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...


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.


Many US corporate profits after tax are at an all-time high.


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.


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


Comparing unemployment rate fluctuation between President Bush and President Obama.

Bush
01/20/2001: 4.2%
01/20/2009: 7.8%
Unemployment Rate Change: 85.71% increase

Obama
01/20/2009: 7.8%
Currently: 7.9%
Unemployment Rate Change: 1.28% increase


Comparing unemployment rate fluctuation when their budgets first took place

Bush
01/01/2002: 5.7%
12/31/2009: 9.9%
Unemployment Rate Change: 73.68% increase

Obama
01/01/2010: 9.9%
Currently: 7.9%
Unemployment Rate Change: 20.20% decrease

Unemployment rate was trending up steeply when Obama took over the White House...


And now the unemployment rate has been trending down now during the Obama Administration...



...Even though The Senate has filibustered any bill that could help the economy and the employment situation.


A list of a few jobs bills the Senate have blocked

One in particular that should offend our troops coming back since it seems the Senate GOP were too busy blocking a veterans jobs bill

Or having Mitch McConnell Admits That Republicans Took America Hostage and that his number one priority is to make sure President Obama is a one-term president... instead of helping with the economic issues our country faces.

Or the Tea Party Nation urged small business owners to not hire people in order to make Obama look bad

Or when a company with company policies about not hiring until Obama is gone based on nothing to do with the basic supply and demand process for his business goods.

Or having the GOP blocked a 10 percent tax break for small businesses that hires new employees

Even so, the job market did improve. Read all about it...

Private-sector job growth biggest in 3 years (new window)

Stealth signs of a stronger job market (new window)

Biggest unemployment rate improvement in nearly 28 years (new window)

Small businesses ramp up jobs (new window)

Jobs: 2 hopeful signs (new window)

The unemployment rate fell to 8.3%. That is the lowest since February 2009 (new window)

Stealth jobs boom: 6 months, 2 million jobs (new window)

Jobless claims plunged last week to a nearly four-year low (new window)

Manufacturing jobs boom is for real (new window)

If you are unemployed or underemployed, you don't have a 4 year degree (or higher) and blame Obama for your situation, then maybe you should get a college degree. It is not the Government's fault you don't have the necessary skills to compete in today's world. The Government can even help you pay for it (via student loans, grants, GI Bill etc.).


Housing market is recovering...


Foreclosures are down as well...


Car sales have gone up...


Average weekly paychecks have improved.


Inflation has not been out of control.


Manufacturing has started to go up.


Consumer spending is up.


Consumer confident at a 4-year high

Your taxes have not gone up since Obama took office. This was a rooted fear from Tea Partiers. Take a look at a Forbes article written by Bruce Bartlett, a self-described fiscal conservative...
Forbes: Tea partiers confused, taxes 'lower by every measure' under Obama (Cutting to a new window)

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.

Thunderpipes: math does not lie.

You're right, it doesn't:


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.

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.

These guys had no problem running up 5 trillion dollars in debt all while receiving the extra tax revenue from the housing boom but during the crash when government spending could help prop up the economy and help cash strapped states who are getting less property tax revenue they have this huge problem with the debt. Republicans have zero credibility on the economy it's a sad state of affairs that people can buy into the line of shiat he is repeating there.

sammyk: Interesting that FL changed over to a slight lead for Obama on the last day.

I imagine it might be greater had Scott not nearly halved the number of early voting days.

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

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.

How do you explain the international community all "voting" for Obama? Do you think it is in the best interest of the global economy that the US "falls as a country"?

I'm not gonna unclench until the magic number 270 show up and corks start flying at the Obama campaign HQ.

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.

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?

VendorXeno: I elected to ignore the pollsters and look at the bookies, people who are the most inclined to be objective. Currently Obama is pretty heavily favored.

Nate Silver isn't a pollster. He's an aggregator of information who takes polling data and turns it into something useful.

ChuDogg: I'm not voting as neither one is going to return to solvency

Only one office up for election in your district? Odd.

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.

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.

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?

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:


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.

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.

trillions of dollars that were spent in obamas first time that added to the debt came in the form of the glorious wars the Republicans started. Now as an added bonus, you can pretend it was Democrats fault for having to spend the money for cleaning that shiat up.

hugram: Horrific math and such below...

Great summary but it will largely fall of deaf ears. Thunderpipes would already know these things if he wanted to. He has, instead, chosen to cocoon himself in an information bubble that reinforces what he wants to be true rather than what is.

