The Official Obama Scorecard Thread

[Balloon guy 158]

I dunno, the marketing of fast food to kids is pretty sleazy. They use those toys to hypnotize the kids into demanding the food from their parents. From their fat parents.

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

I dunno, the marketing of fast food to kids is pretty sleazy. They use those toys to hypnotize the kids into demanding the food from their parents. From their fat parents.

Heh. Do they even advertise happy meal toys anymore? I coudn't tell you what any of them are giving out right now.

[akoff 0]

slavery provided a cheap labor source that allowed America to become a major player in world trade without any of the normal growing pains of an emerging economy. Ironically, I think you could make a good argument that the US would never have become a world power so quickly without slavery. Just more of akoff's ridiculous nonsense interspersed with partisan cheerleading and blaming the Democrats for all the world's problems.the happy meal ban is pretty ridiculous.

Ironically the US didn't become a world power until after the turn of century and that was on a very limited basis...even then it wasn't till after WW1 that we had any respect...even after we bailed out Europe we were looked at like little brother (kinda how canada feels) and then after WW2 it really didn't matter what anyone thought because we were the last man standing. I guess it comes with bailing out the same people twice in 30 years.Slavery was a hell of thing if it was able to continue build this country for 100 years after it ended...and when you factor in that many states never allowed it and most of the wealth was from the manufacturing in the north it is, well, just plain wrong. It does make for a good story though. it is also ironic that you have no idea what you are talking about isn't it?

[Balloon guy 158]

It was not about an upper hand; it was about allowing the US to do a lot with little overall capital. I can barely follow the other stuff. I doubt the South would have fought a war over slavery if it was such a negligible part of the puzzle economically. Come on.

Pretty sure it had more to do with the numbers of citizens for numbers of representatives etc.Neither side I think can really claim much moral high ground about caring about black people.Except the Christians who were actively helping to get slaves out through the underground railroad..

[CaneBrain 95]

Ironically the US didn't become a world power until after the turn of century and that was on a very limited basis...even then it wasn't till after WW1 that we had any respect...even after we bailed out Europe we were looked at like little brother (kinda how canada feels) and then after WW2 it really didn't matter what anyone thought because we were the last man standing. I guess it comes with bailing out the same people twice in 30 years.Slavery was a hell of thing if it was able to continue build this country for 100 years after it ended...and when you factor in that many states never allowed it and most of the wealth was from the manufacturing in the north it is, well, just plain wrong. It does make for a good story though. it is also ironic that you have no idea what you are talking about isn't it?

The US was an economic factor well before the turn of the century and that was directly due to slavery. It allowed the US to skip past several steps of development. It's typical that you would base when the US became a world player on when people started giving us our props though. You are confusing "super power" with "legitimate country on the world stage" but then again you confuse a lot of things.

[Balloon guy 158]

Heh. Do they even advertise happy meal toys anymore? I coudn't tell you what any of them are giving out right now.

[akoff 0]

The US was an economic factor well before the turn of the century and that was directly due to slavery. It allowed the US to skip past several steps of development. It's typical that you would base when the US became a world player on when people started giving us our props though. You are confusing "super power" with "legitimate country on the world stage" but then again you confuse a lot of things.

you apparently are confusing power with legitimate. you also ducked the part about the wealth of the country not being in the south...it was in the north. Slavery allowed the south to be far ahead of where it may have been but it was still way behind the north. Also if i recall history correctly slavery we pretty damn common all over the world at that point in time. The fact that the south used slves, as wrong as they was, didn't give them an advantage as much as it put them on a level playing field.Honestly Cane (spelled correctly) you are just wrong on this one. I know it doesn't match what you want to believe but it is true. You are silly enough to believe 150 yrs after the fact that the civil war was about slavery?? that is really funny.

[vbnautilus 48]

Heh. Do they even advertise happy meal toys anymore? I coudn't tell you what any of them are giving out right now.

Yeah, but can your kids?

[CaneBrain 95]

you apparently are confusing power with legitimate. you also ducked the part about the wealth of the country not being in the south...it was in the north. Slavery allowed the south to be far ahead of where it may have been but it was still way behind the north. Also if i recall history correctly slavery we pretty damn common all over the world at that point in time. The fact that the south used slves, as wrong as they was, didn't give them an advantage as much as it put them on a level playing field.Honestly Cane (spelled correctly) you are just wrong on this one. I know it doesn't match what you want to believe but it is true. You are silly enough to believe 150 yrs after the fact that the civil war was about slavery?? that is really funny.

You don't think the Civil War was about slavery? that's sad. The first wealth of this country was in the South. You keep ducking the period between 1607-1800. That's when slavery had its greatest effect. You want to focus on later but you keep ignoring where the base was built. On cotton and tobacco which were most easily produced through slavery. Slavery was not THAT common at the time either but that's really not the point either. It allowed the South to have viable cash crops in America's infancy when the colonies were otherwise struggling mightily. Slavery was perfectly suited for those two labor intensive crops.The Civil war wasn't about slavery. oh man, I am suffocating my ass off at work. It may not have been the only reason but it certainly was the major reason.

