Romney says Obama won by showering black, Latino & young voters with big gifts.

[Bandito]

Doug Sovern ‏@SovernNation
Romney says he "hadn't anticipated" losing, says Obama won by showering black, Latino & young voters with "big gifts": http://nyti.ms/QepNTM

Quote:
In a conference call on Wednesday afternoon with his national finance committee, Mr. Romney said that the president had followed the “old playbook” of wooing specific interest groups — “especially the African-American community, the Hispanic community and young people,” Mr. Romney explained — with targeted gifts and initiatives.

“In each case they were very generous in what they gave to those groups,” Mr. Romney said.
Quote:
“With regards to the young people, for instance, a forgiveness of college loan interest, was a big gift,” he said. “Free contraceptives were very big with young college-aged women. And then, finally, Obamacare also made a difference for them, because as you know, anybody now 26 years of age and younger was now going to be part of their parents’ plan, and that was a big gift to young people. They turned out in large numbers, a larger share in this election even than in 2008.”
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...?smid=tw-share

Thanks Obama

[DonDadda59]

Here's some text for you: Let's see if we can tax ourselves out of this. That should work. More governmental control of everything is always a great idea.

[COLOR="White"]Be careful what you ask for[/COLOR]

Let's continue the Bush tax cuts and let's give the big banks and lenders the green light to gamble us into a depression. That worked wonders for the country recently.

Again, this isn't a question of theory. We've seen the experiment play out in front of our eyes. It simply does not work. There's no way around it. The Republican fundamentals of economy were put to the test- we were supposed to see our economy boom due to the 'trickle down' of the rich getting richer and the financial sector being free to do as they please. Instead we got a recession that we only recently began to climb out of, that could've turned into a depression had someone like Mitt Romney been in power and allowed the financial and automobile sectors to go under as he wanted.

This is not a topic of debate. The Norquist plan is a complete and utter failure. The House Republicans need to cut ties with his failed philosophies and work with the President to undo the damage he caused and to start living in reality starting tomorrow morning

[joe]

Best way to help the poor would be to deregulate professional liscensing and other barriers to entry for possible small business entreprenuers. It is probably the most harmful regulation for the poor and lower middle class but its hardly ever talked about or reported on because its an issue of state law for the most part.

Is that a state law issue for the most part? Never got down and dirty with the specifics of government licensing. But yes sir, you are right, professional licensing is a huge barrier to entry that hurts the poor more than anyone else. The rich guy can afford the license, the poor guy can hardly afford to start his business.. the license is just the last straw on his finances.

[Droid101]

great question


I see this as two tracks...

I still like Ron Paul because he has integrity (thats the biggest key with me when it comes to selecting politicians) and he would get us outside of a monetary system that I hate.. We get outside of the FED, and we could give all that money back to the people. You cant just cut everything off and be draconian, (and Paul acknowledges this) but we could be a better nation if we work together and get off the Keynesian monetary system.

But the problem is that the GOP froze Ron Paul out because they know he isnt bullsh*ttin. They love handouts more anyone else in the country, thats why they project onto to poor and middle class people.

If we are trapped in Keynesian economics? Then I have to side with the people who would regulate it, because greed is the biggest problem here.. Greed in a system that will cripple everyone but the people who have the money to buy the politicians...Thats what we'd have.

All we did was buy ourselves some more time to get ourselves in order as a country..

Obama isnt great.. But Mitt Romney and the GOP are crazy..

[joe]

Let's continue the Bush tax cuts and let's give the big banks and lenders the green light to gamble us into a depression. That worked wonders for the country recently.

Again, this isn't a question of theory. We've seen the experiment play out in front of our eyes. It simply does not work. There's no way around it. The Republican fundamentals of economy were put to the test- we were supposed to see our economy boom due to the 'trickle down' of the rich getting richer and the financial sector being free to do as they please. Instead we got a recession that we only recently began to climb out of, that could've turned into a depression had someone like Mitt Romney been in power and allowed the financial and automobile sectors to go under as he wanted.

