President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[The Sushi Hunter]

As long as the unions are involved, the American Auto industry is doomed.

Look at the big big picture here. How much does it cost, for example, Chrysler to build just one vehicle. What is the entire overhead cost, such as employee pay, benefits, overtime, health insurance, past employee expenses such as pensions, retirements, materials to build the cars, research and development, utility expenses, licensing, permits, etc. etc. After listing completely all cost, operations, materials, research and development, etc. and compare it to how much each car is sold for. I don't have exact figures, but then again who does? I would say that for every dollar that is spent by the auto company, they only get back 10%, 15% or maybe even 20% of it, the other 90%, 85%, or 80% goes to operational cost, materials cost, and loss such as cars not being sold that were assembled and shipped out to dealerships, but never sold at sticker price so they were sold at autoauction for pennies on the dollar.

If they want to help the auto industry, they need to do a seriious restructure and overhaul of the entire industry, starting with getting rid of the union. Because the union makes the workers go on strike for more salary, benefits, retirement & pention, etc. Because they have such jobs as a guy standing on a production line with a sole purpose of checking to see if all the lug nuts are on each tire and is being paid $100 per hour, not to mention all the benefits, and the car is then only sold for a fraction of what the company paid out to manufacture it. Sure that's an important job, but it shouldn't pay more than $15 to $20 per hour to do it either. That's the problem, and throwing vast amounts of taxpayer money at it isn't doing anything but prolong the situation and making the union more rich.

[The Sushi Hunter]

I've not heard anyone complain about how much taxes the casino's pay or don't pay. That is one thing that should be addressed. Casino's bring in millions upon millions per day collectively across the US, yet most of them are exempt from paying taxes or are at a very low tax rate. And what is the goods traded? How much does it really cost to deal cards or roll dice? People flock to give out their money to the casino's. It's not like the casino's have a real product that they have to pay suppliers for materials, pay someone to build for them, transport to distributors, etc. etc. and people who spend their money at these places aren't walking out with any products. I say they need to hit thise fucking casino's hard with a higher tax percent. 50% right off the top. Casino's go out of business? No problem, people would be better off saving their money instead of blowing it on card and dice games.

[The Sushi Hunter]

The local democratic organization in my area rented out this old run down piece of shit building that used to be the Salvation Army.. They have it all decorated wtih tons of Demcrat signage and stuff. I've walked or drove past it at least 20 times now in the past week at various times of the day and day of the week. It's a complete ghost town in there. Only one or two middle aged hags sitting at a desk inside waiting for someone to come in. Wonder where all the "Hope", "Change", and "Blame" supporters are?

[Rick]

http://news.yahoo.com/executives-obama- ... iness.html

Obama better for world economy: poll

LONDON (Reuters) - Twice as many business executives around the world say the global economy will prosper better if incumbent President Barack Obama wins the next election than if his Republican challenger Mitt Romney does, a poll showed on Friday.

Democrat Obama was chosen by 42.7 percent in the 1,700 respondent poll, compared with 20.5 percent for Romney. The rest said "neither".

The result was different among respondents in the United States, where a slim majority thought Romney would be better for their businesses than Obama.

Obama maintains a seven-point lead over Romney among registered voters in the race for the November 6 presidential election, despite the fact Americans are increasingly pessimistic about the future, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted last week.

The FT poll was conducted before Romney picked Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan as his vice presidential running mate at the weekend, a move that could dramatically shift the election debate between two sharply contrasting views of government spending and debt.

Romney's choice for running mate gave him no immediate boost to his White House prospects, a Reuters/Ipsos poll suggested on Monday.

(Reporting by Andy Bruce. Editing by Jeremy Gaunt.)

[conversationpc]

http://news.yahoo.com/executives-obama-better-world-economy-poll-092717460--business.html

Obama better for world economy: poll

LONDON (Reuters) - Twice as many business executives around the world say the global economy will prosper better if incumbent President Barack Obama wins the next election than if his Republican challenger Mitt Romney does, a poll showed on Friday.

Democrat Obama was chosen by 42.7 percent in the 1,700 respondent poll, compared with 20.5 percent for Romney. The rest said "neither".

The result was different among respondents in the United States, where a slim majority thought Romney would be better for their businesses than Obama.

