The Real Mitt Romney

[Sheldonrs]

Originally Posted by Adak

...And since what he started obviously failed, why do you support Obama? Do you really want more of the same policies that have failed so miserably to get our economy going again?

You mean, despite fighting against a congress that would not let President Obama pass a universal cure for cancer if it meant one more person might vote for him, getting the country away from the cliff and having steady job growth for the last 30 months and going from 10% unemployment to 7.8, after the congress above voted against all the jobs bills, including the ones they proposed as well as the VETERANS Jobs bill.
Fuck Romney, Ryan, the right and the tea party. They would kill their own mothers to keep the black guy from getting another term/

[DanaC]

Fuck yeah, Shel, say it like it is.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Stormieweather

Yeah. So let's go back to the policies that got our economy in this shape to begin with. That's intelligent.

There were two critical changes that caused this economic crisis:

1) The change in the way the feds, through FAH ("Fanny Mae, and "Freddie Mac"), that loosened the restrictions on the loans that they would buy, from the banks/savings and loans.

What that amounted to was, the realtors, the banks, the appraisers, the investors, hell, even the termite exterminator, made money, as long as the feds would buy the loans. And with the restrictions removed, there was just a signature to say "I made $X about of dollars last year". <wink, wink>

The wink wink, was that the realtor or bank would tell you "that income figure is never verified". <wink, wink> There is your subprime mortgage market debacle. Why subprime? Because they brought in the highest returns.

2) The huge derivative market, and how it was unregulated, (I've marked it with bold font, below). This was a HUGE investment instrument, and affected investors (principally financial companies, world wide.

The Washington Post (not a conservative newspaper), had this to say, focusing mostly on the Wall St. finance angle. A bit long, but a good read.

What caused the crisis? Look:

●Fed Chair Alan Greenspan dropped rates to 1 percent — levels not seen for half a century — and kept them there for an unprecedentedly long period. This caused a spiral in anything priced in dollars (i.e., oil, gold) or credit (i.e., housing) or liquidity driven (i.e., stocks).

●Low rates meant asset managers could no longer get decent yields from municipal bonds or Treasurys. Instead, they turned to high-yield mortgage-backed securities. Nearly all of them failed to do adequate due diligence before buying them, did not understand these instruments or the risk involved. They violated one of the most important rules of investing: Know what you own.

●Fund managers made this error because they relied on the credit ratings agencies — Moody’s, S&P and Fitch. They had placed an AAA rating on these junk securities, claiming they were as safe as U.S. Treasurys.

• Derivatives had become a uniquely unregulated financial instrument. They are exempt from all oversight, counter-party disclosure, exchange listing requirements, state insurance supervision and, most important, reserve requirements. This allowed AIG to write $3 trillion in derivatives while reserving precisely zero dollars against future claims.

• The Securities and Exchange Commission changed the leverage rules for just five Wall Street banks in 2004. The “Bear Stearns exemption” replaced the 1977 net capitalization rule’s 12-to-1 leverage limit. In its place, it allowed unlimited leverage for Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns. These banks ramped leverage to 20-, 30-, even 40-to-1. Extreme leverage leaves very little room for error.

•Wall Street’s compensation system was skewed toward short-term performance. It gives traders lots of upside and none of the downside. This creates incentives to take excessive risks.

• The demand for higher-yielding paper led Wall Street to begin bundling mortgages. The highest yielding were subprime mortgages. This market was dominated by non-bank originators exempt from most regulations. The Fed could have supervised them, but Greenspan did not.

• These mortgage originators’ lend-to-sell-to-securitizers model had them holding mortgages for a very short period. This allowed them to get creative with underwriting standards, abdicating traditional lending metrics such as income, credit rating, debt-service history and loan-to-value.

• “Innovative” mortgage products were developed to reach more subprime borrowers. These include 2/28 adjustable-rate mortgages, interest-only loans, piggy-bank mortgages (simultaneous underlying mortgage and home-equity lines) and the notorious negative amortization loans (borrower’s indebtedness goes up each month). These mortgages defaulted in vastly disproportionate numbers to traditional 30-year fixed mortgages.

●To keep up with these newfangled originators, traditional banks developed automated underwriting systems. The software was gamed by employees paid on loan volume, not quality.

●Glass-Steagall legislation, which kept Wall Street and Main Street banks walled off from each other, was repealed in 1998. This allowed FDIC-insured banks, whose deposits were guaranteed by the government, to engage in highly risky business. It also allowed the banks to bulk up, becoming bigger, more complex and unwieldy.

●Many states had anti-predatory lending laws on their books (along with lower defaults and foreclosure rates). In 2004, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency federally preempted state laws regulating mortgage credit and national banks. Following this change, national lenders sold increasingly risky loan products in those states. Shortly after, their default and foreclosure rates skyrocketed.

Bloomberg was partially correct: Congress did radically deregulate the financial sector, doing away with many of the protections that had worked for decades. Congress allowed Wall Street to self-regulate, and the Fed the turned a blind eye to bank abuses.

