Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Should Romney Just Concede Now?  
User currently offlinecomorin From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4903 posts, RR: 16
Posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 7003 times:

Given that Romney's 47% comment was the final, fatal, self-inflicte wound, should he just give up now? Why bother with the upcoming debates when one has no chance of winning?

I am saddened to see Romney flailing around like King Lear in the rain and we should put an end to this sorry spectacle. We are not Romans who would feed him to the lions for sport. The vultures are gathered, and pecking at his entrails already.

Given the dire economic situation, I would be more interested in President Obama's plans for his second term, and also to see the composition of the House. Will he prove to be one of America's greater leaders? Only time will tell; our opinions now are moot.

222 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinejetblueguy22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 2837 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 6995 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Quoting comorin (Thread starter):

Given that Romney's 47% comment was the final, fatal, self-inflicte wound, should he just give up now? Why bother with the upcoming debates when one has no chance of winning?

It hurt him but I wouldn't exactly fatal. The most recent polls I've seen didn't exactly have Obama up by 20%. I guess time will tell but I don't think fat lady has sung just yet.
Blue



All of the opinions stated above are mine and do not represent Airliners.net or my employer unless otherwise stated.
User currently offlineslider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6923 posts, RR: 34
Reply 2, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 6993 times:

Yes, he should just quit.

After all, he can't compete with free phones and F-bombs in commercials.

/sarcasm off



Not a Romney fan as I think everyone knows and detest his entire campaign management and strategy. Moreover, he's aloof at times, doesn't deliver a clear message and, while I believe him to be an honorable hard-working man who's earned his place in life, there is a major perception gap because he, to many people, represent the image of the eeevil rich white guy. I assign no value to that, just saying that's how I think he's perceived.

And he needs to let Ryan off the leash.

The Democrats play dirty and Romney won't even get in the ring.


User currently offlinecomorin From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4903 posts, RR: 16
Reply 3, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 6973 times:

Quoting slider (Reply 2):
while I believe him to be an honorable hard-working man who's earned his place in life, there is a major perception gap because he, to many people, represent the image of the eeevil rich white guy.

That's why I mentioned about the 47% comment - after what he said, it must be really hard for a large number of those people to vote for him.


User currently offlinesrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 6966 times:

One thing to remember is that all opinion polls have a margin of error and he's not out of the race just yet. Sure he shot himself in the foot with the 47% comments, but when you consider that Todd Akin despite his infamous "legitimate rape" comment has managed to recover some support in Missouri and has the potential based on most recent polls and their margin or error of winning the race

I was listening to CNN while at one of my accounts the other day and they were discussing poll numbers and they mentioned that Jimmy Carter was ahead in the polls prior to the 1980 election and we all know how that ended up. Early voting has begun (or is about to begin) in some states and that too will factor into the poll numbers. Then again, the 47% comment may have done a lot more damage then we know and won't know until Election Day. There must be something in the water in Massachusetts, as the 47% comment is probably the biggest Presidential campaign gaffe since Dukakis's tank ad in 1988.....


User currently offlineflymia From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 7271 posts, RR: 6
Reply 5, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 6966 times:

What kind of stupid question is this anyway. You do realize that in 1980 Carter was up in the polls right now. Do you think Regan should have quit? How about Bush in 2004 when Kerry was up in the polls until that night. Bush should have quit.
Honestly I guess it should not come as a surprise that a Obama supporter thinks someone should just quit.

Obama one of America greatest leaders? I don't think anyone will have that discussion yet. How about he wins his election first.

Quoting slider (Reply 2):

Yep, it's a shame people believe what the media and other side wants to depict him as.



"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7978 posts, RR: 51
Reply 6, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 6939 times:

That would be suicide for the Republican Party IMO. I wish he'd do it and endorse Gary Johnson. I can dream...

And just to spice things up and have some people lose their minds, I'll show you guys this site:

http://unskewedpolls.com/

Romney is up about 7-10% in almost every poll! LOL

They do bring up a good point at how some polls may represent one side more than another, but other than that, I'm calling BS on their "polls"



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinePSA53 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3089 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 6923 times:

Should Romney Just Concede Now?.

Haha.Democrats would just love that.But both democrats and republicans are so fed up with Obama lies, flip-flops and failures of his 1st term that Romney will win it close.This is not 2008.

[Edited 2012-09-28 11:22:38]


Tuesday's Off! Do not disturb.
User currently offlineflymia From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 7271 posts, RR: 6
Reply 8, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 6907 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 6):

The majority of the polls poll more democrats due to their large turnout in 2008. Thing is some are polling democrats like they will have an even larger turnout. We all know that wont happen. Even democrat analysist on CNN are reminding people that the only poll that counts is the election they don't want their base to get too confident. I think with many polls the way they are polling you can make the lead for Obama at least a point or 2 smaller.

I was watching MSNBC or "MSBS" and it said in a headline Obama up 9 points in Florida, CNN had President up around 4 points and the Miami Herald actually in Florida and left leaning had it as a tie.

I picked up the phone for a poll. They asked me general questions and then once I said Hispanic they asked me what type Central America, Mexico? Etc.. When I said Cuban they hung up. They don't want to have a Hispanic support Romney as most do in South Florida. Shows how great some of those polls are.

This one has not been wrong: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...sity-of-colorado-pr_n_1822933.html

Does anyone know if it gets updated? Or is a one time run?

[Edited 2012-09-28 11:26:10]


"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
User currently offline727LOVER From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 6608 posts, RR: 20
Reply 9, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 6898 times:

Quoting srbmod (Reply 4):
One thing to remember is that all opinion polls have a margin of error and he's not out of the race just yet. Sure he shot himself in the foot with the 47% comments, but when you consider that Todd Akin despite his infamous "legitimate rape" comment has managed to recover some support in Missouri and has the potential based on most recent polls and their margin or error of winning the race

I was listening to CNN while at one of my accounts the other day and they were discussing poll numbers and they mentioned that Jimmy Carter was ahead in the polls prior to the 1980 election and we all know how that ended up. Early voting has begun (or is about to begin) in some states and that too will factor into the poll numbers. Then again, the 47% comment may have done a lot more damage then we know and won't know until Election Day. There must be something in the water in Massachusetts, as the 47% comment is probably the biggest Presidential campaign gaffe since Dukakis's tank ad in 1988.....

And also, a very important factor is this Republican cheating with the ID laws. We don't know how that will affect the outcome.




Quoting flymia (Reply 5):
How about Bush in 2004 when Kerry was up in the polls until that night.

Actually, Kerry was behind in the polls until the first debate. That debate got him back in the race.

Quoting flymia (Reply 5):
You do realize that in 1980 Carter was up in the polls right now.

Was that useless national polls, or state polls?



Listen Betty, don't start up with your 'White Zone' s*** again.
User currently offlinedtw9 From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1173 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 6897 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 6):
Romney is up about 7-10% in almost every poll! LOL

They do bring up a good point at how some polls may represent one side more than another, but other than that, I'm calling BS on their "polls"

Like the Liberal leaning news media never skews any polls, do they. They always tell you the truth and never skew things , oh wait a minute

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgm3_jzcNm4


User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6674 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 6875 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting dtw9 (Reply 10):
Like the Liberal leaning news media never skews any polls, do they.

Fox News is liberal now?
"
New Fox News poll released Thursday shows Obama winning 3 key swing states

http://www.examiner.com/article/new-...s-obama-winning-3-key-swing-states

"Or at least that's what their "unskewed" polls had been showing up until yesterday when Fox News released its latest survey, which showed Obama up by 5 points, 48 percent to Romney's 43.'

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate...vey_has_obama_beating_romney_.html



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinedtw9 From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1173 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 6854 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 11):

"Or at least that's what their "unskewed" polls had been showing up until yesterday when Fox News released its latest survey, which showed Obama up by 5 points, 48 percent to Romney's 43.'

With a plus or minus 3 percent error. So Obama's either up by five percent , down by one percent,or tied with Romney You tell me, because you seem to be a firm believer in polls


User currently onlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1999 posts, RR: 21
Reply 13, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks ago) and read 6777 times:

Absolutely not. No matter what the pundits on either side of the aisle are saying, it's going to be a close race. Mark my words, come the second half of October we're going to see the polls "suddenly" tighten up. I could easily see Obama winning, but I could just as easily see Romney winning unless he just completely flops in the debates.

The issue with a lot of the current polls is that they're estimating Democrat voter turning being even greater than it was in 2008, which I think any level-headed Democrat or Obama supporter would acknowledge definitely won't be the case. Both candidates are far from having it in the bag at this point as, if Obama were truly so far and away in the lead in Virginia, Ohio, etc, why is he continuing to spend so much time campaigning there?


User currently offline2707200X From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 8789 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks ago) and read 6768 times:

Of course he should stay, he had the best chance to win a general when the GOP picked him against others like Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann nine-nine-nine and others but now since he is starting to sound like the earlier candidates who say only they could win a general by going full tilt right, Mitt is finding himself between a rock and a hard place to win a general.

Quoting dtw9 (Reply 12):
With a plus or minus 3 percent error. So Obama's either up by five percent , down by one percent,or tied with Romney You tell me, because you seem to be a firm believer in polls

Find a poll that's in your favor, can you find one or do you think FOX News polls are in the along with reliability conservative Rasmussen Reports polls are just in the tank for Obama and is all like what Rush Limbaugh says It''s all voter suppression on the left.



"And all I ask is a tall ship and a star to steer her by." John Masefield Sea-Fever
User currently offlinepvjin From Finland, joined Mar 2012, 1401 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 6746 times:

Yes he should, world doesn't need another Republican as US president. George W Bush already showed what it leads to, growing inequality, war, greed, terror.


"A rational army would run away"
User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12930 posts, RR: 25
Reply 16, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 6741 times:

Of course, Romney shouldn't concede now. He should help the economy by spending even more of his personal fortune buying advertisements, and then lose in a landslide!  
Quoting dtw9 (Reply 12):
With a plus or minus 3 percent error.

I looked at the various cited links and didn't find the margin of error quoted anywhere, and am having a hard time following your math.

If it's 48 to 43 and the error is plus or minus three percentage points, then Obama's number could be between 51 and 45, whereas Romney's number could be between 46 and 40. Thus Obama could be up as much as 11 points and down at most by 1 point.

If we're talking percentage instead of percentage points, of course, the error would be 48% * (1 +/- 0.03) but I doubt that's what you meant.

Just because that is the margin of error is three percent, it doesn't mean all outcomes in that 3 percent range are equally likely. The given numbers are the most likely, with decreasing probability of the other values occurring the further you get away from the given numbers:




Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21520 posts, RR: 53
Reply 17, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 6732 times:

Quoting flymia (Reply 8):
The majority of the polls poll more democrats due to their large turnout in 2008. Thing is some are polling democrats like they will have an even larger turnout. We all know that wont happen.

As far as I'm aware the pollers don't first select a given number of registered Democrats or Republicans according to some dubious numbers and then ask for their likely decision, they just select likely voters and then check how many of those are registered D or R, so the latter is just for information, not a selection criterion.

In other words: There is no such bias, there just happen to be more registered Ds than Rs.

Biases have more to do how with the actual polling is done, such as some polls only doing phone polls via landline numbers, thus skewing towards older and more R-leaning people.

[Edited 2012-09-28 13:38:39]

User currently onlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1999 posts, RR: 21
Reply 18, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 6726 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 17):
Quoting flymia (Reply 8):
The majority of the polls poll more democrats due to their large turnout in 2008. Thing is some are polling democrats like they will have an even larger turnout. We all know that wont happen.

As far as I'm aware the pollers don't first select a given number of registered Democrats or Republicans according to some dubious numbers and then ask for their likely decision, they just select likely voters and then check how many of those are registered D or R, so the latter is just for information, not a selection criterion.

No, but you weight your data accordingly. Currently many of the polls are weighing Democrat voters greater than Republican voters, assuming as said that Democrat voter turn out will be greater than in 2008.


User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13740 posts, RR: 61
Reply 19, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 6691 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 18):
Currently many of the polls are weighing Democrat voters greater than Republican voters, assuming as said that Democrat voter turn out will be greater than in 2008.

  

Not only are they over-sampling Democrats, they're assuming record Democrat turnout. Not only will that not occur (many in Obama's base are disenchanted with him and aren't as eager to vote), but you have a VERY whipped up Republican base that will almost certainly end up with a huge Republican turnout.

Romney's going to win.



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlinestasisLAX From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3287 posts, RR: 6
Reply 20, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 6687 times:

Yes, Rob-Me should just concede. And the Republican Party should concede that they are attempting to disenfranchise millions of voters in total nationwide with their sleazy voter ID laws in numerous states - although some state voter ID laws are now being overturned by their state supreme courts.

Do the Republicans realize that attacking minority and senior voters is NOT the way to broaden their base. The policies of divisiveness will haunt them in the future, as the population of the United States become less white - and much more diverse - the voters affected by this attempted voter "lock-out" will be highly unlikely to vote Republican if the future. Very stupid and highly short-sighted, just like the robber-barons on Wall Street that support the GOP....   



"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety!" B.Franklin
User currently onlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8467 posts, RR: 9
Reply 21, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 6683 times:

Quoting slider (Reply 2):
Moreover, he's aloof at times, doesn't deliver a clear message and, while I believe him to be an honorable hard-working man who's earned his place in life, there is a major perception gap because he, to many people, represent the image of the eeevil rich white guy.

The guy simply isn't comfortable out in the wild with the middle class. His entire life has been in the wealthy levels. He's not a bad man, but he is a bad option for President. Or a President who works for all Americans.

Quoting slider (Reply 2):
And he needs to let Ryan off the leash.

Well, seems to me he has done all the damage he can. Wants to kill Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid. What else do you want him to do?

Quoting slider (Reply 2):
The Democrats play dirty

And the Republicans never did? Not even Nixon? What about the Swift Boaters?

Quoting slider (Reply 2):
and Romney won't even get in the ring.

Romney can't. His entire campaign is to deflect simple questions on issues, like the economy. He only has a "secret plan" for helping the economy.

Quoting srbmod (Reply 4):
the biggest Presidential campaign gaffe since Dukakis's tank ad in 1988.....

As bad as that looked, Dukakis did serve in the US Army after graduation from college and was deployed to Korea. But he did take a huge hit from that ad.


As for Romney, no politician that has worked hard enough to be a Presidential candidate will walk away just over a month before the election.


User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6674 posts, RR: 6
Reply 22, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 6684 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 18):

No, but you weight your data accordingly. Currently many of the polls are weighing Democrat voters greater than Republican voters, assuming as said that Democrat voter turn out will be greater than in 2008.

Including FOX?

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 19):
Not only are they over-sampling Democrats,

OK how do you know this? Have you done your own polling? How would you know that Fox is over sampling?



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21520 posts, RR: 53
Reply 23, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 6679 times:

There are actually polls which start out with lists of registered party supporters and only go from there? That's a completely ludicrous idea.

As far as I'm aware that is at least not the general method for getting a picture of the actual outcome of the election.

