Originally Posted by The Rani

Egads.

His expectations for you were higher than mine.

You both were too eager to jump on me. You were doing better when you recognized that I took a closer look. But "Egads" is all you can say? You really think my opinion that the blue team needs to win, is a result of me swallowing propaganda? And not the situation of where this country is?? I can think for myself, even if I do need to take a closer look occasionally and make sure of my facts.

I also respect those who prefer a third choice; I may choose that course myself, so I can't really put it down. My opinion is that the blue team needs to win, but not that the blue team is the panacea to our ills.

And I don't want to change my name to Eric the Blue-green.

You still don't recognize the point of Odin's article. It was nonsense to jump on Odin for posting it.

Oh, and it shows how low my expectations are for Romney and Bachmann in particular. Can you blame me?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Really neat playdude! It shows The Rani was not really looking for examples of Obama being mocked; she just wanted to claim that it's all about nothing except people screaming at each other. Preconceived prejudice. Speaking of which, the racist undertone of this video is obvious. Everyone knows a black president can really do nothing but dance, like those blacks do. Unless he's trying to emulate Justin Bieber. But then, he mostly works with black folks too.

Actually, I rather like the video and don't see it as racist at all. I think they're actually supporting Obama. I think it makes Obama look cool which was one of the motivating factors in 2008.

I just posted to lighten up the thread a little.

Stay cool.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

The game of predicting the election outcome is all well and good. I don't believe all polls are false, and I think Obama has a small lead. The polls do overstate support for Democrats, and the actual result is almost always more favorable to the Republican than the final polling. If Romney does well in the debates and makes a strong final push, he could win. But I want to talk right now about what will happen if Romney loses.

Previously I listed a few possibilities of what might happen over the next four years. But they are not all equally likely. If Obama wins, it is overwhelmingly likely, based on nothing but obvious logic and the experience of the last four years, that things will not get better in the next four, but will instead get worse. If the current policies we have been functioning under do not change (and they will not if Obama is re-elected), a host of chickens are going to come home to roost over the next four years.

1. The "fiscal cliff" is approaching early next year. If the current state of intractability on the part of Obama remains, we will go over it, almost certainly triggering another recession. Nothing constructive will be done about the national debt and the budget deficit. Nothing.

2. Obamacare will go into effect. The economic impact will be catastrophic to a limping economy.

3. We have just had "QE4" on the part of the Federal Reserve, a purely political move to juice the stock market and get Obama re-elected. Each time it is has had less of an effect, and each time the inevitable inflation it will produce gets more massive. Gas and food prices are not included in the official inflation rate. We all know that in spite of a deep economic downturn, those prices have continued to stay high, while people are less able to afford them.

4. There are things going on in the Middle East that threaten a combustion of some sort, and the Obama Administration has been ignoring it. "Leading from Behind" is the operative phrase. If something happens there, while it may not plunge the U.S. back into war, it will send the price of oil through the roof, which will trigger another recession, or make one that we are already in worse.

The left loves to sit around and talk about the disappearance of the Republican Party. It may in fact happen, because the failure of Romney will be the final failure of the party's establishment and leadership. They will have proven themselves to be completely incompetent fools. But recall what happened the last time a major party dissolved and was replaced. It was the Whigs, and the new party was a Republican Party that ended up dominating American politics for the next 72 years. The Democrats will not change. The Republicans are already in the process of changing, or being changed. Four years from now, with the country clearly in a depression and on the verge of total collapse, the people will no longer tolerate business as usual from either party, and something will have to give. Although I do not believe there will be widespread violence, there will be unrest. The Tea Party movement of the last few years will look like a minor blip in comparison (although it will obviously form the core of whatever the next step is).

If we were in a 3T, maybe Obama would wise up like Clinton did and the economy could have a chance of recovery. He has made it emphatically clear that he will not. He has admitted no mistakes, and has offered no new policies. Instead, he thinks that if he wins, the Republicans will suddenly go along with everything he wants, and everything will be fine. Good luck with that. If he is re-elected, it will not only prove that we are in a 4T, it will provide the seeds for the inevitable climax of the Crisis, which will not be civil war. It will be a collapse of federal authority. "Throw the bums out" will not be enough, something major will have to happen. And it won't be left wing, because the final disaster will have come under left wing leadership. There is a comparison to be made to the Weimar Republic. But the result will not be anything like Nazism. There will be no anti-semitism or wars of expansion. Those elements were unique to Germany in that period of time. I do fear that it could turn authoritarian. And it will be right wing, not left wing. But more hopefully, and more likely considering the ideology of the Tea Party movement, it will be a reiteration of the American Revolution, without bloodshed, where strict limits on federal power are re-imposed.

The other historic Republic obviously worth looking at is Rome. So much time and distance exists between then and now that I don't think a lot of direct comparisons can be made. But the trajectory from Republic to Empire to dissolution at the hands of barbarians is worth noting. The commonality is the global reach the U.S. has had, in terms of economics and culture. I don't think the country will cease to exist or shrink the way Rome did, because it has not expanded territorially the way Rome did. But the possibility of some kind of modern Dark Age is not remote. Given how much the country has already decayed from within since the 1960s, the pampered, frivolous mindset of recent decades will be replaced by dealing with basic questions of brutal reality.

The biggest problem with Boomers and with the left has always been that they take so many things for granted. They think you can keep hacking away at the roots, jack-hammering the foundations, and everything will still be fine just like it always has been (i.e. since Boomers were born, because no history exists before that). If we have four more years like the last, that illusion is going to be exposed, in very ugly ways.

I don't know that things will be significantly better if Romney wins. But at least there's a chance. If Obama wins, we already know what the next four years are going to be like. And if that doesn't produce rock bottom for those still living under illusions, I don't know what will.

Just so we all understand, you are assigning the role of compormiser to the Democrats, who, by your reconning, must move to the GOP positions to avoid catastrophe. By that logic, elections have no consequenses if the results come out wrong. Is this correct? If not, what degree of shift moves that mandate to the GOP? In 2000 it was a simple win by Bush. The same applied in 2004. A solid win for the Dems in 2006 and a huge win in 2008 were somehow inadequate, though a partial reset in 2010 was a mandate for a a sharp right turn.

