting Trillions of dollars on ill-conceived wars. Not to mention, they themselves will never go fight in those wars. Or send their own kids. They just like to sit in the comfort of Air conditioned rooms and cheer the children of poor people as they waste their lives in ill conceived wars. The shorter words to describe these people are "Neo-Con Chicken hawks".

This is the only point to which I will agree with you so far.

17 hours ago, Srikanth_t wrote

 

@cbae:

Yes, I would be glad to explain. Let's take today's topic for example. Today Obama proposed raising $1.6 trillion revenue over the next decade by means of Tax increases on "those rich" people.

 Lot of Dem voters seem to have hard time deciphering Obama's today's lie. You see, Obama is running $1 trillion deficit PER YEAR. His proposed tax increases on "those rich" people amounts to nothing on a PER YEAR basis. As usual, he offers KoolAid, and Dem voters just drink it. If Obama were not a liar, he would tell the truth. If he intends to fill the deficit by Taxes only...then taxing "those rich" amounts to nothing. He really needs to tax "us middle class" people. Then, only then, can his $1trillion/year deficit can be covered. Comprende' ?

Now, I understand that lot of Liberals believe that if only the taxes on "those rich" can be increased  and spending not reduced, we can all hold hands and enjoy the milk and honey. But sometimes, Liberals need to drink coffee and smell their "batshit" ( to use your language).

Given that I work with commodity prices, interest rates, FX rates data and use advanced statistical models to perform option valuation and risk metrics on millions of dollars of my customers commodity portfolios for my "daily" living ( and actually make a pretty good living at that), I would be glad to explain any other economic topic of interest to you. Do let me know what topic you need a little bit teaching on.

It has been made clear that raising taxes on those who earn > $250,000 will not balance the budget. No one claims it will except for you. Personally, I think all the Bush era tax cuts should expire and everyone should pay taxes like we did in the 1990s. It balanced the budget. Other opinions are just irresponsible, even the 'tax the rich only' approach.

Liberals understand everything, at least I do. You must believe what conservative shock jocks tell you that Liberals believe, because that isn't coming from me. No one believes Obama's tax increases alone will balance the budget, that's stupid talk. Where did it come from? I laugh at it.

Obama is not a liar. Save your emotions for football games, please. I drink coffee, plenty.

Given that you work with the financial industry gives you exactly zero superhero powers of economic genius. Many of us have worked in the field. Why do you believe your opinions are somehow more genuine?

I don't believe that a government will ever balance the budget. That's not how governments work. When you give someone a 'right', you cannot deny them that 'right' when the budget runs out, because  it's the law.

As a result we spend more then our budgets for nearly everything, especially healthcare.

Funny story on the radio yesterday;

They were talking about how Spain and Greece were literally on fire. Because they are not able to pay the budget cuts. They say budget cuts, but actually they mean tax increases. The radio show hosts babbled on about how budget cuts were bad and killing the economy, how they could not figure out a solution to this predicament.

In the item after the one about Spain and Greece, they talked about how a nursing institution cut down on management and regulation for it's nurses. How they now were able to provide better care for less price. They were literally amazed that it was possible to turn the institution around almost overnight. They fired 80 managers and gave the nurses the responsibility to deliver the care that they thought was needed.

If you have half a brain, you can see that cutting costs is not raising more taxes. Cutting costs is getting rid of regulations and overhead, so that the citizen is responsible for his own affairs. This is the way out of the predicament we are in right now. Government cant spend it's way out of a crisis.

None of your or our leaders are willing to admit that they brought this onto themselves. Well, ultimately we brought it onto us, since we voted for them and let them run our lives.

Moral of the story is, people are not willing to accept the obvious solution. Even if it's starting them right in the eyes.

19 hours ago, Srikanth_t wrote

Given that I work with commodity prices, interest rates, FX rates data and use advanced statistical models to perform option valuation and risk metrics on millions of dollars of my customers commodity portfolios for my "daily" living ( and actually make a pretty good living at that), I would be glad to explain any other economic topic of interest to you. Do let me know what topic you need a little bit teaching on.

I'm sorry, but quants aren't economists, they are gamblers.  Any opinion they espouse must be taken with the full knowledge that it is in their interest to shade any discussion so that it might improve their bottom line.

That doesn't make you a bad person, but as long as you make money doing this, you aren't going to 'school' us on economics, you are going to school us on how you want to make more money.

