AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Mitt Romney is Going to Win
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Mitt Romney is Going to Win - Page 3

post #81 of 1062
9/10/12 at 2:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

No, it's not. I've already explained why but you clearly disagree.

No one thinks the USA is currently in recession which is defined by several quarters of negative growth.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth

Talk down your country all you like but you're in a better position than our conservative led economy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

*I find this long-term claim humorous given how obviously short-term these policies actually are. lol.gif

Obama policies have kept you out of recession, conservative policies have put the UK back in recession. Those are the facts. You seem to be placing onus on paying off the debt rather than sustaining your countries economic progress, which is exactly what the UK government have been doing. These conservatives policies have done nothing but stifle recovery which has negatively effected private business as well as public services.

If you think paying off the national debt is so important then I guess you must be a big fan of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Poo-pooing growth as 'anaemic' is all well and good but the alternative risks a return to recession and the risk even of a depression. The UK would kill for growth of 1.7% right now.
Reply
Reply
post #82 of 1062
9/10/12 at 2:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by womblingfree View Post

No one thinks the USA is currently in recession which is defined by several quarters of negative growth.

 

And I didn't say that we were (technically). I simply said that the growth is anemic and mostly due to government spending rather than private economic growth.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by womblingfree View Post

Talk down your country all you like but you're in a better position than our conservative led economy.

 

That's your opinion.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by womblingfree View Post

Obama policies have kept you out of recession, conservative policies have put the UK back in recession. Those are the facts.

 

Actually they are an opinionated interpretation of the facts.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by womblingfree View Post

You seem to be placing onus on paying off the debt rather than sustaining your countries economic progress, which is exactly what the UK government have been doing.

 

No. I'm addressing your claim that Obama has created growth to pay down the debt while in point of fact, having increased the debt by $4T and showing no signs of getting near budget balance to be able to pay down debt. And, further, your claim that spending in your country has been slashed but the deficit has not been reduced.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by womblingfree View Post

These conservatives policies have done nothing but stifle recovery which has negatively effected private business as well as public services.

 

I'm clear on your interpretation of the events, policies and facts.

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by womblingfree View Post

Poo-pooing growth as 'anaemic' is all well and good but the alternative risks a return to recession and the risk even of a depression.

 

Which may be happening anyway, hence my previous comment that at best all Obama's policies did was to kick the can down the road a couple of years while failing to solve the real underlying problems thus simply giving a temporary relief to this recession/depression.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #83 of 1062
9/10/12 at 2:35pm

"The Obama Paradox":

 

 

Quote:
But if Obama is reelected, how can it possibly be explained?
 
The answer is somewhere in these three plausible story lines:
 
The voters are re-electing Obama-Boehner, not Obama-Biden. The President Obama who’s leading in the polls isn’t the overreaching president of the first two years of his term, the Obama of the stimulus bill, the Dodd-Frank financial “reform” bill, and Obamacare. That President Obama disappeared, or at least was hidden away, on Election Day 2010, to be replaced for the most part by the President Obama who worked with the Republican Speaker of the House, John Boehner, to extend the Bush income tax cuts for two years, add a payroll tax cut, keep Guantanamo open, and ratify free trade agreements with Panama, Colombia, and South Korea. The stock market, as measured by the Standard and Poor’s 500 Index, is up about 20% since Election Day 2010. Health care costs and energy costs are leveling off.
 
By re-electing a Republican House, voters are rejecting President Obama’s argument that things would be better without the Republican obstructionists. They’re saying, instead, that they like the obstructed Obama better than the unobstructed one, and that the combination of a Republican House and President Obama might be something better than a failure.

 

This is my personal theory. While I don't see substantial differences between Romney and Obama from a governing or policy perspective, I think the "R" or "D" next to their names will cause enough infighting within the Rublicrats if Obama stays and the Rs control Congress it might be the best thing for the country. This author points out some of the benefits just from the mid-term elections (something similar happened with Clinton who we're told balanced the budget all by his lonesome. lol.gif)


Edited by MJ1970 - 9/10/12 at 2:40pm

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #84 of 1062
9/10/12 at 4:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

"The Obama Paradox":

 

 

 

This is my personal theory. While I don't see substantial differences between Romney and Obama from a governing or policy perspective, I think the "R" or "D" next to their names will cause enough infighting within the Rublicrats if Obama stays and the Rs control Congress it might be the best thing for the country. This author points out some of the benefits just from the mid-term elections (something similar happened with Clinton who we're told balanced the budget all by his lonesome. lol.gif)

"President Obama who worked with the Republican Speaker of the House, John Boehner, to extend the Bush income tax cuts for two years, add a payroll tax cut..." lol.gif

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #85 of 1062
9/10/12 at 4:40pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

How does 52% job approval sound? lol.gif

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx

 

 

Sounds like a post-convention bounce.  If it stays there, it obviously greatly improves Obama's chances.  

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Well good luck with all of that. Do I think the election will be close? Yes most definitely. Will Mr. Romney and Mr. Paul Ryan AKA ( death to medicare ) be in the Whitehouse next? I really don't think so. If I'm right SDW I'll try to explain again how these times we're in are different and historical stats don't apply as much as they usually would.

 

1.  It will either be close, or a Romney landslide.  

 

2.  Paul Ryan does not stand for "death to medicare."  Barack Obama most certainly does.  

 

3.  I'd love an explanation of why "history and stats" don't matter.  You've made that claim in the past.  My question is...when did these times start?  By the way, it seems to me that you think "history and stats" matter when they tend to support your position.  

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

It's hard to know why he looks so despondent. Certainly he's failed to invigorate anyone, even his own party are luke warm about him at best. I guess that could cause a deep sense of rejection, enough to bring on a bout of depression. 

 

Here's some more pics, all pointing to the same conclusions-

 

 

 

Let's apply your reasoning with the above.  I'd say that based on the above, Obama doesn't even know his name anymore.  :)  

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by womblingfree View Post


Hello, this is England calling where we have had a conservative government which has essentially been delivering the cuts that Romney and Ryan propose for the past two and a half years. We have not only seen zero growth but negative growth, our state sector has been slashed and the private sector has no money to take up the slack. Private companies that have ended up running public services are costing the tax-payer more than when they were run by local government whilst providing a poorer service. Our newly outsourced National Health Service has seen waiting times increase and public satisfaction plummet. And we are back in recession.
In contrast Obama has enacted policies to stimulate the economy, you are out of recession and are seeing modest growth. The conservative party are not interested in economic recovery for the masses.

 

Hello, this is reality calling.   The UK has high taxes and regulation.  In that environment, simply cutting spending doesn't work.  Europe is doing the opposite of what we're doing...they are finally starting to pursue pro-growth policies (with the exception of France).   The rest of your rant is just vague complaining with no support or basis in reality.  Tax reform and cutting back government is the way to go.  It always has been, and always will be.    

To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #86 of 1062
9/10/12 at 4:41pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by icfireball View Post

1. This is anecdotal. The sample size is 16. Only 16 presidents have run for re-election. 10 have been re-elected.

2. Today on gallup his approval rating is 50%. Also, what does "spells trouble" mean. This is vague.

3. This study is interesting, although it appears to be purely economic. There are other factors at play (although this economic certainly is a big one).

 

 

1.  You obviously don't understand what anecdotal means. 

 

2.  One poll after the convention.  We'll see how the rest of the fall goes.  

 

3.  The study has never been wrong.  So yeah, I'd say it's "interesting."  

To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #87 of 1062
9/10/12 at 5:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

"President Obama who worked with the Republican Speaker of the House, John Boehner, to extend the Bush income tax cuts for two years, add a payroll tax cut..." lol.gif

 

Right. I recall that. The President who had just had his ass handed to him in November and didn't have much of a choice. He finally came down off his fucking high-horse of "I'm the one who won" and "I'm the President" arrogance. Yeah, that guy.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #88 of 1062
9/10/12 at 6:25pm
Thread Starter 

Let's discuss the new Obama poll that has Hands and company frothing at the mouth.  Dick Morris recently explained why many of the polls are wrong.  First, the 50% approval rating is very likely temporary.  His approval rating has been in the forties for months now.  Nothing has changed other than the post-convention bump.  It's not as if there is any hard data or events that have caused the sudden increase.  Gallup also oversampled Democrats (there's a surprise).  

 

The likely voter polling is also very suspect, according to Morris.  Why?  Turnout.  Obama is winning in groups that don't vote.  Even the most recent Rasmussen poll (which leans more right, usually) weights blacks at 13% of the vote.  The only time it's been that high is in 2008.  It was 11% going back in 2004, 2006 and 2010.  It will be 11% again.  The poll also understated elderly turnout, a group which is strongly against Obama.  Put simply, turnout is a prediction model.  Using the correct numbers, Morris argues the race is tied even after the post-convention bump for Obama.  He further argues that an incumbent who cannot break 50% in the polls is in serious trouble.  Obama can't do that even in the Democrat-heavy polls, nor the correctly sampled polls which are using incorrect turnout models.   

 

I urge everyone who is crowing about the recent polls to consider the above.  Whatever you think of Morris, he's got credibility.  Morris almost singlehandedly got Clinton reelected after the 1994 election debacle.  His predictions are spot on, even if he does come off as sort of a fat weasel.  lol.gif

 

Oh, and I'd also urge everyone to really look at the points I made in the OP.  Taken together, it's hard to construct an argument that Obama is likely to be reelected.  

To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #89 of 1062
9/10/12 at 6:54pm

SDW, leave personal attacks out of this. You don't need to prove your point by telling people what they "obviously" don't understand.

 

Anecdotal: (adjective) not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research.

 

1. To say that someone will not be re-elected because no one has ever been re-elected with unemployment above 7.3% is anecdotal because it's based on a small collection of examples (n=16) rather than a rigorous and statistically-valid method.

 

2. I completely agree that his approval rating today is not particularly relevant. But you can't give it both ways. You can't say that your evidence has broad and sweeping implications while mine is just an isolated anomaly. I was just offering a counter example to your point.

