What?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2012 |OT3| If it's not a legitimate OT the mods have ways to shut it down
- Thread starter pigeon
- Start date
- Status
Wow going through those and some of them being reaches he did an even better job telling the truth than I thought before
For example, on the auto industry "Obama 250,000, Romney 0." I'm sorry, was Romney's plan to completely close down auto manufacturing in the United States, or was it basically to do exactly the same thing that Obama did, but with private equity instead of government money?
The government owns 500M shares of GM at $32 a share. The current price is $22 a share. If I'm Romney, I'm out there saying "The score is Obama zero, the American tax payer negative $5 Billion."
Thanks. Odd they'd have to scramble the next morning after the release then.
He was slurring his speech and speaking nonsense on the show this morning. They rushed him to a hospital afterwards.
I just hate that no one on the set wanted to "make a scene" and they just laughed it off before they went to break. Strokes are serious business and he showed classic symptoms of one..
Damn. That is crazy.
That's scary. Hope an Ambien was all it really was.
ISM non-manufacturing index was stronger than expected:
Pretty much every pre-BLS indicator is pointing to improvement in tomorrow's report, but the BLS has had an odd run so far this year. Still, I'm optimistic and would not be surprised to see ~200k job growth tomorrow.
ISM non-manufacturing index was stronger than expected:
The ISM's non-manufacturing sample reports wide strength in August with the composite index up 1.1 points to 53.7 for the best monthly rate of general growth since May. The rise in the composite is led by a 4-1/2 point surge in employment to 53.8 which is the best reading since April and which points to strength for tomorrow's employment report. A slowing in delivery times, which is a sign of rising demand, also boosted the composite.
Pretty much every pre-BLS indicator is pointing to improvement in tomorrow's report, but the BLS has had an odd run so far this year. Still, I'm optimistic and would not be surprised to see ~200k job growth tomorrow.
A "mystery speaker" is scheduled for today.
http://communities.washingtontimes....12-thursday-schedule-bill-clinton-knocked-it/
http://communities.washingtontimes....12-thursday-schedule-bill-clinton-knocked-it/
DeathbyVolcano
Banned
bahah, and he has the good humor to stick it to the G-men as well. I love Brokaw
Just started reading and that guy seems like a master spinner. Good lord:
He already saved us that money! He can't brag about it!
So they can't count savings from a decision they made because they made that decision a while ago? Huh?
It is.
Uh... so isn't it good that we're finally adding manufacturing jobs? This guy says we've been losing them. And starting at the beginning of Obama's term is a pretty bad metric since any policy he put into place would take a bit of time to get going.
This barely refutes the statement. Clinton said millions would have coverage in private plans, and this says so, too. Ok, so the government will be getting some new customers, too, but I think Bill was just refuting that this was a big government takeover of healthcare. He was emphasizing that it wasn't. It representing tons of new customers to private insurances.
Oh, something fishy? Ok... That's a nice fact...
Is this serious? The guarantee is talking about the guaranteed amount or percentage paid on your healthcare by medicare. It's saying the vouchers will take the guarantee of how much will be paid and make it all dependent on how much private insurances feel like fucking you over. It's not talking about the program itself being guaranteed. Derp.
Not exactly just like it. I don't think night two was themed "We don't love to fire people!" and had every speaker talking about it and the crowd yelling it. False equivalency.
Duh? Who the fuck was questioning this? Obviously this would have " real consequences for the 3 million patients who depend on Planned Parenthood each year."
+1
WaPo has been trying really hard lately to say "See?! We are so not biased! Look at how we cover the Democrats, too! We swear we're just has hard on both sides!!!!"
electricpirate
Member
That was a 50 minute speech and the fact checker found like 7 things they check. two of which they confirmed (insurance and parent's policies), others they kind of quibble with silly things (so, reducing debt payments isnt' debt reduction because it's not a spending cut, what?) and others they like different experts (the american jobs act for example) and another the fact check basically goes "Huh I don't really know here" in regards to the welfare work requirement.
In other words, it was 50 minutes of basically being right.
Blergmeister
Member
Isn't the general concesus that private money did not want in on the auto bailouts? That if they did it would have happened? That is why the Federal Government stepped in as a last resort, right? What Romney wanted to do was not happening so the Government stepped in.