@maddus Trouble brewing your way :

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/11/15/netherlands-caused-hurricane-sandy/

12 minutes ago, TexasToast wrote

@Maddus Mattus: The answer is to start over.   We are going to create our own country here in Texas and do things the right way.   Looks like a few other states will join.  In Europe I see another war coming that will realign the powers and this will be your do over.

Like I said at the start: real Republicans are northerners. Texans are not northerners whatsoever.

And the idea that anyone takes today's pitiful cowardly sentiment of any U.S state seccession seriously shows just how fractured and confused the Republican base has become.

Please start your own political party and leave the good GOP to those with brains.

1 hour ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

The tax pressure here in Holland is over 75% and we still cannot balance our budget.

Prove it.

%52  is not  ==  %75

1 minute ago, TexasToast wrote

@Proton2: I was actually just kidding but there are a lot of unhappy campers here.  Secession will be fun news for awhile but it wont go anywhere.  Things have to get really bad before any of this gets traction.   I think the government in the US will just be gridlocked for next 4 years.

I'm glad you were not serious about the cry baby secession banter. It's a bunch of sour grapes.

Congress will have more elections in 2 years. If that changes the formula for gridlock, then you will be wrong with asserting 4 years of gridlock.

Voters voted out t-party gridlockers... and will vote more out in 2 years if there isn't cooperation in Congress between the two parties. Republicans are voting against t-party extremists, too. Everyone wants a working government, not a bunch of radicals doing everything they can for more gridlock.

5 minutes ago, TexasToast wrote

@JohnAskew: I do not think anyone is taking it serious but it seems like you believe that.   It is just post election venting .   Things will settle down in a few months.   I like the libertarians.  You can keep the GOP after they screwed Ron Paul.

There is an element of truth to every joke, too.

Please, be my guest and BUILD the libertarian party. I have serious doubts it will ever take hold. It's on the same level of denial as secession, imho. Win an election or something, L's.

16 minutes ago, JohnAskew wrote

*snip*

Prove it.

%52  is not  ==  %75

30-52% income tax.

Then we get compulsory insurances, which are in essence taxes for healthcare, pension and disabilities (don't know the exact percentage, have to lookup my payment sheet).

21% (going to be 23%) consumer tax.

Have you got insurance? There's a tax for that, 21%.

Want to buy groceries? 6% tax.

Then we get a 66% tax on fuel, gas and electricity.

When we die state takes 40% as tax.

Want to sell your house? 10% tax.

New car has a 20% tax and on top the 21% consumer tax.

Want to drive a car? There's a tax for that!

Company car? Add 14%-25% (depending on CO2 emissions) of the new value of the car to your income and pay 30-52% tax over that!

Then there are the taxes on a corporate level that get included into product price, which you don't actually see on the bill!

It all amounts to a total tax pressure of more then 75% on the worker. In Holland we have the highest tax pressure in the world.

30 minutes ago, JohnAskew wrote

There is an element of truth to every joke, too.

Please, be my guest and BUILD the libertarian party. I have serious doubts it will ever take hold. It's on the same level of denial as secession, imho. Win an election or something, L's.

An election is an auction of future stolen goods. You will never ever win an election if you promise people to take away their 'free' stuff.

There is a difference between being right and getting other people to agree that you are right.

You don't even know your own tax rate.

You should take "Mad Matts Taxes are Too Damn High" show on the road.

2 hours ago, JohnAskew wrote

*snip*

It has been made clear that raising taxes on those who earn > $250,000 will not balance the budget. No one claims it will except for you. Personally, I think all the Bush era tax cuts should expire and everyone should pay taxes like we did in the 1990s. It balanced the budget. Other opinions are just irresponsible, even the 'tax the rich only' approach.

Liberals understand everything, at least I do. You must believe what conservative shock jocks tell you that Liberals believe, because that isn't coming from me. No one believes Obama's tax increases alone will balance the budget, that's stupid talk. Where did it come from? I laugh at it.

Obama is not a liar. Save your emotions for football games, please. I drink coffee, plenty.

Given that you work with the financial industry gives you exactly zero superhero powers of economic genius. Many of us have worked in the field. Why do you believe your opinions are somehow more genuine?

