2016 Election
Quote: BuzzardRomney could not get away from Romney Care. Christie can win if he can get people to remember Rand Paul and Ted Cruz are just like the crazy uncle everybody has in his family tree.
And the Republican Party has to stop blaming the salesman and look at the product.
So Romney Care hurt Romney but Obamacare was no problem for Obama at the time of the election. Could it be that a lot of Republicans didn't want a Republican that acts a lot like a Democrat? I don't think the Republicans will ever win by taking a lot of Democrat votes--they will win by having a candidate that excites the party and gets everyone out to vote...and wins over a substantial bunch of independents.
The Republicans can win again but only if they take the offensive and stay on it throughout the election cycle. They have to not let abortion and gay marriage become the main issues. State your position on those issues but keep the debate on the really important things at the national level--the economy, Obamacare, foreign relations, the budget, immigration, government transparency, etc.--because trying to win social issues is not going to win the election; winning on things that will make the country better can win.
The only thing that can happen by having a moderate-liberal candidate like Christie is what has happened in recent elections with that type of candidate. He may even lead in the polls on a national level at some point, but everyone will not turn out for him on the conservative side and democrats will vote for democrats.
If the Republicans listen to what the Democrats tell them to do to win the election, they are once again doomed.
You would think that because your kind deals in conspiracy theories and projection but Elie Wiesel once said that the opposite of love is not hate, it is indifference. In that sense, I am the opposite of in love with Bill O'Reilly. Bill O'Reilly has a lot of success but that doesn't make him important to me. His success speaks volumes about those people who pay him any attention than about anything else.Quote: EvenBobLol, it must really gall you that o'Reilly has had the highest
rated news show on cable for 12 years straight. People
love to hate Bill. And his books are huge best sellers, every
one of them.
Quote: s2dbakerYou would think that because your kind deals in conspiracy theories and projection but Elie Wiesel once said that the opposite of love is not hate, it is indifference. In that sense, I am the opposite of in love with Bill O'Reilly. Bill O'Reilly has a lot of success but that doesn't make him important to me. His success speaks volumes about those people who pay him any attention than about anything else.
People watch him because he makes people give answers to what he has asked, not like most lamestream media reporters.
LSM Reporter: Mr POTUS, do you take any responsibility for the failed launch of your website?
Obama: Did I ever tell you that my favorite color is blue?
LSM: Really, when did you start liking blue? It doesn't have to do with blue states does it? giggle giggle giggle.
Bill O: Mr POTUS, do you take any responsibility for the failed launch of your website?
Obama: Did I ever tell you that my favorite color is blue?
Bill O: That's nice, mine is green. Now back to the failure of your website......
What a crock...LOL!Quote: s2dbakerYou would think that because your kind deals in conspiracy theories...
Libs believe in all sorts of conspiracy theories from things like the Kennedy assassination to voter suppression of blacks in the last election. :D
By 2016, the Obamacare fiasco should have played itself out, but the democrats will not really have a record to go on. The economy will still be a mess, and the country will be racking up huge deficits still. It should be a GOP victory unless they screw up, which is what is going to happen if the tea party and the moderates don't reconcile. If the GOP puts out a candidate too far to the right, it will turn off some of the Republican core, where as the tea party would NEVER vote for a Democrat. Hopefully, for the GOP, they put out a moderate candidate and then the tea party can do their work in the congress and senate. I think Chris Christie might be a good choice.
And EvenBob's right about Hillary. She may be well past prime, and age might be a factor.
Quote: AZDuffmanThis is a mostly liberal board so what can we do but keep on?
This is mostly a liberal board? Unless there is a large "silent majority" of liberals who never post on this board, I don't find it very liberal at all. I think this is the crux of the right's fascination with bias. The find it EVERYWHERE. I find this fear of media "bias" and the destructive nature of "Hollywood" and "elites" hilarious. Conservatives control the U.S. courts and before the 2006 mid-term election Republicans had held the House for 12 straight years, Senate for 10.5 of 12, and the presidency for all but 12 years since 1968, but it was the damn liberals elites and media bias ruining everything.
Have you heard that Vince Foster had found Barack Obama's long form Kenyan birth certificate and that's why Hillary Clinton had to strangle him with her bare hands in the White Water of Benghazi while wearing a fem looking marine hat.Quote: Beethoven9thWhat a crock...LOL!
