Presidential Election: 2012
- Thread starter Omnis
- 3,780 comments
- 157,042 views
Danoff
Premium
- 34,041
- Mile High City
One comment on last night's debates where I thought Romney missed an opportunity to debunk something the President was saying.
Obama was saying that he cut taxes on the middle class, putting an average of ?? 3k in people's pockets, which allowed them to buy that new car or whatever. Since there hasn't been an actual tax cut, I assume Obama was talking about the payroll tax holiday.
The problem with this line of reasoning is the problem with the stimulus attempts. Nobody is going to take on a new car payment because you put a couple of grand in their pocket on one particular year. What are they doing to do about the car payments the next year? Or the year after?
Romney missed an opportunity to criticize both Obama AND President Bush on these short-term stimulus attempts and explain why they don't create real sustained economic growth. He could have done two things with that, lump Obama in with Bush (bad news for Obama), and distinguish himself from the status quo (great for him). Opportunity missed.
Obama was saying that he cut taxes on the middle class, putting an average of ?? 3k in people's pockets, which allowed them to buy that new car or whatever. Since there hasn't been an actual tax cut, I assume Obama was talking about the payroll tax holiday.
The problem with this line of reasoning is the problem with the stimulus attempts. Nobody is going to take on a new car payment because you put a couple of grand in their pocket on one particular year. What are they doing to do about the car payments the next year? Or the year after?
Romney missed an opportunity to criticize both Obama AND President Bush on these short-term stimulus attempts and explain why they don't create real sustained economic growth. He could have done two things with that, lump Obama in with Bush (bad news for Obama), and distinguish himself from the status quo (great for him). Opportunity missed.
- 9,058
- Murica
- BasedAckbar
Thankfully we have a round 2 to look forward to.
I'm still voting for Obama, but the man actually has to show up to the stage and take 🤬 over like Teddy Roosevelt did.
I'm still voting for Obama, but the man actually has to show up to the stage and take 🤬 over like Teddy Roosevelt did.
- 7,313
- Land of the smelly onion
Apparently, Obama lied right off the bat last night. It was not his wedding anniversary, he opened with a lie to try to garner sympathy. I guess he knew he was in for a rough night.
Wedding Date:
On October 18, 1992, Michelle and Barack's wedding ceremony was performed by Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, Illinois.
Source: Dreams From My Father, page 401.
Wedding Date:
On October 18, 1992, Michelle and Barack's wedding ceremony was performed by Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, Illinois.
Source: Dreams From My Father, page 401.
- 29,951
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
Sounds like the Conservative Party in the UK. "We inherited this, we inherited that". Yeah? Well don't run for office if you don't have the knack to fix it. You're the ones in power, it's now your responsibility whether it was your fault or not.
Interestingly, the Democrats are a left-sided party, but I use the term 'left' very loosely, and the Conservatives are a right-sided party but both are finding the same problems and apportioning the blame in the same manner.
- 3,492
- New York
Danoff
It's not that Obama had no plans; Romney completely changed his beliefs since his other campaigns. Obama was prepared for his campaign beliefs; not his spur of the moment lies.
Here: http://m.yahoo.com/w/legobpengine/n..._host_hdr=news.yahoo.com&.intl=US&.lang=en-US
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
That is no excuse for poor debate performance. If the guy changed his stance call him out on it. It is what Bush did to Kerry that led to Bush supporters waving flip flops around from that point on.
And if you aren't prepared to debate Romney on a whole new set of opinions then you clearly aren't prepared to debate Romney. It is what he does.
You can't excuse Obama's failure to show up on Romney because Romney has done what he has been doing for the last 12 years. If Obama was going to debate Romney on his old stances then Obama would have to argue against abortion rights, against healthcare mandates, and against raising income taxes on the wealthy.
And before anyone tries calling either candidate out on their lies: A politician lied in debate? NO WAY!!!
