2012 US Presidential Race Catch All

1. The rainbows and unicorns is the belief that balanced budgets are good for the economy.
2. The budget deficit is also a reflection of the trade deficit.
3. The trade deficit debt is just double-entry accounting.

From the Commerce Department, Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) -
ITAs are US International Transaction Accounts. -

The ITAs apply a double-entry system of accounting in recording transactions: for any entry there must be counterpart entry. Exports of goods and services, income receipts, unilateral transfers to the United States, capital account receipts, decreases in U.S. assets abroad, and increases in foreign-owned liabilities in the United States are shown as credits (with a positive sign). Imports of goods and services, income payments, unilateral transfers from the United States, capital account payments, increases in U.S. assets abroad, and decreases in foreign owned liabilities in the United States are shown as debits (with a negative sign). For each credit entry there must be an equal and offsetting debit entry, and vice versa. For example, if a foreign resident purchased a U.S. good with a check drawn against its U.S. bank account, the offset to the credit entry for U.S. goods exports would be a debit entry for foreign-owned bank-reported liabilities, reflect­ing the reduction in foreign-owned assets in the United States

I know there is a lot of jargon in that quote but it is saying that Chinese Trade Surplus of dollars (DEBIT) is the same thing as Chinese T-bills (CREDIT). AKA double-entry accounting.

I am saying this because our political/economic paradigm is out of whack. It is not talking about the truth. But rather bull sh*t.

In other words we are not borrowing from the Chinese. They are just getting puny interest on their trade surplus money from selling us crap (mostly).

KrazyTacoFO wrote:
Atras wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
Funkenpants wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
Yeah. During the 2008 campaign people painted McCain as if he would be a continuation of Bush's policies. The irony is painful.

I'd still vote for Obama over McCain/Palin. No regrets there.

I'm not saying McCain was the better choice. Just that most of the knocks against McCain (Palin aside) were that he would continue the policies of Bush.

Yeah, an objective examination of Obama as a President would be pretty sad and ugly, but I have yet to see much hope on the horizon. Romney is probably the best of the competition I have seen so far, and he is both unlikely to appeal to a lot of the Republican base and unlikely to truly be much better. I am not thrilled with most of the non-party "front-runners", too, so I will likely end up being pretty goddamn stupid in 17 months.

Tracking of Obama's promises made.

Hmm. It looks like the majority of the broken promises have to do with taxing the very rich. On balance, he looks to have kept most of what he said he would do.

Only if you're pretty goddamn stupid.

"The people on this commission are going to be people who know something about coal, oil, shale oil, natural gas, and they will be people whose businesses or individuals who have been abused by the EPA....like Shell Oil. I'm going to ask the CEO of Shell Oil would he like to be on this commission, and give me some recommendations."
— Herman Cain on who he would appoint to a "regulatory reduction commission" which would figure out which EPA regulations should be eliminated

Pulled that one off the Doonsebury page today, but Cain's got a load of them. This guy is really entertaining. I mean, he's trying to out-crazy Bachmann, and I think he's winning.

Wow. Just today my mom was commenting on how great Cain looked (as a candidate). Kinda sickens me that she really has no idea about this stuff or just doesn't care so long as taxes aren't raised to pay for some welfare mothers to milk the system.

I checked out one lane over from T-Paw at Sam's yesterday, and he bumped me with his cart as we were heading out the door. I ask you, would you want as president somebody who can't properly control a cart filled with bulk goods? Michelle Bachmann would have simply prayed her cart to the parking lot.

I BET OBAMA SHOPS AT COSTCO BECAUSE HE'S A BIG ELITIST.

Cain and Bachmann aren't ever going to become President. I'm hoping Huntsman can pull it out but I fear he won't be able to beat back the crazy.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:
"The people on this commission are going to be people who know something about coal, oil, shale oil, natural gas, and they will be people whose businesses or individuals who have been abused by the EPA....like Shell Oil. I'm going to ask the CEO of Shell Oil would he like to be on this commission, and give me some recommendations."
— Herman Cain on who he would appoint to a "regulatory reduction commission" which would figure out which EPA regulations should be eliminated

Pulled that one off the Doonsebury page today, but Cain's got a load of them. This guy is really entertaining. I mean, he's trying to out-crazy Bachmann, and I think he's winning.

