Magox

They'll make up some of the shortfall. It is in their best interest to not see prices get out of control.

What he said is what I've been saying on this board for quite some time. You just can't cut, you have to cut and have a pro growth tax code. This message is gonna be a winner in the general elections, which is a position of cutting spending AND having progrowth tax reform. This is what I'm talking about, pragmatic. Btw, Romney is unveiling his new tax plan soon. Looking forward to disecting it a bit. Also, it looks as if Obama has been dropping off again, USA Today Gallup poll recently released http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-02-20/GOP-convention-poll/53172644/1 Funny how on Politico, this was nowhere to be found, yet Politico on one of their main headlines of the day, from this VERY SAME poll has this as one of their major headline POLL: SANTORUM OPENS 10 POINT LEAD Here's a few other headlines from Politico about Romney today MITT SPENDING OUTPACES FUNDRAISING MITTS BURN RATE A BOON FOR OBAMA MICHIGAN LAWMAKERS WORRY ABOUT MITT POLL: MITTS ARIZONA LEAD NARROWS And they dont happen to mention that there was a poll that came out on the same day that shows Mitt up 10 over Santorum in Arizona, they don't mention that there was another poll that came out today in Michigan that shows Mitt up 2. But here is the Headline on politico about Obama OBAMA SINGS AGAIN pfff It's so obvious that the media doesn't want Mitt to win, they know he would give Obama a really tough election matchup, they desperately want to see Santorum win because they know they would win. Mitt has already been vetted, the spot light has been on him the whole time, the only thing they can find about Mitt are some politically clumsy things he has said, and thats it. Whereas Santorum is now beginning to get properly vetted, and it seems like every day here recently they are finding things he has said that just doesn't play well with independents. And with intense scruting from the main stream media and even hard right wingers, Romney still is about even with Obama and that is without the right coaelescing behind him yet. On a sidenote, would someone just tell Sarah Palin to shut the !@#$ up already!

Ummm those don't count, unless they leave the workforce before the age of retirement.

Let's not talk about "for everything before he was against it" or matters of "principle" when we talk about politicians. Did Obama rip Hillay Clinton about her idea of having health insurance mandates in the 08 primaries? That's a major flip flop. Or how about when Obama back in the primaries lashed out at John Edwards and said That is about as hypocritical as you get. Agreed? Or how about when Obama criticized George Bush for running up the US National debt and called him "unpatriotic" for doing so. I mean, really? YOu telling me that he wasn't saying that to score political points? The debt under Obama by the end of his first term will surpass what Ol Bushy did in two terms. Trust me when I tell you, I could bring up many more instances of hypocritical political expediency, so if you are gonna bring this issue up, then at the very least admit that Obama has been shallow as well when it comes to this subject. Deal? If this election boil down to substance, competence and record of achievements and not other BS topics that the Obama campaign will desperately try to make it into, then Romney wins. Romney was extremely successful as a venture capitalist, he was extremely successful at turning around the Olympics, elected Gov in a very blue state and turned a budget deficit to balancing the budget every year he served and turned a surplus of over $2 Billion and he was able to work with Democrats across the aisle. These are facts, and you can't deny them, not at least from an objective rational POV. I'll tell you what else are some facts, Obamas job record has been horrible, his handling of the National debt has been atrocious, I mean in his latest budget, he doesn't even have a long term plan for bringing it down, and his handling of the looming entitlement ticking time bomb has been non existent. He would rather demagogue a plan such as Ron Wyden and Paul Ryans, rather than produce a plan himself. This Buftex, is a complete failure of leadership. That's a fact. As I said, if this election gets successfully portrayed from the left about Mitt ROmney AKA Gordon Gekko the callous corporate raider, who waxes poetic about trees being just the right size then Obama will win, BUT if this election focuses on substance and the economy, Mitt wins. So it's gonna be about who wins the message war.

Yes he can! Romney will be a MUCH better General election candidate than a primary one. He is a competent, pragmatic, non ideologicl man who has a history of success and turning things around. He will feel alot more comfortable in his own skin in the general elections, why? Because he won't have to pander and try soooo damn hard to be liked by the right wingers. He's not one of them (Thank God) , he is a fiscal conservative who gets things done. People like competence, and thats Obama's weakness, he's not a competent leader. Where Romney can beat out OBama with independents is the issue of competence and the economy. I think very soon you will begin to start hearing about this phony unemployment rate. About all the disaffected people who have given up looking for work. It's an embarrassment from the media that this isn't an issue. How can the media not be talking about all the people who have given up looking for work? That is a major problem. I see that as being one of the major issues in the U.S But like I said, I predict that the American public will get educated on this issue, and I believe that will begin to happen soon. BWAAAAK BWAAAAK!

