2012 Race to the White House

[FordGT90Concept]

The "corrupt financial system" is completely ingrained into the federal government. There's no way to purge it from the system--only reduce it's influence by stripping power from the federal government.

Wall Street isn't the problem (it is the reason why the USA is so wealthy). The problem is the people presidents select for their cabinent. They serve private interests in a public office.

[jmcslob]

Oh and I thought the problem was with the Lobbyists.....Buying off Politicians...

[Screaming Beaver]

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

The "corrupt financial system" is completely ingrained into the federal government. There's no way to purge it from the system--only reduce it's influence by stripping power from the federal government.

Wall Street isn't the problem (it is the reason why the USA is so wealthy). The problem is the people presidents select for their cabinent. They serve private interests in a public office.

The federal government enables Wall Street to commit its crimes but it is still the bankers who do so. I find it rather incredible that you can say that they are innocent considering they are directly responsible for stealing trillions from people around the world through outright fraud with the so called regulators looking the other way. The fact that not a single person involved has gone to jail is a disgrace to our so called rule of law.

[FordGT90Concept]

No one was convicted for a crime in the 2008 collapse. Wall Street created new ways to make money and the SEC didn't police it. It's not Wall Street's fault the SEC didn't do its job. It's the SEC's fault.

[Screaming Beaver]

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

No one was convicted for a crime in the 2008 collapse. Wall Street created new ways to make money and the SEC didn't police it. It's not Wall Street's fault the SEC didn't do its job. It's the SEC's fault.

New ways to make money... interesting way of phrasing it. I suppose stealing is a new way to do it sure. Though I don't understand how if the police don't do their job than its not the fault of the criminal for breaking the law. It isn't as if it makes it alright to commit crimes just because law enforcement is incompetent, corrupt or lazy.

[FordGT90Concept]

Originally Posted by Screaming Beaver

New ways to make money... interesting way of phrasing it. I suppose stealing is a new way to do it sure. Though I don't understand how if the police don't do their job than its not the fault of the criminal for breaking the law. It isn't as if it makes it alright to commit crimes just because law enforcement is incompetent, corrupt or lazy.

They didn't break a law.

[Screaming Beaver]

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

They didn't break a law.

So then the banks lying about their mortgage securities and labeling them AAA when they were actually junk is just fine? Then of course betting against those same securities as they knew they were shit that they gave to their customers. As well as demanding to be bailed out from their own fucked up deals and getting money instead of jail time... honestly you really think they did no crimes? I'd suggest reading Griftopia by Matt Taibbi, especially the "Hot Potato" chapter, he is much more eloquent than I am. Or read any of his articles on the subject. Best if not only source of this financial hell he currently live in.

Of course if you're one of those who thinks private enterprise, banks included I suppose can do no wrong that it is always government at fault and the poor little bankers are being scapegoated than I suppose any further discussion would be pointless.

[FordGT90Concept]

It's not "fine" but they didn't break the law.

The correct solution to the entire problem would have been letting them all go bankrupt. Bad decisions shouldn't be rewarded with government guarentees. Why did we not let them go bankrupt? Because Henry Paulson was Goldman Sachs CEO. If there was a huge winner from the collapse, it was Goldman Sachs. Conflict of interest? Undeniably.


Businesses have a singular objective (make money). If the people don't like how a business is going about that, it's the government's role to step in. Otherwise, everything is fair-game.

[Screaming Beaver]

I'm sorry but a decision to lie to their customers is not a "bad decision" its fraud. No matter how many times you tie in the government it doesn't excuse their criminal behavior. Gov certainly has their role, they set the stage to allow this to happen, made it possible for the banks to do this to begin with. Just because they are complicit though doesn't mean the banks get to get away with their behavior, pardon my repeating myself but I simply cannot fathom why you don't see what they did was criminal and letting them get away with it because of the power and money they control is simply an obvious indicator of how corrupt our entire system is, financial and government both.

The fact that the Treasury is full of ex-bankers certainly makes the government look bad, an indicator of the circular relationship that goes on. Same as in the regulatory agencies such as the SEC. No one will do anything to police their lawbreaking because the same bureaucrats and regulators that are supposed to protect the public are in line to get jobs in the very same banks they are supposed to be watching. This is certainly and indictment on government but it hardly makes the banks who are corrupting the watchdogs to begin with innocent, their hands are just as filthy.

Business can make money but its become acceptable to do so in fradulant ways and that is definately not right. Perhaps its true that if government ignores their crimes so in makes it legal by default. This scenario is even more depressing to me however if people just shrug off mass theft because its merely a standard business practice. Small wonder groups like the Tea Party rise up though they focus their anger on the wrong target. With government and Wall Street working hand in hand to fuck us over and then try to point to "social programs" as the cause of what ails us instead of the stealing of our financial life blood, it is hard not to get pissed off.