Is a Dem win ever big enough to be big enough?

Originally Posted by The Rani

I don't think so:

Those who don't see that, who prefer to stand back and mock everybody, are the ones who believe the propaganda; like the libertarian propaganda that taxes are always bad and we don't need the government; that we can just rely on personal responsibility. Now that is some heavy delusion there.

This would be like me saying that everyone who votes Democrat is a deluded socialist who believes that government solves all problems. I don't think that at all.

Maybe you don't believe propaganda; I don't either, although you think I do. I'm not comparing anything. I just said it is a fact that the Republicans need to be defeated, and I think people need to see that. That is based on my factual assessment of the situation, not me believing "propaganda." Because someone favors one side over the other, does not mean this opinion is screaming, or is based on propaganda. You don't favor one side over the other; I understand that. I do. But a third option is understandable.

I didn't read what he posted, and I usually don't.
My comment was about the LARGE HEADLINE. Even Bob figured that part out.

I don't see any reason to comment on that. So what? If you ignore what he says, why do you not ignore how he says it?

I think the video had racist undertones, but I am not upset about it.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Eric, I'm going to set things straight so you know where I'm coming from, and so I can be done with all this.

You are just magnifying your charges against me, which are bogus to begin with.

You believed the fake website that Rani linked; So much so that you used some of it in your argument against JPT. But, you went back and edited-out the references to that website, while keeping the ones referenced from Odin's link. That's total BS, Eric. Protecting your precious ego/image, were you?

No, why make that charge? I simply corrected myself after I saw that it was satire. I had never heard of that website before. My ego image had nothing whatsoever to do with it. Why should I leave something posted if it's based on a mistake--- that Bachmann and Romney didn't actually say those things? It would have been wrong for me to leave it up. That meant I also deleted my negative remarks about Bachmann, but since you decided to jump on me, that went out the window. Odin's link was to an article that was correct, and was no joke as JPT charged. JPT's charge was totally bogus; there was no joke, and that's all I said. So Odin's link was still relevant. And this stuff about The Rani's post being about Odin using large letters, never occurred to me; why should it?

You see Eric, what you did is disingenuous, IMO. That may not mean much to you, but it is very important to me. The concepts behind words such as honesty, integrity...trust!...they mean something to me. It's difficult enough when one doesn't trust the Media or our Govt(eg: JFK's impropriety, Watergate, Iran/Contra, Clinton/Gingrich impropriety, WMD, Libya, Etc.), but when it breaks down to our own personal relationships, I'd say we've got a serious problem(eg: friendship).

You say you want to be a leader, but you apparently don't understand that leadership isn't given; It's earned. IOW, leaders are created because people choose to follow them. IOW, they trust them. So, you rail incessantly about why people don't believe in the causes that you're fighting for. Well, you might as well look in the mirror, Eric; You're the reason. You see, I can't trust you anymore. The Sunflower has meaning for me. It represents a level of honesty and deserves respect; It is unchangingly noble in that manner. You do not deserve that title anymore. In fact, I would say that now all of your opinions are called into question. For all I know, you still may not even understand what I'm talking about. Think of it this way...you ordered a code-red on yourself and then chose to cover-up your mistake. If you're going to "talk the talk", you sure as hell better "walk the walk"!

I want to be a leader? Hmmmmmm; in some ways I guess. If people don't understand what's going on in this country, it's not just up to me to inform them; although I do what little I can.

You can't trust me because I'm ready to believe that Bachmann and Romney would say dumb things? But Prince, they DO say dumb things. I had to do a double-take to correct myself, given the extreme stupidity of those two folks. True, I have a "low expectation" of them, given their track record.

Forgiveness is something that is also important to me. I have seen nothing even close to remorse on your part, though. But, I know someone who has shown something like that in the past. You know who? Odin. He even went so far as to post a quasi-apology upon realizing his error. IMO, he's twice the man you are, Eric. IOW, you're old enough to know better. You chose to sell your soul/integrity to save your ego/image. And I for the life of me don't know why(although I have my suspicions).

I admitted my mistake. In fact I have done so ad nauseum and you ignore me. I did nothing of the sort that you say, but I can't force you not to think what you think. I would reply to you: allow people to correct themselves. Don't jump on them. Myself, I rarely make a post that I don't have to go back and edit for some reason.

The issues are what is important; not my level of integrity or anyone else's here. Whether I have an ego or integrity or not is irrelevant, totally. Please keep this site about turnings, generations and related issues, not the personalities and behavior of the posters. I am really SO not interested in that topic. Whether it's about me, you, or anyone else here.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I didn't do anything. I just read the article The Rani posted. It seems quite in character with Ms. Bachmann, although I didn't know it was satire. Since you brought it up, now it's permissible to make my remark about Bachmann that I had deleted too.

I learned about that website though, which I didn't know about. It's funny. But that website, in turn, had absolutely nothing to do with the article Odin posted, which factually revealed the idiocy of some Romney supporters, and was not a "joke" as JPT said (and as the website is). That idiocy remains the fact. And Bachmann remains a disgrace, even if she didn't make those remarks. She's said plenty of other stupid things, which is why she is the butt of the satire; as is Romney, because of the stupid things he said about the 47%. You just can't make up some of the things Romney says. So I was inclined at first to believe that what Bachmann said might be true, and that The Rani was actually upset about it, until I took a closer look. Instead, The Rani was supporting JPT, and that was the first and larger error, which you Prince have learned nothing from. Sorry that you are upset at me now; we were getting along so well on the other thread.

There is no excuse for people voting for Tea Party conservatives. Americans should take responsibility for their mistake in Nov.2010, and correct it. This year is their chance; I hope they take it. Instead, they may be blaming Democratic congresspeople for the slow recovery. Now, how stupid is that? Pretty lame; extremely lame in fact. Off the charts lame.

Obama says stupid things too, and more disgraceful. Sir Glick has a thread dedicated to it.


They will blame the Democrats because they've been in charge for three years, more if you count the 2006 elections.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

Obama says stupid things too, and more disgraceful. Sir Glick has a thread dedicated to it.