Which is the right position. Anyone who understands anything about economics and doesn't have a partisan view realizes that the U.S has the best bankruptcy courts in the world, a bridge loan that would of ensured that a orderly bankruptcy would of yielded similar economic results, with a few minor differencies, one that the bondholders wouldn't of gotten !@#$ed over for the unions and two it wouldn't of cost the taxpayer nearly as much money. But that won't stop you from believing that the government is the end all be all solution to America's epedimic joblessness. Yaaay for hope and change! There is soooo much hope out there, soooo much hope that over 5 million people since Obama has taken office that have either given up hope looking for work or simply just choose not to work. That's 5 million people have dropped out of the workforce. But hey, thats the sort of Hope and change you support. Welcome to Obama's new normal We can do better this.

I'll take a "severely conservative" candidate over a naive, wealth-distributing president incapable of leadership any day of the week.

Let's be real here, the GOP is fractured, that's not to say that they can't get unified or become ferociously galvanized once the race is between the nominee and Obama. But as of right now, it's a battle between the heart and the brains of the party. The energy and passion is with the hard right and the logical pragmatic side are with Romney. I always thought of "conservativism" to be more from a fiscal sense, but it's obvious that fiscal conservativsm in today's "conservative" party plays second fiddle to rhetoric and social issues. Booooooo to the hard right

It's right there you dumbass. There is no such thing as "official stats" Now if that argument applies to Californi, then it certainly applies to the US http://www.rand.org/pubs/occasional_papers/2010/RAND_OP325.pdf And that comes from the Rand Corporation which many studies show that their estimates lowball most others including that from the U.N The Rand Corporation are not proponents of the legalization of marijuana, and they themselves concede that it would virtually cripple Mexican marijuana revenues for the cartels. They base it off of drug seizures and studies. And US officials estimate that 50 to 65% of Mexican cartel revenues come from Mexico, thats not what I'm saying, thats what US and Mexican officials estimate. Now you may try to change the subject with a 1998 or 2000 year study that shows total gross consumption in dollars, which has nothing to do with this conversation. Meanwhile, I'll talk about the topic at hand. Now try to keep up with me and focus here for a second. Are we not talking about Mexican imported marijuana? yes or no? Why are we talking about Mexican marijuana? Could it be because of the cartels and violence? Could it be that the point of this discussion is how cutting off a significiant portion of Mexican marijuana imports would contribute to defunding the cartels? The burden of proof is on you, now show me a different study that shows that marijuana is not a Mexican main revenue generator. And show me with whatever number you provide how that wouldn't seriously impact their revenues and funding. Show me and make the case. If not, then stop wasting my time.

1998????? Please, if you are gonna try to make an argument,please provide information that at least comes from this millenium. Do you have any idea how much marijuana imports from Mexico has increased since then? Look it up ANd wont put a dent in the drug war violence??? You are talking out your ass as usual. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704254604574614230731506644.html Maybe in your little narrow minded world 50-65% won't cause a "dent" but any rational thinking person understands that if you cut down a businesses main revenue generator and cut out anywhere between 1/2 to 2/3 of their total revenues, understands that it would critically impair a business. You see, this is called economics, and from an economic standpoint there is no rational debate on this topic. There isn't, none. Now if you guys want to come at this from a moral or cultural standpoint, then that is debatable. But from pure economics and what it would do to the cartels, your argument doesn't hold water. Will this solve the drug mexican cartel issue? No, but it's definitely a step in the right direction.

No offense, but that is some faulty logic you got there. That flies in the face of conventional economic wisdom. Adding supply does not typically lead to added demand. This is a demand issue, there is a high demand for marijuana, not meth or heroine. Marijuana is not any more if not even less dangerous than alcohol. The demand will always be there for marijuana because every day that passes people are getting properly educated on marijuana, and they are learning that it isn't any sort of drug that creates physical hazard, at least not any more so than alcohol. Marijuana is almost as socially acceptable as alcohol, which ties in with this being a demand issue. Marijuana is BY FAR the number cash cow for the cartels, the idea that they will be able to supplant marijuana with meth or heroine as their cash cow is absurd.

Listen, I know you have a hard time with understanding basic economics so i will cut you some slack. Here let me explain it to you in the simplest of terms. First off to your first point, which is a valid one, which is if you legalize weed it would see a 500% increase from what we are seeing today. Well that would be 100% without a doubt false and here is why. As it is right now, the cost of regular weed to produce to the market is already seeing well over a 2000% markup from producer to the end user, unless you are talking about local "regs". The reason for the markup is for a bevy of reasons. One is the risk, risk of criminal action is a huge driver of the cost. Transport, you think the **** is cheap to ship it across borders? How much do you think that could cost? What about profits? You have any idea how many middemen are involved? You have producer to distributor, to another distrubtor, to regional distrubutor, to local distributor, then it goes to retail sellers. The markup is extremely high. Now if it were to be legalized, there would be the cost to produce, taxes and then profits. Profit margins would shrink because we live in a capitalistic society, so competition would keep the margins in check, and then that leaves taxes. Taxes could be high, what is the tax level on alcohol? what about on cigarettes? Let's say you have a 500% tax, that still would leave the price of weed cheaper thanwhat you would see on the black market. So there goes your argument So if you want to effectively and rationally fight the war with the MExican gangs, you cut off their source of demand and their funding. And since we all know that many of us won't ever give up our weed, as we shouldn't have to, then the only logical answer is to legalize it. You legalize weed and then you cut a significant portion of what is driving the Mexican cartels.

