http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2012/08/21/white-house-sets-ground-rules-local-interviews/



Just amazing, and the liberal sheep continued to wallow around ....

QuakerOats;1251550 wrote:http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2012/08/21/white-house-sets-ground-rules-local-interviews/



Just amazing, and the liberal sheep continued to wallow around ....

Uhh, I wish we more talked about sequestration......$500 billion cuts for DOD and $500 Billion cuts in domestic that go into place on January 2, 2013 for FY13 is a big thing to talk about....

$500B over 10 years. To pretend the defense budget isn't bloated by at least $50B/yr is disingenuous. It's not even a 10% cut. That sector has been in a bull market for over a decade.

I think we would see a positive impact from reversing course on the deficit that could easily offset $120B a year in [total] spending cuts. I'm more concerned about the tax increases as I don't think both at the same time is a good idea. Work on taming the deficit, get the economy rolling, and THEN raise taxes to help pay for all the past excesses.

gut;1251566 wrote:$500B over 10 years. To pretend the defense budget isn't bloated by at least $50B/yr is disingenuous. It's not even a 10% cut. That sector has been in a bull market for over a decade.

I think we would see a positive impact from reversing course on the deficit that could easily offset $120B a year in [total] spending cuts. I'm more concerned about the tax increases as I don't think both at the same time is a good idea. Work on taming the deficit, get the economy rolling, and THEN raise taxes to help pay for all the past excesses.

I agree on cuts are needed, but this is stupid how it is done. It is freaking the market out.
As one CEO put it, is it not doing cosmetic surgery with a chainsaw.

ptown_trojans_1;1251575 wrote: As one CEO put it, is it not doing cosmetic surgery with a chainsaw.

Ehhh, what would you expect him to say? It's not exactly a herculean task - they've still got something like $640B to figure out how to allocate next year. There should be A LOT of low-hanging fruit in an industry that's really not had to overly concern itself with efficiencies and cuts.

ptown_trojans_1;1251555 wrote:Uhh, I wish we more talked about sequestration......$500 billion cuts for DOD and $500 Billion cuts in domestic that go into place on January 2, 2013 for FY13 is a big thing to talk about....

No, they really aren't. Those cuts are spread out over a decade and will be more than made up for with new spending. They represent about 5% of what needs to be cut.

Switching topics, more idiocy:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-slams-romney-college-financial-aid-205243934.html

Uh, the federal college loan scam is what caused college tuition costs to soar while the country was suffering a recession. How much has tuition exceeded the inflation rate, 3X? 4X? Because it is subsidized.

I really hope the young people graduating with a mountain of debt and no jobs are taking notice and realize what a scam the "entitlement" administration has provided. God forbid Obama actually go to the colleges and ask why tuition keeps rising and rising, he can't because the intelligentsia and academics vote for him.

This country is a mess.

quote from the article:

The president highlighted Romney's suggestion at an event in April that young people should "borrow money if you have to from your parents" to go to college or start a business, and his advice to students worried about high tuition to "shop around" for more affordable options.
"That's it. That's his plan. That's his answer to young people who are trying to figure out how to go to college and make sure that they don't have a mountain of debt--shop around and borrow more money from your parents,"

Clearly the Prez is out of his league with financial matters (as if we didn't already know). What's so bad about 'shopping around' if you are worried about high tuition? What's so bad about getting money from your parents if you can? I guess it's not as easy on you and your family as say...getting free grant money off the taxpayers, or taking out a mountain of debt in government sunsidized loans. Either way you and your parents are paying for it. it's just that in Barry's way, the costs just escalate because it is subsidized. When colleges have to compete for your dollar, then maybe we'll have some tuition cost control.

People always spend other people's money more recklessly than their own. Always. And part of the problem with college loans is the deferred structure. Yes, it has to be that way but I don't think the amount of debt students are amassing really hits home until the payments come. The other thing is they aren't taking out everything in one lump sum - you get $25k this year, and $25k next year...and it doesn't ever "feel" like $100k in debt but that's exactly what it is.