[Edited 2012-09-28 14:04:43]

User currently offlinepu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 765 posts, RR: 13
Reply 24, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 6673 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 17):
There is no such bias, there just happen to be more registered Ds than Rs


Correct.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 18):
No, but you weight your data accordingly

No.
They poll likely voters and report the percentage selecting Romney or Obama. There is no extra weight given to people who identify as democrats, insofar as their political affiliation is even asked for, which often it is not.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...t-surveys-20120927,0,5276434.story
...
Also, the allegation that Obama supporters, especially the young ones, will not turn out in 2012 is irrelevant to poll numbers, because the polls are of likely voters.

Quoting 727LOVER (Reply 9):
Was that useless national polls, or state polls?

EXACTLY.
Carter was perhaps winning in national polls up until the summer, but Reagan's comeback was evident in the polls by September. Anyway, national polls as you say, are useless. The only polls that matter are battleground states. The right leaning real clear politics, whcih averages all the polls,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...ections_electoral_college_map.html
...has Obama at 265 electoral votes out of 271 needed to win, with several previous tossup-states moving to lean Obama after the 47% remark and the embassy crisis.

Pu

[Edited 2012-09-28 14:10:31]

[Edited 2012-09-28 14:13:09]

[Edited 2012-09-28 14:23:29]

[Edited 2012-09-28 14:48:05]

[Edited 2012-09-28 14:49:01]

User currently offlinepu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 765 posts, RR: 13
Reply 25, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 6709 times:

The candidate leading in mid-September polling has won every election since 1948.
.
.
.
.

Quoting flymia (Reply 5):
You do realize that in 1980 Carter was up in the polls right now.


Pu


User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1500 posts, RR: 4
Reply 26, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 6683 times:

No. His backers aren't paying him to give up- he has an obligation to them to stick it out.


If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13193 posts, RR: 15
Reply 27, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 6624 times:

He won't concede, won't give up, who know what can happen although the chances of Romney winning are decreasing. Even in losing, many Republicans will gain State offices. Probably the Republicans will control the Congress and possibly gain seats due to reapportionment of Congressional districts in Republican dominated states (like Texas). They may keep their narrow minority status or even gain a seat in the Senate.

Romney needs to stick to several key items like no tax hikes, major spending cuts, cut offensive regulations on individuals and small business. At the least, by a narrow loss, he could force a re-elected President Obama into keep making concessions popular to the Republicans and Conservatives on key issues.


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11793 posts, RR: 15
Reply 28, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 6543 times:

As long as there is FOX and AM radio, Romney should not concede.

Seriously.

Those are the same people who believe Obama was born in Kenya or Indonesia or wherever and is Muslim (because there is a clause in the Constitution that says the President MUST be Christian) *rolls eyes*

I have not heard a peep out of Paul Ryan. I think it is because he is smart enough to distance himself from Romney. I don't like Ryan's policies, but he is intelligent. Romney will not win, but let him keep running. Let him say silly things that can be easily discredited with simple fact checking with any source any person wants.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinezippyjet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 5533 posts, RR: 13
Reply 29, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 6541 times:

Let him go the distance. He and his Ricky Ricardo looking running mate are not my cups of tea but, Mitt the money man will fare better than such down on their luck candidates Mondale, droll Dole, George Mc. Govern (pinko in the eyes of Archie Bunker) and Barry blow em up Goldwater and Adlai Stevenson to name a few. Nothing is impossible and then there is all that voter intimidation and convenient voting machine errors. Let the fun begin. Just think once the election is over we will be besieged with those Sh***y over the top mincing Christmas commercials.

BTW I "zippyjet" do not approve of those Christmas buy buy messages!



I'm Zippyjet & I approve of this message!
User currently offline3DoorsDown From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 376 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 6534 times:

Should Romney Just Concede Now?

I would be interested in Obama's plans for his first term. Pelozi got Pelozi Care through. What did O do? Had someone killed. Good for him. Had someone else killed. Again, good for him.
But yes. There are tow many people who can't see the expensive writing on the wall who will vote him back in, so yes, I think we might as well write Romney off and let him go back to wherever he came.


User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12930 posts, RR: 25
Reply 31, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 6516 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 28):
Those are the same people who believe Obama was born in Kenya or Indonesia or wherever and is Muslim (because there is a clause in the Constitution that says the President MUST be Christian) *rolls eyes*

Interesting, since many Republicans refuse to admit that a Mormon is a Christian.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 28):
I have not heard a peep out of Paul Ryan. I think it is because he is smart enough to distance himself from Romney.

He can't be happy with Romney's half-hearted and vague endorsement of his budget plans.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6920 posts, RR: 12
Reply 32, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 6499 times:

There is no sense in conceding. If there was a world war going on then yes, it would make sense, so that people would unite behind the president. But here, even if Romney thought it would be good for the country, his party would still continue with the silly games. However I hear economists saying the game ends a couple of weeks after the election, when everyone will be again looking at the US deficit.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 19):
Not only are they over-sampling Democrats, they're assuming record Democrat turnout. Not only will that not occur (many in Obama's base are disenchanted with him and aren't as eager to vote), but you have a VERY whipped up Republican base that will almost certainly end up with a huge Republican turnout.

Makes sense, it's well know pollsters are in the business of doing wrong polls.

Are you implying that they receive money under the table from Democrats to make Obama look good ?

Or that they receive money under the table from Republicans to make Obama look good, thus unmotivating his troops while motivating the R ones ?

Or both at the same time, maybe ?



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinejetblueguy22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 2837 posts, RR: 4
Reply 33, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 6496 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Quoting pvjin (Reply 15):
Yes he should, world doesn't need another Republican as US president. George W Bush already showed what it leads to, growing inequality, war, greed, terror.

Wow, just wow. Explain this growing inequality. I also didn't know that greed was limited to Republicans  . And terror? Really! The ignorance is incredible! I had no idea GWB financed all these terror groups and was pro terrorist. I think your dislike for America is clouding your judgement.
Blue



All of the opinions stated above are mine and do not represent Airliners.net or my employer unless otherwise stated.
User currently onlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1999 posts, RR: 21
Reply 34, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 6493 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 22):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 18):

No, but you weight your data accordingly. Currently many of the polls are weighing Democrat voters greater than Republican voters, assuming as said that Democrat voter turn out will be greater than in 2008.

Including FOX?

Oh, so now all of a sudden Fox is the pinnacle of accuracy for you?

Quoting pu (Reply 24):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 18):
No, but you weight your data accordingly

No.
They poll likely voters and report the percentage selecting Romney or Obama. There is no extra weight given t

Incorrect.
If you want a decently accurate poll there are many factors that must be weighted. For example, women answer the phone more than men giving a gender sample statistically disparate from the electorate, so it's necessary give more weight to males polled as well as weigh down the elderly as a disproportionately large number agree to actually be polled. Youth voters polled are also given extra weight as they typically don't have landlines, most use their cell phones as their primary means of communication. Lastly, party affiliation is asked and then weighted using modeling based on what they predict turn-out will be. Usually they just use the previous election's turn-out statistics, however 2008 was such an exception, that modeling a poll based on it is obviously not going to be accurate, the most accurate polls are those using a combination of 2004 and 2008 stats.

Quoting pu (Reply 25):
The candidate leading in mid-September polling has won every election since 1948.

...and no president other than FDR has ever won reelection with unemployment above 7.2%


User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8278 posts, RR: 26
Reply 35, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 6490 times:

Quoting pvjin (Reply 15):

Yes he should, world doesn't need another Republican as US president. George W Bush already showed what it leads to, growing inequality, war, greed, terror

This kind of stuff is why this kind of discussion never works. Have to at least have the facts straight! War? Vietnam? Started under LBJ, a Democrat. Obama has utilized the US military in no less than five locations in the world since taking office. Again your point is lost here. Growing inequality? Inequality grew under Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, made a slight statistical improvement with Clinton, then grew again under Bush II and now Obama. Inequality is not a problem an American president has the power to fix, period.

Bottom line: inequality is a structural problem in the US. War of some type is inevitable due to powerful foreign interests and relationships of assistance held by the US in most corners of the world. Greed is a baseline of the US economic system and the political machine operates as a support network for this regardless of who the President is. This kind of blind finger-pointing at individual US Presidents, all of whom in my estimation have been men of good character and intent overall, is completely uncalled for. Need to see the big picture first.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlinepu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 765 posts, RR: 13
Reply 36, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 6487 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 34):
Incorrect

I posted a link from today's LA Times explaining how polls are NOT weighted to the benefit of either party.
.
Can you provide a source other than a right wing blog or opinion piece that polls are weighted to the benefit of Democrats?...because the "weighting" you describe of giving more value to men and older people in polls would help Republicans.

Pu


User currently offlinepu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 765 posts, RR: 13
Reply 37, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 6477 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 34):
party affiliation is asked and then weighted using modeling based on what they predict turn-out will be.

This is bullsh*t. Polls are NOT weighted by party ID ;or "predicted turnout".
.
...but if you provide a manstream source (not a blog or opinion piece) I will of course apologise!

Pu

"We do not weight for party ID"
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-...s-biased-to-boost-obama/?pageNum=2

"The Quinnipiac poll result is not weighted by party affiliation or altered in any way based on predicted voter turnout"
http://www.clickorlando.com/news/Is-...2/16752932/-/102g7byz/-/index.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...p/27/unskewing-polls-party-id-bunk

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...t-surveys-20120927,0,5276434.story

[Edited 2012-09-28 23:07:16]

User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12930 posts, RR: 25
Reply 38, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 6478 times:

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 35):
This kind of stuff is why this kind of discussion never works. Have to at least have the facts straight! War? Vietnam? Started under LBJ, a Democrat.

Right after the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

US "advisers" were in French Indochina in 1950 i.e. Truman's era. The French left in 1955, and US helped install the government of South Vietnam, and US presence was slowly increasing in the entire period of the Ike and JFK administrations. When LBJ took over, US "advisers" were present in every level of the South Vietnamese Army, and a large insurgency was already ongoing. Surely LBJ accelerated the Vietnam War far beyond that of his predecessors, but surely he didn't start it either. Most historians would place it at the time where the US decided to support the South Vietnamese government, i.e. during Ike's administration. That decision, and the South's subsequent suspension of elections it was mandated to hold, was the beginning of what the Vietnamese call "the American War". Note that if elections were held, even Ike said that Ho would get 80% of the vote.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinepu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 765 posts, RR: 13
Reply 39, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 6465 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 34):

...and no president other than FDR has ever won reelection with unemployment above 7.2%

US unemployment rate in November 1984 is 7.4%

Pu

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate

[Edited 2012-09-28 23:29:13]

User currently onlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1999 posts, RR: 21
Reply 40, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 6457 times:

Quoting pu (Reply 36):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 34):
Incorrect

I posted a link from today's LA Times explaining how polls are NOT weighted to the benefit of either party.
.
Can you provide a source other than a right wing blog or opinion piece that polls are weighted to the benefit of Democrats?...because the "weighting" you describe of giving more value to men and older people in polls would help Republicans.

"Weighting" does not inherently exist to skew polls for one party or the other but to make them more representative of the electorate for the reasons I stated above. In a telephone sampling of likely voters there are going to be a disproportionately large number of women and elderly persons and too low a number of minorities and young persons, thus it's necessary to not only decipher likely voters, but also weigh the sample to bring it in sync with census data.

The issue is that afterwards, many weight their modeling using exit polling from the last year's election...and there in lies the problem for this year, 2008 was an exceptional year, but I don't know a single Democrat who's admitting that enthusiasm for Obama is even approaching that which existed in 2008.

Here's a solid explanation about weighting polls: http://people.howstuffworks.com/political-polling4.htm


User currently offlinepu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 765 posts, RR: 13
Reply 41, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 6447 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 40):

So, I post direct links PROVING polls do not "weight their modeling using exit polls"as you claim.
...
.....and you post an essay claiming they do? By Mr David Ross?
.
I can't decide who to believe, the mainstam Nonpartisan polling organisations explaining they don't weigh their data or you and Mr David Ross "a freelance writer based in Mexico" (his credentials from the auhoritive essay you provided)...

Flyguy, we have chatted before and you are mostly rational, but you have attached yourself to make-believe falsehoods drummed up by fringe right wing crackpots in this case. Check the polling data in September in any previous election, it has never been wrong.


Pu

"We do not weight for party ID"
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-...s-biased-to-boost-obama/?pageNum=2

"The Quinnipiac poll result is not weighted by party affiliation or altered in any way based on predicted voter turnout"
http://www.clickorlando.com/news/Is-...2/16752932/-/102g7byz/-/index.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...p/27/unskewing-polls-party-id-bunk

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...t-surveys-20120927,0,5276434.story


User currently onlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1999 posts, RR: 21
Reply 42, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 6425 times:

Quoting pu (Reply 37):
This is bullsh*t. Polls are NOT weighted by party ID ;or "predicted turnout".

*facepalm* It's not about "predicted turnout", it's about their modeling in determining LIKELY voters in their sample, for which they use exit polling from the previous presidential election in 2008, which was a statistical outlier.

Quoting pu (Reply 37):
...but if you provide a manstream source (not a blog or opinion piece) I will of course apologise!

Pu

"We do not weight for party ID"
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-...s-biased-to-boost-obama/?pageNum=2

"The Quinnipiac poll result is not weighted by party affiliation or altered in any way based on predicted voter turnout"
http://www.clickorlando.com/news/Is-...2/16752932/-/102g7byz/-/index.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...p/27/unskewing-polls-party-id-bunk

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...t-surveys-20120927,0,5276434.story

Almost all of these are opinion pieces (Guardian and LA Times)! Except for the clickorlando.com link which inexplicably mentions that 43% polled were Democrats while Democrats comprise only 40% of the rolls...

And CBS? Please, they're no better than Fox or MSNBC.

Quoting pu (Reply 39):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 34):

...and no president other than FDR has ever won reelection with unemployment above 7.2%

US unemployment rate in November 1984 is 7.4%

Pu

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1985/02/art1full.pdf

http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=44&count=all

Quoting pu (Reply 41):
So, I post direct links PROVING polls do not "weight their modeling using exit polls"as you claim.
The links you posted do not PROVE they're not using 2008 election statistics in their poll modeling They're opinion pieces as I pointed out above.


User currently onlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1999 posts, RR: 21
Reply 43, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 6408 times:

Quoting pu (Reply 41):
.....and you post an essay claiming they do? By Mr David Ross?
.
I can't decide who to believe, the mainstam Nonpartisan polling organisations explaining they don't weigh their data or you and Mr David Ross "a freelance writer based in Mexico" (his credentials from the auhoritive essay you provided)...

He's probably no more or less credible than the opinion writers of the articles you've linked to.

Quoting pu (Reply 41):
Flyguy, we have chatted before and you are mostly rational, but you have attached yourself to make-believe falsehoods drummed up by fringe right wing crackpots in this case.

What make-believe falsehood would that be? That they're using 2008 election data in their modeling? Because they absolutely are, it's the norm in polling to use the last election but again, 2008 was an exceptional year and you don't have to be a "crackpot" to see that the resulting poll isn't going to be the most accurate.


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21520 posts, RR: 53
Reply 44, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 6385 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 34):
Incorrect.
If you want a decently accurate poll there are many factors that must be weighted. For example, women answer the phone more than men giving a gender sample statistically disparate from the electorate, so it's necessary give more weight to males polled as well as weigh down the elderly as a disproportionately large number agree to actually be polled. Youth voters polled are also given extra weight as they typically don't have landlines, most use their cell phones as their primary means of communication. Lastly, party affiliation is asked and then weighted using modeling based on what they predict turn-out will be. Usually they just use the previous election's turn-out statistics, however 2008 was such an exception, that modeling a poll based on it is obviously not going to be accurate, the most accurate polls are those using a combination of 2004 and 2008 stats.

It looks as if you've simply not understood the methodology being used.

You have claimed that previously recorded party affiliation was the basis for polling, but from everything I've seen so far it simply isn't.

Of course there is weighing being done, but only after a neutral sample of registered voters has been polled.

The party affiliations detected in the poll are just a neutral sample of then-current affiliations as far as I'm aware, not some pre-biased basis for the sampling in the first place.

That makes a crucial difference.

There will be several corrections applied to the raw data in order to extrapolate from the people actually polled to the entire voter population (which cannot just be scaled by a given factor), but that is something completely different from what you've claimed.


User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12930 posts, RR: 25
Reply 45, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 6345 times:

Strange how all the Romney supporters have is the hope that the pollsters are wrong, repeatedly, in several different swing states. I guess it's their "vast left wing conspiracy" theory taking on yet another one of its guises.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 38):
Most historians would place it at the time where the US decided to support the South Vietnamese government, i.e. during Ike's administration.

Something I stumbled across to further my earlier point:

Quote:

November 1, 1955 — President Eisenhower deploys the Military Assistance Advisory Group to train the Army of the Republic of Vietnam. This marks the official beginning of American involvement in the war as recognized by the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_of...in_the_Vietnam_War#Americanization



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinecomorin From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4903 posts, RR: 16
Reply 46, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 6287 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 45):
Strange how all the Romney supporters have is the hope that the pollsters are wrong, repeatedly, in several different swing states.

They are now know as 'Denialists' as per the local press.

The premise of this thread was that Romney had fatally damaged his candidacy, so should should he pull out.

The responses fall into:

1. No his candidacy is alive, the polls are wrong.
2. The polls are right, but he should stick in there anyway
3. Obama is a very very bad guy.

I would like to point out that political polling and market research both have a huge body of knowledge backing them in the areas of applied statistics, especially sample surveys. If you question the efficacy of these methodologies, please note that all these models are rigorously back tested for validity. Statisticians also know that correlation is not causality, and how cell phones etc etc affect polling. Most of all these polls present us with confidence intervals so we also know how to interpret results.

Statistically, Romney has about a 20% chance of winning based on current data - so the question is, should he stay in the race? If he were a David battling Goliath, with hearts and minds on his side, we would all be rooting for him. But given his recent utterances, there's little sympathy left amongst swing voters.

As for Obama being a good guy or not, there are plenty of other threads active for those posts.

My personal opinion is that for a center-right country, it is important to have sensible conservative and liberal views on the table for debate. Extremist, ideologue positions do not make for intelligent discourse. In a way, this is good news for the GOP; now is the perfect time to chase out the extremists from the tent and return to the party of Lincoln and Eisenhower.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7978 posts, RR: 51
Reply 47, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 6280 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 45):
Strange how all the Romney supporters have is the hope that the pollsters are wrong, repeatedly, in several different swing states. I guess it's their "vast left wing conspiracy" theory taking on yet another one of its guises.

This is kinda my fault, I posted that link in the beginning of the thread for laughs and I completely debo-ed the topic. I don't think any conspiracy is going on, from what I've heard many Republicans are thinking that the polls are skewed to the left (not for any malicious reasoning, they are just affected by 2008's Democratic turnout) and that Republican voters are fired up this year/Democrat voters are less fired up this year.

Not here to argue whether that's right or wrong, I'm not too educated in polling methodology, and furthermore I really don't care about the polls too much. I'm just saying that I haven't heard any conspiracy theories, just incorrect methodology



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12930 posts, RR: 25
Reply 48, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 6257 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 47):
Republican voters are fired up this year/Democrat voters are less fired up this year.

Romney's utterances have surely changed that equation, and even worse for him, have fired up a lot of swing voters to vote against him.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11793 posts, RR: 15
Reply 49, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 6216 times:

Quoting comorin (Reply 46):
should he stay in the race? If he were a David battling Goliath, with hearts and minds on his side, we would all be rooting for him. But given his recent utterances, there's little sympathy left amongst swing voters.

IMO, Romney is what Kerry was as far as enthusiasm. People listen to him speak and just kinda shrug their shoulders and say "well, okay..." That has a lot to do with it, too.

Quoting comorin (Reply 46):
Extremist, ideologue positions do not make for intelligent discourse. In a way, this is good news for the GOP; now is the perfect time to chase out the extremists from the tent and return to the party of Lincoln and Eisenhower.

Except those extremists sell more papers, so to speak. Also, those extremists the GOP *should* chase out are the ones who want to be even farther right than Reagan, whom they claim was the best thing that every happened to this country.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently onlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1999 posts, RR: 21
Reply 50, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 6189 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 44):
You have claimed that previously recorded party affiliation was the basis for polling, but from everything I've seen so far it simply isn't.

I have not, it simply concerns the modeling they're using in determining LIKELY voters for which they use precedent (past presidential election). In my opinion, the polls aren't massively inaccurate, and I believe that Obama is ahead, just not by as wide a margin as reported in the Quinnipiac/New York Times poll. Up by 10 points in Ohio? Seriously? If that were true, Obama still wouldn't be vigorously campaigning there like he still is.

Quoting comorin (Reply 46):
But given his recent utterances, there's little sympathy left amongst swing voters.

Proof? Romney's poll numbers have little changed since the 47% remark and have readily been overshadowed by the debacle in Benghazi.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 48):
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 47):
Republican voters are fired up this year/Democrat voters are less fired up this year.

Romney's utterances have surely changed that equation, and even worse for him, have fired up a lot of swing voters to vote against him.

Again, where? Last poll I saw, Romney was beating Obama among likely independent voters 54%-43%

Despite Romney "utterances" and apparent gaffes, the polls have only tightened since the DNC, eroding Obama's post-convention lead.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20334 posts, RR: 59
Reply 51, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 6195 times:

For those of you claiming that the polls are flawed.

When Obama wins the election, are you going to claim that the election is invalid? That's my prediction. In fact, I would not be surprised to see enormous crowds of gun-toting people marching on Washington after he wins. I just hope they don't actually try to revolt.


User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6674 posts, RR: 6
Reply 52, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 6166 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 50):
In my opinion, the polls aren't massively inaccurate, and I believe that Obama is ahead, just not by as wide a margin as reported in the Quinnipiac/New York Times poll. Up by 10 points in Ohio? Seriously?

So based on you information, what is the "right" number? Have you done your own polling? What number makes sense to you?

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 50):
Proof? Romney's poll numbers have little changed since the 47% remark and have readily been overshadowed by the debacle in Benghazi.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...politics/now927/now927-blog480.jpg



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7978 posts, RR: 51
Reply 53, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 6163 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 50):
Proof? Romney's poll numbers have little changed since the 47% remark and have readily been overshadowed by the debacle in Benghazi.

Actually I agree that the 47% remark was overhyped. I mean it was a dumb thing to say, and very inaccurate (there are Republicans in that 47% and there are Democrats in the 53%) but most of the people I've seen make a big deal about the 47% thing are people that weren't gonna vote for Romney anyways. Then again, the swing voter population is so small it doesn't take much

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 51):
When Obama wins the election, are you going to claim that the election is invalid?

I wouldn't go that far, the only thing I've been seeing, again, is flawed methodology. I'm sure you can dig up accusations of media corruption and all that crap, but no one I've been seeing (even on this forum.) I only brought up that website as a joke and wish I hadn't!

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 51):
In fact, I would not be surprised to see enormous crowds of gun-toting people marching on Washington after he wins.

I doubt this as well. This sounds like the whole "black people are gonna riot in the cities if Obama doesn't win (2008)" rumors. Although we'll never know 100% sure since the President won, I think we're safe to say (99.99%) that it wouldn't've happened, and I bet the only retaliation we'll see if/when the President is reelected is a bunch of angry(er) Republicans



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21520 posts, RR: 53
Reply 54, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 6144 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 50):
I have not, it simply concerns the modeling they're using in determining LIKELY voters for which they use precedent (past presidential election). In my opinion, the polls aren't massively inaccurate, and I believe that Obama is ahead, just not by as wide a margin as reported in the Quinnipiac/New York Times poll.

After the election the polls can be compared to the actual results, and that is basically where the adjustment factors will come from for the next elections.

But polls are always an extrapolation from the sample to the entire electorate and from recent and current results to an upcoming election.

They can not be entirely precise.

But applying the kind of sampling you described above would just be a mistake and would compromise the quality of the results. I'm pretty sure that at lest the reputable polls don't make that kind of severe mistakes.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 50):
Up by 10 points in Ohio? Seriously? If that were true, Obama still wouldn't be vigorously campaigning there like he still is.

Having momentum in a notorious swing state doesn't mean that momentum will actually hold all the way to the last polling day (has early voting already started in Ohio?).


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20334 posts, RR: 59
Reply 55, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 6125 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 53):
I doubt this as well. This sounds like the whole "black people are gonna riot in the cities if Obama doesn't win (2008)" rumors.

The rhetoric from the right has been a LOT more vitriolic than it was in 2008. That whole "rise up and exercise your second-amendment rights" thing has been unusually loud.

We've seen this before with the formation of "citizen militias" in the 1990's during the Clinton administration, but there were fewer mainstream GOP politicians openly embracing such things.


User currently onlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1999 posts, RR: 21
Reply 56, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 6097 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 52):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 50):
In my opinion, the polls aren't massively inaccurate, and I believe that Obama is ahead, just not by as wide a margin as reported in the Quinnipiac/New York Times poll. Up by 10 points in Ohio? Seriously?

So based on you information, what is the "right" number? Have you done your own polling? What number makes sense to you?

I think Gallup and Rasmussen are probably the most accurate as they use a combination of 2004 and 2008 in their modeling.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 52):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 50):
Proof? Romney's poll numbers have little changed since the 47% remark and have readily been overshadowed by the debacle in Benghazi.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...politics/now927/now927-blog480.jpg

Why would the New York Times be any more credible than Fox?

Quoting Klaus (Reply 54):
But polls are always an extrapolation from the sample to the entire electorate and from recent and current results to an upcoming election.

They can not be entirely precise.

   Absolutely.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 54):
But applying the kind of sampling you described above would just be a mistake and would compromise the quality of the results. I'm pretty sure that at lest the reputable polls don't make that kind of severe mistakes.

I don't have a problem with their sampling per se, I understand well how they sample...but it's their methodology in sifting out the likely voters, each polling firm has different methodologies for doing so.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 55):
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 53):
I doubt this as well. This sounds like the whole "black people are gonna riot in the cities if Obama doesn't win (2008)" rumors.

The rhetoric from the right has been a LOT more vitriolic than it was in 2008. That whole "rise up and exercise your second-amendment rights" thing has been unusually loud.

Loud from who? I haven't heard any politician embracing such rhetoric, where do you hear this stuff from?

[Edited 2012-09-29 13:51:29]

User currently offlineflymia From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 7271 posts, RR: 6
Reply 57, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 6039 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 51):
When Obama wins the election, are you going to claim that the election is invalid? That's my prediction. In fact, I would not be surprised to see enormous crowds of gun-toting people marching on Washington after he wins. I just hope they don't actually try to revolt.

You can't be serious. Sarcasm right? There is going to be no "revolt" and no one is going to say the election was a fraud. If turnout for Republicans is low there might be the case of the polls killed the turnout but nothing well be said about election. Revolt really? Come on.

http://www.examiner.com/article/polls-reflect-flawed-methodology

Quote:
In order to attain the most accurate results, pollsters first need a reference or control. This emphasis is usually focused on the most recent presidential polling demographics. Thus, 2012 polls are designed around the premise that more democrats participated in the 2008 presidential election and the polling samples should represent that fact by oversampling likely democrat voters. The polls you see reflect the oversampling by skewing the numbers of likely democrat voters to the positive; sometimes over 13 percent!

All the major polls such as Reuters, CBS/New York Times, Pew, CNN, and Rasmussen skew their polls liberal. Even the Fox News Poll shows a liberal spread of +4.



"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11793 posts, RR: 15
Reply 58, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 6032 times:

I also do not think Romney should concede because that makes his charicter look even worse. It's bad enough he is secretive about his finances and that shows how he would run the country fiscally. But, if he quits, that really REALLY speaks to his charicter.


Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinepu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 765 posts, RR: 13
Reply 59, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 6027 times:

FlyMia, That ultra right wing Republican surrogate Augusta paper? Really?
.
Try looking up the facts on your own. Carter WAS NOT ahead in the polls at this time in 1980 as you've posted repeatedly (copied from a right wing BLOG), ....see 1980 polling data above...reply 25
..
.....POLLS DO NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE VOTER TURNOUT IN 2008 ON A PARTY BASIS
...and the only "sources" that say they do are uncited rightwing fringe writers.

Quoting flymia (Reply 57):

Thus, 2012 polls are designed around the premise that more democrats participated in the 2008 presidential election and the polling samples should represent that fact by oversampling likely democrat voters
[/quote]
.{{{{{{{{{.according to University of Phoenix (an online diploma mill) graduate Jason Pope in an uncited article}}}}}}}}}
.
BUT COMPARE TO THE VERIFIABLE FACTS on polling methodology:


"We do not weight for party ID"
(flyguy and Miami, read the article, this is NOT CBS talking about CBS polling>
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-...s-biased-to-boost-obama/?pageNum=2

"The Quinnipiac poll result is not weighted by party affiliation or altered in any way based on predicted voter turnout"
http://www.clickorlando.com/news/Is-...2/16752932/-/102g7byz/-/index.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...p/27/unskewing-polls-party-id-bunk

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...t-surveys-20120927,0,5276434.story


Pu

[Edited 2012-09-29 16:17:01]

[Edited 2012-09-29 16:19:07]

[Edited 2012-09-29 16:20:17]

User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 60, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 5986 times:

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 35):
Have to at least have the facts straight! War? Vietnam? Started under LBJ, a Democrat.

Even conceding some type of American presence in Vietnam as early as 1950, I don't think substantial numbers were there until late in Ike's 2nd term, 1959-1960-ish.

I really do hope Obama wins by a fair margin. The Tea Party will then dissolve into a number of increasingly irrelevant splinter groups and mainstream Republicans will not be cowed by them anymore. The US does need a healthy political discourse, but the Tea Party does not provide it. And that's from a Liberal.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently onlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8948 posts, RR: 24
Reply 61, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 5989 times:

There is a lot of propaganda going on from the Obama campaign through their compliant media channels.

