Thread: The Romney Horse Makes Olympic Team

Originally Posted by Adolf Allerbush

Look, I do not equate running an investment banking firm to governing. The goal of I Banking is to turn a profit...this is not the goal of government, nor should it be. Therefore his private sector expr. is not applicable to public sector governance...but good on him for being a great businessman.

all we have to go off of are his statistics as governor of MA. He did an absolute shit job...even you have to admit driving up huge deficits, mandating health insurance, residing over huge job losses, etc etc etc do not make a good conservative leader. Besides that he is like a windsock...he'll do or say anything to win an election. That's not leadership...that's bullshit.

People here keep saying a gov't shouldn't be run like a business and in one sense that's correct, it shouldn't be a profit making entity, but in that it's kept solvent and out of crisis creating debt, it damn well does need to be run in a business like manner.

Barack Obama is no less a wind sock now (as he was before to his party faithful) as he'll say just about anything to get re elected to salvage a legacy.

Romney has had a record of achievement and failure. President Barack Obama brought really nothing other than community organizer and member of the Senate, where he accomplished ...... what exactly to qualify him to be a president of these United States ? He didn't even lay out a plan before elected other than Hope And Change.......

Besides signing a huge check, what policy created by his admin/him has been something you can point to as helping to get the economy going. The huge check is all he did and that was already done by GWB.

School me on HIS INITIATED UNIQUE economic accomplishments (writing a big check doesn't count, you or I can do that), but right now the honeymoons on the rocks AA.

Originally Posted by OSECS

People here keep saying a gov't shouldn't be run like a business and in one sense that's correct, it shouldn't be a profit making entity, but in that it's kept solvent and out of crisis creating debt, it damn well does need to be run in a business like manner.

I disagree, government does not and should not = business...plain and simple.

Originally Posted by OSECS

Barack Obama is no less a wind sock now (as he was before to his party faithful) as he'll say just about anything to get re elected to salvage a legacy.

Agreed, and partly why I won't vote for him.

Originally Posted by OSECS

Romney has had a record of achievement and failure.

Thank you...Romney is a failure at governing...he's a good I-Banker though.

Originally Posted by OSECS

Besides signing a huge check, what policy created by his admin/him has been something you can point to as helping to get the economy going. The huge check is all he did and that was already done by GWB.

School me on HIS INITIATED UNIQUE economic accomplishments (writing a big check doesn't count, you or I can do that), but right now the honeymoons on the rocks AA.

So GWB is responsible for the stimulus now? Do you really want the GOP to take ownership of that? Or are you talking about TARP?

I think the paultry numbers speak for Obama's economic record on their own...8 years of Bush and 6 of a republican congress ruined this country...Obama inherited that mess...and I agree, has not had as much success as I would like...mostly because he's gone away from being a liberal and been too conservative.

Adolf.

Romney wasn't an investment banker.

Originally Posted by Adolf Allerbush

I disagree, government does not and should not = business...plain and simple.



Agreed, and partly why I won't vote for him.



Thank you...Romney is a failure at governing...he's a good I-Banker though.



So GWB is responsible for the stimulus now? Do you really want the GOP to take ownership of that? Or are you talking about TARP?

I think the paultry numbers speak for Obama's economic record on their own...8 years of Bush and 6 of a republican congress ruined this country...Obama inherited that mess...and I agree, has not had as much success as I would like...mostly because he's gone away from being a liberal and been too conservative.

You need to get over the equation of business = profit. Non profits are not for profit businesses, but they need to be accountable for the funds they collect and at least show a zero out at the end of the year. Gov't needs to be business like in that they don't initiate plans that cannot be paid for thru incoming revenue in a timely or reasonable manner.

I don't credit Bush for the stimulus. I used the example to illustrate that merely writing a check is not an economic plan for recovery. That's all Pres. Obamas admin. seems to have done.

Really, because he's strayed from liberal principles we haven't recovered quickly enough ? I'm chuckling loudly at that statement....

Originally Posted by OSECS

You need to get over the equation of business = profit. Non profits are not for profit businesses, but they need to be accountable for the funds they collect and at least show a zero out at the end of the year. Gov't needs to be business like in that they don't initiate plans that cannot be paid for thru incoming revenue in a timely or reasonable manner.

You need to understand that Mitten's experience is at earning a profit for investors...at any cost to the businesses Bain purchased...that's not how government is run. That's a slippery slope you're venturing down on the non-profit side...Mitten's has zero expertise in such a venture, unless you're trying to count the Olympics, but I think it's pretty obvious that's a profit generation beast. Anyhow, at running non-profits then Obama hands down has Mittens beat.

Originally Posted by OSECS

I don't credit Bush for the stimulus. I used the example to illustrate that merely writing a check is not an economic plan for recovery. That's all Pres. Obamas admin. seems to have done.

There have been a lot of plans...nothing that the GOP would work with Obama on, and likewise no ideas have come out of the GOP house to increase job growth or at least none that Obama will work with them on...so nothing has gotten done...at the expense of the American people nonetheless.

Anyhow, vote away for Mittens if you want to...he did a bad job of governing Mass and he'll likely do a bad job as president...then again, if McCain were president I don't see how things would be any different...other than healthcare reform may not have been passed...then again it may have been? the individual mandate is a GOP idea after all.

Originally Posted by OSECS

People here keep saying a gov't shouldn't be run like a business and in one sense that's correct, it shouldn't be a profit making entity, but in that it's kept solvent and out of crisis creating debt, it damn well does need to be run in a business like manner.

Sigh...run the gov't like a family !!! Yeehaaaw fuckers

What a dumb fucking country we live in where that shit plays, the gov't cannot be run like a business or the Smith family.

The Smith family or Bain Capital does not create money, they do not make money in indirect methods, they do not control the supply of money and debt is fundamentally different particularly when your self financing to the tune of 60-70%.

Gov't debt is not like personal debt or even mega corporate daily lending, its a circular method of inflating the money supply to build in a certain amount of basic growth per year. Private enterprise unless they are taking donations must return money directly, all money spent in an economy returns money to the economy, however private enterprise unlike a gov't entity which "earns" money via tax revenue has limited vehicles to make money indirectly.

This is super important because its much more difficult to say I need to sell product X and have money returned directly than I need X to occur and X will benefit society and the economy and we will earn money via tax revenue. The dumbest idea I've ever heard is that your going to fix an economy in the short term by severely reducing gov't spending, gov't spending is largely indirect revenue generation and thus it cannot be supplemented by private enterprise.

Gov't debt unlike say personal debt is largely goverened by appearance, your credit worthiness is determined by hard and fast numbers whereas the U.S. Gov't is based off all kinds of loosey goosey shit. Remember the debt debate and our credit was downgraded but investors reacted by throwing money into U.S. treasury's, if my credit rating is downgraded nobody is flocking to lend me more money at better rates because I nor Microsoft has the ability to create money.

Lastly for all the debt doomers out there please explain the method and motivation for some kind of debt crisis, specifically defining actors and the motivation for their actions assuming debt to GDP ratio is essentially remains constant.

Originally Posted by ArmadaBC

Sigh...run the gov't like a family !!! Yeehaaaw fuckers

What a dumb fucking country we live in where that shit plays, the gov't cannot be run like a business or the Smith family.

The Smith family or Bain Capital does not create money, they do not make money in indirect methods, they do not control the supply of money and debt is fundamentally different particularly when your self financing to the tune of 60-70%.

Gov't debt is not like personal debt or even mega corporate daily lending, its a circular method of inflating the money supply to build in a certain amount of basic growth per year. Private enterprise unless they are taking donations must return money directly, all money spent in an economy returns money to the economy, however private enterprise unlike a gov't entity which "earns" money via tax revenue has limited vehicles to make money indirectly.

