Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

The only job / issue where the president has carte blanche


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#1 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,249 posts

Posted 08 October 2012 - 10:44 PM

Foreign affairs.

Other than this, the president is really only the biggest lobbyist for the issues they believe in.

Then they have to hope congress agrees to make any real change.

#2 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 12 October 2012 - 01:23 AM

yes, exactly right. And, Obama hasn't pissed off the entire planet and started 3 wars like George Bush and Republicans did, and also how the congressional Republicans are now pushing to go into Iran.

#3 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,441 posts

Posted 12 October 2012 - 05:10 PM

Obama's Dismal Record on Foreign Policy

The Nobel Peace Prize winner has not earned his award.



In 2009, President Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. As he himselfadmitted, the honor wasn’t bestowed on him for much he had yet done, but for what he was expected to do. As a candidate Obama got a lot of grief for promising in his nomination acceptance speech that his presidency would be the moment when the rise of the oceans would slow and the Earth would begin to heal, and the Norwegian Nobel Committee didn’t help by pinning an award on him based on expected ”extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.”

Nearly three years later, the fruits of any strengthened international diplomacy or cooperation between peoples are bitter, if they exist at all. In accepting his party's presidential nomination this time around, Obama focused on how long and hard the journey would be, not on the healing at the end of that journey, and less than 40 days from the election the world looks like it is crashing down around him.

At the United Nations General Assembly three Septembers ago, Obama came with the “deeply held belief that in the year 2009—more than at any point in human history—the interests of nations and peoples are shared.” He then outlined steps he was taking to restore what he saw as diminished international faith in the United States; he had already prohibited the use of torture, he noted, had ordered Guantanamo Bay shut down, and was “doing the hard work of forging a framework to combat extremism within the rule of law.”

This past week the president addressed the U.N. General Assembly from a much less lofty position. Protests had erupted outside American embassies across the Muslim world on the 11th anniversary of the September 11 attacks. The first protests, like the ones in Jakarta, made no mention of any anti-Islamic film as impetus, only U.S. foreign policy. By the time protests hit Cairo, egged on apparently by the brother of Al Qaeda’s new leader, they were pegged to Innocence of Muslims, an anti-Islamic film that first appeared on the Internet months earlier. Perceived fury over the film was apparently used as cover to execute a terrorist operation targeting the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and killing America’s ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens. In full election mode, President Obama’s response was to lay all blame for anti-American fervor on the film, even as reports come out this week that his administration identified the Benghazi incident as a terrorist attack within 24 hours.
Posted Image

The White House’s insistence on blaming the anti-American uproar on a film, despite Libya’s insistence otherwise, has led the administration down a bizarre road. World leaders applauded the president this year not for promising to close Guantanamo or restore the rule of law, but for his resolve to defend the right of all Americans to call him “awful things every day.” Nevertheless, the president’s defense of free speech did not quite extend to the right to blaspheme.

Likewise, Obama’s nod to “the rule of law and due process that guarantees the rights of all people” could only be lip service, given that he's now three years into a term that has seen the detention center at Guantanamo remain open and the ramping up of a drone war that may have killed as many as 900 civilians since 2004 (mostly since 2009). Among those killed was the cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen, and his teenage son, who was collateral damage. Al-Awlaki was accused of having terrorist connections with Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, may also have been a potential informant for the FBI and was separately held in custody by them before being let go. He had been indicted for no crime at the time of his death.
Posted Image

Meanwhile, the immediate political aftermath of the Benghazi attack focused not on the Obama administration’s bungling of the narrative and security failure, but on Republican candidate Mitt Romney’s ill-timed reaction, which came before news of the ambassador’s murder was known, and which blamed Obama for apologizing for American values instead of protecting Americans first.

