Economic Plans Head to Head: Romney vs. Obama

[TheBlackRabbit]

I decided to make a new thread based on this thread http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2233991 so we can have a more focused conversation.

Obama's deficits and economic plans DO need to be compared directly to what is increasingly becoming the inevitable republican alternative, Mitt Romney. Here is what Romney wants to do: http://www.mittromney.com/issues/tax

This was Obama's ORIGINAL plan: http://blogs.reuters.com/reuters-money/2011/09/09/would-obamas-payroll-tax-cut-hurt-social-security/

I don't want comparisons to the watered down crap that the Republicans forced him to pass, this is what he was trying to pass.

This is why the economy is in the crapper: http://economywatch.msnbc.msn.com/_...ys-demand-too-weak-to-bring-down-jobless-rate

When companies aren't hiring due to demand, and the republicans just want to continue trickle down, how is that supposed to help?

Obama is trying to get money into the hands of those that HAVE to spend it to increase demand. Companies HAVE MONEY right now, LOTS OF MONEY. But they still aren't hiring. How is giving them even more money going to increase hiring compared to demand?

For the record, yes, F the dems and their excessive regulations. With the economy this bad you can burn baby seals for fuel if it helps create jobs.

So anyway, Romney Vs. Obama. This is what we got, and we all know it. How is Romney better for our economy than Obama?

 

[Munky]

All I see is more Obama excuses. What did he do when the Dems had both the WH and the Senate?

 

[zsdersw]

All I see is more Obama excuses. What did he do when the Dems had both the WH and the Senate?

A valid question. Here's another:

What is Romney going to do that's any better?

 

[First]

All I see is more Obama excuses. What did he do when the Dems had both the WH and the Senate?

Huh? Bueller? They passed ACA and financial bills that have had sweeping, major impacts on both industries and will for generations.

 

[chucky2]

It is meaningless what a POTUS plans are. A better question would be to Congress, 'What are you plans you'll be sending the president?'.

Remember the 2008 elections? You had both O'Bummer and McInsane telling everyone they were going to try and give them this, that, and something else. It was a like an auction, O would throw out a bribe for a vote, M would counter. O counters that, M counters that. A game to them, nothing more.

Chuck

 

[Munky]

A valid question. Here's another:

What is Romney going to do that's any better?

Given the politicians' track record for breaking campaign promises, it's anyone's guess. However, we can judge Obama's past performance by more than just speculation.

Huh? Bueller? They passed ACA and financial bills that have had sweeping, major impacts on both industries and will for generations.

That is what the lefty propaganda machine would like everyone to believe. In effect, they did no such thing. The banksters have not went to prison for their fraud, the TBTF banks are still operating like nothing happened, and Dodd-Frank is a 2300-page monstrosity that can't accomplish what Glass-Steagall did in 37 pages.

 

[zsdersw]

Given the politicians' track record for breaking campaign promises, it's anyone's guess. However, we can judge Obama's past performance by more than just speculation.

Yes we can, but in the process of deciding whether or not to replace one president with another the question must be asked: Is who I select to replace him likely to be better, worse, or the same?

 

[Munky]

Yes we can, but in the process of deciding whether or not to replace one president with another the question must be asked: Is who I select to replace him likely to be better, worse, or the same?

And that is a question everyone must answer to themselves. For me, the mandate-obsession of the Obama administration raises more than a few red flags.

 

[cybrsage]

My wife said she will be happy when Obama forces people to buy new carpet every few years or pay a fine. That way she gets new carpet more often than we can actually afford. She also wants him to institute a flowers mandate, where men must buy women flowers routinely or pay a fine. She kinda likes this pay fines thing.

A friend of mine wants Obama to pass a "women must have sex with him or pay a fine" mandate so he gets more sex. He is also starting to dig this government forcing people bit.

 

[First]

That is what the lefty propaganda machine would like everyone to believe. In effect, they did no such thing. The banksters have not went to prison for their fraud,

Huh? Which "banksters" committed fraud? What the overwhelming majority of them did was perfectly legal (unfortunately).

the TBTF banks are still operating like nothing happened,

Huh? Boy you say a lot of useless shit.

and Dodd-Frank is a 2300-page monstrosity that can't accomplish what Glass-Steagall did in 37 pages.

And this is based on what, exactly? Considering financial firms are still scrambling to comply with the stricter leverage restrictions and conflict of interest standards, specifically the Volcker rule.

 

[monovillage]

I thought you were trying to have a serious discussion so I wasn't going to comment in this thread. Then I saw this

I don't want comparisons to the watered down crap that the Republicans forced him to pass, this is what he was trying to pass.

Obama is a liar, who the fuck cares what he says about what he's trying to pass? Liars lie, it's what they do.