This is super important because its much more difficult to say I need to sell product X and have money returned directly than I need X to occur and X will benefit society and the economy and we will earn money via tax revenue. The dumbest idea I've ever heard is that your going to fix an economy in the short term by severely reducing gov't spending, gov't spending is largely indirect revenue generation and thus it cannot be supplemented by private enterprise.

Gov't debt unlike say personal debt is largely goverened by appearance, your credit worthiness is determined by hard and fast numbers whereas the U.S. Gov't is based off all kinds of loosey goosey shit. Remember the debt debate and our credit was downgraded but investors reacted by throwing money into U.S. treasury's, if my credit rating is downgraded nobody is flocking to lend me more money at better rates because I nor Microsoft has the ability to create money.

Lastly for all the debt doomers out there please explain the method and motivation for some kind of debt crisis, specifically defining actors and the motivation for their actions assuming debt to GDP ratio is essentially remains constant.

So not spending more than current tax revenue can pay for is a bad idea ? I want to form my own gov't then.......

Originally Posted by OSECS

So not spending more than current tax revenue can pay for is a bad idea ? I want to form my own gov't then.......

If that's what you are hoping for out of your elected officials why do you support the GOP?

Originally Posted by Adolf Allerbush

If that's what you are hoping for out of your elected officials why do you support the GOP?

So I vote democrat and get even more spending increases ? In their defense democratic spending proposals are probably down about 1/3 since the death of Sen. Byrd....

by the by.... anyone catch Nancy Pelosis right wing conspiracy rant/melt down about AG Holder and voting suppresion ??? Its right up there with Hillary Clintons "vast right wing conspiracy" forcing her husband to serial cheat and Maxine Waters claiming Fast & Furious was GWB's fault. Blaming Bush.... still soooo hot right now......

Yeah AA that's the party I'm hooking my star to. That's it the honeymoons officially over. I'm returning the fruit flavored body oils.

Originally Posted by OSECS

So not spending more than current tax revenue can pay for is a bad idea ? I want to form my own gov't then.......

Do you provide for the national defense ? Do you print money and manage its volume ? Do you do 1 billionth of the things gov't does? When you do than you too can bitch about not being able to self finance, btw most people run much larger debts than the U.S. gov't. Current debt is 96%ish of GDP. theoretically all debt could be paid back in one year whereas most people are on a much larger time period for possible pay back.

Debt is not a bad thing as it has built pretty much everything around you that you see, if we all stuck to what we actually earn or are worth there wouldn't be nearly as much money in this world because that number is always significantly lower than what a person can lend or pay back over time. Debt is actually pretty cool and essential element of a modern economic system as it allows for tremendous amounts of capital to be created out of thin air.

Debt for a gov't is even more of bullshitty concept because they self fiance to the tune of 60-70%, its not real debt, its printing money but as long as people believe its a debt than its valid money printing. U.S. gov't debt is even cooler because 10-11 trillion is owned by either the gov't itself of by us citizens and corporations none of which are overturning the apple cart, the other 3 or so is our good friends the Chinese, SK and Japan who aren't doing jack shit in say the next 100 years.

So you got a private system that in order to maintain 3-4% growth or a functioning economic system has created large pools of money and because the underlying physical economy is based in finite goods those pools of money cannot be fully invested in real finite things as they cannot grow or create money at the kind of rate. So they invent things like CDS, those fuckers were amazing in that they created tremendous amounts of new money out of thin air, the large pools of money sitting out their had somewhere to go, something to invest in and the economy was good. Turns out there wasn't enough legit people so they started offering loans to shitheads and the whole thing fell apart but here is where gov't debt or the ability to run a debt is so important.

When the 08 crisis hits one people lost a shit ton of invented money but more importantly you lost a new vehicle for money creation, now we don't have a new way to create money that appears legitimate so although there is a royal fuck ton of money out there it has no where to go. There is volume but no velocity.