 

Au Contraire, you seem to be not listening to what Obama himself is saying. And more importantly the rhetoric coming out of Liberal echo chamber known as MSNBC. So far, Obama proposed raising the taxes on "those rich" and closing some tax loopholes (we don't know what those "some loopholes" are). All of this makes like *a dent* in his Trillion dollar per year deficits. It does make for a good talking point though...you gotta have a boogeyman and this time it's the rich.

Nope. 1990s taxes did not balance the budget. This tells me how misinformed you are on 1990s economy. You see, as it so happened, the tax revenues of 1990s are NOT because we all got taxed slightly higher rates. It was because, Fed Reserve artificially kept interest rates lower than what the actual market would have priced them. It fueled a fake boom in DotCom companies on one hand and also (and more importantly) the stock market bubble on the other hand.

When Government manipulates the economy through it's artificial financial engineering, the three main factors of Capitalist economy, namely Labor, Resources and Capital will get grossly misallocated. We all have seen how many DotCom companies got started on the Flimsiest of business cases. So much of capital moved in to the fake boom of stock market. At one point in time, Yahoo itself was valued at more than the entire GDP of New Zealand. That's right, Newzealand with it's rich mineral, timber, tourism, agriculture, fishing, etcetra was less than Yahoo. That is one incredible fake movement of capital in to stock market. The fakeness of Clinton era boom was fully brought to bear in the subsequent crash. And then Bush, with help from Greenspan and Bernanke, engineered even bigger boom called "housing" and we all know how it turned out. Again, everybody and their grandma was a real-estate agent...lol (labor allocation).

1 hour ago, JohnAskew wrote

*snip*

There is an element of truth to every joke, too.

Please, be my guest and BUILD the libertarian party. I have serious doubts it will ever take hold. It's on the same level of denial as secession, imho. Win an election or something, L's.

Bob Barr got 0.4% of the popular vote in 2008. Gary Johnson got 0.98% of the popular vote this year. He got over 3% in his home state of New Mexico. Many people I talked to said they'd like to vote for him, but were voting for Romney because they wanted Obama to lose, even though they didn't agree with all of Romney's platform.

I think many more people would have voted for him had the media portrayed him as a viable candidate. Why not include the major third party candidates in the debates? The presidential election system in this country is controlled by the major parties.

45 minutes ago, Srikanth_t wrote

*snip*

Au Contraire, you seem to be not listening to what Obama himself is saying. And more importantly the rhetoric coming out of Liberal echo chamber known as MSNBC. So far, Obama proposed raising the taxes on "those rich" and closing some tax loopholes (we don't know what those "some loopholes" are). All of this makes like *a dent* in his Trillion dollar per year deficits. It does make for a good talking point though...you gotta have a boogeyman and this time it's the rich.

I do listen. You didn't prove that Obama claimed his tax increase idea for income > $250,000 will balance the budget, yet you accuse him of saying so.

Nope. 1990s taxes did not balance the budget. This tells me how misinformed you are on 1990s economy. You see, as it so happened, the tax revenues of 1990s are NOT because we all got taxed slightly higher rates. It was because, Fed Reserve artificially kept interest rates lower than what the actual market would have priced them. It fueled a fake boom in DotCom companies on one hand and also (and more importantly) the stock market bubble on the other hand.

The budget was balanced. It is documented. Tricksey? Sure, it's politics. But the deficit under the Democrats is always far smaller than under Republicans. You may not promote the idea that wars started under Bush are Obama's spending ideas. You must subtract the two war costs from Obama's deficits to be honest about which party has the spending problem.

When Government manipulates the economy through it's artificial financial engineering, the three main factors of Capitalist economy, namely Labor, Resources and Capital will get grossly misallocated. We all have seen how many DotCom companies got started on the Flimsiest of business cases. So much of capital moved in to the fake boom of stock market. At one point in time, Yahoo itself was valued at more than the entire GDP of New Zealand. That's right, Newzealand with it's rich mineral, timber, tourism, agriculture, fishing, etcetra was less than Yahoo. That is one incredible fake movement of capital in to stock market. The fakeness of Clinton era boom was fully brought to bear in the subsequent crash. And then Bush, with help from Greenspan and Bernanke, engineered even bigger boom called "housing" and we all know how it turned out. Again, everybody and their grandma was a real-estate agent...lol (labor allocation).

Government doesn't declare Facebook is worth 100 billion, Wall Street does that -- and is always greedy wrong. Same with all other IPOs of ridiculousness. You want to blame government?

