PDA

View Full Version : Obama Oh Snap...."The private sector is doing fine" our President actually said that


Chief Henry
06-08-2012, 10:26 AM
In his press conf. this moring he actually said "the private sector is doing fine"
when speaking about the economy. ROFL

FD
06-08-2012, 10:26 AM
In what context?

Donger
06-08-2012, 10:31 AM
In what context?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/06/08/obama_the_private_sector_is_doing_fine.html

Question: What about the Republicans saying that you're blaming the Europeans for the failures of your own policies?

President Obama: The truth of the matter is that, as I said, we created 4.3 million jobs over the last 27 months, over 800,000 just this year alone.

The private sector is doing fine. Where we're seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do with state and local government. Oftentimes cuts initiated by, you know, Governors or mayors who are not getting the kind of help that they have in the past from the federal government and who don't have the same kind of flexibility as the federal government in dealing with fewer revenues coming in.

And so, you know, if Republicans want to be helpful, if they really want to move forward and put people back to work, what they should be thinking about is how do we help state and local governments and how do we help the construction industry? Because the recipes that they're promoting are basically the kinds of policies that would add weakness to the -- to the economy, would result in further layoffs, would not provide relief in the housing market, and would result, I think most economists estimate, in lower growth and fewer jobs, not more.

Setsuna
06-08-2012, 10:35 AM
So he lied?

FD
06-08-2012, 10:36 AM
I see his point, though it was a dumb thing to say.

cosmo20002
06-08-2012, 10:36 AM
In his press conf. this moring he actually said "the private sector is doing fine"
when speaking about the economy. ROFL

Private sector profits are doing quite fine.

qabbaan
06-08-2012, 10:39 AM
The truth of the matter is that, as I said, we created 4.3
million jobs over the last 27 months, over 800,000 just this year
alone.

Amusing. More cherry-picking of "jobs created" statistics when, as
everyone knows, unemployment just went up, so there is no net job
creation happening.



The private sector is doing fine. Where we're seeing weaknesses in our
economy have to do with state and local government. Oftentimes cuts
initiated by, you know, Governors....

Scott Walker is the new Bush!

But: there you have it, from the President himself: unemployment is
high because we aren't expanding the government fast enough.

mlyonsd
06-08-2012, 10:39 AM
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/06/08/obama_the_private_sector_is_doing_fine.html

Question: What about the Republicans saying that you're blaming the Europeans for the failures of your own policies?

President Obama: The truth of the matter is that, as I said, we created 4.3 million jobs over the last 27 months, over 800,000 just this year alone.

The private sector is doing fine. Where we're seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do with state and local government. Oftentimes cuts initiated by, you know, Governors or mayors who are not getting the kind of help that they have in the past from the federal government and who don't have the same kind of flexibility as the federal government in dealing with fewer revenues coming in.

And so, you know, if Republicans want to be helpful, if they really want to move forward and put people back to work, what they should be thinking about is how do we help state and local governments and how do we help the construction industry? Because the recipes that they're promoting are basically the kinds of policies that would add weakness to the -- to the economy, would result in further layoffs, would not provide relief in the housing market, and would result, I think most economists estimate, in lower growth and fewer jobs, not more.I'm guessing for the 729th time in two weeks the democrats are going to have to issue another statement explaining their remarks.

vailpass
06-08-2012, 10:40 AM
Private sector profits are doing quite fine.

Negro please.

Setsuna
06-08-2012, 10:41 AM
I'm guessing for the 729th time in two weeks the democrats are going to have to issue another statement explaining their remarks.

Well...don't say dumb stuff? :shrug: That number is more of a testament to the stupid statements they make on a daily basis than someone nit picking them.

Amnorix
06-08-2012, 10:42 AM
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/06/08/obama_the_private_sector_is_doing_fine.html

Question: What about the Republicans saying that you're blaming the Europeans for the failures of your own policies?

President Obama: The truth of the matter is that, as I said, we created 4.3 million jobs over the last 27 months, over 800,000 just this year alone.

The private sector is doing fine. Where we're seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do with state and local government. Oftentimes cuts initiated by, you know, Governors or mayors who are not getting the kind of help that they have in the past from the federal government and who don't have the same kind of flexibility as the federal government in dealing with fewer revenues coming in.

And so, you know, if Republicans want to be helpful, if they really want to move forward and put people back to work, what they should be thinking about is how do we help state and local governments and how do we help the construction industry? Because the recipes that they're promoting are basically the kinds of policies that would add weakness to the -- to the economy, would result in further layoffs, would not provide relief in the housing market, and would result, I think most economists estimate, in lower growth and fewer jobs, not more.



I'm pretty sure that these three paragraphs just cost him my vote.

vailpass
06-08-2012, 10:51 AM
I'm pretty sure that these three paragraphs just cost him my vote.

That's a serious statement. I'm interested in hearing why those paragraphs brought you to this point.

qabbaan
06-08-2012, 10:52 AM
This series of statements is either deliberately dishonest, completely out of touch with reality, or betrays such a deep lack of understanding of economic policy that... Well, pick any one of the three. Whatever the explanation, this is just sad.

Does he really believe things are fine on jobs? Is he just lying? Is he woefully incompetent? Does he really think government cuts a the state level are causing unemployment?

I respect Clinton even though I didn't agree with much of the agenda. He had a pragmatic side and knew how to get things done. He did a serviceable job maintaining a rebounded economy. Even his recent statements show that he knows basically how growth happens.

This president seems not to have a clue, to not care, or to simply regard his desired policy direction as the omelet, and jobs and economic pain as the eggs.

This is the most cynical president of our lifetimes.

Chief Henry
06-08-2012, 10:52 AM
I'm guessing for the 729th time in two weeks the democrats are going to have to issue another statement explaining their remarks.

:thumb:

ain't that the truth....how many times has Bill Clinton and Mayor Booker had to re-explain what they have said.

Chief Henry
06-08-2012, 10:55 AM
That line of his in his press conf. is being turned into a politcal ad right now as I type this message. I can't believe he said that.

cosmo20002
06-08-2012, 10:58 AM
That line of his in his press conf. is being turned into a politcal ad right now as I type this message. I can't believe he said that.

Is there an adjective that could have been used that wouldn't be used for an ad?

chiefzilla1501
06-08-2012, 11:36 AM
He's really reaching. The private sector is rebounding because of course when you dig your way out of a hole, you're going to see some successes.

It doesn't change the fact that the government is creating an excessive amount of strain on our small businesses, which is crippling them. When small businesses are crippled, say what you want about job growth, it absolutely cripples the innovation that creates jobs. Small businesses created google, yahoo, Facebook, instagram, etc....

Amnorix
06-08-2012, 01:00 PM
That's a serious statement. I'm interested in hearing why those paragraphs brought you to this point.


Been teetering for a while now. There is much to hate about far right politics, in my book.

But I'm not enamored with the way Democrats are handling things either, especially runaway entitlement programs and a seeming complete lack of concern for the deficit. This particular statement by Obama is just unbelievably stupid in my book. If that reflects a core outlook on his part, then it's one I want no part of.

Though the thought of voting for the same guy as Sportsshrink or Mikey literally makes me want to vomit. Luckily, Romney is closer to the center than those two whackos.

But I guarantee I won't be at all happy with the Supreme Court nominees that Romney will pick. The Supreme Court is increasingly a place where the far right pushes the hardest to make sure they get their piece of the cake from a President who has to cater to them once in a while.

RNR
06-08-2012, 01:05 PM
Is there an adjective that could have been used that wouldn't be used for an ad?

Yep you are fair and honest! No towing the party line on your part LMAO

cosmo20002
06-08-2012, 01:07 PM
He's really reaching. The private sector is rebounding because of course when you dig your way out of a hole, you're going to see some successes.

It doesn't change the fact that the government is creating an excessive amount of strain on our small businesses, which is crippling them. When small businesses are crippled, say what you want about job growth, it absolutely cripples the innovation that creates jobs. Small businesses created google, yahoo, Facebook, instagram, etc....

And they are being crippled how, exactly? What is different now than before, and when was before?

chiefzilla1501
06-08-2012, 01:14 PM
And they are being crippled how, exactly? What is different now than before, and when was before?

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-06-08/obama-shouldn-t-embellish-his-small-business-record
"At the end of 2011, however, the number of federal rules affecting small business stood at 822, up from 753 at the end of 2008, according to a report (PDF) by the Competitive Enterprise Institute. "

"In December 2008, the month before the president was sworn in, only 8 percent of respondents to the National Federation of Independent Business’s monthly survey of its members reported (PDF) that “government regulations and red tape” were the single most important problem they faced. In April, that fraction was up to 20 percent."

And health care is only going to add to their cost of doing business.

vailpass
06-08-2012, 01:17 PM
Been teetering for a while now. There is much to hate about far right politics, in my book.

But I'm not enamored with the way Democrats are handling things either, especially runaway entitlement programs and a seeming complete lack of concern for the deficit. This particular statement by Obama is just unbelievably stupid in my book. If that reflects a core outlook on his part, then it's one I want no part of.

Though the thought of voting for the same guy as Sportsshrink or Mikey literally makes me want to vomit. Luckily, Romney is closer to the center than those two whackos.

