Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

CNBC and MSNBC crack me up

Recs

7

October 11, 2012 – Comments (18) | RELATED TICKERS: WIN

Well I watched tonight's debate. And at the end I flipped between those 2 stations just to hear the spin.  CNBC announces a poll where Ryan "won" the debate with 58% in favor of him.  Later on MSNBC did their own snap poll and had Biden "winning" with 50%.  Why do they even bother doing polls when they take them from basically biased groups.

I have always been a Biden fan (although I cursed his name when I was stuck in traffic when they stopped traffic for over an hour to let him pass on  his way to a campaign fundraiser).  I like him because he is a straight shooter.  He talks to you, he doesn't simply repeat rote memorized points.  Ryan is as phoney as a $3 dollar bill (used to be $2 but we actually did print them for a time). Romney so blew it with picking him.  Condy Rice would have given him so much more with Foreign policy, gender and race.

It amused me when both started saying things I have been blogging about here which leaves me with the sensation that people really do read my blogs.  Three Cheers for Biden about his Grover Norquist pledge card attack.  And yup Ryan did mention Obama's lack of pushing more things through Congress when the Democrats had control of.

But when Biden looked straight into the camera and talked to the "folks," if you are an Average Joe that sold you.

In the end this is not about who "won" or "lost" like these stations try to argue.  What matters is who do you want to win the actual election.  In my opinion, and that is all it is, I'd rather not see Romney win.  I used to not care, but once he mentioned his tax deduction limitation at $17,000 he will, let me repeat because I am in that business, KILL the real estate recovery, a point Biden should have hit harder on.

18 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On October 12, 2012 at 12:29 AM, L0RDZ (84.78) wrote:

I know this is gonna get your GOAT...

BUT  BIDEN  got beat by a youngin....   despite having a  liberal moderator  and laughing like some fool  all the while trying to interupt  and  disrupt  RYAN.

 Awall  lets face it, you have a very personal interest in not having  Romney ~ Ryan  win  based upon your belief that  they will disrupt  the  real estate market ~ 

However a  real economic  recovery with real job creations and more people seeking and obtaining  real  employment  will do more for  the real estate game.

Biden looked like a fool, although an energized fool, one who never  did  a days  hard work in his life ~  he's been living off the government trough  since  1972 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He couldn't beat Obama  for  the presidential nomination, so he did the hey lets join-em.

Like it or not,  he still got owned... 

While  Obama had  what some have called an xanax experience.

Joe's  was  more of an Adderall debate experience.

 

Report this comment
#2) On October 12, 2012 at 1:28 AM, awallejr (83.83) wrote:

Yeah Lordz with a magical job creation wand?  This is the deepest recession since the Great Depression.  It took DECADES to overcome that.  And it will take YEARS as I said it would back in 2009.  Things are going up. THAT IS GOOD.  Under Romney I am sorry I see recession because he will undo what Bernanke has been trying to accomplish, namely getting the real estate market growing again.  It is actually the one brightside in economic data right now.

But please I don't want Ryan a heartbeat from the Presidency anymore than I did with Palin.  Now with Palin I thought she was a hot babe who kills em, cleans em and cooks em, a woman after my own heart. But she was just too wacky for me to vote for.  Same with Ryan.  I'd rather see Quayle.

Biden just wouldn't let Ryan get away with his memorized rote nonsense. Ryan constantly refused to actually answer questions.  I am still waiting for him to answer what SPECIFICS his ticket is offering aside from the tax deduction limitation.

If I am ever making a business deal I would trust Biden's handshake.  I would never trust Ryan's.  Biden was straight forward, Ryan evaded.

Report this comment
#3) On October 12, 2012 at 1:41 AM, L0RDZ (84.78) wrote:

Really  how about Biden's response to  security requests in Libya...  I  guess  his memory seems to forget or overlook the facts...  and he always  says what he means. or is it means what he says ?

WASHINGTON (AP) — Anyone who paid attention to a hearing in Congress this week knew that the administration had been implored to beef up security at the U.S. Consulate in Libya before the deadly terrorist attack there. But in the vice presidential debate Thursday night, Joe Biden seemed unaware.

"We weren't told they wanted more security there," the vice president asserted flatly. During a night in which Biden and Republican rival Paul Ryan both drifted from the facts on a range of domestic and foreign issues, that was a standout.

BIDEN: "Well, we weren't told they wanted more security there. We did not know they wanted more security again.

RYAN: "There were requests for more security."

THE FACTS: Ryan is right, judging by testimony from Obama administration officials at the hearing a day earlier.

Charlene R. Lamb, a deputy assistant secretary for diplomatic security, told lawmakers she refused requests for more security in Benghazi, saying the department wanted to train Libyans to protect the consulate. "Yes, sir, I said personally I would not support it," she said.