Gov't cannot fix the economy, not republicans, not democrats, not fucking Al Einstein and 15 trained bears riding motorcycles in a wheel of doom but they can prop it up and certainly nudge the fucker in a general direction but only because they have the ability to run a debt, large physical number debts. The economy shits the bed and the private sector actual money doing shit takes a nose dive, gov't who can run up extraordinary numerical debts because again they are the singular entity that controls and creates money can step in a recapitalize the system, the system corrects and eventually they receive more tax income. But at the time the private enterprise takes a dive it can be extremely difficult for them to loan money because again they must return money directly however for the gov't the opposite can be true.

Right now lending money as a private institution can be tough but people are fucking throwing money at the U.S. gov't 1.6% on a ten year note is essentially free money, money which can prop up the private system until it gets back on its feet. Like say the 5 trillion the gov't hooked Frannie and Freddie up with to prop up CDS markets and keep the entire system afloat, without debt and particularly without gov't debt no 5 trillion and no functioning markets.

Without debt and without a gov't like ours than can run up huge fucking debts to say make shit in WW2 which then creates the modern American system we do not live like this, we don't even live in the same fucking ball park as we do now. Do we need to be real fucking careful about the overall amount ? Sure but don't get it twisted gov't debt helped to buy your, mine and everyone's very existence.

Originally Posted by OSECS

Gov't needs to be business like in that they don't initiate plans that cannot be paid for thru incoming revenue in a timely or reasonable manner.

You mean like the Jefferson Purchase and the Purchase of Alaska (aka Seward's Folly). Or the massive spending for WW2 and the cold war?

Originally Posted by OSECS

So I vote democrat and get even more spending increases ? In their defense democratic spending proposals are probably down about 1/3 since the death of Sen. Byrd....

by the by.... anyone catch Nancy Pelosis right wing conspiracy rant/melt down about AG Holder and voting suppresion ??? Its right up there with Hillary Clintons "vast right wing conspiracy" forcing her husband to serial cheat and Maxine Waters claiming Fast & Furious was GWB's fault. Blaming Bush.... still soooo hot right now......

Yeah AA that's the party I'm hooking my star to. That's it the honeymoons officially over. I'm returning the fruit flavored body oils.

All I'm getting at is that the last time we had balanced the budget and had a plan to pay down the debt was with democrats in control (i.e. Clinton admin. after Newtered submarined the GOP). Spending on non safety-net expenditures is down under BO, the number of government employees is down under BO... If you're concerned with spending why put in office Mittens who's plan is to cut taxes and increase spending? It doesn't fit with what you've said here.

Originally Posted by Hugh Conway

You mean like the Jefferson Purchase and the Purchase of Alaska (aka Seward's Folly). Or the massive spending for WW2 and the cold war?

Read the post Hugh boy. Time of war yeah that's one of those things we're required to deal with, Mr. Jeffersons purchase of territory or the Alaska purchase, I did say a reasonable time. A zero sum balanced budget isn't gonna work for a nation as large as we are, but continued spending when revenues aren't covering the outlays is not prudent. Debt that can be kept in check or to a reasonable % of tax revenues isn't a problem, but mounting debt upon debt is causing problems around the world now isn't it ?? Greece, Spain, France, here....

Really you take statements to the absurd .


Amanda yer obviously a smart fucker but saying we shouldn't maintain some kind of reasonable debt limits or that reducing govt size ( in a controllable manner) is a bad thing ? Sorry just calling
bullshit on that. Having a smaller less debt burdened govt would surely be a better stop gap when the economy does hit the fan. It gives govt somewhere to go to create momentum (WPA as an example). And be able to afford it without furthering a bad situation.

I'm always willing to pay taxes for the great benefits we have but our govt is too big and we do need to magi debt better. Just how are those two things unreasonable ?


AA, the last time we had a semblance of balanced budgets, the Congress was controlled by
republicans not democrats. And before that balanced budget occurred we had a recession partly fueled by Clinton tax hikes that he , in a recorded speech admitted were raised too much. I'm betting Hillary bitch slapped that man something fierce after that little admission. That's a cardinal sin among democrats ...admitting taxes are too high.

Originally Posted by OSECS

AA, the last time we had a semblance of balanced budgets, the Congress was controlled by
republicans not democrats. And before that balanced budget occurred we had a recession partly fueled by Clinton tax hikes that he , in a recorded speech admitted were raised too much. I'm betting Hillary bitch slapped that man something fierce after that little admission. That's a cardinal sin among democrats ...admitting taxes are too high.

If that's how you want to back into your point of view. Just so we're clear, that's not Mittens plan...i.e. cut taxes, increase spending.

Originally Posted by doughboyshredder

In the context of qualifying a person to become President of the United States and leader of the free world? Yes. I have accomplished more in life than Obama has.

watching thousands of hours of porn, being an on again off again dope smoker and getting a lawyer to plead down all your speeding tickets doesn't count.

signed,
insufferable cunt.

Originally Posted by OSECS

AA, the last time we had a semblance of balanced budgets, the Congress was controlled by
republicans not democrats.

It was the steps taken by George H.W. Bush and Clinton earlier in the decade that led to balanced budgets.

The budget deal passed by George H.W. Bush in 1990 negotiated in good faith with bipartisan support and the 1993 budget deal passed under Clinton set an explicit goal of eliminating deficits and the economy—after stumbling initially—did OK as the decade progressed.

Those compromises in the early 90s led to balanced budgets through a combination of moderately higher taxes and decreased spending. Both Presidents were vilified by the right for doing so.

Whereas, later in the decade, it was the triangulation strategy at the time that downplayed the earlier budget resolutions and instead gave credit to both parties as part of a deal cut by Clinton & Gingrich to focus on deficit reduction rather than spending the surplus through tax cuts like Republicans wanted at the time.

Then, in the aughts, Gingrich worked as a consultant/lobbyist convincing Republicans to unravel the prior decades deals by promoting tax cuts and big government spending programs.

Originally Posted by OSECS

So I vote democrat and get even more spending increases ? In their defense democratic spending proposals are probably down about 1/3 since the death of Sen. Byrd....

by the by.... anyone catch Nancy Pelosis right wing conspiracy rant/melt down about AG Holder and voting suppresion ??? Its right up there with Hillary Clintons "vast right wing conspiracy" forcing her husband to serial cheat and Maxine Waters claiming Fast & Furious was GWB's fault. Blaming Bush.... still soooo hot right now......

Yeah AA that's the party I'm hooking my star to. That's it the honeymoons officially over. I'm returning the fruit flavored body oils.

it's almost amazing that you call anybody stupid.

Originally Posted by spook

it's almost amazing that you call anybody stupid.

What ? They kick you off the putt putt course for wacking the clown face ??

Ann Romney found herself briefly the subject of a lawsuit at whose core, according to court documents, was a heavily-medicated horse.

Romney and her trainers sold the horse, Super Hit, in 2008 for $125,000. And Super Hit had what a prominent veterinarian described as a staggering quantity of drugs in its system at the time of its examination before being sold, according to a toxicology report that's part of the lawsuit over the horse's condition.

The lawsuit, which was mentioned in a New York Times story last month, was filed in 2010 by a woman in San Diego who had bought Super Hit from Romney and her trainers, Jan and Amy Ebeling. The woman, Catherine Norris, sued Romney for fraud after the horse allegedly proved physically incapable of performing as a dressage horse.

The case with Romney was settled last September and she is no longer involved in the lawsuit.

According to a toxicology report provided to the horse's vet and testimony from a veterinarian, Dr. Steven Soule, included in the lawsuit, Super Hit had three sedative pain killers and one narcotic pain killer in her system when the horse was examined to check her condition pre-sale. The drugs were Butorphanol, Delomidine, Romifidine, and Xylatine.

Soule, who has been the United States Equestrian Team veterinarian since 1978, writes, “In my 38 years of practice, I have never come across a drug screen such as this where the horse has been administered so many different medications at the same time.” The horse had a defect in its foot, and Norris's lawyers alleged that the Ebelings had drugged the horse in order to hide its condition.

The New York Times has over the last few weeks turned a spotlight on the related topic of performance-enhancing drugs in horses. A Romney spokeswoman didn't respond to inquiries about the case or the broader policy.

Originally Posted by Bunion

Ann Romney found herself briefly the subject of a lawsuit at whose core, according to court documents, was a heavily-medicated horse.

Romney and her trainers sold the horse, Super Hit, in 2008 for $125,000. And Super Hit had what a prominent veterinarian described as a staggering quantity of drugs in its system at the time of its examination before being sold, according to a toxicology report that's part of the lawsuit over the
horse's condition.

The lawsuit, which was mentioned in a New York Times story last month, was filed in 2010 by a
woman in San Diego who had bought Super Hit from Romney and her trainers, Jan and Amy Ebeling. The woman, Catherine Norris, sued Romney for fraud after the horse allegedly proved
physically incapable of performing as a dressage horse.

The case with Romney was settled last September and she is no longer involved in the lawsuit.
According to a toxicology report provided to the horse's vet and testimony from a veterinarian, Dr.
Steven Soule, included in the lawsuit, Super Hit had three sedative pain killers and one narcotic pain killer in her system when the horse was examined to check her condition pre-sale. The drugs were
, Delomidine, Romifidine, and Xylatine.


Soule, who has been the United States Equestrian Team veterinarian since 1978, writes, “In my 38 years of practice, I have never come across a drug screen such as this where the horse has been administered so many different medications at the same time.” The horse had a defect in its foot,
and Norris's lawyers alleged that the Ebelings had drugged the horse in order to hide its condition.

The New York Times has over the last few weeks turned a spotlight on the related topic of
performance-enhancing drugs in horses. A Romney spokeswoman didn't respond to inquiries about the case or the broader policy.

Pretty fucked to do that to a horse. But I'm am shocked, shocked I say that the doping of horses occurs and that the NY Times has decided to cover this topic NOW as something that's just recently come to light in the horse world.

Unfortunately this kind of shit has been going on for decades. I remember going to our state fair as a kid and watching a draft horse sled pulling competition. Standing in the paddock area I over heard a horse owner telling her kids to "watch out for that horse he's doped up"... that horse looked like he'd mainlined an ounce of coke and speed in one nice cocktail.


But hey I'm sure it's just a coincidence that this urbane newspaper has decided now is to pull the scab off this ugly topic....

WHAT!!!! That's the last straw!!!

I'm voting for a Marxist, Communist who wants to burn the Constitution and make America a dictatorship because Romney's wife had some bad horse trainers!

Originally Posted by Downbound Train

WHAT!!!! That's the last straw!!!

I'm voting for a Marxist, Communist who wants to burn the Constitution and make America a dictatorship because Romney's wife had some bad horse trainers!

If you say so, I would like to know what tax benefits Mitt and Ann derived from this scandal.

But Mitt won't release any tax records.

Whaaaaaaaaaah!

Originally Posted by Bunion

If you say so, I would like to know what tax benefits Mitt and Ann derived from this scandal.

But Mitt won't release any tax records.

Whaaaaaaaaaah!

You first....

Originally Posted by Downbound Train

You first....

What are you afraid of?

Truth?

Originally Posted by Bunion

“In my 38 years of practice, I have never come across a drug screen such as this where the horse has been administered so many different medications at the same time.”

The horse's new owners have now re-named it Cindy McCain