But I guarantee I won't be at all happy with the Supreme Court nominees that Romney will pick. The Supreme Court is increasingly a place where the far right pushes the hardest to make sure they get their piece of the cake from a President who has to cater to them once in a while.

I admire your ability to expend careful thought as to how you cast your vote with a minimal clouding of bias.

ChiefaRoo
06-08-2012, 01:22 PM
This series of statements is either deliberately dishonest, completely out of touch with reality, or betrays such a deep lack of understanding of economic policy that... Well, pick any one of the three. Whatever the explanation, this is just sad.

Does he really believe things are fine on jobs? Is he just lying? Is he woefully incompetent? Does he really think government cuts a the state level are causing unemployment?

I respect Clinton even though I didn't agree with much of the agenda. He had a pragmatic side and knew how to get things done. He did a serviceable job maintaining a rebounded economy. Even his recent statements show that he knows basically how growth happens.

This president seems not to have a clue, to not care, or to simply regard his desired policy direction as the omelet, and jobs and economic pain as the eggs.

This is the most cynical president of our lifetimes.

Great post. I couldn't of said it better myself..... I mean I could have but I'm just that good. Carry on.

ChiefaRoo
06-08-2012, 01:25 PM
Been teetering for a while now. There is much to hate about far right politics, in my book.

But I'm not enamored with the way Democrats are handling things either, especially runaway entitlement programs and a seeming complete lack of concern for the deficit. This particular statement by Obama is just unbelievably stupid in my book. If that reflects a core outlook on his part, then it's one I want no part of.

Though the thought of voting for the same guy as Sportsshrink or Mikey literally makes me want to vomit. Luckily, Romney is closer to the center than those two whackos.

But I guarantee I won't be at all happy with the Supreme Court nominees that Romney will pick. The Supreme Court is increasingly a place where the far right pushes the hardest to make sure they get their piece of the cake from a President who has to cater to them once in a while.


Romney isn't a far right guy chowda.

Amnorix
06-08-2012, 01:27 PM
I admire your ability to expend careful thought as to how you cast your vote with a minimal clouding of bias.


The older I get the more I dislike both parties. They're both more focused on their own stranglehold on power than any real concern over what is best for America.

Amnorix
06-08-2012, 01:28 PM
Romney isn't a far right guy chowda.


Duh, I know. He was governor of Massachusetts remember? No far right guy gets elected governor around here.

But he'll have to get on his knees for the far right once in a while to maintain their support. It's going to be one of the pillars of power that he'll rely on to get, and keep, his office, and to keep Congressional Republicans aligned with him.

ChiefaRoo
06-08-2012, 01:31 PM
Duh, I know. He was governor of Massachusetts remember? No far right guy gets elected governor around here.

But he'll have to get on his knees for the far right once in a while to maintain their support. It's going to be one of the pillars of power that he'll rely on to get, and keep, his office, and to keep Congressional Republicans aligned with him.


I guess I'm politicking you. The choice for President is obvious. I'm surprised you're still hedging your decision.

HonestChieffan
06-08-2012, 01:33 PM
Private sector profits are doing quite fine.

Believe that. But dont tell a small business owner who has closed shop or the construction guy who hasnt turned a tap in 60 days

Dumbass

cosmo20002
06-08-2012, 01:34 PM
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-06-08/obama-shouldn-t-embellish-his-small-business-record
"At the end of 2011, however, the number of federal rules affecting small business stood at 822, up from 753 at the end of 2008, according to a report (PDF) by the Competitive Enterprise Institute. "

"In December 2008, the month before the president was sworn in, only 8 percent of respondents to the National Federation of Independent Business’s monthly survey of its members reported (PDF) that “government regulations and red tape” were the single most important problem they faced. In April, that fraction was up to 20 percent."

And health care is only going to add to their cost of doing business.

So, those 69 rules over 3 years, whatever they are, and which likely do not all apply at the same time to the same business, are "crippling" small business? And 20% (which frankly sounds surprisingly small to me) says it is the most important problem (which doesn't necessarily mean "crippling").

Maybe you're right, but I'm not seeing it. These numbers do not say "crippling small business" to me.

cosmo20002
06-08-2012, 01:37 PM
Believe that. But dont tell a small business owner who has closed shop or the construction guy who hasnt turned a tap in 60 days

Dumbass

My statement remains correct. Take it up with the corporations making record profits but not adding workers, dumbass.

ChiefaRoo
06-08-2012, 01:54 PM
My statement remains correct. Take it up with the corporations making record profits but not adding workers, dumbass.

You've got it all twisted. Companies (large or small) don't add jobs until demand increases so they can make more product. They also will not risk capital when they are being over regulated, subject to tax increases that may or may not happen or run the risk of expanding when the country may slip into another recession. Get it?

chiefzilla1501
06-08-2012, 01:56 PM
So, those 69 rules over 3 years, whatever they are, and which likely do not all apply at the same time to the same business, are "crippling" small business? And 20% (which frankly sounds surprisingly small to me) says it is the most important problem (which doesn't necessarily mean "crippling").

Maybe you're right, but I'm not seeing it. These numbers do not say "crippling small business" to me.

A few things.

Obama has enacted more regulations with $100,000 of impact than either of the Bushes or Clinton. In his defense, his 129 compares to GW Bush's 127. But... to the second point, those are 69 rules on top of the number GW Bush racked up from being equally as clueless.

Regulations are absolutely cropping small businesses.

http://smallbiztrends.com/2010/09/small-businesses-hit-harder-by-regulations.html
"The report showed that, per employee, small firms spend $2,830 more annually than do larger firms on complying with government regulations."

"On average, regulatory cost per employee for all firms was $8,086 annually. The cost for firms with fewer than 20 employees was $10,585 per employee. For firms with 20-499 employees, the annual cost was $7,454 per employee; and for those with 500 or more employees, the cost was $7,755 per employee.



And yes, I am directly stating that both Bush and Obama are absolutely clueless. It fires me up to hear them talk about small business tax incentives. Those tax incentives don't do jack shit if they cost of complying costs more than the tax cut they get.

chiefzilla1501
06-08-2012, 02:00 PM
You've got it all twisted. Companies (large or small) don't add jobs until demand increases so they can make more product. They also will not risk capital when they are being over regulated, subject to tax increases that may or may not happen or run the risk of expanding when the country may slip into another recession. Get it?

This is a point where I actually agree. You can say all you want about executives having the right to earn a disproportionate amount of pay, because it is a free market. But you can't deny that executives are basically lining their own pockets instead of investing in growth. Obama is dumb for saying the private sector is "fine." Conservatives are misguided for not demanding more accountability from corporations to invest back into their companies. And to me, it all revolves around executive compensation structure, which is for whatever reason protected by a really crooked system of how boards and executives interact.

ChiefaRoo
06-08-2012, 02:13 PM
This is a point where I actually agree. You can say all you want about executives having the right to earn a disproportionate amount of pay, because it is a free market. But you can't deny that executives are basically lining their own pockets instead of investing in growth. Obama is dumb for saying the private sector is "fine." Conservatives are misguided for not demanding more accountability from corporations to invest back into their companies. And to me, it all revolves around executive compensation structure, which is for whatever reason protected by a really crooked system of how boards and executives interact.


I'm not sure if your talking about both public and private corporations. Private individuals who start and run their own companies are not accountable to a board . Owners set salaries for all according to their own choices and market demands. Public companies are accountable to a board but I don't see why you think it's the Governments job to tell the board and or principle shareholder how much they can pay their execs. When execs do something illegal then the board and the execs can be held accountable for criminal offenses.

We live in a capitalistic society which gives the most amount of people the chance to be free, improve their financial condition through hard work and education and by risking it all for success. To change the free market would limit freedom and that would relegate the USA to 2nd tier status in the world.

Amnorix
06-08-2012, 02:16 PM
I guess I'm politicking you. The choice for President is obvious. I'm surprised you're still hedging your decision.



You're confused -- my vote is meaningless. I like in Massachusetts and our 11 or whatever the number is votes will go to Obama regardless of what I do.

You say the choice for President is obvious. I disagree because I view both candidates as having elements I like and elements I dislike. Keep in mind that we haven't been discussing on here lately many of the issues that Republicans hold near and dear that I completely despise, including their views on such things as individual liberties, stupidly aggressive foreign policy, absurdly bloated defense budgets, etc.

Let me put it this way -- though I'm not much of a fan of the far left, I despise the far right more. People like Rush Limbaugh can go DIAF in my book.

ChiefaRoo
06-08-2012, 02:20 PM
You're confused -- my vote is meaningless. I like in Massachusetts and our 11 or whatever the number is votes will go to Obama regardless of what I do.

You say the choice for President is obvious. I disagree because I view both candidates as having elements I like and elements I dislike. Keep in mind that we haven't been discussing on here lately many of the issues that Republicans hold near and dear that I completely despise, including their views on such things as individual liberties, stupidly aggressive foreign policy, absurdly bloated defense budgets, etc.

Let me put it this way -- though I'm not much of a fan of the far left, I despise the far right more. People like Rush Limbaugh can go DIAF in my book.

You are a little too cynical for me today.

chiefzilla1501
06-08-2012, 02:30 PM
I'm not sure if your talking about both public and private corporations. Private individuals who start and run their own companies are not accountable to a board . Owners set salaries for all according to their own choices and market demands. Public companies are accountable to a board but I don't see why you think it's the Governments job to tell the board and or principle shareholder how much they can pay their execs. When execs do something illegal then the board and the execs can be held accountable for criminal offenses.

We live in a capitalistic society which gives the most amount of people the chance to be free, improve their financial condition through hard work and education and by risking it all for success. To change the free market would limit freedom and that would relegate the USA to 2nd tier status in the world.

That's a fair distinction. Private sector usually encompasses both, but they're clearly separate.

The board and execs aren't doing anything legal. That doesn't mean they're acting on behalf of the shareholders. The government has stepped in and has demanded that corporations be more transparent to investors, which is a great move. I wouldn't mind if they forced boards to align a lot more with the shareholders than with their executives, and I wouldn't mind if some kind of intervening body would step in and force corporations to start adopting more sensible incentive structures that compensate on performance, as opposed to today where executives are rewarded for tanking a company

mikey23545
06-08-2012, 02:51 PM
Been teetering for a while now. There is much to hate about far right politics, in my book.

But I'm not enamored with the way Democrats are handling things either, especially runaway entitlement programs and a seeming complete lack of concern for the deficit. This particular statement by Obama is just unbelievably stupid in my book. If that reflects a core outlook on his part, then it's one I want no part of.

Though the thought of voting for the same guy as Sportsshrink or Mikey literally makes me want to vomit. Luckily, Romney is closer to the center than those two whackos.

But I guarantee I won't be at all happy with the Supreme Court nominees that Romney will pick. The Supreme Court is increasingly a place where the far right pushes the hardest to make sure they get their piece of the cake from a President who has to cater to them once in a while.


At first I thought you voting for the same candidate as me would make me want to vomit, but then I realized it makes me want to laugh like hell right in your dream-shattered face....LMAO

vailpass
06-08-2012, 02:54 PM
The older I get the more I dislike both parties. They're both more focused on their own stranglehold on power than any real concern over what is best for America.

Yep. Both are surrendering what made them different but great in exchange for a move to the middle where they bastardize themselves in the name of obtaining and retaining office.

vailpass
06-08-2012, 02:55 PM
My statement remains correct. Take it up with the corporations making record profits but not adding workers, dumbass.

Your head is so far up your ass you have an afro in your mouth.

Bwana
06-08-2012, 02:55 PM
Bottom line, this is what is going to hurt Barry the most.

http://blog.american.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/060712strategas.jpg

Chief Henry
06-08-2012, 03:00 PM
I'm guessing for the 729th time in two weeks the democrats are going to have to issue another statement explaining their remarks.

:LOL:


You are right again.....he had to come out and explain this afternoon what he said this moring. rep heading your way.

Amnorix
06-08-2012, 03:29 PM
At first I thought you voting for the same candidate as me would make me want to vomit, but then I realized it makes me want to laugh like hell right in your dream-shattered face....LMAO


You assume I live in dreamland. Far from it. You won't find many who are more hard-headed pragmatists than me.

Amnorix
06-08-2012, 03:29 PM
Yep. Both are surrendering what made them different but great in exchange for a move to the middle where they bastardize themselves in the name of obtaining and retaining office.


Fundamentally disagree that the parties are moving to the middle. Moderate Republicans and fiscally conservative Democrats barely exist anymore.

vailpass
06-08-2012, 03:44 PM
Fundamentally disagree that the parties are moving to the middle. Moderate Republicans and fiscally conservative Democrats barely exist anymore.

Agreed. By 'middle' I mean each is taking on the unfavorable aspects of the other so as to blur their unique identities and surrender those differences that allowed them to work together but keep each other in check.

cosmo20002
06-08-2012, 04:41 PM
You've got it all twisted. Companies (large or small) don't add jobs until demand increases so they can make more product. They also will not risk capital when they are being over regulated, subject to tax increases that may or may not happen or run the risk of expanding when the country may slip into another recession. Get it?

Thanks, but the fact remains that corporations are pulling record profits.

cosmo20002
06-08-2012, 04:44 PM
A few things.

Obama has enacted more regulations with $100,000 of impact than either of the Bushes or Clinton. In his defense, his 129 compares to GW Bush's 127. But... to the second point, those are 69 rules on top of the number GW Bush racked up from being equally as clueless.

Regulations are absolutely cropping small businesses.

http://smallbiztrends.com/2010/09/small-businesses-hit-harder-by-regulations.html
"The report showed that, per employee, small firms spend $2,830 more annually than do larger firms on complying with government regulations."

"On average, regulatory cost per employee for all firms was $8,086 annually. The cost for firms with fewer than 20 employees was $10,585 per employee. For firms with 20-499 employees, the annual cost was $7,454 per employee; and for those with 500 or more employees, the cost was $7,755 per employee.



And yes, I am directly stating that both Bush and Obama are absolutely clueless. It fires me up to hear them talk about small business tax incentives. Those tax incentives don't do jack shit if they cost of complying costs more than the tax cut they get.

I'm still unclear when this crippling started. Its relevant because I'd like to know what things looked like when they weren't being crippled.

cosmo20002
06-08-2012, 04:51 PM
Yep. Both are surrendering what made them different but great in exchange for a move to the middle where they bastardize themselves in the name of obtaining and retaining office.

Yes, that is the problem--everyone moving to the middle. Holy shit you are stupid.

KC native
06-08-2012, 05:18 PM
Been teetering for a while now. There is much to hate about far right politics, in my book.

But I'm not enamored with the way Democrats are handling things either, especially runaway entitlement programs and a seeming complete lack of concern for the deficit. This particular statement by Obama is just unbelievably stupid in my book. If that reflects a core outlook on his part, then it's one I want no part of.

Though the thought of voting for the same guy as Sportsshrink or Mikey literally makes me want to vomit. Luckily, Romney is closer to the center than those two whackos.

But I guarantee I won't be at all happy with the Supreme Court nominees that Romney will pick. The Supreme Court is increasingly a place where the far right pushes the hardest to make sure they get their piece of the cake from a President who has to cater to them once in a while.

The 3rd paragraph is the only real reason to vote for Obama. Romney will push the court far right and it would stay that way for awhile.

ChiefaRoo
06-08-2012, 06:39 PM
That's a fair distinction. Private sector usually encompasses both, but they're clearly separate.

The board and execs aren't doing anything legal. That doesn't mean they're acting on behalf of the shareholders. The government has stepped in and has demanded that corporations be more transparent to investors, which is a great move. I wouldn't mind if they forced boards to align a lot more with the shareholders than with their executives, and I wouldn't mind if some kind of intervening body would step in and force corporations to start adopting more sensible incentive structures that compensate on performance, as opposed to today where executives are rewarded for tanking a company

I like some of this but I don't see how it can be implemented by govt without adding tremendous in efficiencies. Think post office meets a young Steve Jobs. Frightening.

ChiefaRoo
06-08-2012, 06:43 PM
You assume I live in dreamland. Far from it. You won't find many who are more hard-headed pragmatists than me.

Pragmatists don't change things for the better. They just get by. At least tell me your not gong to vote for Elizabeth Warren. I mean your at least going to show up right?

HonestChieffan
06-08-2012, 07:20 PM
The 3rd paragraph is the only real reason to vote for Obama. Romney will push the court far right and it would stay that way for awhile.

So? What is your point?

chiefzilla1501
06-08-2012, 10:17 PM
I'm still unclear when this crippling started. Its relevant because I'd like to know what things looked like when they weren't being crippled.

The crippling isn't unique to the Obama administration. But he certainly isn't doing anything to address it.

La literatura
06-08-2012, 10:20 PM
I admire your ability to expend careful thought as to how you cast your vote with a minimal clouding of bias.

It might be something you could learn from.

Otter
06-08-2012, 10:32 PM
Can we begin to agree that Barry is in way over his head?

tredadda
06-08-2012, 10:58 PM
The 3rd paragraph is the only real reason to vote for Obama. Romney will push the court far right and it would stay that way for awhile.

:eek: Can't have that. Lets all rally to Obama so he can push the court to the far left. That will make this a better country.

thecoffeeguy
06-09-2012, 12:43 AM
Can we begin to agree that Barry is in way over his head?

without a doubt...

|Zach|
06-09-2012, 12:51 AM
The 3rd paragraph is the only real reason to vote for Obama. Romney will push the court far right and it would stay that way for awhile.

Nah it would take a conservative with a spine to do that.

Romney is neither.

That is the funny thing about this whole election. The shocking similarities of the candidates.

cosmo20002
06-09-2012, 01:32 AM
That is the funny thing about this whole election. The shocking similarities of the candidates.

Both had white moms. Neither of their fathers were born in the US, and both descended from polygamists.

Taco John
06-09-2012, 03:47 AM
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/06/08/obama_the_private_sector_is_doing_fine.html

Question: What about the Republicans saying that you're blaming the Europeans for the failures of your own policies?

President Obama: The truth of the matter is that, as I said, we created 4.3 million jobs over the last 27 months, over 800,000 just this year alone.

The private sector is doing fine. Where we're seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do with state and local government. Oftentimes cuts initiated by, you know, Governors or mayors who are not getting the kind of help that they have in the past from the federal government and who don't have the same kind of flexibility as the federal government in dealing with fewer revenues coming in.

And so, you know, if Republicans want to be helpful, if they really want to move forward and put people back to work, what they should be thinking about is how do we help state and local governments and how do we help the construction industry? Because the recipes that they're promoting are basically the kinds of policies that would add weakness to the -- to the economy, would result in further layoffs, would not provide relief in the housing market, and would result, I think most economists estimate, in lower growth and fewer jobs, not more.


Obama: The problem is that governors are cutting budgets, and you know, aren't raising taxes to, you know, deal with the problems that cutting spending creates.

RNR
06-09-2012, 06:52 AM
Nah it would take a conservative with a spine to do that.

Romney is neither.

That is the funny thing about this whole election. The shocking similarities of the candidates.

It is hard to argue with this post~

chiefzilla1501
06-09-2012, 08:51 AM
The 3rd paragraph is the only real reason to vote for Obama. Romney will push the court far right and it would stay that way for awhile.

I don't know why you think that. Deep down, I think most people know Romney is a moderate. In Massachusetts, he had to be fairly liberal in order to get anything done. That's one of the reason he intrigues me.

I think he'll use a far right platform to get himself elected. But once elected, I think he'll be a moderate conservative.

chiefzilla1501
06-09-2012, 08:55 AM
Nah it would take a conservative with a spine to do that.

Romney is neither.

That is the funny thing about this whole election. The shocking similarities of the candidates.

I don't know why people think that having a "spine" means stubbornly clinging to your beliefs no matter what the situation. That's exactly what Obama is doing.

Real leaders are savvy at negotiating their way into getting what they want. Personally, I think it takes more of a spine to swallow your pride and give your opposition what they want, if that means reaching a compromise or giving your opposition small wins in order for you to have big wins later.

RNR
06-09-2012, 09:00 AM
I don't know why people think that having a "spine" means stubbornly clinging to your beliefs no matter what the situation. That's exactly what Obama is doing.

Real leaders are savvy at negotiating their way into getting what they want. Personally, I think it takes more of a spine to swallow your pride and give your opposition what they want, if that means reaching a compromise or giving your opposition small wins in order for you to have big wins later.

If it is for noble reasons, yes. This clown however will base every single move and decision on how it polls. Romney gets the "anybody but Obama" vote and deserves nothing more~

chiefzilla1501
06-09-2012, 09:44 AM
If it is for noble reasons, yes. This clown however will base every single move and decision on how it polls. Romney gets the "anybody but Obama" vote and deserves nothing more~

Are we talking about from an electability standpoint or from a standpoint of what he would actually do once elected? We've hit a sad stage where, unfortunately, you simply can't win an election without thinking this way.

I personally believe that if elected, he'll be a much more middle-of-the-road president in practice.

RNR
06-09-2012, 10:00 AM
Are we talking about from an electability standpoint or from a standpoint of what he would actually do once elected? We've hit a sad stage where, unfortunately, you simply can't win an election without thinking this way.

I personally believe that if elected, he'll be a much more middle-of-the-road president in practice.

Of course he will lie, and promise anything to get elected, they all do. I also think he is as plastic as they come. There is a good chance he will be willing to move to the middle to bargain. That is a good thing IMO. I also think he will fold if he fears that days polling shows a point swing the wrong direction. If he was not running against a complete and total failure, he would be unelectable. Heck he is still the underdog~

KC native
06-09-2012, 01:21 PM
I don't know why you think that. Deep down, I think most people know Romney is a moderate. In Massachusetts, he had to be fairly liberal in order to get anything done. That's one of the reason he intrigues me.

I think he'll use a far right platform to get himself elected. But once elected, I think he'll be a moderate conservative.

Supreme court politics are a different ball game. Presidents recently have used them to throw a bone to the bases. Most people don't understand the Supreme Court and the dramatic effects that appointments can have on the court especially if a liberal is replaced with a conservative.

Dylan
06-09-2012, 01:33 PM
Throw a few TV cameras and some bucks into the pot. He"ll show up.

chiefzilla1501
06-09-2012, 03:18 PM
Of course he will lie, and promise anything to get elected, they all do. I also think he is as plastic as they come. There is a good chance he will be willing to move to the middle to bargain. That is a good thing IMO. I also think he will fold if he fears that days polling shows a point swing the wrong direction. If he was not running against a complete and total failure, he would be unelectable. Heck he is still the underdog~

I think this is much more an indictment on the political system than it is on the candidate.

Even if I imagine this country as a whole would rally around a more middle-of-the-road candidate, the political process and spheres of influence make it virtually impossible for this type of candidate to win.

I personally think he is very electable, but he becomes a lot more unelectable the more the republicans force him to adopt their often bat shit crazy stances (for the record, I'm talking more about evangelists and neocons, not fiscal conservatives).

|Zach|
06-09-2012, 04:42 PM
I don't know why people think that having a "spine" means stubbornly clinging to your beliefs no matter what the situation. That's exactly what Obama is doing.

Real leaders are savvy at negotiating their way into getting what they want. Personally, I think it takes more of a spine to swallow your pride and give your opposition what they want, if that means reaching a compromise or giving your opposition small wins in order for you to have big wins later.

Yea yea yea...I am sure you were one of the ones mindlessly calling Kerry a flip flopper.

Also the idea that Obama has been rigidly sticking to his beliefs is... adorable.

But my main point is...it would take someone with a spine...and a conservative to put someone far right on the court. Mitt Romney doesn't fit the description of either of those things.

loochy
06-09-2012, 04:46 PM
Obama lied. Profits died.

Chiefshrink
06-09-2012, 05:28 PM
Though the thought of voting for the same guy as Sportsshrink or Mikey literally makes me want to vomit.

ROFLROFLROFL See ya at the polls Nancy !!

Looks like 'a little' notice I didn't say 'a lot' but a little common sense CAN penetrate that "Pinko brain" of yours:thumb:

BTW, the reason we so-called righty whackos:rolleyes:are so committed to putting Conservatives on the bench, is that it is one of the last few arenas in the area of protecting our liberty and freedom we can make at this point in preventing you and your Marxist minions substituting the Constitution for the Communist Manifesto.:rolleyes:

Chiefshrink
06-09-2012, 05:28 PM
Obama lied. Profits died.

:thumb::thumb::thumb:

RNR
06-09-2012, 05:42 PM
Yea yea yea...I am sure you were one of the ones mindlessly calling Kerry a flip flopper.

Also the idea that Obama has been rigidly sticking to his beliefs is... adorable.

But my main point is...it would take someone with a spine...and a conservative to put someone far right on the court. Mitt Romney doesn't fit the description of either of those things.

I agree, for those who now call themselves "tea party" or "Reagan conservative"
he will disappoint. Although the fact that the right bastardized the former, and have use revised history for the latter, to remove the stench of W is somewhat amusing. Much like "progressive" replaced "liberal" he is a very weak option. Although when faced with another 4 years of Barry...the only option~

|Zach|
06-09-2012, 05:50 PM
Obama lied. Profits died.

Except they have not died. They have done the opposite according to the Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis.

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2012/gdp4q11_3rd.htm

Corporate Profits

Profits from current production (corporate profits with inventory valuation and capital
consumption adjustments) increased $16.8 billion in the fourth quarter, compared with an increase of
$32.5 billion in the third quarter. Current-production cash flow (net cash flow with inventory valuation
adjustment) -- the internal funds available to corporations for investment -- increased $44.8 billion in the
fourth quarter, compared with an increase of $35.8 billion in the third.

Taxes on corporate income decreased $0.7 billion in the fourth quarter, compared with a
decrease of $9.1 billion in the third. Profits after tax with inventory valuation and capital consumption
adjustments increased $17.5 billion in the fourth quarter, compared with an increase of $41.6 billion in
the third. Dividends increased $10.3 billion, compared with an increase of $14.0 billion; current-
production undistributed profits increased $7.2 billion, compared with an increase of $27.7 billion.

Domestic profits of financial corporations increased $29.9 billion in the fourth quarter, compared
with an increase of $9.2 billion in the third. Domestic profits of nonfinancial corporations increased
$28.4 billion in the fourth quarter, compared with an increase of $17.9 billion in the third. In the fourth
quarter, real gross value added of nonfinancial corporations increased, and profits per unit of real value
added increased. The increase in unit profits reflected decreases in both unit labor and nonlabor costs
that more than offset a decrease in unit prices.

The rest-of-the-world component of profits decreased $41.5 billion in the fourth quarter, in
contrast to an increase of $5.4 billion in the third. This measure is calculated as (1) receipts by U.S.
residents of earnings from their foreign affiliates plus dividends received by U.S. residents from
unaffiliated foreign corporations minus (2) payments by U.S. affiliates of earnings to their foreign
parents plus dividends paid by U.S. corporations to unaffiliated foreign residents. The fourth-quarter
decrease was accounted for by a decrease in receipts and an increase in payments.

Profits before tax with inventory valuation adjustment is the best available measure of industry
profits because estimates of the capital consumption adjustment by industry do not exist. This measure
reflects depreciation-accounting practices used for federal income tax returns. According to this
measure, domestic profits of both financial and nonfinancial corporations increased. The increase in
nonfinancial corporations reflected increases in all the major subaggregates shown, except for “other”
nonfinancial. The largest increases were in retail trade and in manufacturing. Within manufacturing, a
large decrease in petroleum and coal products was more than offset by increases in the remaining
industries shown.

Profits before tax decreased $8.3 billion in the fourth quarter, in contrast to an increase of $22.3
billion in the third. The before-tax measure of profits does not reflect, as does profits from current
production, the capital consumption and inventory valuation adjustments. These adjustments convert
depreciation of fixed assets and inventory withdrawals reported on a tax-return, historical-cost basis to
the current-cost measures used in the national income and product accounts. The capital consumption
adjustment decreased $1.8 billion in the fourth quarter (from $102.7 billion to $100.9 billion), compared
with a decrease of $4.6 billion in the third. The inventory valuation adjustment increased $26.9 billion
(from -$45.5 billion to -$18.6 billion), compared with an increase of $14.9 billion.

|Zach|
06-09-2012, 05:57 PM
Woops here is the most recent one. Spoiler alert. Profits are soaring.

Which is great! But lets not act like that isnt the case.

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2012/gdp1q12_2nd.htm

RNR
06-09-2012, 06:01 PM
Obama lied. Profits died.

Cute, but that is not how it works. The wealthy will protect themselves, and make their money. If you want to use a one line slam, it would have been better to go with "growth died"

Iz Zat Chew
06-09-2012, 07:57 PM
In his press conf. this moring he actually said "the private sector is doing fine"
when speaking about the economy. ROFL

Some companies made "looking fine" a requirement through the recession. My brother took a 15% pay cut for 18 months, lost most if not all of his 401k matching funds and at the beginning of 2012 had a large increase in his health care costs PLUS he pays as much per year for his insurance as he has deductable, $4000 per person in his family. The money saved by his company, a large corporation, enabled them to put $1B into the pension plan. Kind of shitty as it seems many of employees do not get to particdipate in the pension plan.

vailpass
06-09-2012, 08:48 PM
It might be something you could learn from.

It might be something from which you could learn. Is that what you meant to say junior?

chiefzilla1501
06-09-2012, 10:17 PM
Yea yea yea...I am sure you were one of the ones mindlessly calling Kerry a flip flopper.

Also the idea that Obama has been rigidly sticking to his beliefs is... adorable.

But my main point is...it would take someone with a spine...and a conservative to put someone far right on the court. Mitt Romney doesn't fit the description of either of those things.

I don't care if Kerry is a flip-flopper. I care that he was a pure liberal. And Obama has absolutely been a liberal piece of shit. He may have begun with some promise, but his two signature initiatives are that he pushed and continues to push a stimulus that blindly touts the need for more government investment and government run healthcare.

Romney has a spine. You don't become CEO from being spineless. You don't run the olympics if you don't know how to get things done. Is he going to cling to a hardcore conservative philosophy? No. Should he? No.

What people don't get is that in the business world and in real life, you don't win battles by jamming your stubborn ideologies down people's throats. You win battles by understanding compromise. As I've said before, the candidate you want in office is going to stubbornly push his own agenda, is going to piss off the liberals, and in 2 years, we'll have a liberal dominated house which will assure that the conservative candidate loses the general election in 4 years.

As a moderate, I'm tired of it.

Pawnmower
06-27-2012, 02:12 AM
It might be something from which you could learn. Is that what you meant to say junior?

Ironic that a law student from Yale named Literature would CONSTANTLY make such basic errors.

mikey23545
06-27-2012, 02:20 AM
Woops here is the most recent one. Spoiler alert. Profits are soaring.

Which is great! But lets not act like that isnt the case.

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2012/gdp1q12_2nd.htm


I doubt you have the intelligence to realize that when the economy grows by a small percentage, if it was in the toilet to begin with it doesn't really mean a whole lot - but I'll tell you anyway.

I'm not surprised that you're one that would stand by Hussein and his "Private sector is doing great!" rhetoric...

patteeu
06-27-2012, 05:06 AM
Ironic that a law student from Yale named Literature would CONSTANTLY make such basic errors.

Where did you get the impression he or she is from Yale?

KC native
06-27-2012, 09:30 AM
I doubt you have the intelligence to realize that when the economy grows by a small percentage, if it was in the toilet to begin with it doesn't really mean a whole lot - but I'll tell you anyway.

I'm not surprised that you're one that would stand by Hussein and his "Private sector is doing great!" rhetoric...

Corporate profits are very healthy right now and have been for awhile. They're making more profit per dollar of revenue than just about any time period you can think of.

Wages are shit, and have been shit. Until we start seeing some real wage growth, it's going to stay this way dumbass.

qabbaan
06-27-2012, 10:32 AM
So should we just mandate that employers start hiring people when they are weathering the poor economic growth and managing to make a profit? Spread the wealth around?

VAChief
06-27-2012, 10:38 AM
Corporate profits are very healthy right now and have been for awhile. They're making more profit per dollar of revenue than just about any time period you can think of.

Wages are shit, and have been shit. Until we start seeing some real wage growth, it's going to stay this way dumbass.

It will trickle down, Nancy's astrologer predicted it years ago.

loochy
06-27-2012, 10:49 AM
Sequestration will destroy jobs and threaten our national security
By Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) - 06/26/12 12:07 PM ET

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-a-budget/234789-sequestration-will-destroy-jobs-and-threaten-our-national-security

President Ronald Reagan’s approach to protecting our national security was to provide peace through strength. The United States military has successfully remained the most superior power in the world by practicing this theory. Due to the passage of the Budget Control Act of 2011 last July, the Department of Defense is expected to suffer an automatic across-the-board $500 billion budget cut. These cuts will not be used to reduce our growing national deficit, but instead will be shifted from defense to other departments and agencies. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has warned that such a drastic decrease will result in the smallest Navy since the beginning of World War I, smallest Army and Marine Corps since the beginning of World War II and the smallest Air Force since it was created. Not only will these cuts threaten our national security, military strength, and defense capabilities, it will also destroy approximately one million jobs across our country while sending a message to enemies we lack resolve to resist their attacks.

In terms of overall defense spending, South Carolina ranks eleventh nationally as it is 5.7 percent of our gross domestic product. Because of its large military presence, South Carolina’s economy is heavily influenced by the defense industry. In 2013 alone, our State could lose up to $481 million in defense contracts and our military personnel may decrease by 7,500. If the sequestration budget cuts go into full affect, thousands of private sector jobs will be destroyed. Earlier this year, I held a Sequestration Roundtable Discussion in Columbia, and heard concerns from business people and community leaders across our State who are worried about the real threat sequestration will have on our economy. Companies such as Fluor and Lockheed Martin will be forced to lay off hardworking employees due to the loss of these contracts. Hotel owners, restaurateurs, and other tourism industry professionals will feel the burn as well because fewer military personnel will need their services. And the list goes on with bipartisan concern.

Our state is not alone. Last week, the National Association of Manufactures released a report stating that up to one million jobs, 750,000 within the private sector are at risk of being slashed by 2014 if these budget cuts are not prevented. Many employers within the defense industry are already planning to issue layoff notices if sequestration is not dealt with quickly. Lockheed Martin has publicly stated, "we will find it necessary to issue these [layoff] notices probably to the vast majority of our employee base.” Studies show that these job losses could influence our nation’s economy so much so that our unemployment rate may potentially increase by a full percentage point catastrophically affecting families. Servicemembers, military families, and veterans are under attack by this Administration.

Sequestration will have a devastating affect on South Carolina and our country as a whole. Many people wrongly assume that if you do not live close to a military base, your local economy will not be affected. Nothing could be further from the truth. In South Carolina, it is not the 2nd Congressional district, the area I am proud to represent, with Fort Jackson that will be affected most. No, it is the 4th Congressional district, which contains many businesses and industries that do a significant amount of work with the Department of Defense. The 4th Congressional district contains no military bases but the affects of sequestration will be devastating to the local economies of Greenville and Spartanburg.

The national unemployment rate has remained at or above eight percent for the last forty months. When the president lobbied Congress to pass his nearly trillion dollar-spending bill, he promised the American people that our unemployment rate would not exceed eight percent. His promise could not be further from the truth. Over the past three years, the president has contributed over five trillion dollars to our national debt, more than all previous presidents combined, by spending our hard-earned taxpayer dollars on unnecessary programs and increasing government involvement in our everyday lives. And now, the president is going to continue advancing his job destroying, out of control spending policies by refusing to prevent the sequester from occurring. This decision is absolutely irresponsible and reckless.

Maintaining a strong and secure national defense should be the most important focus of the federal government. Sadly, the president and the liberal-controlled Senate do not believe this to be true. House Republicans have passed bipartisan legislation preventing these sequestration cuts from occurring. In May, the House passed H.R. 5652, the Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act of 2012 which protects the Department of Defense from experiencing such significant defense cuts from taking place by providing offsets from unnecessary government programs. However, this bill remains stalled in the Senate just like the dozens of bipartisan job-creations bills the House has passed over the past year and a half. It is my hope that the Senate and the President will act quickly and repeal the sequester, rather than idly stand by and allow it to occur.

Rep. Wilson (R-S.C.) is a member of the House Armed Services Committee.
That's 123,000 jobs, FYI

FD
06-27-2012, 12:21 PM
Last week, the National Association of Manufactures released a report stating that up to one million jobs, 750,000 within the private sector are at risk of being slashed by 2014 if these budget cuts are not prevented. Many employers within the defense industry are already planning to issue layoff notices if sequestration is not dealt with quickly.

