Election 2012 Is Comming

Cain has a book coming out Oct. 4th titled "This is Herman Cain".

From the book, speaking about his father, who he said had a phd. in common sense. "One of the most important lessons Dad taught us was not to feel like victims. He never felt like a victim; he never expressed one ‘victim’ attitude the whole while I knew him. It was his inner self-determination. He just never had that attitude, so we didn't have that attitude."

The man is genuine.

Cat,

If I had the time I would dig up all your racist remarks that you've posted on this forum.

You guys are shameless, you accuse (wrongly) the tea party of being racist, you call out Lee (rightfully) for making racist remarks, and then when Lee looks at a black man (whom you disagree with) and sees the man, and not his color, instead of using the teachable moment you remind him that he isn't supposed to like black people. Even if it is tongue in check it is wrong.

full black too! lol

Lee is obviously, an out of work democrat, but is too addicted to FOX to realize how dumb his arguments are.

skicat2001 wrote:       Dave thanks my friend.

Lee, I have enjoyed your last few posts, you are far more effective when you tell us what you believe and why, rather than posting bumper sticker quotes and bursts of anger.

lets see if excepts an unemployment check, but again his patriotism may not allow that...A democrat doesnt mind helping a fellow American out

To be called a democrat in the time of our founding fathers was an outright insult.

eric lavine wrote: Greg, then why dont we call ourselves Americans

That's what I use, especially because I don't agree entirely with any of the parties.

OverMyHead wrote: eric lavine wrote: and, who is it that dictates what is right and what is wrong? sounds a little communist to me Eric, I would agree, Which party is it that promotes individual liberty, and which tries to regulate every aspect of our lives, like smoking on private property? Or which light bulbs we use? Or what must be given to the poor? Or what kind of fuel we use? Or the gas milage of our cars? Or who has to wear a seatbelt or helmet? Or what our kids are taught? Or who we must hire? Or where we can put a cross or a tree? Or what we can eat? Or if we can cut down a tree on our property? Or where we can drive our boats? Or who must wear a PFD? Or.........

.........somebody has to watch out for us...

OverMyHead wrote: skicat2001 wrote:       Dave thanks my friend.    Lee, I have enjoyed your last few posts, you are far more effective when you tell us what you believe and why, rather than posting bumper sticker quotes and bursts of anger.

Sorry for the angrer sometimes, but after the good guys lost to Obama in the election, I was like everyne else, I will give this guy a chance. I used to not HATE democrats this much, but after really seeing a full fledge lefty(liberal) at work on there polocies, I really hate the left with a passion now and can get quite angry,espcially if you read and listen to how they think running a country and literlally in the ground. They need to take Economics 101. Read the Constitution, and Declaration of Independence. Its very simple, but the left do not get it. I will in the future watch my anger a little more closer. Thanks Dave, I have learned lots from you and many others on this site. Thanks bro..

BuffaloBFN wrote: To be called a democrat in the time of our founding fathers was an outright insult.

Yes sir Greg... Down right insulting.


And it is just these things like this. Obama is bashing the GOP for gays in the military. This makes me sick, only a democrat would do some horrile stuff like this. I dont care you are quir, or gay, but having reform with this gay crap is not accepted. They have to be judged one day not me, but look at this article. This is what I am talking about.

OBAMA BASHING GOP for Gay military

Wow joe, that was a long post with lots of points, Your concept of staying in the middle is for the most part a good philosphy, I will call it the sweet spot, and there is a sweet spot for everything. The guestion is what defines the sweet spot, and that is where you are fundamentally flawed in your logic. We of course need laws and regulations to keep a cival society,and a create an environment where businesses can operate with acceptable risks. Wecan also regulate too much to the point where a business simply cannot afford to comply or that the opportunity for profit is diminished to the point that the investment is not worth while. Businesses look at many factors when determining where to locate, including infrastructure,Stability (political, economic, social) costs (labor, raw materials, taxes, regulations). All of these need to be in a sweet spot to attract or keep businesses ventures. It is business that funds our nation, not government. All dollars in one way or another originate from business, so if a government wants to be funded it needs to find the sweet spot for business. The governments job is to create the conditions that business neeeds, and then let the businesses do what they do best. It is not the governments job to tell the busineeses what is best or to pick and choose winners. We currently have more regulations than we have ever had. From a regulation stand point are we in the middle or at the far end? Our government spending has skyrocketed,which will have to be paid for, are we at the middle or the far end?