Here is a hint: Most of what was said in the debate was not based in truth,, compassion, or sincerity, but in attempts at a calculated response to win votes. No more, no less.
- 7,517
- Connecticut
- Cowboys965
I find it hard to choose either, because they're always all lying anyway.
Not exactly sure what you are trying to say here. Money and wealth are two different things.
And it's all relative. Having $1 million doesn't mean anything if everyone else has $1 million also.
And surpluses do exist but I'm not sure how exactly they fit into this conversation. If you are willing to buy something for $100 but only have to pay $10 then how much money you are willing to spend, but didn't have to spend, is the surplus.
Gold isn't exactly the best investment. I never understood why some people are so fascinated with gold, or why they think it is an amazing investment. It's really not, in the (kind of) short run you may make some money but in the long run you likely won't be any better off (more likely that you will be worse off) than investing in a good company.
If you first bought gold when most people first began buying gold, say early 2009 when it went down in price. It was selling for about $750. Gold has peaked around $1850-$1900. Assuming you sold it at the peak (which is unlikely because generally people who buy gold want to keep their money in gold and assume it will keep going up) you would have made 153%.
Currently the price of gold is just below $1800. If you bought at the same time period you would have the ability to make 136%.
If you instead invested in a good stock like Motorola (MSI) you would have made about/over 200%.
If you chose Apple (AAPL) instead of gold you would have made 638%.
If you chose to invest in Starbucks (SBUX) instead of gold you would have made 415%.
Of course the past doesn't mean very much in any market, it's just something to think about.
A good stock will generally out perform gold. In the long run a good company will do something and continue to grow plus you won't be paying every month for storage.
Since you don't really earn any money until you sell anything, with gold you are actually losing money every year due to storage and insurance fees. Of course when you sell it you might earn a profit but it's still something to consider.
There is nothing wrong with buying gold I just don't think, and many other people don't think, it is some great investment that will save everyone. (Not that you said that, it's just that people who buy gold seem to think this way).
In the past the rule for people who are not that into gold was to limit their investment in precious metals to about 2%-5% of their total investments. That way even if it goes down you won't lose that much money and if it goes up you can gain a decent amount. Just another way of looking at it.
Again there nothing wrong with buying gold, if you feel it's a good investment then go ahead and buy it. No one knows what will happen in the future and I'm very open to the idea gold could go up in the future. But it's just not as likely to lead to profits as big as other investments.
Last edited:
- 3,492
- New York
TVC
They invest in gold because it's shiny.
Why do you think people buy Apple PC's and iPhones?
Shiny.
- 19,698
- Alabamamania
You mean "the lady from Missouri" and the "unemployed factory worker from Michigan" are just nameless Ameri-bodies used to pull at the 'ol heartstrings? Say it ain't so!
Gold's a slow growth item...It will always be around, but does it always keep up with the value of your dollar + inflation? Not always.
Or you could have bought hot commodities like Enron or WorldCom, or stuck with former blue-chips like Eastman-Kodak or American Airlines, and be randomly screwed.
Last edited:
Joel
Premium
- 8,141
- Halifax, NS
- Noob616
It's not so much about making big returns as protecting your wealth. The USD is inflating at a scary rate, and there are some seriously reckless financial policies going on. People want to buy gold as an inflation-proof investment, it'll always be valuable, it'll always have an interest.
I do agree with you that the best way to make a great return in the long term is to buy a blue-chip when its value dips and hold it. But that's for a different focus, this is more about taking the returns from that kind of investing and safeguarding them against hyperinflation.
This, basically. Gold isn't the be all and end all of investing, and I'm not really interested in it for big returns (nor are most people). There's no such thing as a sure investment, but I'm far more confident in gold holding its value than the equivalent value in USD (or CAD).
Quackjack
(Banned)
- 1,407
- North Virginia
- Quackjack29
I'm not going to get into the debates here, but this.
Sounds reasonable. 👍
Sure it will grow, it might make you some money (likely not very much in normal times and probably not at all accounting for inflation). Like you said it doesn't always keep up with inflation which would make it a useless investment (at least during years where inflation outpaced it).
Yes it was possible to buy companies like that but they were all Wall Street hype, and although there was money to be made if they were sold before they crashed, they were never smart investments (at least in the long run). They weren't random either. People should have seen it coming and I'm sure some did, the problem is people got too enthusiastic and stopped looking at reality.
If people had stuck to, or had even known about, proven investing philosophies they would have never invested in any of those companies mentioned (maybe Kodak being an exception, but even still it should have been apparent that they did not have good management and executives).
The tech boom isn't really a fair comparison to other times because it wasn't based on sound investing decisions. At the time, for whatever reason, people began to believe that large positive returns were guaranteed and would be forever. That's the time you had books titled DOW 36,000, DOW 40,000, and even DOW 100,000. Even more revealing of the mindset at the time were investment strategies like the "Foolish Four."
It should have been obvious and it was obvious that the stocks should not have been that high. It's not even "hindsight 20/20," and I know it seems easier to say this after it happened, but people should not have been buying stocks and assuming they would keep going up. It was all just based on Wall Street hype, which is rarely correct and often wrong, it was all just guesses of what would happen because it may have happened in the past. They didn't base their decisions on sound investing practices, they based it on a guess made by a guy with a high position.
There are specific examples during the Internet boom of hedge fund managers stating that tech stocks were the only way to go and, in some cases, even saying old and proven investment practices were no longer relevant in the internet age. Then a few years later their stock picks went down by over 90%.
Many companies went up because of excitement and guessing and were largely over valued. Yahoo! at one point had a price to earnings ratio of over 3,000. And other companies went up over 300% in a matter of days just based on speculation and people thinking that stocks were unable to go down. These same companies often went down by over 90% by 2002.
Qualcomm went up over 1,500% in one year and went up 31% in one day just based on an analyst saying it would be over $1,000 by the end of the year. The stock ended up losing 70% of its value when everything had finished.
So yes it is possible to lose money if you pick the wrong company. But that's why it is important to not get caught up with the enthusiasm of others and to keep a sound mind.
Speaking of WorldCom specifically it should have been obvious it was a bad choice. They offered over $10 billion worth of bonds but in two previous years they had been unable to pay over $4 billion of bonds. They had to borrow money to pay for those past bonds. It may be easier to see it now, but even back then it should have been obvious to investors if they did any amount of worthwhile research on the companies they were buying. (Many of the bonds were purchased by pension funds)
Airlines were the same way directly after World War II. Everyone thought they were the next big thing. Today, it's said that airlines as a whole have never been profitable.
I can understand it being used for that, and if you aren't looking for any profits then I can understand buying gold. I was looking at it from an investment stand point with the goal of making money. I should have thought that some people just don't want to lose money, whether or not they make any it doesn't matter.
So I guess if the price of gold outpaces inflation (plus costs associated with gold) it could be used (probably only for a limited time) as a tool too counter inflation. But that also means you are likely betting against the economy and peoples fears going back to normal.
But that it a good point.
I wouldn't say the U.S. dollar is inflating at a scary rate. It's generally around 2% which isn't necessarily a good thing but isn't bad. In 1979 the inflation rate was nearly 14% and was nearly 18% in 1946.
Hyperinflation has only existed twice in U.S. Once during the time of the American Revolution and again during the Civil War. That's not to say it can't or won't happen again, just that it hasn't happened for quite some time despite the economy being it worse or similar shape multiple times during the 20th century. (Meaning it's unlikely)
(Just realized how long this post is).
Last edited:
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. If anything it proves my point. Romney changed his stance. Considering his campaign manager's Etch-N-Sketch comments during the primary, it should be expected.