Comments like this make me wonder what world some of these people live in? At what point in history was an absolute lack of regulation ever a good thing? Where has a system of little or no regulation ever been successful long term. Regulation is exactly what allowed Cain to build his sh*tty pizza chain. Without anti-trust it's possible that we'd all be eating a diet of nothing but Little Caesar's.

They should drag his stupid ass to West Virginia and make him drink some of the lovely "water" that's produced in the absence of EPA intervention with the oh so responsible coal companies.

Bear wrote:

Comments like this make me wonder what world some of these people live in? At what point in history was an absolute lack of regulation ever a good thing? Where has a system of little or no regulation ever been successful long term.

We definitely need reasonable regulations. The problem is the other side of the environmentalist coin isn't living in reality either. We need a steady, reliable supply of electricity, especially if we're going to try to move to electric cars etc. However the current environmental movement doesn't want us using coal, natural gas, wind, or nuclear power to do this. Apparently they believe that the earth fae will fart electricity. Additionally, every time gasoline hits $4/gal the economy starts slowing down and we have a large contingent on that side that think $8/gal gas is a good idea. After all, Europe with its much denser population and completely different infrastructure when it comes to public transportation etc can do it, let's make a false equivalency and hope for really expensive gas, that'll teach them when unemployment jumps to 15-20%!

Anyways, fark the Republicans. I used to vote for them as the lesser of two evils, but they've gotten so bats-t crazy on the social issues and their current refusal to do anything sensible about the budget that I'm not rewarding them with my vote in 2012. We need a party that has the guts to simplify the tax code (and progressively raise taxes on the uber wealthy), cut the military down to a more reasonable percent of GDP/budget (25% is a good first step), and do real entitlement reform. We also need a party that learns that "stimulus" means massive public works projects, not handing money to union auto shops and banks that gamed the system to make stupid loans. I'd also love to see publicly funded federal elections and rules that send politicians to PITA prison if they accept any gifts or favors.

Ulairi wrote:
Cain and Bachmann aren't ever going to become President. I'm hoping Huntsman can pull it out but I fear he won't be able to beat back the crazy.

As someone who is generally liberal, I like Huntsman - which should tell you all you need to know about his chances of getting through the primary.

bandit0013 wrote:
Bear wrote:

Comments like this make me wonder what world some of these people live in? At what point in history was an absolute lack of regulation ever a good thing? Where has a system of little or no regulation ever been successful long term.

We definitely need reasonable regulations. The problem is the other side of the environmentalist coin isn't living in reality either. We need a steady, reliable supply of electricity, especially if we're going to try to move to electric cars etc. However the current environmental movement doesn't want us using coal, natural gas, wind, or nuclear power to do this. Apparently they believe that the earth fae will fart electricity. Additionally, every time gasoline hits $4/gal the economy starts slowing down and we have a large contingent on that side that think $8/gal gas is a good idea. After all, Europe with its much denser population and completely different infrastructure when it comes to public transportation etc can do it, let's make a false equivalency and hope for really expensive gas, that'll teach them when unemployment jumps to 15-20%!

If that fringe element of the Democrats had even a 100th of the sway of the fringe elements of the Republican party, you might have a point worth discussing. Talk about false equivalency!

The reasons some of us have issues with Obama is why the bulk of the Republican party should be embracing the guy. He is your Reagan.

Jayhawker wrote:
If that fringe element of the Democrats had even a 100th of the sway of the fringe elements of the Republican party, you might have a point worth discussing. Talk about false equivalency!

For evidence of this, look at the way the Sunday gasbag shows book guests. I was watching This Week yesterday, and I noticed that in casting the panel to discuss Obama's war policy, they did not invite a single progressive politician or writer. If you are a national-level democrat and you are to the left of Obama, you are not considered serious enough to merit attention. You are a fringe, even though most of the public may support your policy goals.

You had the first black president.

Now it's time for another first:
The first lesbian president!! Vote for Hillary!
Sure, she needs to come out first, but give it some time. Rumors already have started lol

Sparhawk wrote:
You had the first black president.

Now it's time for another first:
The first lesbian president!! Vote for Hillary!
Sure, she needs to come out first, but give it some time. Rumors already have started lol

Is this really necessary?

billt721 wrote:
Ulairi wrote:
Cain and Bachmann aren't ever going to become President. I'm hoping Huntsman can pull it out but I fear he won't be able to beat back the crazy.

As someone who is generally liberal, I like Huntsman - which should tell you all you need to know about his chances of getting through the primary.

But he isn't liberal! He's civil, yes. But he's a pro-business, pro-trade western gov. and he's got international experience which is sorely needed by a President. I mean, if he were to win the nomination a lot of liberals who used to like him won't but he is the best Republican running.

Also, whatever Huntsman believes now or has done in the past, when he gets into office he can go in an entirely different direction than liberals expect. Based on his record in Texas, Dubya was supposed to be a conservative who knew how to compromise and work with democrats. Arguably he did that in Washington, too, provided the kinds of democrats at issue were Leiberman, Breaux, and Zell Miller. Remember Miller? This was the guy who accused democrats of wanting to equip our military with spitballs.

IMAGE(http://crooksandliars.com/files/uploads/2008/08/zell_miller_040901.jpg)

Funkenpants wrote:
Also, whatever Huntsman believes now or has done in the past, when he gets into office he can go in an entirely different direction than liberals expect. Based on his record in Texas, Dubya was supposed to be a conservative who knew how to compromise and work with democrats. Arguably he did that in Washington, too, provided the kinds of democrats at issue were Leiberman, Breaux, and Zell Miller. Remember Miller? This was the guy who accused democrats of wanting to equip our military with spitballs.

IMAGE(http://crooksandliars.com/files/uploads/2008/08/zell_miller_040901.jpg)

he also worked with ted kennedey.

Ulairi wrote:
he also worked with ted kennedey.

On the education bill, sure. Before 9/11 changed the political landscape.

Arise!

Per the televised crazy of Fox and Friends, Mitt Romney is obviously not a Christian.

I guess that's one point for crazy sectarianism, zero points for anything vaguely resembling sanity.

Good idea to resurrect the thread, because Herman Cain wants communities to have the right to keep out the mosques before Sharia law is written into the constitution, or something...

Funkenpants wrote:
Good idea to resurrect the thread, because Herman Cain wants communities to have the right to keep out the mosques before Sharia law is written into the constitution, or something...

Uh, Herm:

"Our Constitution guarantees the separation of church and state," he said. "Islam combines church and state. They're using the church part of our First Amendment to infuse their morals in that community, and the people of that community do not like it. They disagree with it."

So . . . because some elements of Islam combine church and state, you want to guarantee the separation of church and state by getting rid of the separation of church and state by banning mosques?

I think my brain just broke.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:
Funkenpants wrote:
Good idea to resurrect the thread, because Herman Cain wants communities to have the right to keep out the mosques before Sharia law is written into the constitution, or something...

Uh, Herm:

"Our Constitution guarantees the separation of church and state," he said. "Islam combines church and state. They're using the church part of our First Amendment to infuse their morals in that community, and the people of that community do not like it. They disagree with it."

So . . . because some elements of Islam combine church and state, you want to guarantee the separation of church and state by getting rid of the separation of church and state by banning mosques?

I think my brain just broke.

I wonder what he thinks of Catholics and Mormons.

Paleocon wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:
Funkenpants wrote:
Good idea to resurrect the thread, because Herman Cain wants communities to have the right to keep out the mosques before Sharia law is written into the constitution, or something...

Uh, Herm:

"Our Constitution guarantees the separation of church and state," he said. "Islam combines church and state. They're using the church part of our First Amendment to infuse their morals in that community, and the people of that community do not like it. They disagree with it."

So . . . because some elements of Islam combine church and state, you want to guarantee the separation of church and state by getting rid of the separation of church and state by banning mosques?

I think my brain just broke.

I wonder what he thinks of Catholics and Mormons.

How utterly wrong is it that my first response to you was "Oh, they're OK, because they're probably white" . . . because Cain is not.

How does somebody with dark skin who grew up during the civil rights struggle get onto the planet he's on?

MilkmanDanimal wrote:
Paleocon wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:
Funkenpants wrote:
Good idea to resurrect the thread, because Herman Cain wants communities to have the right to keep out the mosques before Sharia law is written into the constitution, or something...

Uh, Herm:

"Our Constitution guarantees the separation of church and state," he said. "Islam combines church and state. They're using the church part of our First Amendment to infuse their morals in that community, and the people of that community do not like it. They disagree with it."

So . . . because some elements of Islam combine church and state, you want to guarantee the separation of church and state by getting rid of the separation of church and state by banning mosques?

I think my brain just broke.

I wonder what he thinks of Catholics and Mormons.

How utterly wrong is it that my first response to you was "Oh, they're OK, because they're probably white" . . . because Cain is not.

How does somebody with dark skin who grew up during the civil rights struggle get onto the planet he's on?

OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann pointed to one program in particular Monday when talking about wasteful government spending: a multibillion dollar settlement paid to black farmers, who claim the federal government discriminated against them for decades in awarding loans and other aid.

The issue came up after Bachmann and Republican Rep. Steve King of Iowa toured flooded areas along the Missouri River. During a news conference, they fielded a question about whether farmers affected by the flooding also should be worried by proposed U.S. Department of Agriculture cuts.

...Bachmann seconded King's criticism, saying, "When money is diverted to inefficient projects, like the Pigford project, where there seems to be proof-positive of fraud, we can't afford $2 billion in potentially fraudulent claims when that money can be used to benefit the people along the Mississippi River and the Missouri River."

I guess she saw a lot of white people lining up to ask for money and thought, "Government is the answer here."

I think of all the things that annoy me about the Right, this Sharia law obsession is the worst. It's like having McDonalds raging against Burger King, insisting we have to keep the unhealthy fast-food chain out of our community.

I love that Dan Savage referred to Marcus Bachmann as "Liberace's more feminine younger cousin".

SpacePPoliceman wrote:
I think of all the things that annoy me about the Right, this Sharia law obsession is the worst. It's like having McDonalds raging against Burger King, insisting we have to keep the unhealthy fast-food chain out of our community.

The worst thing about it for me is the complete detachment from reality. At the same time as they're obsessing about the imminent threat of Sharia law they've forgotten that the other group they love to hate, illegal immigrants, is largely Catholic. So assuming they don't kick all illegal immigrants out of the country the growing demographics suggest that there will be a sizable majority population of Catholics and other denominations. Sharia law is hardly around the corner. To suggest that is laughable at best.

I'm still trying to pinpoint how and when the whole Sharia law thing became... a thing. This strikes me as one of those invented problems, like the War on Christmas - where people just repeat the same unfacts over and over with the attitude that it was an existing problem already, not one that is just now being made up. Except this is just way more insane.

Bloo Driver wrote:
I'm still trying to pinpoint how and when the whole Sharia law thing became... a thing. This strikes me as one of those invented problems, like the War on Christmas - where people just repeat the same unfacts over and over with the attitude that it was an existing problem already, not one that is just now being made up. Except this is just way more insane.

1. It's just an expanded part of the "War on Christianity", where even though the great majority of this people identify as Christian and almost every one of our elected representatives identifies as Christian, Christians themselves are under constant attack . . . somehow. By denying Christians the right to publicly validate their beliefs by things like sticking the Ten Commandments up in courthouses, we're losing the "moral fiber" of our country and making us weak.

2. ?

3. Sharia.