Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Great Debate II

Obama vs Romney. Who do you think won and why?

21 comments:

  1. Anonymous10/16/2012

    i wonder how many kids are going to shot in Chicago this weekend when Rahm is Florida trying to convince Jewish voters to go for Obama.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous10/16/2012

    Romney easily won. His talking points hit home:

    Gas prices.

    Rise in food stamp usage.

    Drop in household income.

    50% of college grads who can't find jobs.

    Etc. etc.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous10/17/2012

    The media is claiming Obama won. They are biased. I don't see it as an obama win. More like a draw.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous10/17/2012

    The President had a better night tonight than he did in the first debate, but he failed to stop Romney's momentum. Romney was strong, particularly when he talked about how his tax and regulatory form plan will put Americans back to work.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous10/17/2012

    media says obama won. they are so full of it!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Obama had a good night, Romney less so. It all comes down to Ohio, where Obama's call on GM has resulted in more shifts being added at local plants.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous10/17/2012

      MPots you have to be a union guy. No private sector working human would have your thoughts.

      Delete
    2. I am in the private sector, so I guess the mind-meld hasn't taken hold just yet.

      Delete
  7. Welcome to Romney's America: More jobs, yes, but less in Illinois, more in China --

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-gaulrapp/sensata-bain-capital_b_1972021.html?utm_hp_ref=chicago&ir=Chicago

    So sorry if information offends people.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous10/17/2012

    It was a draw. Romney should have nailed him on gas prices, Solyndra, Fast & Furious, Libya, and Obama cancelling school vouchers in DC, where his kids go to private school. Obama scored on immigration, but only held out hope for more of the same on the economy.
    2013 is going to be a tough year whoever gets in. I'd rather the guy with business background than empty promises.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous10/17/2012

    Why the Fed's and current administrations economic policies are failing.
    http://www.hoisingtonmgt.com/pdf/HIM2012Q3NP.pdf

    Do to over indebtedness, both public and private, each $1 spent by government or printed by the Federal Reserve, is destroying the middle class. As long as this continues, we are destined to be debt slaves. Current economic policy is keeping wages low through falling demand, caused by fear of future price increases as a result of current Fed policy. One cause feeds on the other, creating a debt spiral.
    Obama's lack of economic understanding, of even the most basic supply and demand analysis, is destroying any chance of growth and expansion. Four more years of this, and we will be deep into a depression none of us can imagine.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous10/17/2012

      "Debt slaves."

      I agree! Instead of the bailing out the biggest banks, they should have written down mortgage debt to the fmv and reformed every mortgage (rate, term from 30 to 40, etc.) when/where appropriate. They should have done this during a moratorium on residential foreclosures. This was done during WW II with remarkable success.

      The banks that took risky bets on derivatives, and insurance companies that insured those risks, could have entered into bankruptcy to discharge these debts. Instead, the banks
      1) received 100 percent bailout on "toxic" derivatives, dollar-to-dollar;
      2) were recapitalized with preferred stock investment from the U.S. Treasury;
      3) their insurance companies paid the insured banks and then were bailed out by the hardworking taxpayers; and
      4) the banks continue to service the mortgages for a servicing fee.

      They did not double dip; they quintuple dipped:
      1) Money writing the mortgage;
      2) Money selling the mortgage as a derivative;
      3) Money for servicing mortgage (collecting interest and principal payments);
      4) Money from the insurance companies when derivatives were downgraded; and
      5) Money for the bailout.

      It is so foul that it is incredible this was done. The Fed that you referenced can purchase two things:
      1) U.S. treasuries; and
      2) Mortgage derivatives.

      We do not know how many of the toxic derivatives went from the banks, which cleared their balance sheets of sh** derivatives in exchange for (federal reserve notes) cash.

      Now the banks are more powerful, they cannibalized each other, bigger, and financially stronger.

      Our entire analysis of the economy on micro and macro levels are flawed because the measures are flawed: unemployment, inflation, GDP, etc.

      I went through all of this because housing is so central to our total economy. Now the banks are the center of the economy and are not even really lending.

      Delete
    2. Hence no job creation. With regard to housing, never should have allowed people's homes to be subject to speculation/securitization, which all but the most "lefty" Senators voted for.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous10/18/2012

      Right. The mortgages should not have been assigned; they split the note from the mortgage. The banks continue to service the note for a fee while they made a fee on assigning the mortgage often to other banks. The were buying and selling derivatives among each other for fees. And, heck, these exotic "vehicles" are insured, so they could not lose. And if the insurance companies cannot cover the loss, we have Uncle Sam to cover them. I consider this the biggest fraud in human history.