More disgraceful? Not in my opinion. But yes he has said some things that Republicans can jump on, mostly because it violates their philosophy.

They will blame the Democrats because they've been in charge for three years, more if you count the 2006 elections.

The people setting policy in congress have been the Republicans, who control it, and that policy has been to block absolutely everything Obama has tried to do about the economy, and put the nation on the brink of default or government shutdown. They deserve a mandate for that? No, they deserve the blame; and for firing so many public employees too, at the state level too. Obama had it right (though it is one of his supposed gaffes); Republican firings of public employees (and blocking of all additional stimulus) have offset gains in the private sector, and have prolonged the recession.

Obama is not campaigning against the Republican congress, and you can tell this from the polls. He needs to do it, and give up the vain hope that they will be nice and compromise after their goal fails of ousting him. It won't happen, any more than you guys here are going to become moderates after he wins.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Because I said so:

A headline you enlarged after I had already read the link and made my post. But why would I notice such an unconsequential and irrelevant matter as the size of print being used? It was not a matter for discussion as far as I was (and am) concerned. And what you SAID was that you were "outraged." That's what *I* noticed. The important thing was the article that you didn't read, and which fully justified Odin's or anyone else's outrage. But not having read it, you assumed that this was just partisan screaming by Odin, and a "joke" as JPT falsely claimed.

FWIW, I think your as-yet-unrecognized error is failing to see that your expectations influenced your judgment in this area.

Low expectations of Bachmann on my part indeed, and a snap-judgement, quickly reversed; and yet a fully-justified judgement, as I've explained too. Why would anyone be surprised if Bachmann HAD recommended a falafel ban??? She's a scumbag and I don't mind saying so. We had the Republicans talking about "freedom fries" a few years ago too. And you have Republicans in VA saying all Arabs and Muslims are terrorists and should be killed. I thought you might be genuinely outraged at that, and justifiably so. Instead you were just reacting to the size of Odin's headline. Sorry, but that escaped me.

And remember you were quick to pounce on my supposed "ideological" blinders because I don't make excuses for Republican resistance to global warming regulations in the USA, just because the Chinese are not doing all they can either. As well as me "believing propaganda" because I am quick to assume that Republicans say stupid things. Yes, I think some others may have ideological blinders, but I know where I stand and why.

I think if, for whatever reason, you think Democrats are as stupid or as unworthy of your support as Republicans, that's a justifiable position. As flawed as Democratic politicians are, I don't agree. But I often waver about which way to go-- a pox on both houses, or support the blue-meanies. Sometimes indeed I do both at the same time. That may seem contradictory, but that's where I am. But I can't fault you or anyone else for doing one and not the other.

In interests of full disclosure, although I have not contributed to Obama's campaign, yesterday I donated a small amount to the Democrats' campaign to take back the House. That is necessary if we ever wish to move forward in our country again.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Chas, if you listen to Xers we complain about the same thing too. Though in the opposite direction than the GIs.

--

Anyway, the thing that strikes me about this discussion is the utter pointlessness of it. A Electorial Collage split has only happened twice 1800 and 1876. I don't foresee a EC split happening. Not when the polls are indicating that Obama has 265 safe or lean votes to Romney's 191.

What this means is that Obama only needs Iowa or Nevada (both are relatively small states) while Romeny needs to get all the swing states.

This election is in the bag for the President.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...llege_map.html

One way of looking at it is that with 265 electoral votes of solid-to-leaning states essentially locked up, seven states (I still consider Missouri a tossup) that are different enough that no single appeal can swing them all to Mitt Romney who needs them all without cutting into the 'lean-Obama' states (CO, FL, MO, NV, NC, OH, VA) -- NH does not now make a difference because it has only 4 electoral votes) random chance alone gives Mitt Romney with a 50-50 chance in each state only one chance in 128 (less than 1% chance) of winning the election. The appeal that Barack Obama is a lousy President culpable because he has not revived the dubious 'good times' of the early-to-middle Double Zero Decade has failed in part because people hold that time culpable for recent hard times. Few want another corrupt boom going bust, and few would trust it enough to participate in it. This is a 4T, and 3T ways that aren't a combination of cheap, fun, and harmless or profitable with little risk don't get revived during a 4T. Sure, there was the Tea Party revival of 2010, a reversion to 3T ideology... but that now looks like a risky form of politics in too many places and a cause of failure.

...As for any generation gap, that abates during a 4T. Figure that the nuclear family is often shoved into smaller accommodations or takes in relatives not doing so well, there's just not much room for self-assertion. Omnibus entertainment that would be silly in a 2T or a 3T (Busby Berkeley dance numbers) draw mass audiences across ethnic, religious, regional, and even generational lines. That is how the movies did so well in the 1930s, when movies were engineered to appeal to people whether "8 or 80"... whether someone buying a theater ticket or having one bought for one, they could not go over the heads of Silent children old enough to pay attention and get confused, and they couldn't offend the sensibilities of elderly Missionaries and Progressives.

Suppose that there is only one large TV screen in a family undergoing hardships characteristic of a 4T. What will be on the screen? Will it be edgy sports? Not likely. Daring 2T classics such as A Clockwork Orange, Easy Rider, or The Wild Bunch? Not likely. You would not show those to children who would be part of the audience even if the adults might have watched them.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Just so we all understand, (JPT is) assigning the role of compromise to the Democrats, who, by your reckoning, must move to the GOP positions to avoid catastrophe. By that logic, elections have no consequences if the results come out wrong. Is this correct? If not, what degree of shift moves that mandate to the GOP? In 2000 it was a simple win by Bush. The same applied in 2004. A solid win for the Dems in 2006 and a huge win in 2008 were somehow inadequate, though a partial reset in 2010 was a mandate for a a sharp right turn.

Is a Dem win ever big enough to be big enough?

The only way in which to get the sort of government that consistently does what JPT wants is to either let the Republican Party leadership rig elections (bye, bye, democracy) or arrange for one of the Houses of Congress or to establish (by Constitutional amendment, of course) a new House of Congress to become a Council of Wealth and Bureaucratic Power elected only by the moneyed elites (hello, fascism and most likely an American political system going amok on its way to ruin).