HitsRus;1251837 wrote:What's so bad about 'shopping around'

I think it's pretty clear where Obama stands on having choices

ptown_trojans_1;1251555 wrote:Uhh, I wish we more talked about sequestration......$500 billion cuts for DOD and $500 Billion cuts in domestic that go into place on January 2, 2013 for FY13 is a big thing to talk about....

I wish we would merely go back to pre-crisis spending levels; the budget would essentially be in balance. How painless is that. Only in D.C. would that be termed 'undoable', or 'drastic'. In the real world it is very doable, drastic or not. We make such moves all the time.

It must be done, and with real leadership under Romney/Ryan, it can occur.

I was talking to a guy about the election today and he said he was either going to vote for Obama or Gary Johnson. Does that make any sense to any of you?

bigdaddy2003;1252716 wrote:I was talking to a guy about the election today and he said he was either going to vote for Obama or Gary Johnson. Does that make any sense to any of you?

That would be part of the reason a candidate like Johnson should have received a lot more attention during the primary. Johnson can win Liberal votes based off of Social Issues and anti interventionist policy. He would attract Democrats who are a little more fiscally conservative but still liberal on social issues and war.

bigdaddy2003;1252716 wrote:I was talking to a guy about the election today and he said he was either going to vote for Obama or Gary Johnson. Does that make any sense to any of you?

Sure. If I vote for president it will be for Johnson, but I would vote for Obama over Romney if forced at gunpoint to choose between the two.

Obama for 4 years > Romney for 8 years, and to keep the reputation of the free market, no matter how ridiculous it is to call Romney (or Republicans for that matter) a free marketeer, away from the stench of the death of our economy over the next decade.

Cleveland Buck;1252749 wrote:Sure. If I vote for president it will be for Johnson, but I would vote for Obama over Romney if forced at gunpoint to choose between the two.

Obama for 4 years > Romney for 8 years, and to keep the reputation of the free market, no matter how ridiculous it is to call Romney (or Republicans for that matter) a free marketeer, away from the stench of the death of our economy over the next decade.

You assume that Romney will be POTUS for 8 years. Not exactly guaranteed these days.

You libertarians insist that Romney would just be 4 or 8 more years of status quo. Perhaps but I have a hunch that 4 more years of the certified Obama Disaster would be far worse than 8 years of Romney.

Again, I'm no Romney lover but there's no way I'll assist in any way, shape, or form with Barry's re-election.

Intresting.


http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2012/08/22/analysis-election-factors-points-romney-win-university-colorado-study-says

[h=3]Report: Environmental Regulations Leading Regulatory Burden On Manufacturers.[/h]The Daily Caller (8/23) reports, "Environmental regulations are a leading regulatory burden on the manufacturing and energy industries, according to a new study released Tuesday by the economic consulting firm NERA. Overall, regulations have grown much faster than the economy." The study's author, David Montgomery, told The Daily Caller News Foundation, "that environmental regulations affect the manufacturing industry both directly, through costs of environmental compliance, and indirectly, through the increased costs of electricity and transportation fuels." The article notes, "Regulation costs the manufacturing industry between $265 billion and $726 billion a year, a large chuck of the $1.7 trillion a year manufacturing industry, according to the National Association of Manufacturers."


The radicals at EPA and NLRB and Energy etc.... must be purged and that can only happen with Romney in the WH. That alone is reason enough to vote for Romney, nevermind the horrific obama economy.

Cleveland Buck;1252749 wrote:Sure. If I vote for president it will be for Johnson, but I would vote for Obama over Romney if forced at gunpoint to choose between the two.

Obama for 4 years > Romney for 8 years, and to keep the reputation of the free market, no matter how ridiculous it is to call Romney (or Republicans for that matter) a free marketeer, away from the stench of the death of our economy over the next decade.

The reputation and health of the free market is but one part of what a president can influence. If the only difference between the two were potential Supreme Court selections, I would vote for Romney. If the only issue were thuggery and corruption and lawlessness in a President's cabinet/bureacracies, I would vote for Romney.