Quote: Buzzard" bridge the gap between the moderates and the tea party " Easier to turn lead into gold. Imagine trying to muzzle Ted Cruz and his wacko followers.
Yeah, those people who believe in the Constitution and living within our means are just crazies. When will they come to their senses and just let government make the hard choices in their lives.
Quote: Buzzard" bridge the gap between the moderates and the tea party " Easier to turn lead into gold. Imagine trying to muzzle Ted Cruz and his wacko followers.
Amazing. It is easier to label them wacko than it is to argue with their positions.
other than waving around a miniature version of the Constitution, Canada's Ted Cruz has never supported anything that's actually in it. As far the budget goes, Ted Cruz (a natural born Canadian) voted to blow a huge hole in the budget deficit by voting against the continuing resolution.Quote: AZDuffmanYeah, those people who believe in the Constitution and living within our means are just crazies. When will they come to their senses and just let government make the hard choices in their lives.
Quote: s2dbakerTed Cruz (a natural born Canadian) voted to blow a huge hole in the budget deficit by voting against the continuing resolution.
How on earth does voting against a CR "blow a hole in the budget?" Constitutionally, Congress is supposed to pass a budget, not a CR BTW.
Simple, if the Canadian had his way then the debt ceiling would not have been raised thereby increasing borrowing costs for not only the federal government but everybody else. By the way, Ted Cruz hasn't voted in favor of any budget yet, therefore, by your logic, he flagrantly violates the Constitution.Quote: AZDuffmanHow on earth does voting against a CR "blow a hole in the budget?" Constitutionally, Congress is supposed to pass a budget, not a CR BTW.
Quote: s2dbakerSimple, if the Canadian had his way then the debt ceiling would not have been raised thereby increasing borrowing costs for not only the federal government but everybody else. By the way, Ted Cruz hasn't voted in favor of any budget yet, therefore, by your logic, he flagrantly violates the Constitution.
Actually it would LOWER borrowing costs for everyone. If the government was not borrowing a trillion dollars a year then that is a trillion available for private borrowing. And costs for the government would plummet as the supply of available debt would shrink drastically but the same number of available dollars would compete for the lower Treasury Issues.
You must have me mixed up with your fellow Obama voters in my understanding of economics and banking.
Quote: AZDuffmanActually it would LOWER borrowing costs for everyone.
Really? The debt ceiling not getting raised would surely cause the end of QE. That would, over the short and mid-term, raise rates.
No wonder that the once awfully good Republican party is now useless. You, Beethoven, Ted Cruz, and others like you need to go out and form your own party.
Quote: AZDuffmanActually it would LOWER borrowing costs for everyone.
Really? The debt ceiling not getting raised would surely cause the end of QE. That would, over the short and mid-term, raise rates.
No wonder that the once awfully good Republican party is now useless. You, Beethoven, Ted Cruz, and others like you need to go out and form your own party.
Quote: steeldcoReally? The debt ceiling not getting raised would surely cause the end of QE. That would, over the short and mid-term, raise rates.
What does the debt ceiling have to do with QE? QE is done by the Federal Reserve creating money, and they are using the QE program to buy private bonds. In addition, the Fed could buy Treasuries on the secondary market if they wanted government debt.
Quote: steeldcoHow do you think that QE is funded? You think it has no effect on the amount of our debt?
How do *YOU* think QE is funded?
Because I *KNOW* how QE is funded. The Fed creates money out of thin air to purchase debt instruments. It does not come out of the Federal Budget.
Seriously, how could and why would the Feds use money in the budget to buy T-Bonds to fund deficit spending?
Quote: AZDuffmanHow do *YOU* think QE is funded?
Because I *KNOW* how QE is funded. The Fed creates money out of thin air to purchase debt instruments. It does not come out of the Federal Budget.
Seriously, how could and why would the Feds use money in the budget to buy T-Bonds to fund deficit spending?
This is exactly why the Republican party is pretty well doomed. Narrow minded know it alls want to take control and the common man won't stand for it. You're lost. Please form your own party.
The Fed buys assets in order to reduce rates. Those purchases add to the debt. The increased debt has an effect on the debt ceiling. The fact that they are printing the money has no effect on the fact that the debt rises when they apply QE.
Quote: steeldcoThis is exactly why the Republican party is pretty well doomed. Narrow minded know it alls want to take control and the common man won't stand for it. You're lost. Please form your own party.
