Maker Pro
Maker Pro

Nice Quote

A

amdx

Jan 1, 1970
0
I nicked this from Oscar on rec.boats

"Apparently, I'm supposed to be more angry about what Mitt Romney does
with his money than what Barack Obama does with mine."

Mikek
 
U

UltimatePatriot

Jan 1, 1970
0
I nicked this from Oscar on rec.boats

"Apparently, I'm supposed to be more angry about what Mitt Romney does
with his money than what Barack Obama does with mine."

Mikek

Profound!
 
P

PeterD

Jan 1, 1970
0
Can somebody explain to me what did Mitt produce in exchange for the
money he earned?

Worked for it? Used his brain?
But I appreciate the implicit complement offered to Obama: that he
could fix the economy in half the time it took W. to wreck it.

Obama has fixed nothing at all, so why keep a 'leader' who can't lead?
BO is a lair an fraud.
 
T

Tom Del Rosso

Jan 1, 1970
0
bitrex said:
I nicked this from Oscar on rec.boats

"Apparently, I'm supposed to be more angry about what Mitt
Romney does with his money than what Barack Obama does with
mine."

Can somebody explain to me what did Mitt produce in exchange for
the money he earned?

I understand he reorganized some weak or failing companies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney#Business_career

That all sounds pretty good to me, better than your average vulture
capitalist. He sounds like he'd make an excellent President. You
have inspired me to send him some campaign money.

But I appreciate the implicit complement offered to Obama: that he
could fix the economy in half the time it took W. to wreck it.

It takes decades, generations to build up an economy. It takes very
little time to wreck one, which is what's going on now. "Stimulus"
to encourage "demand" just makes the long-term situation worse. It
might help win elections, but the US public is fairly wise in the
long term, so it might not.

What wrecked the economy was killing the Glass-Steagall act, and
pushing fannie/freddy to make risky loans. Guess who did that? [1]
Guess who warned against it? [2]

[1] Bill Clinton, Barney Frank, and pals

[2] George W Bush

Bill Clinton, Barney Frank, and pals i.e. 155 other Democrats and 207
Republicans in the House and all but 8 Senators, on a bill sponsored
by 3 Republicans...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Vote_1999.png

Rearranged chronologically:

#1-pushing fannie/freddy to make risky loans
#2-killing the Glass-Steagall act

The first made the second necessary, and the second by itself was the
removal of a regulation that never existed for European banks.

So as your side always does, you ignore #1 and point out that #2 was
bi-partisan. Matt Damon and many other great documentarians have made a
science of this.

Of course if we didn't go along in a bi-partisan way, then we would be the
Party of "No." If we do go along, we are equally guilty.

But in this case everything depends on ignoring #1, and therefore pretending
in a truly fantastic way that Fannie and Freddie's 4 trillion in debt came
from nowhere, nor did it have any bearing on anything. So you can be said
to have a fantastic point of view.
 
T

Tom Del Rosso

Jan 1, 1970
0
Bill said:
No stimulus spending between 1929 and 1933 reduced the US GNP by 25%.

Your economy shrank as fast in the last quarter of 2008, but stimulus
spending reversed the decline, and it's been expanding (if not very
fast) ever since.

So we can thank the new debt for our 2% growth then, and also for the
interest on the debt, which happens to be 2% of GDP. What a boon.
 
H

hamilton

Jan 1, 1970
0
bitrex said:
On Tue, 8 May 2012 16:55:55 -0700 (PDT), spamtrap1888

I nicked this from Oscar on rec.boats

"Apparently, I'm supposed to be more angry about what Mitt
Romney does with his money than what Barack Obama does with
mine."

Can somebody explain to me what did Mitt produce in exchange for
the money he earned?

I understand he reorganized some weak or failing companies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney#Business_career

That all sounds pretty good to me, better than your average vulture
capitalist. He sounds like he'd make an excellent President. You
have inspired me to send him some campaign money.



But I appreciate the implicit complement offered to Obama: that he
could fix the economy in half the time it took W. to wreck it.

It takes decades, generations to build up an economy. It takes very
little time to wreck one, which is what's going on now. "Stimulus"
to encourage "demand" just makes the long-term situation worse. It
might help win elections, but the US public is fairly wise in the
long term, so it might not.

What wrecked the economy was killing the Glass-Steagall act, and
pushing fannie/freddy to make risky loans. Guess who did that? [1]
Guess who warned against it? [2]

[1] Bill Clinton, Barney Frank, and pals

[2] George W Bush

Bill Clinton, Barney Frank, and pals i.e. 155 other Democrats and 207
Republicans in the House and all but 8 Senators, on a bill sponsored
by 3 Republicans...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Vote_1999.png

Rearranged chronologically:

#1-pushing fannie/freddy to make risky loans
#2-killing the Glass-Steagall act

http://losangeles.injuryboard.com/m...phil-gramm-an-experiment-in-deregulation.aspx

Shortly after George W. Bush was elected president, Congress and
President Clinton were trying to pass a $384 billion omnibus spending
bill, and while the debates swirled around the passage of this bill,
Senator Phil Gramm clandestinely slipped a 262-page amendment into the
omnibus appropriations bill titled: Commodity Futures Modernization Act.
It is likely that few senators read this bill, if any.



Selective memory, eh.


Of course the senate voted for it, they did not know what they voted for.
 
T

Tom Del Rosso

Jan 1, 1970
0
spamtrap1888 said:
Can somebody explain to me what did Mitt produce in exchange for the
money he earned?

Much more than Soros.
 
J

Jasen Betts

Jan 1, 1970
0
So we can thank the new debt for our 2% growth then, and also for the
interest on the debt, which happens to be 2% of GDP. What a boon.

treading water is better than sinking.
 
J

josephkk

Jan 1, 1970
0
Can somebody explain to me what did Mitt produce in exchange for the
money he earned?

But I appreciate the implicit complement offered to Obama: that he
could fix the economy in half the time it took W. to wreck it.

Complement hell. BO is doing the same things that W did and considerably
more and worse (more bailouts/stimulus, more war, more entitlements [but
for different recipients], much higher deficits, etc.,). This also isn't
fixing the economy. Now he wants another term of doing far worse that his
predecessor?

?-)
 
Top