[Adak]

Gas was at $1.84 per gallon, when Obama was sworn in. (Nationwide average).

Gas today is at $3.81 per gallon (Nationwide average).

Source: http://fuelgaugereport.aaa.com/?redi....com/index.asp

Of course, California has Democrats running our State, with no concern for working people, so our current gas price is $4.59 per gallon.

All prices are for regular gas.

[Adak]

How Biden can beat Ryan, in Thursday's big debate:

1) Be different! Have a Biden vs. Biden debate!

2) Slip Ryan a roofie, before the debate!

3) Tell the moderator, his dog ate all his debate notes.

4) Get an earpiece from the secret service, and get coached by a roomful of government and debate experts, live.

5) Pray to St. Jude the Apostle, the patron saint of Lost Causes - REAL hard.

Because Ryan is going to kick Biden's ass!!

[Happy Monkey]

Probably by using the Gish Gallop.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Sheldonrs

I agree. The last thing we need is more tea-party members.

We'd be happy to have some of the unwashed anarchists from Occupy! spend some time around your house instead, what do you say?

If you actually READ the Declaration of Independence, and other documents our founding fathers wrote, you get a real feel for just how smart they were.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

It certainly appears Adak has not yet watched the actual video of this event.
Romney's statement was in same context as the media and Dwellars here are stating.

How does Adak justify/rationalize saying it "should have remained in the room" ?

After Romney's statement about "not worried about" the poor,
I can easily believe his 47% statement is a good reflection of his true feelings.

As a public figure, if you don't want something made public by the media,
don't say it... even "in private"... or be prepared to be labelled a hypocrite.

Conservatives don't focus on the poor, as much as the Liberals do. Our idea is to first, get a rousing economy working, and let the poor help themselves into the middle class, as much as possible. Those that still need help, try and make programs to give them a way OUT of being poor. We don't want to help the poor with a hand out, we want to help them stop being poor, with a hand up, when needed.
Paying healthy, working age people, a stipend every month for the rest of their lives, and dependent on the dole, is not a function of government.

However, Romney was discussing his demographics of likely voters in his speech. He wasn't talking about his policies.

Clearly, those who are on some form of welfare, are not likely to vote for Romney, no matter what he did in the campaign or debate. That's why "he doesn't worry about them" - he knows he can't get their votes.

Political strategy sessions should be kept secret from your political opponent. (of course) You have to say it, because it's a political strategy session fact, being shared with supporters at a fund raiser. Getting that "inside story", is what big supporters, love to hear.

[Sheldonrs]

Originally Posted by Adak

We'd be happy to have some of the unwashed anarchists from Occupy! spend some time around your house instead, what do you say?

If you actually READ the Declaration of Independence, and other documents our founding fathers wrote, you get a real feel for just how smart they were.

I'd be happy to have the Occupy group over. THEY are at least fighting FOR something, not against someONE.

I have read the Declaration and the constitution several times. The founding fathers were extremely smart FOR THEIR TIME.

Times have changed and things are not the same as back then.
Do you think people from 250 years before the founding fathers would have been ready for the ideas the founding fathers came up with?

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Sheldonrs

I'd be happy to have the Occupy group over. THEY are at least fighting FOR something, not against someONE.

I have read the Declaration and the constitution several times. The founding fathers were extremely smart FOR THEIR TIME.

Times have changed and things are not the same as back then.
Do you think people from 250 years before the founding fathers would have been ready for the ideas the founding fathers came up with?

Originally Posted by Sheldonrs

I'd be happy to have the Occupy group over. THEY are at least fighting FOR something, not against someONE.

I have read the Declaration and the constitution several times. The founding fathers were extremely smart FOR THEIR TIME.

Times have changed and things are not the same as back then.
Do you think people from 250 years before the founding fathers would have been ready for the ideas the founding fathers came up with?

The founding Fathers didn't come up with those idea's for gov't. They had been proposed earlier by men like John Locke, etc. They were smart enough to see the wisdom in them, however.

The Republicans are fighting for something:

1) a smaller, and more efficient gov't:

It may sound wacko to a liberal, but even governments, can't keep spending more and more Trillions of dollars, beyond their means.

That WILL collapse the monetary system, no matter WHO you are.

Also, as the gov't gets larger, and has more and more control over everything, it's obvious that your personal freedoms evaporate faster than the dew on a warm Summer morning. If you want to keep your freedoms, you have to limit the power of the gov't, to usurp them. For instance, if the feds control the health care system, they may say, that you could keep your current doctor. That sounds good. But once they have control of the health care system, they can change it in a flash, so you can't keep your doctor, and there is NOTHING you can do about it.

Because unlike a health care company, you can't take threaten them with a lawsuit, you can't take them to court. They've changed the law, and it's all legal, and you're just OUT OF LUCK. The gov't has what no company can have - sovereign immunity.