The upcoming presidential debates look to be equally depressing. The first debate to focus on foreign policy will occur on October 22, and unfortunately for voters interested in real change, few functional differences between the two candidates are likely to appear. Both sides remain committed to maintaining America's bloody and costly foreign entanglements. Voters looking for hope and change in the foreign policy realm won't find it this year on either major party ticket.


http://reason.com/ar...-foreign-policy

#4 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,249 posts

Posted 12 October 2012 - 05:46 PM

Joker,

Gun to your head. You have to choose Romney or Obama, no third or fourth options.

Who do you choose?

No caveats.

One or the other.

#5 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,353 posts

Posted 12 October 2012 - 06:08 PM

I wasn't asked, but i'd choose Romney. Not because I like him, but because I'd rather see them replaced every four years and have to face voters, than give that free four years where they really could give a fuck what we think.

If you fail at a job you get replaced. Obama has failed, and therefore, should be replaced. As much as Romney is a lousy choice. Economically, I think he would be better.

#6 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,441 posts

Posted 12 October 2012 - 06:37 PM

Joker,

Gun to your head. You have to choose Romney or Obama, no third or fourth options.

Who do you choose?

No caveats.

One or the other.

At this point if I was forced to choose I'd go for real change and take Romney.

#7 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 12 October 2012 - 07:08 PM

Is anyone surprised at the answers of these two?

I'm glad someone finally got them to fess up.

Anyway, Romney outsourced jobs to China... real job creator... for the Chinese Government.

#8 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,353 posts

Posted 12 October 2012 - 07:25 PM

Obama also outsourced jobs and taxpayer money through his stimulus. Is there a point? I didn't think so....

#9 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,441 posts

Posted 12 October 2012 - 07:28 PM

Obama’s ‘Outsourcer’ Overreach

The president's campaign fails to back up its claims that Romney 'shipped jobs' overseas.

http://factcheck.org...rcer-overreach/





FactCheck to Obama Camp: Your Complaint is All Wet




The Obama campaign complains that we got a key fact wrong in our June 29 article, “Obama’s ‘Outsourcer’ Overreach.” We strongly disagree. We find the Obama campaign’s evidence to be weak or non-existent, and contrary to statements Romney has made on official disclosure forms under pain of federal prosecution.

The Obama complaint claims we erred in saying Mitt Romney gave up active management of Bain Capital in early 1999 to run the 2002 Winter Olympics, insisting we were then wrong in saying Romney was not responsible for shipping U.S. jobs overseas.

In fact, if the Obama campaign were correct, Romney would be guilty of a federal felony by certifying on federal financial disclosure forms that he left active management of Bain Capital in February 1999.

And after reviewing evidence cited by the Obama campaign, we reaffirm our conclusion that Romney left the helm of Bain Capital when he took a leave of absence in 1999 to run the Salt Lake City Organizing Committee for the 2002 Winter Olympics – as he has said repeatedly — and never returned to active management. The Obama campaign’s recent ads thus mislead when they point to investments made by Bain, as well as management decisions made by companies in which Bain invested, after that time.

The Obama campaign’s objections are contained in a six-page letter sent to us (and — without notice to us — to other news organizations as well). It cobbles together selective news snippets and irrelevant securities documents in an attempt to show that Romney was still running Bain Capital on a part-time basis while he was also running the Olympics committee.

In a nutshell, the Obama campaign is all wet on this point.

http://factcheck.org...int-is-all-wet/

#10 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,249 posts

Posted 12 October 2012 - 07:51 PM

At this point if I was forced to choose I'd go for real change and take Romney.


See I enjoy the debate, but you can not sit here and say in one sentence, that I should not paint you as a Romney supporter, and then in another tell me you would choose him in the actual election (your vote is wasted, reminding you). I painted you as a Romney supporter because of how vigorously you rip Obama, on almost a daily basis.

You know your presidential Quiz results, you agree with Obama 30% more than Romney, but you "would" go with the Romney just because you dislike Obama for short comings of his tenure, but no one talks about how BAD it was when he was given office. How far to the right our country had gone as well on Social issues, besides the massive debt.

For example, when Bush took over we had a surplus and balanced budget, but after 8 years of Bush we had the worst debt ever in the history of the US.