[akoff 0]

You don't think the Civil War was about slavery? that's sad. The first wealth of this country was in the South. You keep ducking the period between 1607-1800. That's when slavery had its greatest effect. You want to focus on later but you keep ignoring where the base was built. On cotton and tobacco which were most easily produced through slavery. Slavery was not THAT common at the time either but that's really not the point either. It allowed the South to have viable cash crops in America's infancy when the colonies were otherwise struggling mightily. Slavery was perfectly suited for those two labor intensive crops.The Civil war wasn't about slavery. oh man, I am suffocating my ass off at work. It may not have been the only reason but it certainly was the major reason.

I know you being a big history buff and all are aware of this but this country didn't exist until 1776...so the fact that i want to focus on a part of history where the country in question actually did exist seems well kind of logical. want to try again?

[CaneBrain 95]

I know you being a big history buff and all are aware of this but this country didn't exist until 1776...so the fact that i want to focus on a part of history where the country in question actually did exist seems well kind of logical. want to try again?

No. The fact that you don't think anything before 1776 had an effect on the ultimate destiny of America is flawed. The fact that you only want to focus on the part where we were officially America is not logical for this argument even a little....especially considering that was when slavery had by far its greatest impact.It may not have been America yet but it certainly existed. Those 169 years between Jamestown and the Declaration of Independence matter, sorry.

[Balloon guy 158]

No. The fact that you don't think anything before 1776 had an effect on the ultimate destiny of America is flawed. The fact that you only want to focus on the part where we were officially America is not logical for this argument even a little....especially considering that was when slavery had by far its greatest impact.It may not have been America yet but it certainly existed. Those 169 years between Jamestown and the Declaration of Independence matter, sorry.

My dad rebuilds clocks as a hobby and has a grandfather clock case made in America before it was America. I think the 1740s. The movement inside is English because America didn't make the metal gears and movements yet.And those 169 years..weren't we under the Articals of Confederation?

[Roll the Bones 74]

I hae the book 13 bankers, http://13bankers.com/ ,on order and came across this article today on HuffPhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/simon-johnso...i_b_778122.htmlWhich led to this article in the NY Times that I must have missed,http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/22/us/polit..._r=1&emc=nawhich are all well and very interesting as if we didn't know Big Banks and Wall Street weren't buying this election and screwing us as Scram so graciously pointed out. But what this does mean is I am still slow at work and have too much time on my hands. The only place hoppin' is the barefoot website at Runner's World since less and less people can afford shoes apparently.

[CaneBrain 95]

And those 169 years..weren't we under the Articals of Confederation?

I will pretend this is serious and not baiting me.The Articles of Confederation existed (off the top of my head please someone correct me if necessary) from like 1881-1888. We were under colonial rule during those 169 years but what happened economically still matters of course. Then, around 1889, we ratified the Constitution we have now....as a replacement for the Articles of Confederation (which most people feel failed due to too much emphasis on a lack of central power).Those dates are approximate and may be off a tad but they are close.

[mk 11]

fun stuff all week, kiddies:QE2* TOTAL ASSET PURCHASES OF $850 BLN TO $900 BLN THROUGH JUNE**NEW ASSET PURCHASES ABOUT $75 BILLION PER MONTH-- EXPAND ASSET PURCHASES BY $600 BILLION BY END OF JUNE-- HAVE AVERAGE DURATION 5 TO 6 YRS, more emphasis here -- no skew to more bonds (see below)-- EXPECTS REINVESTMENT OF $250 BLN TO $300 BLN THROUGH JUNE-- WILL REGULARLY REVIEW PACE OF SECURITIES PURCHASES-- DETAILS WILL COME ON NOV 10 WITH NEW BUYBACK ANNOUNCEMENT SO QE BUILD ON CURRENT SCHEDULE* PROGRESS TOWARD OBJECTIVES `HAS BEEN DISAPPOINTINGLY SLOW'* INFLATION IS `SOMEWHAT LOW' RELATIVE TO MANDATE* RATE TO STAY `EXCEPTIONALLY LOW' FOR `EXTENDED PERIOD'* FED RELAXES 35 PERCENT PER-ISSUE LIMIT ON PORTFOLIO HOLDINGS<< to be increased in steps, by 5% of of total issue in each operation.** The has largely delivered on the market's SIZE expectations with total asset purchases approaching $900 bn by June, which INCLUDES the $35 bn/month for balance sheet purposes, but cut back on the relative purchases in 10s and longer. The QE part is about $100 bn more than the general consensus and of course leaves action for H2 an open question.** The details are interesting, but not striking in terms of what they will buy -- 5% in 1.5-2.5 yr, 20% in 2.5-4 yr, 23% in 5.5-7 yrs, 23% in 7-10 yrs, 2% in 10-17 yrs, 4% in 17-30 yrs, 3% in TIPs....SO NO SHIFT TO LONGER DURATION. In fact they has been buying 6% in 17-30 sector so a downgrade to 4%, and downgrade to 10-17 yr to 2% from what has been 8%** The market was trading firm all day but the 10+ yr sector has broken from the shorter paper as the Fed downgrades these longer purchases. This shows a deliberate focus on 5-10s, which is not a great surprise but the few purchases at the longer end stands in the face of some who argued for more.

[mk 11]

glad you guys are discussing the trajectory of u.s. economic strength over time but all i was really trying to make a point about was how dark people were hated on pretty hard for a pretty long time, and until pretty recently, and if we're talking about people who are born with opportunities and people who aren't and how the ones who are born without ought pull themselves up by the bootstraps we're really kind of talking about raceannnnnnd back to work

[CaneBrain 95]

glad you guys are discussing the trajectory of u.s. economic strength over time but all i was really trying to make a point about was how dark people were hated on pretty hard for a pretty long time, and until pretty recently, and if we're talking about people who are born with opportunities and people who aren't and how the ones who are born without ought pull themselves up by the bootstraps we're really kind of talking about raceannnnnnd back to work

I mean that was obvious....it just went off on a tangent.

[mk 11]

ups also:http://www.newyorkfed.org/markets/opolicy/...icy_101103.html

[strategy 4]

well hey I enjoyed brushing up on my civil war history via wikipedia so thanks for that

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Dear MK and/or Strat and/or anyone else,Stupid question: what does it really mean to say that the FED buys debt? Does this mean they're buying Treasury Bills? And could you give me the brief run down on why would would want to do this / how they helps the economy / etc. Sincerely, Yorke

[Roll the Bones 74]

Dear MK and/or Strat and/or anyone else,Stupid question: what does it really mean to say that the FED buys debt? Does this mean they're buying Treasury Bills? And could you give me the brief run down on why would would want to do this / how they helps the economy / etc. Sincerely, Yorke

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/03/f...2_n_778392.html

[El Guapo 8]

Dear MK and/or Strat and/or anyone else,Stupid question: what does it really mean to say that the FED buys debt? Does this mean they're buying Treasury Bills? And could you give me the brief run down on why would would want to do this / how they helps the economy / etc. Sincerely, Yorke

The fed is buying back treasuries from banks and institutions. This will do a couple things it will infuse more capital into the banks for lending (not that they really need it) and it will put cash in the hands of investors who were holding long term bonds with the thought that they will spend it. Also if the banks have more to loan then businesses can buy equipment, invest in R&D etc. Which will spurn economic growth and slowly put people back to work.Also, as an example, if the Fed buys a 10yr at 3.2% and then re-issues at 2.5% they are effectively lowering their borrowing costs by .7% for the next 10 years.The downside is that this will deflate the dollar, and could spurn even more inflation a few years out. But the fed has more arrows in it's quiver to attack inflation than deflation. QE2 is one of their last attempts at spurning growth and combating deflation and/or stagflation.

[Roll the Bones 74]

Asked Thursday how he did "so well in the past 18 months," Gross, who runs PIMCO's $252.2 billion Total Return Fund, told Bloomberg Television that in addition to a variety of other investments he's made money "from mortgages, yes, in terms of buying them in front of the Fed and selling them to the Fed over the six- to 12-month period of time." Translation: the man who runs the world's biggest bond fund is profiting from buying securities he knows the Fed will eventually want, and then selling them to the Fed at a premium.

Tinkering with the cost of money, though, can't overcome structural issues. For example, the American consumer gorged on cheap debt because he was unable to maintain his standard of living during a decade with little income growth. So credit afforded consumers the opportunity to live the life they otherwise could not afford. That era has ended."The Fed simply does not have the appropriate tools to deal with the myriad of structural hurdles facing the economy, ranging from housing, to debt, to commercial real estate, to state and local government cutbacks and fiscal disarray, to excessive regulation, and the list goes on," David A. Rosenberg, chief economist and strategist at Gluskin Sheff & Associates in Toronto, said in a note to clients Wednesday.Bernanke told Congress in June and July that the economy needed fiscal stimulus. He warned lawmakers not to cut spending. A newly-resurgent Republican Party, which took control of the House of Representatives and made significant inroads in the Senate, has vowed to cut spending.

[hblask 1]

YEAAAAAA.The San Francisco politicians serving congruently with the Obama administration have decided to:OUTLAW HAPPY MEALS

I can't possibly think of any unintended consequences of this. I'm sure they thought this through completely.Oh wait. Anyone who has been to Dairy Queen or Culver's may have a clue: give a free dessert instead of a free toy.That should keep the kids skinny.Idiots.

[strategy 4]

Definition of SPUR1a : a pointed device secured to a rider's heel and used to urge on the horse b plural [from the acquisition of spurs by a person achieving knighthood] : recognition and reward for achievement <won his academic spurs as the holder of a chair in a university — James Mountford>2: a goad to action : stimulus Definition of SPURNintransitive verb1obsolete a : stumble b : kick 1a2archaic : to reject something disdainfully transitive verb1: to tread sharply or heavily upon : trample2: to reject with disdain or contempt : scorn