Just stop and consider just how deranged your thought processes have to be in order to believe that Obama is somehow running away with this election:

- The Debt: you have to believe that Obama's act of adding $6 trillion - 60 percent - to the national debt, which has resulted in the country's first credit downgrades, is wildly popular

- Unemployment: you have to believe that Obama's horrific unemployment record is a winning one

- 2010 Elections: you have to believe that the 2010 tidal wave election never happened

- Obamacare: you have to believe that spiking health care premiums and a huge number of employers who are dropping coverage is a program beloved by the citizenry

- Foreign Policy: you have to believe that Obama's bizarre handling of the Middle East, now aflame, is popular

- Energy: you have to believe that Obama's war on coal - a critical energy source for much of the US - is popular, and people love to pay more for energy (never mind gas prices doubling)

- Illegal Immigration: you have to believe that Americans embrace illegal immigration and Obama's extra-Constitutional executive orders implementing the DREAM Act

- Obama himself: you have to believe that the known quantity -- a narcissistic, hyper-partisan,, hard Left demagogue -- is as popular now than ever.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7978 posts, RR: 51
Reply 62, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 5984 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 60):
Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 35):
Have to at least have the facts straight! War? Vietnam? Started under LBJ, a Democrat.

Even conceding some type of American presence in Vietnam as early as 1950, I don't think substantial numbers were there until late in Ike's 2nd term, 1959-1960-ish.

I don't know why people argue what a party did 50 years ago. It makes me cringe when I hear that Republicans are good because Lincoln was a Republican or something like that. Minus the fact that the parties flipped, who cares what party did what decades/over a hundred years ago? Most those people are dead and the political views of the parties decades ago probably don't match either of the parties now!



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinepu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 765 posts, RR: 13
Reply 63, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 5977 times:

Quoting flymia (Reply 57):
ll the major polls such as Reuters, CBS/New York Times, Pew, CNN, and Rasmussen skew their polls liberal. Even the Fox News Poll shows a liberal spread of +4.

"Fox News polls are not weighted by political party"
http://www.foxnews.com/topics/fox-news-polls.htm


User currently offlinepu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 765 posts, RR: 13
Reply 64, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 5959 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 61):
- deranged your thought processes have to be.... ...... .....Foreign Policy: you have to believe that Obama's bizarre handling of the Middle East, now aflame, is popular

Is it deranged to believe polling results by nonpartisan polling organisations? Or deranged to think you have a feel for pupoplarity based on your intuition?????

.
.
.
According to The Pew Center:
Percent polled who approve of Obama's handling of Middle East turmoil versus approve of Romeny's comments
....................................Obama...............Romney
Republican....................11........................58
Democrat.......................75........................5
Independent...................44........................23
Overall............................45.......................26

http://www.people-press.org/2012/09/...omneys-comments-viewed-negatively/


User currently onlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8948 posts, RR: 24
Reply 65, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 5966 times:

Quoting pu (Reply 64):
Percent polled who approve of Obama's handling of Middle East turmoil versus approve of Romeny's comments

A perfect example of propaganda that I was talking about. You are comparing a single comment by Romney, which turned out to be factual, to the entire administration's response to the attacks over 2 weeks, where they repeatedly lied at all levels in order to minimize the existence of terrorism 2 months before an election, and could not even get their stories straight (that's usually the problem with lies - it takes a lot more effort).

Shall we poll "You didn't build that" against the repeal of Obamacare? One is a single comment, one is a policy. It's easy to find little soundbites that tweak people the right or wrong way.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently onlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1999 posts, RR: 21
Reply 66, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 5957 times:

Quoting pu (Reply 59):
(flyguy and Miami, read the article, this is NOT CBS talking about CBS polling>
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-...s-biased-to-boost-obama/?pageNum=2
Quote:
by Lucy Madison....Lucy Madison is a political reporter for CBSnews.com



Again, all of the links you've posted are opinion pieces, mostly from reliably Left-wing news outlets.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6920 posts, RR: 12
Reply 67, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 5952 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 61):
Just stop and consider just how deranged your thought processes have to be in order to believe that Obama is somehow running away with this election:

You have to be deranged to think that all those are only Obama's fault or doing.

Fact is, even if Obama loses, he'll get 47% easily (don't know why I picked that number) and that means that either half the people in your country are deranged, or that things are less black and white than you make them look like.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinepu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 765 posts, RR: 13
Reply 68, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 5949 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 65):
Shall we poll "You didn't build that" against the repeal of Obamacare? One is a single comment, one is a policy. It's easy to find little soundbites that tweak people the right or wrong way

Care to explain how and why left, right and nonpartisan polling organisations all agree Obama's foreign policy is more popular than Romney's Foreign policy ideas?

Pu

"Amid the turbulent situation in the Middle East, each of the polls shows the president is more trusted than Romney on foreign policy"
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...battleground-states/#ixzz27uhIzdi2


User currently offlinepu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 765 posts, RR: 13
Reply 69, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 5949 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 66):

Where are your cites from reliable news outlets?

I have cited
Fox News
The Los Angeles Times
The Guardian
Orlando's local newspaper
...
you have cited a freelance Mexican writer
...
“The Ohio Newspaper Poll does not use self-identified partisanship in its weighting methodology,”
http://cincinnati.com/blogs/politics...24/about-our-poll-party-breakdown/

[Edited 2012-09-29 18:52:03]

User currently offlinepu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 765 posts, RR: 13
Reply 70, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 5937 times:




 

Quote:
 It is important to understand that all of the major polls – Gallup, Pew, Quinnipiac, CBS, ABC, and NBC- do not weight their data by party
http://quinnipiacpoll.wordpress.com/2012/01/12/election-polling-101/

.
.
.


User currently onlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1999 posts, RR: 21
Reply 71, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 5910 times:

Quoting pu (Reply 69):
you have cited a freelance Mexican writer

Again, any time someone has posted a link, you instantly denounce whoever the writer is and then demand a "non-right-wing/non-opinion" piece be cited when all of the articles you have cited are opinion pieces, and mostly from left-wing outlets at that.

Quoting pu (Reply 59):
POLLS DO NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE VOTER TURNOUT IN 2008 ON A PARTY BASIS

I'm not sure you're certain what you're arguing against here, first it was that THEY DON'T WEIGHT BASED ON PARTY ID and now it's the above, which is it that you're trying to assert? Polling firms use different screening methodologies to determine likely voters, a component of which includes past voting behavior. Some use 2008 as a reference, others use a combination of 2004 and 2008 (the more accurate way in my opinion).

Quoting pu (Reply 69):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 66):

Where are your cites from reliable news outlets?

Give us a citation that's NOT just an opinion piece first before you start demanding that.


User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6674 posts, RR: 6
Reply 72, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 5884 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 61):
Just stop and consider just how deranged your thought processes have to be in order to believe that Obama is somehow running away with this election:

Lets take these in a different parts

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 61):
The Debt: you have to believe that Obama's act of adding $6 trillion - 60 percent - to the national debt, which has resulted in the country's first credit downgrades, is wildly popular
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 61):

- The Debt: you have to believe that Obama's act of adding $6 trillion - 60 percent - to the national debt, which has resulted in the country's first credit downgrades, is wildly popular
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 61):
- Obamacare: you have to believe that spiking health care premiums and a huge number of employers who are dropping coverage is a program beloved by the citizenry
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 61):
- Foreign Policy: you have to believe that Obama's bizarre handling of the Middle East, now aflame, is popular
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 61):
- Illegal Immigration: you have to believe that Americans embrace illegal immigration and Obama's extra-Constitutional executive orders implementing the DREAM Act

- Obama himself: you have to believe that the known quantity -- a narcissistic, hyper-partisan,, hard Left demagogue -- is as popular now than ever.

How do you know that all the above are not popular? Please don't point to any poll because we all know how they can be skewed and misleading.

Unless you have your own polls. I am sure that there would be interest in seeing those.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 61):
- Unemployment: you have to believe that Obama's horrific unemployment record is a winning one

Il give you this one.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 61):
- Energy: you have to believe that Obama's war on coal - a critical energy source for much of the US - is popular, and people love to pay more for energy (never mind gas prices doubling)

Coal is dead - want to know who killed it? Sub $3 Natural Gas.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 56):
I think Gallup and Rasmussen are probably the most accurate as they use a combination of 2004 and 2008 in their modeling.

Well.. Gallup has Obama leading by 50% to 44%..

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 65):
Shall we poll "You didn't build that" against the repeal of Obamacare? One is a single comment, one is a policy.

Go for it. No one is stopping you. Please document your methodology - so we can learn how a proper poll is taken.



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20334 posts, RR: 59
Reply 73, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 5890 times:

Quoting flymia (Reply 57):
You can't be serious. Sarcasm right? There is going to be no "revolt" and no one is going to say the election was a fraud. If turnout for Republicans is low there might be the case of the polls killed the turnout but nothing well be said about election. Revolt really? Come on.

Ya, rly. Not a successful revolt, but a riot with firearms, which could get very ugly.

http://wisesloth.wordpress.com/2012/...-to-make-the-world-a-better-place/

There will be a lot of pissed-off Republicans, but they have nobody to be pissed-off at but themselves. Maybe it's time to write a sensibly Conservative platform? Just maybe?


User currently onlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1999 posts, RR: 21
Reply 74, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 5872 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 72):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 56):
I think Gallup and Rasmussen are probably the most accurate as they use a combination of 2004 and 2008 in their modeling.

Well.. Gallup has Obama leading by 50% to 44%..


I'm well aware. I stated previously that I have no doubt that Obama is leading in the polls, my concern was the margin that certain polls had him leading by.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 73):
Quoting flymia (Reply 57):
You can't be serious. Sarcasm right? There is going to be no "revolt" and no one is going to say the election was a fraud. If turnout for Republicans is low there might be the case of the polls killed the turnout but nothing well be said about election. Revolt really? Come on.

Ya, rly. Not a successful revolt, but a riot with firearms, which could get very ugly.

http://wisesloth.wordpress.com/2012/...-to-make-the-world-a-better-place/

There will be a lot of pissed-off Republicans, but they have nobody to be pissed-off at but themselves. Maybe it's time to write a sensibly Conservative platform? Just maybe?

Oh pleeeeeze. If I had a nickel for every time the Leftist intelligentsia has unsuccessfully predicted some mythical armed Republican revolt I'd be rich...it was supposed to happen after Clinton got elected, after the OJ acquittal (because Republicans are just racists, don't you know), after Obama got elected, after Obamacare, after the Obamacare supreme court decision...etc. Meanwhile, the ignorant, Leftist youth comprising the Occupy Wall St. movement riots, impedes commerce, vandalizes, defecates in the streets, loiters on private property, elicits the riot police, and runs rampant with rape and theft...but never mind that, it's those violent "Teabaggers" you have to worry about with their zero incidents of violence, respect for the local ordinances for assembly on public property and cleaning up their trash and litter after all their events, what miscreants eh? Duck and take cover for the revolution!  


User currently offlineDarksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1412 posts, RR: 3
Reply 75, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 5866 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 61):

- Unemployment: you have to believe that Obama's horrific unemployment record is a winning one

What's horrific about making it better than it was before? Does Romney's "Shut up and don't worry about it" plan honestly sound better to you? If so, that puts you in a pretty stark minority.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 61):

- 2010 Elections: you have to believe that the 2010 tidal wave election never happened

And given the progress and general across the board improvements that republicans intercepted there, you actually want Americans to forget what republicans and tea partiers did to them at that time.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 61):

- Foreign Policy: you have to believe that Obama's bizarre handling of the Middle East, now aflame, is popular

Hmmm... So killing public enemy no.1, building exit strategies for Iraq & Afghanistan, and stablizating our relationships with important allies is bizarre now, huh? Kind of makes you wonder what you actually want here. Sure doesn't sound like peace and prosperity when you put it like that...

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 61):

- Obama himself: you have to believe that the known quantity -- a narcissistic, hyper-partisan,, hard Left demagogue -- is as popular now than ever.

I do indeed find him to be a bit narcisssistic, yes. But 'Hard Left'? Hardly. In fact, by most standards of the modern world, he's actually somewhat center-right.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 65):

Shall we poll "You didn't build that" against the repeal of Obamacare? One is a single comment, one is a policy. It's easy to find little soundbites that tweak people the right or wrong way.

Only folks pretty far from the center had a problem with that line. The Fox crowd & of course the Tea Party, tried their level best to distort that and de-context it. But for Americans, we get it. Those among us who happen to run small business across the country tend to appreciate having a safe infrastructure to do business in. But if you have a problem with that, by all means, feel free to build your own city, and then start a business there.

As for the second, yes I would support a repeal of that. But only if it were immediately replaced with a similar plan with a public option. I can't for the life of me fathom how anyone (other than the insurance lobby for obvious reasons) would be against that.



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlinepu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 765 posts, RR: 13
Reply 76, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 5859 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 18):
Currently many of the polls are weighing Democrat voters greater than Republican voters, assuming as said that Democrat voter turn out will be greater than in 2008.

Please provide the names of the polls that are "weighing Democrat voters greater than Republican voters" and the source that proves they are doing this.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 34):
Lastly, party affiliation is asked and then weighted using modeling based on what they predict turn-out will be

Which polls do this? What source says they model predicted turnout based on party affiliation?
.
...because according to the major polling organisations YOU ARE WRONG, PARTY AFFILIATION IS NOT WEIGHTED AND MODELED:

 "It is important to understand that all of the major polls – Gallup, Pew, Quinnipiac, CBS, ABC, and NBC- do not weight their data by party"
.
http://quinnipiacpoll.wordpress.com/2012/01/12/election-polling-101/
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 40):

many weight their modeling using exit polling from the last year's election..

Which "many" polls do this and what source proves they use exit polling from last years election?

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 71):

Give us a citation that's NOT just an opinion piece first
http://quinnipiacpoll.wordpress.com/2012/01/12/election-polling-101/

"NOT AN OPINION PIECE"


Pu
.....waiting to hear exactly which polls use earlier election party affiliation and/or exit polling data to model 2012 polls....(ps....they don't exist, this will be a very long wait...)

[Edited 2012-09-29 22:15:20]

User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20334 posts, RR: 59
Reply 77, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 5846 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 74):
it was supposed to happen after Clinton got elected

That Federal Building in Oklahoma was a domestic terrorist attack by a Right-Wing extremist.


User currently offlinetype-rated From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 78, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 5809 times:

Romney's early campaign touted the fact that he would get rid of Obamacare. Then around Sept 4 or so he says he likes parts of Obamacare and may keep some of it. That's when his ratings started to decline and that was before the 47% remark.

I am really disappointed with the way things have gone for Romney. He could have done so much better than he has.


User currently onlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1999 posts, RR: 21
Reply 79, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 5803 times:

Quoting pu (Reply 76):
...because according to the major polling organisations YOU ARE WRONG, PARTY AFFILIATION IS NOT WEIGHTED AND MODELED:

For the last time, it has nothing to do with party affiliation, but past voter behavior which IS a factor in screening likely voters, their methodology is no secret. It's not a conspiracy, it's not some backdoor plan, but the end result of using the 2008 election alone as a reference point is that the poll is likely not as accurate as those such as Gallup and Rasmussen which uses a combination of 2004 and 2008.

Quoting pu (Reply 76):
.....waiting to hear exactly which polls use earlier election party affiliation and/or exit polling data to model 2012 polls....(ps....they don't exist, this will be a very long wait...)


All of them, but all of them do not use the same methodologies and reference points when doing their polls, hence why they're all different. In constructing likely voter polls, a determining factor used by all is, again, past voter behavior. It has nothing to do with party affiliation/ID, but past voter behavior gives them a reference point to determine which voters are likely voters in whatever election they're polling. The differing factor is, what are they using for that reference point? Some are only using 2008, some are using '04 AND '08.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 77):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 74):
it was supposed to happen after Clinton got elected

That Federal Building in Oklahoma was a domestic terrorist attack by a Right-Wing extremist.