Government doesn't micro-manage private corporations (unless they are insolvent). Misallocations are from private company decisions going after short-term profits.

2 hours ago, ScanIAm wrote

@Maddus Mattus:I could list out every time I pay tax when I buy a burger and fries, too, but it doesn't change the fact that

You don't even know your own tax rate.

You should take "Mad Matts Taxes are Too Damn High" show on the road.

Thanks!

Forgot a few that were listed there as well!

1 hour ago, JohnAskew wrote

The budget was balanced. It is documented. Tricksey? Sure, it's politics. But the deficit under the Democrats is always far smaller than under Republicans. You may not promote the idea that wars started under Bush are Obama's spending ideas. You must subtract the two war costs from Obama's deficits to be honest about which party has the spending problem.

But you seem to enjoy being 'tricksey' yourself.

Its hard to say that the government under the 90s was "under Democrats" vs "under Republicans", since the Congress was largely driving the agenda by the point the Balanced Budget Agreement of 97 was passed, and a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution failed by one vote, a Democrat. Plus, the budgets in the 80s were largely influenced by a Democratic congress. There are big problems with the claim that anything was solved during the 90s, whether by Republicans or Democrats, because as Srikanth said, it was the good economy that helped the budget more than any other factor, so I wouldn't credit Republicans or Democrats with the 90s budget -- but that's entirely another issue. There are also problems with saying only the Democratic congress was responsible for the 80s budgets too -- because Reagan spent overbudget on the military, against Republican objections -- but that's another issue too.

The point is I wish we could just have an honest discussion about political issues without people being 'tricksey' about it. Political nonsense from both sides ruins things more than any one party does.

1 hour ago, JohnAskew wrote

I do listen. You didn't prove that Obama claimed his tax increase idea for income > $250,000 will balance the budget, yet you accuse him of saying so.

Oh ok. Obama is doing Theatrics then. There... is that good enough for ya ? There is no real interest in *actually* addressing the issue he says he is addressing. In fact there is no real interest in addressing the deficit but all a bunch of deceptive talk like a typical street side performer. He is the one who initiated this "tax the rich" talk...supposedly to address the deficit. That makes him a dishonest person at best and a liar at worst.

Most of the Economically challenged "deficits don't matter" crowd seem to be having a hard time comprehending the real danger of such high Debt. In programming, we account for things called "exception conditions". On a current account debt of $16.5 trillion, if interest rates reach 10%, government will have to pay $1.6 trillion on just interest payments alone. That's right, majority of tax receipts just go for one single line item..aka Interest payments. May be the mentally challenged "mainstream" parties that you seem to favor over the one sane person (Ron Paul) don't want to account for the exception conditions, but those of us who care about this country are genuinely concerned.

By the way, 10% interest rates are very much with in the realm of possibilities. Back in 1980s interest rates reached > 15%.

3 minutes ago, Srikanth_t wrote

*snip*

Oh ok. Obama is doing Theatrics then. There... is that good enough for ya ? There is no real interest in *actually* addressing the issue he says he is addressing. In fact there is no real interest in addressing the deficit but all a bunch of deceptive talk like a typical street side performer. He is the one who initiated this "tax the rich" talk...supposedly to address the deficit. That makes him a dishonest person at best and a liar at worst.

Most of the Economically challenged "deficits don't matter" crowd seem to be having a hard time comprehending the real danger of such high Debt. In programming, we account for things called "exception conditions". On a current account debt of $16.5 trillion, if interest rates reach 10%, government will have to pay $1.6 trillion on just interest payments alone. That's right, majority of tax receipts just go for one single line item..aka Interest payments. May be the mentally challenged "mainstream" parties that you seem to favor over the one sane person (Ron Paul) don't want to account for the exception conditions, but those of us who care about this country are genuinely concerned.

By the way, 10% interest rates are very much with in the realm of possibilities. Back in 1980s interest rates reached > 15%.

I'd agree if you're talking about the inordinate focus on tax hikes, that's a bit of theatrics. 

If you're talking about the practicality of it, it'll help some short-term deficit issues, like ongoing costs of the wars and so on, but then, after that, they have to move on to discussing big issues like Medicare and Social Security. That should have really been the focus of the election debates, imo... talking about entitlements. We got some little bit of that, but most of the election chatter got diverted into other issues.

