In 59 Philadelphia voting divisions, Mitt Romney got zero votes

head of joaquin said:

So the new tea party narrative is:

1. Bush ended the war he started, even though he didn't end it, and conservatives screamed about Obama's deadline.

2. Deregulation is good, but it was responsible for the bubble, which is bad.

3. Increase tax revenues don't reduce deficits.

Stick with it man -- you are my conservative idol.

Click to expand...

1: I'm not a tea partier. I'm Independent. I think all the parties out there have good and bad sides to them. Lately more bad than good...across the board.

2: Responsible deregulation is good. Irresponsible deregulation is bad. Some things certainly do need to be deregulized. Others need the same as they have now or more. That is my POV. Yeah, conservatives may not hold to it but I am not a conservative so don't care.

3: Increasing tax revenues WON'T reduce the deficit if you are spending more than you are getting. That is simple economics and even more than that, simple math. The kind of math you learn in 1st and 2nd grade.

If you are John gives Mary $5 when she had zero dollars and Mary spends $10 dollars how much is Mary in debt? If John gives Mary $7 more and Mary then spends $15 dollars how much more is Mary in debt?

Simple math man, simple math.

head of joaquin said:

So the new tea party narrative is:

1. Bush ended the war he started, even though he didn't end it, and conservatives screamed about Obama's deadline.

2. Deregulation is good, but it was responsible for the bubble, which is bad.

3. Increase tax revenues don't reduce deficits.

Stick with it man -- you are my conservative idol.

Click to expand...

Bush didn't end any wars, and if you have paid attention to his speech in Sep 2001, you'd know he predicted that it wouldn't. Secondly, it wasn't deregulation per se, which btw does not mean no regulation; it was the law passed under Carter and modified under Clinton that became a mortgage-machine train out of control. That and the use of Fannie Mae to buy up toxic mortgage debt spurred Wall Street to buy up these mortgages which led to an acceleration in poor lending practices.

Kal'Stang said:

1: I'm not a tea partier. I'm Independent. I think all the parties out there have good and bad sides to them. Lately more bad than good...across the board.

Click to expand...

They always say that.

2: Responsible deregulation is good. Irresponsible deregulation is bad. Some things certainly do need to be deregulized. Others need the same as they have now or more. That is my POV. Yeah, conservatives may not hold to it but I am not a conservative so don't care.

Click to expand...

Meaningless talking points. We have a procedure for regulations; they respond to a problem. Deregulation almost always is a GOP shill for business interest. And the Bush Meltdown showed that again. Can you tell us why CDSs weren't regulated? I can.

3: Increasing tax revenues WON'T reduce the deficit if you are spending more than you are getting. That is simple economics and even more than that, simple math. The kind of math you learn in 1st and 2nd grade.

If you are John gives Mary $5 when she had zero dollars and Mary spends $10 dollars how much is Mary in debt? If John gives Mary $7 more and Mary then spends $15 dollars how much more is Mary in debt?

Simple math man, simple math.

Click to expand...

Simple math for simple minds. Since nobody said increased revenue was the sole solution, you're grappling with a strawman, as usual.

How about this, we raise revenues, and cut defense spending (dead weight) and put money into infrastructure which results in economic growth and even higher tax revenues, resulting in lower deficits. Rinse and repeat.

Erod said:

In 59 Philadelphia voting divisions, Mitt Romney got zero votes



The definition of mindlessness.

These sheep and single mothers....America's truly accomplished decision makers.

Click to expand...

This thread reminds me of the following thread:

pbrauer said:

NBC/WSJ Poll: Romney Has Zero Percent Support From African Americans « Alan Colmes' Liberaland

Make that 94% for President Obama to 0% for Mitt Romney. That’s not the only place where Romney falls.

Looking inside the numbers, Obama continues to lead Romney among key parts of his political base, including African Americans (94 percent to 0 percent), Latinos (by a 2-to-1 margin), voters under 35-years-old (52 percent to 41 percent) and women (51 percent to 41 percent)​

.


With a +/- 3.1% margin of error, it’s actually possible that Romney has negative support from African Americans.

Click to expand...

head of joaquin said:

They always say that.

Click to expand...

Except in my case its actually true. Ask anyone around here what my posting history is like (if you don't want to go through it yourself) and they will all say that I jump around more than a jumping bean.

head of joaquin said:

Meaningless talking points. We have a procedure for regulations; they respond to a problem. Deregulation almost always is a GOP shill for business interest. And the Bush Meltdown showed that again. Can you tell us why CDSs weren't regulated? I can.

Click to expand...

If they responded to a problem then we wouldn't have had a housing bubble now would we have?

head of joaquin said:

Simple math for simple minds. Since nobody said increased revenue was the sole solution, you're grappling with a strawman, as usual.

Click to expand...

You may not have said it but you have certainly implied it since that is all that you seem to talk about...raising taxes, particularly on the rich.

head of joaquin said:

How about this, we raise revenues, and cut defense spending (dead weight) and put money into infrastructure which results in economic growth and even higher tax revenues, resulting in lower deficits. Rinse and repeat.

Click to expand...

How about this instead, we take the middle road on tax increases. Raise them by half of what Bush cut. Then we reduce spending across the board...not just defense spending.

1: Cut defense spending by half. We do this by bringing ALL our men and women home leaving only enough out there to act as body guards to our ambassadors. Then we melt down all the useless old junk that is still in use and sell it, keeping and using the newer stuff that was suppose to replace the old stuff. Reduce our standing army size by 1/4, at least. There is more but this would be a big start.