This is not a topic of debate. The Norquist plan is a complete and utter failure. The House Republicans need to cut ties with his failed philosophies and work with the President to undo the damage he caused and to start living in reality starting tomorrow morning

I am assuming by "Republican fundamentals of economy," you are referring to capitalism- even though the Republicans themselves don't actually understand capitalism either. But in any event, we have a central bank, we have a highly regulated economy, we have an income tax, we have an entitlement system, we have perpetual military action. All of these things are antithetical to capitalism.

If America is going to get past our struggles, everyone needs to start being honest with themselves. Left Right Libertarian Independent.. everyone needs to face facts, or else any solutions we come up with will be based on bad information. And it's just not factually correct to imply we've had free market capitalism over the last 10 years. I'm not even saying that because I support capitalism, which I do. But to say we've been operating under capitalism is like saying the sky is red and the grass is purple. It's just not correct, no matter if you support capitalism or not.

We have a mixed economy. There's a large element of capitalism, but don't get it twisted- major major elements of the economy are government controlled. And loads more are distorted by government policy, in my opinion negatively. I'm especially referring to the money, but the banking sector is not even recognizable from a free market standpoint, it's been so transformed by government intervention. We have regulation agencies for medicine, pills, the environment. Mostly everyone in the country is educated in government schools- not private schools. Anyone looking to start a business in almost any sector must deal with government licensing and regulation- why do you think businesses have compliance departments? Government hands out college loans and health insurance- both distorting the market and raising prices.

I think most anti-capitalism people look over these things, because they assume that without them... capitalism would perform even worse. So it's almost like they're doing capitalism a favor by not bringing them up. But pro-capitalism people have the exact opposite opinion- it's precisely these things that are causing the most harm to our economy.

If you want to argue that we still need less capitalism, or that our problems would be made worse by introducing more freedom into the economy.. fine. But when you imply "free market capitalism has been put to the test for the last 10 years," that is just wrong. And whoever told you that is either dishonest, or doesn't know what he's talking about.

[DonDadda59]

I am assuming by "Republican fundamentals of economy," you are referring to capitalism- even though the Republicans themselves don't actually understand capitalism either. But in any event, we have a central bank, we have a highly regulated economy, we have an income tax, we have an entitlement system, we have perpetual military action. All of these things are antithetical to capitalism.

If America is going to get past our struggles, everyone needs to start being honest with themselves. Left Right Libertarian Independent.. everyone needs to face facts, or else any solutions we come up with will be based on bad information. And it's just not factually correct to imply we've had free market capitalism over the last 10 years. I'm not even saying that because I support capitalism, which I do. But to say we've been operating under capitalism is like saying the sky is red and the grass is purple. It's just not correct, no matter if you support capitalism or not.

We have a mixed economy. There's a large element of capitalism, but don't get it twisted- major major elements of the economy are government controlled. And loads more are distorted by government policy, in my opinion negatively. I'm especially referring to the money, but the banking sector is not even recognizable from a free market standpoint, it's been so transformed by government intervention. We have regulation agencies for medicine, pills, the environment. Mostly everyone in the country is educated in government schools- not private schools. Anyone looking to start a business in almost any sector must deal with government licensing and regulation- why do you think businesses have compliance departments? Government hands out college loans and health insurance- both distorting the market and raising prices.

I think most anti-capitalism people look over these things, because they assume that without them... capitalism would perform even worse. So it's almost like they're doing capitalism a favor by not bringing them up. But pro-capitalism people have the exact opposite opinion- it's precisely these things that are causing the most harm to our economy.

If you want to argue that we still need less capitalism, or that our problems would be made worse by introducing more freedom into the economy.. fine. But when you imply "free market capitalism has been put to the test for the last 10 years," that is just wrong. And whoever told you that is either dishonest, or doesn't know what he's talking about.