Obama maintains a seven-point lead over Romney among registered voters in the race for the November 6 presidential election, despite the fact Americans are increasingly pessimistic about the future, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted last week.

The FT poll was conducted before Romney picked Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan as his vice presidential running mate at the weekend, a move that could dramatically shift the election debate between two sharply contrasting views of government spending and debt.

Romney's choice for running mate gave him no immediate boost to his White House prospects, a Reuters/Ipsos poll suggested on Monday.

(Reporting by Andy Bruce. Editing by Jeremy Gaunt.)

Who cares what the rest of the world thinks? What matters is what people here think and I'm pretty sure a majority of business executives here think an Obama loss would be better.

[Rick]

GALLUP : ROMNEY 47% OBAMA 45%

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150743/Obama-Romney.aspx

This is going to be interesting.

[Rick]

http://news.yahoo.com/executives-obama-better-world-economy-poll-092717460--business.html

Obama better for world economy: poll

LONDON (Reuters) - Twice as many business executives around the world say the global economy will prosper better if incumbent President Barack Obama wins the next election than if his Republican challenger Mitt Romney does, a poll showed on Friday.

Democrat Obama was chosen by 42.7 percent in the 1,700 respondent poll, compared with 20.5 percent for Romney. The rest said "neither".

The result was different among respondents in the United States, where a slim majority thought Romney would be better for their businesses than Obama.

Obama maintains a seven-point lead over Romney among registered voters in the race for the November 6 presidential election, despite the fact Americans are increasingly pessimistic about the future, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted last week.

The FT poll was conducted before Romney picked Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan as his vice presidential running mate at the weekend, a move that could dramatically shift the election debate between two sharply contrasting views of government spending and debt.

Romney's choice for running mate gave him no immediate boost to his White House prospects, a Reuters/Ipsos poll suggested on Monday.

(Reporting by Andy Bruce. Editing by Jeremy Gaunt.)

Who cares what the rest of the world thinks? What matters is what people here think and I'm pretty sure a majority of business executives here think an Obama loss would be better.

Yeah, for them. They can continue to depress the middle class by reducing wages and benefits a lot easier with Romney in.

[Rick]

http://news.yahoo.com/executives-obama-better-world-economy-poll-092717460--business.html

Obama better for world economy: poll

LONDON (Reuters) - Twice as many business executives around the world say the global economy will prosper better if incumbent President Barack Obama wins the next election than if his Republican challenger Mitt Romney does, a poll showed on Friday.

Democrat Obama was chosen by 42.7 percent in the 1,700 respondent poll, compared with 20.5 percent for Romney. The rest said "neither".

The result was different among respondents in the United States, where a slim majority thought Romney would be better for their businesses than Obama.

Obama maintains a seven-point lead over Romney among registered voters in the race for the November 6 presidential election, despite the fact Americans are increasingly pessimistic about the future, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted last week.

The FT poll was conducted before Romney picked Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan as his vice presidential running mate at the weekend, a move that could dramatically shift the election debate between two sharply contrasting views of government spending and debt.

Romney's choice for running mate gave him no immediate boost to his White House prospects, a Reuters/Ipsos poll suggested on Monday.

(Reporting by Andy Bruce. Editing by Jeremy Gaunt.)

Who cares what the rest of the world thinks? What matters is what people here think and I'm pretty sure a majority of business executives here think an Obama loss would be better.

Yeah, for them. They can continue to depress the middle class by reducing wages and benefits a lot easier with Romney in.

So who was POTUS when this happened Rick?

"On November 29, 2011, AMR Corporation and certain of its affiliates (the "Debtors") filed voluntary petitions for relief under chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code."

Any blame for the Won Rick, or did Bush and evil Pubbies do this too? Or, did the Unions over play their hand?

They filed for bankruptcy with 5 billion dollars on the bank. This is nothing but a cash grab for upper management. They stand to get between 300 and 600 million in bonuses when they exit bankruptcy. All off the backs of their workers. You tell me how that's fair. I can blame Obama for not doing something to change laws that permit that shit. I have no problem with that.

The Republicans, however, want to take from the poor and give to the rich in the form of taxation. They also want to end all entitlements. Entitlements? How is that something I pay into is an entitlement? And what do they think they live on? UFB.