The simple truth is that if there is nothing sacred about liberalism (aside from protection of enumerated rights in the Constitution) when we liberals are down, then there is nothing sacred about property rights in the American political system except for enumerated rights within the Constitution. Democratic government is no guarantee of good government, but tyranny is the inevitability of bad government.

This is a 4T, and although political setbacks are possible (like the 2010 Congressional elections) for the general trend of a 4T to a more collegial, egalitarian, and collectivistic society capable of meeting human needs and grave danger, the usual trend overpowers those setbacks. It may be that white Southerners will tire of right-wing government that sees the common man as an expendable object on behalf of economic elites; even the South has its swings toward populism if not liberalism.

Recent polls at times show signs of an Obama blowout, and Democrats now seem to have a chance to make slight gains in the Senate. In view of the six Senate seats that Democrats picked up in 2006 -- all by defeating incumbent Republicans-- such would not be happening were this not a bad year for Republicans. R Senate seats in AZ and IN should be safe but are not.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

If Obama wins, it is overwhelmingly likely, based on nothing but obvious logic and the experience of the last four years, that things will not get better in the next four, but will instead get worse.

1. The "fiscal cliff" is approaching early next year...almost certainly triggering another recession.

This is true. But what would Romney do? Surely he would make the tax cuts permanent and abolish the defense cuts. But then the deficit grows, which you apparently see as a problem. How would you respond to a sizable increase in the deficit, which is what Romney would do if reducing unemployment is an objective. I have been of two minds. At first I thought for sure Romney would grow the deficit aggreesively as Reagan and Bush did when faced with their recessions.

But then I noted that the Republicans had never made the deficit a real issue before, it was always simply a boilerplate statement, not really meant to be taken seriously. This year they made it front and center. Romney might want to use Reagan or Bush II-style stimulus to pull us out of this slump, but does the rise of the Tea Party make this impossible? Might Romney feel forced to offset tax cuts with domestic spending cuts? If so, then we get the recession.

2. Obamacare will go into effect. The economic impact will be catastrophic to a limping economy.

I don't see this. This is just an assertion with no supporting evidence, can you offer any?

3. We have just had "QE4" on the part of the Federal Reserve...Each time it is has had less of an effect, and each time the inevitable inflation it will produce gets more massive.

And this is a problem? We did a lot of debt monetization in the 1940's (to help pay for WW II) and the result was 6% inflation in the 1940's and a bit higher levels thirty years later. The prospect of 6% inflation over the next 10 years plus a bit more in the 2040's does not cause me to shake with fear, and you have provided no evidence that anything more severe would happen instead.

4. There are things going on in the Middle East that threaten a combustion of some sort, and the Obama Administration has been ignoring it. If something happens there, while it may not plunge the U.S. back into war, it will send the price of oil through the roof, which will trigger another recession, or make one that we are already in worse.

Since when can the US affect what the Middle East does? Your evidence-free implication that there is something Obama or Romney could do that would prevent a blowup is hard to believe. Now as a campaign ploy what you said makes a lot of sense, as it could affect how strongly people on your side feel about the importance of this election.

If it blows up, it blows up. And you are quite right; if the Mideast blows up, oil prices will rise. But as a prediction I'm not sure you even believe it. What position have you entered based on this knowledge, have you bought calls on crude, or perhaps purchased large quantities of drillers on margin? If not, your failure to put your money where your mouth is makes your prediction pretty much worthless.

When I made a bold prediction like yours, I put my money where my mouth was (and am happy I did). I'm not bragging, I've been very wrong before, such as in fall 1999 when I went massively short on QQQ in the mid 60's based on an my projection that it would sell below 40 within two years. I was actually right about the <40 level in two years, but missed the detail that on the way from the 60's to sub-40, it would first go above 100. I lost 100 grand.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I actually did read it, earlier today. My best guess is that someone was baiting the guy who wrote the piece, and he fell for it the same way that you guys fall for stuff like that.
Regardless, it was still partisan screaming by Odin. That's the reason that I never read the links that he posts. They're all inflammatory and sensationalized.

Bad guess. Why assume something like that, when what is obvious is probably good enough for you. He's a liberal, writing for a liberal magazine, and he ventured into Republican territory and discovered just how wacked out the other side really is. No joke; nothing to "fall for." Just the facts about some of these people.

It didn't matter who posted it, and it doesn't matter that some people are partisan or that they scream. What matters are the issues, and on that score, there's only one choice (if you decide to choose between red and blue, anyway). Partisan screaming is not the problem in the United States. The problem is that the wrong decisions are being made. Maybe we ought to scream about it. We certainly ought not to take it anymore.

As for Bachmann, she made the cut for the worst ever, here:
http://dccc.org/pages/worst-republican-ever
and you can read some of the other things she said, in addition to what she (didn't) say.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Someone who has never ventured into Republican territory is hardly qualified to state the facts about "these people."

He just wrote what was said to him. Those are facts.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I actually did read it, earlier today. My best guess is that someone was baiting the guy who wrote the piece, and he fell for it the same way that you guys fall for stuff like that.
Regardless, it was still partisan screaming by Odin. That's the reason that I never read the links that he posts. They're all inflammatory and sensationalized.

He's an old guy who lives in the country. He correctly recognizes the problem of out-of-wedlock births, and he recognizes how serious it is. He clearly intends for what he's saying to apply to anyone who has a child out of wedlock, including many white people (in sheer numbers, probably mostly white people). The author undoubtedly knows that as well, so the charge of racism is little more than the common slander of the left. Rather than calling his statement a joke, let's call it hyperbole for the sake of making a point. When the author starts trying to bring race into it, he just gets more annoyed, and digs in his heels. "Yep, kill 'em all, that's exactly what I mean (you left wing elitist douchebag)".

In any case, you don't get any more remote or inconsequential than the guy being quoted. The fact that people on the left pass this stuff around to each other and froth at the mouth over it is hilarious.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

This is true. But what would Romney do? Surely he would make the tax cuts permanent and abolish the defense cuts. But then the deficit grows, which you apparently see as a problem. How would you respond to a sizable increase in the deficit, which is what Romney would do if reducing unemployment is an objective. I have been of two minds. At first I thought for sure Romney would grow the deficit aggreesively as Reagan and Bush did when faced with their recessions.