The Fed buys assets in order to reduce rates. Those purchases add to the debt. The increased debt has an effect on the debt ceiling. The fact that they are printing the money has no effect on the fact that the debt rises when they apply QE.
*sigh* another reason the Dems win elections, low-information voters who do not understand the process.
The TREASURY borrows money and is affected by the debt ceiling. It is in simple terms the government's "checking and credit account." Money comes in to and leaves the Treasury unevenly over the year. Even in a year of "surplus" the Treasury borrows money. For example, in January the Treasury has more going out than coming in as tax refunds are paid, and the reverse in April as people who owe pay their taxes. When the Treasury is short money, they have a debt auction. This total debt is what is affected by the debt ceiling.
The FEDERAL RESERVE (a/k/a "The Fed") is the nation's "bank." Its budget is not part of what Congress passes any year. The primary job of the Fed is to keep the financial system liquid. If say JPMorgan Chase has a lot of money on loan and needs to clear checks their customers write they can go to the "Fed Discount Window" and borrow the money for a short, or longer term, loan. Ideally it is only for hours or days.
The Fed "creates" this money from thin air. The Fed also shows up at Treasury auctions and creates money to buy Treasury debt when private institutions or the Chinese do not show enough interest. Lately, the Fed has been buying private bonds so the banks and others have that money to lend again.
NONE OF WHAT THE FED BUYS COMES OFF OF THE GENERAL BUDGET, NOR IS IT ADDED TO THE GENERAL DEBT. THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT EVEN "OWN" THE FED. It is owned by member banks, and has a chairman who is appointed by the POTUS.
Before calling me a "know it all" I would request you learn how all of this works. You can see more background in several posts I made over at DT.
Quote: EvenBobLol, it must really gall you that o'Reilly has had the highest
rated news show on cable for 12 years straight. People
love to hate Bill. And his books are huge best sellers, every
one of them.
Not at all. I don't care, I'm not in competition with him. Does it gall you that John Stewart is so highly rated as a news comedy show? Thought not.
O'Reilly is very good at his job, he serves a very important role as an agitator and calls people out on BS. I find his interview technique is terrible when he knows nothing about his subject. He's good when it's something he does know a lot about. He also -hates- being disagreed with.
I just think calling him unbiased is a joke. He's not, nor should he be. It's not his role.
Moreover, O'Reilly's (and Fox's) high ratings give pause to the view that the mainstream media is biased. O'Reilly and Fox is part of the mainstream media, and Fox News is the single most viewed new channel. Long may they continue. I like to get news from a variety of sources, and it's even better when I know their pre-disposed bias, rather than it being hidden. If I want in depth coverage of an issue, Fox and MSNBC commentary is a great way to see both sides.
Ortiz got less than 3% or the vote in Boston for Mayor.
Here’s my first question. Will higher interest rates cause the nation’s debt to increase? Again, a straight forward answer would be appreciated.
Yes or no would be nice.
Quote: thecesspit
O'Reilly and Fox is part of the mainstream media,
No, they're not. They don't get anywhere near the
combined ratings of the LameStream networks,
NBC, CBS, and ABC.
Quote: EvenBobNo, they're not. They don't get anywhere near the
combined ratings of the LameStream networks,
NBC, CBS, and ABC.
Yes they are. They get 20% of the viewership. They are part of the media. They are mainstream. They are the single top viewed news channel.
It just doesn't fit the story you want to tell. Tough. How can Bill O Reilly win the ratings, but not be mainstream?
They may not be the majority, but they are hardly a 'side show'. They set the debate. The very fact people talk about them in high praise or high hate shows how important Fox News IS in the US media.
Not only that, Fox News' share is slowly growing. Just let them know they aren't part of the mainstream. I'm sure they will be most upset... and keep doing what they do, and grow their audience anyways.
http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2013/11/07/cable-news-ratings-for-wednesday-november-6-2013/214062/
Maybe Wednesday was a special case. But consistently Fox seems to get the plurality of the viewers, and often the majority (in Bill-O's case, for example).
Quote: steeldcoOkay, since I’m more than willing to admit that I am wrong, when that realization dawns on me, I would to do this in a simple, clean, step by step manner. Spinning not allowed.
Here’s my first question. Will higher interest rates cause the nation’s debt to increase? Again, a straight forward answer would be appreciated.
