Romney just messed up by trying to chime in like he did about Medicare. He needs to watch his impulsiveness.
His responses are nothing special, and for good reason.
The only task Obama has at hand right now is to not make a stupid remark. He only needs to play it close to the vest, and he will come out in better condition than he is in now.
Romney, however, will come out in a worse condition if he plays it close to the vest. He needs to wow the audience tonight to gain any ground. Both candidates seem to be doing well in their goals thus far.
And he made a charming joke! Strictly politically speaking, Romney is kicking butt tonight. Except for the way he tried to chime in when the moderator was trying to talk. “But… but… I want to talk about… but…”
It was reminiscent of a child not being heard at all, continually interrupting people.
I know it’s early in the debate, but I was expecting so little from him. In fact, I was expecting mostly rhetoric.
But his responses are very well thought-out, on-point, and impressive. Good on him!
I still staunchly oppose most of his policies.
Hey, let’s all take a look at this link! PolitiFact closes its article on this chain e-mail with this:
A few of the sentiments have some link to reality – Obama did order the raid to kill bin Laden, and he did oppose Guantanamo, even though he ultimately failed to carry through on his promise to close it. The critics may have wished Obama had made these statements, but appears the statements have no basis in reality. It’s clear from our research that all six quotes are fabrications. Once again a widely circulated chain e-mail is spreading ridiculous falsehoods about Obama. We rate this e-mail Pants on Fire.
Fact check these things, everyone. Obama is a hypocrite and a warmonger, but there’s no need to lie in order to prove that point. It’s counterproductive, to say the least.
I know that you children in your Che shirts and Fawkes masks who support him don’t remember what happens when this occurs…or maybe you do…and you Libertarians will once again sell us out to Democrats. Good work helping to fix the country…fuckers.
Not only does this say a lot about the Flying Monkeys that follow this guy like groupies at a KISS concert, but it also speaks volumes about what a selfish, self-centered jerk Ron Paul is. Whatever. Go have your fun, kids, but remember….you get what you ask for.
Ron Paul is finished. He’s retired. He’s home in Texas relaxing finally at 77. These are rumors, and rumors only.
That’s the number of American soldiers who have died in Afghanistan since the inception of the war. The New York Times has an excellent infographic that breaks down the numbers further by branch, province, age, and so forth.
Most telling, in my view, is the graph which demonstrates that the most violent years come after 2008, when we of course saw a policy shift from the Obama administration away from Iraq and focused on “winning” the war in the Afghanistan. As you can see from the graph, the 2009 troop surge was consonant with the heaviest period of American casualties in the history of our involvement in Afghanistan:
More at the link.
The Treasury has decided to market its first new product in 15 years: Floating-Rate Notes. The newly conceived-of notes are described as both a haven and an investment, as the interest paid on these notes will reset periodically to match prevailing rates measured by a market index; the notes will also supposedly have a maturity of two years. This move comes as one hoping to bring more demand back to buying government bonds.
In the later 2000’s, it became evident that foreign holdings of U.S. Treasuries had fallen greatly; investors were staying away from the long-term bonds and, therefor, the U.S. Dollar. The Federal Reserve temporarily remedied the situation by buying long-term bonds from the Treasury (and a lot of them) with the Quantitative Easing programs. The Treasury has now come to a point where they are trying to figure out how to mitigate such a problem in the future by attracting investors again, but the financial condition of the U.S. Government may have reached a point of no return. The current U.S. bond bubble will burst, and when it does the government will print its way out of matured obligations, will monetize the debt further, and hyperinflate the economy.
Even if the crisis at hand is avoided, there is a major downside to these new Treasuries: it could leave more of a burden for taxpayers. Given the unlikely circumstance that the U.S. Economy makes a long-term recovery, the interest to be paid on these notes will be on the rise. Already the government is having trouble raising the money to pay off its current obligations (and ultimately it will fail unless debt is liquidated immediately), but it will now be required to gain more in revenues to pay off its investors.
They’re actually spreading this ridiculous article around: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/08/forget-paul-ryans-budget-his-scariest-idea-is-about-the-federal-reserve/261066/
Don’t be hypocrites, people.
Show me the “Ron Paul fans” spreading this. Chances are they can’t be too huge of fans. No Ron Paul fan would ever say:
[T]he Fed has gotten much, much better at maintaining price stability since the advent of the dual mandate.
So either 1) You’re lying, 2) You’re misreading who is and who is not a Ron Paul fan, or 3) They’re idiots for thinking they like Ron Paul when clearly they don’t.
Here you go.
I am sorry because the person who posted this is a follower of mine, so I am removing the name.
There are more on my Facebook, too.
So they’re just stupid.
Not in the sense that they have their beliefs; they’re entitled to those. But for thinking they’re a Paul supporter.
They give us a bad name.
One of my economics professors also shared that article saying “what stupid views”. He’s an Austrian, and the TA for one of the big thinkers.
Can you also explain this post by Lew Rockwell to me?
Last time I checked, insider-trading is a-okay.
I’d have to guess (don’t know for sure) that Rockwell’s view on insider trading is that if it’s done by government officials (specifically those with significant influence on policy changes in their respective parts of the economy) that it’s simply not permissible. More of a conflict of interests because they’re the voted representatives of the nation and not of their own finances. I’d agree with that view.
Personally, I believe that if one wants to be a voted member of our government, they must forfeit all oversight of their finances or simply sever themselves from all financial interests in order to best serve the public as they promised.
But that’s, unfortunately, not how it works. So they inside trade to protect themselves when they realize certain decisions in Washington have been made. I think the inside-trade he made is morally abject. I bet Democrats did some of the same stuff on that same day. Probably most of Congress did. Because as it stands in the system, it’s acceptable.
Insider-trading is one thing, but when done by government officials, I consider it something entirely different. If you understand what I’m saying; if not, I apologize for my lack of clarity.
I don’t consider insider trading by the government any different than insider trading by anyone else.
In both instances, it allows the market to clear faster. People should be able to apply any, and all, information at their disposal.
Being against insider trading—even for politicians—is basically being in favor of a thought police, in my opinion.
I totally understand the “clears markets faster” case. But it assumes that decisions made in government have the aim of clearing markets in the first place, when in reality they rarely do.
They usually consist of bailouts, subsidies, increases the stock of money, etc. And so allowing for government officials with influence on some of those decisions to inside-trade paves the way for more recklessness.
If you’re volunteering to serve as a public-servant in Congress, your private interests should somehow be separated from your job within the legislature.