Man you went off on a tangent that had absolutely nothing to do with my post

But I'd like to just address the bold- nowhere did I attack free market capitalism, just specifically the deregulation and Reagonomics 'trickle down' theory. I don't know of any historical or present economy that was purely laissez-faire and I don't think anyone in their right mind would even want to see that, it'd be like a Dickens' novel on crack. What I was arguing is that the two aforementioned institutions, which many on the right are calling for a redux of, has been proven to be a failure. I don't know how you can look at the events of '08, and economic barometers of the past 10 years or so and conclude otherwise.

We were all there. We saw it play out in real time. Yet people want to double down on another recession and/or possible depression?

[bmulls]

Man you went off on a tangent that had absolutely nothing to do with my post

But I'd like to just address the bold- nowhere did I attack free market capitalism, just specifically the deregulation and Reagonomics 'trickle down' theory. I don't know of any historical or present economy that was purely laissez-faire and I don't think anyone in their right mind would even want to see that, it'd be like a Dickens' novel on crack. What I was arguing is that the two aforementioned institutions, which many on the right are calling for a redux of, has been proven to be a failure. I don't know how you can look at the events of '08, and economic barometers of the past 10 years or so and conclude otherwise.

We were all there. We saw it play out in real time. Yet people want to double down on another recession and/or possible depression?

The economy was booming before the recession. The recession was due to banks writing subprime mortgages. It wasn't an issue of "republican economic policy" not working, it was a very specific problem.

[DonDadda59]

The economy was booming before the recession. The recession was due to banks writing subprime mortgages. It wasn't an issue of "republican economic policy" not working, it was a very specific problem.

The banks were allowed to issue the subprime mortgages and engage in other shady financial transactions because of a lack of regulation, a lack of oversight due in very large part to the Republican created Gramm-Leach-Bliley bill and other initiatives that repealed the protections offered by Glass-Steagall (Bill Clinton bares a lot of the blame for going along with this). So you are correct, it was a very specific problem, caused by a very specific series of actions... that many Republicans want to double down on.

[bmulls]

The banks were allowed to issue the subprime mortgages and engage in other shady financial transactions because of a lack of regulation, a lack of oversight due in very large part to the Republican created Gramm-Leach-Bliley bill and other initiatives that repealed the protections offered by Glass-Steagall (Bill Clinton bares a lot of the blame for going along with this). So you are correct, it was a very specific problem, caused by a very specific series of actions... that many Republicans want to double down on.

The aim of deregulation is to grow the economy, not create market bubbles. Do you think republicans secretly wanted the recession to happen or something?

You should be arguing for better oversight and stiffer penalties (criminal penalties) for people who take advantage of the rules, not arguing against the rules themselves.

[DonDadda59]

The aim of deregulation is to grow the economy, not create market bubbles. Do you think republicans secretly wanted the recession to happen or something?

You should be arguing for better oversight and stiffer penalties (criminal penalties) for people who take advantage of the rules, not arguing against the rules themselves.

Obviously the Republicans didn't want a recession or a depression when they created the bills effectively destroying Glass-Steagall. They were just acting on behalf of the big banks who wanted to free themselves of the regulations that were put in place to avert the sort of calamity we ultimately experienced in '07-'08. 'Better oversight' is what was in place before Senator Phil Gramm (who was McCain's economic advisor during his campaign and denied we were experiencing a recession mind you) took it upon himself to undo all of that and give white collar criminals the green light to gamble with our economy.

Again, as far as I know there has never been an economy that was 100% lassiez-faire, and there's a reason for that. We have seen the result of even a taste of deregulation- financial calamity and recession/depression. Why are some on the right still calling for a redo?

You get a pass for a mistake as long as you learn from it. But like the old saying goes- fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

[Lakers Legend#32]

Willard continues to p!ss on the 47%.

[joe]

Man you went off on a tangent that had absolutely nothing to do with my post

But I'd like to just address the bold- nowhere did I attack free market capitalism, just specifically the deregulation and Reagonomics 'trickle down' theory. I don't know of any historical or present economy that was purely laissez-faire and I don't think anyone in their right mind would even want to see that, it'd be like a Dickens' novel on crack. What I was arguing is that the two aforementioned institutions, which many on the right are calling for a redux of, has been proven to be a failure. I don't know how you can look at the events of '08, and economic barometers of the past 10 years or so and conclude otherwise.