Now you can say what you will about Obama's 4 years, but the steps taken by the Fed and Obama has led to more people working and unemployment down 2% in 3 years. Progress in my book.

Keep posting your all these articles stating Obama's short comings (and hoping people see your point of view), take a step back and look at in perspective, with the situation inherited, and can you still tell me Romney would be real change?

Also, if you do not think that is forcing your opinion on others and trying to change their opinions, you are mistaken kind Sir. Just like I was in trying to change your mind in the marriage debate.

#11 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 12 October 2012 - 07:58 PM

Obama also outsourced jobs and taxpayer money through his stimulus. Is there a point? I didn't think so....


Obama outsourced jobs and tax money through his stimulus?

no... there is no point when you talk nonsense. How do you outsource tax money, anyway? Get a grip of the language, please.

#12 MeOmYo

MeOmYo
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,277 posts

Posted 12 October 2012 - 07:59 PM

unemployment rate over 10 years

Posted Image
http://data.bls.gov/...ies/LNS14000000

#13 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 12 October 2012 - 08:00 PM



#14 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,441 posts

Posted 12 October 2012 - 08:13 PM

See I enjoy the debate, but you can not sit here and say in one sentence, that I should not paint you as a Romney supporter, and then in another tell me you would choose him in the actual election (your vote is wasted, reminding you). I painted you as a Romney supporter because of how vigorously you rip Obama, on almost a daily basis.

You know your presidential Quiz results, you agree with Obama 30% more than Romney, but you "would" go with the Romney just because you dislike Obama for short comings of his tenure, but no one talks about how BAD it was when he was given office. How far to the right our country had gone as well on Social issues, besides the massive debt.

For example, when Bush took over we had a surplus and balanced budget, but after 8 years of Bush we had the worst debt ever in the history of the US.

Now you can say what you will about Obama's 4 years, but the steps taken by the Fed and Obama has led to more people working and unemployment down 2% in 3 years. Progress in my book.

Keep posting your all these articles stating Obama's short comings (and hoping people see your point of view), take a step back and look at in perspective, with the situation inherited, and can you still tell me Romney would be real change?

Also, if you do not think that is forcing your opinion on others and trying to change their opinions, you are mistaken kind Sir. Just like I was in trying to change your mind in the marriage debate.

I'm not a Romney supporter. I would NEVER vote for either. You gave me the douche/turd choice with a gun to my head and no caveats and I picked one.

The main reason I would pick Romney over Obama is because if Romney wins we might get people to wake up and see that we're losing our rights under Obama and maybe they'll start protesting again rather than sitting back and accepting what he's doing/done just because he's a democrat.

IMO the economy and foreign policy are nothing compared to the trampling of our rights that's been allowed to take place with barely a complaint from the left.

#15 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,249 posts

Posted 12 October 2012 - 08:22 PM

I'm not a Romney supporter. I would NEVER vote for either. You gave me the douche/turd choice with a gun to my head and no caveats and I picked one.

The main reason I would pick Romney over Obama is because if Romney wins we might get people to wake up and see that we're losing our rights under Obama and maybe they'll start protesting again rather than sitting back and accepting what he's doing/done just because he's a democrat.

IMO the economy and foreign policy are nothing compared to the trampling of our rights that's been allowed to take place with barely a complaint from the left.


True but mostly I wanted to point out that you do not agree with Romney, but would choose him over someone you agree with more than you like to admit.

If romney wins, we go back to deregulation, and the bubble economy.


Can you describe to me what rights have been trampled on? Other than minorities (dead beats and the like) who the GOP do not care about?

#16 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,353 posts

Posted 12 October 2012 - 08:26 PM

:facepalm:

Andy, the dismay is beyond reproach. Did you actually just say that since Obama took office, who re-appointed the same fed chairman who presided over the last economic buibble pop, and has continued to pusht eh same type of policies that got us here in the first place, that we are now NOT in a bubble/burst business cycle?