But then I noted that the Republicans had never made the deficit a real issue before, it was always simply a boilerplate statement, not really meant to be taken seriously. This year they made it front and center. Romney might want to use Reagan or Bush II-style stimulus to pull us out of this slump, but does the rise of the Tea Party make this impossible? Might Romney feel forced to offset tax cuts with domestic spending cuts? If so, then we get the recession.

Repealing Obamacare, jump-starting the economy and reforming entitlements will eventually solve the deficit and debt problems. If we get significant economic growth and employment back, the amount of revenue coming in to the government will increase dramatically, without raising tax rates. The deficit would be reduced starting immediately, and then the long-term issues could be dealt with.

I don't see this. This is just an assertion with no supporting evidence, can you offer any?

I don't feel the need to hash over the litany on that issue. It will raise the cost of hiring, raise the cost of health care overall, and introduce a spider's web of sclerotic regulations into the economy at the time when it can least handle it. The claim that it will be deficit neutral is laughable. It will more likely blow out the deficit by an additional $1 Trillion over the course of ten years.

And this is a problem? We did a lot of debt monetization in the 1940's (to help pay for WW II) and the result was 6% inflation in the 1940's and a bit higher levels thirty years later. The prospect of 6% inflation over the next 10 years plus a bit more in the 2040's does not cause me to shake with fear, and you have provided no evidence that anything more severe would happen instead.

We have learned definitively that whatever happens, Wall Street will be taken care of. So based on your statements, I'm assuming you shouldn't be worried about any of those things. Most of us don't have that luxury.

Since when can the US affect what the Middle East does? Your evidence-free implication that there is something Obama or Romney could do that would prevent a blowup is hard to believe. Now as a campaign ploy what you said makes a lot of sense, as it could affect how strongly people on your side feel about the importance of this election.

If it blows up, it blows up. And you are quite right; if the Mideast blows up, oil prices will rise. But as a prediction I'm not sure you even believe it. What position have you entered based on this knowledge, have you bought calls on crude, or perhaps purchased large quantities of drillers on margin? If not, your failure to put your money where your mouth is makes your prediction pretty much worthless.

When I made a bold prediction like yours, I put my money where my mouth was (and am happy I did). I'm not bragging, I've been very wrong before, such as in fall 1999 when I went massively short on QQQ in the mid 60's based on an my projection that it would sell below 40 within two years. I was actually right about the <40 level in two years, but missed the detail that on the way from the 60's to sub-40, it would first go above 100. I lost 100 grand.

I'm not a stock broker or a day trader, and I don't have much spare money to invest. When I do, it goes into mutual funds. I'm still relatively young, so I can tolerate risk, but I'm not rushing to dump more money into the stock market at this point, that's for sure.

I don't know when trouble will come in the Middle East, but I know that it will come if things keep going the way they are. Essentially, Obama's policy is a mirror of Jimmy Carter's position on Iran, and it is producing multiple Irans. If you think the U.S. cannot impact what happens in the Middle East, I'd say you're the one whose opinion is pretty much worthless.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Repealing Obamacare, jump-starting the economy and reforming entitlements will eventually solve the deficit and debt problems. If we get significant economic growth and employment back, the amount of revenue coming in to the government will increase dramatically, without raising tax rates. The deficit would be reduced starting immediately, and then the long-term issues could be dealt with.

Magical thinking. The Affordable Care Act has slowed the escalation of medical costs that gut American competitiveness. The world's highest medical cost favor imports over domestic production. An economy based upon privileged industries can enrich those industries but only at the expense of the rest of us. Add to that... we are not going to get the sort of speculative boom four years after the most dramatic crash in share prices and only slightly longer for real estate. It takes time for people to go back to what burned them.

Any economic growth that we are going to get (barring the illusory glitz of a zero-sum economy of a few plutocrats getting rich at the expense of everyone else) will have as its basis low-yield, long-term, can't-run-from investments in small business as was the norm in the 1930s.

I don't feel the need to hash over the litany on that issue. It will raise the cost of hiring, raise the cost of health care overall, and introduce a spider's web of sclerotic regulations into the economy at the time when it can least handle it. The claim that it will be deficit neutral is laughable. It will more likely blow out the deficit by an additional $1 Trillion over the course of ten years.

We are the only advanced industrial country without some of socialized medicine for the common man who isn't old or desperately poor. A system run by profiteers who face no competition always gouges -- and the gouging results in raised costs for everyone else. General Motors makes lots of cars in Canada because Canadian costs are lower. The only way for American companies to compete internationally is for them to not insure the health of workers or to outsource. But employers often so underpay workers that they could never afford the cost-loading American system, effectively a private tax.

For an exaggerated analogy, just think of how life is where the Mafia has real power -- people connected to the Mob get special breaks but get bled for them, and people not connected to them pay much more for what they get and get sub-standard pay or profits.

We have learned definitively that whatever happens, Wall Street will be taken care of.

That happens when crony capitalists make us dependent upon them for any semblance of smooth functioning of the economy. President Obama had to rescue the crooks to prevent a reprise of the 1929-1932 meltdown... and then they turned on him once they no longer needed him. The executives want the bonuses that they got because the stock values went up under President Obama to go untaxed.

Those are your narcissistic Boomers who can enforce rich rewards for themselves for doing horrible things to people.

I don't know when trouble will come in the Middle East, but I know that it will come if things keep going the way they are. Essentially, Obama's policy is a mirror of Jimmy Carter's position on Iran, and it is producing multiple Irans. If you think the U.S. cannot impact what happens in the Middle East, I'd say you're the one whose opinion is pretty much worthless.

There has been trouble in the Middle East since the times of the Pharaohs. Let people like you set the policies, and things go really, really bad.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Repealing Obamacare, jump-starting the economy and reforming entitlements will eventually solve the deficit and debt problems.

Jump-starting the economy is a wish, not a policy. The statement about reforming entitlements is a tautology. If you define "reform" to be "changes that solves debt problems" then of course the statement is right, in a circular sense. A useful response would give some idea on how one is going to do this. This piece is essentially contentless.