Eric Nordstrom, who was the top security official in Libya earlier this year, testified he was criticized for seeking more security. He said conversations he had with people in Washington led him to believe that it was "abundantly clear we were not going to get resources until the aftermath of an incident. How thin does the ice have to get before someone falls through?"

He said his exasperation reached a point where he told a colleague that "for me the Taliban is on the inside of the building."

Report this comment
#4) On October 12, 2012 at 2:22 AM, awallejr (83.83) wrote:

Listen Lordz, this election is never going to be determined based on Libya. I guess you and Kudlow think it is a burning issue.  We already blogged about that here when it happened.  I am too lazy to find the link but pretty much everyone suspected it was an assasination.  But we can say those things with zero proof because we are all anonymous.

Now if you came away from watching that debate only with the "Libya incident" on your mind then you are pretty shallow fella.

I am willing to submit that most voters simply don't care.  They are concerned with putting food on their table, clothes on their backs and roofs over their heads.

And until Romney/Ryan stop saying just "trust" us (which is all they are really saying) I am going with the "improving economy" hand.  And right now things ARE improving.  Just not as fast as we would all like.  But in light of the nature of the cause for the crash along with changing demographics and along with REPUBLICAN OBSTRUCTION,  at least things ARE improving. 

Take away the PURPOSEFUL Republican obstruction and things I submit would be improving faster.  But hey King Grover doesn't care how many victims it takes to get his way, after all the guy is living in a nice house, driving around in limos all paid for by some secret organization that now controls much of the Republican Party.

You want to be a sucker and fall for that, go for it.  But one thing I have always been on this site is straight forward.  Love me or hate me at least I tell it as I see it (I guess that is probably why I like Biden), and I am saying if you earn under $250,000 you are nuts to vote for Romney because he is gunning for you.

Report this comment
#5) On October 12, 2012 at 3:14 AM, awallejr (83.83) wrote:

Just to take it further since I can't seem to fall asleep for some reason.  It cracked me up when Ryan with a straight face argued how not allowing the wealthy to get as many medicare benefits as the poor was the way they were going to lower costs.

News flash Ryan, the wealthy AREN'T going to use medicare for their medical needs.  They are, hmmm let me think, oh yeah WEALTHY.  They are paying for the best doctors they can.  Steve Jobs went to Europe for an organ transplant because, hey he was filthy rich. 

Stop the con.

Report this comment
#6) On October 12, 2012 at 3:31 AM, blake303 (29.19) wrote:

LORDZ is a fool who I believe was kicked off the site a few years ago for making racist comments. I could be wrong (I said it, but you have to prove it because this is America). I'm sure someone with TMF in their handle can confirm, but probably won't. I'm not holding my breath, so I will just address his/her insane assertions

L0RDZ (58.78): BUT  BIDEN  got beat by a youngin....   despite having a  liberal moderator  and laughing like some fool  all the while trying to interupt  and  disrupt  RYAN."

A "liberal" moderator formerly employed in George W. Bush's administration and NPR. I would say a person with those two items on their resume is probably more moderate than anyone you would have chosen. You had no problem with Romney's childish interuptions of Lehrer. 

 

L0RDZ (58.78): a  real economic  recovery with real job creations and more people seeking and obtaining  real  employment  will do more for  the real estate game. 

Define "real". The real estate game was a bubble in addition to being a game. I work in real estate and many of the jobs in the real estate industry should not have existed in the first place and hopefully will not be refilled. Sometimes unemployment is warranted, which is the GOP's mantra, so why are you bitching?  I know dozens of people that have found jobs during the past four years. I know one that hasn't and it has everything to do with unrealistic expectations and lack of experience and nothing to do with Obama's policies. The people that found jobs consider their jobs "real".  Who cares if you do? No one. 

L0RDZ (58.78): Biden looked like a fool, although an energized fool, one who never  did  a days  hard work in his life ~  he's been living off the government trough  since  1972 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

If "conservatives" are so opposed to government, why did Romney, his father and Ryan choose it as a LONG-TERM career path?  Especially when private equity is so honorable and lucrative? Why expose yourself to national criticism when so few knew you existed?

Report this comment
#7) On October 12, 2012 at 10:43 AM, drgroup (69.27) wrote:

L0RDZ... I agree with all your points. As you can see by the distorted comments from blake303 that the truth is only a obstacle to overcome when publicly exposing ones ignorance. You can not educate people like this, they are genetically engineered with a faulty chromisone chain. It is amusing to watch them spew their poison. Please don't ever let them silence you as Biden tried to do to Ryan last night...  

Report this comment
#8) On October 12, 2012 at 10:56 AM, JaysRage (88.77) wrote:

Ryan is as phoney as a $3 dollar bill (used to be $2 but we actually did print them for a time). Romney so blew it with picking him.