Also, while, if the Federal Government divests its shares right now (is there an urgency I'm not aware of?) would the $5 billion cost be cheaper than the fallout that would have occured had the industry failed? Both in terms of unemployment checks, etc, as well as reduced tax revenue and damage to communities? $5 billion actually sounds like a pretty good deal.
Kosmo can't handle the fact that Obama did something that worked and is very popular.
If Obama gives a somber, heartless speech we will know that the economy lost all the jobs in August.
Most likely the fallout would have been awful. 1 in 8 (or 1 in 10 depending on where you look) jobs in Ohio and Michigan alone are tied to the auto industry. We can sit here and wax philosophically about what may have happened if the government didn't get involved, but quite frankly I wouldn't want to take that chance. The recession was bad enough as is without playing with fire like that.
Souldriver
Member
Yeah, the Clinton Speech was fantastic!
I realize the Michelle Obama speech touched the heart strings of many people, but Clintons speech about substance rather than emotion speaks to me more.
I realize the Michelle Obama speech touched the heart strings of many people, but Clintons speech about substance rather than emotion speaks to me more.
The Librarian
Banned
Oh yeah. I'm reminded of all the business that were willing to lend money from the last half of '08 to the first half of '09. All those businesses. So many.
MThanded posted a useful link to FCO's round-up of Clinton's speech. Obviously you'll get a few exaggerations here and there, as is with every politician's speech, but overall? There were no "facts."
Got a couple of problems with the fact-checker you cited. Let's look at the AJA. He says, "Obama’s jobs plan was more of a rhetorical device, aimed at Republicans, rather than a real plan." Um, what? That may have been the result, but the AJA was indeed a plan. It was introduced in Congress. Then he says the following: "He even used the same $1 trillion in previously-agreed savings with Republicans, mentioned above, that was supposed to be in his budget in order to pay for this plan. The jobs plan also would be paid for with the imaginary money from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan." Um, what? Obama's original proposal to pay for the plan relied entirely on raising taxes on the wealthy. Senate Democrats went a step further and for a while tried to pass it with a 5.6% surcharge on the wealthy, which Obama endorsed. Now, they may have altered how to pay for it in the way Klesser mentioned, but that was Obama's original proposal.
As for the median average only being ~250K jobs being created, if you follow his link for that, it gives you a chart. On that chart has a long list of "zeros" and "n/a" on how many jobs can be created, pushing the median lower.
Edit: Holy shit, RDreamer. You boss.
Blergmeister
Member
Exactly. This unarguably went off really well. Arguing that the government screwed this up is like arguing that the government screwed up at fighting Nazis or putting men on the moon. They did it, it worked, and we are all better off for it.
Dude Abides
Banned
Yes, that's exactly what happened, but Kosmo will just ignore it, as he has done before and will continue to do with any facts that contradict the GOP talking point du jour.
Ugh. I don't think a whole lot of voters like being told what to think about politics by celebrities.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Yes, I agree. The DNC does not need a "Hail Marry" pass.
It's done just fine.
On the other end of the spectrum, the media does. And apparently a whole bunch of people, but not necessary about politics.
Yeah, I'm not really a fan of it either. Unless they're someone who's heavily involved with a particular issue through maybe a charity they run or take part in, meh. If they're just an actor or actress, then who gives a fuck what they think?
Probably not nearly as much, but I mean the dude was talking to an invisible Obama in an empty chair. I think no matter when he did it people would be wondering wtf and it'd be played on news stations.
Voters are always told what to think by everyone.
Also they already had a celeb the first date who cares?
PD's got a bet to win~
This is the second round pitch for the youth vote, I think, because these actresses are Millenial icons. But I agree, I don't quite get it. Maybe when they get up on stage they'll turn out to be barn-burners, though. Matt Damon might've been better.
Absolutely, but the fact that it was the first thing network viewers saw before the biggest moment in Romney's career made it so much more damaging.
That's not happening.
It's really a shame animated avatars don't work anymore. I saw a great one for PD the other day.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
I think Eva Longoria is actually involved with stuff. Wasn't she supposed to speak?
I suppose I get it. I just don't like it would probably be the better thing to say. I think they pick these celebrities so that their speeches and part of what they're saying end up on other networks, shows, and magazines that politicians wouldn't end up in. They'll reach a different audience. Some entertainment news show might throw on a thing about ScarJo, and that might get some people. I still don't personally care what a celebrity thinks, though I suppose if they think and agree with me I'd think slightly higher of them... maybe?