Wow. Just, wow.

This is the type of thinking that leaves me absolutely flabbergasted.

#17 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,353 posts

Posted 12 October 2012 - 08:28 PM

As fot rights, I've done these lists more than I care too. I'll give you one. Indefinite detention for American citizens under NDAA 2012. And I can make a BIG list, but i'm tired of doing it.

#18 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,249 posts

Posted 12 October 2012 - 08:36 PM

:picardfp:

Andy, the dismay is beyond reproach. Did you actually just say that since Obama took office, who re-appointed the same fed chairman who presided over the last economic buibble pop, and has continued to pusht eh same type of policies that got us here in the first place, that we are now NOT in a bubble/burst business cycle?

Wow. Just, wow.

This is the type of thinking that leaves me absolutely flabbergasted.


I think he did what he had to do to help people keep jobs.

I do not think we are in a bubble at all. It has been 4 years, and we are only getting back to 2007 levels now in the S&P, and Dow. A bubble is when stock prices are ridiculously high and no one can figure out why, but we keep blindly investing in this and eventually someone points out this is BS, and the stock (or sector of stocks) drops. see 2008.


TASB. We have had this discussion. And that you believe almost every conspiracy theory leaves me in the same dismay you think you may be feeling, or is that also a conspiracy. I saw wow, every time I read your sky is falling conspiracy NONSENSE. Complete nonsense, especially when you tell me to do the same thing I do on the other side.

I believe with and trust people, and you believe on half truths with no proof just because it can't be proven. Like Osama bin laden.

#19 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,249 posts

Posted 12 October 2012 - 08:36 PM

As fot rights, I've done these lists more than I care too. I'll give you one. Indefinite detention for American citizens under NDAA 2012. And I can make a BIG list, but i'm tired of doing it.


Point me to one of your lists so you dont have to waste time typing them out again.

#20 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,441 posts

Posted 12 October 2012 - 09:31 PM

There's a looooooooong list since 9/11 (too long to post) below is just the summary.




Timeline of the Loss of Constitutional Rights Since 9/11






Summary
In the ten years that have passed since 9/11, the United States waged war with Afghanistan and Iraq, overthrowing both the Taliban government and the Saddam Hussein Regime. The cost in dollars, lives, suffering and untold misery still continues today. Despite the ten years of war overseas, the Federal Government first under Bush and now under Obama’s leadership, has been systematically erecting a control grid around the American people in our own home. Chuck Baldwin warns us in an essay entitled: Bill Of Rights Is No More:

“Americans should realize that, coupled with the Patriot Act, the NDAA, for all intents and purposes, completely nullifies a good portion of the Bill of Rights, turns the United States into a war zone, and places US citizens under military rule. And what is even more astonishing is the manner in which the national press corps, and even the so-called “conservative” talking heads, have either completely ignored it, or have actually defended it. The likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, et al., should be ashamed of themselves!”

Many of us are not aware of many of these acts. Many of us probably ignored the implications as we trusted our Government to look out for our interests and national security. As administrations have changed, some of us are now more wary of these actions taken by our Government. We think the trends are alarmingly clear and these powers represent a noose that we soon may not be able to escape.

#21 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,353 posts

Posted 12 October 2012 - 09:35 PM

I think he did what he had to do to help people keep jobs.

I do not think we are in a bubble at all. It has been 4 years, and we are only getting back to 2007 levels now in the S&P, and Dow. A bubble is when stock prices are ridiculously high and no one can figure out why, but we keep blindly investing in this and eventually someone points out this is BS, and the stock (or sector of stocks) drops. see 2008.


TASB. We have had this discussion. And that you believe almost every conspiracy theory leaves me in the same dismay you think you may be feeling, or is that also a conspiracy. I saw wow, every time I read your sky is falling conspiracy NONSENSE. Complete nonsense, especially when you tell me to do the same thing I do on the other side.

I believe with and trust people, and you believe on half truths with no proof just because it can't be proven. Like Osama bin laden.



