Romney Cheated in Debate?

[Spesh]

I can't speak for anyone else but i have no illusions that Obama isn't extremely intelligent. However, there are thousands of people who graduate with Ivy League degrees (including GWB and a lot of other presidents and candidates) every year. That does not in any way guarantee that they are uniquely qualified to be President of the United States. That doesn't even guarantee that they have a working knowledge of the political process, economics, trade, foreign relations or social issues. There are some brilliant people in the classroom who are idiots in the real world. Obama is clearly an amazing speaker but he doesn't appear to be an amazing thinker. Thus the serious drop off when he speaks from the head/heart/hip and not from prepared materials. Add i have said, he really doesn't understand what is going on and neither do most of the people who still want him in office. If he were not cool/popular/en vogue, people would be calling for his head. His job performance has been abysmal.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

I dont think theres a single sentence in there that couldnt also be attributed to Romney. Especially the speaking from the heart/head/hip thing.

Last i checked, there wasnt some clear black and white solution to fixing economies. There are many different theories with many different results. It isnt like one side has a 100% foul proof solution and the other side is just stupid for not implementing it. If there was, the economy wouldnt have tanked under a Republican.

[Buddy]

I dont think theres a single sentence in there that couldnt also be attributed to Romney. Especially the speaking from the heart/head/hip thing.

Last i checked, there wasnt some clear black and white solution to fixing economies. There are many different theories with many different results. It isnt like one side has a 100% foul proof solution and the other side is just stupid for not implementing it. If there was, the economy wouldnt have tanked under a Republican.

I can come up with a lot of things about Romney that i am not thrilled about but his knowledge and mastery of business and the economy are some things that he is definitely very solid on. Additionally, his ability to speak off the cuff has proven to be very solid as well. He is not as good as Obama at prepared speeches but he is far better in debates and town hall situations.

With regards to the economy, there is a pretty fool proof way to fix the economy: to get the government's paws off of it! History has proven time and time again that every time the government tinkers with the economy, they screw it up worse. The free market will fix itself, the government screws it up worse. This is very evident in the recent housing market collapse in that the impetus for the bubble and subsequent collapse were precipitated by the Clinton Administration and Dodd, Frank, and Schumer. They intended to raise home ownership among minorities and temporarily accomplished this but the country paid a horrible price. I won't bore you with the details but you can read "Reckless Endangerment" and "All the Devils are Here" to find out why the collapse really occurred. Bush was certainly not exempt for blame either because he saw the problem early and didn't pull the plug because it would have been political suicide. Nonetheless, this is what happens when the government artificially stimulates or retards the economy. Leave it alone!



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

[Spesh]

I can come up with a lot of things about Romney that i am not thrilled about but his knowledge and mastery of business and the economy are some things that he is definitely very solid on. Additionally, his ability to speak off the cuff has proven to be very solid as well. He is not as good as Obama at prepared speeches but he is far better in debates and town hall situations.

With regards to the economy, there is a pretty fool proof way to fix the economy: to get the government's paws off of it! History has proven time and time again that every time the government tinkers with the economy, they screw it up worse. The free market will fix itself, the government screws it up worse. This is very evident in the recent housing market collapse in that the impetus for the bubble and subsequent collapse were precipitated by the Clinton Administration and Dodd, Frank, and Schumer. They intended to raise home ownership among minorities and temporarily accomplished this but the country paid a horrible price. I won't bore you with the details but you can read "Reckless Endangerment" and "All the Devils are Here" to find out why the collapse really occurred. Bush was certainly not exempt for blame either because he saw the problem early and didn't pull the plug because it would have been political suicide. Nonetheless, this is what happens when the government artificially stimulates or retards the economy. Leave it alone!



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Ill remember that the next time he makes a birther joke, reveals secret meetings with foreign intelligence agencies, tries to take credit for the auto bailout, rips 47% of the American population, and insults Olympic preparations. My personal favorite was Romney suggesting that Obama would remove God from coins, where that came from is beyond me but i hope to god it wasnt a planned remark.

Ah, so its Clinton's fault. Gotcha. Funny how if Bush is mentioned Republicans flip out and demand you stop blaming Bush, but if they are reminded the economy crashed under a Republican President...well, that was Clinton. Again, there is no hard and fast rule to fixing a broken economy. There is a history of deregulation leading to economic disaster. There is a history of over regulating leading to economic stagnation. In our current political atmosphere every problem is blown up and every solution is simplified. If the solution to the problem could be fixed in 8 words(your words), it would have done so already. Or better yet, Romney would have proven his worth by telling us exactly how he was going to fix it. Instead, he insists we trust him. Sadly for him, he seems unaware that people have the capacity to remember 4 years ago and recall his solutions during his last election try: bailouts and stimulus. Leave it alone!.....?