Yes or no would be nice.
I would like to say "yes or no" but it isn't quite that simple. But in the interest of civility I will limit my answer to 3 short sentences.
In and of themselves higher interest rates do not cause "debt to increase." Just like if you have a "teaser" rate on a loan, the amount of the loan does not change. However, the cost of servicing that debt, in the form of interest rates, that will increase as the rate goes up.
There you go, no spin.
Quote: AZDuffmanI would like to say "yes or no" but it isn't quite that simple. But in the interest of civility I will limit my answer to 3 short sentences.
In and of themselves higher interest rates do not cause "debt to increase." Just like if you have a "teaser" rate on a loan, the amount of the loan does not change. However, the cost of servicing that debt, in the form of interest rates, that will increase as the rate goes up.
There you go, no spin.
Interesting. So your claim is that it does not impact debt. How can that be since, if you did not have that interest cost to pay, you could you pay down debt.
It may not directly cause debt to increase, although it may, it surely prevents you from reducing your debt obligations. There is an impact, directly or indirectly. Again, without a lot of verbiage, would you agree?
Quote: steeldcoInteresting. So your claim is that it does not impact debt. How can that be since, if you did not have that interest cost to pay, you could you pay down debt.
It may not directly cause debt to increase, although it may, it surely prevents you from reducing your debt obligations. There is an impact, directly or indirectly. Again, without a lot of verbiage, would you agree?
I will politely ask you to rephrase what you are asking as I cannot follow it. What exactly would cause the interest rate to increase?
Quote: steeldcoWould you be so kind as to bear with me and not jump ahead? To re-phrase my question, would not a rise interest rates cause the debt to increase, whether it be directly or indirectly?
To restate what I wrote before, an increase in the interest rate would not cause the debt to increase, though the cost of servicing it would increase.
Quote: AZDuffmanTo restate what I wrote before, an increase in the interest rate would not cause the debt to increase, though the cost of servicing it would increase.
With all due respect, you don't seem to be answering the question. Does not an increase in debt service cause an increase in debt, whether it be directly or indirectly?
Quote: thecesspitThey are the single top viewed news channel.
But we're not talking about just cable. The mainstream
media is on network TV, ABC, CBS, and NBC. Cable
doesn't touch their ratings, that's why network news
is referred to as 'mainstream', because that's what the
majority of low information Hoopleheads watch.
You need to do some Google searching because the right has given plenty of examples of media bias. There are even examples in this thread. Guess you didn't bother to read them.Quote: 1arrowheaddrI think this is the crux of the right's fascination with bias. The find it EVERYWHERE.
No, haven't heard that one.Quote: s2dbakerHave you heard that Vince Foster had found Barack Obama's long form Kenyan birth certificate and that's why Hillary Clinton had to strangle him with her bare hands in the White Water of Benghazi while wearing a fem looking marine hat.
Quote: steeldcoWith all due respect, you don't seem to be answering the question. Does not an increase in debt service cause an increase in debt, whether it be directly or indirectly?
I have answered "NO" several times already. I gave my qualification after same "NO" several times already. Please re-read my previous posts for details.
Quote: AZDuffmanI have answered "NO" several times already. I gave my qualification after same "NO" several times already. Please re-read my previous posts for details.
So your stance is that increased debt service has no impact on the debt level? Wow.
Quote: steeldcoSo your stance is that increased debt service has no impact on the debt level? Wow.
If debt service cost goes up other things can and should be cut.
But you need to answer my question, which is what action do you think is causing the interest rates on current debt to go up? And why?
Quote: AZDuffmanIf debt service cost goes up other things can and should be cut.
Wow. I'm sorry, but you really trying very hard to avoid the obvious and correct answer which is that absolutely debt service has an impact on debt level. Irrespective of whether you make cuts elsewhere. If you did cut elsewhere, it would just mean that your debt level would be even LOWER if you made the cuts and did not incur the additional debt, via debt service. But higher rates raise debt level. The only time that would be untrue is if you had no debt to begin with.
Interest rates will increase with the easing of QE or its elimination. Unquestionably, unless of course we fall into a depression.....also a possibility.
Quote: steeldcoWow. I'm sorry, but you really trying very hard to avoid the obvious and correct answer which is that absolutely debt service has an impact on debt level. Irrespective of whether you make cuts elsewhere. If you did cut elsewhere, it would just mean that your debt level would be even LOWER if you made the cuts and did not incur the additional debt, via debt service. But higher rates raise debt level. The only time that would be untrue is if you had no debt to begin with.
