Losing he is, on his own path. It is surprising that Romney, being a strict statistical man, can not calculate his to fast to reply to events before he knows the facts. It makes it obvious that he is being an opportunist.
He could still stand a chance if he would relax and get to the point of his plans. But he will not.
His first mistake was his VP pick in Ryan that cost him the swing state of Florida. There is no way to sugar coat messing with medicare.
Second mistake was a double in not defining his plans at the convention that was taken care of by the Democrats.
This cost him swing states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Iowa and Wisconsin. This was helped greatly by the “secretary of explaining stuff”, Bill Clinton.
Game Over !
With the 47% remarks Romney just made, even though they were made back in May, allow even the President to put his foot in his mouth a time or two and still have captured the undecided voters in the key swing states. The President would have to bomb the debates for this to change.
The President will win with over 330 electoral votes.
Oh… there is always that possibility that some world event will make the President look really bad but it has not happened so far in his term and so I’m doubtful.
It’s unlikely a politician that makes all his plans from stats can win a debate. Debates are won on simple policy and one liners to back them up. Ask Reagan.
The challenge for the democrats now is to even the numbers up in congress and I think you will see them move that way after the first debate.
Everyone has questions but how many of these legit questions will have an answer before the election:
In Romney/Ryan Budget, What is the extra 2 trillion dollars in military spending for?
Why do we call it bail-out when it is only a loan guarantee and why was it OK to do it in 1980 for Chrysler and for Lockheed Martin and not for GM or Chrysler in 2009 when the normal credit markets were frozen?
Why is it a that a member of the House of Representatives can no longer introduce legislation and have it voted up or down?
Why is it Not OK for tax dollars be used for pregnancy prevention but OK to for tax dollars to kill through war on a distant land?
How can a tax cut improve the national debt?
Why are the same folks who are always telling me they want to get the government out of my life, always finding ways to get in my life (abortion,prayer in school,flag usage,extra hoops to vote) but at the same time are getting the government oversight of company’s reduced or eliminated?
Why is a temporary tax reduction expiration a tax hike?
Why do we give tax breaks to company’s to spur economic development when they were going ahead with their plans with or without it?
Why is it that I could murder one person and can be assured to go to jail but a company can kill many and nobody goes to jail? Could it be that I do not have as much “free speech ?
Why don’t the 2 political parties fit the mold of organized crime ?
This is a story of a poster-child for poor corporate governance, or drawn as a caricature of the reckless, megalomaniac, self-enriching CEO but it could also be the company you are invested in as you can not believe this is limited to just one but this one is the easiest to see and explain.
You may have seen the news reports of recent date that the CEO of Energy Giant Chesapeake Energy, the second largest oil driller in the US, was caught borrowing huge amounts of money from the company to a private company he started. Oh… they failed to mention that. it was not a personal loan. Want to get the big picture…. here we go…
First, He borrowed 1.1 billion dollars, that’s 1,100,000,000 from the company to his companies operating in the same industry as Chesapeake. He has or could have a high degree of risk for conflicts of interest. As in, whose interest will he look out for, his own or Chesapeake’s?
Some of you might think this is Ok if the shareholders were in agreement and were well informed of the loan and it purpose. While I would agree “if” the shareholder were informed and consented. I don’t think that’s how it happened.
As it turns out he borrowed against the value of his shares in the company for the collateral.
Whats the upside for him?
He has the knowledge of the future gas plays, mainly the Utica gas & oil play in eastern Ohio, and if you have the money to make it happen, the profits are all “his” but he has to pay little no nothing for the loan that he apparently could not get from a bank.
What is at stake for Chesapeake?
They have little to gain. in fact they lose the same in investments and if he fails, his company folds up in a bankruptcy and Chesapeake not only does not get their money back, share value will be lost. Knowledge from the company’s research used against it by the new company.
He previously had sold a set of maps to the company for the tune of 12 million dollars. Who knows what else he had sold the company for bogus stuff to pilfer even more money from the bottom line? Will some shareholder be able to comb through the books and be able to understand it?
Up till now, I had only been guessing at where all those corporate profits were going as it really did not seem that the shareholders were getting their fair share. Now the whole question of corporate profits is in question for a bunch of companies !
Do you know what the CEO’s are doing in the companies you are invested in ? It’s to easy to pilfer money out through hidden entries in the books.
It just seems like a new smoke and mirrors trick for a modern snake oil salesman. Banks, oil company’s, insurance company’s and their CEO’s are all in question in my book.
What? you will wait till it becomes the next Enron before you wake-up.
That’s OK for your money but not mine ! You need to ask questions, demand transparency in the book keeping and ask even more questions about what you don’t understand. Of course the banks might say that it is a complicated instrument that you would not understand and I say “TRY ME”.
Yes, This started out as a Chrysler Corp message in their advertising but has expanded to Americans as a symbol of a new meaning of Made In The USA promotion in a global economy.
The promotion was so successful, Chrysler make quite a bit selling the slogan on lapel pins a tie clips and you can even get a bumper stick on eBay with the slogan “Imported From Detroit.
It has come to symbolize the hopes of factory workers and those who make things in this country.
Chrysler has stopped using this slogan but it lives on.
I don’t see the car companies as any sort of evil sort but the whole history of automakers has always seemed to have a misguided truth about the problems they had and who caused them.
Management always sheds the blame to the worker. The worker has little knowledge of where and how most of the money is spent, so how are they to defend themselves except to say the CEO and board are making a whole bunch of money on the surface and who knows what in underhanded deals. (also see upcoming story next week on Chesapeake Energy CEO and personal side bets with company money)
While unions can have some adverse effects, the good out way the bad and still, can see the need for some rules that would be sure that the control stays in the memberships hands.
And thinking of those American Workers, I just could not think of a better speech for it than the one the president of the AFL-CIO presented at last weeks DNC convention. It is at the hart of who thinks they built America.
The real answer is: The Money, The Management and The Worker. Not one but all of the above. It would not happen without all of them. But it always comes to be that those with a bunch of money think they did it all. Of course this speech is sided to the worker.
In a normal economy, the Federal Reserve would use its’ control of interest rates to heat up a cooling economy or cool down a overheating economy. That helps even out the highs and lows or boom/bust type economy.
This is just one of several tools the FED has to help/moderate money. The cost of borrowing money has much to do with growth. Presently we enjoy historically low interest rates, yet, we still do not have enough economic growth that creates jobs faster than new folks entering the workforce.
The problem here has been the liquidity of the Banks. Meaning that the actual money they have to lend to a business to make a venture or expansion is limited.
One of its’ other tools is Quantitative Easing. this a process where the Federal Reserve buys equities, houses, corporate bonds or other assets from banks. The Banks find their funding position improved (liquid) and that makes them more willing to lend. This funds business expansion in the economy and promotes job growth. This can have a impact on inflation if it is not done with concise timing and at precise levels. It is also a good way of avoiding deflation.
The Central Bank of the Federal Reserve can also reverse this process if liquidity is to high and overheating the economy through a process called REPO. This pulls back assets to the central bank, lowering liquidity and reduces inflation.
Translate this into our modern day slow economic growth and the Fed will probably get it job done and in early spring, we should see some improvements in the employment picture. This would be the 3rd round of easing the Fed has done since the great recession started.
Seeing that Bernanke has done a very good job at not overstepping his stimulus, I have full faith he will do an very good job this go around. While all of this seems easy just to talk about, it would be very hard to get it right or kind of like walking a vibrating tight rope. Because as Ben makes his moves, the economy is moving around at his feet.
This could weaken the Dollar to other currencies but just a little lower would be a plus for US exports and perhaps making imports more expensive and creating a demand for US products for US consumption.
In any case, if we do not create more jobs/taxpayers, we will be doomed to make cuts in the budget that surely will have a negative effect on the economy. Hence the Feds’ willingness to do the hard and risky.