I don't think a tax hike on the wealthy would hurt the economy if you could separate out small businesses or give a tax credit to them. Tax credits for small businesses is something he proposed as a compromise, by the way, which I give him credit for. But I still don't understand why we're talking about it over issues like entitlement reform.

a moment ago, brian.​shapiro wrote

*snip*

I'd agree if you're talking about the inordinate focus on tax hikes, that's a bit of theatrics. 

If you're talking about the practicality of it, it'll help some short-term deficit issues, like ongoing costs of the wars and so on, but then, after that, they have to move on to discussing big issues like Medicare and Social Security. That should have really been the focus of the election debates, imo... talking about entitlements. We got some little bit of that, but most of the election chatter got diverted into other issues.

I don't think a tax hike on the wealthy would hurt the economy if you could separate out small businesses or give a tax credit to them. Tax credits for small businesses is something he proposed as a compromise, by the way, which I give him credit for. But I still don't understand why we're talking about it over issues like entitlement reform.

We talk about tax cuts because that's what makes us smile.

No one wants to do real work, because that means economic austerity for the U.S.A.

Today, we, as a culture, are too selfish to do real work, too selfish for austere economic measures.

1 hour ago, JohnAskew wrote

The budget was balanced. It is documented. Tricksey? Sure, it's politics. But the deficit under the Democrats is always far smaller than under Republicans. You may not promote the idea that wars started under Bush are Obama's spending ideas. You must subtract the two war costs from Obama's deficits to be honest about which party has the spending problem.

The budget was not balanced. National debt went up every year of Clinton's presidency. The only way Clinton showed yearly deficit as Zero was by actually raiding the Social security trust fund. That's right, his administration moved money from the trust fund in to the current account, and showed a deficit of zero. It's called smoke and mirrors. But *National Debt* went up EVERY YEAR. Look it up. 

Besides, I already pointed out to you that all of that money in to government coffers was all FAKE. It was based on a fake prosperity engineered by government financial engineering (Greenspan interest rates).

Government doesn't declare Facebook is worth 100 billion, Wall Street does that -- and is always greedy wrong. Same with all other IPOs of ridiculousness. You want to blame government?

Government doesn't micro-manage private corporations (unless they are insolvent). Misallocations are from private company decisions going after short-term profits.

Again, clueless on why FaceBook IPO was so high in the first place. It is the government regulations that delayed the debut of facebook IPO. The myriad of government regulations means only expensive companies can afford to go public. The regular people should have gotten a chance to invest in FaceBook long ago, should have gotten a chance to really get in on the ground floor (so to speak). There are no $10million, $50million IPOs for people to invest anymore. Government has made it so expensive such that only after the big institutional investors have bid up the valuation, can they come in to the public market. If not for myriad of government  regulations, FaceBook would have gone public long ago.

Besides, the point I was making in my earlier post about the market distortion caused by Government financial engineering has got nothing to do with IPO topic. Why are you switching the topic ? Are you trying to follow the logic of "let's justify one worse thing by pointing out to yet another worse thing" ? How does the incorrect facebook valuation justify the engineering a housing bubble ? Do you even realize the scale of Housing bubble ?  Facebook IPO is peanuts compared to the scale of housing bubble.

5 minutes ago, Srikanth_t wrote

*snip*

The budget was not balanced. National debt went up every year of Clinton's presidency. The only way Clinton showed yearly deficit as Zero was by actually raiding the Social security trust fund. That's right, his administration moved money from the trust fund in to the current account, and showed a deficit of zero. It's called smoke and mirrors. But *National Debt* went up EVERY YEAR. Look it up. 

Besides, I already pointed out to you that all of that money in to government coffers was all FAKE. It was based on a fake prosperity engineered by government financial engineering (Greenspan interest rates).

*snip*

Again, clueless on why FaceBook IPO was so high in the first place. It is the government regulations that delayed the debut of facebook IPO. The myriad of government regulations means only expensive companies can afford to go public. The regular people should have gotten a chance to invest in FaceBook long ago, should have gotten a chance to really get in on the ground floor (so to speak). There are no $10million, $50million IPOs for people to invest anymore. Government has made it so expensive such that only after the big institutional investors have bid up the valuation, can they come in to the public market. If not for myriad of government  regulations, FaceBook would have gone public long ago.

