Obama made secret deal to support Hillary in 2016?

Originally posted by hamburgerler
I didn't even know this...

But the national debt is finally starting to reverse and shrink.

Since February, the CBO has cut $200 billion off its deficit projection for 2013 and $618 billion off its cumulative estimate for the next decade. Thanks to higher tax revenues and deep spending cuts, the deficit has been shrinking by about $42 billion a month for the past six months. The CBO projects that the deficit will fall to $342 billion by 2015, or only 2 percent of GDP.

www.businessweek.com...

Question is, do you think the Obama Administration (who has fought tooth and nail and even directed some of its agencies to make the sequestration effects hurt) take credit? Or will they say "looks like smaller government and cutting what we spend does work"?

reply to post by hamburgerler


Sorry I hadn't gotten right back, I'm in and out this evening as it turns out. No biggy though, the offer for a real debate stands if we want to drop off MSM sources and go to original material.

Now as for professional investors? Well, why wouldn't they continue to invest? The way the market works, you can short sell things and actually make more money when a company or industry fails entirely than you can when it does well. Investors were still investing during the 07/08 crash as well. Some made millions while others lost nearly everything. It's the breaks and investor activity is no indication, by itself, of health to an economy.

For example. did you know George Soros is known as the "Man who broke the bank of England"? It's an unofficial moniker (Obviously) but a fitting one. That came by currency manipulation. When they suffered, he got mega rich from it. The games the rich play can come stronger when we little people suffer than when we thrive.

---

Now, I'm the same as everyone when it comes to using MSM sources on most things. It not only gives a source people know and are familiar with for credibility and experience, but it also makes life easier when it's not fitting to spend an hour on a reply with research and assembly of data.

On budgetary matters or other areas of absolute numerical facts though? MSM represents subjective editorial for objective math. Looking at the direct sheets, direct reports and direct data that MSM themselves start with before making THEIR reports is always the better method to take.

You'd be amazed at how many things I started with, believing it was so because MSM said so, before I did my big budget thread. Handling top source material and not lower MSM editorial garbage showed HOW wrong I'd been on a fair number of things. Only looking at raw data shows that.

As a final note, I'll point out another thing with MSM and it's a real big problem on objective facts. The Media has come to report on each other far more than getting their OWN facts on anything. Stories from outlets I thought were competing have come to copy each other, word for word and it's getting worse. So you read something in 20 media outlets and think, Golly, it MUST be true! 20 media outlets all believe it! ....when in reality it may very well be ONE or TWO media outlets and 18-19 who just copied from those first couple with no due diligence performed.

Again, let me know if you care to move away from MSM on money matters. It's a great topic I've come to love, personally.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by hamburgerler
I didn't even know this...

But the national debt is finally starting to reverse and shrink.

Since February, the CBO has cut $200 billion off its deficit projection for 2013 and $618 billion off its cumulative estimate for the next decade. Thanks to higher tax revenues and deep spending cuts, the deficit has been shrinking by about $42 billion a month for the past six months. The CBO projects that the deficit will fall to $342 billion by 2015, or only 2 percent of GDP.

www.businessweek.com...

Question is, do you think the Obama Administration (who has fought tooth and nail and even directed some of its agencies to make the sequestration effects hurt) take credit? Or will they say "looks like smaller government and cutting what we spend does work"?

I think many things come into play. I think people will take from it based upon what they are inclined to believe.

My conservative uncle (who is not very happy with conservatism right now) pointed out at a family brunch that
it appears that once again it will take a Democrat to actually reduce the deficit. He thinks it is because there is no real pressure put on the right, by the right itself. This pressure is however, very effective when it comes to influencing the Democratic policy.

All I can say here is this must be like the worst kept secret deal in the history of secret deals. Really? It is simple Pres. Clinton may not have liked how the campaign of 2008 went, may have even been a bit bitter about it. But as he and every living President has said before, only a handful of men have been President. When the sitting President needs advice they call the former Presidents. It changes things between men beyond party politics. I would fully expect President Obama to back Hillary in whatever manner she requests because she is the logical frontrunner.

Name 1 deal OB has made that he he has carried out

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by hamburgerler

Again, let me know if you care to move away from MSM on money matters. It's a great topic I've come to love, personally.

I don't really think it's reasonable of you to debase sources because they don't fit into your narrative. It is your duty to debunk my sources, that is the way this community works. What is wrong with the information below, specifically?

For May 2013, new light vehicle sales in the U.S. (including fleet) is expected to be 1,435,495 units, up 8.5 percent from May 2012 and up 12.1 percent from April 2013 (on an unadjusted basis).
The May 2013 forecast translates into a Seasonally Adjusted Annualized Rate ("SAAR") of 15.2 million new car sales, up from 14.9 April 2013 and up from 13.9 million in May 2012.
Retail sales are up almost six percent compared to May 2012 and up twelve percent from April 2013.
Fleet and rental sales are expected to make up 20.2 percent of total industry sales in May 2013.
The industry average incentive spending per unit will be approximately $2,482 in May 2013, which represents a decrease of 3 percent from May 2012 and is down 1.7 percent from April 2013.
Used car sales* are estimated to be 3,345,674. The ratio of new to used is estimated to be 1:3 for May 2013.

housing data

A separate report from the Commerce Department showed new single family home sales rose 2.3 percent last month to a 454,000-unit pace. The median sales price for a new home jumped 14.9 percent from a year ago to a record $271,600.

"We have seen some momentum in the housing market. The improving sales are a very broad and powerful positive effect for the U.S. economy," said Robert Dye, chief economist at Comerica in Dallas.

www.reuters.com...

employment data

American employers took on more workers than forecast in April and the jobless rate unexpectedly fell to a four-year low of 7.5 percent, reflecting confidence in the outlook for the world’s biggest economy.

www.reuters.com...


Consumer confidence

The Thomson-Reuters/University of Michigan consumer sentiment index reached 84.5, its highest since July 2007. The report, out Friday, exceeded expectations as consumer sentiment was predicted to reach 83.7.

www.usatoday.com...

Independent Financial analysis

The change in outlook on the US banking system to stable from negative reflects continued improvement in the operating environment and reduced downside risks to the banks from a faltering economy. Sustained GDP growth and improving employment conditions will help banks protect their now-stronger balance sheets. In addition, after another year of reducing credit-related costs and restoring capital, US banks are now even better positioned to face an

Originally posted by hamburgerler
I don't really think it's reasonable of you to debase sources because they don't fit into your narrative. It is your duty to debunk my sources, that is the way this community works. What is wrong with the information below, specifically?

For May 2013, new light vehicle sales in the U.S. (including fleet) is expected to be 1,435,495 units, up 8.5 percent from May 2012 and up 12.1 percent from April 2013 (on an unadjusted basis).
The May 2013 forecast translates into a Seasonally Adjusted Annualized Rate ("SAAR") of 15.2 million new car sales, up from 14.9 April 2013 and up from 13.9 million in May 2012.
Retail sales are up almost six percent compared to May 2012 and up twelve percent from April 2013.
Fleet and rental sales are expected to make up 20.2 percent of total industry sales in May 2013.
The industry average incentive spending per unit will be approximately $2,482 in May 2013, which represents a decrease of 3 percent from May 2012 and is down 1.7 percent from April 2013.
Used car sales* are estimated to be 3,345,674. The ratio of new to used is estimated to be 1:3 for May 2013.

Numbers on those sales would be a start? Are we talking business, personal, etc. "Fleet" sales is ambiguous as all government buys are "fleet"; so seeing the numbers are important.

housing data

A separate report from the Commerce Department showed new single family home sales rose 2.3 percent last month to a 454,000-unit pace. The median sales price for a new home jumped 14.9 percent from a year ago to a record $271,600.

"We have seen some momentum in the housing market. The improving sales are a very broad and powerful positive effect for the U.S. economy," said Robert Dye, chief economist at Comerica in Dallas.

www.reuters.com...

How many were investor buys? Cash buys (which indicate, but don't mean so, an investor buy) are playing a big part in the increase in purchasing homes on the market, but don't indicate an upward swing in the overall market. Just offering a differing view point.

employment data

American employers took on more workers than forecast in April and the jobless rate unexpectedly fell to a four-year low of 7.5 percent, reflecting confidence in the outlook for the world’s biggest economy.

www.reuters.com...

This is a thread in its self. "unexpectedly" is not a good word; for either side. Either numbers are being manipulated or the data is being skewed. Are people getting hired? Probably. Are numbers of those just quit looking not being counted? Probably just the same. Do you see the pattern forming?

Consumer confidence

The Thomson-Reuters/University of Michigan consumer sentiment index reached 84.5, its highest since July 2007. The report, out Friday, exceeded expectations as consumer sentiment was predicted to reach 83.7.

www.usatoday.com...

FYI, "Confidence" shouldn't be mistaken for actual "spending"; even your linked article points that out:

Consumers may not be spending, but it's not due to a lack of confidence.

More from that linked article, which I am thinking you didn't read but liked the headline:

Yet the brighter economic outlook isn't due to an increase in personal income. The Commerce Department said Friday that American incomes failed to grow in April, leading many Americans to cut back on spending.

Also:

But many economists now believe growth is slowing to a pace of around 2%.

About right....but believe your "sources"....

Originally posted by Surfrat
Name 1 deal OB has made that he he has carried out

Don't ask don't tell
Dream Act
Healthcare Reform
Require every child to have health insurance
Bring troops home from Iraq
End the use of torture?

reply to post by hamburgerler

I'm not debasing sources...I'm pointing out that the topic, as finances, doesn't need to rely on Media and no one should ever rely on media when they don't have to. Now, 90% of the time, we don't have a choice. We can't personally travel to wherever something is happening and/or we aren't personally in meetings, press conferences or briefings.

However, on matters of budget and money, as I discovered to my surprise last year, there is no need to quote media because in this case, the sources they all go to are public record, public domain and easily accessible.

It takes time to read through, especially the first time...and most media I've seen reports from, obviously don't, to be blunt about it. What the media reports is as much assumption and guesswork, despite having the data right there to go directly from, as anything supported in the reports they reference. (...if they spent the couple to few hours it takes to do the reading....but then how many celebrity anchors do you think spend a couple hours reading anything dry and boring for a report?)

They have staffers do it...who half ass it..and out pops the reports you quote, like how the economy is doing great, despite the raw data telling quite a different tale.

( It's also pretty rough when one of your media sources is based on the Fed Reserve saying things are great...when they are directly responsible for the opposite being true. Kinda like the criminal telling the cops 'Nothing to see here guys..move along now...no stopping here'. )

The Republican party is in terrible shape right now. It imploded into a black hole of insanity at the last election, swamped by a rabble of interest groups pulling in different directions. Obamacare is such a bad policy it should have sunk Obama in the first week of his campaign, but Romney couldn't capitalise on this because his own policy wasn't much different.

People voted for Obama because they know what he stands for and he has a solid 4-year track record under his belt. Americans are confident in his ability to turn the economy around. They know they can trust him to protect their freedoms.

The Republicans couldn't beat Obama on these points because they have a poor economic record (Reagan, G. W. Bush) and their party is heavily loaded with ultra-conservative Christians who want to tear down the freedoms Americans have always taken for granted (Bachmann, Perry, New Apostolic Reformation movement, etc.) The dominionists are particularly dangerous because they hate America and want to destroy her so she can be rebuilt in the image of an Iranian-style theocratic dictatorship.

If the Republicans want to beat Clinton they need to stop fielding liberal candidates like Romney and find a real conservative who appeals to the traditional base. They need to kick out the anti-American libertarian parasites and the whacky anti-American Christian dominionists. They need a clear economic plan, a viable foreign policy, and a bunch of promises they can actually keep.

Above all, they need a candidate with political experience. Obama whipped Romney like a ginger-haired stepchild at Christmas because Romney simply had no competence whatsoever in the political field. He came straight from the corporate world, and his ignorance was painful to witness. Nobody wants a bungling amateur in the White House. You need someone who understands politics; someone with real world experience. That's not Romney.

This is make or break time for conservatives—and it has to be 'make', because the party can't afford 'break.' I am hoping for a strong Republican candidate in 2016, and a united Republican base.

reply to post by Sankari


You make it sound like Obama won in some landslide when that's far from the case. He easily could have seen his fortunes turn the other way, had a few things gone differently.



Our nation truly is a near evenly divided one in population, which have large representation by the blue counties on the 2012 result map, in being major population centers.

Obama's people targeted the electoral college count, it was a wise move and I don't fault him his victory. He won fair and square by the way they played the game and system. All within the rules...and it's gone the other way by the same token played in the past.

However, it's not something to overblow into sounding like a sea change of national feeling, either. It was anything but.

This is the same election for the House of Representative seats which were in play.



The House seats hold for 2 years and by alternating, half the House is basically up for re-election every other cycle. Those seats weren't defaulted. That is another way of seeing the general political lean and divide of the nation...and it's profound.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Sankari

 

You make it sound like Obama won in some landslide

No, I never said any such thing. I made no comment about the size of his win.

He easily could have seen his fortunes turn the other way, had a few things gone differently.

I totally agree with that. Problem was, the Republicans tried to put an inexperienced liberal in the White House when they should have chosen an experienced conservative.

Guys like Romney are a dime a dozen; rich bozos who want to play politics and think they can buy their way into government because they're accustomed to getting whatever they want. Obama proved that it's not all about money. Republicans used to understand this. Somehow, at some point, they seem to have forgotten.

Originally posted by Sankari
Guys like Romney are a dime a dozen; rich bozos who want to play politics and think they can buy their way into government because they're accustomed to getting whatever they want. Obama proved that it's not all about money. Republicans used to understand this. Somehow, at some point, they seem to have forgotten.

Wait....

You do realize that President Obama and/or his campaigning arms raised above 1.07 billion dollars right? Compared to candidate Romney's .990 billion......

reply to post by Sankari


I think you might want to do some more research. Having too much money wasn't among Romney's problems. Obama couldn't stop whining about money ...in fact, he's STILL out fund raising on a regular basis and he isn't even running for anything again. Not about money? lol....

(Source)

I think I certainly can see who bought their way into a term. Again, I don't say he didn't do it by the rules. He did. Lets just remain realistic and honest about what happened here.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Wait....

You do realize that President Obama and/or his campaigning arms raised above 1.07 billion dollars right? Compared to candidate Romney's .990 billion......

That's right, they both raised about the same amount of money. But nobody believes Romney lost because he raised $0.08 billion less than Obama.

Romney thought he'd win the White House if he pulled in enough cash. That's because he's a businessman, not an experienced politician. Obama understood that you can have plenty of money and still lose an election unless you know what you're doing. Romney didn't know what he was doing.

He didn't lose because he didn't have enough money. He lost because of incompetence.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Please don't tell me we are back to the Romney could have won if trees and tumbleweeds were allowed to vote. The landmass covered in Red in these maps mean very little. It is the number of people that matter not how much acreage one person has. Like it or not Romney was solidly beaten.

Conservatives don't like to say it but the Republican Party is a mess. A mess that keeps fielding unelectable candidates. It is a sad commentary when the Republican Party of today would have called Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan RINO. Realistically more people would vote fiscal conservative, fortunately they aren't willing to give up decades of social progress to do so. Kick out the loons, crazies and religious and the party has a future.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Sankari

 

I think you might want to do some more research.

I think you need to start reading my posts properly. Here's a hint: I didn't say what you think I said. Go back and read my posts again please.

I never claimed Romney raised more money than Obama, and I never claimed Obama wasn't interested in raising money. Leave your preconceptions at the door and read my posts objectively.

I think I certainly can see who bought their way into a term.

LOL, what? 'Bought their way into a term'? The difference in funds between Obama and Romney was negligible. Can you find me even half a dozen reputable analysts who will argue that Romney only lost because he didn't have enough money? That's a joke.

It's time to stop making excuses and start facing the facts: Romney lost because he was an incompetent liberal candidate. You can't beat a Democrat by fielding an inexperienced RINO. You beat a Democrat by fielding an experienced conservative.

reply to post by Sankari


You do realize Romney was the Governor of Massachusetts, right? He wasn't always a Businessman, or at least, not only a Businessman.

What precisely is wrong with a President being successful in life, anyway? Do we want to make a habit of electing people that aren't successful? That wouldn't seem intelligent to a positive outcome overall for our nation. All other issues aside for a moment, when did success in business become a liability to being a good executive leader in political office?

It seems to be a major detriment now. As if Community Organizer in a place like Chicago (talk about Patron of lost causes...sorry Chicago) qualifies a man to the most powerful political position on Earth. Well...He's made it work, but either would have for that matter.

Originally posted by KeliOnyx
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

Conservatives don't like to say it but the Republican Party is a mess. A mess that keeps fielding unelectable candidates. It is a sad commentary when the Republican Party of today would have called Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan RINO. Realistically more people would vote fiscal conservative, fortunately they aren't willing to give up decades of social progress to do so. Kick out the loons, crazies and religious and the party has a future.

This is exactly what I keep telling people. Unfortunately they won't listen. They're still clinging desperately to the idea that all you need to win an election is lots and lots of money—ideally, more money than the other guy.

They don't understand that you need a viable policy platform and an experienced candidate. If Republicans can't get their heads around this, they'll condemn the USA to another 4 years of Democrat rule.

Originally posted by Sankari
Romney thought he'd win the White House if he pulled in enough cash. That's because he's a businessman, not an experienced politician. Obama understood that you can have plenty of money and still lose an election unless you know what you're doing. Romney didn't know what he was doing.

Who makes that assertion? Id be welcoming to it. So the standing president influences record amounts of money (and we are silent) but his challenger raises money (and we are up in arms)....

He didn't lose because he didn't have enough money. He lost because of incompetence.

I am not arguing his loss. I am arguing that you point out he raised so much money when his opponent raise much more (do you want the math from 1.07 billion to .99 billion? It is quite the spread.)!