[FordGT90Concept]

They intentionally didn't value the worth of the bonds because no one knew exactly who held them. Not knowing doesn't constitute lying. All these investment banks went belly up (or should have) when they finally took the time to figure out what they had was worth and discovered it was worth much less than they thought.

Remember, it was the SEC that authorized trading in derivatives and failed to police them. All the banks operated by the (poorly written) book.

What the federal government needs is a fine tooth comb that weeds out EVERYONE that is too closely tied to private industry while serving in public office. That includes Congressmen and Congresswomen, staffers, and cabinet members.

Again, I stress that if the federal government wasn't so damn big, this corruption wouldn't have much impact. It's easier to police a state government than a federal government.


The "social programs" are undeniably the biggest drain on the federal government.

[FordGT90Concept]

Harry Reid is now Obama's prize fighter launching attacks at Romney. Reid doesn't care, he stays in office for another 4 years so his job isn't at risk:
Romney to Reid: 'Put up or shut up'

[WhiteLotus]

I loath politics. But I guess I have to ask...


Romney wins, what changes on the foreign policy side? Seeing as I am not an American the foreign policy side of things is all I care about. That and your fiscal policy, but for now it looks like spending your way out of it is working.

[yogurt_21]

Originally Posted by WhiteLotus

I loath politics. But I guess I have to ask...


Romney wins, what changes on the foreign policy side? Seeing as I am not an American the foreign policy side of things is all I care about. That and your fiscal policy, but for now it looks like spending your way out of it is working.

none, you likely won't notice a difference at all outside of the U.S. no matter who wins.

[Hate_Camel]

Originally Posted by yogurt_21

none, you likely won't notice a difference at all outside of the U.S. no matter who wins.

Except maybe ONE candidate
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/...y_exposed.html

What if he runs as an independent?

[SK-1]

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

Harry Reid is now Obama's prize fighter launching attacks at Romney. Reid doesn't care, he stays in office for another 4 years so his job isn't at risk:
Romney to Reid: 'Put up or shut up'

Dingy Harry Reid lol... I heard Harry once got drunk, stole a car and had sex with a dead cow.

But anyway,,.. Remember this one? It was Hope and Change at it's best lol...

Team Obama said in ’09 stimulus would have unemployment below 6% by 2012
Today’s news that the unemployment rate moved up to 8.3 percent is as good of a time as time as any to revisit the promises the then-incoming administration made in 2009 regarding the economic stimulus bill. Back then they said the stimulus would have unemployment below 6 percent by now.

Not only that but they claimed that the unemployment would be at that 6 percent level now even if the stimulus bill was not passed. That is, that they predicted the economy would recover to that level naturally. In short, the White Houses projections regarding stimulus and the economy were wildly off.

The report, entitled “The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan,” was released on Jan. 9, 2009. It was put out by the office of the president-elect was written by economists Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein. Romer would become chairwoman of the Council of Economic Advisers for President Obama. Bernstein was Vice President Biden’s chief economic advisor.

Page four of the report features a chart projecting the unemployment levels with and without the stimulus. With the stimulus, the Romer and Bernstein predicted that unemployment would never rise past 8 percent, and would peak just under that in the third quarter of 2009 before steadily declining to around 5.6 percent by today. Without the stimulus, they predicted that unemployment would peak around 9 percent in the third quarter of 2010 before declining to around 6 percent today.

The then-Democrat majority Congress passed the $819 billion stimulus bill later that month. The projection turned out to be one of the few things connected to it that was shovel-ready. The unemployment rate reached 10.1 percent in late 2009. It has declined since then but has remained above 8 percent for 41 months straight, a record.

One note: the report assumed that the unemployment rate in the first quarter of 2009 would be 7.5 percent. It was in fact 8.2 percent. Economist Lawrence Lindsey later adjusted their forecast to reflect this and found that it projected unemployment to be about 6.3 percent by this time.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/team-o...rticle/2503947

[FordGT90Concept]

Originally Posted by WhiteLotus

Romney wins, what changes on the foreign policy side? Seeing as I am not an American the foreign policy side of things is all I care about. That and your fiscal policy, but for now it looks like spending your way out of it is working.

http://www.mittromney.com/

Under issues, it lists various countries...

Afghanistan: Return to Bush's policy (follow military advice)

Pakistan: Leverage them into cleaning out the Taliban from their own intelligence and security service.

Africa: Kinda reads as fluff.

East Asia & China: Maintain military prescense in Pacific, develop a more friendly relationship with India and Indonesia, and disarm North Korea

Iran: Put aircraft carriers in Mediterranean and Persian Gulf, more sanctions, support Iranian rebels, complete missile defense system.

Isaeal: Support Israel and not Palestine.

Latin-America: create Campaign for Economic Opportunity in Latin America and Hemispheric Joint Task Force on Crime and Terrorism. Their goal is to provide a partnership (economic, diplmoatic, and security) in exchange for fighting terrorism within their own countries.