[Memorex]

They filed for bankruptcy with 5 billion dollars on the bank. This is nothing but a cash grab for upper management. They stand to get between 300 and 600 million in bonuses when they exit bankruptcy. All off the backs of their workers. You tell me how that's fair. I can blame Obama for not doing something to change laws that permit that shit. I have no problem with that.

The Republicans, however, want to take from the poor and give to the rich in the form of taxation. They also want to end all entitlements. Entitlements? How is that something I pay into is an entitlement? And what do they think they live on? UFB.

Rick - this is so, so wrong - but the Dems have been very good at making people believe this. Trimming down and reigning in entitlements is not wanting to do away with them. I think all people believe that there is a SMALL subset of people that need help. But certainly not the numbers we are seeing these days. So what's wrong with cracking down on fraud and waste and ensuring people are more responsible. You and i both know the system is overloaded with people that can provide for themselves if they tried. Not ALL of them, a lot of them.

And no one wants to take from the poor and give to the rich, especially not via taxes. They need the rich to keep the economy going. In any case, when 50% of the country does not pay income taxes, I'm not sure how you can see it as unfair to the poor.

This is where people take the rhetoric and act like it is fact. Bothersome. And I'll say that the same is true for Republicans on the Social Issues side. Gay marriage is never going to result in you being allowed to marry a small boy or a dog. So stop repeating the lines.

[conversationpc]

The Republicans, however, want to take from the poor and give to the rich in the form of taxation. They also want to end all entitlements. Entitlements? How is that something I pay into is an entitlement? And what do they think they live on? UFB.

I'm no fan of the Republican party these days but this line is utter bullcrap. The rates for the rich remain higher than those for the poor and always have been. When Bush's tax cuts took effect, they took effect for everyone, not just the rich. And as far as ending all entitlements, not only do the Republicans not want to end them but, unfortunately, neither party has even really gotten serious about reforming them, which is exactly what needs to be done.

[Rick]

The Republicans, however, want to take from the poor and give to the rich in the form of taxation.

Talk about UFB...the poor don't pay any taxes Rick. 47% of this country doesn't pay taxes and 90% of ALL GOV Money comes from the top 10%.

What I've read is 37% don't pay any, which is way too high of a percentage also. I do agree that everyone should pay taxes. I'm just not into the Republican way of thinking of giving tax breaks to people who can clearly afford to pay them, and not giving a crap about people who're struggling to pay their electric bills.

And I agree with you, Dave, there definitely needs to be reform, where people who are capable of working, should, and not live off of the government. I have no argument with that at all.

[Memorex]

I think tax breaks should always be limited to a certain period of time. For example, the tax breaks for buying certain cars not too long ago. It served it's purpose and ended. These never ending breaks should be eliminated completely.

[ForceInfinity]

I'll say it once and I'll say it again, who gives a shit whose president when the economy is carrying a certain unemployment rate. President Obama is no more at fault for what happened than President Bush was for his mess. The president doesn't set the budget. The president doesn't set the taxes. The president doesn't create the laws. That's the members of Congress that pass the laws. So if anyone here wants to bitch about how de-regulation did this, or something else did that, look Congress square in the eye and ask them. You elected them. They passed the laws. Anyone who thinks a president can magically do all these things are putting Obama and Bush on the same level of Chuck Norris and is in serious need of a refresher on the American government.

Fact Finder's statements about the poor not paying any tax is incomplete. 47% maybe don't pay a federal income tax but that doesn't tell the whole story. Most people who earns wages (except for some government related employees) pays a social security and medicare tax (believe it or not, a "generally" income tax although FICA has its quirks). *everybody* either direclty or indirectly pays a property tax (where do you think part of your rent goes to?). *Everybody* who buys something indirectly pays that corporation's taxes. Most people (except those in OR, DE, MT, and a few other states I can't remember) pays a sales tax. Every time you gas up somewhere (which is most people), you're paying a federal and possibly state excise tax, and I think occasionally a local one. Everyone pays for license/registration (which is a form of tax).

For the record, I prefer that *everyone* making income pays an income tax at the same rate as everyone else and we get rid of all tax breaks. At least that way *everyone* has skin in the game and no one group feels like they're being leaned on or getting an advantage at the expense of others.

[slucero]

I'd prefer a consumption tax of some sort... we really, really need to incent people to save...

[Rick]

For the record, I prefer that *everyone* making income pays an income tax at the same rate as everyone else and we get rid of all tax breaks. At least that way *everyone* has skin in the game and no one group feels like they're being leaned on or getting an advantage at the expense of others.