      The brilliance of these banks is that they make a profit/fee in every transaction from writing the mortgage to servicing to getting bailed out on derivative investments. The flaw is that they are so greedy. But their greed is not a flaw to the extent that they take super risky bets and get bailed out of those risky bets. The moral hazard has never been greater or to this extent.

      The worst may yet come. Remember the stock market crashed in 1929, but the depression really kicked in around 1933. Many of these ARMs have time bombs in them in which we can see another crash/dip---and possibly another round of baking bailouts---in the very near future. Interest rates right now, however, are historically (artificially) low.

      When a combination of another round of resets comes in with high food/energy prices from previous low rates, I am not sure what the consequences will be. I could be wrong and everything may be fine. Although the stock market may be "up," it can also simply mean that more dollars are needed to purchase additional shares due to inflation.

      Nevertheless, many companies have restructured and are able to perform with lower overhead and less labor. It is a messy, complex, and banking-dominated economy now. The middle-class have been eviscerated by taking away or putting at risk their greatest "asset," their homes. Again, which is why I believe the real economy cannot recover until the defects in housing are corrected.

      And the defect primarily has to do with finance and banking. Before banks would make loans for homes based on DEPOSITS! My God! Imagine that. The irony is that when they did not have the money, they issued all of these loans.

      Now these banks have stronger balance sheets, positive cash flows, real cash assets, etc. and are not lending.

      Placing these banks at the center of our economy, deregulating them, bailing them out, etc. has been the biggest mistake in U.S. history we have made.

      Delete
    4. I really appreciate your posts, anonymous. I agree with you that we probably haven't seen the worst. We simply haven't done enough.

      Delete
  10. Anonymous10/17/2012

    Obama was the big winner. Romney still will not be honest with us about our taxes. He is getting rid of our deductions, but we do not know which ones. He is just like Bush on tax cuts but more extreme.

    He was a consultant and got management fees on how to ship American jobs overseas. Consultants, tax incentives, and trade agreements are why American jobs are going overseas.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous10/17/2012

      Many many jobs "shipped overseas" can be blamed on greedy unions, a hostile business climate with overbearing regulations imposed by the "czars" of our regulatory maze of red tape that is suffocating businesses. These conditions are imposed by extreme business hating lefties...and Obama is their King. Regarding the debate certainly Obama was better since he actually showed up mentally. Other than that it is clear that Obama would have been laughed out of any boardroom of any company as he would be drawing with crayons next to Michelangelo. He is out of his league and more and more people are seeing it live on TV !! Down goes Obama ! Down goes Obama !

      Delete
  11. Anonymous10/17/2012

    The debate was awesome. Fascinating. Substantive. I really enjoyed it; I was entertained by it. It will be recognized as a great debate for the civics (once we teach civics in school again) textbooks.


    ROMNEY
    -*-

    Strength: economy. He really has a better understanding of the economy than Obama.

    Weakness: Libya. Boy, did that blow up in his face. I was not expecting that at all. Not only should this have been a strength for Romney, it became a huge weakness.

    It is also worth mentioning that I think Romney did not really explain how he is "really" different from Bush.

    Opportunity: economy/energy. Obama's admin has subsidized in the billions of dollars "green energy." It has not worked. Energy costs are high and the economy is weak. Romney can nail Obama on these.

    Obama
    -*-

    Strength: women. Romney has "binders of women." "Your trees are the correct height." Did you hear that answer from Romney? Shockingly bad. Obama seemed knowledgeable of women's rights/issues and in command of answering the question.

    Romney really needed to improve with women, and he failed.

    Weakness: economy. Obama's answer on the economy was pathetic, disorganized, and even evasive. I do not think Obama has an understanding of basic economics.

    Opportunity: foreign policy. Romney has had some embarrassing gaffes with foreign policy. Obama can capitalize on it.

    Overall, my perspective on presidential debates has changed from this election. It really shows how important that they can be. Before this election, I never thought much of the debates.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous10/17/2012

      Very good and honest analysis. However I think Romney is doing better with women as the days go by, according to recent polls. He will not win with single women 18-30 as they can be manipulated by fear of the end to abortion. Sadly, while most of these women will never have abortions they just like to have it as an insurance policy...you know just in case. Over 30 million abortions have been performed in America. That is roughly 10 percent of our population. It is tragic no matter where you come down on the issue.

      Delete
  12. Anonymous10/17/2012

    Again folks ,it's about jobs . I'm talking about the entire country. not just certain states. you know what to do . VOTE THIS BUM OUT?????????

    ReplyDelete
  13. why didn't Obama try to,defend his record. unemployment, domestic energy policy and poverty on the rise. oh yea never mind.......bush's fault

    ReplyDelete