And I know of a couple Left-Wing extremists who killed several million, Lenin and Stalin. Your point? The "Great Armed Republican Uprising" has been over 20 years coming, why hasn't it happened yet? Perhaps they're timing it, to quote Saturday Night Live, to coincide with the Reindeer Uprising of 2012? http://www.hulu.com/watch/56633  Wow!  Wow!     Wow!  Wow!


User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7959 posts, RR: 19
Reply 80, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 5797 times:

I just hope this country wakes up and sees that choosing a guy who has failed consistently over the last 4 years is a worse choice than choosing someone that the left-wing media says will fail.


We know nothing about how Romney's gonna run the country. He ran Massachusetts just fine. People need to seriously wake the **** up before we end up like Spain.



Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21520 posts, RR: 53
Reply 81, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 5795 times:



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 61):
- Obama himself: you have to believe that the known quantity -- a narcissistic,

He's more successful at getting people to listen to him than most of his fellow politicians are, which apparently earns him your resentment, but "narcissism"? Where, exactly, is that evident beyond what any politician would attempt to achieve in order to have a hope of re-election?

He's been campaigning hard for actual, substantial results and he actually achieved quite a few substantial successes. That you're unable / unwilling to credit him for any of his achievements is another story.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 61):
hyper-partisan,,
Seriously? rotfl  rotfl  rotfl 

I've been wondering all along why he has acquiesced to republican obstruction without actually engaging them politically in most matters; All that while Republicans to a large extent can't even bring themselves to concede that he's even a fully qualified citizen, much less the actual, legitimate President.

Sorry, but particularly this one is so utterly bizarre and so far removed from any reality that I had to read that claim a few times to be sure you actually want to claim that. Big grin
 

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 61):
hard Left demagogue

Sorry, but you cannot have the slightest idea what "left" even means and still make a claim that is so outlandishly removed from any political reality.

Obama stands about center-right on average. In relative terms your claim primarily identifies your own location in the political spectrum.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 61):
-- is as popular now than ever.

No, not "as ever", but about as much as an incumbent in difficult times running against an incompetent opponent and a largely delusional, but still somewhat disengaged opposition could hope to be.

Romney has given Obama a pretty good boost with his near-total lack of any apparent political competence and his cynical dismissal of much of the electorate. Combined with his lacking popularity even within his own camp his chances of winning the election look quite remote.

Obama may not look like every voter's favourite politician, but he has proven that he's a competent President of the USA. Romney hasn't even convinced most Republicans of that.

Of course Romney still can' concede (except for health-related reasons) – he'll have to go through with it to the end so he can be saddled with the blame on election night.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 80):

I just hope this country wakes up and sees that choosing a guy who has failed consistently over the last 4 years is a worse choice than choosing someone that the left-wing media says will fail.

"Failed consistently"?

• Bin Laden has been caught.

• The US car industry is still there today – most of it wouldn't be if Romney had been in control.

• After many decades of failed attempts, he has actually succeeded in introducing a halfway(!) decent health insurance system.

• America's standing in the world has mostly recovered from the Bush/Cheney era.

• The actual cost of the wars which had been conducted "off the books" is now being accounted for.

• The utterly shameful way the US casualties of these wars had been swept under the rug and neglected during the Bush/Cheney years has been corrected for the most part. (The foreign casualties are still a separate matter!)

You're free to list any number of shortcomings and failures, of which there certainly were quite a few as well, but that alone is already a rather decent record for a first term.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 80):
We know nothing about how Romney's gonna run the country. He ran Massachusetts just fine.

His former constituents don't appear to agree with you there at all, if any of the polls there are to be believed.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 80):
People need to seriously wake the **** up before we end up like Spain.

So why had you been sleeping while all that debt had actually been produced during the eight years before?

You're condemning Obama for bringing it all to light, but most of it was already present when he took office – just distributed across a multitude of accounts, kept mostly off the main books.

That's a pretty shortsighted view.

[Edited 2012-09-30 01:43:44]

User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13740 posts, RR: 61
Reply 82, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 5791 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journal...licans-Will-Break-All-Time-Records

Fair-use excerpt:

Here are the CBS/New York Times internals. And here's the con the CBS/NYTs is attempting to pull:



Florida:

In 2004 the vote was R+4.

In 2008 the vote was D+3

CBS/NYTs is reporting that in 2012 we will see D+9.



Ohio:

In 2004 the vote was R+5

In 2008 the vote was D+8

CBS/NYTs is reporting that in 2012 we will see D+9



Pennsylvania:

In 2010 the vote was D+3

In 2008 the vote was D+7

CBS/NYTs is reporting that in 2012 we will see D+9.



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21520 posts, RR: 53
Reply 83, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 5788 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 82):
Fair-use excerpt:

Here are the CBS/New York Times internals. And here's the con the CBS/NYTs is attempting to pull:

It would be a "con" only if the results were intentionally distorted.

You have produced zero evidence for that actually being the case.

Polls reflect the current attitude of the population, which may (and likely will) still change until the last election day. But the numbers as such are not evidence of any deliberate distortions – there have been many examples for polls indeed correctly predicting major changes, as well as polls deviating from the actual end results in either direction.

A consistent deviation from the actual results in just one direction would suggest a poll to contain an actual bias, but where is that analysis here?


User currently offlinekngkyle From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 414 posts, RR: 1
Reply 84, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 5791 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

As Stephen Colbert so eloquently put, the Republicans are working through the first phase of grief: denial.

Obama can't possibly be ahead by that much!! It must be a con.

It's just so blatantly obvious.


User currently offlinecomorin From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4903 posts, RR: 16
Reply 85, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 5739 times:

I am starting to feel that the sale of tin foil hats is the jump start the U.S. economy needs. Next we will be talking about faith-based statistical distributions replacing Gaussian bell curves. Where is all this rubbish being spewed coming from? Is there a central Ministry that provides 2 am updates daily to anxious minds?

For those of a rational bent: here is a great article by the left-wing anarchist Nate Silver in the terrorist-sympathizing The New York Times:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...ry-of-consistent-partisan-bias/?hp

This should put to rest the 'bias' bogeyman.

/endofrant


User currently offlinepu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 765 posts, RR: 13
Reply 86, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 5734 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 79):

For the last time, it has nothing to do with party affiliation

versus

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 34):
party affiliation is asked and then weighted
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 18):
polls are weighing Democrat voters

Pu


User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12930 posts, RR: 25
Reply 87, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 5722 times:

Quoting pu (Reply 76):
"It is important to understand that all of the major polls – Gallup, Pew, Quinnipiac, CBS, ABC, and NBC- do not weight their data by party"

Don't worry about it so much. The GOP are looking for something to blame for thier upcoming loss. Yeah it's not too original to blame it on leftists in the media and their egg-headed intelegencia cohorts, but they need some place too hang their hats.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 81):
I've been wondering all along why he has acquiesced to republican obstruction without actually engaging them politically in most matters

The reality is that Obama has been most comfortable being a Chicago-style back room deal maker, and that indeed upsets many in his party and his administration, but the GOP hasn't been able to find a way to use that against him.

Quoting kngkyle (Reply 84):
As Stephen Colbert so eloquently put, the Republicans are working through the first phase of grief: denial.

Obama can't possibly be ahead by that much!! It must be a con.

It's just so blatantly obvious.

Indeed it seems Colbert has hit the nail on the head.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8278 posts, RR: 26
Reply 88, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 5719 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 80):
People need to seriously wake the **** up before we end up like Spain.

???

The fiscal cliff is coming no matter which party is in power. That should be plainly obvious to any objective witness of the US political machine. Too many expensive favors in too many quarters for too many ingrained interests that have been continued too long to stop now.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21520 posts, RR: 53
Reply 89, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 5705 times:



Quoting Revelation (Reply 87):
The reality is that Obama has been most comfortable being a Chicago-style back room deal maker, and that indeed upsets many in his party and his administration,

Which "back room deals" would that actually be, in particular, which would have been out in the open otherwise?

Quoting Revelation (Reply 87):
but the GOP hasn't been able to find a way to use that against him.

Apparently simply because there's nothing to it – or they would have been able to cite any actual evidence.

The Republicans have so far embarked on a course of absolute, unconditional obstruction, even blocking such obvious matters as benefits and support for military veterans just to somehow damage Obama in the process.

Is there any actual political debate left? Particularly from the right there seems to be hardly anything beyond painting Obama as Satan incarnate and making demands which are so far removed from the center that this will very likely seal their own defeat.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 88):
The fiscal cliff is coming no matter which party is in power. That should be plainly obvious to any objective witness of the US political machine. Too many expensive favors in too many quarters for too many ingrained interests that have been continued too long to stop now.

Two major war efforts with one of them completely unnecessary would be the biggest-ticket items there.

[Edited 2012-09-30 07:42:33]

User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12930 posts, RR: 25
Reply 90, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 5685 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 89):
Which "back room deals" would that actually be, in particular, which would have been out in the open otherwise?

I'm not sure my point is getting across correctly.

No one lays down all their cards in the open.

My point is really about the way he's been doing his job.

I feel that many of his supporters would be happier if he was more willing to use his "power of the pulpit" to name and shame obstructionists and to set down lines in the sand.

Instead it seems he's happier to work out deals in the background.

If you want an instance of this, I'll offer up his trade of two more years of Bush-era tax cuts for the extension of unemployment benefits.

Many of his supporters would not have made that compromise and felt blind-sided by the way it was reached.

I think Obama's approach has changed in the last year or so. I think he now (finally?) realizes that no one on the GOP side is politically able to compromise, and we've seen he's reacting accordingly by using presidential powers more broadly.

Unfortunately this means not much will get done especially because due the sharp increase of the use of cloture (see below) it takes a super-majority of 60 to get anything done in the Senate.



Not a pretty picture...

Quoting Klaus (Reply 89):
Particularly from the right there seems to be hardly anything beyond painting Obama as Satan incarnate

Or even worse, a muzz-lim, sigh...

Quoting Klaus (Reply 89):
and making demands which are so far removed from the center

I feel there's a huge need for things like entitlement reform and that the right could have found a way to run on such a platform, but they are so transparently in favor of making the rich richer and so unwilling to talk about the revenue side of the equation that they have failed to connect with the center.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently onlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1999 posts, RR: 21
Reply 91, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 5641 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 81):
I've been wondering all along why he has acquiesced to republican obstruction without actually engaging them politically in most matters

Right, because "Either vote to raise taxes on the rich or we're going to let taxes go up on everybody" is so acquiescing of him.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 81):
Obama stands about center-right on average.

         His supporters, opponents and reality would disagree with you.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 81):
The US car industry is still there today – most of it wouldn't be if Romney had been in control.

Incorrect. Ford? They weren't taking any bailing money, and GM's assets would have gone somewhere, it's an absolute myth that he saved the auto industry. Instead though, we have a government-run manufacturer producing cars no one wants at a loss to the tax-payers whose management is begging for the government to sell their shares.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 81):
After many decades of failed attempts, he has actually succeeded in introducing a halfway(!) decent health insurance system.

So you're calling this health care plan which all Americans are forced to buy, and fined if we don't, which purportedly covers at least 10 million more people, without adding a single doctor but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents, written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress who didn't read it but exempted themselves from it, and signed by a president who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, by a government which has already bankrupted social security and medicare, all to be overseen by a Surgeon General who's obese and financed by a country that's broke a success?

Quoting Klaus (Reply 81):
America's standing in the world has mostly recovered from the Bush/Cheney era.

Which we're now seeing is a crock with recent events in the Middle East.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 81):
The utterly shameful way the US casualties of these wars had been swept under the rug and neglected during the Bush/Cheney years has been corrected for the most part.

What are you talking about? And you do realize that more US soldiers have died in Afghanistan during Obama's presidency than during Bush's 8 years right?

Quoting pu (Reply 86):
versus

Because the end-result is that they are weighted according to whatever reference they're using for past voter behavior. They don't actively call up X number of Democrats and X number of Republicans or just decide they want X number more Democrats, it's all about their methodology in screening out likely voters from their sampling.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 81):
All that while Republicans to a large extent can't even bring themselves to concede that he's even a fully qualified citizen, much less the actual, legitimate President.

Find me even one Republican official saying Obama is not a citizen.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 81):
You're condemning Obama for bringing it all to light, but most of it was already present when he took office – just distributed across a multitude of accounts, kept mostly off the main books.

Incorrect, "most of it" was NOT already there. Obama has added more net debt in four years than Bush in 8 years. Gross public debt under Bush in 8 years went from $5.7 trillion to $10.7 trillion, under Obama it has gone from $10.7 trillion to over $16 trillion (Source: United States Department of the Treasury).

Quoting Revelation (Reply 90):
If you want an instance of this, I'll offer up his trade of two more years of Bush-era tax cuts for the extension of unemployment benefits.

Name another example.

Also, Obama stated at the time he agreed to the deal that it wasn't the right time to raise taxes. I'm curious as to why he all of sudden thinks right now IS the right time to raise taxes, the economy being in no better shape than it was two years ago.


User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6674 posts, RR: 6
Reply 92, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 5628 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 91):
Obama stated at the time he agreed to the deal that it wasn't the right time to raise taxes. I'm curious as to why he all of sudden thinks right now IS the right time to raise taxes, the economy being in no better shape than it was two years ago.

Romney wants to close "loopholes" isn't that effectively a tax increase?



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13193 posts, RR: 15
Reply 93, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 5559 times:

There may be several potential issues with the polls and actual election numbers we don't see yet.

We don't know the affects of the voter ID laws in a number of states or how it might scare off some voters even in states without such stricter laws.100's of 1000's many not be able to vote in some states as don't have a 'residence' as have lost a home in foreclosure or they are close to it, they have lost their jobs and had to move to have a place to live or find any work and some who have lost documents needed to vote in a new district.

You have the whole total disgust by millions of potential voters toward politicians due to none of them really listening to them, dislike for both President Obama and Romney as persons, failures to produce decent paying jobs, no help them bail out of their upside-down mortgages, anger over the lack of criminal prosecutions on those of Wall Street who brought the big 2008 financial crash.

Many black voters will not turn out unlike in 2008 to historically elect the first person of African heritage to be President as well as disappointment in not doing enough to help them directly. On The other hand, more white males may turn out to vote in the election booth to kick out the Black guy in office, but won't say that in a survey

The dominance of Republicans on the state level and gaining a major shift in Congressional seats due to reapportionment, the popularity of massive tax cuts on the 'middle class' and demands for less spending on the 'undeserving' (read non-white) poor and on government employees who continue to have generous benefits they have lost or never had Republicans are firm supporters of reducing.

There is also the possibility of another screw up like in Florida of badly designed voting forms in a tight state, possible real voting fraud by messing with the computerised voting machines.

Despite some of the seroius issues as to VP Canidate Ryan, he is a far better qualifed to be VP than the historical disaster that Palin was in 2008 and has a lot of supporters for his tough policies. That will screw up the models used from 2008.

Most of the polls are within the margin of error, and it should be a lot wider due to the additional variations as I noted and many others. In the end, as I and many others have predicted over the last 6 or so months, it will be a close win, pro baby by 1-2% in the overall vote and probably within 20 Electoral votes.