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.

You exhibit both of the chief symptoms of advanced paranoia - delusions of persecution, and delusions of grandeur. You are not the superior human being surrounded by inferiors that you imagine yourself to be, and nobody's out to get you or take your pitiful little pile of crap away from you. Quit whining, grow up, take responsibility, and heal your mental illness.

Thundergenius,

"In no way can anything about the economy be called good. "

The current economy is better in every way than the economy 3 months after Obama took office. (Though I'm sure those first 3 months are his fault in your eyes.)

Try removing your USA tunnel vision apparatus for a change. Economies all over the world are still struggling. I bet Obama responsible for the EU's troubles too?

So, when Obama ins, does that mean we get to declare it a "mandate" like Bush's supporters did when he won reelection?

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.

LOL... you think your kid gets into college?

No celebrating till it's over here. I'm really afraid of GOP election fraud at this point. I don't put it past them to try to steal the votes for a swing state or two.

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%.

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

Call me when a Catholic bishop, a rabbi or an imam are running for president.

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?

any high level religious figure, he's not just a mormon he's a mormon bishop, so yeah a catholic bishop running for president would be just as bad as would their muslim and jewish counterparts.

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?

Yes.

Thunderpipes: Unemployment ticked back up to 7.9%. Wow, that is awesome. Oh, that includes the fact that 4-5% of the entire workforce dropped out. Home prices and the stock market are very slowly rising after a stark recession? Oh boy howdy, Obama is a Savior! Could have elected a monkey and done as well. You are here arguing that 7.9% unemployment, exploding deficit, drastically shrunk workforce is okay because home prices and the stock market have rebounded. Wow.

Bambam had two years to do anything he wanted, he passed a ridiculous health care law that half the country doesn't want and will cost trillions. That is all he has done, that and campaign. Have the Dems bothered to passa budget lately?

Let's talk about the unemployment rate... It is at 7.9%. When Obama took office, it was at 7.8%.

Here is Bush's number... You can see that Obama has a better record on that.

Bush
01/20/2001: 4.2%
01/20/2009: 7.8%
Unemployment Rate Change: 85.71% increase

Let's talk about your comment about the stock market slowly recovering... The fact that it doubled since March 9th of 2009 is no way considered a slow return.

Obama never had 2 years of Congress. Al Franken was sworn into the Senate on July 7, 2009... a full six months after winning the seat. Ted Kennedy died soon after (on August 25, 2009)... so yea, your two year majority comment is not valid.

The ridiculous healthcare law you are referring too was first championed by the extreme leftist group called The Heritage Foundation in 1994. The boy you voted for implemented it in Massachusetts when he was the governor. Do you think Romneycare sucks too? 

You did not make any comments about the GOP congress blocking anything. At least they should own up to the blocking... instead of blocking everything and then blame Obama for not getting anything done. Why don't you own up to that?

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.

face it.. you are voting Romney because you hate Obama. Let go of your hate. Let your anger flow through you....just get it off your chest.. you hate Obama becvause he is black and you absolutely cannot stand the thought of a POTUS ever being a colored.

Thunderpipes: Mrtraveler01: Thunderpipes: Pretty stupid, since even taxing the crap out of the wealthy will barely make a dent, and will stall growth further.

So does cutting funding to NPR/PBS and Planned Parenthood. But that doesn't stop the GOP from harping on about it acting like it would make a big difference in the budget. 

So you can either admit that both things make very little impact on the budget or admit that both things will help pay off the deficit/debt one step at a time.

Anything else makes you look like a dishonest partisan shill.

To solve this requires cuts all over the place, those are just two small examples. The big thing is SS, medicare reform, reduce military spending, and encourage growth. Remember, we have Obamacare looming in 2014 and it so far keeps costing more and making business even more wary.

Bottom line is, punishing people for hard work and success, while rewarding lazy people and government workers/unions does not make the average person want to bust their ass. Why work hard, when you don't have to?

Obama has no plan whatsoever, but to tax the rich, make success an evil word. CBO projections are just dismal and get worse each year. Compounding interest cannot be wished away by starry eyes kids. What do we do in a decade when interest payment on the debt alone are in the 1 trillion dollar range? Tax the rich?

Out of the four things you listed, Mitt Romney promised not to touch two, and actually promised to do the opposite of one (military spending). And it's certainly not settled who will "encourage growth" although I have a feeling your mind is made up on that one.

A modest tax increase on the rich in terms of letting the bush cuts expire for that income bracket will absolutely lower the deficit. In contrast you have Mitt Romney's plan to... well I guess we've covered that.

I certainly wouldn't mind, and I bet several others here wouldn't mind, if we let the Bush tax cuts expire for everyone. Combined with entitlement reform, defense cuts, etc., well now we're talking. So why do you oppose the candidate who has already began that discussion?

Leeds: BeesNuts: Thunderpipes: Bottom line is, punishing people for hard work and success, while rewarding lazy people and government workers/unions does not make the average person want to bust their ass. Why work hard, when you don't have to?

This is still as retarded as sentiment as it has ever been in this country. People work for farking beans because they have to eat. When Labor Demand exceeds Labor Participation you can talk about discouraging excellence or whatever. But this entire concept that people won't work hard if you tax them at 35% instead of 32% on every dollar made over 300k is farking *dumb*. And you know it. I know you FEEL like higher taxes will make people not want to work hard or whatever. But deep down you know that in the context of this election, the point is moot, and ridiculous.


Wouldn't it be nice if our economy was roaring and we didn't fall into finger pointing over budget issues?

I hope that the next president will focus on the economy, the current one certainly didn't.

// A rising tide floats all boats

Got any more platitudes to throw out there? C'mon, get em all out. :p

For not focusing on the economy, the current president sure did a bang up job of keeping the boat afloat on an anemic tide. Further, keeping with that analogy, 2% growth feels like a tide, whereas the 15-20% growth we see in bubble economies feels more like a tsunami. One of those tends to be moderately destructive. I know which I'd prefer.

The sad fact is:

The News media persist in re-framing poll data as info-tainment geared to maximizing ad revenue, and by treating hard data as being less accurate their expert's "gut feeling".

This has created a market vacuum for reality, which has in turn created the impartial "expert analyst", a serious mathematician/statistician who can make a name for himself (herself) by cutting out the B.S.

538/Silver are only filling in a market created for them, a market that the Vegas odds makers have long filled anyway.

Thunderpipes: Bottom line is, punishing people for hard work and success, while rewarding lazy people and government workers/unions does not make the average person want to bust their ass. Why work hard, when you don't have to?

This is still as retarded as sentiment as it has ever been in this country. People work for farking beans because they have to eat. When Labor Demand exceeds Labor Participation you can talk about discouraging excellence or whatever. But this entire concept that people won't work hard if you tax them at 35% instead of 32% on every dollar made over 300k is farking *dumb*. And you know it. I know you FEEL like higher taxes will make people not want to work hard or whatever. But deep down you know that in the context of this election, the point is moot, and ridiculous.

Leeds: AurizenDarkstar: Thunderpipes: At least libs are staying true to form.

At least 70 Republican poll workers have been thrown out, sometimes physically from Pennsylvania polling stations by Democrats. Judge had to step in. This, this is what you guys are all about and it just sucks.

And you can show a link to this happening, outside of your fevered imagination?

Oddly enough- it seems like a legit issue:

Judge issuing order to reinstate booted Philadelphia election officials

The only question I would have about that is, were they actual party officials there as observers, or were they the 'True the Vote' group?

One has a pretty valid reason to be there, the other is a group of Teatards looking to try and disenfranchise minority voters through intimidation.

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

Won't need to argue it if the wealthy far right would just pay their fair share of taxes.

Pretty stupid, since even taxing the crap out of the wealthy will barely make a dent, and will stall growth further.

By fair share, what do you mean exactly, pay all the taxes instead of most?

You think "growth" is something that rich people just decide to generate, out of the goodness of their hearts, as a means of rewarding us for not taxing them?

Of course not. All wealth is created through labor, and who is it again that does all of the "making" in this country? It aint the wealthy, I'll tell you that much.

Next time someone says to you "I never got a job from a poor person", politely remind them that the largest private employers in the world are the poor people who shop at WalMart. Those jobs are not created out of the charity of the Walton family.

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.

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.

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

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.

Yeah, but it's even gloomier under [the best guesses of] Romney's [incredibly vague] plans, if you like the CBO so much. *shrug* There hasn't been anything we could do about the deficit since the Boomers voted themselves $ALL in medical benefits, and you know perfectly well neither party is brave enough to cut Medicare (and that the old folks would vote them out and replace them with someone to reinstate it if they did).

/Trolls get hungry too; someone has to feed them.

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.

you must have seen articles whining about him on American Thinker or WND between articles looking for the real birf certfcate.

Thunderpipes: exploding the national debt

government spending during an economic downturn is day one stuff, bro.

For you newcomers: Thunderpipes is an old throwback shill that doesn't post in the politics tab anymore because he got tired of getting beaten to a bloody pulp in every thread.

Have fun with it, but it's really not worth a lot of your time.

Leeds: Who the f**k is Nate Silver and why has fark begun to mention him 20 times a day?

Did he even exist before this week?

do you live under a rock?

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.

And Romney's... plan... will fix this?

GrizzlyPouch: Headso: 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?

any high level religious figure, he's not just a mormon he's a mormon bishop, so yeah a catholic bishop running for president would be just as bad as would their muslim and jewish counterparts.

Just curious, why does it make you feel so superior to be anti religion?

Even people who are considered geniuses have had faith.

Not flaming you, just curious about why you feel this way

He didn't say he didn't want religious people, he said he didn't want bishops or the equivalent. Probably because he suspects they would make awful decisions based on what was best for sky jesus and not the usa.

// it rings hollow to accuse someone of asserting superiority and then claiming 'totes not flamin ya, brah'

Thunderpipes: Sucky thing is, 7% unemployment and trillion dollar deficits, 2% growth is the new America under Democrat rule, and you guys love it.

Why not? I'll take 2% growth over those last couple of Bush years any day of the week.

Dwight_Yeast: VendorXeno: I elected to ignore the pollsters and look at the bookies, people who are the most inclined to be objective. Currently Obama is pretty heavily favored.

Nate Silver isn't a pollster. He's an aggregator of information who takes polling data and turns it into something useful.

I really enjoy seeing how much Silver gets Joe Scarboroughs panties in a bunch!

Thunderpipes:

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.

I think most people would have gone with Rome as the comparative collapsing empire, rather than Greece, as Rome's collapse was due to far more internal strife and political conflict than Greece and its largely fiduciary failings created through not having a unified monetary policy with the EU, but getting to borrow money at EU rates. But, otherwise, 2/10.

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!

Thank you! I wanted to post that exchange as well, but I couldn't find a video clip for it.

Dwight_Yeast: VendorXeno: I elected to ignore the pollsters and look at the bookies, people who are the most inclined to be objective. Currently Obama is pretty heavily favored.

Nate Silver isn't a pollster. He's an aggregator of information who takes polling data and turns it into something useful.

In fact, he's much closer to a bookie or oddsmaker than a pollster.

sammyk: Interesting that FL changed over to a slight lead for Obama on the last day. I think it was around %55 Romney just yesterday now it's %52.5 Obama. This is the only comment he makes "Florida remains too close to call. The FiveThirtyEight forecast has the race there within two-tenths of a percentage point, which would be close enough to trigger an automatic recount." 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.

It was a coin-flip yesterday and a coin-flip today. I'm not sure there's much more to say about that.

I elected to ignore the pollsters and look at the bookies, people who are the most inclined to be objective. Currently Obama is pretty heavily favored.

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.

Like all Republicans you are happy to tell me how i feel, what I am supposed to think and what is my motivation.
Nevermind that there were 16 graphs posted explaining why you are wrong.
Businessmen used to win by finding oppertunity in government action now they whine like little biaotches because of circumstances.
be a capitalist FFS and go make some money or just shut up.

This text is now purple: 1. They were Republicans in a city that's 90% Democrat. That's the only reason.

And I'm sure they were behaving with the utmost decorum and respect for the process, not frivilosly challenging Democratic voters will-nilly, you betcha!

Like those long summer car rides to the beach: your little sister keeps on pinching you and pinching you and when you finally haul off and slug her, you're the one who gets in trouble.

And then she sticks her tongue out at you for the rest of the ride.

Leeds: And yes, that's a liberal link

How can a link, nothing more than a simple tool, be "liberal", if you please?

Am I going to have to post the actual bookie odds? OK. Ladbrokes has Obama at 1.20, +6 over the other guy.

Witness the power of a fully optional Obama reelection machine

Purdue_Pete: Oh and yes, I'm obviously a racist. I'm voting Romney so he can put black people back in the fields where they belong. Along with legalizing legitimate rape and banning abortions of course. That's what anyone like me who voted Obama in '08 but thinks he did a crappy job leading our country is, right? A racist? 