So spending cuts actually do lead to job losses? Militarized Keynesianism strikes again.

vailpass
06-27-2012, 05:17 PM
Ironic that a law student from Yale named Literature would CONSTANTLY make such basic errors.

Not Yale, U. of Iowa Law. Still a very good school.The kid is plenty smart, he just hasn't grown into it yet.

Fairplay
06-27-2012, 06:18 PM
Our vice president. i love him

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/qmNLJ0AVff0?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

patteeu
06-27-2012, 06:22 PM
Our vice president. i love him

Millions of Americans get depressed every time this administration gives a speech about the economy.

Frankie
07-03-2012, 12:02 PM
In his press conf. this moring he actually said "the private sector is doing fine"
when speaking about the economy. ROFL

Depends on what you define as the private sector. Banks, oil companies etc. are doing fine. The bank CEOs are getting richer and richer and the oil companies are showing unprecedented profits. Auto industry was rescued by the stimulous, and housing is starting to recover. I guess there is a lot of truth in Obama's (rather careless) gaff. But then for every one of these gaffs we have many nuggets from the Right that show how disconnected it is from the regular folks. You know, like this:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/TgGXKA43WY4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Donger
07-03-2012, 12:04 PM
the oil companies are showing unprecedented profits.

Source?

Frankie
07-03-2012, 02:55 PM
Source?

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/02/big_oil_banner_year.html/

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4660876/record-profits-for-oil-companies-as-gas-prices-spike/

Donger
07-03-2012, 02:57 PM
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/02/big_oil_banner_year.html/

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4660876/record-profits-for-oil-companies-as-gas-prices-spike/

Errr, it is 2012, Frankie. Not 2011.

CoMoChief
07-03-2012, 03:09 PM
Most of the reason why gas is up so high is because of inflation and how our US dollar sucks.

Same reason why a #2 at McDonalds is around $5 and some change and not $2.99 like it was 10-12 yrs ago.

Chief Henry
07-03-2012, 03:15 PM
Most of the reason why gas is up so high is because of inflation and how our US dollar sucks.

Same reason why a #2 at McDonalds is around $5 and some change and not $2.99 like it was 10-12 yrs ago.








Its not a tax - its a penalty !


That #2 at MCDs will be $6.50 to $7.00 with in 2 years or less.

vailpass
07-03-2012, 03:38 PM
Errr, it is 2012, Frankie. Not 2011.

LMAO

Frankie
07-03-2012, 04:23 PM
Errr, it is 2012, Frankie. Not 2011.

Good one. :shake: Not really, in case you didn't catch the sarcasm. Your deflections are lame and you think they are clever. I just posted examples of how they have been doing during these economic times I'm not going on Donger assignments, as I have stated many times. You are a big boy now. You can do them yourself. Are you prepared to prove that they have been posting losses in 2012?

Donger
07-03-2012, 04:27 PM
Good one. :shake: Not really, in case you didn't catch the sarcasm. Your deflections are lame and you think they are clever. I just posted examples of how they have been doing during these economic times I'm not going on Donger assignments, as I have stated many times. You are a big boy now. You can do them yourself. Are you prepared to prove that they have been posting losses in 2012?

You are the one who made the claim, Frankie. Back it up or retract it.

"the oil companies are showing unprecedented profits."

Frankie
07-03-2012, 04:27 PM
LMAO

Blind following lame. What a shock. ROFL

Donger
07-03-2012, 04:33 PM
Here you go, Frankie:

http://money.cnn.com/2012/04/26/news/companies/exxon-mobil-earnings/index.htm

By Chris Isidore @CNNMoney April 26, 2012: 9:34 AM ET

Exxon Mobil profit declines

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- High gas prices the first three months of the year allowed Exxon Mobil to post huge earnings, but they were short of both year-earlier results and forecasts.

Exxon Mobil (XOM, Fortune 500), the nation's largest oil company, said it earned $9.45 billion in the quarter, down 11.3% from the $10.65 billion it earned a year earlier.

You're welcome.

Frankie
07-03-2012, 04:37 PM
Here you go, Frankie:

http://money.cnn.com/2012/04/26/news/companies/exxon-mobil-earnings/index.htm

By Chris Isidore @CNNMoney April 26, 2012: 9:34 AM ET

Exxon Mobil profit declines

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- High gas prices the first three months of the year allowed Exxon Mobil to post huge earnings, but they were short of both year-earlier results and forecasts.

Exxon Mobil (XOM, Fortune 500), the nation's largest oil company, said it earned $9.45 billion in the quarter, down 11.3% from the $10.65 billion it earned a year earlier.

You're welcome.

OMG, Now they are making only almost $10 billion instead of over 10. OMG, HOW WILL THEY SURVIVE!!!!!???

I say, Obama is right at least about EXXON. THEY ARE DOING FINE!

Donger
07-03-2012, 04:39 PM
OMG, Now they are making only almost $10 billion instead of over 10. OMG, HOW WILL THEY SURVIVE!!!!!???

I say, Obama is right at least about EXXON. THEY ARE DOING FINE!

So, as you can see, their recent profits aren't unprecedented as you claimed. Consider yourself corrected. Be more accurate next time.

Frankie
07-03-2012, 05:01 PM
So, as you can see, their recent profits aren't unprecedented as you claimed. Consider yourself corrected. Be more accurate next time.

I asked you to post a proof of a loss. Something that shows us that they are not "doing fine." Did you? You just posted proof of another incredible profit that's just a bit lower than last year's.

Donger
07-03-2012, 05:05 PM
I asked you to post a proof of a loss. Something that shows us that they are not "doing fine." Did you? You just posted proof of another incredible profit that's just a bit lower than last year's.

I didn't claim that they lost money. You claimed that they are having unprecedented profits. I showed you that you were and are wrong with that assertion.

It's not a big deal, Frankie. You were just wrong, that's all.

Iz Zat Chew
07-03-2012, 06:01 PM
I didn't claim that they lost money. You claimed that they are having unprecedented profits. I showed you that you were and are wrong with that assertion.

It's not a big deal, Frankie. You were just wrong, that's all.

That's the only thing right about frankie, he's always wrong.

Frankie
07-03-2012, 07:52 PM
I didn't claim that they lost money. You claimed that they are having unprecedented profits. I showed you that you were and are wrong with that assertion.

It's not a big deal, Frankie. You were just wrong, that's all.

Sorry dude, I'm talking about the big scope of the economy and you are trying to troll with meaningless nitpicking just to deflect. Typical stale Donger method.

Frankie
07-03-2012, 07:54 PM
That's the only thing right about frankie, he's always wrong.

Here we go again. Tommy smelled someone else engaging in an argument with me. So he creeps back in. Tom, I wish you didn't enjoy being my bitch so much.

Chief Henry
07-03-2012, 09:11 PM
I wonder if Frankie can tells us the net % of return for Exxon after expenses.....is it higher or lower than Microsoft ?

Donger
07-03-2012, 09:27 PM
Sorry dude, I'm talking about the big scope of the economy and you are trying to troll with meaningless nitpicking just to deflect. Typical stale Donger method.

Then don't say very specific things that aren't accurate and are in fact blatantly wrong, Frankie. It makes you look like an uninformed idiot.

Iz Zat Chew
07-03-2012, 10:00 PM
, Frankie. It makes you look like an uninformed idiot.

That's because he is.

Chief Henry
07-05-2012, 05:33 PM
I wonder if Frankie can tells us the net % of return for Exxon after expenses.....is it higher or lower than Microsoft ?

Still waiitng Frankie....

Donger
07-05-2012, 05:38 PM
That's because he is.

I don't think that Frankie's an idiot. He's certainly no where near as bright as he thinks he is, but he's not an idiot. He also suffers from a borderline psychotic inability to never admit when he's wrong, as he clearly and demonstrably showed in this thread.

Iz Zat Chew
07-05-2012, 05:42 PM
I don't think that Frankie's an idiot. He's certainly no where near as bright as he thinks he is, but he's not an idiot. He also suffers from a borderline psychotic inability to never admit when he's wrong, as he clearly and demonstrably is in this thread.

Those traits seem to be exhibited with every thread he's posted in that I've seen. Then, there are a lot of traits on this type of discussion board that seem to be drawn out no matter what board and no matter what the discussion.

Frankie
07-05-2012, 08:05 PM
I wonder if Frankie can tells us the net % of return for Exxon after expenses.....is it higher or lower than Microsoft ?

Why is that of any importance. Microsoft is "private sector" too. If you wanna try to pin me down on something specific when I pointed out something general you are going in the wrong direction, because it won't change the spirit of the argument

Frankie
07-05-2012, 08:08 PM
Then don't say very specific things that aren't accurate and are in fact blatantly wrong, Frankie. It makes you look like an uninformed idiot.

Would you prove my point blatantly wrong with links please?

RNR
07-05-2012, 08:09 PM
I don't think that Frankie's an idiot. He's certainly no where near as bright as he thinks he is, but he's not an idiot. He also suffers from a borderline psychotic inability to never admit when he's wrong, as he clearly and demonstrably showed in this thread.

He is closer to an idiot than he is to being bright~

Frankie
07-05-2012, 08:12 PM
That's because he is.

What part of post 109 was so difficult for you to understand, Tom?

Frankie
07-05-2012, 08:16 PM
Those traits seem to be exhibited with every thread he's posted in that I've seen. Then, there are a lot of traits on this type of discussion board that seem to be drawn out no matter what board and no matter what the discussion.

Ooooh "exhibited." A new word in Tom's vocabulary. Amazing what eight brain cells can do? LMAO

Frankie
07-05-2012, 08:20 PM
I don't think that Frankie's an idiot. .....He also suffers from a borderline psychotic inability to never admit when he's wrong, as he clearly and demonstrably showed in this thread.

And of course we all know Donger is always right. :spock:

Here's an assignment for you. Show me a few links to the few times you have been wrong and admitted it.

Frankie
07-05-2012, 08:22 PM
He is closer to an idiot than he is to being bright~
Says the man who believes God actually promised a land to some folks and told them to kill everybody and everything on their way to it.

Donger
07-05-2012, 08:54 PM
And of course we all know Donger is always right. :spock:

Here's an assignment for you. Show me a few links to the few times you have been wrong and admitted it.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=8530820&highlight=wrong#post8530820

That's just one. I've been wrong here at least a dozen times.

Donger
07-05-2012, 08:56 PM
Would you prove my point blatantly wrong with links please?

I already did. Their profits are actually down this year. To which you did your usual full Frankie to avoid saying, "Gee, Donger, guess I was wrong. Sorry about that." Because you aren't confident enough or courageous enough to say what is self-evident to anyone watching.

Frankie
07-05-2012, 09:09 PM
I already did. Their profits are actually down this year. To which you did your usual full Frankie to avoid saying, "Gee, Donger, guess I was wrong. Sorry about that." Because you aren't confident enough or courageous enough to say what is self-evident to anyone watching.

:facepalm:

I keep saying "it's a bull" and keep saying "milk it then."

Donger
07-05-2012, 09:11 PM
:facepalm:

I keep saying "it's a bull" and keep saying "milk it then."

What's bull? You think that they made unprecedented profits recently still?

Donger
07-05-2012, 09:15 PM
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=8530820&highlight=wrong#post8530820

That's just one. I've been wrong here at least a dozen times.

Nothing, eh Frankie? Go ahead and show me where you've not done the same. You shouldn't have to look too far.

Frankie
07-05-2012, 09:52 PM
Nothing, eh Frankie? Go ahead and show me where you've not done the same. You shouldn't have to look too far.

I have expressed being wrong many times myself. You either missed them just like I missed the ONE you posted (I asked for several examples, didn't I?) or they did not register as only what you agree with seem to register with you. You brought it up in the first place. It's your game and meant only to distract from the thread topic.

Frankie
07-05-2012, 09:53 PM
Here's another example of "the private sector doing fine" I just ran into, BTW.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/18/halliburton-1q-2012-profits_n_1433780.html

Donger
07-06-2012, 06:47 AM
I have expressed being wrong many times myself. You either missed them just like I missed the ONE you posted (I asked for several examples, didn't I?) or they did not register as only what you agree with seem to register with you. You brought it up in the first place. It's your game and meant only to distract from the thread topic.

And yet you won't admit that you are wrong in this case, when you clearly are. I can understand being stubborn about it, but you just look silly at this point. Oil companies are NOT experiencing unprecedented profits. Do you agree with that or not? You made the claim, back it up with facts or have the balls to retract it.

Chief Henry
07-06-2012, 06:55 AM
Why is that of any importance. Microsoft is "private sector" too. If you wanna try to pin me down on something specific when I pointed out something general you are going in the wrong direction, because it won't change the spirit of the argument


Ignorance has caused massive amounts of misguided bar fights and arguments at family picnics.

Frankie
07-06-2012, 12:21 PM
And yet you won't admit that you are wrong in this case, when you clearly are. I can understand being stubborn about it, but you just look silly at this point. Oil companies are NOT experiencing unprecedented profits. Do you agree with that or not? You made the claim, back it up with facts or have the balls to retract it.

Sorry chap, I'm not wrong just because you say so. The fact is that oil companies (whom I only used as an example of big business) ARE posting unprecedented profits during this economic crisis. I did not say 2012. You said it in your usual Donger attempt to divert attention from the spirit of the argument by making me respond to nit-picky trivial bullshit. I posted pretty reliable sources. I'm done with this silly game of yours. If you are not, play away. I ain't playing no more. I have proven my point.

Frankie
07-06-2012, 12:22 PM
Ignorance has caused massive amounts of misguided bar fights and arguments at family picnics.

Man you must be REALLY black and blue!

Donger
07-06-2012, 12:32 PM
Sorry chap, I'm not wrong just because you say so. The fact is that oil companies (whom I only used as an example of big business) ARE posting unprecedented profits during this economic crisis. I did not say 2012. You said it in your usual Donger attempt to divert attention from the spirit of the argument by making me respond to nit-picky trivial bullshit. I posted pretty reliable sources. I'm done with this silly game of yours. If you are not, play away. I ain't playing no more. I have proven my point.

Here's what you claimed, Frankie: "the oil companies are showing unprecedented profits."

Do you know what "are" and "unprecedented" mean?

Iz Zat Chew
07-06-2012, 12:39 PM
Here's what you claimed, Frankie: "the oil companies are showing unprecedented profits."

Do you know what "are" and "unprecedented" mean?

I am pleased that someone with patience has taken up the fight with frankie. He's wrong mostly and as you said refuses to admit that he is ever wrong.

That sad part of the whole exercise is that I'm sure he honestly believes anyone that disagrees with him is the devil and when confronted with facts, such as you've presented, that he often goes off on a tangent.

Keep up the good work, at least you can maintain your cool in the discussions. I can't, I've determined that he is a jerk and not worthy of attempting discussion with.

Remember, vultures have much patience but every once in a while they lose that patience and go for a fresh meal. Be patient.

Chief Henry
07-06-2012, 12:41 PM
Sorry chap, I'm not wrong just because you say so. The fact is that oil companies (whom I only used as an example of big business) ARE posting unprecedented profits during this economic crisis. I did not say 2012. You said it in your usual Donger attempt to divert attention from the spirit of the argument by making me respond to nit-picky trivial bullshit. I posted pretty reliable sources. I'm done with this silly game of yours. If you are not, play away. I ain't playing no more. I have proven my point.

You keep saying oil companies are making unprecidented profits, they are making money BUT.....what are those profits as a percentage of the cost of doing business ? What is the NET return as a percentage Frankie ? Is it more or less than say Apple or Target or Microsoft ?

Frankie
07-06-2012, 01:21 PM
Here's what you claimed, Frankie: "the oil companies are showing unprecedented profits."

Do you know what "are" and "unprecedented" mean?Not playin' anymore.

I am pleased that someone with patience has taken up the fight with frankie. He's wrong mostly and as you said refuses to admit that he is ever wrong.LOL. Nothing is more evidence of me being right than Tom Cash calling me wrong.

That sad part of the whole exercise is that I'm sure he honestly believes anyone that disagrees with him is the devil and when confronted with facts, such as you've presented, that he often goes off on a tangent. I wish my DVD projector throughs pretty sharp images on the screen, but I be damned if it worked as well as you.

Keep up the good work, at least you can maintain your cool in the discussions. I can't, I've determined that he is a jerk and not worthy of attempting discussion with.Of course discussions require brain cells. That didn't come into your decision, Tom, did it? LMAO

Remember, vultures have much patience but every once in a while they lose that patience and go for a fresh meal. Be patient.Tommy's attempt to make like wise. 'nuff said. :D

Frankie
07-06-2012, 01:22 PM
You keep saying oil companies are making unprecidented profits, they are making money BUT.....what are those profits as a percentage of the cost of doing business ? What is the NET return as a percentage Frankie ? Is it more or less than say Apple or Target or Microsoft ?

:facepalm:

vailpass
07-06-2012, 01:24 PM
Somebody call a mod. Donger's beating Frankie so badly I'm afraid it's going to cause a spontaneous thread bump.

Donger
07-06-2012, 01:25 PM
Not playin' anymore.

I don't blame you. Just for the record, ARE is PRESENT tense, not past. UNPRECEDENTED means that it's never happened before. So, for you to be correct with your statement, oil companies would have to be experiencing never before seen profits NOW, not in the past. Be more careful with your words next time, okay?

Donger
07-06-2012, 01:31 PM
Somebody call a mod. Donger's beating Frankie so badly I'm afraid it's going to cause a spontaneous thread bump.

Here it comes...

http://www.wearysloth.com/Gallery/ActorsP/13800-5459.gif

Frankie
07-06-2012, 05:40 PM
Somebody call a mod. Donger's beating Frankie so badly I'm afraid it's going to cause a spontaneous thread bump.

LMAO
Keep jerking, Rambo. It won't be longer than an inch and a half. Your CP boyfriends told me. You know who they are.

I don't blame you. Just for the record, ARE is PRESENT tense, not past. UNPRECEDENTED means that it's never happened before. So, for you to be correct with your statement, oil companies would have to be experiencing never before seen profits NOW, not in the past. Be more careful with your words next time, okay?Distraction. Donger specialty. Not playing, chap. :D

RNR
07-06-2012, 05:48 PM
LMAO
Keep jerking, Rambo. It won't be longer than an inch and a half. Your CP boyfriends told me. You know who they are.