User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8278 posts, RR: 26
Reply 94, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 5552 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 91):
His supporters, opponents and reality would disagree with you.

Only if you're looking at things through the filter of American reality. This of course is the problem with most Americans living in their domestic bubble of all-America, all the time. That comment came from a German forumer. Simply put, on the global political spectrum, not the American one, Obama does come in center-right. That was the point.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 91):
So you're calling this health care plan which all Americans are forced to buy, and fined if we don't, which purportedly covers at least 10 million more people, without adding a single doctor but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents, written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress who didn't read it but exempted themselves from it, and signed by a president who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, by a government which has already bankrupted social security and medicare, all to be overseen by a Surgeon General who's obese and financed by a country that's broke a success?

If you're going to frame policy discussions in those terms, nobody anywhere should make policy about anything. Personally I also believe the healthcare scheme as proposed by the Democrats was a failure, even if their intentions were good. The problem was there are existing two-tier, triple-payer systems that balance public and private interests already in use in places like Israel, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Japan, but nobody bothered to look at implementing the best features of those systems to craft a practical American hybrid.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 91):
Which we're now seeing is a crock with recent events in the Middle East.

Gross oversimplification of a problem that goes way beyond who the sitting US president happens to be. When you find me an American face that can do something about the 30% unemployment that sends hooligans into the streets in Arab countries whenever the slightest excuse for a public showing arises, then any talk of any US president influencing anything might be relevant.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6920 posts, RR: 12
Reply 95, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 5531 times:

I read here a lot that Democratic turnout was exceptional in 2008, which I tend to believe. We had the same situation here in 2007. One candidate, Sarkozy, was the media darling (quite a feat for a right wing politician in this country, not likely to be seen again for a long time). But what this caused is that the other camp also turned up en masse, and Sarkozy won with 53% of the vote, a good number but nothing exceptional. The global turnout was exceptional at around 85% (compared to the US 55%). So, didn't Obama bring many a Republican to the ballot too, in 2008 ?

I'm sure the turnout will be less this time, as it was in France, but not just for Obama.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently onlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1999 posts, RR: 21
Reply 96, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 5520 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 92):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 91):
Obama stated at the time he agreed to the deal that it wasn't the right time to raise taxes. I'm curious as to why he all of sudden thinks right now IS the right time to raise taxes, the economy being in no better shape than it was two years ago.

Romney wants to close "loopholes" isn't that effectively a tax increase?

No because he also wants to decrease marginal rates which also broadens the tax base.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 94):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 91):
His supporters, opponents and reality would disagree with you.

Only if you're looking at things through the filter of American reality.

And that's the only reality that matters in the election. I've lived abroad and was actually in Paris during French presidential elections, the Left and the Right in Europe are not the same as the Left and the Right in the US. America is far more to the right politically than many other countries obviously, so no it's not surprising that a European sees Obama as center-right ideologically, but that's not the reality here in the US.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 94):
If you're going to frame policy discussions in those terms, nobody anywhere should make policy about anything.

It certainly was not the "change" in Washington's ways that many hoped for in voting for Obama. I remember very well the 2008 election, Obama ran an amazing campaign and I could definitely understand the attraction to Obama's message of Hope and Change, however I didn't buy it that he would actually be able usher in such change. Some argue that peoples' expectations were just too high, I also don't buy that because Obama certainly didn't do anything to tamper down those expectations.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 94):
Gross oversimplification of a problem that goes way beyond who the sitting US president happens to be.

I didn't say his policies had caused it, I was merely pointing out the myth that he had somehow magically improved the standing of the US in those countries. As you said, it's a problem that goes way beyond whoever is in the White House.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6920 posts, RR: 12
Reply 97, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 5493 times:

Since you were here during the French elections, you might have noticed that this time no great promises were made. Still, opinion polls are already bad for new president François Hollande. So it seems elections just excite people more than they realize.


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6674 posts, RR: 6
Reply 98, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 5462 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 96):
No because he also wants to decrease marginal rates which also broadens the tax base.

But how? Ryan had the chance to explain today.. but he couldn't..

He did say though that first to have to pay more in taxes where the "rich"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...-11e2-97a7-45c05ef136b2_story.html

Actually - look at the video itself.. its even more telling:

Class warfare at its best at 3:35! Stick it to the rich!!

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate...n_math_would_take_too_long.html...

[Edited 2012-09-30 18:10:00]

[Edited 2012-09-30 18:13:00]


Step into my office, baby
User currently onlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1999 posts, RR: 21
Reply 99, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 5448 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 97):
Since you were here during the French elections, you might have noticed that this time no great promises were made. Still, opinion polls are already bad for new president François Hollande. So it seems elections just excite people more than they realize.

It was actually very interesting. Most everyone I talked to seemed sure that Sarkozy would probably win, but then he lurched to the right to try and attract some of Marine Le Pen's voters which ultimately seemed to have cost him the election. People certainly did seem VERY excited when Hollande was elected, my friends and I went down to Place de la Bastille for a few drinks and practically ended up having to run for our lives from the victory rally there!

Quoting mt99 (Reply 98):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 96):
No because he also wants to decrease marginal rates which also broadens the tax base.

But how? Ryan had the chance to explain today.. but he couldn't..

You mean by refusing to name which loopholes they want to get rid of? The explanation has been that they don't want to say so they'll be able to more easily negotiate with Congress which makes sense to me, but then again, Obama has refused to address how raising taxes on the rich will help the economy since the CBO has said his tax proposal will cost us jobs here in the US. The idea behind it is to lower rates but close loopholes, effectively giving taxpayers more take-home pay in their checks.


User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6674 posts, RR: 6
Reply 100, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 5438 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 99):
You mean by refusing to name which loopholes they want to get rid of? The explanation has been that they don't want to say so they'll be able to more easily negotiate with Congress

He didn't say that in that video... Why not? You feel that they cannot make they own excuses?

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 99):
Obama has refused to address how raising taxes on the rich will help the economy

On the flip side.. how does lower taxes for the rich equate to more jobs?

"The combined net worth of the 2012 class of the 400 richest Americans is $1.7 trillion, up from $1.5 trillion a year ago. "

http://www.forbes.com/sites/luisakro...400-the-richest-people-in-america/

Last year the Forbes 400 made more money than in any other year - yet how had the labor market fared in the same period? How high is the DOW today?

Remember when airlines could not charge the FAA tax? Did they lower the prices of ticket? No - they pocketed the money.. Lower taxes filter down? BS.



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinecws818 From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 1176 posts, RR: 2
Reply 101, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 5440 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 80):
I just hope this country wakes up and sees that choosing a guy who has failed consistently over the last 4 years is a worse choice than choosing someone that the left-wing media says will fail.

Where were you in 2004?

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 80):
We know nothing about how Romney's gonna run the country.

That is precisely the problem!!!!



volgende halte...Station Hollands Spoor
User currently onlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1999 posts, RR: 21
Reply 102, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 5418 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 100):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 99):
You mean by refusing to name which loopholes they want to get rid of? The explanation has been that they don't want to say so they'll be able to more easily negotiate with Congress

He didn't say that in that video... Why not? You feel that they cannot make they own excuses?

Yeah I watched the video and I fail to see where the issue was except for that "I don't have time to go through all the math" soundbite Left-leaning Slate.com was salivating at. The questioning was bizarre...no sh*t you cut taxes and it theoretically cuts into revenue, what matters is the way loopholes will be closed and the tax base broadened to make up for that "loss". It was all done before with great success in the 1980's.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 100):
On the flip side.. how does lower taxes for the rich equate to more jobs?
Quoting mt99 (Reply 100):
Lower taxes filter down? BS.

You're calling something BS that's been proven many times over to work. Reagan in the 80's massively slashed taxes and revenue doubled, Bush cut taxes near the start of his presidency and shortly afterwards the federal government took in the greatest amount of revenue ever, if you choose to call that BS that's your prerogative. My proof is in history, show me any sliver of proof in the recent past where a nation has taxed it's way out of a recession and into prosperity. I mean seriously, even Clinton doesn't think we should be raising taxes.


User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6674 posts, RR: 6
Reply 103, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 5408 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 102):
My proof is in history, show me any sliver of proof in the recent past where a nation has taxed it's way out of a recession and into prosperity.

I can tell you the story of a country that spent its way out of the Great Depression...

Now you show me how the increased wealth of the Forbes 400 affected the employment rate last year ,



Step into my office, baby
User currently onlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1999 posts, RR: 21
Reply 104, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 5401 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 103):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 102):
My proof is in history, show me any sliver of proof in the recent past where a nation has taxed it's way out of a recession and into prosperity.

I can tell you the story of a country that spent its way out of the Great Depression...

...thanks to WWII! It's well known that FDR's policies did little to improve the depression situation and even arguable that he prolonged it, no you can thank WWII for getting us out of that one.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 103):
Now you show me how the increased wealth of the Forbes 400 affected the employment rate last year

I'm not talking about the Forbes 400, I'm not obsessing about what my neighbor down the street is making, I'm talking about Supply-side economics which has, again, been proven to work many times over.


User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6674 posts, RR: 6
Reply 105, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 5394 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 104):
I'm not obsessing about what my neighbor down the street is making,

What makes you think that i am doing so? Ryan seems to focus on these Rich people first? you didn't see the video?

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 104):
I'm talking about Supply-side economics which has, again, been proven to work many times over.

It did not work last year here did it? Did it work when the airlines could not collect the FAA tax? again, did they lower the prices or did they pocket the money?



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineDarksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1412 posts, RR: 3
Reply 106, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 5388 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 104):

...thanks to WWII! It's well known that FDR's policies did little to improve the depression situation and even arguable that he prolonged it, no you can thank WWII for getting us out of that one.

No, it's well guessed. There's as much, if not more, evidence to the contrary, not limited to the recession that immediately followed WWII.

A lot of what FDR put into place is still around today, mitigating pretty much every recession since.

I don't know where people got this idea that War is good for a national economy. It's only good, without exception, for a short term burst of spending, immediately followed by an inflation & wage hangover period. War is not analogous to getting a better job, as you seem to mistakenly think, but much more like getting an AMEX card in the mail. Enjoy it now, we'll bill you later is how that works.



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13740 posts, RR: 61
Reply 107, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 5394 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting cws818 (Reply 101):
Quoting PHX787 (Reply 80):We know nothing about how Romney's gonna run the country.
That is precisely the problem!!!!

How is it a problem? It worked flawlessly for Obama in 2008; he only talked in broad strokes about "hope" and "change" but never quite got into specifics:




"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6674 posts, RR: 6
Reply 108, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 5381 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 104):
..thanks to WWII! It's well known that FDR's policies did little to improve the depression situation and even arguable that he prolonged it, no you can thank WWII for getting us out of that one.

Oh.. and WWII was free.. i forgot!

How is war not government expenditure?

[Edited 2012-09-30 20:20:42]


Step into my office, baby
User currently onlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1999 posts, RR: 21
Reply 109, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 5372 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 105):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 104):
I'm not obsessing about what my neighbor down the street is making,

What makes you think that i am doing so? Ryan seems to focus on these Rich people first? you didn't see the video?

Because you keep railing on and on about the Forbes 400, I watched the video and he's only focusing on these "Rich people" in saying their deductions will be the first to go so deductions preferential to the middle class can be kept.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 105):
It did not work last year here did it? Did it work when the airlines could not collect the FAA tax? again, did they lower the prices or did they pocket the money?

You're trying to equate an entire market and fiscal policy with one industry which is just illogical. You can be sure that airlines being able to enjoy the higher margins benefited from that as did the tens of thousands of airline employees. And what do you mean they "pocket the money"? If by pocketing money you mean investing in new equipment/technologies and injecting capital into the economy, that's a good thing. If by pocketing money you mean paying down debt to creditors/investors, that's a good thing. If by pocketing money you mean making profit-sharing payments to their employees, that's a good thing. How is this proving your argument that taxes should be raised again?


User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7959 posts, RR: 19
Reply 110, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 5370 times:

Quoting cws818 (Reply 101):
Where were you in 2004?

Unable to vote. I would've probably voted third party.

Quoting cws818 (Reply 101):
That is precisely the problem!!!!

Well we know Obama has failed. We don't know about Romney.



Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6674 posts, RR: 6
Reply 111, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 5363 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 109):
"Rich people" in saying their deductions will be the first to go so deductions preferential to the middle class can be kept.

Aha!!! Class warfare! Attack the rich!! Paging Karl Marx.. Class warfare from the GOP!!!

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 109):
ou can be sure that airlines being able to enjoy the higher margins benefited from that as did the tens of thousands of airline employees.

Because Corporations are people right?

I guess as long a CEOs got their bonus from that extra money, we are can all go to bed happy

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 110):
Well we know Obama has failed. We don't know about Romney.

"The Devil you know is better than the Devil you don't"...

[Edited 2012-09-30 20:39:54]


Step into my office, baby
User currently onlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8948 posts, RR: 24
Reply 112, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 5366 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 100):
Last year the Forbes 400 made more money than in any other year - yet how had the labor market fared in the same period? How high is the DOW today?

What do you expect? The wealthy will always do OK - even if you increase their taxes to ridiculous levels, or impose other stringent regulations on their businesses. The real impact of those things is to lessen their propensity to spread that wealth around by starting or expanding their businesses, and keeping their money for themselves.

Basic economics. But somehow I doubt you'll believe it. The rich are just being selfish, right?



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15831 posts, RR: 27
Reply 113, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 5362 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 103):
I can tell you the story of a country that spent its way out of the Great Depression...

Contrary to what you may have been taught in high school, the New Deal was a failure, not unlike how Obama's stimulus failed to end this recession.

Secondly, Roosevelt raised taxes during the Depression, which was another misstep the Democrats seem eager to repeat. The lowest tax rate went from 1.5% in 1929 to 4% in 1932 while the highest tax bracket (in 1929) went from 25% in 1929 to 56% in 1932 to 62% in 1936. The highest tax bracket overall went from 25% in 1929 to 63% in 1932 to 79% in 1936. Overall, raising taxes in a weak economy is an exceptionally poor idea. Furthermore, you have to remember that this was an age before offshore banking and investments in foreign countries was a less viable option. Suffice to say, that's not smart at the moment.

Beyond that, let's remember that ending a war and slashing defense spending has been nearly the equivalent of a "Go directly to Recession. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200" card. It happened after WWI, it happened after WWII, it happened after the Korean War, and it's no coincidence that the Cold War period was largely very prosperous since the nation was in many respects fighting a war economically, if not physically. Drawing down foreign combat operations on a large scale is okay, but the liberal wet dream of slashing defense budgets would be a poor plan both in terms of national defense and the economy, especially when it's not at all clear that we can count on another Ronald Reagan to swoop in and save both after the economy and military both found themselves in a sorry state after the Vietnam War.

Franklin Roosevelt also did not abandon the gold standard, which is obviously not something that could be repeated now at least. What really ended the Great Depression was WWII, especially the early part which largely consisted of American profiteering as well as attempts to catch up after the neglect the military suffered post WWI. The war also probably saved FDR's presidential legacy, which otherwise could have been that of a proto-Jimmy Carter. The bottom line is that you don't fix recessions by ending wars. You fix recessions by starting wars.