We were all there. We saw it play out in real time. Yet people want to double down on another recession and/or possible depression?

Well first of all, going off on tangents is my superpower. I thought I've made that clear but I'll keep driving that point home until you people get it. Superman, Spiderman, Joe from Ish.. we are just higher beings who have been given amazing gifts. I try to use it for good as much as possible.

When you said "Republican theories of economics" were put to the test, my assumption is that you were referring to free market capitalism. So my mistake if you were referring strictly to tax cuts for the rich and deregulation.

Even in just those two cases, I would argue against your points. First, it's true that we had tax cuts for the rich, and then a few years later we had a housing bubble burst and a recession. But this is just a correlation argument. The Nintendo Gamecube came out around the same time as the Bush tax cuts, how do we know the Gamecube isn't to blame for the recession? Obviously I'm being facetious, but it just goes to my point that you can't infer causation from correlation. There were a lot of things going on in the economy besides the Bush tax cuts, so what exactly makes them so special that they caused all these problems? I for one believe tax cuts for the rich (and everyone) is good for the economy, so I don't buy that argument at all. How can letting people keep more of their own money be bad for the economy? Why is it better if the government spends the money rather than the people who earned it? I think the problem wasn't the tax cuts, it was that the government never slashed spending in line with the tax cuts. Instead it just used the central bank to print money for them to spend- which acts as a hidden tax on the people anyway, due to rising prices. And then we're stuck with a huge deficit too.

As far as the deregulation argument, even the people I listen to think deregulation had something to do with the housing bubble. But the problem wasn't too much deregulation, it was too little. The government removed one regulation whose entire purpose was to combat a SEPARATE regulation, but they still kept that other regulation on the books. In other words, the government removed the safeguard for a problem they themselves caused- the famous "glass steagel."

But even so, this is such an insignificant factor of the housing bubble/recession that it's hardly worth talking about. What do you think had a greater effect, removing a few select regulations? Or having a central bank pumping money into the banking system for years and years, while at the same time you have the government removing all the risk of selling homes through guaranteed mortgage repayment? The fact that neither Republicans or Democrats bring any of that up is shocking to me. Both should be anti-fed ideologically, and the fact that they aren't shows you how corrupt the whole system is.

Anyway, if you got this far down my post I might as well sneak this in. You should really google "Peter Schiff Housing Bubble" and just click on some of the links. If you're interested in the subject it can't hurt to hear an opposing viewpoint to yours, especially from a guy who had been predicting that real estate was in a bubble for YEARS, while everyone else was calling him an idiot for not jumping into the frenzy. If you want to recommend me something to check out for your point of view definitely do that too.

[DonDadda59]

If everyone had listened to Byron Dorgan (D- North Dakota) back in '99, we wouldn't be in the mess we're just now starting to recover from:

Part I

Part II

The man called the play immaculately from beginning to end. It's almost like he Quantum Leaped from our time to '99 to tell them exactly what would happen if deregulation happened. Yet people are STILL saying, **** it... let's try it one more time... after we've seen the result. I'm pretty sure that's the definition of insanity. Are people's memories really that short or are they just self destructive?

[Droid101]

The economy was booming before the recession. The recession was due to banks writing subprime mortgages. It wasn't an issue of "republican economic policy" not working, it was a very specific problem.

Please watch this movie:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_Job_(film)

[DonDadda59]

I for one believe tax cuts for the rich (and everyone) is good for the economy, so I don't buy that argument at all.

I'm going to sleep now, so I won't get into the rest of your post until possibly tomorrow, but please make sure to watch the short vid I just posted above.

Just wanted to get some explanation for your statement I quoted. Please show me any data that says tax cuts for the rich is 'good for the economy'. Everything I've seen in terms of hard data and facts shows that high GDP, job creation, and overall economic growth correlates positively to times when the top tax rate was higher. I'm not interested in theory (which we've seen fail over the last decade). Show me evidence.

I'll be looking forward seeing that in the morning. Have a great night