2012 Race to the White House

[FordGT90Concept]

Originally Posted by Fourstaff

Iron, copper, gold, oil, materials have become harder and harder to dig out of the ground. Recycling is still not the norm.

Recycling costs money. When recycling costs less than digging, recycling will become the norm.

Originally Posted by Fourstaff

So you reject Adam Smith's theories, fine by me since its not proven

Adam Smith is irrelevant in the modern era where the economy is global. When one market crashes, the other do in kind. All modern economies are interlinked.

Originally Posted by Fourstaff

We tried that during Great Depression. That didn't come out too well.

No, we didn't. "Export" nor "trade" aren't keywords that come up in the discussion of the Great Depression. The only reason why what we are in now isn't consider a depression is because the global economy is recessed. Depressions only happen when a country falls way behind the average. Because of trade, we're all in this together; for better or for worse.

Originally Posted by Fourstaff

His record in Bain and Mass. is not too bad, I will give him credit and the benefit of doubt.

Thank you. God am I sick of talking about Bain especially.

Originally Posted by Fourstaff

So if you (or your loved ones) cannot foot the bill, then you deserve to die? If you cannot afford but someone else steps in and pay for your bill, you choose whether you want to die or does the "someone else" choose when to stop paying for your bill?

We're all going to die some day. It should be at our own expense and on our own terms.

EMTALA forbids denying treatment for inability to pay. Romney is not getting rid of that.

[Fourstaff]

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

Adam Smith is irrelevant in the modern era where the economy is global. When one market crashes, the other do in kind. All modern economies are interlinked.

Actually he covered that. One of the central tenants is specialisation, and by extension, some countries will specialise in doing one thing more than the others. Trade occurs, and equilibrium is reached even when one country is permanently on deficit compared to another. Even when this happens, its not a cause of concern as long as the deficit country's output (or growth, I can't remember) is more than the deficit.

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

No, we didn't. "Export" nor "trade" aren't keywords that come up in the discussion of the Great Depression. The only reason why what we are in now isn't consider a depression is because the global economy is recessed. Depressions only happen when a country falls way behind the average. Because of trade, we're all in this together; for better or for worse.

Protectionist policies prolonged the pain. Also, I think the employment fell only when WWII started and prodigious output is required to support the Allied war machine. I don't think war is a good reason for full employment, the anime "Dog Days" touches on that (among other things).

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

EMTALA forbids denying treatment for inability to pay. Romney is not getting rid of that.

Someone has to foot the bill regardless.

[FordGT90Concept]

Originally Posted by Fourstaff

Actually he covered that. One of the central tenants is specialisation, and by extension, some countries will specialise in doing one thing more than the others. Trade occurs, and equilibrium is reached even when one country is permanently on deficit compared to another. Even when this happens, its not a cause of concern as long as the deficit country's output (or growth, I can't remember) is more than the deficit.

I think what you're getting at is that trade deficits aren't a problem if both countries are growing. The problem with that theory is that the country with the deficit might be growing for reasons other than trade (e.g. rich gold, oil, diamond, etc. deposit discovered and exploited).

Originally Posted by Fourstaff

Protectionist policies prolonged the pain. Also, I think the employment fell only when WWII started and prodigious output is required to support the Allied war machine. I don't think war is a good reason for full employment, the anime "Dog Days" touches on that (among other things).

Yes, the general concensus is the Great Depression ended with WW2.

Originally Posted by Fourstaff

Someone has to foot the bill regardless.

Unless there is no bill.

This is the debate the states are going to have to take on. The last five years is proof hospitals can't be expected to foot the bill. The question is who then: volunteers, a MassHealth-like program, no one (deny treatment), or something entirely new? Each state will have to decide.

[Fourstaff]

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

I think what you're getting at is that trade deficits aren't a problem if both countries are growing. The problem with that theory is that the country with the deficit might be growing for reasons other than trade (e.g. rich gold, oil, diamond, etc. deposit discovered and exploited).

Country can be creating value. For example, Country A imports sand from country B, and nothing else (giving a net trade deficit). However, Country A makes silicon chips out of the sand, so its inhabitants can enjoy computers, smartphones, etc. There will be a constant outflow of monies from A to B, but then the inhabitants of A will be a lot better off than B. Now then, we know that country A is printing pieces of money to pay B for the sand, so the net "damage" to A is negligible. That is how I understand the problem as, whether its true or not I do not know.