If we get significant economic growth and employment back, the amount of revenue coming in to the government will increase dramatically, without raising tax rates. The deficit would be reduced starting immediately, and then the long-term issues could be dealt with.

Well of course. This is more or less what Obama expected would happen when he moved off of the economy and on to other things later in 2009. Following Milton Friedman's prescription the government took steps to prevent a deflationary debt spiral. This is what causes a depression. What they did was three-fold

1. Through the TARP the government very publicly took a stand that said it would not let the financial sector collapse.
2. Off the main scene the Fed created $3 trillion and bought impaired assets with it. This did the same thing as FDR's taking the country off gold; it removed the major deflationary impetus.
3. Obama then got a stimulus bill designed to stem job loss so that the economy could find a bottom from which to form a base to recover. Obama's stimulus cut taxes on working people dramatically in an effort to stimulate consumer spending. It supported state governments to forestall layoffs during the critical bottom-forming period. It worked. The bill was passed in February and the stock market formed this bottom in the next month and the economy followed some time later (the stock market typically leads the economy by about six months).

The bottom achieved, the assumption was that the economy would recover on its own, although it would be slow because of excessive debt overhang resulting from the housing bubble. And this is what has been happening since. If you compare the job growth profile since the bottom to that of other nations post financial crisis, you will see the US has done better than most.
[img]http://oregoneconomicanalysis.files....employment.jpg[/img]

However recovery from modern panics is slow, and this is a big political problem for the incumbant. There is no known solution that is guaranteed to work. Mitt Romney knows this. If the ongoing slow recovery continues over four more years the numbers in 2016 will look better than they do now, even though they will still suck compared to the 1990's or even 2007. In any case Romney would likely win re-election.

The fly in the ointment is what happens if there is another Lehman event. The official Republican response is to let it work out in the marketplace, that is, let the deflationary spiral unfold naturally and the depression happen. I am sure that Romney does not want this as it would doom his re-election prospects. But suppose he cannot get Congressional Republicans to support him in another TARP-type action. Would Democrats support Romney's attempt to gain re-election by forestalling depression, or will they insist that Republicans do the heavy lifting on any bailout, allowing most Democrats to vote against it (and run on that opposition in the future). I think Congress won't pass anything and the deflationary spiral will unfold despite everything Romney tries to do.

I really, really do not want a Depression as I would like to retire in the not too-distant future. Perhaps you don't care, figuring if you have nothing you have nothing to lose. But I have plenty to lose and it's not like one can predict a Lehman event. If I stay out of all financial markets and take negative real returns on money markets for a decade, it won't happen. When I finally venture back in then it will surely happen (my luck runs this way). At a minimum, if Romney looked like he was going to win I could sell now, prices are pretty good now. But it looks like Obama is going to win, especially over the last few weeks and it was only then that the market went up. If the polls had been implying a Romney victory the market would almost certainly be way lower than it is now and I would have to sell at that deflated price. And as soon as I sold I can be sure that no panic would happen and the market will serenely rise for years afterward with me sitting on the sidelines. But if I get back in, then Lehman surely happens and I have to bail at a huge loss. I simply cannot win with Romney.

And I know I sound paranoid, I am because of my previous experiences getting burrned in 1998, 1999 and 2000, my biggest losing years in the midst of a roaring bull. As a result, all things financial have left a bad taste in my mouth.

It will raise the cost of hiring, raise the cost of health care overall, and introduce a spider's web of sclerotic regulations into the economy at the time when it can least handle it.

I don't see why health care prices should rise any faster than they would w/o Obamacare. Romneycare didn't have that effect, as far as I know.

We have learned definitively that whatever happens, Wall Street will be taken care of. So based on your statements, I'm assuming you shouldn't be worried about any of those things. Most of us don't have that luxury.

Wall Street will get taken care of regardless of which party is in office. For crying out loud Romney made his money in finance. I'm not an investment professional, I'm a chemical engineer and work in manufacturing.

I'm not a stock broker or a day trader, and I don't have much spare money to invest.

You don't need much money to buy calls or futures contracts.

I'm still relatively young, so I can tolerate risk, but I'm not rushing to dump more money into the stock market at this point, that's for sure.

I'm not saying go long on the market. You claimed special knowledge that oil prices will spike if Obama gets re-elected. That would mean oil futures are a slam dunk. You would be an idiot not to load up on these if you know for a fact that prices will rise.

I don't know when trouble will come in the Middle East, but I know that it will come if things keep going the way they are.

Ah now we get to the meat of your view. it's "unsustainable" and so bad things are gonna happen. I recall John X saying in 2003 that the market was heading below 4000 soon because valuaitons were unsustainable. I maintained that the market had probably already bottomed in fall 2002 and was likley to go up in the future. Hard money types have been predicting doom because of "the unsustainable debt bubble and associated money creation" for forty years. And then there is the Grand Supercycle collapse that has been imminent for a quarter of a century.

If you think the U.S. cannot impact what happens in the Middle East, I'd say you're the one whose opinion is pretty much worthless.

The US can of course affect what happens at the point of action, just not the outcome. An excellent example was the 1990 invasion of Kuwait. The US had a choice, to do nothing or get involved. Had we done the former, Iraq would have stayed in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia would shore up their defense, which they certainly could afford. Perhaps they would have hired Western mercenaries or even taken up Osama bin Laden's offer to help. In any case OBL would have stayed in Saudi Arabia and none of us would have heard of him.

We chose to do the later and sent US troops to Saudi Arabia, a step we knew was potentially problematic as fundamentalist Muslims (like OBL) hate the idea of non-Muslims in their holy land (and Saudi Arabia is full of fundamentalist Muslims). OBL had a hissy fit about "crusaders in the holy land", and made himself such a pain in the ass to the Saudi authorities that they exiled him (had he not been from such a wealthy and prominent family he might have just been "disppearred"). He went to Sudan where he met Ayman al Zawhiri, got further radicalized, and what we call al Qaeda central was born. 911 and two wars were the eventual blowback from this 1990 decision.