You lose all credibility with a statement like that.  Disagree with his politics all you want, but Ryan is as consistent and real as it gets.  Even Obama came out and said that Ryan is an articulate spokesman for the Republican position.   He talks about the issues.   He's calm, measured, prepared and confident.   He's the real deal.    

As far as Republican obstructionism, it's just another excuse for the Obama administration.   Obama had complete free reign over both houses of Congress for two full years.   He spent that time arrogantly trampling and mocking the Republican minority pushing through Obamacare and his social agenda, using ultra-liberal bull Nancy Pelosi as his lead blocker.   Then, when the country votes through a Republican majority in the House, Obama comes to the table and expects the Republicans to meet him half way.   Well, he had burnt up all his equity through his steamrolling tactics in the first two years.   Then he tried to negotiate with a camera rolling, in the vein of transparency (dumbest idea ever).  Not surprisingly, every politician in the room used the opportunity to reinforce their campaign pledges rather than talking turkey about how to get a deal done that met the needs of the country.....further pushing the two parties toward their respective bases.   Obama campaigned 4 years ago on his ability to reach across the isle and unite and energize the country and then used his majority to cluster bomb the other side of the aisle for two years, creating the most disfunctional government in our generation, and then blaming the Republicans for not cooperating.    

--They inherited a mess from Bush.

--They didn't get cooperation from the Republicans for the past two years.

--The Libyan government didn't do enough to protect our American personnel  

--Afghanistan isn't doing enough to take ownership of their own security 

--He's too tired from being President to show up with any energy for a debate before 40 million American viewers 

Boy, it really is everyone's fault except Obama, isn't it?   Poor Obama.  Everybody's out to get him.    

I give Obama credit for pulling the trigger on Bin Laden.   That was a gutsy call.   It was going to hurt our relationship with Pakistan with no guarantee of success.   Biden coudn't have done it.   A lot of Presidents that I respect wouldn't have done it. Clinton had the chance multiple times and passed.   But let's not forget that the planning for that mission began in the Bush administration.   Obama doesn't get the chance to pull the trigger if the process didn't get started before Obama came to office.   Credit BOTH administrations for getting the bad guy.   Obama could have either shut down the planning or failed to pull the trigger, but he didn't.   He made one of the gutsiest calls ever and got it done.   A job well done by all.   

Report this comment
#9) On October 12, 2012 at 11:00 AM, drgroup (69.27) wrote:

awallejr...I hope you can maintain your rosy real estate love affair after obama/biden let the Bush tax cuts expire. If obamcare is completly implemented in '13, the trickle down effect will suck up a tremendous amount of investment capital and disposable income from the "average joe", to the point that this economy will go into a free-fall. Real estate will be available only to the small group of priveleiged few who can qualify for a loan...

Report this comment
#10) On October 12, 2012 at 12:09 PM, ponzipal (< 20) wrote:

you all realize the dirty little secrets 

 

yje txic realestate paper went secretlly into legally off the books insurance cos.........and yes priviledge has its rank over the brainwashed and those not watching the two parties are working for one boss 

Report this comment
#11) On October 12, 2012 at 2:37 PM, awallejr (83.83) wrote:

 JaysRage

Oh please, Ryan has backed off of pretty much everything he argued before he came on board with Romney.  Biden was talking, Ryan was acting.  You think that is how Ryan talks one on one?  Could he possibly just use enough buzz words?  Try counting how many times he uses the word "credible."

And as for republican obstruction, don't give me it's an Obama excuse.  I have made that argument ever since last year.  It is PURPOSEFUL.  It was Norquist's plan.  I am neither Republican nor Democrat. They chose to gridlock the system starting with the national debt ceiling.

The one point I felt Biden should have harped on more, tho he did argue it, is how the Republicans are holding up Obama's tax extension plan for MOST of America.  Let me repeat jay, since I suspect you fall under the "most" part.  The Republicans are holding that bill hostage even tho they agree with it (your common ground) because the rich are not included.

I am not a fanboy of Obama.  I have argued here several times that I don't think he deserves a second term.  That he wasted time on the wrong things early on.  But unfortunately I am again presented with a choice between two people I really don't want to vote for.  So I sat on the sidelines until Romney announced how he was gunning for deductions without even thinking it through.  And as I argued elsewhere you pass his plan and the country will finally get its double dip recession.

I am telling you the real estate market IS improving.  We need it to do so.  But Romney will kill it.  End of story.

Report this comment
#12) On October 12, 2012 at 3:19 PM, JaysRage (88.77) wrote:

I think that Ryan was having a debate.  During a debate, you articulate your position.    Biden was having a drunken bar conversation.    