And don't forget Jimmy Carter, he laid the foundation towards solving the inflationary induced recession of the early 80's.

Regulations, Mandates on businesses, a horrible housing market, unfriendly climate for businesses, extremely high unemployment, inevitability of higher taxes, uncertainty over in Europe, businesses becoming much more efficient with less human capital, lack of political will on both sides of the aisle to address the entitlements (except Paul Ryan and Ron Wyden) health care costs and ticking timebomb on US debt.

First off, I don't want to be defending Bush, because I didn't agree with half the stuff he did. But to answer your question, he entered office in 2001, the tech bubble busted and 9/11 occured right when he stepped into office. So from mid 2002 to mid 2006 he had an average GDP growth rate of close to 3.5% and then the bubble began to burst. Anyone who rationally looks at the events and/or doesn't take a partisan approach understands that Bush didn't create the Financial bubble, it had been in the makings for many many years. Who do you think repealed Glass Steagall? Where were the loans being originated? Did Fannie and Freddy play a role? Does the Federal Reserve share some of the blame? unscrupulous mortgage underwriters, what were there roles? What about the ratings agencies? What about US housing policies, did they not push banks to get as many people into homes as possible? How about consumers, yes the poor consumers, the people who decided to leverage up and buy second and third homes at pie in the sky prices that they knew they couldn't afford. Weren't they complicit along with the mortgage writers in lying on their apps? What about Wall Street? Didn't they go unchecked by creating exotic financial vehicles that leveraged the entire shitbomb to what it was? This disaster was gonna happen, no matter who was president. But that's not the point Dave, for the third time, and this will be the last time I say this, comparing an economy GDP growth rate vs an economy coming out of a major recession is ludicrous. Economies, generally speaking, just coming out of recessions should have a much higher GDP growth rates than economies that are in normal sustained periods. Also, where have I ever said to eliminate all regulations? I believe in regulations, I believe they can be prductive for our society, I believe they CAN help promote sustainability. But that doesn't necessarily mean that all regulations are created equal. Regulation born out of populism tends to be poorly written pieces of legislation. They can't be forced, they have to be well thought out and vetted over and over. I will borrow a quote "Do not ever say that the desire to "do good" by force is a good motive. Neither power-lust nor stupidity are good motives"

I can't help that you decide to ignore and say " na na na na I can't hear you" when time after time, CEO's, small business polls and economists continue to cite regulations as a factor that inhibits growth and job hiring. That is your fundamental problem. Until you allow yourself to be objective, you will never see things as they truly are.

Considering that we came out of a huge recession, 3 years into the recovery we should be experiencing growth much stronger than what we are seeing today. It is much more likely to see GDP growth at higher levels coming out of a recession as opposed to see GDP levels in a sustained period of normal activity. GDP growth is measured vs the prior quarter. So if you have low levels of economic activity, the odds of seeing a larger descrepancy (in other words higher GDP) from one quarter to another is much higher. The deeper the recession, the higher the likelyhood of seeing sustained high GDP quarters that follow. If you look for instance under the Reagan recession of 1982... We had a recovery of approximately 2 years that averaged over 6.5% GDP. The reason why we had such robust growth rates was one, it was a pretty large hole that we had come out of and two the deeper the holes the more pentup demand there are for goods and services following these down periods.

Wow! Some of you guys are real dipshits! If it wasn't for our insatiable appetite and demand for drugs, there wouldn't be this violence issue. The idea that somehow cracking on supply is gonna solve the problem is absurd. If you really want to crack down on the violence, then you legalize Weed. That way you cut off the illegal supply of weed flowing from Mexico, which weed by far is the #1 drug imported into the US from Mexico. You cut this off, then you cut off their funding, and a good portion of their reason of existence. But go ahead, and keep blaming the boogeymen.

OMG! Even the White House is in on the "conspiracy" game with their own Economic report. Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/17/white-house-economic-report-hides-sharp-drop-in-number-of-working-americans/#ixzz1mknRmRbt Yaaay for 8.3% Unemployment

When I looked at the title of this thread I thought to myself "This oughta be good" It didn't disappoint

That's why I said, A fight for America's soul!

Health Care Reform ? He doesn't even like ever mention it Dodd Frank Bill? Nope, another net negative. A push for clean energy? Solyndra and Keystone are two huge negatives for him Out of everything you just said, the only thing positive for him to run on is the killing of Osama. And depending where he is, DADT, which would be a very very very minor achievement for an election year issue.

OMG, no you didn't?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/152753/Unemployment-Increases-Mid-February.aspx Who would of thunk it, I guess Gallup is in the conspiracy theory business as well.

Free **** for everyone is a tough message to beat. I as well truly see it as a battle for America's soul.