I surely did not foresee this, I was 100% in favor of the Gulf War, I though Bush'41 did a splendid job of handling the war, wrapping it up with no loose ends (or so I thought). Man was I wrong, and so was everyone else who supported that war. This example clearly shows that although the US can act in the Middle East, we cannot control blowback, and so often we do not accomplish our desired objectives.

This is what I meant. What would you have a president do? Can you guarantee that blowback worse than the original problem won't happen as a result? Your reluctance to make a major financial bet on the accuracy of your predictions tells me that you are not really that confident in them at all, that you, like me, do not actually have a working crystal ball.

In that case what you are doing is making a forecast using a model of reality they you believe has predictive value. I am then justified in insisting that you provide more details on how this model works so that I can assess its validity independently. Unless you have a working crystal ball or a direct link to God, making simple assertions of what will happen is invalid.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Jump-starting the economy is a wish, not a policy.

And yet polices can have an effect on it. For the last four years, we have been flat-lined. The stock market recovered, the economy has not. There has been no economic recovery. The small amount of GDP growth and job creation is not enough to keep up with the population, and certainly not enough to keep up with the federal budget.

The statement about reforming entitlements is a tautology. If you define "reform" to be "changes that solves debt problems" then of course the statement is right, in a circular sense. A useful response would give some idea on how one is going to do this. This piece is essentially contentless.

It should be self-evident that reform in this case means putting them on a sound financial basis. My personal preference is to means-test Social Security and Medicare, but it is virtually impossible that either party will do so.

Well of course. This is exactly what Obama did when he moved off of the economy and on to other things in 2009. Following Milton Friedman prescription the government took steps to prevent a deflationary debt spiral. This is what causes a depression. What they did was three-fold 1. Through the TARP the government very publicly took a stand that said it would not let the financial sector collapse. Off the main scene the Fed created $3 trillion and bought impaired assets with it. This did the same thing as FDR's taking the country off gold; it removed the major deflationary impetus. Obama then passed a stimulus bill designed to stem job loss so that the economy could find a bottom from which to form a base to recover. Obama's stimulus cut taxes on working people dramatically in an effort to stimulate consumer spending. It supported state governments to forestall layoffs during the critical bottom-forming period.

The "stimulus" bill was a bailout of government, to follow the TARP bailout of Wall Street. Both sectors have been doing quite well since '08. Nothing else is. They saved their own hides, and have left everybody else out in the cold.

It worked as intended.

Sounds like the official company line on a piece of buggy computer software.

The bill was passed in February and the stock market formed this bottom in the next month and the economy followed some time later (the stock market typically leads the economy by about six months). The bottom achieved, the assumption was that the economy would recover on its own, although it would be slow because of excessive debt overhang resulting from the housing bubble. And this is what has been happening since. If you compare the job growth profile since the bottom to that of other nations post financial crisis, you will see the US has done better than most.
[img]http://oregoneconomicanalysis.files....employment.jpg[/img]

The economy has not recovered. It achieved stasis. If you believe that government and Wall Street are the only parts of the economy that exist, I'm sure you think the economy is roaring.

I don't see why health care prcies should rise any faster than will w/o Obamacare. Romneycare didn't have that effect.

Increasing coverage (mandatory whether you want it or not) will increase demand, which will increase prices. It is the network of government regulations (federal and state) that drive up the cost of health insurance.

Wall Street will get taken care of regardless of which party is in office. For crying out loud Romney made his money in finance. I'm not an investment professional, I'm a chemical engineer and work in manufacturing.


You don't need much money to buy some calls.


I'm not saying go long on the market. You claimed special knowledge that oil prices will spike if Obama gets re-elected. That would mean oil futures are a slam dunk. You would be an idiot not to load up on these if you know for a fact that prices will rise.

I don't know for a fact that Obama will win. If the Republicans win we'll start drilling more, which should drive the price down.

Ah now we get to the meat of your view. it's "unsustainable" and so bad things are gonna happen. I recall John X saying in 2003 that the market was heading below 4000 soon. I maintained that the market had probably already bottomed in fall 2002 and was likley to go up in the future.

The stock market and the Middle East are not exactly the same thing. It is clear that the "Arab Spring", which Obama approached with a hands-off nod, has resulted in fundamentalist parties taking power. Recent events show the dangers. If the U.S. does not take a more strategic approach, before long half the countries in the Muslim world could have governments that look and act like Iran's. We need to be exerting influence to prevent that from happening. We currently are not.

The US can affect what happens, just not the outcome. An excellent example was the 1990 invasion of Kuwait. The US had a choice, to do nothing or get involved. Had we done the former, Iraq would have stayed in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia would shore up their defense, wihc they certainly could afford. Perhaps they would have hired Western mercenaries or even taken up Osama bin Laden's offer to help. In any case OBL would have stayed in Saudi Arabia and none of us would have heard of him.

We chose to do the later and sent US troops to Saudi Arabia, a step we knew was potentially problematic as fundamentalist Muslims (like OBL) hate the idea of non-Muslims in their holy land (and Saudi Arabia is full of fundamentalist Muslims).

OBL had a hissy fit about "crusaders in the holy land", and made himself such a pain in the ass to the Saudi authorities that they exiled him (had he not been from such a wealthy and prominent family he might have just been "disppearred"). He went to Sudan where he met Ayman al Zawhiri, got further radicalized, and what we call al Qaeda central was born. 911 and two wars were the eventual blowback from this 1990 decision.

I surely did not foresee this, I was 100% in favor of the Gulf War, I though Bush'41 did a splendid job of handling the war, wrapping it up with no loose ends (or so I thought). Man was I wrong, and so was everyone else who supported that war. This example clearly shows that although the US can act in the Middle East, we cannot control blowback, and so often we do not accomplish our desired objectives.

This is what I meant. What would you have a president do? Can you guarantee that blowback worse than the original problem won't happen as a result? Your reluctance to make a major financial bet on the accuracy of your predictions tells me that you are not really that confident in them at all, that you, like me, do not actually have a working crystal ball.

In that case what you are doing is making a forecast using a model of reality they you believe has predictive value. I am then justified in insisting that you provide more details on how this model works so that I can assess its validity independently. Unless you have a working crystal ball or a direct link to God, making simple assertions of what will happen is invalid.