Aaron Strife
Banned
Hot diggity, ADP's report is really good.
Of course, BLS could just as easily come out with a report saying they've added like, 6 jobs tomorrow, but it's definitely an encouraging trend.
I don't think a jobs report by itself will move any numbers, but a good one would cap off a great DNC and allow Obama to win the news cycle.
Of course, BLS could just as easily come out with a report saying they've added like, 6 jobs tomorrow, but it's definitely an encouraging trend.
I don't think a jobs report by itself will move any numbers, but a good one would cap off a great DNC and allow Obama to win the news cycle.
Basically. If the jobs numbers were going to hurt Obama, they would have done so over the summer.
Dude Abides
Banned
I'm sure it won't be an Eastwood-esque debacle. Still, I don't see a whole lot of benefit and it reinforces the notion that the Dems are the fashionable party of vapid people.
Usually those everyones ostensibly have some expertise on the subject - they are politicians, or,as RDreamer mentioned, someone who is involved in a particular issue. Unless Scarlett will be talking about how to fit into tight leather pants she doesn't really fit the bill. The Dems are already subject to ridicule as the party of out of touch Hollywood types, no reason to hand the GOP gifts.
It's quite hard to criticize Romney's position because he's had so many. It is, actually, true that what he argued for -- a managed bankruptcy -- and what Obama eventually did were the same, but the devil is in the details. The specific op-ed he wrote was in 2008, when Bush gave the auto industries a bridge loan into Obama's administration, so that they could come up with a feasible plan for going forward, or for a managed bankruptcy. Romney's argument, essentially, was to not give them the loan and have them go into bankruptcy immediately. The big problem with this was that GM was already trying to restructure so as to forestall the necessity for bankruptcy and was finding that nobody wanted to buy any of their assets (because it's a bad idea to do business with a company that's probably going to go bankrupt). An immediate move into bankruptcy would probably have resulted in GM getting much less return for the assets it had to sell, and without a new creditor to provide them with a consolidation loan, it would probably result in liquidation rather than reorganization. This is eventually where the bailout came from -- first in the form of the Treasury purchasing GM shares*, then later in the form of a direct loan. The loan has been paid back. The shares are still sitting in the Treasury -- any loss we have taken on them is a loss on paper, only meaningful if you believe that GM stock will never again rise to the level at which the stock was purchased. After all, the Treasury is one organization that will never face liquidity pressure.
* Technically the Treasury didn't purchase GM shares -- it purchased shares in the new GM holding company used to buy GM's assets at auction during the managed bankruptcy process, which is now called General Motors again.
I think even if the BLS is at the lowest end of the usual variation between ADP and BLS it'll be a decent jobs report. If it's any higher than that we're going to hear about it in Obama's speech for sure.
Eastwood: We own this country. Politicians are our employees.
DNC: The government is the only thing we all belong to.
I'll side with Clint.
Politicians aren't employees, they're (supposed to be) representatives of the will of the electorate. Agents of the people, if you will.
Not everything should be run like a goddamn business.
Are you of the opinion that our government should be holding shares of stock in companies?
AKA employees - just as those that work for a company are representatives of that company, agents of the company, if you will.
The Librarian
Banned
It's amazing you use a phrase – of which you implied you agreed with and also agreed that it was just worded poorly – to further some useless point.
Kosmo, I sure did miss you while you were gone. You completely ignore the part of the post that runs counter to the claim you made earlier, then spin off with a completely different (and ultimately useless) point.
You're getting better at this. My Kosmo Calculator needs an update.
Beer Monkey
Member
Eastwood: That chair told me to fuck myself.
Dude Abides
Banned
Behold my powers of precognition!
Well, I apologize for not getting involved in the endless circle jerk that goes on here and responding to every post - not worth my time.
I'm not really of the opinion that there should be companies our government DOESN'T own stock in, but if you mean in a practical, today's politics sense, I don't really see the problem with it. Our government owns lots of bonds, for example, which are at least as volatile asset-wise as stocks. It probably also has a decent stockpile in a variety of currency. And of course it has options to take an 80% share of the GSEs, that's why they're GSEs. There are good reasons for our government to own some assets.
But in this particular case, if the choice is between selling the stock at a loss and holding on to it until we can sell it at par, I think that holding the stock is the responsible choice for the American taxpayer, so we don't just throw their money away for no reason. Don't you?
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll