If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   In the midst of increasing GOP criticism, Nate Silver posts his final forecast update: Oh, I'm afraid President Obama will be quite re-elected, when your talking points arrive   (fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com) divider line 302
    More: Followup, President Obama, GOP, talking points  
•       •       •

10813 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Nov 2012 at 8:41 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



302 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-06 09:32:39 AM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: "All of this leaves Mr. Romney drawing to an inside straight. I hope you'll excuse the cliche, but it's appropriate here: in poker, making an inside straight requires you to catch one of 4 cards out of 48 remaining in the deck, the chances of which are about 8 percent. Those are now about Mr. Romney's chances of winning the Electoral College, according to the FiveThirtyEight forecast"


I read much of this in the voice of Josh Malina's character on The West Wing. Thank you.
 
2012-11-06 09:33:23 AM

jaybeezey: bulldg4life: The fact that a former vulture capitalist who has been running for President for 7 years, has changed his opinion on every major electoral issue within the past 10 years, has not outlined a definitive budget plan past mathematically impossible platitudes, declared disdain for half the country, and lied repeatedly to the point where his lies aren't even newsworthy anymore is going to get more than 2% of the vote is quite disturbing.

The fact that people are openly advocating FOR him to be President is just plain scary.

The fact that a former communist/community activist who has been President for 4 years, has changed his opinion on gay marriage to garner votes and not improved the economy in the past 4 years, has not outlined a definitive budget plan in any of his years as president, declared disdain for half the country, and lied repeatedly to the point where his lies aren't even newsworthy anymore is going to get more than 2% of the vote is quite disturbing.

The fact that people are openly advocating FOR him to be President is just plain scary.


It would be scary if any of that were true. But it's not.

Nice NO YOU! though.
 
2012-11-06 09:33:56 AM
Yo, I got this. I'm a statisticmetricologizt.

www.thatraw.com
 
2012-11-06 09:34:15 AM

hugram: Thunderpipes: ... math does not lie. In no way can anything about the economy be called good...

Fact that Obama is even in the race shows how far we have fallen as a country. Think about it, you tools are orgasmic to vote for a President who is responsible for the worst financial outlook for the country in your life. Its like you want to be kicked in the junk. Half of college grads can't get a decent job, and you still orgasm over Obama? Just nuts.

Horrific math and such below...

In case you don't remember the financial crisis, here is an article explaining the financial crisis timeline, which started on Feb of 2007.

A basic illustration of what was going on in late 2008...
[budget.senate.gov image 776x600]

A link showing a few newspaper headlines during the crisis...

A few September 2008 links from CNBC

Anyway, those scary headlines are no longer appearing.

Maybe it is because GDP performance during the Obama Administration has gone into positive growth.
[www.tradingeconomics.com image 700x300]

Many US corporate profits after tax are at an all-time high.
[research.stlouisfed.org image 630x378]

US stock markets performance during the Obama Administration...
DOW in 01/20/2009: 7,949.09
DOW in 11/01/2012: 13,232.62
Rate of Return: 66.47%

S&P 500 in 01/20/2009: 805.22
S&P 500 in 11/01/2012: 1,427.59
Rate of Return: 77.29%

NASDAQ in 01/20/2009: 1,440.86
NASDAQ in 11/01/2012: 3,020.06
Rate of Return: 109.60%


US stock markets performance since hitting the bottom on March 9th of 2009...
DOW in 03/09/2009: 6,547.05
DOW in 11/01/2012: 13,232.62
Rate of Return: 102.12%

S&P 500 in 03/09/2009: 676.53
S&P 500 in 11/01/2012: 1,427.59
Rate of Return: 111.02%

NASDAQ in 03/09/2009: 1,268.64
NASDAQ in 11/01/2012: 3,020.06
Rate of Return: 138.05%

Private jobs hemorrhage slowed down during the Obama Administration and eventually went into positive territory.
[farm9.staticflickr.com image 658x412]

Unemployment claims has been dropping, especially since the start ...


OH SNAP!

Well done, well done indeed. Epic even.
 
2012-11-06 09:34:44 AM

Thunderpipes: Just wish even once, you liberals and your Messiah would explain how exploding the national debt and discouraging success leads us to long term, or even short term economic prosperity. Even the CBO has a damned gloomy forecast for the country.

You literally don't care about the future. At the end of his second term, Obama will have added more debt to the country than all Presidents in history that came before him, combined. And once again, you guys are all for that. It is not even a defensible position, no wonder you avoid talking about it.


Here's a key distinction: Obama seems to give a damn about funding his programs. Bush II plowed a surplus into Medicare Part D (funded by deficit spending), tax cuts (which led to a deficit), and two wars. The only piece of deficit spending that Obama passed were temporary measures directly related to stimulating the economy. For all your deficit hand-wringing, he passed a health care plan that's deficit-neutral! The last Bush budget started the trillion dollar deficit nonsense, and Obama has shown a trend of actually caring about reversing this trend.

I posted a snarky "plan" for Mitt Romney, but let's be realistic. He said he wants to cut tax rates by 20% and increase military spending by 2 trillion dollars. Oh yeah, and of course balance the budget. Obama has proposed a budget that begins a trajectory of cutting the deficit, formed a commission with even more aggressive solutions, and has started a conversation about getting us back on a sustainable fiscal path. Even Paul Ryan has made more efforts at deficit reduction than the guy at the top of the ticket, and he's forced into a completely powerless position now as the republican running mate. Romney's own plans are nothing but rainbows and unicorn farts.

You can argue that Obama's not doing enough, but his challenger is the one offering nothing at all. So vote republican, amirite?
 
2012-11-06 09:34:47 AM

ChuDogg: Thunderpipes: I think Obama will win.

Sucky thing is, 7% unemployment and trillion dollar deficits, 2% growth is the new America under Democrat rule, and you guys love it. I have a one year old, he will have to contend with 30-40 trillion dollars of US debt by the time he is in college.

Just too many lazy, stupid young people around, and they breed much faster than working people. Democrats give money to people in exchange for votes, get elected, and the cycle repeats. We are Greece within a decade, but much more heavily armed.

Obama will leave office 20 trillion in debt. It will be interesting the years 2018 to 2028, when the glut of these bonds get bought back. Interest rates will skyrocket to sell new treasury bonds and the bulk of US economic policy will be towards controlling interest rates, at the expense of the economy. Plus, that's about the time the SSA will begin selling their bond holdings back to the government.

I'm not voting as neither one is going to return to solvency. Almost as if it is part of the plan. I imagine we will officially be ruled by a cabal of international investors who take half of our wealth in interest payments. I can't imagine how any feels hopeful or optmistic during this election. The numbers speak for themself. There is no turning back.


Go cry in the corner, emo boy.
 
JW
2012-11-06 09:35:35 AM

Thunderpipes: Just wish even once, you liberals and your Messiah would explain how exploding the national debt and discouraging success leads us to long term, or even short term economic prosperity. Even the CBO has a damned gloomy forecast for the country.

You literally don't care about the future. At the end of his second term, Obama will have added more debt to the country than all Presidents in history that came before him, combined. And once again, you guys are all for that. It is not even a defensible position, no wonder you avoid talking about it.


Nobody (or very few reasonable people) are for 'exploding the deficit'. Including people you call "libbies" or whatever.

The fact is that the 2009 budget was set by 2008 president, so the 2009 deficit is a Bush (well, Congress/Bush 20008) deficit (just as if Romney had been elected, his first year of office would have been Obama's).

Since then, the deficit has gone down. Unfortunately, because it's such an enormous deficit, and because the economy was in the crapper, there's not much that can be done. Trying to stimulate job growth so you have more taxpayers is met with obstruction. Wanting to bring down the cost of health care so that Medicaid/Medicare bill to the feds isn't as high: met with obstruction.

Your thesis centers around the notion that deficits are deliberately high (they are not) and that the people you dislike are not doing anything about it (they are trying, but they're being blocked).

All you have left now is "well it damn well shouldn't be that way", which it shouldn't, you're right. But it is, because some people are putting politics ahead of making the country better. Hint: It's the guys you're voting for today.
 
2012-11-06 09:36:13 AM

jaybeezey: The fact that a former communist/community activist who has been President for 4 years, has changed his opinion on gay marriage to garner votes and not improved the economy in the past 4 years


He didn't just change his opinion on gay marriage, he also actually did something about it by repealing DADT.

Also if you know anything about acceleration or rate of change you'd know that the economy is dramatically better today than it was 4 years ago. You may remember 4 years ago people were stocking up on rice and ammo because they literally thought the end of the world was coming. It's not all skittles and rainbows now but you don't see a lot of people frantically preparing for a financial apocalypse in this country anymore. When he took office we were losing 450k per month, now we're making over 100k jobs per month. The stock market is near record highs, corporate profits are near record highs. In numerous measurable ways the economy is better than it was 4 years ago. Yes, it's not amazingly good, but it's disingenuous to say there hasn't been dramatic improvement.

Unlike other people who disagree with you I don't support Obama. I didn't vote for him and don't suggest anyone else does either. But what you've stated is demonstrably false and only the most uneducated observer would believe it.
 
2012-11-06 09:38:49 AM
Now a point about the Republican voter...

I don't know if Thunderpipes is trolling or not, but regardless, he does a spot on impression of the contemporary Republican voter. His main focus is on how bad Obama has been for the economy, without supplying emperical data, but merely relying on the way his gut feels. In order to argue from the Republican side, you literally have to pretend to be stupid. You just have to pretend to not understand how a graph works, or how math works.

This is the data:
farm9.staticflickr.com

You can drag a Republican over and stick his nose in it, but it does not matter. In the face of numbers, the part of his brain that understands high level thinking will shut down.
 
2012-11-06 09:39:06 AM

God Is My Co-Pirate: Earpj: theorellior: I'm not gonna unclench until the magic number 270 show up and corks start flying at the Obama campaign HQ.

I'll be clenching right along with you.

I am Toby right now:

TOBY
Put it down! Put it down! Put it down!

BONNIE
Toby...

TOBY
No champagne.

BONNIE
We're just getting ready to...

TOBY
Put it down. Everyone in this room let me have your attention, please. The law of our
land mandates that Presidential appointees be confirmed by a majority of the Senate.
A majority being half plus one for a total of what, Ginger?

GINGER
51.

TOBY
51 yea votes is what we see on the screen before a drop of wine is swallowed! Because
there's a little thing called what, Bonnie?

BONNIE
Tempting fate?

TOBY
"Tempting fate" is what it's called. [starts collecting champagne glasses from everyone]
In the three months this man has been on my radar screen, I have aged 48 years. This is
my day of jubilee and I will not have it screwed up by what, Bonnie?

BONNIE
By tempting fate.

TOBY
By tempting fate!


No, this is the one to quote:

Sam Seaborn: You wrote a concession?

Toby Ziegler: Of course I wrote a concession. You want to tempt the wrath of the whatever from high atop the thing?

Sam Seaborn: No.

Toby Ziegler: Then go outside, turn around three times and spit. What the hell's the matter with you?

Sam Seaborn: He wrote a concession speech.

Josh Lyman: Of course he wrote a concession speech. Why wouldn't he? What possible reason would he have for not writing a concession speech?

Sam Seaborn: The wrath from high atop the thing.

Toby Ziegler: He upped and said we were gonna...

Josh Lyman: No, you got to go outside, turn around three times and curse.

Toby Ziegler: Spit.

Josh Lyman: Spit and curse.

Toby Ziegler: Do everything. Go!

Josh Lyman: Go!

Toby Ziegler: Go!

Josh Lyman: Go!

Toby Ziegler: Go!

[Sam gets up and leaves the room]
 
2012-11-06 09:40:33 AM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Leeds: Evidently it's because I don't read the New York Times.

// I just googled him, evidently he's one of those NYT folks.

He did baseball statistics prior to turning his attention to political statistics. He's so accurate that in the middle ages he'd probably have been accused of witchcraft. The move of his political statistics bloc, fivethirtyeight, was a relatively recent thing and his analysis factored heavily into reporting for the not only this election but the last two election cycles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nate_Silver


Thank you Zendo. Cheers :)
 
2012-11-06 09:40:47 AM
I've followed Silver since his time at Baseball Prospectus. His system is accurate but I'm wondering how the after-effects of Sandy will impact his predictions. I have a feeling that slight changes of voter turnout will swing some blue states red, especially with all the talk of an Obama run away. That talk could keep some Obama supporters from turning out.
 
2012-11-06 09:41:06 AM

sammyk: The Why Not Guy: sammyk: Kind of strange that there is a 7 point swing in one day and that's all that's said. If Obama takes Florida this one will be over early.

Nate's 55% or 52.5% refer to the candidates chances of winning the state based on computer simulations, not the poll numbers. A small gain in the polls can lead to a larger gain in chance of winning when other variables are factored in. The swings are higher so close to the election because the time has run out for a last minute game changer. Therefore even a small lead means a high percentage of victory.

Obama didn't gain 7% in Florida's polls. His odds of winning Florida went up by 7%.

I understand it's not a 7% shift in the polls. In a sense Nates model is similar to how Vegas would set the line on the superbowl. For Vegas to move the line that much on the day of the big game something significant would have to happen like a star player breaking his leg in a car wreck the night before.

Here are the FL polls for the last few days. IPSOS is the largest sample and it's moved 3 points towards a Romney win. I know the secret 538 sauce is very complex but I just don't see how it shifted that much on the last day.

POLLS 538 WT. DATE DEM REP MARGIN
Ipsos (online) 11/5 47.0 48.0 Romney +1.0
InsiderAdvantage 11/4 47.0 52.0 Romney +5.0
Ipsos (online) 11/4 46.0 46.0 Tie
PPP 11/4 50.0 49.0 Obama +1.0
Angus Reid 11/3 49.0 49.0 Tie
YouGov 11/3 47.0 48.0 Romney +1.0
Ipsos (online) 11/3 47.0 47.0 Tie
Mellman 11/2 47.0 45.0 Obama +2.0
Ipsos (online) 11/2 48.0 46.0 Obama +2.0


I'd say two things. First, as I said before, it moved all the way from coin-toss to coin toss. 55-45 Romney probability is not substantially different from 52.5-47.5 Romney probability. Second, that little movement is likely due to trendline adjustment, i.e. prognosticating momentum.

Obviously you can argue that we'll never know if Obama had momentum going into this race. But, like any of Silver's other methods built into the model, it's something that he feels has statistically come closer to predicting an electoral victory than simply averaging polls.
 
2012-11-06 09:42:23 AM
I'll have to upgrade my troll rating from 2/10 to 5/10 for the biters.

/former Republican disgusted with what current Republicans have done to the party
//Also, much of our current debt load is thanks to policies enacted with the complicity of a largely Republican majority Congress in the key period between 1995-2007...
///but why learn things that contradict your beliefs?
 
2012-11-06 09:42:31 AM
Just amazing how many trolls have to come out on a nice day like today.

I hope Mittens gets his ass beat so bad he cant ever sit down again.

I hope Duckworth and Warren win too. The GOP is the greatest threat the United States has ever faced.
 
2012-11-06 09:44:20 AM

Thunderpipes: eiger: Thunderpipes: I think Obama will win.

Sucky thing is, 7% unemployment and trillion dollar deficits, 2% growth is the new America under Democrat rule, and you guys love it. I have a one year old, he will have to contend with 30-40 trillion dollars of US debt by the time he is in college.

Just too many lazy, stupid young people around, and they breed much faster than working people. Democrats give money to people in exchange for votes, get elected, and the cycle repeats. We are Greece within a decade, but much more heavily armed.

Odd. B/c if you look at the actual numbers since World War II, it's the republicans who have been fiscally profligate with their tax cuts. Democratic presidents generally try to pay for their programs. But you go on believing the stories you've been told rather than the actual facts.

Facts are Obama just added 6 trillion to the debt in 4 years, and the outlook means at least another 4 if he gets elected. Facts are we have terribly growth, terrible unemployment, entitlement spending is exploding, and people are dropping out of the work force.

math does not lie. In no way can anything about the economy be called good. And Republicans had nothing to do with the housing crisis which caused the recession, no matter how much you want it to. We are done, period. At a certain point, you just cannot recover. Interest payments alone on the debt are now 350 billion a year I believer. 4 more years of Bambam it will be at 500 billion. Will just go up from there. Can tax the rich all you want, won't make a dent and will just slow growth.

Fact that Obama is even in the race shows how far we have fallen as a country. Think about it, you tools are orgasmic to vote for a President who is responsible for the worst financial outlook for the country in your life. Its like you want to be kicked in the junk. Half of college grads can't get a decent job, and you still orgasm over Obama? Just nuts.


I feel ya. I feel it deep in my heart that Romney has the stones and deep personal strength of character and conviction to put this country on the right track, but we all just openly mock him. Maybe it's that weird jealousy, where someone is so superior to you, that you immediately attack out of some reptilian mind kind of way, to try and level the playing field. Romney is much better than we could ever hope for, and we'll be spanking ourselves later.


/amidointhisshiatrite?
 
2012-11-06 09:44:32 AM

JW: Thunderpipes: Just wish even once, you liberals and your Messiah would explain how exploding the national debt and discouraging success leads us to long term, or even short term economic prosperity. Even the CBO has a damned gloomy forecast for the country.

You literally don't care about the future. At the end of his second term, Obama will have added more debt to the country than all Presidents in history that came before him, combined. And once again, you guys are all for that. It is not even a defensible position, no wonder you avoid talking about it.

Nobody (or very few reasonable people) are for 'exploding the deficit'. Including people you call "libbies" or whatever.

The fact is that the 2009 budget was set by 2008 president, so the 2009 deficit is a Bush (well, Congress/Bush 20008) deficit (just as if Romney had been elected, his first year of office would have been Obama's).

Since then, the deficit has gone down. Unfortunately, because it's such an enormous deficit, and because the economy was in the crapper, there's not much that can be done.



The deficit has only gone down since the first year because of a one time charge called the stimulus plan.

If you look at the budgets like you look at a company's prospectus and you remove the non-recurring one time charge that year, your claim that the deficit has been shrinking can be shown to be false.

No disrespect meant, just trying to add some logic/accounting to the discussion.
 
2012-11-06 09:45:14 AM

Thunderpipes: midigod: Thunderpipes: math does not lie.

You're right, it doesn't:
[www.blogforarizona.com image 500x294]

Think about it, you tools are orgasmic to vote for a President who is responsible for the worst financial outlook for the country in your life.

I'm sorry, but the prize for worst economic outlook goes to GW Bush, not BH Obama.  Looking at that graph in Jan of '09 looked much, MUCH worse than it does now. Not even a contest.

Bush had nothing to do with the housing crisis, it was Democrats. Doesn't matter who was elected, the country would have turned around, it is a matter of how much. 7% unemployment is the new norm. 67% debt to GDP when Bush left, we will pass 100% this year. When my son goes to college, that will be 180% of GDP. How can our kids possibly recover from this?


Wow... really doubling down on your genetic stock, eh?

Pro-Tip: Coming from your weak seed, that odds are he's *not* going to college. Or if he does; he's not graduating.
 
2012-11-06 09:45:27 AM

Thunderpipes: At the end of his second term, Obama will have added more debt to the country than all Presidents in history that came before him, combined.


This was also true of GW Bush. It was also true of Clinton. It was also true of Reagan.

$1 trillion in 2012 doesn't buy as much as it did in 2000. or 1992. or 1865. By the same token, it won't be as hard to raise $1 trillion to pay it off. Inflation works both ways, and so long as we're not growing past the point we can afford to (no one on Earth seems to think so. If the gloomier projections hold up for the next 30 years - even though they haven't been accurate for the past 40 - we MAY go PARTIALLY broke then), we'll be fine.

// Japan's at 200% debt/GDP, and no one is shying away from investing there
 
2012-11-06 09:46:41 AM

MemeSlave: Headso: I hope the guy is right, supreme court justice appointees alone are a reason to fear a bishop president.

As opposed to a Catholic one? Or a Muslim? Or a Jew?


Opposed to a priest, cleric, or rabbi. Romney is clergy, not congregation.
 
2012-11-06 09:46:45 AM
So what will the liberal argument be in 2016 when the debt is 20-22 trillion? Can't wait to see that.

I understand this is a far left message board, but just once, I would love someone to come up with something realistic, instead of blind hero worship for a guy who is sinking the country.

You are like Michael Vic's dogs. Keep wanting more punishment until he drowns you.
 
2012-11-06 09:49:39 AM

Thunderpipes: So what will the liberal argument be in 2016 when the debt is 20-22 trillion? Can't wait to see that.

I understand this is a far left message board, but just once, I would love someone to come up with something realistic, instead of blind hero worship for a guy who is sinking the country.

You are like Michael Vic's dogs. Keep wanting more punishment until he drowns you.



Why would it be that high? Spooky sketchy math where I have to put on a tin foil hat, smack myself in the mirror while singing 'my country tis of thee' and carry the one a few extra times doesn't count.
 
2012-11-06 09:49:45 AM
The GOP can still steal Ohio without too much trouble. They are well on their way in Florida already with all of the voting restrictions.
 
2012-11-06 09:49:49 AM

elffster: The GOP is the greatest threat the United States has ever faced.


Go read some about how 1860 played out.

\Democrats committing open treason is how it ended...
 
2012-11-06 09:50:13 AM

Thunderpipes: I think Obama will win.

Sucky thing is, 7% unemployment and trillion dollar deficits, 2% growth is the new America under Democrat rule, and you guys love it. I have a one year old, he will have to contend with 30-40 trillion dollars of US debt by the time he is in college.

Just too many lazy, stupid young people around, and they breed much faster than working people. Democrats give money to people in exchange for votes, get elected, and the cycle repeats. We are Greece within a decade, but much more heavily armed.


Didnt you vote for Bush and defend the Iraq war?

What do you know?
 
2012-11-06 09:50:18 AM

Thunderpipes: So what will the liberal argument be in 2016 when the debt is 20-22 trillion? Can't wait to see that.

I understand this is a far left message board, but just once, I would love someone to come up with something realistic, instead of blind hero worship for a guy who is sinking the country.

You are like Michael Vic's dogs. Keep wanting more punishment until he drowns you.


i331.photobucket.com

i331.photobucket.com

i331.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-06 09:50:23 AM

Thunderpipes: So what will the liberal argument be in 2016 when the debt is 20-22 trillion? Can't wait to see that.

I understand this is a far left message board, but just once, I would love someone to come up with something realistic, instead of blind hero worship for a guy who is sinking the country.

You are like Michael Vic's dogs. Keep wanting more punishment until he drowns you.


Show me a candidate who's plan to reduce the deficit doesn't include tax cuts and increased defense spending and maybe I'll take them seriously for once.
 
2012-11-06 09:51:09 AM
Looks like tomorrow's headline is going to be "Truman Defeats Dewey"
 
2012-11-06 09:52:52 AM

Thunderpipes: So what will the liberal argument be in 2016 when the debt is 20-22 trillion? Can't wait to see that.

I understand this is a far left message board, but just once, I would love someone to come up with something realistic, instead of blind hero worship for a guy who is sinking the country.

You are like Michael Vic's dogs. Keep wanting more punishment until he drowns you.


Hey, if you'd acknowledge Republican complicity, nay, responsibility for taking the national debt from 4 trillion to over 10 trillion, all while preaching tax cuts and initiating two unfunded conflicts, as well as bailing out millionaire bankers while providing for no prosecution thereof, I might have some sympathy for you. But since you can't recognize those simple facts, I'd much rather risk the highly unlikely scenario you propose than the far more likely bad stuff with a continuation of Neocon policies.
 
2012-11-06 09:53:34 AM

NateGrey: Thunderpipes: I think Obama will win.

Sucky thing is, 7% unemployment and trillion dollar deficits, 2% growth is the new America under Democrat rule, and you guys love it. I have a one year old, he will have to contend with 30-40 trillion dollars of US debt by the time he is in college.

Just too many lazy, stupid young people around, and they breed much faster than working people. Democrats give money to people in exchange for votes, get elected, and the cycle repeats. We are Greece within a decade, but much more heavily armed.

Didnt you vote for Bush and defend the Iraq war?

What do you know?


This is basically why I can't take the GOP's concern about the deficit seriously.
 
2012-11-06 09:55:08 AM

Mixolydian Master: Thunderpipes: So what will the liberal argument be in 2016 when the debt is 20-22 trillion? Can't wait to see that.

I understand this is a far left message board, but just once, I would love someone to come up with something realistic, instead of blind hero worship for a guy who is sinking the country.

You are like Michael Vic's dogs. Keep wanting more punishment until he drowns you.


Why would it be that high? Spooky sketchy math where I have to put on a tin foil hat, smack myself in the mirror while singing 'my country tis of thee' and carry the one a few extra times doesn't count.


Umm, you do read, don't you? Trillion dollar deficits are projected for the next 4 years, and the CBO is always on the low side because they project based on growth we don't get.
 
2012-11-06 09:55:38 AM
There's a lot of projection going on in here.
 
JW
2012-11-06 09:55:46 AM

Leeds:
Since then, the deficit has gone down. Unfortunately, because it's such an enormous deficit, and because the economy was in the crapper, there's not much that can be done.


The deficit has only gone down since the first year because of a one time charge called the stimulus plan.

If you look at the budgets like you look at a company's prospectus and you remove the non-recurring one time charge that year, your claim that the deficit has been shrinking can be shown to be false.

No disrespect meant, just trying to add some logic/accounting to the discussion.


I don't think you can draw that analogy. For one, governments are not companies and it's not correct to treat them as the same. For example, if I build a road, and that encourages business, how do I recognize the revenue from that? Increased tax receipts in the area? How long am I allowed to count that for? Governments invest in things that have 25-50 year returns, and that are essential for society, so it's just not an apt comparison. Second, the stimulus money is money spent by the government, which should make their books look worse, not better, assuming they're not recouping their investment. Unless you're saying additional tax revenue should not be counted, but the expenditures should?
 
2012-11-06 09:55:58 AM

Thunderpipes: I think Obama will win.

Sucky thing is, 7% unemployment and trillion dollar deficits, 2% growth is the new America under Democrat rule, and you guys love it. I have a one year old, he will have to contend with 30-40 trillion dollars of US debt by the time he is in college.

Just too many lazy, stupid young people around, and they breed much faster than working people. Democrats give money to people in exchange for votes, get elected, and the cycle repeats. We are Greece within a decade, but much more heavily armed.


Oh, no. That debt isn't because of lazy young people. It's because of boomers who refuse to pay for anything. They got theirs , fark the rest of you.
 
SH
2012-11-06 09:56:37 AM

Thunderpipes: Sucky thing is, 7% unemployment and trillion dollar deficits, 2% growth is the new America under Democrat rule, and you guys love it. I have a one year old, he will have to contend with 30-40 trillion dollars of US debt by the time he is in college.


You can point your finger at Reagan, Bush Sr., and Bush Jr.

Clinton had us in surplus territory, the GOP keeps shoving "trickle down economics" down our throats when it's proven since 1980 to not work

Only moronic Repubs look at the last 4 years and start pointing fingers.
 
JW
2012-11-06 09:57:06 AM

Thunderpipes: So what will the liberal argument be in 2016 when the debt is 20-22 trillion? Can't wait to see that.

I understand this is a far left message board, but just once, I would love someone to come up with something realistic, instead of blind hero worship for a guy who is sinking the country.

You are like Michael Vic's dogs. Keep wanting more punishment until he drowns you.


Oh, your'e not a troll, you're just racist! Ok, that makes a lot more sense, the way you shut your ears to data and facts and the like.
 
2012-11-06 10:00:52 AM

YodaBlues: Thunderpipes: ....And Republicans had nothing to do with the housing crisis which caused the recession....

Congratulations. I have been coming here to Fark for a good while now, mostly laughing at headlines, not commenting a lot, but this has to be answered. You are either extremely confused or extremely dim. Either way, please get help.

 
2012-11-06 10:01:01 AM

JW: Leeds:
Since then, the deficit has gone down. Unfortunately, because it's such an enormous deficit, and because the economy was in the crapper, there's not much that can be done.


The deficit has only gone down since the first year because of a one time charge called the stimulus plan.

If you look at the budgets like you look at a company's prospectus and you remove the non-recurring one time charge that year, your claim that the deficit has been shrinking can be shown to be false.

No disrespect meant, just trying to add some logic/accounting to the discussion.

I don't think you can draw that analogy. For one, governments are not companies and it's not correct to treat them as the same. For example, if I build a road, and that encourages business, how do I recognize the revenue from that? Increased tax receipts in the area? How long am I allowed to count that for? Governments invest in things that have 25-50 year returns, and that are essential for society, so it's just not an apt comparison. Second, the stimulus money is money spent by the government, which should make their books look worse, not better, assuming they're not recouping their investment. Unless you're saying additional tax revenue should not be counted, but the expenditures should?


I don't mean to be condescending, but you are all over the place with your comments- almost like you didn't understand my post at all.

We were speaking of deficits. Your statements about recouping long term investments is interesting, but a complete red herring. Money in and money out - that's how you determine if you have a deficit or a surplus. The integral of that answer is called the national debt. These numbers have nothing to do with whether or not the deficit is "good" because it was part of an investment in infrastructure or "bad" because it's throwing money at people to discourage them from working. debt is debt.

You aren't by any chance a Democrat, are you?
 
2012-11-06 10:02:11 AM

AlteredChemical: YodaBlues: Thunderpipes: ....And Republicans had nothing to do with the housing crisis which caused the recession....

Congratulations. I have been coming here to Fark for a good while now, mostly laughing at headlines, not commenting a lot, but this has to be answered. You are either extremely confused or extremely dim. Either way, please get help.


Erm...sorry about that, must clarify. I was saying that to Thunderpipes, not YodaBlues. Like I said, not much experience commenting here.
 
2012-11-06 10:04:09 AM

The Why Not Guy: sammyk: Kind of strange that there is a 7 point swing in one day and that's all that's said. If Obama takes Florida this one will be over early.

Nate's 55% or 52.5% refer to the candidates chances of winning the state based on computer simulations, not the poll numbers. A small gain in the polls can lead to a larger gain in chance of winning when other variables are factored in. The swings are higher so close to the election because the time has run out for a last minute game changer. Therefore even a small lead means a high percentage of victory.

Obama didn't gain 7% in Florida's polls. His odds of winning Florida went up by 7%.


If Obama wins Florida and Ohio we can all go to bed before the Daily Show comes on.
 
2012-11-06 10:05:01 AM

AlteredChemical: AlteredChemical: YodaBlues: Thunderpipes: ....And Republicans had nothing to do with the housing crisis which caused the recession....

Congratulations. I have been coming here to Fark for a good while now, mostly laughing at headlines, not commenting a lot, but this has to be answered. You are either extremely confused or extremely dim. Either way, please get help.

Erm...sorry about that, must clarify. I was saying that to Thunderpipes, not YodaBlues. Like I said, not much experience commenting here.


S'all good brother. :-D
 
2012-11-06 10:05:05 AM
I see Nate hedged ever so slightly at the end of his long commitment to liberal ascendancy. If he's wrong, he says he will have to "reexamine" his assumptions.

What he will need to reexamine is his overarching trust that conservatives cannot foster big turnouts through commitment and enthusiasm.

If he is wrong, Nate should not even be around any longer to reexamine anything. He will have proved that he, as Obama, is grossly incompetent at anything except telling a liberal audience and editors what they want to hear. He ought to be as unemployed as the millions of Americans who are victims of the Obama non-recovery.

The editors of the Times should have to reexamine who will replace him, and how they will rebuild their own reputation and loss of standing to FoxNews as the leading enlightened observers of the American political scene.

There is more than the oval office on the line here.
 
2012-11-06 10:06:46 AM

GrizzlyPouch: Maybe Romney will suck, will never know unless he's elected. Obama has certainly sucked big time which is why I'm not voting for him


Obama has NOT sucked, by any measure. Fact.

Why lie today?
 
2012-11-06 10:07:40 AM

urger: Exit polls here (takes a while to load)


You brilliant, brilliant man/woman...
 
2012-11-06 10:07:49 AM
I had a feeling this was going to be a good day, but now that I'm watching Thunderpipes flop around getting spittle on everything while he gets angrier and angrier, I KNOW it is going to be AWESOME!



Thanks for starting the next four years off right, you farking water head.
 
2012-11-06 10:07:56 AM

Thunderpipes: So what will the liberal argument be in 2016 when the debt is 20-22 trillion? Can't wait to see that.

I understand this is a far left message board, but just once, I would love someone to come up with something realistic, instead of blind hero worship for a guy who is sinking the country.

You are like Michael Vic's dogs. Keep wanting more punishment until he drowns you.


Simple. If we have actually managed to get something through congress that is a common sense compromise to debt reduction, I assume we'll say that we're on the right track. If we don't it will be because you were right all along and we were just too blind to see it: Obama really is a sekrit muslin.
 
2012-11-06 10:08:17 AM

Sock Ruh Tease: Even With A Chainsaw: MemeSlave: Headso: I hope the guy is right, supreme court justice appointees alone are a reason to fear a bishop president.

As opposed to a Catholic one? Or a Muslim? Or a Jew?

Or a queen, king, knight, rook, pawn?

[i.imgur.com image 328x640]


imageshack.us
 
2012-11-06 10:08:21 AM
I'm shocked -- SHOCKED -- that a guy who's whole identity revolves around his big, dopey motorcycle ("Thunderpipes", LOL) isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer politically. :-)
 
2012-11-06 10:10:22 AM

depmode98: In order to argue from the Republican side, you literally have to pretend to be stupid. You just have to pretend to not understand how a graph works, or how math works.


I'm not convinced they're pretending.
 
2012-11-06 10:10:44 AM

Robots are Strong: I see Nate hedged ever so slightly at the end of his long commitment to liberal ascendancy. If he's wrong, he says he will have to "reexamine" his assumptions.

What he will need to reexamine is his overarching trust that conservatives cannot foster big turnouts through commitment and enthusiasm.

If he is wrong, Nate should not even be around any longer to reexamine anything. He will have proved that he, as Obama, is grossly incompetent at anything except telling a liberal audience and editors what they want to hear. He ought to be as unemployed as the millions of Americans who are victims of the Obama non-recovery.

The editors of the Times should have to reexamine who will replace him, and how they will rebuild their own reputation and loss of standing to FoxNews as the leading enlightened observers of the American political scene.

There is more than the oval office on the line here.


Brilliant post. Well done sir. You said all of the idiotic things an actual Republican thinks, and with a straight face too, as if you actually believed them yourself. I'm impressed.
 
Displayed 50 of 302 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report