|
|
Just because this is so awesome, here's the cover of next week's New Yorker:
![[image loading]](http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/121015_2012_p465.jpg)
|
Too bad it's the only thing Romney will end up winning  And surely you do not read The New Yorker, xDaunt, and this cover popped up on some Drudge Report-type site?
|
|
|
even bill o'reilly said that he thinks obama could have just done bad in the debate because he's so far ahead in the polls his campaign just wanted some excitement going on. i mean he didn't even mention the 47% comment.
o'reilly said this on the daily show the other day.
no one would even want to watch the news if they all said obama was going to smash romney. and they want to make money, so they have to create this fake toe-to-toe run.
|
I think it's proof that the entire "democratic process" is in the pocket of the news moguls...
edit: I'm about 80 percent sure I'm joking
|
On October 06 2012 15:20 xDaunt wrote:Just because this is so awesome, here's the cover of next week's New Yorker:
This is the happiest you've been in months ... did you watch the opening of Colbert last night of him dancing in the audience?
|
Romney won the debate because his main points were opportunity and the American dream instead of dependency and a sense of entitlement; trying to unite Democrats and Republicans on issues we agree with instead of passing bad plans that no one from the other party supports; tax reform instead of pointless tax hikes; controlling spending instead of just randomly decreasing spending on things and hoping that the budget gets balanced.
|
On October 06 2012 17:04 Darknat wrote:
Romney won the debate because his main points were opportunity and the American dream instead of dependency and a sense of entitlement; trying to unite Democrats and Republicans on issues we agree with instead of passing bad plans that no one from the other party supports; tax reform instead of pointless tax hikes; controlling spending instead of just randomly decreasing spending on things and hoping that the budget gets balanced.
Yeah, you can pretty much say anything when you're challenging the incumbent, he should have promised rainbows and unicorns as well.
|
On October 06 2012 17:04 Darknat wrote:
Romney won the debate because his main points were opportunity and the American dream instead of dependency and a sense of entitlement; trying to unite Democrats and Republicans on issues we agree with instead of passing bad plans that no one from the other party supports; tax reform instead of pointless tax hikes; controlling spending instead of just randomly decreasing spending on things and hoping that the budget gets balanced.
Naaaaaaah. Romney won by attacking the president's policies, while refusing to specify his own, and Obama being caught asleep at the wheel -- not knowing whether to attack Romney or play it safe.
It's obvious that Obama's advisors thought he should play it like Bush did in 2004 ... try to be polite and likeable and coast on through while he had a lead. It was a dumb fucking idea. It's like when a team has a 10-point lead at the half, and instead of blowing the competition out of the water, they get passive and try to do the bare minimum and try to 'play-it-safe'. It never works.
|
Who the fuck cares what appears to be won in appearance. I base who i vote on off what they say/do and is it true sense politicians lie and at best deal in half truths. President most important thing is foreign policy to which he has the greatest effect with anything a presidency/campaign polices that doesn't deal with foreign policy i take with a gain of salt as they need a lot of support out of congress to do most things. Only thing i'd pay attention to in terms of domestic policy is things they would absolutely veto ie dealing in the realm of where presidents have actual power.
|
On October 06 2012 17:55 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2012 17:04 Darknat wrote:
Romney won the debate because his main points were opportunity and the American dream instead of dependency and a sense of entitlement; trying to unite Democrats and Republicans on issues we agree with instead of passing bad plans that no one from the other party supports; tax reform instead of pointless tax hikes; controlling spending instead of just randomly decreasing spending on things and hoping that the budget gets balanced. Naaaaaaah. Romney won by attacking the president's policies, while refusing to specify his own, and Obama being caught asleep at the wheel -- not knowing whether to attack Romney or play it safe. It's obvious that Obama's advisors thought he should play it like Bush did in 2004 ... try to be polite and likeable and coast on through while he had a lead. It was a dumb fucking idea. It's like when a team has a 10-point lead at the half, and instead of blowing the competition out of the water, they get passive and try to do the bare minimum and try to 'play-it-safe'. It never works.
I also contribute it to Romney huge shift to the center caught obama off guard. Romney has been campaigning more or less like his still in a primary and obama was probably expecting more of that. Not that is an excuse though, should of called romney out on his flip floping more. You could see him trying to but being way to passive about it. Being rusty at debating while romney having a some under his belt from the primary just amplified the problem.
|
On October 06 2012 10:17 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2012 09:36 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 06 2012 09:34 HellRoxYa wrote:On October 06 2012 09:31 kmillz wrote:
I have to ask...what has Obama done to move us "Forward" so far? This is a serious question, I am not trolling, but the numbers just show unemployment and the debt worse since he has been in office. No "Romney's plan is worse" comments, I just want to hear what Obama has done positively for this country so far and why he deserves a second term. Well as an outsider I can say that he's returned to good international diplomacy, both among so-called allies and among indifferent or somewhat hostile nations. Admittedly there are people in the US who see this as a weekness but frankly I would concider them daft and oblivious to the world. considering the controversy that has come from his bungling of both the attack on the Ambassador and of the aftermath of the attack, I would say that his foreign-policy and "diplomacy" is actually one of his weak points. Then you'd be wrong. The US has, under Obama, regained a lot of the clout it had lost under George Bush, especially within international organizations.
this is a very empty statement. "regained a lot of clout". how exactly do i measure this supposed achievement? and where exactly do i find it's real-time benefit to me?
On October 06 2012 10:28 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2012 09:36 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 06 2012 09:34 HellRoxYa wrote:On October 06 2012 09:31 kmillz wrote:
I have to ask...what has Obama done to move us "Forward" so far? This is a serious question, I am not trolling, but the numbers just show unemployment and the debt worse since he has been in office. No "Romney's plan is worse" comments, I just want to hear what Obama has done positively for this country so far and why he deserves a second term. Well as an outsider I can say that he's returned to good international diplomacy, both among so-called allies and among indifferent or somewhat hostile nations. Admittedly there are people in the US who see this as a weekness but frankly I would concider them daft and oblivious to the world. considering the controversy that has come from his bungling of both the attack on the Ambassador and of the aftermath of the attack, I would say that his foreign-policy and "diplomacy" is actually one of his weak points. Obama pretty much, single-mindedly, created the coalition and ordered the air strike that prevented Gaddaffi from overthrowing the rebels in Libya. He saved hundreds of thousands of people in Benghazi. http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2012/10/michael-lewis-profile-barack-obamaThe Libyan people loves America, and have already forced the more extreme Muslim militias in their country to disband in the aftermath of the embassy attack. Four US citizens died, unfortunately, and that is on the administration. But overall the Obama's administration did a remarkable job with how they overthrew Gaddafi, especially compared to the cost and turmoil of Iraq and Afghanistan. If you want to complain about foreign policy, complain about Afghanistan -- a war that Obama didn't start, but did continue, and where there is no good exit strategy.
i wonder how much of his interference into these countries will really benefit us in the long run. it's all well and good to say that we did these great things, but i want results, and the results have been, thus far, a dead ambassador.
comparing Libya to Iraq or Afghanistan is like comparing apples and oranges.
i do think Obama's handling of Afghanistan is one of his many weak points on foreign policy. besides, if we are talking about perceptions (which I am mostly talking about perceptions) than i can tell you that the perception of Obama's foreign policy is not as good as it might be, especially if he has to defend it in a debate format, where we clearly see he is not very good.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 06 2012 21:55 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2012 10:17 kwizach wrote:On October 06 2012 09:36 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 06 2012 09:34 HellRoxYa wrote:On October 06 2012 09:31 kmillz wrote:
I have to ask...what has Obama done to move us "Forward" so far? This is a serious question, I am not trolling, but the numbers just show unemployment and the debt worse since he has been in office. No "Romney's plan is worse" comments, I just want to hear what Obama has done positively for this country so far and why he deserves a second term. Well as an outsider I can say that he's returned to good international diplomacy, both among so-called allies and among indifferent or somewhat hostile nations. Admittedly there are people in the US who see this as a weekness but frankly I would concider them daft and oblivious to the world. considering the controversy that has come from his bungling of both the attack on the Ambassador and of the aftermath of the attack, I would say that his foreign-policy and "diplomacy" is actually one of his weak points. Then you'd be wrong. The US has, under Obama, regained a lot of the clout it had lost under George Bush, especially within international organizations. this is a very empty statement. "regained a lot of clout". how exactly do i measure this supposed achievement? and where exactly do i find it's real-time benefit to me?