2: Reduce welfare output. Those that have been on welfare for over 3 years gets kicked off. Keeping only those that truely need help...such as the physically disabled. Institute a law which states that if you are able to work when applying for welfare then in order to get that welfare you must contribute 30hrs per week on community service. During that time they must apply to at least 5 jobs per week. If they do not do the community service or look for a job then they get kicked off. If they don't agree to those stipulations then they won't get it. This will encourage people to actually look for a job and get off the dole, thereby reducing spending on welfare. Those that are already working at least 35hr/wk do not have to adhere to that stipulation.

3: Do whatever it takes to discourage illegal immigration. That means cracking down on businesses that hire illegals. Not letting thier kids become citizens. Not letting thier kids go to our schools. And if they go to the hospital and are found to be illegal then they get deported after they feel good enough to move. This will open up job opportunities for Citizens and will cut the amount of people not paying taxes down. Which will increase revenue.

4: Get rid of all subsidies for any buisness that makes over 100k/yr. This also would increase revenue.

5: Implement a system which will stop buisnesses from going across seas. Getting rid of the Free Trade Agreement would be a good start on this.

American said:

.... That and the use of Fannie Mae to buy up toxic mortgage debt spurred Wall Street to buy up these mortgages which led to an acceleration in poor lending practices.

Click to expand...

I think the blame for this past recession falls on the pure greed of the financial institutions.

Although the financial institutions would like us to believe and have led us to believe that mandated morgage lending is the reason they are in trouble ,
I believe the Credit Default Swaps are the real reason that our financial institutions were in dire straights.

This last recession was unlike any other I ever experienced.
In the past we had manufacturing crisis, fuel crisis, inflation crisis, dot. com crisis etc.

In the last 40 years every other recession our country was in those who had very good or excellent credit were able to get loans. Those loans may have come with double diget interest but they were still available.

This last recession was different because the lending institutions did not have the money to loan.

I think the problem started way before the mandated morgage lending.
I think it stated back in 1997 when the JP Moragn came up with a wonderfully evil ( my words) idea to free up their monies called Credit Default Swaps.

The Credit Default Swaps were invented in 1997 by a team working for JP Morgan. They were designed to shift the risk of default to a third-party, as this shifted risk did not count against their regulatory capital requirements. In essence the swaps were created as a regulatory loophole


Basically banks used to need to keep monies on hand to back up loans. The financial institutions decided they could free up more money for loans if they had a 3rd party be responsible if a loan was defaulted.
Kind of like an insurance policy but unlike a real insurance company which is regulated these 3rd party companies are not regulated and did NOT have money to pay the defaults and that is why our financial institutions are in such a mess.

The banks kept lending money they did not really have until lots of defaults are coming in with no one to pay the defaults.
Then the financial institutions almost collapsed and we the taxpayers ended up bailing them out.

More info on Credit Default Swaps:

Credit Default Swaps: The Next Crisis? - TIME

I dunno about vote fraud and all that... but I am troubled that not even one democrat here has looked at a 100% vote for Obama and even thought it was suspect.

I don't care who gets 100% of the vote( among thousands of people)... I get very suspicious at such a number.

Thrilla said:

I dunno about vote fraud and all that... but I am troubled that not even one democrat here has looked at a 100% vote for Obama and even thought it was suspect.

I don't care who gets 100% of the vote( among thousands of people)... I get very suspicious at such a number.

Click to expand...

I posted an article earlier in this thread that in some urban areas close to 100% and even 100% of the registered are democrats.

Here is another <SNIP> from another article:

The unanimous support for Obama in these Philadelphia neighborhoods - clustered in almost exclusively black sections of West and North Philadelphia - fertilizes fears of fraud, despite little hard evidence.

Upon hearing the numbers, Steve Miskin, a spokesman for Republicans in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, brought up his party's voter-identification initiative - which was held off for this election - and said, "We believe we need to continue ensuring the integrity of the ballot."

The absence of a voter-ID law, however, would not stop anyone from voting for a Republican candidate.

Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia who has studied African American precincts, said he had occasionally seen 100 percent of the vote go for the Democratic candidate. Chicago and Atlanta each had precincts that registered no votes for Republican Sen. John McCain in 2008.

Click to expand...

read more:
In 59 Philadelphia voting divisions, Mitt Romney got zero votes - Philly.com

Thrilla said:

I dunno about vote fraud and all that... but I am troubled that not even one democrat here has looked at a 100% vote for Obama and even thought it was suspect.

I don't care who gets 100% of the vote( among thousands of people)... I get very suspicious at such a number.

Click to expand...

There is a difference in being "suspicious" of a number and flat out calling it voter fraud because of it. I have no problem with people being suspicious of anything, however when it turns into flat out allegations of voter fraud that is ridiculous.

PA and Ohio hardest hit

ETA Press Release: Unemployment Insurance Weekly Claims Report

Don't be troubled, anyone...take a visit to Phillie sometime and go to North Phillie alone, and you will come to understand why Romney got no votes.

I've worked in Philadelphia, partied in Phillie and believe me, north, south, east or west, there exists places where Romney or any republican could very easily get nary a vote.

Check the demographics of Philadelphia before you think it couldn't happen.

Don't be troubled, anyone...take a visit to Phillie sometime and go to North Phillie alone, and you will come to understand why Romney got no votes.

I've worked in Philadelphia, partied in Phillie and believe me, north, south, east or west, there exists places where Romney or any republican could very easily get nary a vote.

Check the demographics of Philadelphia before you think it couldn't happen.