Distraction. Donger specialty. Not playing, chap. :D

Damn frank your plane is getting ready to break in half in mid-air...AGAIN :shake:

Donger
07-06-2012, 05:52 PM
Distraction. Donger specialty. Not playing, chap. :D

Distraction? I have to explain to you that your choice of words (let alone understanding of reality) are wrong, and I'm distracting?

Heck, I'm half expecting you to post that your mother came in while you were masturbating over a picture of her from the 50s and that's the reason you wrote such an uninformed and stupid thing. I'd at least buy that.

CoMoChief
07-06-2012, 06:48 PM
Distraction? I have to explain to you that your choice of words (let alone understanding of reality) are wrong, and I'm distracting?

Heck, I'm half expecting you to post that your mother came in while you were masturbating over a picture of her from the 50s and that's the reason you wrote such an uninformed and stupid thing. I'd at least buy that.

ROFL

Iz Zat Chew
07-06-2012, 08:04 PM
Distraction? I have to explain to you that your choice of words (let alone understanding of reality) are wrong, and I'm distracting?

Heck, I'm half expecting you to post that your mother came in while you were masturbating over a picture of her from the 50s and that's the reason you wrote such an uninformed and stupid thing. I'd at least buy that.

This is the second thread I've seen him change direction because he is losing the battle.

Chief Henry
07-07-2012, 07:10 AM
This is the second thread I've seen him change direction because he is losing the battle.

He has proved many times that he is an idiot. Thats just in this thread alone.

Frankie
07-07-2012, 11:32 AM
Distraction? I have to explain to you that your choice of words (let alone understanding of reality) are wrong, and I'm distracting?

Heck, I'm half expecting you to post that your mother came in while you were masturbating over a picture of her from the 50s and that's the reason you wrote such an uninformed and stupid thing. I'd at least buy that.

You try so hard to come off as sophisticated here on this board. Yet you just proved to everybody my long held suspicion that you are nothing but an asshole neanderthal like the rest of the circle jerkers here. Obviously you have nothing to share and your desperate hanging on to your feeble attempt to keep the discussion off-message is not working. So what do you do? You go to the last resort of insulting someone who you know is near and dear to me. A sure sign of me having bested you an argument. And it hurts your ass. Nice job asshole. You just showed your true ignorant self. All your correcting other people's English and claims of knowledge of things have been now exposed to be fake and manufactured because you are nothing but a self doubting little man trying to cover his shameful ignorance by acting knowledgeable. :shake:

Frankie
07-07-2012, 11:36 AM
This is the second thread I've seen him change direction because he is losing the battle.

I thought I told you, half-wit, to stop trolling me. You and I have gone a few rounds in the past and it is obvious you miss being my bitch here. I have been quite patient with you Tom. But that is a limited commodity. So, I hope what remains of your brain can process this: You have been fairly warned.

patteeu
07-07-2012, 11:39 AM
You try so hard to come off as sophisticated here on this board. Yet you just proved to everybody my long held suspicion that you are nothing but an asshole neanderthal like the rest of the circle jerkers here. Obviously you have nothing to share and your desperate hanging on to your feeble attempt to keep the discussion off-message is not working. So what do you do? You go to the last resort of insulting someone who you know is near and dear to me. A sure sign of me having bested you an argument. And it hurts your ass. Nice job asshole. You just showed your true ignorant self. All your correcting other people's English and claims of knowledge of things have been now exposed to be fake and manufactured because you are nothing but a self doubting little man trying to cover his shameful ignorance by acting knowledgeable. :shake:

Who do you think he insulted?

Donger
07-09-2012, 07:26 AM
You try so hard to come off as sophisticated here on this board. Yet you just proved to everybody my long held suspicion that you are nothing but an asshole neanderthal like the rest of the circle jerkers here. Obviously you have nothing to share and your desperate hanging on to your feeble attempt to keep the discussion off-message is not working. So what do you do? You go to the last resort of insulting someone who you know is near and dear to me. A sure sign of me having bested you an argument. And it hurts your ass. Nice job asshole. You just showed your true ignorant self. All your correcting other people's English and claims of knowledge of things have been now exposed to be fake and manufactured because you are nothing but a self doubting little man trying to cover his shameful ignorance by acting knowledgeable. :shake:

Feel free to challenge anything I stated in post #140, Frankie. Until then, you can expect more of the same, sugar.

Comrade Crapski
07-09-2012, 10:35 AM
Sorry chap, I'm not wrong just because you say so.

Empirically you are an idiot. Somebody pointing it out is just being redundant.

Frankie
07-09-2012, 10:48 AM
Empirically you are an idiot. Somebody pointing it out is just being redundant.

This comes from an ass who's not man enough to not hide as a mult. LMAO.

patteeu
07-09-2012, 10:50 AM
Who do you think he insulted?

Well, Frankie?

Frankie
07-09-2012, 10:50 AM
This comes from an ass who's not man enough to not hide as a mult. LMAO.Heh, seems this mult is already pretty popular already.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/member.php?u=18620

Frankie
07-09-2012, 10:51 AM
Well, Frankie?

Let it go Pat.

Donger
07-09-2012, 10:54 AM
You go to the last resort of insulting someone who you know is near and dear to me.

No, Frankie, I didn't insult your mother. I insulted you. Would you like me to explain slowly and with small words why your mother wasn't insulted?

Frankie
07-09-2012, 11:10 AM
No, Frankie, I didn't insult your mother. I insulted you. Would you like me to explain slowly and with small words why your mother wasn't insulted?

You knew exactly what you were doing. You knew the history and the background about this and you knew what lowlife posters you were trying to reel in. Like I correctly said, you are a low life thug yourself with not much information to add to a discussion, so you try to stir the pot just to distract from the main discussion and cover your own shortcomings. Low class as usual, who BTW, showed it by issuing a "get even" neg-rep.

I'm not gonna address this with you any longer. Nor will I address much in the future.

Donger
07-09-2012, 11:14 AM
You knew exactly what you were doing. You knew the history and the background about this and you knew what lowlife posters you were trying to reel in. Like I correctly said, you are a low life thug yourself with not much information to add to a discussion, so you try to stir the pot just to distract from the main discussion and cover your own shortcomings. Low class as usual, who BTW, showed it by issuing a "get even" neg-rep.

I'm not gonna address this with you any longer. Nor will I address much in the future.

So, you don't want me to explain why your mother wasn't insulted (or why you were wrong about how the oil companies are experiencing unprecedented profits)?

Honestly, Frankie, you seem to have a serious inability to think clearly sometimes.

Donger
07-09-2012, 11:15 AM
Low class as usual, who BTW, showed it by issuing a "get even" neg-rep.

Sure, I responded in kind to your rep. I'd prefer to keep everything out here, but if you want to play behind the scenes, have at it.

patteeu
07-09-2012, 11:24 AM
Let it go Pat.

Let it go because you realized you were wrong?

Frankie
07-11-2012, 09:54 AM
Sure, I responded in kind to your rep. I'd prefer to keep everything out here, but if you want to play behind the scenes, have at it.

I neg repped you because of the gross inappropriateness of your post. That's what the rep/negrep feature is there for. You used it just to get even. Reps and neg reps are no big deals in actual life. But they do have a way of showing the pathetic, childish nature of a-holes like you.

Donger
07-11-2012, 09:58 AM
I neg repped you because of the gross inappropriateness of your post. That's what the rep/negrep feature is there for. You used it just to get even. Reps and neg reps are no big deals in actual life. But they do have a way of showing the pathetic, childish nature of a-holes like you.

I don't care why you chose to neg rep me. Like I said, I prefer to deal with people out here, but if you want to continue that, have at it.

vailpass
07-11-2012, 10:10 AM
I neg repped you because of the gross inappropriateness of your post. That's what the rep/negrep feature is there for. You used it just to get even. Reps and neg reps are no big deals in actual life. But they do have a way of showing the pathetic, childish nature of a-holes like you.

LMAO Sheik Yerbooty has gone around the bend. "Your mother" jokes make him cry.

Frankie
07-11-2012, 10:33 AM
LMAO Sheik Yerbooty has gone around the bend. "Your mother" jokes make him cry.

Curious to see what makes YOU cry.

vailpass
07-11-2012, 10:35 AM
Curious to see what makes YOU cry.

Old man your veiled threats don't scare anybody here. I'm sure you'd administer some honor killings if you could but you aren't in the old country anymore. Just sit still and keep that bad ticker of yours at a low pace.

Frankie
07-11-2012, 11:10 AM
Old man your veiled threats don't scare anybody here. I'm sure you'd administer some honor killings if you could but you aren't in the old country anymore. Just sit still and keep that bad ticker of yours at a low pace.

I didn't ask you to be scared. In fact quite the opposite.

And if you are paranoid enough to read "threats" in what I post, you are just that,... paranoid.

vailpass
07-11-2012, 01:59 PM
I didn't ask you to be scared. In fact quite the opposite.

And if you are paranoid enough to read "threats" in what I post, you are just that,... paranoid.

That's what your mom said.

Comrade Crapski
07-18-2012, 06:46 AM
House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Tuesday that food stamps and unemployment insurance are the two "most stimulative" things you can do for the economy.


Democrats have no souls.