If you walk on a debate stage and your opponent has flipped all his stances and lies about your stances and actions to help differentiate himself from you, you call him on it then and there. If you spent three days at debate camp prepping for Romney's old stances and studying his statements, and you actually were prepared, then you should be able to throw his old statements back at him at that moment. A good debater must be able to adapt to unexpected things immediately. Obama has shown he can be flustered when he gets caught off guard. Romney's change was likely calculated for this reason.
And Obama doesn't get to play the "not stooping to their level" card. He gave that up the moment he began working with Super PACs after spending the last two years speaking against them, and unprofessionally using a State of the Union speech to call the Supreme Court out on it.
Now that I mention that, suddenly that whole "Mitt Romney from last night said the opposite of Mitt Romney of the last year" whining sounds a bit hypocritical. Of course, that would be the case pre-PACs. We just need to compare Candidate Obama 2008's stance on national security, The Patriot Act, and executive decisions to President Obama's policies and signed laws.
Jesus, these two guys could spend an entire debate calling each other hypocrites, saying, "I know you are but what am I," and, "You did it too!"
This. With the exception of Glenn Beck, who shills for a gold ripoff company, the majority of proponents of buying gold do not talk about it for its earning potential so much as its lack of loss potential under current Fed policies. They still suggest diversified investments in long-term growth potential stocks. Gold is suggested as the alternative to hanging on to liquid cash or putting it into something like real estate. The first time I heard gold being really pushed was pre-2008. And since we get to pick our comparisons, those who had chose to hold their assets in real estate because it was supposed to be safe would have been better off if they had listened.
But like all investing, never, ever, ever put all your value in one place. You need to be spread as far and wide as possible. You want to be in a situation where it would take four or five Enrons or market bubbles bursting to bankrupt you.
I just posted that to show he kind of responded to what you were discussing.
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
- 462
Am I the only one who thinks the fact that 0% of black people intend to vote for the republican party tells us that they hear the n-word when republicans talk to, or about, them, and that, as human beings, we have a moral obligation to vote for the democrats?
- 29,951
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
Three points:
1) Huh? This statement makes no sense.
2) You're assumption is incorrect: http://www.nbra.info/
3) Voting based on race, any race, is racist.
mister dog
(Banned)
- 8,396
- Spain
- misterdog
- misterdog7
Obama seems a straightforward and goodhearted man to me, almost non politician like.
Romney being the typical republican, trying to manipulate the masses, and after he's in office he's probably gonna go the same way as bush before him AKA attacking Iran so he can keep the american public scared with a new axis of evil so everyone overlooks the internal malpractices and all the republican friends get rich of the warfare...
As a European i realy pray Obama get's the second term, as i don't want to live through world war 3.
Quackjack
(Banned)
- 1,407
- North Virginia
- Quackjack29
Obama is winning even after his wimpy debate performance. I didn't trust Obama at first but I grew to like him, especially after I went Democrat. The Republicans needs to shift closer to the center again...
- 462
So what you say, black Americans either all thinks the same way or are all racists? The polls showed 0% of African-American will vote republican, it's a fact not an assumption, but let me change that for you 99.99% of black people will vote democrat. That means poor, middle-class, rich, educated, non-educated, almost every black person regardless of his/her background and situation will vote democrat. And under Obama they are the community that has improved the least economically. That is telling.
- 87,572
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Now look at every promise he made in 2008.
Since you don't want to live through WW3, you might like to look at the one about withdrawing troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and closing Guantanamo. You'll like it, I promise.
Didya look at the link FK posted? I'll clue you in - the "B" stands for "black" and the "R" stands for "Republican". I guess since 0% of black people will vote for Romney, the NBRA doesn't exist?
Interesting assumption. If 0% of people will vote in favour of "x" it doesn't mean 100% of them will vote in favour of "y". You seem not to acknowledge the possibility of third parties, write-ins, non-votes and spoiled ballots, even if your uncited fact is true...
- 462
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