 

[Munky]

Huh? Which "banksters" committed fraud? What the overwhelming majority of them did was perfectly legal (unfortunately).

What Corzine did at MF Global was not legal, and he's still walking.

Huh? Boy you say a lot of useless shit.

Not nearly as useless as your glowing praise and generalizations of the dems' performance.

And this is based on what, exactly? Considering financial firms are still scrambling to comply with the stricter leverage restrictions and conflict of interest standards, specifically the Volcker rule.

The same Volker rule that got watered down with loopholes and provisions by the time the bill was actually passed? No worries, by this time next year the bankster lobbyists will make sure it applies in name only.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-26/bank-lobby-s-onslaught-shifts-debate-on-volcker-rule.html

 

[Jhhnn]

When companies aren't hiring due to demand, and the republicans just want to continue trickle down, how is that supposed to help?

They don't want to continue, they want to "extend & embrace" trickledown, as if it ever did anything for anybody who wasn't already very rich-

http://www.thenation.com/blog/166991/week-poverty-mr-ryans-focus-dignity

Romney likes it-

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/ma...mney-obama-reaction-ryan-budget-plan-20120320

Balance the budget on the backs of the poor, middle class & seniors, and give those Sacred Job Creators! another tax cut! Oh Baby!

Might want to consider this, as well-

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/26/o...?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120326

That's what's behind door #2- Insatiable lions who'll eat you alive. What's behind door #1? Hard to say, but it can't be any worse than door #2...

 

[PingSpike]

If companies are sitting on piles of cash couldn't you pass a special tax on cash piles. It'd be like lowering the interest rate below zero. Dickhead move but it would cause them to spend the money. Not that we're ever going to do that.

 

[Munky]

I support introducing a transaction tax on banks. It would effectively end the HFT abuse of the system, and maybe encourage banks to engage in productive transactions instead of passing money back and forth to create an illusion of liquidity.

 

[First]

What Corzine did at MF Global was not legal, and he's still walking.

WTF are you spouting off about, this was just discovered a mere handful of months ago and is an ongoing investigation, so your moot is moot and mostly 'tarded. In fact in the past 72 hours it was revealed he may have perjured himself in front of Congress. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...rdered-funds-moved-to-jpmorgan-memo-says.html. Try not to jump the shark with the baseless statements.

Not nearly as useless as your glowing praise and generalizations of the dems' performance.

Except my statements have merit and weight, while yours are mostly useless platitudes and/or flatout false statements. All easily verifiable google-able shit. E.g. Corzine.

The same Volker rule that got watered down with loopholes and provisions by the time the bill was actually passed?

1) Examples of how this was watered down.
2) WTF does that have to do with your original statements asking what Obama did with a Dem Congress for two years. In case you haven't gleaned my point yet; the "watering down" part didn't happen during the time Dems controlled both chambers.

No worries, by this time next year the bankster lobbyists will make sure it applies in name only.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-26/bank-lobby-s-onslaught-shifts-debate-on-volcker-rule.html

I'll bump when you're wrong. No hard feelings.

 

[Munky]

WTF are you spouting off about, this was just discovered a mere handful of months ago and is an ongoing investigation, so your moot is moot and mostly 'tarded. In fact in the past 72 hours it was revealed he may have perjured himself in front of Congress. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...rdered-funds-moved-to-jpmorgan-memo-says.html. Try not to jump the shark with the baseless statements.

May have? What kind of universe do you live in where client money simply "vaporizes?" But in case you're too delusional to admit the failures of your idol Obama and his party, why don't you explain to everyone how the robosigning in the case of MERS mortgage foreclosure fraud was not illegal, and how nobody should have went to prison for it. This should be good...

Except my statements have merit and weight, while yours are mostly useless platitudes and/or flatout false statements. All easily verifiable google-able shit. E.g. Corzine.

Only if you get graded A++ on vile propaganda such as this - "They passed ACA and financial bills that have had sweeping, major impacts on both industries and will for generations"

1) Examples of how this was watered down.
2) WTF does that have to do with your original statements asking what Obama did with a Dem Congress for two years. In case you haven't gleaned my point yet; the "watering down" part didn't happen during the time Dems controlled both chambers.

1. The "market-maker" exemption is just one such loophole.
2. So you admit there was a watering down, or are you still in denial? WTF it has to do with my point is the the dems lost congress precisely because they didn't do sh!t the first two years they had it. I suppose you'll find some way to blame it all on those damn republicans too, as usual.

I'll bump when you're wrong. No hard feelings.

I'll be sure to return the favor.

 

[Craig234]

This election isn't about competing economic plans.