 

3. This is the same problem as number 1. You're talking about a sample size of 8 elections, which is hardly rigorous. Maybe if it had correctly predicted 100 times, or better yet, 1000 times, I'd be inclined to believe it.

Reply
Reply
post #90 of 1062
9/11/12 at 3:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

I know Mormons don't drink, but he looks seriously hungover in this shot.

Perhaps he needs a drink, he certainly looks lost at best.

 

Here's some more telling photos-

 

d1ba7a277297a0191a0f6a706700339f.jpgtumblr_m8lq21Tb3h1qh2axio1_500.pngRomneyRNC.pngarticle-2179309-143AC67E000005DC-980_634x408.jpg

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #91 of 1062
9/11/12 at 4:17am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by icfireball View Post

SDW, leave personal attacks out of this. You don't need to prove your point by telling people what they "obviously" don't understand.

 

Anecdotal: (adjective) not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research.

 

1. To say that someone will not be re-elected because no one has ever been re-elected with unemployment above 7.3% is anecdotal because it's based on a small collection of examples (n=16) rather than a rigorous and statistically-valid method.

 

2. I completely agree that his approval rating today is not particularly relevant. But you can't give it both ways. You can't say that your evidence has broad and sweeping implications while mine is just an isolated anomaly. I was just offering a counter example to your point.

 

3. This is the same problem as number 1. You're talking about a sample size of 8 elections, which is hardly rigorous. Maybe if it had correctly predicted 100 times, or better yet, 1000 times, I'd be inclined to believe it.

 

I wasn't being personal.  I was simply saying it was evident that you don't understand what "anecdotal" means.   

 

1.  A small collection?  It goes back 1980.   The poll is 8-0, and you're telling me it doesn't mean anything?  

 

2.  "My" evidence is multi-faceted.  You linked to a single poll, one that has been 5-7 points lower for months.   Apparently your statistical prowess doesn't consider data point outliers.  

 

3.  You'd be hard pressed to find something more impressive in politics than a poll that has correctly predicted the outcome of an election for 30 years.  


Edited by SDW2001 - 9/11/12 at 8:52am
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #92 of 1062
9/11/12 at 4:20am

You are right Romney will win in this election coming up with this dismal jobs report on Friday.
 

Reply
Reply
post #93 of 1062
9/11/12 at 6:42am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

Right. I recall that. The President who had just had his ass handed to him in November and didn't have much of a choice. He finally came down off his fucking high-horse of "I'm the one who won" and "I'm the President" arrogance. Yeah, that guy.

First off, here's a picture of what Obama would make of your quote and your follow on-

 

 

Now, Obama campaigned in 2008 to keep the Bush tax cuts for 97% of the population and Obama had the Republicans up in arms that he'd lower payroll tax. Your quote is an uniformed joke.

"As part of a bipartisan spending deal last December, Congress approved Obama's request to reduce the workers' share to 4.2 percent for one year; employers' rate did not change. Obama wants Congress to extend the reduction for an additional year. If not, the rate will return to 6.2 percent on Jan. 1.

Obama cited the payroll tax in his weekend radio and Internet address Saturday, when he urged Congress to work together on measures that help the economy and create jobs. "There are things we can do right now that will mean more customers for businesses and more jobs across the country. We can cut payroll taxes again, so families have an extra $1,000 to spend," he said.

Social Security payroll taxes apply only to the first $106,800 of a worker's wages. Therefore, $2,136 is the biggest benefit anyone can gain from the one-year reduction.

The great majority of Americans make less than $106,800 a year. Millions of workers pay more in payroll taxes than in federal income taxes.

The 12-month tax reduction will cost the government about $120 billion this year, and a similar amount next year if it's renewed.

That worries Rep. David Camp, R-Mich., chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, and a member of the House-Senate supercommittee tasked with finding new deficit cuts. Tax reductions, "no matter how well-intended," will push the deficit higher, making the panel's task that much harder, Camp's office said."

~ http://news.yahoo.com/gop-may-ok-tax-increase-obama-hopes-block-124016578.html

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #94 of 1062
9/11/12 at 6:56am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

First off, here's a picture of what Obama would make of your quote and your follow on-

 

 

Of course he would.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Now, Obama campaigned in 2008 to keep the Bush tax cuts for 97% of the population and Obama had the Republicans up in arms that he'd lower payroll tax. Your quote is an uniformed joke.

"As part of a bipartisan spending deal last December, Congress approved Obama's request to reduce the workers' share to 4.2 percent for one year; employers' rate did not change. Obama wants Congress to extend the reduction for an additional year. If not, the rate will return to 6.2 percent on Jan. 1.

Obama cited the payroll tax in his weekend radio and Internet address Saturday, when he urged Congress to work together on measures that help the economy and create jobs. "There are things we can do right now that will mean more customers for businesses and more jobs across the country. We can cut payroll taxes again, so families have an extra $1,000 to spend," he said.

Social Security payroll taxes apply only to the first $106,800 of a worker's wages. Therefore, $2,136 is the biggest benefit anyone can gain from the one-year reduction.

The great majority of Americans make less than $106,800 a year. Millions of workers pay more in payroll taxes than in federal income taxes.

The 12-month tax reduction will cost the government about $120 billion this year, and a similar amount next year if it's renewed.

That worries Rep. David Camp, R-Mich., chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, and a member of the House-Senate supercommittee tasked with finding new deficit cuts. Tax reductions, "no matter how well-intended," will push the deficit higher, making the panel's task that much harder, Camp's office said."

~ http://news.yahoo.com/gop-may-ok-tax-increase-obama-hopes-block-124016578.html

 

Oh I see how it is. Typical. I talk about an apple and you refute what I've said by insisting we talk about that chair over there.

 

Clever. How very Obama of you.

 

You were touting how Obama WORKED WITH REPUBLICANS. I pointed out that he didn't really do that until he'd had his ass handed to him in the mid-terms and was basically forced to after 2 years of arrogant posturing about he was the one that won and he was the president and that the Republicans basically needed to sit down, shut up, remember their place and go along with his agenda without resistance.

 

I realize that Obama wanted to extend the Bush-era tax cuts (which supposedly only for the rich) to the non-rich who supposedly didn't get these tax cuts. Or something. Hard to keep track of Democrat talking points and hold all their contradictions in my mind at the same time. I realize he temporarily cut payroll taxes.

 

Now, I ask again: How much?


Edited by MJ1970 - 9/11/12 at 7:06am

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #95 of 1062
9/11/12 at 8:06am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Actually they are an opinionated interpretation of the facts.

They're published and readily available government and independent statisics from around the world. What is opinionated is ignoring the facts and spinning the UK's doule-dip recession as somehow a better position than the USA's continued growth. Growth caused by govrnment spending is still growth. And growth is good for the country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

No. I'm addressing your claim that Obama has created growth to pay down the debt while in point of fact, having increased the debt by $4T and showing no signs of getting near budget balance to be able to pay down debt. And, further, your claim that spending in your country has been slashed but the deficit has not been

Listen, we had exactly the same arguments at our last election. 'We need to pay off the deficit quickly and make swinging cut. This will boost the private sector who will fill the gaps and create wealth' vs. 'we need to pay off the deficit slightly more slowly and make fewer cuts and stimulate the economy to nurture recovery'.

We ended up with the first one and it has been a disaster. We have had zero recovery, are back in recession and the private sector has not been ale to expand because of it. At your last election you got the second option and your recovery has been progressing. Argue till your blue in the face but that's reality. Look at your unemployment statistics, 10% when Bush left office and now around 8.3%, same story with economic growth, slow and steady recovery. You are coming out of the biggest economic disaster in living memory. You don't just go from deep recession and massive negative growth, which you had under Bush, to full recovery in a few years. Whilst the USA has progressed the UK is still at first base, in fact we've not even arrived on the pitch and this is after our government trying exactly the sort of measures Romney/Ryan are proposing.

Enjoy your anaemic recovery, because if Romney wins you can kiss it goodbye.
Reply
Reply
post #96 of 1062
9/11/12 at 8:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by womblingfree View Post

They're published and readily available government and independent statisics from around the world.

 

And what is opinionated is your interpretation of these facts and the events surrounding them.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by womblingfree View Post

What is opinionated is ignoring the facts and spinning the UK's doule-dip recession as somehow a better position than the USA's continued growth.

 

Stop with the straw man. I have not claimed that. But whatever.

 

You have claimed:

 

a) Obama's policies have created the growth to pay down the debt while actually piling up MORE debt and deficits out as far as the eye can see, and...

b) The UK has slashed spending while not actually reducing its fiscal deficits.

 

You've yet to substantiate these claims and instead are hanging your hat on the artificial (yet still anemic) high created by government money printing and borrowing in the US and claiming this is some great achievement.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by womblingfree View Post

Growth caused by govrnment spending is still growth. And growth is good for the country.

 

Not that kind of growth. At least not in my opinion (or in the experience and a reasonable interpretation of history). But your opinion is different. I understand.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by womblingfree View Post

Listen, we had exactly the same arguments at our last election.

 

We did? I don't ever recall discussing anything with you until now.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by womblingfree View Post

At your last election you got the second option and your recovery has been progressing. Argue till your blue in the face but that's reality. Look at your unemployment statistics, 10% when Bush left office and now around 8.3%, same story with economic growth, slow and steady recovery.

 

Oh now I get it. You don't understand the actual history. You are either ignorant of the facts you just posted or lying. Which is it?

 

Unemployment when Bush left office was about 7.5%. It went up to 10% (over actually) under Obama:

 

 

 

To help you understand this chart:

 

- The dark blue line is what Obama said would happen if we followed his Keynesian stimulus policy

- The light blue line is what Obama said would happen if we didn't do anything

- The red dots are what actually happened with Obama's Keynesian stimulus policy

 

You'll notice that unemployment is still currently higher than Obama said it would be with his stimulus.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by womblingfree View Post

Enjoy your anaemic recovery, because if Romney wins you can kiss it goodbye.

 

This "recovery" is likely going away anyway because Obama's policies didn't actually fix it, they merely delayed it.


Edited by MJ1970 - 9/11/12 at 8:38am

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #97 of 1062
9/11/12 at 9:02am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by womblingfree View Post


They're published and readily available government and independent statisics from around the world. What is opinionated is ignoring the facts and spinning the UK's doule-dip recession as somehow a better position than the USA's continued growth. Growth caused by govrnment spending is still growth. And growth is good for the country.
Listen, we had exactly the same arguments at our last election. 'We need to pay off the deficit quickly and make swinging cut. This will boost the private sector who will fill the gaps and create wealth' vs. 'we need to pay off the deficit slightly more slowly and make fewer cuts and stimulate the economy to nurture recovery'.
We ended up with the first one and it has been a disaster. We have had zero recovery, are back in recession and the private sector has not been ale to expand because of it. At your last election you got the second option and your recovery has been progressing. Argue till your blue in the face but that's reality. Look at your unemployment statistics, 10% when Bush left office and now around 8.3%, same story with economic growth, slow and steady recovery. You are coming out of the biggest economic disaster in living memory. You don't just go from deep recession and massive negative growth, which you had under Bush, to full recovery in a few years. Whilst the USA has progressed the UK is still at first base, in fact we've not even arrived on the pitch and this is after our government trying exactly the sort of measures Romney/Ryan are proposing.
Enjoy your anaemic recovery, because if Romney wins you can kiss it goodbye.

 

Your economy is not growing for exactly the opposite of the reasons you suggest.  The reason is that despite any cuts you've made, you still have a tax and regulatory environment that punishes success and rewards failure.  You have social programs that make the U.S. look positively Randian.   You spend too much and tax too much.  It's not hard to understand.  

 

As for recovering with slow growth:  The statement that you don't go from deep recession to solid recovery is false.  The recession in 1991 was arguably worse.  The recession in 1979-80 was definitely worse.  Both were followed be very strong growth.  In fact, this is the weakest recovery we've seen since World War II.   Obama did not create the recession, but his policy failures have caused the stagnation we see today.  Granted, some of his actions may have staved off a total depression.  But we could have done much better had we really engaged in stimulative tax cuts and spending reforms.  Had that 800 billion dollar stimulus been directed a tax relief, you'd see a very different economy and different revenue picture.  We know this because it's been proven three times in recent history.  Why liberals refuse to understand this is beyond me.  

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

First off, here's a picture of what Obama would make of your quote and your follow on-

 

 

Now, Obama campaigned in 2008 to keep the Bush tax cuts for 97% of the population and Obama had the Republicans up in arms that he'd lower payroll tax. Your quote is an uniformed joke.

"As part of a bipartisan spending deal last December, Congress approved Obama's request to reduce the workers' share to 4.2 percent for one year; employers' rate did not change. Obama wants Congress to extend the reduction for an additional year. If not, the rate will return to 6.2 percent on Jan. 1.

Obama cited the payroll tax in his weekend radio and Internet address Saturday, when he urged Congress to work together on measures that help the economy and create jobs. "There are things we can do right now that will mean more customers for businesses and more jobs across the country. We can cut payroll taxes again, so families have an extra $1,000 to spend," he said.

Social Security payroll taxes apply only to the first $106,800 of a worker's wages. Therefore, $2,136 is the biggest benefit anyone can gain from the one-year reduction.

The great majority of Americans make less than $106,800 a year. Millions of workers pay more in payroll taxes than in federal income taxes.

The 12-month tax reduction will cost the government about $120 billion this year, and a similar amount next year if it's renewed.

That worries Rep. David Camp, R-Mich., chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, and a member of the House-Senate supercommittee tasked with finding new deficit cuts. Tax reductions, "no matter how well-intended," will push the deficit higher, making the panel's task that much harder, Camp's office said."

~ http://news.yahoo.com/gop-may-ok-tax-increase-obama-hopes-block-124016578.html

 

 

I think that Camp was referring to the payroll tax, not cuts in general.  Either way, I oppose reducing the payroll tax.  It's not a large enough amount (nor comprehensive enough) to be stimulative.  It also funds a specific program, one that is on its way to bankruptcy if we don't fix it.   Cutting marginal rates would be both much safer and more effective.  

To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #98 of 1062
9/11/12 at 9:04am
Thread Starter 

By the way, the latest CNN poll severely oversampled Dems and undersampled GOP/independents.  Romney is actually winning by 8 points.   Just another example of egregious media bias.  Add that to reputable polls overestimating minority turnout (and underestimating senior turnout) and it's clear that Obama is in huge trouble.  

 

http://www.examiner.com/article/mitt-romney-would-lead-eight-unskewed-data-from-newest-cnn-orc-poll

 

 

 

Edit:  Oh look, another poll that oversampled democrats.   This one shows Obama 49 to Romney 48.  That means Romney is well over 50%.  

To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #99 of 1062
9/11/12 at 10:36am

Oh my God, the fucking irony and hypocrisy:
 

From Penny Lee, Democratic strategist: Mitt Romney Can't Learn Foreign Policy on the Job:

 

 

Quote:
So when asked if we are better off than four years ago, I think the American people will take Joe Biden's bumper sticker, "Osama is dead and GM is alive," over Mitt Romney's silence and inexperience.

 

This is rich.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #100 of 1062
9/11/12 at 12:31pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Oh my God, the fucking irony and hypocrisy:
 

From Penny Lee, Democratic strategist: Mitt Romney Can't Learn Foreign Policy on the Job:

 

 

 

This is rich.

 

This, on a day where the American flag was torn down at our embassy in Egypt?  Yeah, Obama really has a handle on foreign policy.  

To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #101 of 1062
9/11/12 at 1:22pm

And then..."BREAKING NEWS" on CNN:

 

Quote:

 

lol.gif

 

Since when is a poll "breaking news?" Could these guys be any more obvious? Does the average American actually fall for this?

 

And this is above the breaking news that the US embassy in Egypt was attacked. Wow.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #102 of 1062
9/11/12 at 2:36pm

Does that mean 51% of the American public approve of the embassy attack?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #103 of 1062
9/11/12 at 2:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Does that mean 51% of the American public approve of the embassy attack?

Because Obama authorized the attack? Otherwise, I'm not sure what the connection is.

I'm sure that poll was conducted beforehand. I don't think polls are instantaneous, it takes time to collect responses, often done over a period of a few days, time to process the data and collect it into a report. It probably will take a few days for the impact of this news on an opinion poll to be reported.
Reply
Reply
post #104 of 1062
9/11/12 at 3:02pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


Because Obama authorized the attack? Otherwise, I'm not sure what the connection is.
I'm sure that poll was conducted beforehand. I don't think polls are instantaneous, it takes time to collect responses, often done over a period of a few days, time to process the data and collect it into a report. It probably will take a few days for the impact of this news on an opinion poll to be reported.

 

Again, the many of the polls are bogus because of the oversampling of Dems and undersampling of independents and Republicans.  The turnout models are also wrong.  The former is deliberate.  

To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #105 of 1062
9/11/12 at 6:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Does that mean 51% of the American public approve of the embassy attack?

 

What were Bush's poll numbers on 9/11?  Does that mean that number of Americans approved of that attack?  

You can't stop it.
Reply
You can't stop it.
Reply
post #106 of 1062
9/11/12 at 6:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

Again, the many of the polls are bogus because of the oversampling of Dems and undersampling of independents and Republicans.  The turnout models are also wrong.  The former is deliberate.  

 

Do you have any evidence of that?

You can't stop it.
Reply
You can't stop it.
Reply
post #107 of 1062
9/11/12 at 6:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

The UK has high taxes and regulation.  

We have one if the most deregulated work-forces in Europe

We pay no income tax on the first $13000, then 10% up to just over $55,000, whereas you pay 10% on all earnings up to $8700 and 15% up to $35,350. So our tax is actually less than yours on all earnings up to $55,000. We then have a flat rate of 32.5% whereas yours in banded from 25% to 33%, but you will be paying the higher rates on a lower income than the UK. At the very top end our taxes are higher, over $240,000, at 42.5%. But by that point you can afford a decent accountant to get it back down again. So in relation to UK vs USA we actually pay less income tax up to $55,000.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

In that environment, simply cutting spending doesn't work

Damn right it doesn't work.
Reply
Reply
post #108 of 1062
9/11/12 at 6:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

you still have a tax and regulatory environment that punishes success and rewards failure.  

As I said, we have one of the most, if not the most, deregulated workforces in Europe. Possibly even more-so than in many US States. We also pay less tax at the lower rate and have plenty of billionaires paying close to zero tax with accounts in the Cayman Islands and Belize. If you earn over $240,000 a year you are still paying way less tax than you were during the other recessions you mentioned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

You have social programs that make the U.S. look positively Randian.   You spend too much and tax too much.  It's not hard to understand.  

The UK pays less as a proportion of GDP on health care than the USA, despite it being universal. I'm not sure what the other social programs you're referring to are, but that's by far the biggest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

As for recovering with slow growth:  The statement that you don't go from deep recession to solid recovery is false.

That isn't what I said, I said it doesn't happen in a short period of time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

The recession in 1991 was arguably worse.  The recession in 1979-80 was definitely worse. Both were followed be very strong growth.

I would strongly disagree with that. What we saw then were historical booms and busts, whereas the recent debt crisis was the mother of all busts. And yes in the 70's and 90's there was strong growth after the busts, after about eight years. But it was the enormity of this growth that led us to the last crash. houses went up in value from £30,000 to £300,000 in a decade, people were borrowing 20 times their income to buy property off the back of that huge boom. A recipe for disaster, not recovery.



Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

  Obama did not create the recession, but his policy failures have caused the stagnation we see today.  Granted, some of his actions may have staved off a total depression.