You said the housing crisis resulted from a lack of regulation, I do not agree , it resulted from government telling the banks how to operate. Prior to Clinton banks would write loans based on a series factors that determined risk (income, debt, credit history....) they had found the sweet spot where they could loan out money with confidence that they would get a return on there investment. Banks had to write loans that they could hold or that someone else would be willing to purchase. Then along came the Clinton years, and the government decided that everyone should be able to own a house. The banks of course knew about their sweet spot and that in fact some people had no business owning homes,because they would or could not ever pay for them. This is a case where business knew what was right and just needed the right conditions to continue doing so, but the government wanted to meddle and tell business what they had to do. The government said that the banks had to lower the threshold and make riskier loans. THe banks said if we do that we wont be able to sell them and that it will cost to much to hold them, so the fed dropped interest rates below the real sweet spot, and the government agreed to purchase the bad loans through freddie and fannie. By telling (regulating) the banks to do what they knew was wrong the government created conditions where housing was now at an artificial premium (above its sweet spot) and banks could make loans with no risk to themselves (out of the sweet spot) and the government was on the hook for the results. This was all done for a few decades of very strong economyies under both republican and democrat leadership. A house of cards was baing built. In this case government pushed the housing market out of its sweet spot creating "the bubble". Bubbles are by thier nature waiting to burst, it takes time to fill a bubble but when it pops it happens all at once. Then what happens? Publically the same politicians that pulled the banks in front of congress to accuse them of red lineing now pull the same banks in front of congress to accuse them of preditory lending. More importantly behind the scenes the government spends billions bailing out the mess that they created by pushing the banks out of thier sweet spot to start with. The government does this over and over in different ways. Currently we are doing this by paying unemployment for 2 (maybe 3) years. we are maintaining an employment bubble rather than letting the labor market find its sweet spot. In do this states are being forced to raise the cost of unemplymet taxes on business increasing the cost of each employeed person. We also have the government messing with healthcare, for decades we have regulated every aspect of health care, it has not been a truely private industry for over half a century. We mandate that insurance companies pay for the newest drugs and procedures, for viagra, cosmetic surgery, fertility treatments, port wine stains,.... and then complain that the costs are to high and to few can afford it so we regulate it more and drive the costs higher, all on the backs of business.

The government does employee millions of people but the government does not pay them, taxes pay them, taxes come from individuals who are hired by or run businesses. If the government is the soulution why not have them hire everyone in the country? If the stimulus is evidence of what a government created job costs we can figure over a million per job, times 300 milliom people, we could employ the nation for 300 trillion dollars, of course that would leave no private tax base, so we would have a 300 trillion dollar deficit. Business are not crying boo hoo when they complain of taxes or regulation, they are telling the government where their sweet spot is and warning of future behavior if the sweet spot is not maintained. Business is holding money because there is no incentive to spend it. When te government spends more the businesses have more reasons not to spend. A stimulus can work uder certain condition to create a sweet spot, but we stimulated ourselves into our current conditions, any additionsl spending pushes us farther out from where we need to be. Business does not need the government spending its money to create solar energy and wind mills that increase its energy costs by 30%. Business needs the govenment to drill and build coal and nuclear plants to provide cheaper energy so it can compete with the businesses in other countries tht are doing just that.

As far as a political sweet spot, there was not tea party until Obama, Ried and Polosie began abusing their power on the left, they moved the country out of its sweet spot creating a space on the far right that needed to be filled to pull the country back towards the center.

Bottom line with large corporations and small business. Too many tax hikes on them over 2 yrs and regulations that me and you do not know about. Promise!! Plus Obama care has companies pulling there reins and stopping the wagon to see what happens first. They gotta be on the safe side before investing in something. I would sit on profits too.


And Joe BTW, as you stated about what you do behind close doors is personal business. I totally agree with you, but when you go polotical with it or you are gonna make yourself loook a litttle ignorant, then I have problems with it. How can someone vote for someone though if he is a supporter of gay marriage, gay military, or...???? "In God We Trust"

OverMyHead wrote: You said the housing crisis resulted from a lack of regulation, I do not agree , it resulted from government telling the banks how to operate. Prior to Clinton banks would write loans based on a series factors that determined risk (income, debt, credit history....) they had found the sweet spot where they could loan out money with

...........yadda yadda yadda


Now you have got to be kidding me? Ignorance is bliss. Please Please, I beg you, will you watch Charles Fergusen's "Inside Job"? It can be found on youtube or through netflix.


A few quick points, the vast majority of loans during the financial crisis starting in 2000 were issued to higher income borrowers not the poor. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley act (ever hear of it??) dismantled depression era laws prohibiting bank holding companies from owning financial companies. Also, private lendors NOT government backed Fannie and Freddie issued the vast majority of subprime loans. Fannie and Freddie actually lost market share during 2005 and 2006 because they choose not to participate in a lot of these non-traditional loans.

Please, watch Inside Job then let's have this discussion again.