More deflection at me.

A bubble is not necessarily a stock market price influx. The housing market was the result of low interest rates and loose lending policies fueled by GSE conduct and legislative actions taken under Clinton. The conduit, bundling in derivatives, was how hedging occurred and the reason it permeated the markets. It was not due to high stock prices "that no one could figure out".

We are now creating two more bubbles and attempting to refuel an old one. When they will pop again is anyones guess, but they will pop. Even main stream economists now realize that the Feds actions under QE3 will inevitably lead to bubble bursts and another downturn.

#22 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,441 posts

Posted 12 October 2012 - 09:45 PM

They're talking next year for the BIG burst

#23 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,353 posts

Posted 12 October 2012 - 09:52 PM

I'm not interested in peoples timetable on prediction. The most important thing to understand is this:

Posted Image

#24 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,353 posts

Posted 12 October 2012 - 09:52 PM

And yes, the Austrian school is conspiracy theory. That's how Austrian scholars predicted the last hundred years worth of bubble bursts.

#25 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,249 posts

Posted 13 October 2012 - 12:46 AM

More deflection at me.

A bubble is not necessarily a stock market price influx. The housing market was the result of low interest rates and loose lending policies fueled by GSE conduct and legislative actions taken under Clinton. The conduit, bundling in derivatives, was how hedging occurred and the reason it permeated the markets. It was not due to high stock prices "that no one could figure out".

We are now creating two more bubbles and attempting to refuel an old one. When they will pop again is anyones guess, but they will pop. Even main stream economists now realize that the Feds actions under QE3 will inevitably lead to bubble bursts and another downturn.


I do not mean to defect anything. You are well informed, may be to informed. I just find it hard to have discussion when there is some conspiracy theory for almost everything to counter what I think to be the basics. Like Bin ladin conspiracy. May be I am painting to harsh a brush with conspiracies but the bin ladin thing is just as absurd as the 9/11 conspiracy. Do I believe they happen, absolutely. But I tend to go with good reporting, something lacking today, hence the conspiracies. So I understand, I just won't jump on board so easily, and expect kicking and screaming to convince me without video evidence.

What I mean by we had this discussion is we had the fiat money / fed debate and neither of us really got any where, and to go through it all again would be mind numbing. I had some extra time at work today so I engaged in some back and forth.

You are accurate in with the clinton portion of this, but you are inaccurate about the high stock prices.

Why did the stock market and stock prices drop so drastically for the first 3 - 5 months and then slowly for the following 6 - 9 months when the government decided to act? To fix to over valued stocks, and today many of them sell at the same price or lower than before the crash. The biggest culprit being that many companies had property on their books, these properties were far overvalued. Everyone was in on Flip This House, heck I even flipped our house. We sold at the beginning of the crash (9/08) and were lucky to get out with a modest gain.

Now you may disagree with the government stepping in with tarp, but GM and most the banks are doing well now, and all but AIG have paid back their TARP money for a profit. The unemployment rate could have skyrocketed. Again, you can disagree, but it did save lots of jobs mine included.

#26 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 13 October 2012 - 03:53 AM

I'm not a Romney supporter. I would NEVER vote for either. You gave me the douche/turd choice with a gun to my head and no caveats and I picked one. The main reason I would pick Romney over Obama is because if Romney wins we might get people to wake up and see that we're losing our rights under Obama and maybe they'll start protesting again rather than sitting back and accepting what he's doing/done just because he's a democrat. IMO the economy and foreign policy are nothing compared to the trampling of our rights that's been allowed to take place with barely a complaint from the left.


The OWS protests were squashed, and you relished every minute of the squashing. Who are you trying to fool, really, yourself? You don't think any protests of the like would be squashed in double time under a Romney/Ryan Regime? You know the answer.

As fot rights, I've done these lists more than I care too. I'll give you one. Indefinite detention for American citizens under NDAA 2012. And I can make a BIG list, but i'm tired of doing it.