Empty statement? All you have to do is read the news. Just very recently he's renewed military relations with New Zealand, got Canada to impose sanctions on Iran, and brought Netanyahu onto the same page as us on the Iran situation. And although Afghanistan has been terrible and messy he has still retained support from our allies. Obama has done extremely well in regards to foreign policy with the help of a very hardworking Hillary Clinton. His only major miscues have been his inability to close Guantanamo (though he tried) and his administration's failure to recognize the Libya incident as a planned terrorist attack.
|
Romney misrepresented policy no more than Obama did. I'm confused why people are holding Romney to the fire and not Obama.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
apparently romney's policy is so amorphous that it covers 75% of the american political spectrum. it is like trying to pick a fist fight with a fog.
|
On October 07 2012 00:58 oneofthem wrote:
apparently romney's policy is so amorphous that it covers 75% of the american political spectrum. it is like trying to pick a fist fight with a fog.
he seemed pretty linear in his debate argument.
|
On October 07 2012 00:58 oneofthem wrote:
apparently romney's policy is so amorphous that it covers 75% of the american political spectrum. it is like trying to pick a fist fight with a fog.
lol. Romney is starting to grow on me in an incredibly backwards way because it seems like he's 80% liberal when he's not in front of a republican-only audience.
But this kind of stuff is just too funny to me:
Romney Health Care Debate Claim Gets Corrected By His Own Staff
Independent fact checkers have not been particularly kind to Mitt Romney since Wednesday's first presidential debate in Denver. But one of the candidate's claims turned out to be so far off the mark that he had to be corrected by his own aides — a fact not unnoticed by the Obama campaign.
Romney's claim was this, part of what turned out to be a highly detailed discussion of health care: "No. 1, pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan."
By pre-existing conditions, Romney was talking about the ability for people who already have medical problems — diabetes, for example, or even things like allergies — to buy health insurance. Starting in 2014, the federal Affordable Care Act says insurance companies can no longer reject people with bad health histories — nor can they charge them more.
That's already true in Massachusetts under the law Romney signed as governor. But Romney's current plan for the nation, should he be elected president, wouldn't necessarily guarantee that same protection.
"Actually, governor, that isn't what your plan does," President Obama told Romney at the debate Wednesday. "What your plan does is to duplicate what's already the law."
The president was referring to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA. It's a 1996 law that says, among other things, that once you have health insurance you can continue to purchase it, as long as there's no interruption in your coverage of more than 63 days.
But Romney's plan wouldn't guarantee that people who don't have coverage now will be able to buy it. Top Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom said as much in the so-called spin room to several reporters right after the debate, and again on Thursday on CNN.
"The governor will repeal Obamacare and he will return to the states the power to control their own health care futures," Fehrnstrom told Wolf Blitzer. "Look, what works in Massachusetts may not work in Texas. It was wrong for the president to take the broad outlines of the Massachusetts plan and impose it as a dictate from Washington on every state in the nation."
That correction was gladly picked up by the Obama forces. At a rally Friday in Northern Virginia, Obama took credit for one of the few times he actually called Romney out during the debate.
"Gov. Romney was fact checked by his own campaign. That's rough," the president told a cheering crowd at George Mason University. "Even they know his plan would take away coverage for tens of millions of Americans."
This isn't the first time a Romney statement has had to be walked back by his staff when it comes to health care. In recent weeks he's misstated or switched positions on abortion and on Medicaid. But at 67 million viewers, this was by far the largest audience that's heard something different from what the candidate's position actually is.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/10/06/162404662/romney-health-care-debate-claim-gets-corrected-by-his-own-staff
|
On October 07 2012 01:46 Trumpet wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2012 00:58 oneofthem wrote:
apparently romney's policy is so amorphous that it covers 75% of the american political spectrum. it is like trying to pick a fist fight with a fog. lol. Romney is starting to grow on me in an incredibly backwards way because it seems like he's 80% liberal when he's not in front of a republican-only audience. But this kind of stuff is just too funny to me: Show nested quote +
Romney Health Care Debate Claim Gets Corrected By His Own Staff
Independent fact checkers have not been particularly kind to Mitt Romney since Wednesday's first presidential debate in Denver. But one of the candidate's claims turned out to be so far off the mark that he had to be corrected by his own aides — a fact not unnoticed by the Obama campaign.
Romney's claim was this, part of what turned out to be a highly detailed discussion of health care: "No. 1, pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan."
By pre-existing conditions, Romney was talking about the ability for people who already have medical problems — diabetes, for example, or even things like allergies — to buy health insurance. Starting in 2014, the federal Affordable Care Act says insurance companies can no longer reject people with bad health histories — nor can they charge them more.
That's already true in Massachusetts under the law Romney signed as governor. But Romney's current plan for the nation, should he be elected president, wouldn't necessarily guarantee that same protection.
"Actually, governor, that isn't what your plan does," President Obama told Romney at the debate Wednesday. "What your plan does is to duplicate what's already the law."
The president was referring to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA. It's a 1996 law that says, among other things, that once you have health insurance you can continue to purchase it, as long as there's no interruption in your coverage of more than 63 days.
But Romney's plan wouldn't guarantee that people who don't have coverage now will be able to buy it. Top Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom said as much in the so-called spin room to several reporters right after the debate, and again on Thursday on CNN.
"The governor will repeal Obamacare and he will return to the states the power to control their own health care futures," Fehrnstrom told Wolf Blitzer. "Look, what works in Massachusetts may not work in Texas. It was wrong for the president to take the broad outlines of the Massachusetts plan and impose it as a dictate from Washington on every state in the nation."
That correction was gladly picked up by the Obama forces. At a rally Friday in Northern Virginia, Obama took credit for one of the few times he actually called Romney out during the debate.
"Gov. Romney was fact checked by his own campaign. That's rough," the president told a cheering crowd at George Mason University. "Even they know his plan would take away coverage for tens of millions of Americans."
This isn't the first time a Romney statement has had to be walked back by his staff when it comes to health care. In recent weeks he's misstated or switched positions on abortion and on Medicaid. But at 67 million viewers, this was by far the largest audience that's heard something different from what the candidate's position actually is.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/10/06/162404662/romney-health-care-debate-claim-gets-corrected-by-his-own-staff
I think he made it quite clear that he wants the states to control their own health care rules. I'm not sure what is so confusing about this. It's a pretty straightforward idea.
|
On October 07 2012 02:02 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2012 01:46 Trumpet wrote:On October 07 2012 00:58 oneofthem wrote:
apparently romney's policy is so amorphous that it covers 75% of the american political spectrum. it is like trying to pick a fist fight with a fog. lol. Romney is starting to grow on me in an incredibly backwards way because it seems like he's 80% liberal when he's not in front of a republican-only audience. But this kind of stuff is just too funny to me:
Romney Health Care Debate Claim Gets Corrected By His Own Staff
Independent fact checkers have not been particularly kind to Mitt Romney since Wednesday's first presidential debate in Denver. But one of the candidate's claims turned out to be so far off the mark that he had to be corrected by his own aides — a fact not unnoticed by the Obama campaign.
Romney's claim was this, part of what turned out to be a highly detailed discussion of health care: "No. 1, pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan."
By pre-existing conditions, Romney was talking about the ability for people who already have medical problems — diabetes, for example, or even things like allergies — to buy health insurance. Starting in 2014, the federal Affordable Care Act says insurance companies can no longer reject people with bad health histories — nor can they charge them more.
That's already true in Massachusetts under the law Romney signed as governor. But Romney's current plan for the nation, should he be elected president, wouldn't necessarily guarantee that same protection.
"Actually, governor, that isn't what your plan does," President Obama told Romney at the debate Wednesday. "What your plan does is to duplicate what's already the law."
The president was referring to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA. It's a 1996 law that says, among other things, that once you have health insurance you can continue to purchase it, as long as there's no interruption in your coverage of more than 63 days.
But Romney's plan wouldn't guarantee that people who don't have coverage now will be able to buy it. Top Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom said as much in the so-called spin room to several reporters right after the debate, and again on Thursday on CNN.
"The governor will repeal Obamacare and he will return to the states the power to control their own health care futures," Fehrnstrom told Wolf Blitzer. "Look, what works in Massachusetts may not work in Texas. It was wrong for the president to take the broad outlines of the Massachusetts plan and impose it as a dictate from Washington on every state in the nation."
That correction was gladly picked up by the Obama forces. At a rally Friday in Northern Virginia, Obama took credit for one of the few times he actually called Romney out during the debate.