/sarcasm off
/pro choice
/pro gay marriage
/anti crappy president

Delusional at best. Misinformed? The word 'wrong' works as well.

Thunderpipes: Unemployment ticked back up to 7.9%. Wow, that is awesome. Oh, that includes the fact that 4-5% of the entire workforce dropped out. Home prices and the stock market are very slowly rising after a stark recession? Oh boy howdy, Obama is a Savior! Could have elected a monkey and done as well. You are here arguing that 7.9% unemployment, exploding deficit, drastically shrunk workforce is okay because home prices and the stock market have rebounded. Wow.

We tried that eight years ago... It didn't turn out so well.

Does Nate use some kind of Monte Carlo method to process the poll info and arrive at his results?

With a picture of a Monte Cristo sandwich so my tiny question does not get lost:



You are welcome.

Purdue_Pete: BeesNuts: Thunderpipes: AurizenDarkstar: Thunderpipes: At least libs are staying true to form.

At least 70 Republican poll workers have been thrown out, sometimes physically from Pennsylvania polling stations by Democrats. Judge had to step in. This, this is what you guys are all about and it just sucks.

And you can show a link to this happening, outside of your fevered imagination?

Google it, several news sites have it up. Black Panthers are back too.

The question that nobody seemed to ask was "why were they thrown out?"

If they were electioneering and not poll watching, that's a no no.

As for the BPP, shall I call you a hypocrite for wanting to throw out poll watchers you disagree with? Or should I assume you are just a regular old racist who thinks "being black" is an intimidation tactic?

According to CNN just now, "all reports" so far say the only reason was that he was a black man and working for the GOP as a poll inspector. No campaigning, a certified inspector. Shout downs of Uncle Tom and violence have ensued. A judge ordered that all 12 wards that removed the GOP inspectors be reinstated and dispatched deputies at each site to insure compliance.

No harm I can see to the process in general, in fact the Black Panthers just caused panic and delay in areas that Obama should win 95% of the vote - so kind of dumb. Maybe they should drive out to the suburbs next time and cause this drama.

It seems you are supporting the removal of polling place inspectors? Can you elaborate? Why do you think any of this is okay?

Details are extraordinarily light on the poll inspector thing. Having voted in Philly, I find it hard to believe that the actual poll workers would kick somebody out for ... also being a poll worker. In fact, I *NEVER KNEW THE POLITICAL IDENTITY* of the poll inspectors I met (and spoke to on several occassions that year [it was my first election :D]) The story smells funny, and the fact that it's coming from the poison well of ThunderPipes makes it all the more questionable. But no, I do not support kicking out poll inspectors. I DO support letting poll watchers do *their* jobs as well, and for the most part, I trust poll watchers more than I trust Thunderpipes and WND so... that's where I'm at. Withholding judgment and not being especially outraged since it appears to already be undone, for better or worse.

Again, the only way you can think that a NBP is causing "panic and delay" by standing in proximity to a polling place is if you're a farking racist dickwaffle. Are you a racist dickwaffle? I'm withholding judgment on that too.

JW: Leeds: IT'S MAKING THE DEFICITS OF THE FOLLOWING YEARS APPEAR TO HAVE SHRUNK

How? Stimulus money was money out, not money in. How? How did it make the deficits look smaller? You've stated that it does, but you don't state HOW it made them look smaller, except by saying I'm a Democrat and an idiot.

By farking comparison you god-damned idiot.

The initial poster said that obama's deficits have been getting smaller since the first year he took office.

I pointed out that the fact that the first year's deficit was super huge by comparison was entirely due to the stimulus package that was part of that year's deficit.

Then idiots started responding with posts that have no bearing on the thread. Farking idiots like you. Learn to farking read and you won't be called out for being an idiot.

Leeds: IT'S MAKING THE DEFICITS OF THE FOLLOWING YEARS APPEAR TO HAVE SHRUNK

How? Stimulus money was money out, not money in. How? How did it make the deficits look smaller? You've stated that it does, but you don't state HOW it made them look smaller, except by saying I'm a Democrat and an idiot.

Leeds: JW: Leeds:

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

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?
Ok, perhaps I didn't understand your post. Let me be more clear as to what I thought you meant:

1) You stated "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.

2) The deficit is revenue - expenditures, when revenue exceeds expenditures, and you've got to borrow the rest.

3) You're stating that it only got smaller because of the one time charge of the stimulus. For your argument to be true, the one-time charge would have to be additional revenue. But the stimulus was more expenditures, not more revenue. It's not a windfall.

4) Companies often don't count one-time charges because it's not recurring, true. But that's almost always because it makes their books look worse, not better. This is the counter argument.

5) In trying to understand what you were saying -- that the stimulus is a one-time charge that makes the books look BETTER, not worse, I tried to understand the statement from the point of view that it had somehow increased revenues in a non-recurring fashion. Thus the statement about increasing tax revenue, since that's the only thing I could guess that you meant.

Now if all that is wrong, please help me understand what you mean when you say that the stimulus, as a non-recurring expenditure, is somehow making the deficit appear smaller than it really is. I'd appreciate it if you did so without trying to label me as a Democrat or similar, since that 1) is false, and 2) is in no way pertinent to the discussion.

Leeds: BeesNuts: For not focusing on the economy, the current president sure did a bang up job of keeping the boat afloat on an anemic tide. Further, keeping with that analogy, 2% growth feels like a tide, whereas the 15-20% growth we see in bubble economies feels more like a tsunami. One of those tends to be moderately destructive. I know which I'd prefer.

You're content with 2% growth????????????

Is it really possible that you don't have any out of work friends and you evidently don't know anyone with kids who intend on entering the job market in the next decade.

Because we can't get back to full employment if we have people entering the job market at a faster pace than we create jobs. That's what this paltry 2% growth gives us.

Please reconsider your position. At present you are basically saying "screw America."

No one is content with 2% growth. But, at present, you are basically saying that you would prefer recession.

If Romney had said he would do anything differently from what Bush did economically, you would have a valid argument, but his entire platform was tax cuts, deregulation, privatization, and a general return to regressive governance. That's what caused the recession in the first place! You bet I'll take 2% growth over that. I'll take the economic conditions of 2012 over those of 2008 any day of the week.

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

So no response to hugram's post, then? No rejoinder for the wall of facts that contradicts you at every turn? Ok then. If you can't play by the rules of civil and moral discourse, where each side actually presents evidence and reasons for believing things, then you can be dismissed for what we all know you are.

Either address the facts, or keep snivelling. The choice is yours. Do you have the backbone to do the right thing?

Nobody made any logical argument whatsoever, when they do, I respond.

Here is what you quoted... "math does not lie. In no way can anything about the economy be called good"...

I then posted a whole bunch of stuff that no one with a straight face can say they are not good... Car sales are up... home prices are up... stock markets are up... unemployment rate trending down... well, you can go back to look at them again.

Anyway, if you still feel all that data I posted is still not good... and you want to blame the bad situation on the Gov, and more specifically on Obama for it, why don't you first start with congress... and to be specific, the GOP members of congress.

US presidents are not dictators. They do not create and pass laws all by themselves. Congress creates laws, and then they vote on them. If a bill is passed via the voting process, it is here that the President only signs them into law. Since the GOP congress blocked every bills the Dems tried to pass, including ideas they used to championed, then go ahead and blame them. 

Including on the many links I provided to you, one was a 10% tax cut for companies that hire someone new. The GOP congress blocked that bill. Since when are they against a tax cut?

Leeds: BeesNuts: For not focusing on the economy, the current president sure did a bang up job of keeping the boat afloat on an anemic tide. Further, keeping with that analogy, 2% growth feels like a tide, whereas the 15-20% growth we see in bubble economies feels more like a tsunami. One of those tends to be moderately destructive. I know which I'd prefer.

You're content with 2% growth????????????

Is it really possible that you don't have any out of work friends and you evidently don't know anyone with kids who intend on entering the job market in the next decade.

Because we can't get back to full employment if we have people entering the job market at a faster pace than we create jobs. That's what this paltry 2% growth gives us.

Please reconsider your position. At present you are basically saying "screw America."

You might want to do a little research before making a comment like that. Most economists see a rate of growth in the 2.5% - 3% range as being healthy. When it gets into higher numbers like 7% - 10%, it's definitely a boom, and that can be bad down the line.

So yeah, I agree with him that a rate of growth of 2% is a good thing for the country, but 3% would be better.

Thunderpipes's kid isn't going to college and will probably fark a relative.

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?

If you really think that it was the Democrats alone who created the housing crisis situation, you are hopelessly partisan. I hope that kid can think for himself because his father is a simpleton fool. Enjoy your 4 more years.

Thunderpipes: AurizenDarkstar: Thunderpipes: At least libs are staying true to form.

At least 70 Republican poll workers have been thrown out, sometimes physically from Pennsylvania polling stations by Democrats. Judge had to step in. This, this is what you guys are all about and it just sucks.

And you can show a link to this happening, outside of your fevered imagination?

Google it, several news sites have it up. Black Panthers are back too.

The question that nobody seemed to ask was "why were they thrown out?"

If they were electioneering and not poll watching, that's a no no.

As for the BPP, shall I call you a hypocrite for wanting to throw out poll watchers you disagree with? Or should I assume you are just a regular old racist who thinks "being black" is an intimidation tactic?

INeedAName: 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.

Thanks! If I had to actually type that out I almost definitely couldn't have done it, but I can't make any claims to it. It was just the newest comment at 538 when I read the article. I was impressed too.

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

So no response to hugram's post, then? No rejoinder for the wall of facts that contradicts you at every turn? Ok then. If you can't play by the rules of civil and moral discourse, where each side actually presents evidence and reasons for believing things, then you can be dismissed for what we all know you are.

Either address the facts, or keep snivelling. The choice is yours. Do you have the backbone to do the right thing?

Thunderpipes: At least libs are staying true to form.

At least 70 Republican poll workers have been thrown out, sometimes physically from Pennsylvania polling stations by Democrats. Judge had to step in. This, this is what you guys are all about and it just sucks.

And you can show a link to this happening, outside of your fevered imagination?

Leeds: Who the f**k is Nate Silver and why has fark begun to mention him 20 times a day?

Did he even exist before this week?

I was gonna ask the same thing, then I read the thread and how you got flamed by the herpa derp crowd that wouldn't answer your question.

Thanks for posting the answer you had to go find for yourself.

Now I get the impresstion that is an eerily accurate statistician that came from the world of baseball (which is crazy about statistics). Welcome to my favorites list with the tag line "Guy willing to take the hit for asking the obvious questions I was about to."

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.

I still cannot comprehend how you continue to survive with your head wedged so firmly up your ass? Have you evolved to the point that you can survive on methane emissions now?

Oh, I'm sorry, in your case it would be 'intelligently designed'.

That said, if you could spew more than right wing noise and platitudes, people might actually listen. But since you don't, they'll continue to dog pile on your lack of intelligence. Have fun. :)

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.

You do realize that a Romney victory doesn't disprove Silver in any way, shape, or form, right? Or do you not understand probabilities?

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.

I think the only thing he will prove if there is backlash against a Romney win is that Americans really are too tremendously stupid to handle basic math. Statistics isn't even a particularly complicated branch of math.

Sorry, you can continue your flecks of spittle now.

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

Won't need to argue it if the wealthy far right would just pay their fair share of taxes.

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.

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. :-)

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

SO MUCH THIS!

depmode98: trillions of dollars that were spent in obamas first time that added to the debt came in the form of the glorious wars the Republicans started. Now as an added bonus, you can pretend it was Democrats fault for having to spend the money for cleaning that shiat up.

Well, Obama should have kept it off the books like Bush did! Then it wouldn't have counted! Duh!

Last Man on Earth: 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!

Thank you! I wanted to post that exchange as well, but I couldn't find a video clip for it.

Not the same scene, but still relevant. The wrath from high atop the thing.

GrizzlyPouch: Headso: GrizzlyPouch: Headso: 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?

any high level religious figure, he's not just a mormon he's a mormon bishop, so yeah a catholic bishop running for president would be just as bad as would their muslim and jewish counterparts.

Just curious, why does it make you feel so superior to be anti religion?

Even people who are considered geniuses have had faith.

Not flaming you, just curious about why you feel this way

I wouldn't say that being leery of a bishop appointing supreme court justices is anti religion. They could decide issues like abortion rights and gay marriage.

That's a good point but I offer this:

Shouldn't we be electing a president who would appoint justices who follow the law, and not what their own opinion is on political issues.

I'm not sure Obama has done this

I don't think anyone does that, you get democrats appointing people that are more leftish and republicans appointing people that are more rightish. My personal political leanings line up more with democrats than republicans especially on social issues. You may like the idea of a very religious man appointing justices because your political leanings are more like his.

Tellingthem: The FiveThirtyEight forecast of the national popular vote is within this range, projecting Mr. Obama's most likely margin of victory to be two or three percentage points,

Damn that is closer than I thought...

LOTS of people in the high population density northeast aren't going to vote because of the hurricane. Those states will still be blue and the EC votes will go to Obama, but voter turnout will be quite low. It's because of this that I predict Romney will do better in the popular vote than he normally would have, might even win it.

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 know its thunderpipes, but even still...

i just cant believe people can be so willfully ignorant, so poorly informed, and come to such incredibly base and simple conclusions about things. And be defiant and self righteous about it.

This is weapons grade stupidity here, and it just makes me sad.

GrizzlyPouch: Headso: 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?

any high level religious figure, he's not just a mormon he's a mormon bishop, so yeah a catholic bishop running for president would be just as bad as would their muslim and jewish counterparts.

Just curious, why does it make you feel so superior to be anti religion?

Not speaking for Headso, but I do agree with him on this point. For me, it is not that I am anti-religion, it is more that I would not trust a high ranking church official serving in the office of the president not to attempt to impose his religious view of morality on the rest of the country.

Headso: GrizzlyPouch: Headso: 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?

any high level religious figure, he's not just a mormon he's a mormon bishop, so yeah a catholic bishop running for president would be just as bad as would their muslim and jewish counterparts.

Just curious, why does it make you feel so superior to be anti religion?

Even people who are considered geniuses have had faith.

Not flaming you, just curious about why you feel this way

I wouldn't say that being leery of a bishop appointing supreme court justices is anti religion. They could decide issues like abortion rights and gay marriage.

That's a good point but I offer this:

Shouldn't we be electing a president who would appoint justices who follow the law, and not what their own opinion is on political issues.

I'm not sure Obama has done this

Leeds: Who the f**k is Nate Silver and why has fark begun to mention him 20 times a day?

Did he even exist before this week?

What good does it do you to announce your own stupidity to the rest of the world?

GrizzlyPouch: Headso: 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?

any high level religious figure, he's not just a mormon he's a mormon bishop, so yeah a catholic bishop running for president would be just as bad as would their muslim and jewish counterparts.

Just curious, why does it make you feel so superior to be anti religion?

Even people who are considered geniuses have had faith.

Not flaming you, just curious about why you feel this way

I wouldn't say that being leery of a bishop appointing supreme court justices is anti religion. They could decide issues like abortion rights and gay marriage.

I liken this election to last week Packers game (I live in Wisconsin, so bear with me). They were playing Arizona. Everybody picked Green Bay to win. Everybody knew Green Bay was going to win. They were a 5-to-1 favorite. Heck, probably some players for Arizona knew Green Bay was going to win. However, there was a monent in the third quarter where Arizona was on the 2-yard line looking to score a touchdown that would've brought them to within 3 points. It was close. Was Arizona actually going to pull this game out? The answer, of course, was no. Because Arizona is, well, Arizona and they're too one dimensional of a team...and that one dimension is very good. Meanwhile Green Bay is that much better, and they should've won that game going away. What I'm trying to say is Romney is like Arizona and Obama is like Green Bay. Obama should be blowing out Romney, but he's not. however, he's still leading the game late and will more than likely put it away by the two-minute warning in the fourth quarter.

That's enough sports analogies for the day.

Bontesla: I foresee the winner being hotly conested.

Sort of depends on what you mean by "hotly contested". In any election more important than American Idol, a consistent 1% lead long-term is actually considered pretty reliable, and 2-3% is considered damned near unassailable.

Albeit that's talking about actual elections and _average_ poll numbers over extended periods at the state level, national-level numbers are more volatile but less important and individual polls can run all over the place. But, for instance, Texas is considered a deep-red state that's so Republican you shouldn't even bother campaigning here because of a gap on the order of like five percent in voter registration/polling/presidential voting, and no one bothers with CA because of a similar swing the other way.

//As always, note that polling analysis isn't what I do for a living or anything, so take this with the usual internet grain of salt.

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?

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?

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"

And boom goes the dynamite.

Tellingthem: Tellingthem: Haven't clicked it yet but my prediction for tomorrow is Obama by 6% with a 55% voter turnout. let's see how close i am...

The FiveThirtyEight forecast of the national popular vote is within this range, projecting Mr. Obama's most likely margin of victory to be two or three percentage points,

Damn that is closer than I thought...

And it really highlights WHY we can't have nice things.

I foresee the winner being hotly conested.