Uhh... the Indefinite detention was declared unconstitutional, and Obama rejected the clause when he signed it (knowing it was unconstitutional)

Either wake up, or stop lying.

#27 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 13 October 2012 - 04:09 AM

I'm not interested in peoples timetable on prediction. The most important thing to understand is this: Posted Image



This is a typical example of obfuscation.

Ko isn't defined, and neither is a, b, B or any of the primes

do you really expect people to go to the Mises institute website to find these definitions that your graphic failed to provide?

You know they won't. And if they do, they will be overwhelmed with even more pseudo-intellectual gibberish that only a Paulbot can understand. That makes it easy for you to accuse everyone of not doing their homework.

You're guilty of spreading malinformation. Paul Ryan is also guilty of blowing the same smoke up people's asses.

Why don't you prove me wrong and explain to us what these unknowns are.

We're stupid... make it easy for us... explain the graphic.

If not, then the emperor wears no clothes and I'm calling you out on it.

#28 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,353 posts

Posted 13 October 2012 - 12:05 PM

I do not mean to defect anything. You are well informed, may be to informed. I just find it hard to have discussion when there is some conspiracy theory for almost everything to counter what I think to be the basics. Like Bin ladin conspiracy. May be I am painting to harsh a brush with conspiracies but the bin ladin thing is just as absurd as the 9/11 conspiracy. Do I believe they happen, absolutely. But I tend to go with good reporting, something lacking today, hence the conspiracies. So I understand, I just won't jump on board so easily, and expect kicking and screaming to convince me without video evidence.

What I mean by we had this discussion is we had the fiat money / fed debate and neither of us really got any where, and to go through it all again would be mind numbing. I had some extra time at work today so I engaged in some back and forth.

You are accurate in with the clinton portion of this, but you are inaccurate about the high stock prices.

Why did the stock market and stock prices drop so drastically for the first 3 - 5 months and then slowly for the following 6 - 9 months when the government decided to act? To fix to over valued stocks, and today many of them sell at the same price or lower than before the crash. The biggest culprit being that many companies had property on their books, these properties were far overvalued. Everyone was in on Flip This House, heck I even flipped our house. We sold at the beginning of the crash (9/08) and were lucky to get out with a modest gain.

Now you may disagree with the government stepping in with tarp, but GM and most the banks are doing well now, and all but AIG have paid back their TARP money for a profit. The unemployment rate could have skyrocketed. Again, you can disagree, but it did save lots of jobs mine included.


Bin Laden is not a question of conspiracy theory. I do not, and never did, formulate any theory regarding the killing of the man. All I'm saying is that I go off what I know through proof. The government hasn't been honest for decades and therefore, their word on it means nothing to me. They refused us proof positive of the event. Therefore I do not know, and do not buy their story just because they said "believe us, trust us on it." Until proof is offered, it is a questionable talking point for me. In any US court of law, without evidence the hearsay would be considered inadmissible.

Good call on assets owned by companies highly leveraged that saw the value decline sharply when the bubble popped. That is true and something I should have added into the quick synopsis I offered. My point was that it isn't always a stock price influx that nobody understands why until the shit house burns down.This sharp value reduction was in part why it became so pervasive in markets. As companies tried to bundle toxic asset holdings with other assets using VaR models. Which, as we saw, backfired.

The banks can't be doing to well well now after TARP and the bailouts because the federal reserve has again stepped in to buy up MBS and pump capital into markets at the tune of 40 billion a month. There is still the same disease in the economy of extremely highly leveraged banks surviving on low interest rates and fed buy backs on toxic assets to help them balance the books and continue lending....though most people too, are highly leveraged and lending is tight. No one has capital, it's all borrow, borrow, borrow.

#29 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 14 October 2012 - 12:29 AM

nope. nobody has capital. It all just disappeared.

except that according to TASB it was never really there in the first place, and on some level he is exactly right.

#30 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 15 October 2012 - 06:04 PM

more proof that Romney outsourced jobs to China: