i gotta disagree. he would be a flaming retard if he is just hiding more of the same. by doing so, he is taking fire for being secretive, all to shield himself from something he is already taking fire for. makes no sense. also, the media has the attention span of a jerrys kid. no need to drag it out any longer then necessary.

no no. There is a BIG FISH in those taxes. something much more serious then tax loopholes. I'm certain if it comes out, it will be very bad.

DTK - when someone says outright that there has never been deregulation...at that point is is best to recognize that nothing you say will result in enlightenment. If he even replies to you, which i guarantee he wont, because his comment is so absurd on the face, it will just be more of the same.

I was just reading through all of the plans Romney has to fix the problems of the country.

No, I'm just kidding... he doesn't have any plans. :)

"I'm going to Repeal and Replace Obama Care on day one!"

And replace it with what again?

Oh yeah, no plan whatsoever....

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__...7/70/Moron.jpg

Look at me! I'm gonna vote for the guy with no plan!

So Im supposed to be outraged about romney's money but I shouldnt care what obama does with MY money and just hand over more.... noted.

he has a plan. they are just small potatoes. allow for interstate sales of health insurance, limit medical malpractice claims, & require insurers to cover pre-existing conditions.

He is totally screwed on health care, just like kerry was hamstrung by iraq - opposing something he previous supported. Most likely romney will avoid the health care issue like plague come the fall. He will only talk about jobs. its all he's got.

And the Romney jobs plan is?.....

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:thumbsup

Drill baby, drill.

on a more serious note, he did say something that made my heart swoon during the primary. He was the only candidate (other then trump who never ran) who says he need to declare a trade war on china. Now i don't believe for a second that would happen. But it was nice that one politician, out of all the repubs & obama, said he would take on china. China is a fucking leech & we need to go to trade war, they are sucking this country dry of jobs. all with the help of american elites, who make better margins for helping them do it.

You're right of course. My reply wasn't really for him so much as everyone else.

He could replace it with the plan he enacted in Massachusetts. OH WAIT, IT'S THE SAME PLAN! :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Does get a little tricky when we owe them over $1 Trillion bucks

US: "Hey you currency manipulating, unfair trading fuckers, it's time for you to play straight!"
China: "Sure thing..cough up that 1 Tril you owe us and we'll talk"

;)

100 romney secrets :thumbsup

yes. bashing china is a horse & pony show for the elites. somehow once someone has any power to take on china, the illuminati step in & straighten him out.

:pimp

Here ya go:
http://www.scribd.com/document_downl...pdf&from=embed

It's been available online for anyone to read for about 2 years now.

So why would it matter to you NOW...but if you were voting for Lyndon Johnson or JFK in the 1960's or for that matter ANY president before the last few decades..you wouldn't have cared less about their personal money or their tax returns? Nobody put out their tax returns in any govt. election until the 1970's. It's a very recent thing.

It's a gimmick, that's all. Has absolutely nothing to do with being President. Just like the million other bullshit things that they do in the last few decades.

They grill Presidents about stupid stuff that has nothing to do with running the country.

Do I care if Obama got high when he was younger? No. I don't even care if he gets high tonight when he goes to bed (nobody says a word when our President's get drunk by the way).
As long as he is sober and ready to go in the morning at work.

Do I care if Clinton loved to fuck strange pussy while he was President? No. Had nothing to do with running the country.

Do I care that Bush was an alcoholic and did a lot of cocaine? No.

Do I care that Romney put his dog in a carrier on top of his car 20 years ago. No.

These are all just distractions that the media uses to get ratings and turn the election into a circus.

Not really, I know people that managed to escape the massachusetts plan by moving out of state.

Utter nonsense. I have dealt with the banking industry daily for years. I own a bank consulting group. There is NO sector of business that is more regulated than banking. Just because there is one area where there is less regulation does not wipe out the MASSIVE volumes of regulation on the other side. There is no way that the derivatives market would have gone anywhere if it wasn't for government regulation and intervention. The enforcement of CRA, which forced banks to make more risky loans, coupled with the subsequent buying of the risk by FHLMC and FNMA, sent banks into areas that normal free market risk tolerances would NEVER have allowed. Normal risk management procedures were thrown out the window when the government was there to take the normal flow of risk and profit away. AS far as Glass Steigall's repeal, the bulk of the lending was done by companies like Countrywide, Washington Mutual, Indy Mac, and the dozens of smaller specialized subprime lenders that were neither commercial banks nor investment banks. The smaller mortgage companies sold the loans they made either to FHLMC and FNMA for packaging and sale into the securities markets, as they always had done. Washington Mutual and Indy Mac kept a lot of their production in their own portfolios. The companies that packaged the securities included some commercial bank/investment bank combinations, notably Citigroup. But Goldman Sachs, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch, which together accounted for most of the privately issued [non-FHLMC and FNMA] packaged loans sold as securities, were not commercial banks at all. European banks that participated, such as Barclay's, were universal banks before the repeal. AIG, which enabled some of the worst securities by writing CDSs, was neither a commercial bank nor an investment bank.

The banks that failed were either thrifts/mortgage banks without investment banks (e.g., Countrywide, Washington Mutual and Indy Mac) or investment banks without commercial banks (e.g., Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and almost Merrill Lynch). AIG was neither. FHLMC and FNMA were neither.

This always occurs when you mess with any organic, complex system. The same things happen when we mess with natures ecosystems, and economics, risk, and markets are just as complex.

Unfortunately when government intervention then causes these extreme boom and bust cycles, people then call for MORE intervention, (as my Corporatism graphic pointed out).



.

I just read through it. No details whatsoever, and no chance of the bulk of it ever happening.

He should add a line where every citizen gets their own genie on day one too, as it is just as likely to occur. :2 cents:

you didn't bother to address what i was talking about, which was your easily disprovable assertion that there has never been any 'deregulation' in the US.

Actually, I directly addressed it.

"De-regulation" cannot be said to have occurred when government involvement actually cumulatively INCREASES.

De-regulation implies that government involvement goes away, or at least decreasese overall, regarding an industry. This has never happened.


I understand that government likes to SAY that they are "de-regulating", but if you are involved in the actually industry that they are talking about , you realize that this is not true. Regulations and government involvement simply changes to favour the biggest lobby players in a given arena.



.:2 cents:

No you didn't. Nor did i expect you to. Enjoy your ivory tower, it really is gorgeous. :thumbsup

Did you read my last post at all?. Perhaps you can address what I said there?



.

I think what he was saying is that if you have regulations in place already...just for sake of argument..500 regulations.
Then you ADD 100 this year and you now have 600 regulations.

And then you take away 5 of them next month and have 595 regulations...

In Washington D.C. they define that as "deregulation" even though you have MORE regulations than you did the year before! lol

Just like when they say they "cut spending"
Nope, what they do SOMETIMES is cut the amount of NEW spending slightly less that what they projected it to be.

In other words, they really spend MORE...but call it "cutting spending".

Washington D.C. politicians change the definitions of things to suit their purpose of stealing our money.

Kind of like how Obama changed the status of any civilian that might have been in the way of a drone attack to an enemy combatant simply because he must have been, otherwise he would still be alive.