[rob19]

With regards to the economy, there is a pretty fool proof way to fix the economy: to get the government's paws off of it! History has proven time and time again that every time the government tinkers with the economy, they screw it up worse. The free market will fix itself, the government screws it up worse. This is very evident in the recent housing market collapse in that the impetus for the bubble and subsequent collapse were precipitated by the Clinton Administration and Dodd, Frank, and Schumer. They intended to raise home ownership among minorities and temporarily accomplished this but the country paid a horrible price. I won't bore you with the details but you can read "Reckless Endangerment" and "All the Devils are Here" to find out why the collapse really occurred. Bush was certainly not exempt for blame either because he saw the problem early and didn't pull the plug because it would have been political suicide. Nonetheless, this is what happens when the government artificially stimulates or retards the economy. Leave it alone!

Deregulation is basically what you're advocating, & a case could be made that deregulation of the banks is what caused the housing collapse in the first place, & with Romney's top 6 campaign contributors all being banks, I think it's safe to assume where he stands on the matter.

By now, the narrative of the subprime mortgage crisis is well-documented: Risky loans were doled out to unqualified buyers, then those loans were packaged into derivative products and sold to other banks. Now that the dust has settled from the fall of that house of cards, it's time to point fingers.

Today, a federal commission laid the blame for the 2008 housing crisis largely at the feet of the two Fed chairmen, Alan Greenspan and his successor Ben Bernanke, for allowing deregulation to fuel a massive trade in bad mortgages.

The New York Times reports:

"The majority report finds fault with two Fed chairmen: Alan Greenspan, who led the central bank as the housing bubble expanded, and his successor, Ben S. Bernanke, who did not foresee the crisis but played a crucial role in the response. It criticizes Mr. Greenspan for advocating deregulation and cites a “pivotal failure to stem the flow of toxic mortgages” under his leadership as a “prime example” of negligence.

It also criticizes the Bush administration’s “inconsistent response” to the crisis — allowing Lehman Brothers to collapse in September 2008 after earlier bailing out another bank,Bear Stearns, with Fed help — as having “added to the uncertainty and panic in the financial markets.""

The commission provided several other examples of how authorities' "see-no-evil" approach led to risky decisions by banks.

"The Securities and Exchange Commission failed to require big banks to hold more capital to cushion potential losses and halt risky practices, and that the Fed “neglected its mission.”

The decision in 2000 to shield the exotic financial instruments known as over-the-counter derivatives from regulation, made during the last year of President Bill Clinton’s term, is called “a key turning point in the march toward the financial crisis.”

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[rob19]

Allow me to share a clip from the Jon Stewart v. O'Reilly debate about the flip side of the Free-Market; the collapse.



"In political discourse, the phrase "privatizing profits and socializing losses" refers to any instance of speculators benefitting (privately) from profits, but not taking losses, by pushing the losses onto society at large, particularly via the government."

'The notion that banks privatize profits and socialize losses dates at least to the 19th century, as in this 1834 quote of Andrew Jackson:

"I have had men watching you for a long time and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the Bank. ... You are a den of vipers and thieves."

—Andrew Jackson, 1834'

[Buddy]

Ill remember that the next time he makes a birther joke, reveals secret meetings with foreign intelligence agencies, tries to take credit for the auto bailout, rips 47% of the American population, and insults Olympic preparations. My personal favorite was Romney suggesting that Obama would remove God from coins, where that came from is beyond me but i hope to god it wasnt a planned remark.

Ah, so its Clinton's fault. Gotcha. Funny how if Bush is mentioned Republicans flip out and demand you stop blaming Bush, but if they are reminded the economy crashed under a Republican President...well, that was Clinton. Again, there is no hard and fast rule to fixing a broken economy. There is a history of deregulation leading to economic disaster. There is a history of over regulating leading to economic stagnation. In our current political atmosphere every problem is blown up and every solution is simplified. If the solution to the problem could be fixed in 8 words(your words), it would have done so already. Or better yet, Romney would have proven his worth by telling us exactly how he was going to fix it. Instead, he insists we trust him. Sadly for him, he seems unaware that people have the capacity to remember 4 years ago and recall his solutions during his last election try: bailouts and stimulus. Leave it alone!.....?

I never said that Romney was infaliable and certainly never said that he never makes statements that he shouldn't have but I still stick by my earlier ascertation.

So far as laying blame for the financial crisis, I never laid the blame solely on Clinton. In fact, I specifically stated that Bush bore a great deal of the blame for the crisis if for nothing else than standing by and watching the bubble blow up then explode in order to save his own neck politically. The point I am most concerned with making is that this crisis was created by the government's intervention into the natural capitalist economy in order to artificially boost a certain demographic. The experiment backfired and then they doused it with gasoline by bailing out the banks, auto industry, and everyone else rather than letting the chips fall where they may and letting the economy find its natural balance again.

[phins_4_ever]

I never said that Romney was infaliable and certainly never said that he never makes statements that he shouldn't have but I still stick by my earlier ascertation.

So far as laying blame for the financial crisis, I never laid the blame solely on Clinton. In fact, I specifically stated that Bush bore a great deal of the blame for the crisis if for nothing else than standing by and watching the bubble blow up then explode in order to save his own neck politically. The point I am most concerned with making is that this crisis was created by the government's intervention into the natural capitalist economy in order to artificially boost a certain demographic. The experiment backfired and then they doused it with gasoline by bailing out the banks, auto industry, and everyone else rather than letting the chips fall where they may and letting the economy find its natural balance again.

There is no natural balance of capitalism. The natural balance if there is one is: profits stay private. For everything else there is a government handout.

You are on a forum of an NFL team. How do you think Stadiums get build? The last 100% privately financed and remodeled stadium is our very own. When an owner wants a new stadium he goes for government money (local) first. If it doesn't work out he moves the team to a city who gives him the most money. Almost every business had government funding at one time or another. It doesn't matter of it is tax breaks, small business loans, research investment etc.

The nature of capitalism is: give me public funds but don't interfere and leave your hands of my profits. I come back when I go bankrupt.

The establishment of greed is the only natural in capitalism. In the past it was not as wide spread. In the last 10-15 years it has increased dramatically.

Romney is a poster child of greed. His business life was liquidation for profit. But not for profit of the companies they purchased but for their own profit regardless of the good of the 'asset'. You do not require a Masters in Business to sell off assets and pocket the money. It is more a question of business ethics and business morals. Some have different morals. They can live and sleep pocketing money knowing they just got rid of a couple thousand jobs. I couldn't.

Romney is a "fantastic" man who has mastered the "I take government money and then bitch about government being involved". Look no further than his record on the Olympics and his governorship in MA.
In addition to that he also uses offshore banks and companies to avoid taxable income. That is in my opinion a no-no.

Romney represents essentially everything that is wrong in capitalism.

The only other natural you have in capitalism you have is that the government has to step in where private business fails. It has always been that way. Capitalism has never pulled itself out of a recession like we recently had or any depression. When you lay off millions of people private business loses its consumer base and the demand is decreasing to a point where many more business have to close doors. Capitalism can not stop that domino effect. How could they if they lose their customers?

So if you talk about the nature of capitalism it is very clear: keep your hands of my profit and be ready and hand me that government money when I need it.

[Buddy]

Deregulation is basically what you're advocating, & a case could be made that deregulation of the banks is what caused the housing collapse in the first place, & with Romney's top 6 campaign contributors all being banks, I think it's safe to assume where he stands on the matter.




To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Rob, you are absolutely correct that I advocate the Federal Government deregulating everything that they possibly can and leaving the bulk of regulation to the states. I am not advocating anarchy but rather a simple set of parameters and rules for businesses to operate under. Because much of the regulation we have was enacted as a response to an acute situation, it ends up having very unintended long-term effects. Consequently, I think we need to wipe about 1/2 of the regulation and branches of the Federal Government (FG) out and let the market decide what is needed and what is not. The market will naturally have booms and busts, prosperity and recession...the government does not need to get involved on either end.

You are also correct that deregulation of the banks allowed for the housing collapse, however you also must recognize why that deregulation occurred (in order to increase home ownership among low-income and minority groups) and who initiated and enacted the deregulation (The Clinton Administration). The deregulation itself did not cause the bubble and collapse, it was initiating the deregulation to achieve higher home ownership then guaranteeing the loans through Fannie and Freddie and allowing Fannie and Freddie to package the loans into mortgage backed securities and the subsequent derivatives of those mortgage backed securities. All of the politicians/Bureaucrats along the way are to blame...Clinton, Bush, Barney Frank, Charles Schumer, Chris Dodd, James Johnson (Fannie), and a host of other players on both sides of the isle that either directly influenced what happened or stood by and watched it happen. Then, adding horrible insult to injury, the FG tries to put out the fires of their own making with gasoline by trying to bail these banks and the auto industry out (Bush and Obama Administrations are both guilty of this...equal blame from me!) with taxpayer money.