Interest rates will increase with the easing of QE or its elimination. Unquestionably, unless of course we fall into a depression.....also a possibility.
No, it means debt service level is higher. If you didn't borrow more to pay the interest you already owed then debt would stay constant. More debt is not paid when rates go down, bonds get paid as they mature.
QE needs to end one way or another. The government and American Consumer are hooked on the meth that is artificially low interest rates. Rates are being kept low to keep housing from falling even further. It has to end sometime, you cannot just print money forever. Weimar Germany tried that.
Quote: AZDuffmanNo, it means debt service level is higher. If you didn't borrow more to pay the interest you already owed then debt would stay constant. More debt is not paid when rates go down, bonds get paid as they mature.
Quote:
Absolutely wrong. If you do not incur higher interest rates then your service level is lower because it allows you to pay down the debt, further lowering your debt service level and consequently again further lowering your debt level. Ever hear of interest compounding and its effects?DO NOT blindly accept what has been spoken. DO NOT blindly accept what has been written. Think. Assess. Lead. DO NOT blindly follow.
Quote: steeldco
Absolutely wrong. If you do not incur higher interest rates then your service level is lower because it allows you to pay down the debt, further lowering your debt service level and consequently again further lowering your debt level. Ever hear of interest compounding and its effects?
That would apply if we were paying down debt, we are not even attempting to do so. A healthy nation has a fair amount of debt for a multiple of reasons and keeps that debt at a 50% of GDP level or so.
I still do not understand what point you are trying to make. If you are saying QE needs to end I agree. If you are saying some behavior on the part of the GOP is affecting interest rates I disagree.
Quote: AZDuffmanThat would apply if we were paying down debt, we are not even attempting to do so. A healthy nation has a fair amount of debt for a multiple of reasons and keeps that debt at a 50% of GDP level or so.
I'm trying to understand the logic that you're trying to apply here.
You are saying that we are not paying down debt, which would seem to indicate that we don't need to? This is your stance? We don't need to?
Quote: steeldcoI'm trying to understand the logic that you're trying to apply here.
You are saying that we are not paying down debt, which would seem to indicate that we don't need to? This is your stance? We don't need to?
No, we are not paying down the debt. Even when we do "pay it down" this is done by just not issuing new bonds. We do not go on the open market and retire bonds.
My stance is that we need a national debt of about 50-75% of GDP. A nation cannot function with a national debt that is too low or too high.
Quote: AZDuffmanYeah, those people who believe in the Constitution and living within our means are just crazies. When will they come to their senses and just let government make the hard choices in their lives.
Yeah like Paul Rand. Who believes that a business can bar a black man from eating in his restaurant because freedom of speech is guaranteed in the Constitution.
.Quote: AZDuffmanNo, we are not paying down the debt. Even when we do "pay it down" this is done by just not issuing new bonds. We do not go on the open market and retire bonds.
My stance is that we need a national debt of about 50-75% of GDP. A nation cannot function with a national debt that is too low or too high.
Wow. I sure feel like I'm talking to a politician. I bet you think that you're answering the questions. In case you feel that way, let me just state that you are not.
You have already stated that "we are not paying down our debt". You love semantics. Let me re-phrase for you. Do you, or do you not, believe that our debt level needs to decrease?
Yes or no would be nice.
No fair asking this question. The republicans have all of the answers, and none of the solution.
Higher interest payments do not raise the debt. How silly !
Total day numbers FoxNews outnumbers all other newschannels combined with about 55% of the total news viewing audience.
2.9 million watch O'Reilly
2.6 watch the Kelly file
2.6 watch Hannity
8.6 million watch NBC Nightly News
8.0 million watch ABC's World News
6.8 million watch CBS Evening News
5.5 million watch Good Morning America
10 million watch Judge Judy
6.6 million watch the Wheel
5.8 million watch Jeopardy
5.4 million watch Entertainment today
So yeah, the Lamestream media still kicks ass.
Quote: BuzzardYeah like Paul Rand. Who believes that a business can bar a black man from eating in his restaurant because freedom of speech is guaranteed in the Constitution.
...and liberals believe that black men need affirmative action because they can't possibly compete with whites on their own. Now how racist is that?
