Paul Ryan

[Rucker61]

FACT: Gas price when Obama took office 01/2009 - $1.84
Gas price today $3.51


Gas prices where up under the Bush years when the economy was good and bottomed out when we hit the recession.

Now why when the rest of the economy is still in the crapper are gas prices nearing the high under bush when things where booming? Because oBama has declared war on the oil and gas energy sector in favor of the green agenda of his largest campaign contributors.

You do realize that oil is a world-wide commodity that one country has little impact on, that gasoline prices aren't set by the government, that the oil is owned by the oil companies who much prefer higher prices and that the US is a net gasoline exporter? Sure, we have a set capacity for gasoline refining, and no new refineries have been built lately, but do you want one in your backyard? There's no guarantee that any gasoline production will even go to the US, anyway; the oil companies ship it where they maximize their profits.

Here's an article on gas prices:

http://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/why...185135033.html

Corn, among other issues, is seeing a price increase that's resulting in higher gas prices, and if the government subsidy goes away, we may see even higher prices.

There's correllation, and there's cause and effect. They aren't always related. The distance between the continental masses of Europe and North America is growing at the rate of about 1" annually, as is my waistline. High correlation, but I doubt there's cause and effect.

[hghclsswhitetrsh]

i hate election time, and its my job vs my rights either way i lose

Amen brother.

[Ridge]

Don't know if these have already been posted or not...





I'm a big fan of this move- one of the first moves by Romney that I can genuinely get behind....

He's totally boning that turkey

[DavieD55]

Meh.... he won't change a thing...

+1

[Bailey Guns]

I can't help what a politician says, or believes.

No...but you don't have to agree with them or defend them when they're obviously wrong-headed on many issues.

I do know that it wasn't Bush's fault, but he did start the recovery. I believe the recovery money was and is a necessary risk, as we had no idea what would happen if we let major US industry and banking fail.

Agreed. But Obama took the "let's hand out money like it was free" strategy WAY too far.

I blame the banking industry for cheating the system,

Too much of a blanket statement. I'd narrow it down to say Barney Frank and Co are more to blame for forcing banks/mortgage companies to issue loans to non-qualified people. The evidence is all over the place but it's seems to be invisible to the media. This gets coverage only on places like Rush and Hannity. And it's really indisputable. Just like what Dodd and Frank did to consumer credit card rates under the guise of "protecting consumers". Thanks for the 29% interest rates, dumbasses.

I blame the unions for forcing much of US manufacturing offshore

Strongly agree. Unions are a drain on society and one of the major reasons companies look overseas for sources of labor. However, high corporate tax rates and unnecessary regulations also contribute to the unfriendly business climate in this country.

and I can put some of the blame on the American consumer for demanding cheap, disposable consumer items and ridiculous mortgages. I share some of this last blame, too.

Yes. Although I'm not totally guilt free, if there's one thing I hate it's cheap crap that doesn't last. I'll spend a lot of money for quality items over cheap, disposable junk any day. On anything. I go out of my way to buy US made items, even at a much higher price. Second choice is an item made anywhere other than China.

[Rucker61]

Too much of a blanket statement. I'd narrow it down to say Barney Frank and Co are more to blame for forcing banks/mortgage companies to issue loans to non-qualified people. The evidence is all over the place but it's seems to be invisible to the media.

No one forced people to take the mortgages, and the structure of the industry removed a bit of oversight that could have helped. In any case, I don't think that the financial crisis would have been nearly as severe as it was due to just failed mortgages; it was Wall Street's use of these bundled into CDOs where the risk tied to these securities was deliberately masked in the pricing of such. When the prices of the CDOs plummeted due the bursting of the housing bubble, that's when we saw the world-wide financial crisis hit.

I consider the actions of Wall Street to be deliberate criminal fraud. Whilst we may or may not believe that Barney Frank and Co were trying to do some good for lower income Americans, the bankers that foisted risk-hidden derivatives on the market were acting in pure, selfish greed. I firmly believe that if there was a greater personal ROI to be had by plunging the US into a depression that lasted thirty years, those folks would do it. With a world-wide banking system, they owe no allegiance to the US.

[Pancho Villa]

The last time it happened on a federal level, Congress got their ass kicked for it.

The last time it happened on a state level, Romney was the one doing it.

I just want to reach back and point out that this was a monster burn and Ridge deserves an atomic fist bump for it.

[10mm-man]

With a world-wide banking system, they owe no allegiance to the US.

NONE WHAT SO EVER!

[10mm-man]

He's totally boning that turkey

And happy as shit about it too!!

[Aloha_Shooter]

No one forced people to take the mortgages, and the structure of the industry removed a bit of oversight that could have helped. In any case, I don't think that the financial crisis would have been nearly as severe as it was due to just failed mortgages; it was Wall Street's use of these bundled into CDOs where the risk tied to these securities was deliberately masked in the pricing of such. When the prices of the CDOs plummeted due the bursting of the housing bubble, that's when we saw the world-wide financial crisis hit.

I consider the actions of Wall Street to be deliberate criminal fraud. Whilst we may or may not believe that Barney Frank and Co were trying to do some good for lower income Americans, the bankers that foisted risk-hidden derivatives on the market were acting in pure, selfish greed. I firmly believe that if there was a greater personal ROI to be had by plunging the US into a depression that lasted thirty years, those folks would do it. With a world-wide banking system, they owe no allegiance to the US.

You're right that no one forced people to take the mortgages which is why I'd blame the bankers last. However, Barney Frank & Co were trying to do two things: 1) solidify a base of political support by making the American dream accessible and diverting the cost of that dream onto regular taxpayers, 2) using Enron-style accounting to hide or pay for their Clinton-era expenditures by deliberately creating an artificial housing bubble that falsely spurred economic activity.

The bankers originally created the derivatives as a way to spread the risk from the bad loans the federal government was forcing them to make. Unfortunately, Geithner's "too big to fail" approach just reinforced some bad investing philosophies because the banks involved didn't experience the pain they should have but the root cause of this was the Clinton-era expansion of the Community Reinvestment Act and the way Clinton/Franks/Dodd tried to use it expand their political power.

The Baily Building & Loan model is a fine one but remember George Bailey had to dip into his own honeymoon fund to keep the S&L afloat when there was a cash run. The derivatives were first created to avoid that situation by spreading the pain but then were distorted by traders who were more interested in an academic optimization and near-term self-gratification than in long-term growth and stability for their institutions. "Too big to fail" doesn't force current bankers to suffer personal consequences for taking risk.