I agree with this. Why this hasn't happened doesn't make sense to me. But I'm not sure what does make sense to me..

[Rick]

Here. Y'all can beat this article up if you want.

http://economistsview.typepad.com/econo ... story.html

Ryan's Budget: The Most Fraudulent Proposal in American History



Paul Krugman on Paul Ryan:

Ludicrous and Cruel, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: ...Many commentators swooned earlier this week after House Republicans, led by the Budget Committee chairman, Paul Ryan, unveiled their budget proposals. They lavished praise on Mr. Ryan, asserting that his plan set a new standard of fiscal seriousness.

Well, they should have waited until people who know how to read budget numbers had a chance to study the proposal. For the G.O.P. plan turns out not to be serious at all. Instead, it’s simultaneously ridiculous and heartless. ...

In the past, Mr. Ryan has talked a good game about taking care of those in need. But as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities points out, of the $4 trillion in spending cuts he proposes over the next decade, two-thirds involve cutting programs that mainly serve low-income Americans. And by repealing last year’s health reform, without any replacement, the plan would also deprive an estimated 34 million nonelderly Americans of health insurance.

So the pundits who praised this proposal when it was released were punked. The G.O.P. budget plan isn’t a good-faith effort to put America’s fiscal house in order; it’s voodoo economics, with an extra dose of fantasy, and a large helping of mean-spiritedness. ...

And:

Fiscal Phonies, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: ...Until now the attack of the fiscal phonies has been mainly a national rather than a state issue, with Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, as the prime example. As regular readers of this column know, Mr. Ryan has somehow acquired a reputation as a stern fiscal hawk despite offering budget proposals that, far from being focused on deficit reduction, are mainly about cutting taxes for the rich while slashing aid to the poor and unlucky. In fact, once you strip out Mr. Ryan’s “magic asterisks” — claims that he will somehow increase revenues and cut spending in ways that he refuses to specify — what you’re left with are plans that would increase, not reduce, federal debt.

The same can be said of Mitt Romney, who claims that he will balance the budget but whose actual proposals consist mainly of huge tax cuts (for corporations and the wealthy, of course) plus a promise not to cut defense spending.

Both Mr. Ryan and Mr. Romney, then, are fake deficit hawks. And the evidence for their fakery isn’t just their bad arithmetic; it’s the fact that for all their alleged deep concern over budget gaps, that concern isn’t sufficient to induce them to give up anything — anything at all — that they and their financial backers want. They’re willing to snatch food from the mouths of babes (literally, via cuts in crucial nutritional aid programs), but that’s a positive from their point of view — the social safety net, says Mr. Ryan, should not become “a hammock that lulls able-bodied people to lives of dependency and complacency.” Maintaining low taxes on profits and capital gains, and indeed cutting those taxes further, are, however, sacrosanct. ...

And:

Pink Slime Economics: ...Republicans in the House of Representatives passed what was surely the most fraudulent budget in American history.

And when I say fraudulent, I mean just that. The trouble with the budget devised by Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, isn’t just its almost inconceivably cruel priorities, the way it slashes taxes for corporations and the rich while drastically cutting food and medical aid to the needy. Even aside from all that, the Ryan budget purports to reduce the deficit — but the alleged deficit reduction depends on the completely unsupported assertion that trillions of dollars in revenue can be found by closing tax loopholes.

And we’re talking about a lot of loophole-closing. As Howard Gleckman of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center points out, to make his numbers work Mr. Ryan would, by 2022, have to close enough loopholes to yield an extra $700 billion in revenue every year. That’s a lot of money, even in an economy as big as ours. So which specific loopholes has Mr. Ryan, who issued a 98-page manifesto on behalf of his budget, said he would close?

None. Not one. He has, however, categorically ruled out any move to close the major loophole that benefits the rich, namely the ultra-low tax rates on income from capital. (That’s the loophole that lets Mitt Romney pay only 14 percent of his income in taxes, a lower tax rate than that faced by many middle-class families.)

So what are we to make of this proposal? Mr. Gleckman calls it a “mystery meat budget,” but he’s being unfair to mystery meat. ...

So the Ryan budget is a fraud; Mr. Ryan talks loudly about the evils of debt and deficits, but his plan would actually make the deficit bigger even as it inflicted huge pain in the name of deficit reduction. But is his budget really the most fraudulent in American history? Yes, it is.

To be sure, we’ve had irresponsible and/or deceptive budgets in the past. Ronald Reagan’s budgets relied on voodoo, on the claim that cutting taxes on the rich would somehow lead to an explosion of economic growth. George W. Bush’s budget officials liked to play bait and switch, low-balling the cost of tax cuts by pretending that they were only temporary, then demanding that they be made permanent. But has any major political figure ever premised his entire fiscal platform not just on totally implausible spending projections but on claims that he has a secret plan to raise trillions of dollars in revenue, a plan that he refuses to share with the public?

What’s going on here? The answer, presumably, is that this is what happens when extremists gain complete control of a party’s discourse: all the rules get thrown out the window. Indeed, the hard right’s grip on the G.O.P. is now so strong that the party is sticking with Mr. Ryan even though it’s paying a significant political price for his assault on Medicare.

If you think the middle class has it too good, too much security, taxes aren't high enough, not enough fear of unemployment, too much help for education, and so on, while the wealthy haven't been coddled enough in recent years, not enough tax cuts, too little upward redistribution of income, not enough bank bailouts, etc., etc., then the Republican proposals should make you happy.

If the Democrats can't make Ryan's views on Medicare and Social Security an issue in the campaign, if they allow Republicans to falsely claim that they are trying to save these critical programs rather than cutting them as much as they can get away with, they deserve to lose.

[ForceInfinity]

I don't know if the Health Care Plan will bring down Medicare/Medicaid so much as the fact that you need doctors that will actually accept Medicare/Medicaid, and there are a dearth of PCP's to begin with and having so many *new* people coming online won't help matters much. You don't have that many PCP's because they pay is nowhere near what a specialist can take in. On top of that, part of the reason PCPs stack so many patients is that they *have to* to make ends meet and at least make a living. Given how low the reimbursement rates are from Medicare/Medicaid, I see nothing to reverse this trend. Assuming the government keeps patching the reimbursement payments, either we're going to have to bring many more people into the payroll (which we can't do indefinitely due to many cities running into water/resource problems), or the Medicare tax has to go up, -or- we do what I'm sure many Libertarians would like and that is get rid of Medicare/Medicaid altogether. Given we spend 3 trillion (2 of which is covered by FICA, Medicare, Medicaid and Interest), and are only taking in 2 trillion, something's going to give.

[slucero]

Shhhh… It’s Even Worse Than The Great Depression



According to Wikipedia, Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) affects one percent of the population and has little to do with looking at yourself in the mirror. It has a lot to do with unrealistic fantasies of success, power and intelligence. Some NPD sufferers become cult leaders or mass murderers, the rest become economists and policy-makers. Despite having a highly elevated sense of self-worth, narcissists have fragile self-esteem and handle criticism unpredictably, so let’s keep this to ourselves….

Velocity of money is the frequency with which a unit of money is spent on new goods and services. It is a far better indicator of economic activity than GDP, consumer prices, the stock market, or sales of men’s underwear (which Greenspan was fond of ogling). In a healthy economy, the same dollar is collected as payment and subsequently spent many times over. In a depression, the velocity of money goes catatonic. Velocity of money is calculated by simply dividing GDP by a given money supply. This VoM chart using monetary base should end any discussion of what ”this” is and whether or not anybody should be using the word “recovery” with a straight face:



In just four short years, our “enlightened” policy-makers have slowed money velocity to depths never seen in the Great Depression. Hard to believe, but the guy who made a career out of Monday-morning quarterbacking the Great Depression has already proven himself a bigger idiot than all of his predecessors (and in less than half the time!!). During the Great Depression, monetary base was expanded in response to slowing economic activity, in other words it was reactive (here’s a graph) .



They waited until the forest was ablaze before breaking out the hoses, and for that they’ve been rightly criticized. Our “proactive” Fed elected to hose down a forest that wasn’t actually on fire, with gasoline, and the results speak for themselves. With the IMF recently lowering its 2012 US GDP growth forecast to 2%, while the monetary base is expanding at about a 5% clip, know that velocity of money is grinding lower every time you breathe.

The Fed’s refusal to recognize the importance of velocity of money quickly goes from idiotic to insidious. Here’s a question: If I give you 50¢ and as a result of that transaction, you owe me $1.00, what interest rate have I charged you? Obviously, I’ve charged you 100% interest and I don’t give a rat’s ass about you or your kids. I’m pure evil and you’re pure stupid. But believe it or not, this kind of master-slave arrangement isn’t enough to satisfy a true narcissist. The narcissist needs to be exalted for his actions, no matter how unjust.

In 2011, every dollar of GDP growth created $2.08 in debt.

In real life, that’s 108% interest plus the nominal rate, and our twisted leaders want you say, “Thank you sir, may I have another!”

[Behshad]

You forgot your favorite !

[The Sushi Hunter]

Wonder whose bush that really is?

[conversationpc]

Here. Y'all can beat this article up if you want.

http://economistsview.typepad.com/econo ... story.html

Ryan's Budget: The Most Fraudulent Proposal in American History



Paul Krugman...

That's about as far as I needed to read.

[slucero]

Here. Y'all can beat this article up if you want.

http://economistsview.typepad.com/econo ... story.html

Ryan's Budget: The Most Fraudulent Proposal in American History



Paul Krugman...

That's about as far as I needed to read.

Krugman is a retard wrapped in a skinsuit...

[slucero]

So much for GM's supposed 1.5B in "profit"... being from overseas sales.. (china)

China Confronts Mounting Piles of Unsold Goods
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/busin ... ml?_r=1&hp

The Chinese auto industry has grown tenfold in the last decade to become the world’s largest, looking like a formidable challenger to Detroit. But now, the Chinese industry is starting to look more like Detroit in its dark days in the 1980s.

Inventories of unsold cars are soaring at dealerships across the nation, and the Chinese industry’s problems show every sign of growing worse, not better. So many auto factories have opened in China in the last two years that the industry is operating at only about 65 percent of capacity — far below the 80 percent usually needed for profitability.


Yet so many new factories are being built that, according to the Chinese government’s National Development and Reform Commission, the country’s auto manufacturing capacity is on track to increase again in the next three years by an amount equal to all the auto factories in Japan, or nearly all the auto factories in the United States.

“I worry that we’re going down the same road the U.S. went down, and it takes quite some time to fix that,” said Geoff Broderick, the general manager of Asian operations at J. D. Power & Associates, the global consulting firm.



Automakers in China have reported that the number of cars they sold at wholesale to dealers rose by nearly 600,000 units, or 9 percent, in the first half of this year compared to the same period last year. Yet dealerships’ inventories of new cars rose 900,000 units, to 2.2 million, from the end of December to the end of June.



While part of the increase is seasonal, auto analysts say that the data shows that retail sales are flat at best and most likely declining — a sharp reversal for an industry accustomed to double-digit annual growth.

“Inventory levels for us now are very, very high,” said Huang Yi, the chairman of Zhongsheng Group, China’s fifth-largest dealership chain. “If I hadn’t done special offers in the first half of this year, my inventory would be even higher.”

Manufacturers have largely refused to cut production, and are putting heavy pressure on dealers to accept delivery of cars under their franchise agreements even though many dealers are struggling to find places to park them or ways to finance their swelling inventories. This prompted the government-controlled China Automobile Dealers Association to issue a rare appeal to automakers earlier this month.

So GM reports record "profits" of $1.5 Billion... mostly from China.. because US sales aren't there yet...


but...

GM China claims "the number of cars they sold at wholesale to dealers rose by nearly 600,000 units"

while...

"dealerships’ inventories of new cars rose 900,000 units, to 2.2 million"

hmmm... lessee

600,000 (sold at wholesale to dealers) - 900,000 (new cars in dealer inventories) = -300,000 more cars on dealer lots than were shipped (sold)

and a profit of $1.5B??? How do they do that?

ANSWER: By counting vehicles as "sold" (2.2 million) when they leave the factory... or more accurately...

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

Here. Y'all can beat this article up if you want.

http://economistsview.typepad.com/econo ... story.html

Ryan's Budget: The Most Fraudulent Proposal in American History



Paul Krugman...

That's about as far as I needed to read.

Krugman is a retard wrapped in a skinsuit...

Now now boys there are lot of good things you can learn from Paul Krugman:

1- how to avoid using a logical argument and how to "beg the question"
2- how to engage in personal and ad hominem attacks
3- how to be dogmatic and stubborn and to place your ideology over a quest for truth
4- how to make up facts when you need to
5- how to engage in blind idol worship (to someone like Keynes)

Pretty damn good skills to have in these modern times!

[The Sushi Hunter]

Goes to show how far voting simply on the words of "hope" and "change gets you. In '09 the vast majority of Obama voters were college kids with no experiences in the "real world" besides playing skink finger with one another in the beanie pit in the band shak. They are young and easy prey for his vote. Most of the other voters did so only because of his color. And now we see just how far all of those factors got us over the past three and a half years.

[conversationpc]

This is freaking hilarious...

Anderson Cooper vs. Debbie Wasserman Schultz

[slucero]

...In '09 the vast majority of Obama voters were college kids

actually not true...

In the 2008 election:

70% of current college students (18-29) were registered to vote, and
87% of the registered students (18-29) cast a ballot on Election Day.

This was the highest turnout of registered students (18-29) since at least 1984 (see graph below).




This represented 21.4% of eligible voters in 2008, up from 20.9% in 2004


http://www.civicyouth.org/college-stude ... 7-in-2008/

21.4 - 20.9 = a .05 increase....

That's not a "a vast majority.....

[ForceInfinity]

Latest polls show U.S. Senate shifting sharply for Republican majority

Elections 2012
August 23, 2012

http://www.examiner.com/article/latest- ... n-majority

I find it funny (and honestly both sides are guilty of this) where if you're on the winning side of the pole, they say "that confirms we're doing well" and if you're on the losing side, it's always "the voters haven't spoken yet" or "the polls lie". They are such tenuous things where all it takes is some sex scandal, an incredibly bad verbal faux pas, an Iran/Israeli war and the whole shootin match changes.

I'll be glad when the election is over. The one huge downside to being registered as a non-partisan (because I detest both parties to be honest) is that I get constantly harrassed by both parties anyway because I'm an "independent" voter (one of the joys of living in a swing state like Nevada I suppose).

[The Sushi Hunter]

And that's why I said a few weeks back on this thread that all these graphs, charts, etc. don't mean a thing to me until after the results of the election. After the election, I will then analyze these graphs, charts, etc. for trend purposes only.

Latest polls show U.S. Senate shifting sharply for Republican majority

Elections 2012
August 23, 2012

http://www.examiner.com/article/latest- ... n-majority

I find it funny (and honestly both sides are guilty of this) where if you're on the winning side of the pole, they say "that confirms we're doing well" and if you're on the losing side, it's always "the voters haven't spoken yet" or "the polls lie". They are such tenuous things where all it takes is some sex scandal, an incredibly bad verbal faux pas, an Iran/Israeli war and the whole shootin match changes.

I'll be glad when the election is over. The one huge downside to being registered as a non-partisan (because I detest both parties to be honest) is that I get constantly harrassed by both parties anyway because I'm an "independent" voter (one of the joys of living in a swing state like Nevada I suppose).

[slucero]

And that's why I said a few weeks back on this thread that all these graphs, charts, etc. don't mean a thing to me until after the results of the election. After the election, I will then analyze these graphs, charts, etc. for trend purposes only.

Latest polls show U.S. Senate shifting sharply for Republican majority

Elections 2012
August 23, 2012

http://www.examiner.com/article/latest- ... n-majority

I find it funny (and honestly both sides are guilty of this) where if you're on the winning side of the pole, they say "that confirms we're doing well" and if you're on the losing side, it's always "the voters haven't spoken yet" or "the polls lie". They are such tenuous things where all it takes is some sex scandal, an incredibly bad verbal faux pas, an Iran/Israeli war and the whole shootin match changes.

I'll be glad when the election is over. The one huge downside to being registered as a non-partisan (because I detest both parties to be honest) is that I get constantly harrassed by both parties anyway because I'm an "independent" voter (one of the joys of living in a swing state like Nevada I suppose).

yer not making any sense...

1st you say:

...In '09 the vast majority of Obama voters were college kids

I show you hard, after-the-fact evidence that your opinion is based on no fact at all... and now you say:

....all these graphs, charts, etc. don't mean a thing to me until after the results of the election. After the election, I will then analyze these graphs, charts, etc. for trend purposes only.

Facts always matter... because an opinion you can't factually support... is called a guess..