That's the big difference - with a company, they usually have an oversight gov't official - like the Insurance commissioner, you can appeal to. If that fails, you can take them to court, and force them to live up to the terms of their contract with you. And EVERY treatment option for you, when you can be seen by what specialist, etc., it's all up to the gov't.

This is the same gov't that took 5 days to get bottled water to the Superdome, during Hurricane Katrina (while 15,000 people or more, waited), and thought it was a good idea to put burning tear gas canisters into the WOOD frame building where the residents were staying, in Waco, Texas - catching the structure on fire, and burning them all to death.

Is this REALLY who you want to be in charge of setting up your health care system? Senators who tell you they'll "vote for the health care bill, and write it later?"

Really?

[Sheldonrs]

Originally Posted by Adak

...
It may sound wacko to a liberal, but even governments, can't keep spending more and more Trillions of dollars, beyond their means.
...

Then why did a conservative get us into 2 UNPAID for wars that HAVE cost us trillions of dollars and then cut taxes for the richest among us?

And Romney has said it was a mistake to leave Iraq and Afganistan and also wants us to go to war with Iran.

Is this who you want in charge of ANYTHING? REALLY?!!!

[Sheldonrs]

Quote: "Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched; who ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. Let us follow no such examples, nor weakly believe that one generation is not as capable as another of taking care of itself, and of ordering its own affairs. Each generation is as independent as the one preceding, as that was of all which had gone before." -- Thomas Jefferson

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Sheldonrs

Then why did a conservative get us into 2 UNPAID for wars that HAVE cost us trillions of dollars and then cut taxes for the richest among us?

And Romney has said it was a mistake to leave Iraq and Afganistan and also wants us to go to war with Iran.

Is this who you want in charge of ANYTHING? REALLY?!!!

Bush was not a conservative. Socially, he was conservative, but in his foreign policy with Iraq and Afghanistan, and his fiscal irresponsibility, he was anything BUT conservative.

Yes, we were attacked by Al-Qaeda, and yes, they were in Afghanistan, but that doesn't mean we have to go to war with all of Afghanistan. And it doesn't mean we have to build up their country and spend 10 years there, either. In 3 months, we should have been in and out.

We had Al-Qaeda's leaders trapped in Tora Bora you may recall, early on, but we didn't have the US troops needed to make the assault, and the Afghani's we had doing a lot of the fighting with us, didn't have the fighting skills, arms, and mettle, to do the job.

Jefferson was a real case study in never being satisfied. He wasn't satisfied with his wife, he also wasn't satisfied with his farm, his state, the federal gov't, the way the war was being fought, etc. He stated he didn't like slavery, but kept a number of slaves, all his adult life.
So why would he be satisfied with the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence, or much of anything?

You can find opinions against the constitution, all over the place, especially in the liberal and/or progressive followers. The problem is, if you made a Constitution that the liberals and the progressives really liked, your country wouldn't last 50 years.

FDR was a great progressive and liberal, and thought he should be able to "pack" the Supreme Court, to get what he wanted approved.
Was his idea a good one? I don't believe so. Lots of examples like this.

Read "The Naked Constitution" by Friedman, and you'll get past this "every generation should blah, blah, blah", progressive idiocy.

Romney is trying, for political purposes, to distance himself from Obama, on foreign affairs. And that's hard to do, because Obama has followed the path that Bush begun, very closely.

Romney will not be staying in Afghanistan, and we won't be going to war with Iran. It's not in our best interests to do that, if that makes sense to you. It IS in our best interests, to ACT LIKE we may choose to go to war with Iran.

Why? Because the Mullah's have still not decided on whether to pursue nuclear weapons. We want to "nudge" them away from doing it, with a bit of saber-rattling (something they understand very well).

It is FAR better to threaten them now, than face the alternatives, (either a war, or Iran with nuclear weapons), later. Also, the Iranian "rial" has gone right into the shitter, so they are starting to get civil unrest against their gov't, and they have a LOT less $$$ to spend on things like a nuclear weapons program.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Adak

Because Ryan is going to lick Biden's ass!!

Fixed it for ya. He's already had a lot of practice with Mitt.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Adak

We had Al-Qaeda's leaders trapped in Tora Bora you may recall, early on, but we didn't have the US troops needed to make the assault, and the Afghani's we had doing a lot of the fighting with us, didn't have the fighting skills, arms, and mettle, to do the job.

Nope (from here)

Crumpton, who headed up the CIA's Afghan campaign, was in constant contact with Franks. Just weeks before bin Laden escaped, he strongly urged the general to move marines to the cave complex in Tora Bora, complaining "the back door was open." But Franks balked.
So Crumpton turned to the commander-in-chief and tried a more direct appeal. "We're going to lose our prey if we're not careful," he told Bush. Cheney also was in the meeting, according to Ron Suskind, author of the One Percent Doctrine.
But they did nothing. In spite of the CIA's repeated advice to move against bin Laden in Tora Bora, the commander-in-chief and his top security advisers did not act. They ignored key intelligence.