jeff2sf wrote:Stop it. Booker was trying to be honest - attacking Romney and private equity is a loser statement meant to divide us. We need private equity. We do. We need banks like JP Morgan. Should they be better regulated? Yes. Should they be quite as obscenely paid? No.

But Booker was right and he's pretty great. We need more politicians like him, not fewer.

Booker wrote:"This kind of stuff is nauseating to me on both sides. It's nauseating to the American public. Enough is enough. Stop attacking private equity. Stop attacking Jeremiah Wright. This stuff has got to stop, because what it does is it undermines, to me, what this country should be focused on."

jeff2sf wrote:

Booker wrote:"This kind of stuff is nauseating to me on both sides. It's nauseating to the American public. Enough is enough. Stop attacking private equity. Stop attacking Jeremiah Wright. This stuff has got to stop, because what it does is it undermines, to me, what this country should be focused on."

There's no need to talk about Romney at Bain at all (Except maybe that dumb ass picture of him holding a bunch of money with some partners.) Romney made a lot of money for himself and helped a lot of companies. Some companies went out of business, but that's capitalism folks. That's what happens. You're not guaranteed your job forever. Evolve or die.

jeff2sf wrote:Werthless and Jhoya, what say you?

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/ ... f=business

jeff2sf wrote:Werthless and Jhoya, what say you?

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/ ... f=business

jerseyhoya wrote:

jeff2sf wrote:Werthless and Jhoya, what say you?

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/ ... f=business

That he incorrectly attributes god like powers to the person inhabiting the White House for the performance of the country's economy.

jerseyhoya wrote:I think presidents are a lot like head coaches when it comes to the economy. They can affect things to some extent, but they're constrained in how much they can do, and they get too much credit when things go well and too much criticism when things go poorly.

jerseyhoya wrote:

jeff2sf wrote:Werthless and Jhoya, what say you?

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/ ... f=business

That he incorrectly attributes god like powers to the person inhabiting the White House for the performance of the country's economy.

jeff2sf wrote:Werthless and Jhoya, what say you?

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/ ... f=business

Mr. Romney said that the failure of so many American schools with minority students “is the civil rights issue of our era,” echoing a mantra of the school choice movement. “It’s the great challenge of our time.”

The challenge for Mr. Romney is that many of the ideas he touched on — increasing the number of charter schools, holding teachers more accountable for student success — have already been adopted by the Obama administration, whose education policies have all but co-opted traditional Republican positions.

In response to Mr. Romney’s proposals, the Obama campaign released a compilation of Republican governors’ past praise for the president’s education policies, including comments from Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey and Gov. Susana Martinez of New Mexico.
...
He also promised to break logjams that still hold up reforms by taking on teachers’ unions, which he called “the clearest example of a group that has lost its way.” He accused Mr. Obama of quavering before the unions because of their power within the Democratic Party. “President Obama has been unable to stand up to union bosses — and unwilling to stand up for our kids,” he said.

In fact, Mr. Obama has crossed teachers’ unions, notably in 2010 when he praised a mass firing of teachers in Rhode Island in a showdown over an administration policy to radically overhaul failing high-poverty schools.

In a policy paper released on Wednesday, the Romney campaign called for the elimination of such federal intervention.

James Kvaal, policy director for Mr. Obama’s campaign, accused Mr. Romney of wanting “to stop the clock on decades of reform by no longer insisting action be taken” to reform struggling schools.

In place of overhauling failing schools, which can include replacement of the staff or conversion to a charter school, Mr. Romney would substitute a “public report card,” one exposing a school’s failures so that parents, presumably, could steer clear. It is uncertain how that proposal differs from existing report cards now required under the No Child Left Behind law enacted under President Bush.

Werthless wrote:

jeff2sf wrote:Werthless and Jhoya, what say you?

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/ ... f=business

The Bush presidency was a fiscal failure. It's not surprising that Romney is distancing himself from it.

Werthless wrote:

jeff2sf wrote:Werthless and Jhoya, what say you?

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/ ... f=business

The Bush presidency was a fiscal failure. It's not surprising that Romney is distancing himself from it.