It's really very simple. The "model" is the last four years. Four more years of the same is not a bold prediction if Obama is re-elected. If we have continued unrest in the Middle East, oil prices will go up. They always do. And when the rise is significant, it almost always triggers a recession in the U.S. It doesn't take a crystal ball to see this stuff, just common sense and some knowledge of recent history.

The RCP Average is closing by the minute. Romney has closed the gap by a full point in the last two days, from a 4.1 Obama lead down to 3.0. Oddly, the Big Media polls are coming into line with Rasmussen, not the other way around. Considering the way the media has been hammering its thumb on the scale for Obama, if Romney appears competent and doesn't sprout horns in the debate, who knows what will happen.

The Republicans have also retaken the lead on the generic ballot, and Obama's job approval rating is back into negative territory. But there was nothing fishy about those last couple of weeks of polls. Nothing at all.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

The RCP Average is closing by the minute. Romney has closed the gap by a full point in the last two days, from a 4.1 Obama lead down to 3.0. Oddly, the Big Media polls are coming into line with Rasmussen, not the other way around. Considering the way the media has been hammering its thumb on the scale for Obama, if Romney appears competent and doesn't sprout horns in the debate, who knows what will happen.

the electoral college is where the rubber meets the road. and i haven't seen any indication that romney will prevail there.

the popular vote means zilch in our system.

New ID's won't be required to vote in PA.

Originally Posted by bzfamily.com

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — A judge postponed Pennsylvania's controversial voter identification requirement on Tuesday, ordering the state not to enforce it in this year's presidential election.

The decision by Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson on the law requiring each voter to show a valid photo ID could be appealed to the state Supreme Court. The law could go into full effect next year, under Simpson's ruling.

So you can color PA bue at this point.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

And yet polices can have an effect on it. For the last four years, we have been flat-lined. The stock market recovered, the economy has not. There has been no economic recovery. The small amount of GDP growth and job creation is not enough to keep up with the population, and certainly not enough to keep up with the federal budget.

Thank you, do-nothing-but-carp-at-the-President Tea Party House in the 112th Congress. President Obama has been stuck on monetarist methods instead of Keynesian methods that he prefers due to their effectiveness.

It should be self-evident that reform in this case means putting them on a sound financial basis. My personal preference is to means-test Social Security and Medicare, but it is virtually impossible that either party will do so.

One way to make both more solvent is to take off the cap on earned income for Medicare and Social Security taxes. Much of that income now exempt from such taxes is professional income (physicians ought to know where much of their income comes from) and executive compensation, much of it arising from rewards for keeping staffs and payrolls as low as possible. People who get rewards for shoving people onto the street ought to have to pay very high taxes anyway. Does that make sense?

The economy has not recovered. It achieved stasis. If you believe that government and Wall Street are the only parts of the economy that exist, I'm sure you think the economy is roaring.

It hasn't gone into the tank. Of course almost all of the economic gain has gone to the economic elite, which is a compromise with what the economic elite seems to want (grabbing even more wealth from the middle class and forcing huge wage cuts that would make the super-rich even richer while others suffer).

Increasing coverage (mandatory whether you want it or not) will increase demand, which will increase prices. It is the network of government regulations (federal and state) that drive up the cost of health insurance.

The lobbyists for the insurance companies and medical suppliers make sure to do as much composition of the regulations as possible so that Americans pay the highest prices in the world for pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and hospital payments. If the auto industry did that you would be paying a six-figure price for a banal compact car.

I don't know for a fact that Obama will win. If the Republicans win we'll start drilling more, which should drive the price down.

You don't know for a fact that a football team up 45-13 at the start of the fourth half will win, but that's about what the Presidential contest looks like.

The stock market and the Middle East are not exactly the same thing. It is clear that the "Arab Spring", which Obama approached with a hands-off nod, has resulted in fundamentalist parties taking power. Recent events show the dangers. If the U.S. does not take a more strategic approach, before long half the countries in the Muslim world could have governments that look and act like Iran's. We need to be exerting influence to prevent that from happening. We currently are not.

Yeah, sure -- it would have been a good idea to bet everything on the survival of a corrupt regime of a septuagenarian dictator in Tunisia and of the corrupt regime of an octogenarian dictator in Egypt as well an erratic tyrant in Libya. As I once said of Rep. Michelle Bachmann taking verbal potshots at President Obama for the Arab Spring:

Originally Posted by me in the Huffington Post comments

Moammar Qaddafi wants to join your fan club, Rep. Bachmann.

Shame on you if you miss Moammar Qaddafi!

It's really very simple. The "model" is the last four years. Four more years of the same is not a bold prediction if Obama is re-elected. If we have continued unrest in the Middle East, oil prices will go up. They always do. And when the rise is significant, it almost always triggers a recession in the U.S. It doesn't take a crystal ball to see this stuff, just common sense and some knowledge of recent history.

Oil prices will likely go up because of new users of automobiles in India, China, and Russia, unrest in the Middle East or not. Maybe a second term of Barack Obama will bring us a start on finding viable alternatives to long-distance commutes by car -- like high-speed trains, a European solution for the parts of the US most like the US in population densities (the Boston-Charlotte corridor, the Milwaukee-Pittsburgh corridor, and the West Coast).

Methinks Liz Warren just won back Teddy's senate seat from Scott Brown. At their debate Brown was asked who he thought was a "model" SCOTUS justice and he said Scalia! The audience booed him. :rofl:

Originally Posted by The Rani

This is kind of awesome:
After Week 4, NFL still predicting a Romney victory

you can throw this out. it was skewed by having scab referees the first three weeks.

null and void, baby!

Originally Posted by The Rani

This is kind of awesome:
After Week 4, NFL still predicting a Romney victory

As a longtime Atlanta resident:

If the Atlanta Falcons are 4-0, all bets are off.

Americans Are Sick of Divided Government

The source on this one is the highly liberal Firedoglake, but as far as I know the poll means as much as any of them. Anyway, we are supposedly tired of (unravelling) deadlock, and ready for something more decisive. I suspect people are more ready for a party to gain decisive control if it is their party.