So assuming no other differences between Obama and Romney (and I think there are several), I have two good reasons to vote for Mitt Romney.

Obama was actually speaking today (or yesterday) and had the audacity to point out Bush added $4T to the debt....Obama conveniently neglected to mentioned he's added nearly $6T in half the time.

It's also a neat trick how we had TARP, the Big 3 bailout, and the stimulus that were all one-timers yet the deficit has barely budged in subsequent years.

gut;1253005 wrote:It's also a neat trick how we had TARP, the Big 3 bailout, and the stimulus that were all one-timers yet the deficit has barely budged in subsequent years.

If we merely went back to pre-crisis spending levels (just 5 years ago) we would essentially have a balanced budget. It's so easy it's not funny.

Is everyone ready for the continued spike in gas prices, food and everything else we actually use?

Word of the Fed minutes today indicated that they are primed to do some more quantitative easing (printing money) and commodities are set to continue soaring.

You couple that with the hurricance season and you have a recipe for speculators to go wild.

Wallstreet has it made right now. The market has doubled off its March 2009 lows, and they haven't had to do anything to help get the economy moving. All they do is sit on their collective hands, and in turn the Fed gives out more stimulus which just drives the market higher while doing very little to help the real economy (jobs).

We are stuck in a giant negative feedback loop right now. Wallstreet and financial institutions have zero incentive to get this economy going, because the less they do the more they get from the Fed and the government. The market off goes up on bad news anymore in antiicipation of more freebies and goodies from Helicopter Ben.

If the economy started taking off, the punchbowl would be taken away, interest rates would go up, and the Fed balance sheet would shrink. All of which would make business more expensive for financial institutions. They have a perverse incentive to keep us stuck in misery.

So in the meantime we normal folks get stuck with surging commodity costs and economic stagnation because of the Fed's "help". Thanks alot.

Yep.

And then there's this: http://news.investors.com/article/623088/201208230805/how-obamacare-will-boost-college-costs.htm?src=HPLNews


obamacare to drive college costs even higher ------ isn't that special.

Just another of the hundreds of horrific consequences of obamacare.

Change we can believe in ....

gut;1251566 wrote:$500B over 10 years. To pretend the defense budget isn't bloated by at least $50B/yr is disingenuous. It's not even a 10% cut. That sector has been in a bull market for over a decade.

I think we would see a positive impact from reversing course on the deficit that could easily offset $120B a year in [total] spending cuts. I'm more concerned about the tax increases as I don't think both at the same time is a good idea. Work on taming the deficit, get the economy rolling, and THEN raise taxes to help pay for all the past excesses.

Not trying to troll...being serious...how do you feel about the GOP taking the line that we shouldn't have the defense cuts and agreeing with the CBO that they will contract GDP?

Shouldn't they be saying, at the very least, "I don't support defense cuts because we won't be as strong militarily but at the very least they will increase confidence because the CBO projects they will decrease the deficit and therefore private spending and investment will increase."

Even if you grant that Obama sucks...does it upset you at all the GOP is embracing keynesianism with regard to defense cuts?

I mean if government spending financed by debt does not create jobs as we've heard for years now there should be no reason to be concerned about cuts in government spending harming jobs and GDP.

QuakerOats;1253042 wrote:If we merely went back to pre-crisis spending levels (just 5 years ago) we would essentially have a balanced budget. It's so easy it's not funny.

Just as one example of one thing you'd have to do when unemployment is over 8% is you'd have to stop paying for food stamps and unemployment insurance for the unemployed which increase automatically in recessions even without Congress deciding for it to happen. What do you propose to do about that. If the unemployed suddenly were completely broke, demand drops further and unemployment goes up even higher and our budget problems get worse.

How do you propose dealing with the type of spending that rises automatically when unemployment is so high?

fish82;1252854 wrote:Intresting.


http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2012/08/22/analysis-election-factors-points-romney-win-university-colorado-study-says

It's not looking good for Bammy if you ask me...