They staved off a double dip recession, let alone a depression. And modest growth is not stagnation.
Reply
Reply
post #109 of 1062
9/11/12 at 6:52pm
dp
Reply
Reply
post #110 of 1062
9/11/12 at 7:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


Because Obama authorized the attack? Otherwise, I'm not sure what the connection is.
I'm sure that poll was conducted beforehand. I don't think polls are instantaneous, it takes time to collect responses, often done over a period of a few days, time to process the data and collect it into a report. It probably will take a few days for the impact of this news on an opinion poll to be reported.

 

Again, the many of the polls are bogus because of the oversampling of Dems and undersampling of independents and Republicans.  The turnout models are also wrong.  The former is deliberate.  

 

Is there a good explanation for why the pollsters would skew their samples? Presumably it does nothing for their credibility come election time if they turn out to have been way off. Are they paid to do distort, perhaps? But by whom - who gains? For example, if they oversample Democratic voters, and end up showing a higher support level for Obama than really exists, does that benefit the Democrats, and if so, why? Is a political demographic more motivated to vote if it believes its party is ahead? I would have guessed the opposite, so I'm puzzled by what you think is happening here. Any studies or historical analyses of this phenomenon?

Reply
Reply
post #111 of 1062
9/11/12 at 11:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Is there a good explanation for why the pollsters would skew their samples?

 

Sure it is called bias and trying to drive and spin the news rather than report it.

Quote:
Presumably it does nothing for their credibility come election time if they turn out to have been way off.

 

Viewership and polls regarding the credibility of the liberal media complex are all in the toilet. Many of the organizations are also money losers or broke like the NY Times and Newsweek as clear examples

Quote:
Are they paid to do distort, perhaps? But by whom - who gains?

 

They aren't paid to distort. They do it because they have a blind spot to their own actions due to their own biases. Were their baseball players who could have broken the color barrier before Jackie Robinson or that could have helped certain baseball teams have a better record. Sure but bias prevented recognizing this. It even prevents recognizing the point even when harming one's financial self interest.

Quote:
For example, if they oversample Democratic voters, and end up showing a higher support level for Obama than really exists, does that benefit the Democrats, and if so, why?

 

It benefits the Democrats in a number of ways. First people will contribute money to help in a close race. They won't do so if it is a blow out. If Obama were shown down 8 points for example, there isn't a fundraising letter or appeal that would work for him. People wouldn't throw good money after a bad cause. If they can keep it close, the money keeps flowing it, the campaign can go through the motions and there can be a hope that some unforeseen event can alter the outcome. They can hope the star quarterback blows out his knee.

Quote:
Is a political demographic more motivated to vote if it believes its party is ahead? I would have guessed the opposite, so I'm puzzled by what you think is happening here. Any studies or historical analyses of this phenomenon?

 

There have been several posted here. Most of the poll aggregators from the last few elections have conveniently been purchased by liberal media interests. Polling Report was purchased by Huffington Post and 538.com was taken over by the NY Times. There have been studies and I have linked to them here in the past. It's 11 pm where I'm at though and I'm going to bed.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #112 of 1062
9/11/12 at 11:18pm

Ouch.

 

 

Mittens pretty much proved he is unfit for public office with his response to the embassy situations.  

 

In his haste to blast Obama, he totally blew the facts and timeline.  Again.  But then, his campaign won't be dictated by fact-checkers, so I guess facts are out, too.  As long as the phrasing reaches his crowd, who wouldn't be bothered to learn the actual truth.


Edited by Bergermeister - 9/12/12 at 1:49am

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #113 of 1062
9/12/12 at 2:50am
LOL. No way mate. The real winner is the Corporations that Own America. But the puppet elected will be Obama.
Reply
Reply
post #114 of 1062
9/12/12 at 4:23am

Do you know that Spain is tallying up the results of the election when the voting is over. What is up with this?
 

Reply
Reply
post #115 of 1062
9/12/12 at 4:24am

What corporations  are you referring to that owns America?

Reply
Reply
post #116 of 1062
9/12/12 at 5:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

What corporations  are you referring to that owns America?

I don't know about America itself, but special interest groups do buy their legislation, in a manner of speaking. For example, the text for a copyright law was written by a copyright lobby group and a legislator submitted verbatim for legislation. This isn't a partisan problem though, members of both parties give such legislative gifts to lobbies. Copyright lengths and infringement penalties are so ludicrous as a result, you get more prison time for some infringements than you do for murder. SOPA sold out our judicial process rights for the convenience of the copyright industry, mostly music and movies, and that had strong bipartisan support until there was a major backlash against it.

The MPAA wrote or had a strong hand in a document used by the CA attorney general: http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/news/2004/03/62665 This happened in California, but the document was apparently distributed to other states too.

I'm sure I remember it happening in the Federal system, but I can't find it at the moment.
Reply
Reply
post #117 of 1062
9/12/12 at 6:22am
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Does that mean 51% of the American public approve of the embassy attack?

Because Obama authorized the attack? Otherwise, I'm not sure what the connection is.

I'm sure that poll was conducted beforehand. I don't think polls are instantaneous, it takes time to collect responses, often done over a period of a few days, time to process the data and collect it into a report. It probably will take a few days for the impact of this news on an opinion poll to be reported.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by signal View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Does that mean 51% of the American public approve of the embassy attack?

 

What were Bush's poll numbers on 9/11?  Does that mean that number of Americans approved of that attack?  

 

It was called sarcasm guys.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

What corporations  are you referring to that owns America?

I don't know about America itself, but special interest groups do buy their legislation, in a manner of speaking. For example, the text for a copyright law was written by a copyright lobby group and a legislator submitted verbatim for legislation. This isn't a partisan problem though, members of both parties give such legislative gifts to lobbies. Copyright lengths and infringement penalties are so ludicrous as a result, you get more prison time for some infringements than you do for murder. SOPA sold out our judicial process rights for the convenience of the copyright industry, mostly music and movies, and that had strong bipartisan support until there was a major backlash against it.

The MPAA wrote or had a strong hand in a document used by the CA attorney general: http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/news/2004/03/62665 This happened in California, but the document was apparently distributed to other states too.

I'm sure I remember it happening in the Federal system, but I can't find it at the moment.

 

True and thus the only way to fix it is to dramatically shrink the large part of money they all go after. If a few million in lobbying dollars can net one billions in crony-capitalism dollars, nothing will make that go away except to have the government stop allocating those billions of dollars.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #118 of 1062
9/12/12 at 7:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
For example, if they oversample Democratic voters, and end up showing a higher support level for Obama than really exists, does that benefit the Democrats, and if so, why?

 

It benefits the Democrats in a number of ways. First people will contribute money to help in a close race. They won't do so if it is a blow out. If Obama were shown down 8 points for example, there isn't a fundraising letter or appeal that would work for him. People wouldn't throw good money after a bad cause. If they can keep it close, the money keeps flowing it, the campaign can go through the motions and there can be a hope that some unforeseen event can alter the outcome. They can hope the star quarterback blows out his knee.

 

 

Your other points don't make much sense to me since polling is a business, not a hobby, but this one seems very reasonable as a general principle. The only problem is that the race is obviously at least close (your 8 point Romney lead claims are not credible) so it's not clear that this scenario should have been triggered in this situation.

Reply
Reply
post #119 of 1062
9/12/12 at 7:44am
While the race is too close to call you can make an educated prediction of Obama based on a cross section of polls. Polls always have a margin of error though and can on occasion be way off. I wouldn't say that just because a President has never been elected with x or y means that one never will be. I heard once that the winner of presidential elections was always the one with a closer genealogy to the British royal family!! Pretty sure that ones been blown out the water. While unemployment's pretty high, it's several percentage points down on when Obama was elected, and the same as European countries considered to be doing better on the jobs front. Interesting times.
Reply
Reply
post #120 of 1062
9/12/12 at 8:24am
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
For example, if they oversample Democratic voters, and end up showing a higher support level for Obama than really exists, does that benefit the Democrats, and if so, why?

 

It benefits the Democrats in a number of ways. First people will contribute money to help in a close race. They won't do so if it is a blow out. If Obama were shown down 8 points for example, there isn't a fundraising letter or appeal that would work for him. People wouldn't throw good money after a bad cause. If they can keep it close, the money keeps flowing it, the campaign can go through the motions and there can be a hope that some unforeseen event can alter the outcome. They can hope the star quarterback blows out his knee.

 

 

Your other points don't make much sense to me since polling is a business, not a hobby, but this one seems very reasonable as a general principle. The only problem is that the race is obviously at least close (your 8 point Romney lead claims are not credible) so it's not clear that this scenario should have been triggered in this situation.

 

The 8 point lead was a hypothetical. You asked what the benefit would be. As for polling being a business, who pays for the polling and what results do they want? There are broad dailly polling firms. Rausmussen and Gallup are two of the major polls and Nate Silver has obviously taken issue with Rausmussen in part because of his "transparency" initiative which he doesn't follow himself. Gallup is currently being leaned on by the justice department.

 

Most other polling is done by news organizations. The organizations themselves are bleeding viewership and money but appear not to care as long as other aspects of the entertainment business can still support what they do. For example CNN has had their viewership decline for years, 20% in the last year alone. Yet CNN is owned by Time-Warner and appears not to care abou their abysmal performance as long as the rest of the company has money for them to bleed. CBS is owned by Viacom as another example. Jersey Shore and the Ex-Basketball Wives can help finance a news division that bleeds money. Also the most common angle of news coverage is HORSE RACE coverage about the candidates and who is winning or losing. Much like a sports event, when the contest is close, people tune in and when it is clearly decided or a blow out, they tune out and go away.

 

I've posted plenty of things that show this here in the past. Some google searches can find information about it now. The point though is you asked for a rationale as to why someone would do this. I've easily provided that. You can dismiss it or declare it doesn't make sense to you and that is your choice but you got what you asked for.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Mitt Romney is Going to Win