Romney & Bain

[creaker]

I thought this was interesting given Fox's reputation - I guess it's just that liberal media again.

Actually I think it's just tweaks to insure another neck and neck race down to the finish, which is in the media's best immediate interest regardless of whether they pander to the left or the right.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/...in-three-words

Dazzling - Deceiving - Distracting

[redfox]

Well, that's the final word, then. Romney is out. Let's put Paul Ryan in then to solve our financial problems. You don't actually think that Mr. Obama is going to do that do you?

I do think the Obama administration has made progress getting our economy going, but I think the problems are much deeper and long term than one administration. The crash was a long time coming, which I think everyone knows this, as well as having started under President Bush.

Congress has been intransigent in the last two years, for reasons that elude me. Congress must participate in economic recovery.

Lastly, the concentration of wealth that has accelerated in the last two decades, among other ills, has shown to me that our growth, growth, growth economic model is cracking. I am an advocate of full cost pricing, and of a steady-state economy.

[redfox]

Redfox, thanks for posting the links to get the discussion started. To all: We have kind of an unwritten rule that if you are going to post a link you should also include a brief description of what it is. Just a line or two with source and subject, more if you like. It actually was part of the written etiquette on the old boards, we just didn't think it was necessary here. Anyway, that allows fellow posters to decide if they would like to explore deeper or pass on that issue. It's just a courtesy that I think everyone appreciates. Please consider it with future posts. Thanks.

Good to know, thanks!

[JaneV2.0]

Thirty years of lowering taxes and off-shoring jobs haven't done the economy any good-nor has partisan obstructionism, but Democrats have historically been better for the economy than Republicans. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/arc..._05/006282.php

From the article (which includes a nifty graph):
The first thing Bartels did was break down economic performance by income class. The unsurprising result is shown in the chart on the right.

Under Democratic presidents, every income class did well but the poorest did best. The bottom 20% had average pretax income growth of 2.63% per year while the top 5% showed pretax income growth of 2.11% per year.

Republicans were polar opposites. Not only was their overall performance worse than Democrats, but it was wildly tilted toward the well off. The bottom 20% saw pretax income growth of only .6% per year while the top 5% enjoyed pretax income growth of 2.09% per year. (What's more, the trendline is pretty clear: if the chart were extended to show the really rich — the top 1% and the top .1% — the Republican growth numbers for them would be higher than the Democratic numbers.)

In other words, Republican presidents produce poor economic performance because they're obsessed with helping the well off. Their focus is on the wealthiest 5%, and the numbers show it. At least 95% of the country does better under Democrats.

[Gregg]

I thought this was interesting given Fox's reputation - I guess it's just that liberal media again.

Actually I think it's just tweaks to insure another neck and neck race down to the finish, which is in the media's best immediate interest regardless of whether they pander to the left or the right.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/...in-three-words

Dazzling - Deceiving - Distracting

Not exactly what many would expect from FOX. Maybe they are a little more 'fair and balanced' than they get credit for. And I think you're spot on about a close race being good for all sides of the media. No different than a network hoping the World Series goes 7 games.

[Alan]

Congress has been intransigent in the last two years, for reasons that elude me. Congress must participate in economic recovery.

In my mind, the best thing Congress could do to assist in economic recovery is to not participate. If government were likely to create an environment conducive to economic recovery, that would be helpful, but that obviously hasn't been the case.

I think a strong case could be made for linking all of our economic woes to government intervention and legislated social engineering. A little intransigence now and then is a good thing.

[ApatheticNoMore]

I get REALLY confused about what economic problem it is Romney is supposed to solve. Is it the high unemployment or is it the deficit? I don't know if these must always conflict as an absolute rule (I mean you could argue that first we need to go into more debt in order to improve the economy and that will help the deficit in the long run, I'm sure Krugman would be right on board) but I think there is some pretty serious surface tension between the two objectives at least. That you need to explain who you can do both. Which one we are doing today maybe gets a bit etch a sketchy.

Well that just does it for me! Anyone who can engineer a federal bailout which screws the FDIC as a private individual is just the person we need to engineer away the massive debt incurred over the last few years.

Well that makes no sense.

"Government documents obtained by Rolling Stone." How could anyone possibly doubt any statement that comes after that? A venerable political institution like Rolling Stone doesn't need any stinking Freedom of Information Act. The "document" probably fell out of Mick Jagger's guitar case when he was at the White House to play for the Black History Month concert. Me? I'm off to the store to grab a copy of Seventeen. I hear they actually TELL you how to screw the FDIC. I need a new iPhone, that could come in handy.

I don't know, you question the validity of the reporting because it came from Rolling Stone. I have no reason to doubt it, either bailout money was taken or it wasn't and I have no reason to doubt it was. In fact isn't that how the whole banking system has been working for the most part? Many people have been reading Rolling Stone for political ok commentary that must be parsed for factual content for awhile (Matt Tallabi - before clicking I thought it must be him), I don't regularly, but sure I've checked it out.

I am an advocate of full cost pricing, and of a steady-state economy.

yes me too

[redfox]

Ok, Fox news reports on Ryan's speech:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/...n-three-words/

[ApatheticNoMore]

We can chance it?

[Rogar]

The funniest thing I noticed was Ryan and Mitt criticizing Obama for his attack ads....'nuf said.