Magox

You said that?

Wow! so young too!

You really shouldn't be making this statement. Just sayin' Where TPS has it wrong is he says "look at the bond markets, they say everything is ok". That's got to be the most dangerous view that any responsible policy holder can have. Luckily for all of us people like TPS or Krugmann who have no real stake, can just opine from the sidelines and continue to attempt to advance their leftist vision of America. Does anyone know where Greek Bond rates were just 1 year before their crash? I can tell you, they were in a sweet spot, very low by European standards, everything looked just fine until they weren't. That's the most insane, warped sort of thinking that anyone can come up with. WHat were fannie mae bonds trading at 6 months before the collapse? Give me an answer. What were GM bonds trading at 6-12 months before the collapse? With your way of looking at thing, you would of said "Gee, look at Greek bonds, or Fannie mae's, bond markets say they are just fine, so everything is fine. hahaha " well you would of been wrong. You think that there is a gradual decline when insolvency comes at the forefront? No! It happens rapidly, things come to light but more importantly FOCUS becomes singular, and then you have a rush to the exits causing a stampede of investors flowing into other assets causing rates to spike. That's how it worksin the REAL world TPS. Not in the ideological academic world. There is an old adage , Bond markets are fine until they aren't. Sorry your way of thinking is dangerous and deeply flawed and I just proved it. Of course what TPS fails to include, either dishonestly or just through sheer ignorance (I'm thinking the former) is that the US bond market has benefited greatly off of all this mess in Europe. Bond investors are bond investors period. So when bond investors see that the Greek, Italian, Spanish, Irish etc bond markets look like a nonviable place to park their money, they shift it somewhere else. So who has been the benificiaries of this dynamic? Well, the US and the Germans. It's not as if all of a sudden Bond investors have suddenly deemed the US a fiscally sound country, it was through default. Just like Bill Gross says, Bond investors are looking for "cleaner dirty shirts". The US dollar is the reserve currency of the world and that thankfully gives us an advantage. Having said that, the reliance of the dollar is declining, and the dangerous sort of thinking from people such as TPS and Krugmann is that for the most part they assume all will be well in the short-term and to just go out and have a myopic solution of racking up deficits to stabilize the economy. But you see, thats the problem, they don't criticize our government for implementing policies that aren't just short-term policies, but long-term budget busters such as the presidents health care bill. This bill does raise taxes, and it does increase spending by an enormous amount. We already have long-term structural problems and now we are gonna add yet another huge deficit spending entitlement? What about this supposedly short term pay roll tax cut? Does anyone really honestly believe that anyone now is going to want to take this tax cut away? Honestly. What about all the job killing regulations? We've heard over and over in how the presidents regulations are inhibiting job growth. Yet somehow, no mention of that from TPS. TPS and Krugmann happen to believe that stimulus spending will serve as a bridge or in some magical unicornesque way will thrust us into 5% sustained growth. That is the most ridiculous, insane, illogical sort of thinking that any economist can come up with. Stimulus spending; and I'm not saying can't serve a purpose, because I believe it can in certain circumstances be effective, but to somehow think that just for the sake of spending money to create short-term jobs will lead us to sustained prosperity on the other side of the bridge is nonsense. There is no basis in fact for that sort of thinking. In order for their to be sustained growth in the US, there is no sort of magic silver bullet sort of panacea. Sorry folks, thats just what it is. If you want to have growth here in the US, you have to address our structural employment issues. The reality is that we will not return to the high construction, manufacturing employment society we had before. That's just not going to happen. Employers are learning to do more with less. Technology is improving, so is software and robotics, and guess what? You don't have to pay healthcare benefits for these advances. So in order to grow we need a president who has the vision of where future demand will come from. So what does Obama do? He has a vision of green energy, which I believe there is a future there, but he miscalculated the feasibility of that ideological dream at this point in time. If anything you spend money on the research of technological advances, not on the actual non feasible implementation of it. Seems like every week you hear of another Government grant approved by Obama towards the green sector is going bankrupt. You know where the president can help create jobs in the PRIVATE sector right now? In domestic drilling. Did you know that the fossil fuel energy industry has seen the most increased percentage of employment? NO THANKS TO OBAMA! All this was approved in the Bush era, Obama with his extremist environmental activist Energy policies have in fact denied thousands of miles of drilling that would of been approved if he wasn't there. Yet the hypocrite touts that under his Administration more oil is being drilled! They say the president is a practical man, I say bull ****! If he was practical he would go where the private sector would create jobs RIGHT NOW! They would approve more oil drilling not only to create jobs now, but those actions would lower energy prices in the future. AND the kicker is that this would be ALL private sector money, not your money. You know where there could be another structural area where we could look to improve? How about the BRIC nations? These nations are growing rapidly, and their appetite for good products and services are rising even faster. A good president would have the vision to see this. They would do everything in their power to increase trade, supply their needs with our American products and services. HOnestly, how many times have you heard that this has been happening? If you have it hasn't been nearly enough. What about making out corporate tax code competitive with the rest of the world? Did you know that the presidents corporate tax plan has been shunned by his own economic council? No one is supporting it. You can find that on the web if you look for it. Why? Because at the end of the day, they found out that his corporate tax "cut" is actually a tax hike. What about the presidents idea to raise taxes on dividends for all Americans to near 40%? What do you think that will do? You think that will encourage more investment towards companies? You see these are structural issues, but the ideological deficit spending purists somehow believe that if you spend money just for the sake of creating a job, any job, that voilaaaaaaaa! SUSTAINED GROWTH!!! Guys like you TPS are very dangerous. They give people the false illusion that things are going well "Look at the bond markets, everything is fine". This ideology is what the president supports, the people he nominated to the FED are academics who hold the belief that stimulus IS the panacea. They're wrong.

I think it's a sad state of affairs when people begrudge others for having a couple cadillacs. Having said that, if this is the best the DNC and all their rank and file meatpuppets can come up with, then all Romney has to do (assuming he wins the primaries) is have a razor like focus on the economy and he'll stand a good chance in winning.

It's worse than a naughty word, it's a big BOOGEY MAN! BOOOGAA BOOGAA BOOOGAA

Santo recieved 52% to 18% of Romney's of the total Democratic Votes. Approximatey 10% of total votes were from Democrats, there was a concerted effort from the DNC, DailyKos, Santo and Michael Moore, if you would of eliminated the differential between Rombo and Santo, Romney's lead would of been closter to 7%. Also another fact, which you won't hear reported, simply because the left and right wing blogs and media all dislike Romney, is that Romney in fact attracted almost 100,000 more votes and that he recieved a larger percentage of the total vote than he did in 08.

Santorum is gonna win. Exit polls so far have 10% of the total voters are Democrats and he has more than a 3 to 1 advantage with these voters. My guess is that Santorum wins by about 3-5%

Well if you ask me which do I prefer a 17.5% corporate tax rate or at 28%? or only 2 income tax rates of 10% and 28% as opposed to what we have now? or Keeping all the regulations of the Presidents Health Care law, some of the EPA's regulations and all of Dodd Frank as opposed to what we have today? or allowing the expansion of domestic oil drilling and approving the keystone over this presidents policies? or An effort to cut spending more than this president? or attempting to reform entitlements, whereas this president doesn't even try? or keeping taxes at dividends at the current rates as opposed to north of 40%? Which do you prefer? Substance JA, Substance....

That's ok Eric, you're not alone, most people don't understand what a managed bankrupcty is, just take solice that you and DiN fall in this category.

No, that's what he meant. Read it!

Usually works well for me, better than doing what we have been doing. Oh, and guess what there LA? The idea that I'm floating, would be much better for all the concerns that you listed than the status quo.

I originally read it on the hill, but it's now on Politico http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73349.html

For any of you dipshits on this board that are thinking about voting for Santorum Yeah, like he'd have a real shot at beating Obama.

Just because you say its as simple as that doesn't make it so. There has never been a real effort to protect the borders while having a sensible approach to allowing a pathway to citizenship. By Just doing it!

Well I call bull **** to your bull **** of my bull ****! So there! In regards to what sort of pathway to citizenship? I don't know enough details to give you a specific answer, but I layed out a general idea. Off of that framework with a serious committment of protecting the borders in a deal that works hand inhand with that idea, I would say is the best way to move forward. Also, unless you want to live in a world of high debt, high taxes, free **** for everyone, then the conservative movement better get on the ball on this issue, because latinos are moving away from conservatives and they are doing it in droves, and that is a fact! Well, it's not gonna happen.

I'm not going to get into the complexities of it, but the idea that so and so has to happen first is a bunch of bull ****! I will tell you this, what stopped Bush from being able to make this happen was the hardcore anti immigrant wing of his own party and the cynical political calculation of the liberals knowing this fact and using it to their benefit.

I think that having a comprehensive immigration bill that includes these pathways to citizenship that I mentioned along with more protection at the border can both be done simultaneously.

Best "candidates" for who? For those that have narrow definitions of what "conservatives" should mean? Or best "candidate" out of the lot to run the country?

Did I say that? Did you read a !@#$ing word that I just typed? Or did you just pull that out of your ass? I'm gonna go with the latter. I SAID allowing them to serve in the military and going to college. THAT'S WHAT I SAID! Now if you want to equate going to college and serving in the military as "waving a wand" and voilaaaa jobs appear, well then thats your problem.

Simply put, by allowing a higher percentage of them a pathway to citizenship. I think most of us can agree that citizens obviously have advantages for gainful employment over illegal aliens. Therefore they aren't in a position to contribute to society as much as legal immigrants. Illegal aliens are hamstrung in the jobs they can perform, for obvious reasons. Which is why they mainly work in menial sorts of labor, such as cook assistants, dishwashers, agriculture etc. Allowing a gateway to citizenship, such as serving in the military and allowing the children of certain illegal aliens to attend college is a productive way of integrating such illegals into our society so that they can become even more productive.

Without a doubt, and Santorum complains "The media only wants to talk about this issue when they speak with me" Well then stop talking about it on your stump speeches you dip ****! But, that's his plan. He wants to pit the media vs his social conservatives. He knows much like Gingrich that the hard right get riled up on this issue, so Even though he is talking about social issues, he tells the very same people hes campaigning to that its the lefts obsession that they want to concentrate on these issues, EVEN THOUGH He's stumping on it! And the sad part is that these people he's campaigning to, are believing it.

In many cases, yes. I'm not an absolutist, don't believe in it, and happen to believe that its a deeply flawed way of thinking. Are there cases to be made for more protection at the border? Absolutely. Are there legitimate arguments that it does cause certain sectors of state government budgets to go deep in the red? Yep. On the otherhand do alot of these illegal immigrants create more favorable employer conditions? Yep. Do some of these illegal immigrants help us with population expansion which is critical for economic growth (See Europe)? You better believe it. Do illegal immigrants bring in added sales tax revenues? You betcha. What the future of the conservative movement needs is more inclusiveness. From a social standpoint, alot of these latinos are very socially conservative, they can be brought under the tent, but if you alienate them, make them feel like they are a bunch of wetback fence hopping drug pushers that create economic chaos, then they will run over to the Liberals. And do you blame them? So the solution involves inclusivity, protection of borders and integrating them into our society through legal means. Which of course would add more tax revenues. That's the solution.

It's pretty hypocritical of Santorum to make that point. Every day I see him talk, I like him less and less.

It's the tone, the rhetoric, the overexaggeration of the perils of illegal immigration that I dislike. Latino's generally speaking, don't want to be part of a party that demogogues them. There are more effective and constructive ways with solving this issue, the party has steered super right on this issue, and it's a losing issue. The best thing they could do is go along with the Dream Act and add in a few provisions such as tightening up the border and this E verify idea. And to stop talking down and demogoguing latino's. The claims from the right are wildly overexaggerated both from the economic and violence standpoints. That's a fact! The left creates boogeymen and so do the right. The lefts boogeymen are more like "If you don't pass this bill 'babies will die' " or "If you don't pass this bill 'seniors will have no healthcare'" The rights boogeymen are "If we don't go into this country, the religious fanatics are gonna come after us" or "If we don't secure the border, more people are going to die because of Mexican drug dealers" It's all a bunch of bull ****! Just like Jeb Bush said, which is that the candidates are "appealing to people's fears" Thats true. I hate seeing it, why? Because it is an issue that doesn't play well in the general elections,and rather than people focusing on what they truly should be focusing on, which is the economy and debt, you will get the shallow segment of the population focusing on these lesser important issues.

Santorum's view on this is a precise reason why he would get clobbered in the general elections, which I disagree with vehemently, and I just hope that the the primary voters realize this before they cast their ballots. I can't stand this sort of ideology. Having said that Obama's economic and handling the debt policies scares me 1000 times more than Santorum's social stances. And I just hope the John Stewart/American Idol segment of our population realizes that at the end of the day, it's the economy and the debt that matters more than what this shallow segment of our population obsesses on, which is of course these social issues, oh and if the candidate wears a sweater/vest.