Besides, the point I was making in my earlier post about the market distortion caused by Government financial engineering has got nothing to do with IPO topic. Why are you switching the topic ? Are you trying to follow the logic of "let's justify one worse thing by pointing out to yet another worse thing" ? How does the incorrect facebook valuation justify the engineering a housing bubble ? Do you even realize the scale of Housing bubble ?  Facebook IPO is peanuts compared to the scale of housing bubble.

In a separate thread, I'd enjoy reading how the government's regulations prevent $10-50M IPO's.

In the separate thread: How does the government force FB, for example, to wait years before it can go public, and then, finally, grossly overprice itself for it's IPO? Greed is greed, who's clueless?

For this thread: The fact remains that the since 1970, Republican Presidents spend more than Democrat Presidents; most times for war, as you pointed out.

For this thread: There is a very big difference between the Texan and New Hampshire Republicans. Mostly to do with social / fundamental religious conservatism. New Hampshire are the Republicans of Lincoln, socially liberal. Southern Republicans are well represented by students at Ol' Miss ranting racial epitaths at Obama's reelection, plus the secession baloney -- social hebephrenics. The GOP is going to be torn apart during the next 4 years and a new party will hopefully emerge...

My relatives had been warning me of the housing bubble (realtors) since 1988, when I started house hunting. In 1998 when I bought a house, I was advised by my relatives to "buy the cheapest home in the nicest neighborhood so that I could get out quickly and not ever go upside down". Good advice. It worked.

The housing bubble is not only a governmental mistake, it also involves those originating junk loans. In fact, I'd say the 'honor system' will place the blame totally on loan originators, not policy. But this, again, is for a separate thread...

1 hour ago, JohnAskew wrote

*snip*

In a separate thread, I'd enjoy reading how the government's regulations prevent $10-50M IPO's.

In the separate thread: How does the government force FB, for example, to wait years before it can go public, and then, finally, grossly overprice itself for it's IPO? Greed is greed, who's clueless?

This article explains all I wanted to say on this topic. Please read

For this thread: The fact remains that the since 1970, Republican Presidents spend more than Democrat Presidents; most times for war, as you pointed out.

For this thread: There is a very big difference between the Texan and New Hampshire Republicans. Mostly to do with social / fundamental religious conservatism. New Hampshire are the Republicans of Lincoln, socially liberal. Southern Republicans are well represented by students at Ol' Miss ranting racial epitaths at Obama's reelection, plus the secession baloney -- social hebephrenics. The GOP is going to be torn apart during the next 4 years and a new party will hopefully emerge...

You make it sound like we Ron Paul supporters don't fault the Republican presidents. As you might already know, Ron Paul criticized Bush heavily. He even called Bush's foreign policy "demented". You are raising non-existing argument...atleast with me. Republican presidents not only wasted tons of money on wars but also actually turned in to liberals in the domestic policies. Like Bush's prescription drug program and highway spending. 

Mitt Romney is a "northern" Repub..and the staunchest NeoCon there ever was. We all know about the illustrious Rick Santorum. You seem to be placing too much optimism on your "Northerners". When the heads are not screwed right, it doesn't make a difference whether you are a Notherner or a Southerner.

When it comes to being attracting young people with socially liberal policies, Ron Paul already proved he can bring in thousands of people. The only survival for Republican party is if they move towards libertarians.

2 minutes ago, Srikanth_t wrote

When it comes to being attracting young people with socially liberal policies, Ron Paul already proved he can bring in thousands of people. The only survival for Republican party is if they move towards libertarians.

I am with you on that.  I bet JohnAskew has never been to a Ron Paul rally.   Ron Paul has a lot of support it just gets suppressed by the media.   Anyway I think Ron Paul is done running again but someone will need to carry the torch for him.   I do not see anyone from the North in the republican party that has any chance.   

The republicans need an answer so they stop pandering to the southern holy rollers.  This works in a regional election but fails nationally.   Ron Paul did not pander to anyone.

1 hour ago, TexasToast wrote

*snip*

I am with you on that.  I bet JohnAskew has never been to a Ron Paul rally.   Ron Paul has a lot of support it just gets suppressed by the media.   Anyway I think Ron Paul is done running again but someone will need to carry the torch for him.   I do not see anyone from the North in the republican party that has any chance.   

The republicans need an answer so they stop pandering to the southern holy rollers.  This works in a regional election but fails nationally.   Ron Paul did not pander to anyone.

Just a reality check: Ron Paul at the polls is attracting young people, but only young white males. Very few young women, minorities are showing up to vote for him. If Republicans have a demographics problem, so does Ron Paul x 10. I've read a lot of grumbling from some libertarians that the libertarian movement has to move towards the left to survive.

Also: liberal states like California also still prove to be relatively split on social issues. The demographics may or may not to be moving against conservatives, but we're talking years down the line, when all the baby boomers are dead.

I'm just saying reality is a bit more complex than people's perception of things. We need to get the media back to reality, and back to discussing actual issues of importance, like Medicare and SS, the war in Afghanistan, trade agreements, and even social issues, which are as valid to talk about as anything -- and away from distracting drama about what gaffe Romney made or what gaffe Obama made or whether young voters like Ron Paul or who is really being racist who "broke" the economy or which general is sleeping with whom.

2 minutes ago, TexasToast wrote

@brian.shapiro:Brian, nice comment except for one part.  Ron Paul is not a racist.   That whole story is BS and do not spread it.   I am not young(not old either) and I like Ron Paul.  I have enough money where I do not worry but I want my kids to have a good life.

I'm not, I think its BS too. That's another "gotcha" thing by the media, a distraction from talking about the issues. I'm just pointing out that Ron Paul isn't necessarily a magic bullet for the GOP since he can't seem to do better than the mainstream GOP candidates with other demographics.

In general, I think the GOP and politics in general needs to move a little bit away from the "demographics debate" and focus on making arguments. If the GOP has good arguments they can persuade the demographics they need to win, the numbers as they stand don't matter. They also shouldn't give up positions they think they hold on principle just in order to pander and win votes. Obama isn't helping either, though, he made the election entirely about demographics too.

13 hours ago, TexasToast wrote

@brian.shapiro:Brian, nice comment except for one part.  Ron Paul is not a racist.   That whole story is BS and do not spread it.   I am not young(not old either) and I like Ron Paul.  I have enough money where I do not worry but I want my kids to have a good life.

Who called Ron Paul a racist? And why? I can't see anything in this thread, Tex...

=> .HasNeverBeenToAnyPaulRally()

brian. the arguments ARE demographically identifiable. 

GOP arguments need to widen to bring women, hispanics, and young compassionate voters to presidential races. And they need to expunge the southern racists from their platform. They will not get it done in 2 years, and I suspect it will be a scramble for 4.

2 days ago, JohnAskew wrote

I'd like to see them run the southern racists out of the GOP wholesale so that they can form their own southern white t-party - perhaps those racist Republican university students at Ol' Miss can champion a new redneck t-party and give the educated and decent northerner back his GOP.

And I can quote some of your other replies as wel.

If the southeners are racists, why did 40% of Texas vote for Obama?

And what do you think of the 93% of the African American vote for Obama? Or the 70+% of the Hispanics and Asians? Howcome that number is so unbalanced?

Are you aware that the 40% in Texas is very close to the 41% White vote for Obama?

Just my 2cents,.

I'd like to see them run the southern racists out of the GOP.

41 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

If the southeners are racists, why did 40% of Texas vote for Obama?

Sorry, Maddus, but no.

ThereExists(X where X is southern and X is racist and X is in the GOP) does not imply ForAll(X where X is southern implies X is a racist).

Learn some basic logic or tone down your rhetoric and then try again.

That 40% vote for Romney is very close the 45% white population in Texas.

34 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@JohnAskew:

*snip*

And I can quote some of your other replies as wel.

If the southeners are racists, why did 40% of Texas vote for Obama?

And what do you think of the 93% of the African American vote for Obama? Or the 70+% of the Hispanics and Asians? Howcome that number is so unbalanced?

Are you aware that the 40% in Texas is very close to the 41% White vote for Obama?

Just my 2cents,.

I live in the south, Maddus.

-  Who suggests all southerners are racists? Not me. You apparently think that without any help.

-  Who said all southerners vote the same, so that 40% becomes noteworthy for you? Not me.

Southern Republicans, like the students at Ol' Miss shouted racist words for the entire world to video and playback when they learned Romney was conceeding to Obama, they are often racists.

Southern Democrats are liberals and do not promote racist policies or shout-outs.

It is one thing to believe the GOP has a racist platform -- I don't make that claim. It is another thing to say that folks vote by race and not policy. I would make the claim that the %93 & %70 are voting their favorite policies and not just for race. How can that be argued against?

I cannot respect a GOP that panders to the cowardice espoused by those Ol' Miss students.