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

Unless there is no bill.

We communist now?

[FordGT90Concept]

No bill = denied treatment.

That's purely capitalism and free market economy.

It's our socialist government that insists people can't be denied treatment and doesn't foot the bill when they are.

[Fourstaff]

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

No bill = denied treatment.

How can you be so heartless? John Doe has suffered an accident, he is bleeding to death and you refuse to treat him because you don't know whether he can afford to pay for the treatment? Hippocratic oath, what happened to it? :<

[FordGT90Concept]

I'm a realist. The realist in me also says that there is human overpopulation.

I believe first aid treatment (ambulance services) should be paid for with local tax dollars and no one should be denied. Where the issue arises is treatment after they arrive at the ER. I think ER doctors, just like any business, should have the right to turn away someone (customers that never pay, customers that cause problems, etc.). In the USA, there's hospitals everywhere--they can go to a different one just as a black-listed customer at one store can still shop in other stores.

Hippocratic oath revolves around patients. Being denied means you aren't a patient. FYI, Hippocratic oath forbids abortions (Democrats promote abortions)--very few doctors in the USA will perform abortions (~2%).

Getting way off topic here.

[jmcslob]

On "Meet the press" on 9/9/12 Mitt Romney says to a National Audience

“I’m not getting rid of all of health-care reform. Of course there are a number of things that I like in health-care reform that I’m going to put in place,” Romney said on NBC’s “Meet the Press”. “One is to make sure that those with pre-existing conditions can get coverage.”

Then afterwards his campaign quietly releases a statement

a Romney aide responded that there had been no change in Romney's position and that "in a competitive environment, the marketplace will make available plans that include coverage for what there is demand for. He was not proposing a federal mandate to require insurance plans to offer those particular features."

Fuck this guy!
He flipped on his flop one to many times....

Sources....Fuck it find it yourself!
you obviously have Internets and perhaps you fucktards that root for this piece of shit should start reading about how he is for and against everything he says about anything he said....

[erocker]

U mad? I vote for eliminating 99% of all government less the defense of our borders. Time to roll up yer sleeves!!!

[jmcslob]

Originally Posted by erocker

U mad? I vote for eliminating 99% of all government less the defense of our borders. Time to roll up yer sleeves!!!

I'm getting there...LOL....I mean grrrr

[SK-1]

Originally Posted by jmcslob

Sources....Fuck it find it yourself!
you obviously have Internets and perhaps you fucktards that root for this piece of shit should start reading about how he is for and against everything he says about anything he said....

Not sure where you get your bullshit, but my bullshit says your bullshit is full of shit...
And Ill be nice with a link.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins...ditions-aide-s

[jmcslob]

Originally Posted by SK-1

Not sure where you get your bullshit, but my bullshit says your bullshit is full of shit...
And Ill be nice with a link.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins...ditions-aide-s

http://img.techpowerup.org/120911/Capture289.jpg

Go all the way to the bottom of your link and read what it says between ( and )

edit: All you have to do is read the full title of the article....
All he is saying is that you can't be kicked off of the insurance you already have if you get sick and continue to pay for it....but if you have a lapse in coverage they can then deny you...which is exactly what we had before Obamacare...and that is not what he said on "Meet the Press".

and for fuck sakes do we need to write you guys a picture book for you to get it....Seriously with all the cartoons you post I'm starting to think in order to get through to conservatives we need to draw you guys a fuckin picture

Romney Will Insure Pre-Existing Conditions, Aide Says
But only for people who already have coverage. The campaign tries to clean up comments on NBC this morning.

[FordGT90Concept]

I think we should wait until Romney himself clarifies it.

[FordGT90Concept]

Moody's is now contemplating lowering USA's AAA credit rating:
U.S. credit rating hinges on Congress - Moody's

[yogurt_21]

Originally Posted by jmcslob

Go all the way to the bottom of your link and read what it says between ( and )

edit: All you have to do is read the full title of the article....
All he is saying is that you can't be kicked off of the insurance you already have if you get sick and continue to pay for it....but if you have a lapse in coverage they can then deny you...which is exactly what we had before Obamacare...and that is not what he said on "Meet the Press".

and for fuck sakes do we need to write you guys a picture book for you to get it....Seriously with all the cartoons you post I'm starting to think in order to get through to conservatives we need to draw you guys a fuckin picture

that's because not having covereage is a pre-existing condition lol.

[ninkobei]

[Screaming Beaver]

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

In most cases, they aren't "removing rights from women," they're giving rights to the unborn or being fiscally conservative.

I'd feel more respect for this position if Republicans didn't turn their back on the kid as soon as he goes from "unborn" to "born".

[SK-1]

[FordGT90Concept]

Interesting, but no substance. It pretty much just states a political position that they already prescribe to. Just more proof there is a huge US population with no love for Obama.

[Screaming Beaver]

It means he wants the president assassinated or at least just wants the idea in the back of your mind. As Obama is clearly a secret radical Muslim or at least sympathetic to them than clearly Seal Team 6 needs to go after one more threat to this country...

[ninkobei]

I love the latest banter between Obama and Romney:

​​In a hastily organized news conference Wednesday afternoon, Romney said "it's never too early to condemn attacks on Americans and defend our values."

And Obama's response

"You know, Governor Romney seems to have a tendency to shoot first and aim later."

It just shows that Romney is out of his league in this face off.

[FordGT90Concept]

I see nothing wrong with what you quoted from Romney. I see a lack of leadership (childish attack) in what you quoted from Obama. How does that make Romney "out of his league." Putting Obama on a pedastal, are we?

That aside, Romney did screw up by commenting too soon:
GOP senator questions timing of Romney statement

Originally Posted by Screaming Beaver

It means he wants the president assassinated or at least just wants the idea in the back of your mind. As Obama is clearly a secret radical Muslim or at least sympathetic to them than clearly Seal Team 6 needs to go after one more threat to this country...

They addressed that at the end of the video. They've since added "vote to" to the beginning of it.

[FordGT90Concept]

Obama's mixed record on trade

Exports: Rising under Obama.

Trade gap (exports versus imports): Rising under Obama.

Trade with China : Trade gap is the largest it has ever been and growing. They encouraged the Chinese yuan to separate from the dollar valuation though. Obama administration filed more trade cases with China than Bush did.

Free trade agreements: Obama signed 3 into law that were largely drafted by Bush. He hasn't passed any of his own.


Obama Campaign Taps Cash Reserves, Adds Debt in July

Obama can't even stop drowning his own campaign in debt ($2.8 million and counting). Anything to win, right? RIGHT!?!


Federal Reserve launches QE3

Bernanke called the jobs market a "grave concern."

No one except Wall Street seems to be happy about this. "Quantitative Easing" is the rabit the Fed pulled out of a hat when they ran out of all other options. Along that line of thought...

Martin Feldstein: What worries me about QE

I wonder how well Obama and Romney understand the Fed. It goes without saying, we got an economic shit storm brewing due to the "jobless recovery."

[ninkobei]

Classic Mitt

Romney has a long-term habit of saying and doing stuff that is incomprehensible to a normal person. Just try to imagine the mental process of being a presidential candidate and insulting cookies supplied by a local bakery. Why would you ever do that? It's like refusing to kiss a baby and telling the mother her kid is ugly. And he's been doing that for years. There's an amazing story from back in 1994 when he was running for Senate against Ted Kennedy, and he visited a shelter for homeless veterans. As he was leaving he asked the shelter director what he most needed, and the director replied that the state didn't allocate enough money to buy milk for all the veterans to drink. Romney told him, "Well Ken, maybe you can teach the vets to milk cows," and then walked right out.

The comment was publicized, and local dairies made donations to the shelter. A few months later, Romney anonymously donated money to cover half the shelter's milk costs for a few years. I don't think he deserves much credit for figuring out how to be a decent person only after he was publicly humiliated, though.

This is, again, a thing that you would never say unless you were a deeply twisted human being. Even if you were thinking "these mooching-ass vets can go to hell, BOOTSTRAPS!", you'd have the sense to shut your mouth and never actually say it. Unless you were Mitt Romney.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczyn...eys-milk-gaffe

By all accounts Mitt Romney’s 1994 trip to the nation’s largest homeless shelter was accurately described by the Boston Globe as “not one of the brighter moments of his campaign for US senator.” Romney was visiting the homeless shelter, located in Boston, by invitation of the shelter’s executive director Ken Smith.

“I invited both Kennedy and Romney to the shelter and since both were based out of Boston, it got onto both of their busy schedules to come and take a tour of our facility and have a talk with the hundreds of homeless veterans who lived at the shelter,” Smith wrote in January.

Smith reported that Kennedy’s visit to the shelter had gone routinely saying that his visit was brief and that he seemed generally impressed with the good work they had done with an old VA hospital.

“He congratulated us on our programs and promised if he was elected to the senate for another term, he would befriend the shelter and that’s exactly what he did,” Smith wrote.

The shelter was similar to a “boot camp” for homeless veterans and Smith explained to Romney that homeless vets were expected to "get tough or get out," during his visit after Kennedy's.

It was at the end of Romney’s visit that his notorious gaffe occurred. Romney was preparing to leave the shelter, so he pulled Smith aside, in front of the media, to ask him his biggest problem at the shelter.

Smith replied “milk.”

Smith explained that the State of Massachusetts allocated $2.37 per day twice a day for each homeless veteran’s meal. Since the amount was so meager, the shelter had trouble providing each veteran with a carton of milk at each meal.

Romney responded “well Ken, maybe you can teach the vets to milk cows.” Romney then walked out the door.

Smith’s was befuddled. A local reporter, equally stunned, came over to Smith to ask if he heard what he had thought.

A week later Smith received a call from his shelter’s milk supplier. An anonymous donor had agreed to pay half the shelter’s milk costs, for the next several years.

Years later, Smith found out that Mitt Romney was the anonymous donor, paying the costs out of his own pocket

[ninkobei]

Republicans are really glad about this one, I am sure:
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...nia/?mobile=nc

Twenty Hours of Work & Two Trips To The DMV: What It Takes To Get Voter ID In Pennsylvania

By Aviva Shen on Sep 12, 2012 at 10:10 am

Shortly before the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court upheld the state’s contentious voter ID law, State Senator Vincent Hughes (D-PA) predicted chaos, saying it was “unequivocally clear that the state cannot pull this off by Election Day.” Now, as the state Supreme Court prepares to hear the case on Thursday, Hughes’ warning has born out. ABC News reports that Pennsylvania’s DMVs are swamped by residents trying to get the appropriate government-issued ID before November 6.

The state has issued 72,000 IDs specifically obtained for voting purposes since the law was enacted in March. To get a non-driver ID, a resident must provide their birth certificate, a Social Security card, and two documents proving residency. Even to obtain an voting only ID card, which was introduced in late August as an effort to accommodate the thousands of Pennsylvanians without ID, the state requires a Social Security number, proof of residence and a signed affidavit pledging the voter cannot get another kind of ID. These requirements are translating into hours-long lines at the DMV and Social Security office, multiple trips to obtain birth certificates and affidavits, and many miles of driving for many rural Pennsylvanians.

ABC News interviewed one man who was struggling to navigate his 87-year-old mother through the burdensome process:

Voters who have the six types of documents necessary to apply for the state ID card have limited time to apply. For residents of 13 counties, there is only one day per week that the DMV is open to apply for an ID. And in 10 more counties it’s only open two days per week.

For Klincewicz and his 87-year-old mother that limited schedule meant two days of trying in order to get her the ID required to vote, after she mistakenly surrendered her state ID because of a Department of Transportation error. Klincewicz’s wife had to make two trips to the DMV where she and her mother-in-law, Jisele, waited upwards of four hours to get the ID. All told, he and his wife spent more than 20 hours making phone calls, writing emails, driving to the DMV and waiting in lines to get his mother’s ID reinstated so she could vote in November, Klincewicz said.

Another ID-less elderly voter in Pennsylvania attracted attention on Twitter yesterday after his son, Jim Cramer of CNBC’s Mad Money, tweeted about their problems getting access to the right documents. The state is also feeling the burden, as the State Department estimates they have spent about $100,000 issuing free IDs to low-income residents.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court will hold a hearing addressing the constitutionality of the law on Thursday at 9:30 am after a lower court upheld the law based on a flimsy precedent from 1868 which warned against letting “rogues and strumpets” and “wandering Arabs” vote. Courts have already blocked similar laws in Texas and Wisconsin, while South Carolina’s ID requirement is currently under review.