Middle East: Support rebels that want democracy--resist jihadist. Non-militaristic intervention in Syria. Return to Bush's policy on Iraq (help them anyway they need it to become a successful country).

Russia: Review START, decrease Europe's energy reliance on Russia (technological assistance to help western Europeans tap shale oil, technical assistance to the Turkey-Austria pipeline), confront Russia on it's authoritarian practices, a Russian exchange program to seed democracy among the Russian population.

[Hate_Camel]

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

http://www.mittromney.com/

Under issues, it lists various countries...

Afghanistan: Return to Bush's policy (follow military advice)

Pakistan: Leverage them into cleaning out the Taliban from their own intelligence and security service.

Africa: Kinda reads as fluff.

East Asia & China: Maintain military prescense in Pacific, develop a more friendly relationship with India and Indonesia, and disarm North Korea

Iran: Put aircraft carriers in Mediterranean and Persian Gulf, more sanctions, support Iranian rebels, complete missile defense system.

Isaeal: Support Israel and not Palestine.

Latin-America: create Campaign for Economic Opportunity in Latin America and Hemispheric Joint Task Force on Crime and Terrorism. Their goal is to provide a partnership (economic, diplmoatic, and security) in exchange for fighting terrorism within their own countries.

Middle East: Support rebels that want democracy--resist jihadist. Non-militaristic intervention in Syria. Return to Bush's policy on Iraq (help them anyway they need it to become a successful country).

Russia: Review START, decrease Europe's energy reliance on Russia (technological assistance to help western Europeans tap shale oil, technical assistance to the Turkey-Austria pipeline), confront Russia on it's authoritarian practices, a Russian exchange program to seed democracy among the Russian population.

Sounds like every president all the way back to Reagan.

smh.

[Screaming Beaver]

What leverage do we have with Pakistan? We continue to need them more than they need us.

[FordGT90Concept]

A lot, we just choose not to use it.

[Fourstaff]

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

A lot, we just choose not to use it.

Not a lot imo, everytime they close the Khyber Pass US gets really sad and starts negotiating. With money in the right pockets US's influence becomes quite a lot though.

As for the bankers, I am with Ford on this. If your streets is completely controlled by gangsters its the government's fault for not able to enforce rule of law. Banksters run rampant because SEC failed to rein them in. Actually I wouldn't even blame SEC, US was so drunk with cash in the years before that they failed to see the problems, and crowd mentality took care of sceptics.

[FordGT90Concept]

...never realized how feminine that video is.

[Screaming Beaver]

One guys says the economy is improving the other not. You might think this is an election year lol.

I think if the economy stays the way it is (given the time left probably will), Obama has enough other strengths and Romney weaknesses to keep this race close. Seems it will come down to the debates to sway enough people to one side or the other. Hopefully they can avoid the standard talking points though I suppose I shouldn't hold my breath on that.

[FordGT90Concept]

I wouldn't make predictions until after the conventions. Most people are tuned out of the race until then.

[SK-1]

Are they really all that different?

• Illegal alien criminal Dream Amnesty?
• Romney – Y, Obama – Y, Paul – N
  
  
• Executive Ordered sodomite/lesbian “marriage?”
• Romney – Y, Obama – Y, Paul – N
  
  
• Subsidized student loans?
• Romney – Y, Obama – Y, Paul – N
  
  
• BAILED-OUT welfare queens as leading “contributors”?
• Romney – Y, Obama – Y, Paul – N
  
  
• Support TARP?
• Romney – Y, Obama – Y, Paul – N
  
  
• Support the “Patriot” Act?
• Romney – Y, Obama – Y, Paul – N
  
  
• Support gun-grabbing?
• Romney – Y, Obama – Y, Paul – N
  
  
• Supports abortion (when politically advantageous)?
• Romney – Y, Obama – Y, Paul – N
  
  
• State-funded abortion?
• Romney – Y, Obama – Y, Paul – N
  
  
• Chickenhawking?
• Romney – Y, Obama – Y, Paul – N
  
  
• Support NDAA?
• Romney – Y, Obama – Y, Paul – N
  
  
• Mandated purchase of healthcare?
• Romney – Y, Obama – Y, Paul – N
  
  
• Support PRIVATE Federal Reserve?
• Romney – Y, Obama – Y, Paul – N
  
  
• REJECTION of the Enumerated Powers?
• Romney – Y, Obama – Y, Paul – N
  
  
• REJECTION of the 10th?
• Romney – Y, Obama – Y, Paul – N
  
  
• LEFTIST judges?
• Romney – Y, Obama – Y, Paul – N

[Hate_Camel]

I find it kind of odd that the president smokes cigarettes and nobody really talks about it yet him smoking pot in college is the worst thing ever