If the current tax plan is "middle ground", Obama doesn't understand what middle ground looks like.    

The Republicans do not agree with the tax plan that is proposed.   Obama removed the tax cuts that he chose to remove as part of his proposal.   If he proposed extending all of the Bush tax cuts, it would pass in a heartbeat.  However, Obama wants to raise taxes on the upper class.   This is a partisan desire.   It is not bi-partisan.   It is 100% of what Obama's tax plan is.   It's not compromise.  It's not middle ground.  It's the entire proposal of his campaign tax platform.   Obama essentially wants to squeeze through his tax increase by removing the Bush tax cuts that he doesn't want as part of the plan any more.   It's called raising taxes.  It's not a compromise.   It's not agreeable to both parties.   It's not a middle ground.   It's 100% of what Obama wants.    What the Republicans are doing makes sense in this context.  

Now I actually think the bill should pass as it's proposed.  I disagree with the position of the Republican party on that issue. While I agree with a lot of fiscal conservative proposals, I actually think that Obama has it right in this specific case, regarding the Bush tax cuts.  I think there are other ways to stimulate small business.   However, I do respect Romney's plan, and I think it has legs.   

Why, with an election one month away, where two candidates are proposing vastly different tax plans, would you implement the one chosen by the alternate party, rather than waiting to see if you can pass your desired tax plan, which is proposed by your party's candidate?   That would be dumb politics.  

You come across as a fanboy of Obama.   You're one of the biggest cheerleaders for him that I've ever seen.   

I suspect that your view and my view of a healthy real estate market would differ drastically.    

Report this comment
#13) On October 12, 2012 at 3:20 PM, Melaschasm (64.08) wrote:

A $17,000 limit on personal deductions would only effect the real estate market on loans greater than $340,000.  And loans barely over that amount would only have a tiny impact.  While this will be a problem in a few markets, most places will not be harmed.  

The people facing restrictions on their mortgage deduction will benefit from reduced income tax rates.  It should also be noted that this will only effect personal property, since landlords will still be able to deduct interest from their profits.

While making debt less appealing may cause some short term problems for specific parts of the real estate business, it will create a healthier industry in the long term.  Americans have to much debt and government subsidies encouraging more debt is not healthy.

Also the $17,000 number is not a final number, but it is the low end of the range which will be negotiated between Romney and Congress, if he wins.  Even assuming the $17,000 limit, after adjusting for reduced taxes it will likely only impact houses with a value greater than $500,000.  If you think people wealthy enough to buy a house worth 500k deserve tax breaks and loopholes, you disagree with the rhetoric of Obama. 

Report this comment
#14) On October 12, 2012 at 3:36 PM, awallejr (83.83) wrote:

Mela take a look at the chart in comment #2:

http://caps.fool.com/Blogs/romneys-tax-plan-to-limit/765163

It would affect a lot more homes than you think.  Most of the large cities will get slammed.  New York certainly would.  New Jersey too.  The tax deductability for state and local taxes and the mortgage is one of the major selling points towards affordability.

Americans are already lowering their debt.  Total debt has declined 10% over the last few years. 

All I hear from the Romney camp is "trust me" arguments.  No I don't trust him.  At least under Obama things ARE improving.  And if the Republicans stopped with the gridlock things could have advanced more.

But I am not running to a camp where they are saying here's our outline we will fill in the blanks after being elected.  Romney isn't voodoo economics he is magical wand economics.

Report this comment
#15) On October 12, 2012 at 4:21 PM, awallejr (83.83) wrote:

Then Jay you haven't been reading all my blogs. I am no fanboy of Obama I just hate Grover Norquist with his "Taylor machine" antics.  I never said middle ground.  That would be compromise, something the Republicans have refuted.  They will only do COMMON ground.  Please jay I am becoming repetitive with you. 

Report this comment
#16) On October 12, 2012 at 7:27 PM, awallejr (83.83) wrote:

Going to "pull a Porte" here:

1) comment 1:

http://caps.fool.com/Blogs/kazin-class-warfare-waged-by/677741

2) http://caps.fool.com/Blogs/obama-jobs-bill-too-little-too/640723

3) watch the video in comment 23:

 http://caps.fool.com/Blogs/i-wont-be-voting-republican/757682

Report this comment
#17) On October 12, 2012 at 8:11 PM, HarryCarysGhost (99.68) wrote:

Can't we all just get along, vote for Ron Paul and call it a day.

Report this comment
#18) On October 13, 2012 at 2:12 AM, awallejr (83.83) wrote:

Well Harry I was going to. You saw my blogs saying I was, until I saw Romney's tax deduction plan.  I am in the business and it will hurt the real estate market.  That is probably why he started to back off by raising it which tells me he never thought it through.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement