archBoston Presidential Poll 2012

[Lurker]

Yes, any criticism and facts which challenge the narrative of the party are unfounded distractions. Avert your lying eyes and ears from reality as required. Works for most of the media.

Since I know the media won't bother provide anything resembling the rectal exam level coverage Mr. Brown received at times; I for one will enjoy posting CSPAN clips the next four years so that the kool-aid drinkers on this forum can have a realistic idea what a stuttering petty partisan woman they put into office.

 

[underground]

Yes, any criticism and facts which challenge the narrative of the party are unfounded distractions.

So what actual criticism and/or facts did Brown present? Made up controversies that feed into the usual right wing dog whistles don't count as either criticism or facts. You want to discuss affirmative action? That's fine, but calling Warren "Liawatha" is not discussing affirmative action, and it's not discussing fact and/or criticism. It's a bad joke only Michele McPhee thinks is funny. You want to discuss what tax rates are or aren't appropriate? I'd love to, but calling someone a hypocrite because they aren't currently following the policy they support even though that policy isn't currently law is just farcical and is absolutely not about what rates are appropriate. You want to talk about following facts and criticisms? I completely agree. That's what Warren did, it's what Brown didn't do, and that's why we have the senator elect that we do.

 

[TheRifleman]

So what actual criticism and/or facts did Brown present? Made up controversies that feed into the usual right wing dog whistles don't count as either criticism or facts. You want to discuss affirmative action? That's fine, but calling Warren "Liawatha" is not discussing affirmative action, and it's not discussing fact and/or criticism. It's a bad joke only Michele McPhee thinks is funny. You want to discuss what tax rates are or aren't appropriate? I'd love to, but calling someone a hypocrite because they aren't currently following the policy they support even though that policy isn't currently law is just farcical and is absolutely not about what rates are appropriate. You want to talk about following facts and criticisms? I completely agree. That's what Warren did, it's what Brown didn't do, and that's why we have the senator elect that we do.

Elizabeth Warren is the definition of what is wrong with the system. I never thought Brown was the brightest bulb as a Senator but I truly believe he is a good person. Elizabeth Warren is a product of the system.

Remember her ads? How Elizabeth Warren stood up to Wall Street. What the FUCK did she stand up for or what did she do to Wall Street? All I see is Wall Street continues to take Main Street to the cleaners. Its bullshit just like her Native American Claim. This women is opportunist that will do anything to be in power. Look at all the money that came from outside the state to support her. Even Mayor Menino was having doubts supporting her. That says it all.

There is a clip when Warren is on the John Stewart show claiming that without Govt spending there would be no Future. John Stewart was like NO FUTURE, NO FUTURE, NO FUTURE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! These people are sick.

These people believe in a One world Govt.

 

[bosdevelopment]

You're argument is presupposing that any of mud the Brown campaign tried to throw at Warren had any importance, let alone truth. She said she was Indian because her family said she was? Oh the horror! She supports Reagan era taxes on the wealthy while not currently paying that rate? That argument's just confusing, not to mention the fact that most Americans support those rate too.

No.. no. She IS wealthy. Incredibly wealthy. And she doesn't choose to pay the higher rate on her state tax.

Are you still confused?

 

[underground]

A) it's a nonsense argument
B) It's a nonsense argument that's not actually about government policy

You're only allowed to support policy if you're currently following that policy despite said policy not actually being law or else you're a hypocrite? Well.... maybe... I guess... uhhhhh.... but either way you aren't talking about any actual government policy. You want to win an election, then lets hear more ideas and less "controversies" that aren't even controversial. You don't support raising taxes on the wealthy? Fine. Make a strong argument and argue it. Raising some issue with Warren not paying at the rate she supports has nothing to do with why we should have a certain rate or not. And it doesn't make her look like a hypocrite; it makes her opponents look like they've run out of points.

"Liawatha's" taxes are as much of a stupid non-issue as Brown's male modeling.

 

[bosdevelopment]

"Liawatha's" taxes are as much of a stupid non-issue as Brown's male modeling.

Yeah.. see the difference is that Scott Brown's platform wasn't based on the expansion of male modeling and the demonizing of those who opposed it.

Please do yourself a favor and admit that you're placing your reason behind an ugly old woman.

 

[underground]

More non-issues. And when was she "demonizing" anyone? Or was that just a line from Michael Graham?

Nice line about the ugly old women though. Keep it as classy in 2014. Maybe throw the tomahawk chop back in for good measure.

 

[TheRifleman]

I'm placing my reason behind an ugly old woman who demonized people who opposed increasing taxes on the wealthy? I'd love to hear your elaboration. Possibly in meme form. What exactly did Warren say to "demonize" her opponents? Or was that just something you heard Michael Graham say once?

The government is in a 1.3 Trillion dollar deficit. Even if they raise taxes and on the rich and receive 90 Billion dollars extra each year how in the hell do you expect these assholes to stop spending us into oblivion. We have a GOVT program for everything you can think of.

Drug Addicts receive money & drugs to get off drugs govt program.
Welfare
Medicare
Social Security
Obama Healthcare
TSA
SEC (who accidentaly missed the old Madoff 50 Billion dollar skim)
FDA (Old Executives of Monsanto running this joint now)
EPA
FNM (100 Executives making over 200K a year) Govt bankrupt prgms
Freddie Mac (100 Executives making over 200K year) bankrupt

I could keep going.

3.2 United States Department of Agriculture
3.3 United States Department of Commerce
3.4 United States Department of Defense
3.5 United States Department of Education Great job
3.6 United States Department of Energy
3.7 United States Department of Health and Human Services
3.8 United States Department of Homeland Security
3.9 United States Department of Housing and Urban Development
3.10 United States Department of the Interior
3.11 United States Department of Justice
3.12 United States Department of Labor
3.13 United States Department of State
3.14 United States Department of Transportation
3.15 United States Department of the Treasury
3.16 United States Department of Veterans Affairs

Almost 60 Million Americans are on the Food stamp program
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_agencies

This is Republicans & Democrats fault

"WITHOUT GOVT SPENDING we would have NO FUTURE, NO FUTURE, NO NO FUTURE. Elizabeth Warren"

 

[bosdevelopment]

More non-issues. And when was she "demonizing" anyone?

Nice line about the ugly old women though. Keep it as classy in 2014. Maybe throw the tomahawk chop back in too for good measure.

HOW IS THIS A NON-ISSUE? IT'S THE BASIS OF WHAT GOT HER INTO OFFICE. Just because you say things doesn't make them so.

What planet are you from? You must be living underground, obviously.

How can you defend a politician that doesn't lead by example?

 

[underground]

How doesn't she lead by example? Why on earth would she have to currently be paying the tax rate she supports in order to support it? Because people have to currently be following policy they support even though the reason they're supporting it is because it isn't law yet? Is it because not currently paying the rate you support means you won't pay it if the rate goes up? Neither of these arguments makes any sense, and none of this has anything to do with leading by example in the least.

It also has nothing to do with an argument about what the rates actually should be. It's just a stupid distraction. The only thing it shows is how many logical hoops people are willing to jump through in some ill-conceived schadenfreude quest. It shows absolutely nothing about any sort of policy debate.

 

[bosdevelopment]

How doesn't she lead by example? Why on earth would she have to currently be paying the tax rate she supports in order to support it? Because people have to currently be following policy they support even though the reason they're supporting it is because it isn't law yet? Is it because not currently paying the rate you support means you won't pay it if the rate goes up? Neither of these arguments makes any sense, and none of this has anything to do with leading by example in the least.

It also has nothing to do with an argument about what the rates actually should be. It's just a stupid distraction.

This isnt even reductio ad absurdum, it's just a series of run on sentences.

 

[underground]

Good point. Now I see how evil Warren is.

 

[TheRifleman]

Massachusetts faces fiscal reckoning as communities struggle with retiree IOUs (BBJ DataCenter)

Boston Business Journal by Craig Douglas,
Date: Friday, December 14, 2012, 1:19pm EST

Cities and towns in Massachusetts have reached a tipping point, one in which the cost to provide basic services and benefits to public retirees has far outstripped the local revenue collected to fund those obligations.

Budget and policy experts agree that radical action is needed to stop the trend, which already is crowding out funding for core areas such as schools and public safety. The fiscal hole will only deepen as long as communities fail to implement sound budget practices and set aside the savings needed to plug billions of dollars in shortfalls forecasted for the years ahead.

Municipalities are largely the victims of their own mismanagement, having long failed to build appropriate reserves to fund the generous promises made to public retirees. But should this fiscal imbalance remain unaddressed, the implications for the state would be severe: By law, Massachusetts cities and towns are unable to file for bankruptcy protection, leaving the state on the hook should a community become insolvent.

“The state is creditor of last resort,” said Jim Stergios, executive director of the Pioneer Institute, a public-policy think tank in Boston. “And that could be a very expensive proposition.”

Nonetheless, state data and interviews with policy analysts and municipal leaders make clear that without significant reforms to the laws and practices underlying municipal government, officials who run many cities and towns will soon face a stark choice: cut core services in order to pay for retiree benefits, or sharply curtail those benefits altogether.

http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/news/2012/12/14/massachusetts-faces-fiscal-reckoning.html

Didn't see this on the radar

 

[Lurker]

This is why you budget for future expenses. Everyone here indicating that is lunacy to account for debt 40 years in the future seems to forget that eventually that debt comes due. Much like deferred maintenance in this state, politicians do not want to talk about it, let alone budget for it, until there is a crisis from the bill suddenly coming due.

Keeping in mind future expenses prevents overspending in the present in order to maintain a reserve necessary to deal with the future.

 

[KentXie]

I absolutely do not live of the buying and selling of others. KentXie does though. What he does is much closer to what Bain does than what I ever will do. Suing insurance companies is much more a liberal ideal, and nobler, than trading bonds.

More importantly

Ahahaha except that I'm not a trader. A fixed income department does not consist of only traders but if you had done a little research on how companies work, then you would have known that. How disappointing, a lawyer that doesn't do a little research before coming up with an argument. Maybe that's why your law firm is failing.

Another funny thing is that you're talking more about equities when you unsuccessfully tried to tie fixed income with Bain, not fixed income bonds which are mostly investing in pensions, corporates, and treasuries. Nice try.

 

[bosdevelopment]

Ahahaha except that I'm not a trader. A fixed income department does not consist of only traders but if you had done a little research on how companies work, then you would have known that. How disappointing, a lawyer that doesn't do a little research before coming up with an argument. Maybe that's why your law firm is failing.

Another funny thing is that you're talking more about equities when you unsuccessfully tried to tie fixed income with Bain, not fixed income bonds which are mostly investing in pensions, corporates, and treasuries. Nice try.

Educate me KentXie - show me how stupid I am and how exactly how your function doesn't service the buying and selling of bonds.

 

[KentXie]

Educate me KentXie - show me how stupid I am and how exactly how your function doesn't service the buying and selling of bonds.

Let's see here:

1) I'm not a bond trader meaning my job does not entail buying or selling bonds.

2) I'm not the Portfolio Manager meaning I am not the person who meets the potential clients.

3) I'm a Portfolio Specialist who creates internal presentations that talks about the performances (as well as other information such as tracking errors, duration, etc.) of funds and strategies, basically a status update of how well a strategy/fund is doing against a benchmark as well as economic commentaries, and factsheets, none of which involves buying or selling bonds.

4) If you have retained anything you learned from your Economics degree, then you would have known the difference between a Bond and Equity. Venture Capital Firms (i.e. Bain) earn money by buying ownership in start-up firms and flushing them with cash. Once the start-up reach a certain point of value (by using their ownership power to run up the value), they sell their stocks (or ownership) and profit from capital gain. If the start-up is overvalued, they are left out to dry (part of the controversy involving Bain).

5) Bonds, however, are different. They are basically loans, not ownerships. This means that the lenders have no say over the everyday operation of the borrower. Bond traders do not flip companies for capital gains. In fact, stock traders themselves don't do that.

6) Venture capitals do not buy and sell stocks like a trader (bond or stocks). Their goal is to profit by selling stocks they nurse from the beginning of a start-up, not by making quick profit by finding an undervalue stock and then selling it when the value is par.

7) The fixed income department I work at is specifically for clients who want to invest their in a money on fixed income assets. For example, large companies provide us money, which we put into strategies such as a treasury heavy strategy or a corporate heavy strategy, so that they are able to fund their employees' pensions with their fixed returns. We trade bonds to manage a client's portfolio. If for some reason, mortgage returns are lagging, we attempt to protect the client's portfolio by selling mortgage assets so that the portfolio has less exposure in that sector.

Here's some advice for you and your firm:

1) Learn the difference between equity and bonds.

2) Learn the difference between how a Venture Capital operates and how traders (both bonds and stocks) operates. They are in fact, completely different.

3) Put some of your extra earnings in safe assets such as fixed-income assets. The returns can help fund for your employee's pensions and other expenses. You can mix in your portfolio with some stocks if you feel like being more risky.

tl;dr My job involves providing status updates on bonds and does not involve buying or selling bonds. The relationship between a Venture Capital like Bain and the daily operation of a fixed income department is weak and shows a lack of knowledge in finance.

 

[bosdevelopment]

Let's see here:


tl;dr My job involves providing status updates on bonds and does not involve buying or selling bonds. The relationship between a Venture Capital like Bain and the daily operation of a fixed income department is weak and shows a lack of knowledge in finance.

*eye roll*

If you re-read my post I pronounced that what you do is more "Bain" than what I do as a general practice attorney. IT OBVIOUSLY IS.

You've indicated you work in fixed income, READ: BOND-TRADING, not private equity. Your "lesson" on the difference between private equity vs. bonds and venture capital [sic] vs. stock traders is actually partly wrong. I can forgive this much.

But if you don't mind me poking around into what you do, please indulge me: who do all of your bond "status updates" go to? And for what purpose are they used?

 

[KentXie]

*eye roll*

If you re-read my post I pronounced that what you do is more "Bain" than what I do as a general practice attorney. IT OBVIOUSLY IS.

You've indicated you work in fixed income, READ: BOND-TRADING, not private equity. Your "lesson" on the difference between private equity vs. bonds and venture capital [sic] vs. stock traders is actually partly wrong. I can forgive this much.

But if you don't mind me poking around into what you do, please indulge me: who do all of your bond "status updates" go to? And for what purpose are they used?

I agree that it is closer than your job but it's more obvious that you are attempting to tie fixed income with Bain as a way to shed a negative light on what I do. Rather than stoop to your level and call out the negative connotation that comes with any lawsuits or play along with your games, I rather better inform readers of the differences and establish the weak links in your "insults."

Yes I do work in Fixed Income and never have I said anything about me working in private equity. I've only pulled private equity because you seemed to be confused on the difference between equity as a whole and bonds themselves. And no, my lesson wasn't the difference between private equity vs. bonds and what venture capital firms do, it's the difference between stock-traders and bond-traders do compared to what venture capital firms do.

My presentations go to the Portfolio Managers who conduct passive investments (beta) and make changes in the portfolio at the request of clients. How much they use my presentation decision-making, I do not know because the bond trades they conduct is client directed. Again, it's a status update. It provides PMs up to date information, which in turn, will be used by PMs to update their clients on their portfolio. For those who conduct active investments (alpha) we send them presentations that are basically a review of all the accounts they manage. Again, how much they use my presentation in the decision-making, I do not know, since active investors are trying the beat the market, which means they rely more on news to make their decision, not past performances.

 

[bosdevelopment]

I agree that it is closer than your job but it's more obvious that you are attempting to tie fixed income with Bain as a way to shed a negative light on what I do. Rather than stoop to your level and call out the negative connotation that comes with any lawsuits or play along with your games, I rather better inform readers of the differences and establish the weak links in your "insults."

There was no "attempt" at anything, you volunteered what you do to the forum. Your political position is incongruent with your occupation. This is painfully obvious.

Let's be clear about one thing: you profit off of the buying and selling of securities, as does Bain (with equity interest). You produce nothing. You service no one. Yet, you demonize Mitt Romney and Bain and the rest of the 1%ers.