"Gov. Romney was fact checked by his own campaign. That's rough," the president told a cheering crowd at George Mason University. "Even they know his plan would take away coverage for tens of millions of Americans."
This isn't the first time a Romney statement has had to be walked back by his staff when it comes to health care. In recent weeks he's misstated or switched positions on abortion and on Medicaid. But at 67 million viewers, this was by far the largest audience that's heard something different from what the candidate's position actually is.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/10/06/162404662/romney-health-care-debate-claim-gets-corrected-by-his-own-staff I think he made it quite clear that he wants the states to control their own health care rules. I'm not sure what is so confusing about this. It's a pretty straightforward idea.
Except he didn't make that clear at all going by his debate rhetoric. Obama laid out the effects of a repeal of Obamacare, one of which is a hanging out to dry of those with pre-existing conditions. Romney flat out lied and repeatedly said his "plan" would not affect those with pre-existing conditions. Go ahead and keep trying to make his rhetoric make sense though, it's fun to watch.
|
On October 06 2012 12:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2012 09:17 Defacer wrote:On October 06 2012 08:57 coverpunch wrote:On October 06 2012 08:34 harlock78 wrote:On October 06 2012 07:48 coverpunch wrote:On October 06 2012 07:40 harlock78 wrote:On October 06 2012 07:32 coverpunch wrote:On October 06 2012 07:18 harlock78 wrote:On October 06 2012 07:11 coverpunch wrote:On October 06 2012 06:57 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
Getting, keeping, whatever. You know what I mean. Efficiency is what economies are all about. We want to be efficient.
As for context for cutting taxes for the rich, I'm talking about recent history in America (like since the 1970s), where we have made plenty of tax cuts for the rich. Over and over and over again. It's not whatever because it changes the frame of mind. You're imagining income to be a giant pie and the rich are greedy bastards taking a disproportionately large slice for themselves while leaving the crumbs for the poor. You get a very different image if you think of it as the rich being the most productive members of society cranking out the most and best utility. This colors the notion of fairness greatly. In the former, it seems fair to take from the rich and give everyone the same size pie. In the latter, that looks enormously unfair as you're asking one person to work their ass off and another might do nothing and they get the same amount in the end. As for historical context, that's a losing argument. There are conditions in which we can have high taxes and high growth and high taxes and low growth. But you have to agree that what matters first and foremost is growth. If we have no growth, then there will be no prosperity for either the rich or poor. The rich can bear tough times better, but they also need growth sooner or later. In bold is an assumption I always see but completely unproven. For example how is a CEO more productive than all his engineers or scientists. Was Steve Jobs more productive than Wozniak? Or that crazy australian hiress Gina Rinehart? Einstein was never a millionaire. Even if you assume the market price is the "just" assessment of productivity and usefulness, the current market is rigged. Can't take it as fair in any way. The current market is rigged by people's perceptions. But that's how the market works. What matters is whether people can do things that spark your imagination and open your wallet to the product of their ideas. It's not that this is the best or most fair way of measuring things, but it's the way that everyone can understand. You can talk about your admiration for Einstein all you want, but do you admire him enough to buy books written by him or donate to his family's estate? That's your own choice. But don't tell me or society that you have this huge love for something if you don't trade your limited resources for it because it's just empty platitudes. The current market is rigged by incestual boards and several companies with massive financial power able to bend it the way they want. From differential access to information to little arrangements with legality, the whole thing now is rigged. Then there is the issue of fairness. Without Einstein, then the engineers developping the idea, there is no GPS. I contest that productivity=usefulness for society in that sense. So yes you can measure productivity your way, but then societal adjustment (via government, taxes etc..) should try to reach for more fairness. Your second point gets to the heart of the matter. Who gets to measure fairness? My contention is that it should be left to individuals in the market. The government should protect individuals only by curtailing frauds and corruption in the market and administering justice through predictable and open sets of law. Which is broadly how it works in the United States. You can come up with specific counterexamples, but generally the system works. The problem with your first point is that you're in an unacceptable place. Why should I vote to re-elect Obama, who has kept incestuous boards and companies with massive financial power when he clearly had the opportunity to hammer them down? I will agree with you that one thing I am furious with about President Obama is that he has made the clear and conscious decision that he isn't going to pursue and root out frauds that the big banks perpetrated in the last decade. On your second point, I agree in general with you that Obama hasn't done all he should and could have done regarding to corruption and fraud. In some case he didn't really have a choice though (2008 stimulus to insure not only the big banks but also the whole industrial tissue and small business depending on them). But he should have gone further and was not helped by republicans in that matter. Maybe you are also thinking of more specifics, like preferential funding for green energy companies etc... This is complicated and comes back in a way to your first point and our fundamental disagreement. First I don't think the market is really the result of individuals wishes. Individuals are not that free, and in real life, many other factors make the market imperfect. I would propose an analogy: natural selection is the "market" of the evolution of life on earth. It favors whatever is "fit" in a given environment. But society can decide that what is "fit" or "unfit" is not necessarily what is best or worse. And that maybe natural selection is "short sighted". For example we try to protect species about to go extinct (giving subsidies and incentives to populations who would otherwise hunt and destroy it). We spend a lot of energy on medicines (public research), or environmental preservation, in hope that in the long run, it will increase the general welfare and well being. I think your analogy is okay. There's a difference between saying the market is a collection of individual choices and that any single individual has the power to move markets, however. The important difference IMO is that the market has feedback mechanisms that can correct mistakes. Let's make it clear that the market is far from perfect, many people make mistakes or bad decisions. But the problem with a government-driven system, as borne out in more authoritarian systems, is that the government is very slow to admit it has made mistakes and even slower to change bad policies as an even bigger admission that a mistake was made. In the market, we really don't care that bad companies go bust all the time and we're not afraid to criticize or jeer at companies that produce bad products (or most devastating, not buy their products). Bringing it to the election, Ww see this with the Obama administration on Benghazi, where it has been VERY slow to admit errors were made, and we see this with the Romney campaign, which has made many mistakes but tried to act like they're victims of a liberal bias. I try to avoid debates related to the economy, because I feel there are a lot of fine posters in this thread that have a better understanding of economics than I do. But I have some open questions. Aren't their cases of the market being slow to change as well? Or the market being too easy to 'game'? It seems to me there is something wonky about a market where a consulting agency, like Bain Capital, can make profit in companies they invest in, regardless if they succeed or fail. That's not to meant to be criticism of Romney or Bain, but -- it is a perfect example of how the market is profit-driven, not innovation or solution-driven, and its a fallacy to assume there is a relationship between the two. And aren't their instances where the government has facilitated innovation, or created a demand for it, in meaningful ways? Think of all the advances made in technology as a by-product of the space race, or investing in defense. If Bill Gates didn't have free access to the supercomputers at the University of Washington, would he have succeeded? A lot of people criticize Obama's investment in Green Energy. Yes, Solyndra bombed, but it was one project in a whole portfolio of successful ones (that Obama's campaign has done a HORRIBLE job of defending). But, at least in the past, it's this kind of government-triggered 'intervention' in the market that has lead to creation of new opportunities, markets, and technologies. How is increasing spending for Green Energy any different than ... increasing Defense spending for no particular reason? They're both forms of 'crony' capitalism, if you're cynical enough to think that way. Edit: I like your analogy with the campaigns themselves by the way. Both the Obama administration and Romney campaign are quick to blame everyone other then themselves for their problems. Fucking politics. Bain really didn't turn a profit on companies that failed. What happened in some cases is that they bought the company, it improved, Bain then sold a portion its stake in the company (at a profit) and the later down the road the company failed (and Bain suffered a loss). Bain wasn't doing anything to profit at everyone else's expense. As for Solyndra, yes the vast majority of DOE loans are perfectly safe loans. All the DOE loans do is give green projects a slightly lower interest rate than they would get in the private market. They aren't a big deal either way, but then I fail to see the point of them since they don't really do much. What is a big deal are the tax credits the government gives to finance solar / wind. They are huge - 30%+ of the cost paid for - and while they do help make the environment cleaner they also don't do the economy any good. You can make then case that long-term solar / wind will be valuable industries but even then why bother when other countries are already spending huge sums of money to develop them (and not at the expense of US companies either). Are there things the government does better than the private sector? Absolutely! But when you look at something like green energy I really think the government is doing the wrong thing. The government is indispensable at helping to develop new technologies - not push them into the marketplace. So IMO the government should be spending its money helping universities develop the latest tech, keep the playing field level and end its role there.
Totally agree but I have a question:
What industries is it more beneficial to have the government run than letting the private sector handle it and why?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