The banks did what banks do...they assessed the prevailing winds of the economy and made money off of it. When the FG agreed to guarantee mortgage loans that clearly never should be issued in the first place, they signed the death warrant for the US economy. Clinton and his cronies were long gone before the crap hit the fan and Bush nearly made it out of the woods before the bottom fell out. Obama definitely inherited a mess that I do not blame him with the mess he walked into but he has done exactly the wrong things to fix it...he took a bad situation and made it much, much worse. This is evidenced in the stagnant economy, ridiculous debt, and insane burden of regulation facing

[Locke]

I can't speak for anyone else but i have no illusions that Obama isn't extremely intelligent. However, there are thousands of people who graduate with Ivy League degrees (including GWB and a lot of other presidents and candidates) every year. That does not in any way guarantee that they are uniquely qualified to be President of the United States. That doesn't even guarantee that they have a working knowledge of the political process, economics, trade, foreign relations or social issues. There are some brilliant people in the classroom who are idiots in the real world. Obama is clearly an amazing speaker but he doesn't appear to be an amazing thinker. Thus the serious drop off when he speaks from the head/heart/hip and not from prepared materials. Add i have said, he really doesn't understand what is going on and neither do most of the people who still want him in office. If he were not cool/popular/en vogue, people would be calling for his head. His job performance has been abysmal.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

GWB got admitted due to coming from a prestigious family. I'd bet money on that. Most Politicians inherit their fortune and Political Capitol from their parents, which implies strong family connections. As much as it makes me angry, having connections is more important that intelligence when it comes to getting admitted to most of these Universities. Obama is different in that he didn't have any of those connections.

Seeing how Obama is a self-made man, I don't see how you could even begin to believe he is an "idiot in the real world". That's reserved for people who ride Daddy's coattail through life and never learn how to stand on their own 2 feet. Someone who comes from poverty to earn a way into Harvard University, and eventually into the highest office in the U.S., is not an "idiot in the real world".

Again, there are dozens of things you can blast Obama for, most of which I would probably agree with you on. However, trying to paint him as unintelligent or not street smart is ridiculous. That is partisan election year propaganda...

[Spesh]

I never said that Romney was infaliable and certainly never said that he never makes statements that he shouldn't have but I still stick by my earlier ascertation.

So far as laying blame for the financial crisis, I never laid the blame solely on Clinton. In fact, I specifically stated that Bush bore a great deal of the blame for the crisis if for nothing else than standing by and watching the bubble blow up then explode in order to save his own neck politically. The point I am most concerned with making is that this crisis was created by the government's intervention into the natural capitalist economy in order to artificially boost a certain demographic. The experiment backfired and then they doused it with gasoline by bailing out the banks, auto industry, and everyone else rather than letting the chips fall where they may and letting the economy find its natural balance again.

Its your right to stick to your point of view. I personally havent seen Obama fumble as badly as Romney does in public. If he had, Republicans wouldnt have had to dig up videos(some heavily edited) from 5 and 14 years ago to bash him. The Republican national convention ran their entire events on the premise of "we built that!"....another heavily edited Obama quote. Regardless, by all means its your choice to stick to your belief that Obama has had more gaffees.

Others have picked up the torch to argue about "government intervention" and "the natural balance of economics". My point is the same as its always been: there are many different philosophies to ecnonomics that have a wide range of results. No hard and fast rule to fix everything. The "always keep the government out" philosophy hasnt worked. Didnt work before the collapse(though your now saying Clinton administration forced involvement) and it didnt work before the great depression.

I will point out two things. 1) Bush's political career was basically over after 2004. He didnt have to worry about re-election. He wasnt going to run for another office. If your assertion, that he knew what was about to happen, is true, he would have taken steps to correct it so he wouldnt have to be linked to the worst economic crisis in decades. Bush was a big believer in the "natural balance" and it backfired on him.
2) Romney supported the measures you equate to dumping gasoline on the fire, and hasnt told us how his current policies will be different then Obama's current ones. Mitt Romney is certainly not a "natural balance" candidate.