It's about whether the Republicans can get people to fall for lies about their plan.

The actual plans are the Republicans wanting to shift ever more wealth to the top.

The campaign is about their ability to lie about economic plans to paint themselves as for 'liberty' and Democrats as for communism.

 

[First]

May have? What kind of universe do you live in where client money simply "vaporizes?"

Money not vaporizing has nothing to do with Corzine lying in front of Congress, as he could have been telling the truth and the money was simply authorized by someone else. Very unlikely but we won't know for a little while. Hence an ongoing investigation. If what he did is punishable with jail under the law, he'll serve. So read the article, you're woefully confused.

But in case you're too delusional to admit the failures of your idol Obama and his party, why don't you explain to everyone how the robosigning in the case of MERS mortgage foreclosure fraud was not illegal, and how nobody should have went to prison for it. This should be good...

It was/is illegal, and BOA/Countrywide/etc. have already been heavily fined for it. Inform yourself buddy:

Link1

Link2

Seriously, you're slow as shit, I'm sorry to tell you.

Only if you get graded A++ on vile propaganda such as this - "They passed ACA and financial bills that have had sweeping, major impacts on both industries and will for generations"

lol.

1. The "market-maker" exemption is just one such loophole.

Huh? Why is the market makers and hedger exceptions "watered down with loopholes and provisions". What is watered down and why is this a "loophole"?

2. So you admit there was a watering down, or are you still in denial?

Jesus you're horrid at reading.

WTF it has to do with my point is the the dems lost congress precisely because they didn't do sh!t the first two years they had it. I suppose you'll find some way to blame it all on those damn republicans too, as usual.

It's the economy, stupid. Or in your case, partisan 'tard.

I'll be sure to return the favor.

Sure you will.

 

[Munky]

Money not vaporizing has nothing to do with Corzine lying in front of Congress, as he could have been telling the truth and the money was simply authorized by someone else. Very unlikely but we won't know for a little while. Hence an ongoing investigation. If what he did is punishable with jail under the law, he'll serve. So read the article, you're woefully confused.



It was/is illegal, and BOA/Countrywide/etc. have already been heavily fined for it. Inform yourself buddy:

Link1

Link2

Seriously, you're slow as shit, I'm sorry to tell you.

No wiseguy, fines do not cut it. My question was why has no one went to jail for it, as the fraud perps did in the S&L crisis. When a person gets convicted of forgery, that usually results in a jail sentence and a felony criminal record, but apparently if you're part of a financial institution, the law does not apply to you.

Huh? Why is the market makers and hedger exceptions "watered down with loopholes and provisions". What is watered down and why is this a "loophole"?

Are you really as dumb as a brick, or just faking ignorance?

It's the economy, stupid. Or in your case, partisan 'tard.

Coming from a lefty libotard, that precious.

 

[First]

No wiseguy, fines do not cut it.

It was the law, dolt. Why would someone go to jail when the legal punishment is a fine? Seriously, read the statues, it's getting sad having to school you like this.

My question was why has no one went to jail for it, as the fraud perps did in the S&L crisis.

See above. Oh, and examples from the S&L crisis please.

When a person gets convicted of forgery, that usually results in a jail sentence and a felony criminal record, but apparently if you're part of a financial institution, the law does not apply to you.

If the law doesn't dictate it, then they quite literally cannot be sent to jail. The issue was with the existing laws of the time. Jail should morally be what happens perhaps, but you can't reverse legal history.

Are you really as dumb as a brick, or just faking ignorance?

Weak white flag here. Try backing up your arguments, kid.

Coming from a lefty libotard, that precious.

Another wimp out. Yawn, you're boring.

 

[xBiffx]

This.

Thread.

Is.

Starting.

To.

Suck.

To.

Read.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

My wife said she will be happy when Obama forces people to buy new carpet every few years or pay a fine. That way she gets new carpet more often than we can actually afford. She also wants him to institute a flowers mandate, where men must buy women flowers routinely or pay a fine. She kinda likes this pay fines thing.

A friend of mine wants Obama to pass a "women must have sex with him or pay a fine" mandate so he gets more sex. He is also starting to dig this government forcing people bit.

YATCTP (Yet another trolling cybertroll post)

 

[Munky]

It was the law, dolt. Why would someone go to jail when the legal punishment is a fine? Seriously, read the statues, it's getting sad having to school you like this.

Link to statutes or you're talking out of your ass.

See above. Oh, and examples from the S&L crisis please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Keating is just one such example. Overall, more than 1000 banking execs went to prison for fraud in that crisis.

If the law doesn't dictate it, then they quite literally cannot be sent to jail. The issue was with the existing laws of the time. Jail should morally be what happens perhaps, but you can't reverse legal history.

Again, link to law.

Weak white flag here. Try backing up your arguments, kid.

You either haven't been paying attention in the last 5 years, or are playing dumb. Market making is the excuse banks have used to justify their fraud on numerous occasions, and with this exemption in place, they can continue the same. The law is vague enough that banks can continue making derivative trades which fall within the exemption.

Another wimp out. Yawn, you're boring.

Excuse me sonny, but I'm not the one using the "economy" as an excuse for your party's incompetence. You're running out of excuses for your party, kid. Try the old "but Boooosh" argument, that was even more amusing.

 

[First]

Link to statutes or you're talking out of your ass.

Link
Link

I'll even quote the relevant part for you: "...punishable by a fine of 3% or $5 million U.S. dollars, whichever is smaller....".

lol. Getting sad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Keating is just one such example. Overall, more than 1000 banking execs went to prison for fraud in that crisis.

Good lord. So you site Charles Keating and can't see the difference between outright, intentional fraud that was illegal and fraud that isn't illegal (unfortunately) 20 years later in an entirely different market that didn't exist in the late 1980's? Come on, don't be a tool.

Again, link to law.

The onus is on you, the dolt who originally claimed people should be going to jail for their crimes yet cannot cite statues to this effect. Man up kiddie.

You either haven't been paying attention in the last 5 years, or are playing dumb. Market making is the excuse banks have used to justify their fraud on numerous occasions, and with this exemption in place, they can continue the same. The law is vague enough that banks can continue making derivative trades which fall within the exemption.

No, they can't buddy. Market maker definitions are difficult to pin down and have already caused finance major headaches. I'll link and quote for you since you're a bit uninformed, to put it nicely.

The rule includes an exception for market making, but doesn't make it easy to qualify for the exception. The language of the exception recalls the equities market, industry sources argue, making it easier for stock market makers, but not fixed-income dealers, to qualify.

The proposal sets out seven standards that need to be met for a trading activity to fall under the definition of market making. One requires trading positions to have "near-term demand." Another provision of the rule prohibits banks from trades for themselves and using their own capital to place speculative market bets that are not related to serving customers.

Market making is especially vulnerable under the Volcker rule, sources said, because distinguishing between it and prop trading is not always straightforward.

According to the rule, market makers cannot hold a position in a security for an extended amount of time for its own inventory. Also, the market maker cannot enter into a position for its own profit-it must have a customer order.

Banks, already reeling from lower trading volumes and decreased commissions, fear that the rule will decrease equity market liquidity and increase volatility.

According to an AllianceBernstein letter to regulators on the Volcker rule, the inability to engage in market-making on a principal basis under the rule, "will have a material and detrimental impact on the ability of covered banking entities to engage in market-making activity."

As drafted, the rule will "likely dramatically reduce market liquidity, increase costs and in some cases impact the ability of market participants to meet their legally required obligations."

What amazing loopholes! lol.

Excuse me sonny, but I'm not the one using the "economy" as an excuse for your party's incompetence.

The fact that you truly, honestly believe the economy wasn't the main driving factor in the 2010 election or for that matter any election since the beginning of time, says a lot about how out of depth you are in these discussions. This is common knowledge.

It's the economy, stupid:

The clearest message from the exit polls about what motivated the swing toward
the GOP is, unsurprisingly, the economy. More than three-fifths (63 percent)
selected the economy as the most important issue facing the country today and
Republicans received 54 percent to 43 percent support among that group.

About half of voters said they were “very worried” about economic conditions,
and these Americans voted Republican by 68 percent to 30 percent. Similarly,
41*percent of voters said their family financial situation was worse than two years
ago, and this group voted Republican by 61 percent to 35 percent. And 37 percent
described the state of the national economy as “poor,” and these voters supported
the GOP by 68 percent to 28 percent.

More voters (35 percent) blamed Wall Street for today’s economic problems
rather than President Bush (29 percent) or President Obama (24 percent). But
these Wall-Street-blaming voters supported Republicans by 57 percent to 41 percent. The Obama administration’s association with bailing out Wall Street bankers,
who are heavily blamed for the bad economy, apparently had a negative effect on
Democratic performance in this election.

You're running out of excuses for your party, kid. Try the old "but Boooosh" argument, that was even more amusing.

Except more than half the country still blames Bush:

When asked whether the policies of President Obama and the Democrats or Bush and the Republicans are more responsible for the country's current economic problems, 57 percent said Bush and the Republicans are more responsible, according to the CNN/ORC poll, while just 29 percent said Obama and the Democrats are more responsible. 10 percent said both are responsible while three percent indicated they find neither to be culpable.

Damn all those 57% of libruls! rofl.