And let's consider what sorts of jobs and industries might suffer if defense budgets get cut: high tech manufacturing, engineering, etc. All solid middle class professions standing right in the crosshairs of those who preach about the strength of the middle class. For all the talk about "Main Street" or "Joe the Plumber", let's remember that economic home runs like the digital revolution and the internet come from the top rather than the bottom (in terms of education and industry). I think that America spends way too much time trying to get back what they had or keep what they have and too little time trying to get what's next. The result will be losing both the past and the future.

So let's review what Democrats want to do:
1. More stimulus, which the national debt cannot really handle, didn't work during the Great Depression and hasn't worked during this recession.
2. Cut defense budgets, which has regularly led to economic downturns and would possibly push more people out of the middle class and into the Democrats' precious social programs.
3. Raise taxes, which is a poor idea in a rough economy. Not to mention that now there are more options for working around such tax hikes than in the past.

So with a little over a month until election day, the question needs to be asked: are there any more mistakes that they want to try and make?

Quoting mt99 (Reply 105):
Did it work when the airlines could not collect the FAA tax? again, did they lower the prices or did they pocket the money?

Really? You're going to use two weeks of one tax not being levied to make blanket statements about macroeconomics?



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinecws818 From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 1176 posts, RR: 2
Reply 114, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 5357 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 110):
Quoting cws818 (Reply 101):
That is precisely the problem!!!!

Well we know Obama has failed. We don't know about Romney.

That is because he consistently refuses to give any specific plans when asked for them.



volgende halte...Station Hollands Spoor
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6674 posts, RR: 6
Reply 115, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 5356 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 112):
The wealthy will always do OK

Well thank God - i was worried.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 112):
even if you increase their taxes to ridiculous levels, or impose other stringent regulations on their businesses. The real impact of those things is to lessen their propensity to spread that wealth around by starting or expanding their businesses, and keeping their money for themselves.

But that did not happen last year, or the year prior - their taxes have remained the same.. their wealth increased and the claim that taking care of them will result in job increase has not materialized.

If i am getting a 15% ROI and after new regulations and taxes i get 14% am i going to throw everything out of the window?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 112):
What do you expect?

What i have heard a lot here: Make sure the rich keep being rich and getting richer and MAYBE, they will hire you..

[Edited 2012-09-30 21:05:28]


Step into my office, baby
User currently onlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1999 posts, RR: 21
Reply 116, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 5336 times:

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 106):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 104):

...thanks to WWII! It's well known that FDR's policies did little to improve the depression situation and even arguable that he prolonged it, no you can thank WWII for getting us out of that one.

No, it's well guessed. There's as much, if not more, evidence to the contrary, not limited to the recession that immediately followed WWII.

Not really, the numbers on employment, taxes, revenues, job creation in those years are all very straight forward. FDR spent A LOT of money with little result when he wasn't trying to stack the Supreme Court. I will say this though, at least there are SOME things to show for all his stimulus money such as the Hoover Dam and TVA versus Obama's stimulus.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 108):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 104):
..thanks to WWII! It's well known that FDR's policies did little to improve the depression situation and even arguable that he prolonged it, no you can thank WWII for getting us out of that one.

Oh.. and WWII was free.. i forgot!

How is war not government expenditure?

Oh, so you mean we SHOULDN'T cut defense spending?

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 106):
I don't know where people got this idea that War is good for a national economy.

Long-term it certainly isn't good for the economy, but in that period of time there's no denying it was critical to getting the national economy moving again.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 111):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 109):
"Rich people" in saying their deductions will be the first to go so deductions preferential to the middle class can be kept.

Aha!!! Class warfare! Attack the rich!! Paging Karl Marx.. Class warfare from the GOP!!!

How many times does this need to be stated: One candidate wants to raise their taxes AND close loopholes, the other candidate wants to LOWER their taxes and close loopholes...I think it's obvious which one is the class warfare warrior.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 111):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 109):
ou can be sure that airlines being able to enjoy the higher margins benefited from that as did the tens of thousands of airline employees.

Because Corporations are people right?

I guess as long a CEOs got their bonus from that extra money, we are can all go to bed happy

Sure, as did their employees in their profit-sharing checks. You conveniently ignored every other point I made about investing in new equipment, paying down debt...etc.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 115):
Make sure the rich keep being rich and getting richer and MAYBE, they will hire you..

Well, have you ever gotten a job from a poor person? Would you prefer the rich live and invest somewhere else? I mean really, they pay 70% of income taxes in the US. Just look at France right now: Hollande promised he'd raise the highest bracket to 75%, a populist message ("stick it to the rich..yeah!"), but now he's trying to figure out a way in which he can do it without really doing it to avoid a capital flight as Britain, Switzerland and the likes have said they would roll out the red carpet and happily welcome France's millionaires as citizens.


User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13740 posts, RR: 61
Reply 117, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 5333 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting mt99 (Reply 111):
Quoting PHX787 (Reply 110):Well we know Obama has failed. We don't know about Romney.

"The Devil you know is better than the Devil you don't"...

If that's the case, why didn't you support and/or vote for McCain in 2008? After all, the left's sole narrative was that he was just like Bush...



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6674 posts, RR: 6
Reply 118, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 5326 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 116):
Oh, so you mean we SHOULDN'T cut defense spending?

Its is you who is sugesting we use wars as a stimulus pacakge.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 116):
How many times does this need to be stated: One candidate wants to raise their taxes AND close loopholes, the other candidate wants to LOWER their taxes and close loopholes...I think it's obvious which one is the class warfare warrior.

By making 1+1=8? How is he going to do if? Oh yes the has no time to explain. Just trust him.. Trust Romney blindly. He has never changed his mind.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 116):
Sure, as did their employees in their profit-sharing checks. You conveniently ignored every other point I made about investing in new equipment, paying down debt...etc.

No, i addrsessed it. I said that you belive that corportions are people be we should bow down to and beg for work. Which is fine. (Ok that a bit dramatic) but honestly a very marginal increase in taxes will not spell doom for any company. On the contrary it may spur additional efficienies that create even more profita

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 116):
I mean really, they pay 70% of income taxes in the US.

And who is proposiing 70%?!!! We know it not Obama, it must be Romeny becuase he has not told us any details

[Edited 2012-09-30 21:53:26]


Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineDarksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1412 posts, RR: 3
Reply 119, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 5316 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 116):

Not really, the numbers on employment, taxes, revenues, job creation in those years are all very straight forward.

Again, all of which, and thensome, were given back in the recession that followed. WWII had to happen for obvious reasons, but to say it saved us from the Depression is missing the picture here. Even during the war, quality of life was not overall improved at home, given the amount of rationing and personal sacrafice going on at the time (which by the way is something this somewhat war-hungry generation seems to conveniently ignore).

The only legacy of WWII that actually benefitted anyone at the personal level was the GI bill.



And since someone else here said:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 113):
the liberal wet dream of slashing defense budgets would be a poor plan both in terms of national defense and the economy,

If we cut our own defense spending to a reasonable level, and allowed our economic partners in the world (ahem, China, that would be you) to start picking up the tab for the defensive stability that they use and we pay for, we would indeed have all kinds of money to gainfully employ folks at home for Green or Infrastructural Projects. It's not as if that's un-needed anyway.

Anyway, that's another topic entirely...

Mitt should stay in the race, it's what his investors have paid for & he'd be doing them a disservice to Palin out now.

Personally, I have to wonder if Obama would ever consider going the Lincoln route and appoint Mitt to some executive branch cabinet position after next January...



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15831 posts, RR: 27
Reply 120, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 5317 times:

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 119):
WWII had to happen for obvious reasons, but to say it saved us from the Depression is missing the picture here.

It did. When the factories had to start churning out equipment for the retooling of the US military and the allies is the point when people started really going back to work and making money. None of the New Deal policies managed to do that.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 119):
Even during the war, quality of life was not overall improved at home, given the amount of rationing and personal sacrafice going on at the time (which by the way is something this somewhat war-hungry generation seems to conveniently ignore).

It wasn't because people weren't working or making money, it was because there wasn't anything to buy due to wartime rationing. You couldn't spend your money on a new car because all the capacity was turning out war material. People weren't going off on vacation or buying consumer goods either, but not for lack of employment.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 119):
If we cut our own defense spending to a reasonable level, and allowed our economic partners in the world (ahem, China, that would be you) to start picking up the tab for the defensive stability that they use and we pay for, we would indeed have all kinds of money to gainfully employ folks at home for Green or Infrastructural Projects. It's not as if that's un-needed anyway.

Keep the defense budget where it needs to be and pay for infrastructure by dropping loser social programs.

It's painful to see that so many people seem to want to go back to the days of Jimmy Carter. Unless you can promise me a Reagan on the other end of it that's an awful deal.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently onlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1999 posts, RR: 21
Reply 121, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 5309 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 118):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 116):
Oh, so you mean we SHOULDN'T cut defense spending?

Its is you who is sugesting we use wars as a stimulus pacakge.

Point to where I suggested that.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 118):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 116):
How many times does this need to be stated: One candidate wants to raise their taxes AND close loopholes, the other candidate wants to LOWER their taxes and close loopholes...I think it's obvious which one is the class warfare warrior.

By making 1+1=8? How is he going to do if?

Where do you get 1+1=8? I'm not sure how much more straightforward you can get, the marginal rates would be lowered for EVERYONE and then tax loopholes closed which are preferential for the upper bracket. What about this don't you get? How is he going to do it you ask, well I would assume he would work with Congress and pass a bill...how else do you think he'd do it?

Quoting mt99 (Reply 118):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 116):
Sure, as did their employees in their profit-sharing checks. You conveniently ignored every other point I made about investing in new equipment, paying down debt...etc.

No, i addrsessed it. I said that you belive that corportions are people be we should bow down to and beg for work.

No, you did not address it. You tried to fallaciously make a connection between a tax not being levied for a few weeks to an entire macroeconomic theory, for some reason asserting that because airlines didn't lower ticket prices that Supply-side economics is bunk. You stated that the airlines just "pocket the money" to which I clearly showed they don't do (servicing debt, upgrading equipment, paying employees...all of which create jobs and additional tax payers by the way).

Quoting mt99 (Reply 118):
but honestly a very marginal increase in taxes will not spell doom for any company. On the contrary it may spur additional efficienies that create even more profita

...which is why they go to China and ship jobs overseas, because you force them to find these additional efficiencies to maintain profits. Do you seriously expect to bring jobs and FDI back to the US by raising the cost of doing business here? If you do you're dreaming and China, India and Brazil are laughing all the way to the bank.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 118):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 116):
I mean really, they pay 70% of income taxes in the US.

And who is proposiing 70%?!!! We know it not Obama, it must be Romeny becuase he has not told us any details

Not a 70% tax RATE! Rather they pay 70% of all income taxes received by the federal government.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 119):
but to say it saved us from the Depression is missing the picture here. Even during the war, quality of life was not overall improved at home, given the amount of rationing and personal sacrafice going on at the time

No, quality of life during the war didn't markedly improve, but massive investment in production and new defense technologies had a large and tangible effect on jump-starting the economy for post-war life.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 119):
If we cut our own defense spending to a reasonable level, and allowed our economic partners in the world

Are you honestly trusting China to maintain defensive stability in the world when they prop up communist totalitarian regimes like North Korea and Myanmar (both of which make Mubarrak look like the world's most enlightened ruler) and pressing territorial claims on free democracies like Taiwan? China, as wonderful as it's economy has been, is still an un-democratic, communist human rights abuser and the vast majority of their citizens live in abject poverty with restrictive rights, can you honestly say with a straight face that you want THEM being a military leader in the world? Why wouldn't you say that Britain, Canada, France, Germany and Brazil should step up...China? Honestly?


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21520 posts, RR: 53
Reply 122, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 5309 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 120):
When the factories had to start churning out equipment for the retooling of the US military and the allies is the point when people started really going back to work and making money. None of the New Deal policies managed to do that.

And the funds for military programs come from where in your theory?

In reality, they come from
a) taxes,
b) debt or
c) inflation.

(With inflation meaning the respective central bank printing money for the government (where that is possible) which effectively acts as a general tax again.)

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 120):
Keep the defense budget where it needs to be and pay for infrastructure by dropping loser social programs.

Yep. Give the middle class and the (often still working) poor a kick in the teeth so weapons manufacturers can be fattened up even more. That will of course solve any problem an economy could ever have...!   

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 120):
It's painful to see that so many people seem to want to go back to the days of Jimmy Carter. Unless you can promise me a Reagan on the other end of it that's an awful deal.

Reagan funded his "star wars" initiative with debt. Dick Cheney infamously remarked that "Deficits don't matter – Reagan has proved that!".

So how much or how little does the debt piled on top of Reagan's debt by the Bush/Cheney administration actually matter today, combined with the self-inflicted meltdown of the banking sector?

I seem to remember especially the Republicans crying bloody murder about the level of debt at the same time – I can't shake the feeling that they don't actually realize what they're doing there...!   


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15831 posts, RR: 27
Reply 123, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 5303 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 122):
And the funds for military programs come from where in your theory?

Taxes, and considering that the military is one of the essential functions of government, it's money well spent. That said, a healthy economy will always have some inflation.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 122):
Give the middle class and the (often still working) poor a kick in the teeth so weapons manufacturers can be fattened up even more.

Who do you think works at those weapons manufacturers? Those are the educated, middle class professionals everyone keeps worrying about hurting. Major defense cuts could cause a serious brain drain, which would leave America in a bad situation.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 122):
Reagan funded his "star wars" initiative with debt. Dick Cheney infamously remarked that "Deficits don't matter – Reagan has proved that!".

The defense budget has to be healthy but spent on projects with actual value. Like infrastructure spending, it can't be spending for spending's sake, because the more rational among us call that "waste."



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineDarksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1412 posts, RR: 3
Reply 124, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 5296 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 120):
pay for infrastructure by dropping loser social programs.

As opposed to that "winner" defense program of ours that takes about a decade to admit that it lost a war the previous administration was sure was an "easy win?"

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 120):

Keep the defense budget where it needs to be

Which would be about 30% of what it currently is, yes.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 120):
It's painful to see that so many people seem to want to go back to the days of Jimmy Carter. Unless you can promise me a Reagan on the other end of it that's an awful deal.

Apples to Oranges. You may believe that the world looks like "Red Alert," but the rest of us seem to have gotten the memo that the Cold War is over. Unless you're proposing to start a new one of those, that assertion of yours is somewhat disconnected from the present reality.



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15831 posts, RR: 27
Reply 125, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 5291 times:

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 124):
Which would be about 30% of what it currently is, yes.

Not even close. There are plenty of savings in ending two overseas wars, but some of that money is going to have to go towards restoring and retooling the force. The future of the military may be smaller in terms of manpower, but may not be that much cheaper.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 124):
You may believe that the world looks like "Red Alert," but the rest of us seem to have gotten the memo that the Cold War is over.

The Cold War is over, however that is anything but a free pass to slash defense spending. Really the Cold War was a much simpler time: we knew pretty much who we would fight, where we would do it, and how it would be fought. Now situations are much more in flux. The capability must be maintained at levels that are for the most part similar, but has to be a much smarter and quicker to react force. The truth is that in the future, we have less idea what wars may be fought and in what environments.

Add to that the new-ish threat of terrorism that requires different capabilities than the conventional standing military. Even though they must be a smarter force than in Cold War days, fighting terrorism requires unprecedented aggression, speed, intelligence, and collaboration. Just because those doing the fighting may do so in smaller groups and may never fire a shot does not mean that the team behind them does not need to be as capable and intelligent as any in history.

So while the force needed to respond to future threats may need two prongs, I believe they have one major thing in common. While previous wars were fought largely on the backs of manpower and machinery, future conflicts, be it against a dozen terrorists or a division of soldiers, will rely more and more on information: getting it, analyzing it, sharing it, and utilizing it in a timely manner. Gaining and maintaining that capability will take funding and a lot of really intelligent and really dedicated people. The military of tomorrow may not be bigger than before, but it damn well better be smarter.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11793 posts, RR: 15
Reply 126, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 5288 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 112):
The wealthy will always do OK - even if you increase their taxes to ridiculous levels, or impose other stringent regulations on their businesses.

So, the wealthy (a.k.a. "Job Creators") are doing well according to you. They can create jobs.

Where are the jobs? Even if taxes on Job Creators are increased, you admit they will still be able to create jobs. Where are the jobs? Where are the jobs? Has that worked over the past 12 years? Has it really? Obama, according to FOX and the right-wing, has not created one job. Even with 39 months of job growth, no jobs have been created. Just think what job growth would have been with taxes being higher! MORE jobs. That's right: MORE JOBS!

The right does not want to think about that. The Democrat (read: Black guy) in the White House doing well? Perish the thought! Like Mitch McConnell said: "Make Obama a one-term president"! That is the top priority of the right-wing.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently onlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1999 posts, RR: 21
Reply 127, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 5287 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 126):
So, the wealthy (a.k.a. "Job Creators") are doing well according to you. They can create jobs.

Where are the jobs? Even if taxes on Job Creators are increased, you admit they will still be able to create jobs.

Do they have the financial means to create jobs? Obviously. But why would they do it if you're making it impossible for them to do so profitably?

Quoting seb146 (Reply 126):
Even with 39 months of job growth, no jobs have been created.

Try doing your own research instead of going to Obama's re-election website. In each of those 39 months of job growth, the job growth has been too anemic to even keep up with growth in the workforce, so joblessness has continued to increase in every one of those months. The economy needs to be creating well over 150,000 jobs a month to keep up with population growth AND add jobs...what was that August jobs report again? Only 96,000 jobs added? tisk tisk

Quoting seb146 (Reply 126):
The Democrat (read: Black guy)

Oh yes, it couldn't possibly be the abject failures of his policies to turn around the economy or his imperial governing style...we have to hate him because he's black. Never mind that currently one of the darling politicians of the Right is black nor that Herman Cain was a very serious contender for the Republican nomination, nope, just completely ignore all that because it HAS to be racism because who in their right mind couldn't like Obama?   Get over yourself, the 'racist' card has no honorable place in the forum of civilized discourse.


User currently onlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8948 posts, RR: 24
Reply 128, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 5247 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 115):
But that did not happen last year, or the year prior - their taxes have remained the same.. their wealth increased and the claim that taking care of them will result in job increase has not materialized.

Their actual taxes remained the same, but financial decisions are made according to EXPECTATIONS, and those expectations are that taxes and regulations are going to increase dramatically. Telling people that you will raise their taxes in two or three years will influence the same kind of behavior as if you raised their taxes now.

With Obama's huge deficits, and Taxmageddon only 3 months away, and Obamacare coming fast, every investor knows to not invest in anything risky, and play their cards close to their vest.

Would you like to know how to get business and private enterprise to explode like it never has before? Get a bipartisan promise to to introduce any new regulations or taxes for the next 20 years. The sheer predictability would encourage a huge amount of new business.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinepvjin From Finland, joined Mar 2012, 1401 posts, RR: 0
Reply 129, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 5211 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 125):
Not even close. There are plenty of savings in ending two overseas wars, but some of that money is going to have to go towards restoring and retooling the force. The future of the military may be smaller in terms of manpower, but may not be that much cheaper.

Do you realise that the very same terrorist organizations that US is fighting against gained their popularity only because US military kept messing around the middle east?

Violence creates only more violence, US military will be never able to solve this problem as their actions only make their enemy more popular. A while ago I saw really good Vice documentary about this. In Afghanistan and Pakistan US has helped Taliban a lot through civilian casualties caused by UAV airstrikes as those naturally create rightful hate towards US army.



"A rational army would run away"
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6674 posts, RR: 6
Reply 130, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 5211 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 121):
Point to where I suggested that.

Here:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 104):
, no you can thank WWII for getting us out of that one.
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 121):
Where do you get 1+1=8? I'm not sure how much more straightforward you can get, the marginal rates would be lowered for EVERYONE and then tax loopholes closed which are preferential for the upper bracket. What about this don't you get? How is he going to do it you ask, well I would assume he would work with Congress and pass a bill...how else do you think he'd do it?

Because talk is cheap. I can promise you a 5% Flat for everyone. Would you believe me without proof?

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 121):
No, you did not address it. You tried to fallaciously make a connection between a tax not being levied for a few weeks to an entire macroeconomic theory, for some reason asserting that because airlines didn't lower ticket prices that Supply-side economics is bunk. You stated that the airlines just "pocket the money" to which I clearly showed they don't do (servicing debt, upgrading equipment, paying employees...all of which create jobs and additional tax payers by the way).

Sigh - no it like you getting 11 donuts after you paid for a dozen - and felling better because the baker will be able to sell one more donut at 0 cost, which eventually would work its way thru "economic karma" (ohh did i just make up a term?") and benefit you someday..

BTW - Even with all the taxes you think that will come, Supply Side economic is not going away anywhere. Business are resilient, they figure stuff out.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 121):
...which is why they go to China and ship jobs overseas, because you force them to find these additional efficiencies to maintain profits. Do you seriously expect to bring jobs and FDI back to the US by raising the cost of doing business here? If you do you're dreaming and China, India and Brazil are laughing all the way to the bank.

Oh Sweety, where have you been the last 20 years?That train has salied   - Ask Bain Capital how long they have been farming jobs to China.

Now, do you think that Romney Policies (well. the ones you think he has, because he hasn't shared with us) would bring back jobs from China?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 128):
Would you like to know how to get business and private enterprise to explode like it never has before? Get a bipartisan promise to to introduce any new regulations or taxes for the next 20 years. The sheer predictability would encourage a huge amount of new business.

BS. They have a little piece of paper offered by Norqvist saying that taxes wont be raised. Plus, with the impeding landslide victory of the GOP (after all, who to believe the polls, they are skewed!)

Certainty could come in the form of knowing for a fact that taxes would raise (say 0.5%) a year for the next 20 years.



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4786 posts, RR: 3
Reply 131, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 5189 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 128):
ld you like to know how to get business and private enterprise to explode like it never has before? Get a bipartisan promise to to introduce any new regulations or taxes for the next 20 years. The sheer predictability would encourage a huge amount of new business.

On this I agree, but we both know politicians don't want to give away carrots. They need these for votes. The true problem is that we have a federal deficit that no politician likes to admit exists. In fact we are in the situation we are in , because they all found it so convenient to vote for a tax cut while increasing spending over the past 12 years.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1500 posts, RR: 4
Reply 132, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 5144 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 127):
nor that Herman Cain was a very serious contender for the Republican nomination, nope

  

I agree with you on the racism point, it's rather hackneyed now, but I really have to red flag this. Herman Cain was never a serious contender for anything  



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently onlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1999 posts, RR: 21
Reply 133, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 5132 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 130):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 121):
Point to where I suggested that.

Here:

Nowhere in there did I suggest we use wars to get us out of recessions, try again.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 130):
Because talk is cheap. I can promise you a 5% Flat for everyone. Would you believe me without proof?

The proof is in history as I've pointed out before, but even taking that out of the equation, there's just as much substance behind Romney's plan as there is behind Obama's plan. Again, where has Obama explained how raising taxes and costing the economy tens of thousands of jobs will help get us out of the recession? There's cheap talk happening on both sides of the aisle.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 130):
Sigh - no it like you getting 11 donuts after you paid for a dozen

How is saying "Hey I'd like 12 donuts please" and then not getting 12 comparable to airlines deciding not to lower their ticket prices? You have a flawed understanding of Supply-side economics, lowering the tax burden doesn't serve to specifically lower the prices, but to remove barriers to entry for people going into business or the workforce. So again, with that additional money those evil corporate airlines "pocketed" they were able to hire more people/pay down or service debt to investors which injects capital into the economy/invest in upgrading their aircraft creating a boon in hiring and contract for whoever they do business with/pay profit-sharing checks to their employees...etc.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 130):
Business are resilient, they figure stuff out.

They absolutely will...all the way to China with that mentality.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 130):
Oh Sweety, where have you been the last 20 years?That train has salied

So, explain to me how increasing the cost of doing business in the US as Obama is proposing to do even remotely reverses that trend, if not further encourages it.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 130):
Ask Bain Capital how long they have been farming jobs to China.

Where did you get that one, obamaforamerica.com?  
Quoting zckls04 (Reply 132):
I agree with you on the racism point, it's rather hackneyed now, but I really have to red flag this. Herman Cain was never a serious contender for anything

Perhaps not from the perspective of the other side of the aisle, but A LOT of Republicans liked what he had to say and were pulling for him.


User currently onlineflyingturtle From Switzerland, joined Oct 2011, 2529 posts, RR: 14
Reply 134, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 5118 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 16):

Thank you from a statistics guy. 


Back to the topic: Of course Romney shouldn't concede. I want a tough race, even if I want Obama to win.  

Is there any deadline until which the Reps could nominate another candidate?


David



Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 135, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 5117 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 102):
Reagan in the 80's massively slashed taxes and revenue doubled, Bush cut taxes near the start of his presidency and shortly afterwards the federal government took in the greatest amount of revenue ever, if you choose to call that BS that's your prerogative. My proof is in history, show me any sliver of proof in the recent past where a nation has taxed it's way out of a recession and into prosperity. I mean seriously, even Clinton doesn't think we should be raising taxes.

"My proof is history" ... well then you're cherry picking points, not reading the whole narrative. Yes, Reagan cut taxes, and when the deficit rose to approx. 4% of GDP he did a 180 and raised taxes. And then all was happiness in the money markets.

Bush I slashed taxes also, and then Congress forced him to raise them. The "read my lips" thing kind of was exposed, and was a big factor in his 1992 loss (although, to be fair, Ross Perot was a big factor, and this really smart guy from Arkansas).

Quoting Klaus (Reply 122):
Reagan funded his "star wars" initiative with debt. Dick Cheney infamously remarked that "Deficits don't matter – Reagan has proved that!".

Another bit of cherry-picking. Deficits don't actually matter in the short term, but they do in the longer term. In all honesty, I do wonder about the current American fiscal trajectory. And ours. We were on course to completely eliminate the federal debt by about 2018 or 2019, until the Conservatives, in an act of ideological purity rather than common sense, decided to cut taxes. Had we eliminated the federal debt, then a nice tax cut would have been justified.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently onlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1999 posts, RR: 21
Reply 136, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 5095 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 135):
Yes, Reagan cut taxes, and when the deficit rose to approx. 4% of GDP he did a 180 and raised taxes. And then all was happiness in the money markets.

Incorrect, he was absolutely a net tax cutter. The top rates went from 70% to 28% during his presidency, your assertion is disingenuous. He agreed to raise the top rate from 25% to 28% out of compromise with Democrats to create just two tax brackets where previously there had been as many as 16, but make no mistake, tax rates were massively slashed during his presidency.


User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6674 posts, RR: 6
Reply 137, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 5097 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 133):
So, explain to me how increasing the cost of doing business in the US as Obama is proposing to do even remotely reverses that trend, if not further encourages it.

It wont. How does Romney's plan compete with $350 per month wages in china? Specific please.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 133):
Nowhere in there did I suggest we use wars to get us out of recessions, try again.

You want me to quote you again? Its very clear you where thanking WWII for ending the Great Recession. I can if you want me too.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 133):
"pocketed" they were able to hire more people/pay down or service debt to investors which injects capital into the economy/invest in upgrading their aircraft creating a boon in hiring and contract for whoever they do business with/pay profit-sharing checks to their employees...etc.

Prove that they profit shared with the employees. Besides ..Lower prices would create demand.. having similar benefits..



Step into my office, baby
User currently onlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1999 posts, RR: 21
Reply 138, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5061 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 137):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 133):
So, explain to me how increasing the cost of doing business in the US as Obama is proposing to do even remotely reverses that trend, if not further encourages it.

It wont. How does Romney's plan compete with $350 per month wages in china? Specific please.

It's a misnomer that we would have to lower wages to China's level to be competitive, and Romney's plan which lessens the cost of doing business in the US further decreases the potential benefits of outsourcing to China as opposed to Obama's plan which would only further incentivize outsourcing and make moving jobs to China an even more profitable proposition.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 137):
Its very clear you where thanking WWII for ending the Great Recession. I can if you want me too.

That's different from saying that wars should be used as stimulus every time to get out of recession or depression.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 137):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 133):
"pocketed" they were able to hire more people/pay down or service debt to investors which injects capital into the economy/invest in upgrading their aircraft creating a boon in hiring and contract for whoever they do business with/pay profit-sharing checks to their employees...etc.

Prove that they profit shared with the employees.

Delta, United and US Airways all profit-share with employees, American did as well when I worked there a few years ago.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...sek-profit-solid-financial-results

Quote:
CEO Jeff Smisek will help distribute $265 million in profit sharing to employees of United and Continental airlines
http://www.bizjournals.com/twincitie...r-lines-profit-sharing-checks.html

Quote:
Delta Air Lines Inc. said Friday it will pay $264 million in profit sharing to its employees for meeting 2011 goals.
Quoting mt99 (Reply 137):
Besides ..Lower prices would create demand.. having similar benefits..

...at lower margins and lower profits, giving them less money to invest, less money to profit share with employees, and less money to service debt, you're arguing in circles here. It's irrelevant anyways as it's been pointed out multiple times above that this odd analogy you're trying to make has nothing to do with Supply-side economics.


User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6674 posts, RR: 6
Reply 139, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5054 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 138):
Quoting mt99 (Reply 137):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 133):
"pocketed" they were able to hire more people/pay down or service debt to investors which injects capital into the economy/invest in upgrading their aircraft creating a boon in hiring and contract for whoever they do business with/pay profit-sharing checks to their employees...etc.

Prove that they profit shared with the employees.

Delta, United and US Airways all profit-share with employees, American did as well when I worked there a few years ago.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...sek-profit-solid-financial-results

Quote:
CEO Jeff Smisek will help distribute $265 million in profit sharing to employees of United and Continental airlines
http://www.bizjournals.com/twincitie...r-lines-profit-sharing-checks.html

Quote:
Delta Air Lines Inc. said Friday it will pay $264 million in profit sharing to its employees for meeting 2011 goals.
Quoting mt99 (Reply 137):
Besides ..Lower prices would create demand.. having similar benefits..

Prove that they got more money than they would have gotten otherwise...

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 138):
It's a misnomer that we would have to lower wages to China's level to be competitive, and Romney's plan which lessens the cost of doing business in the US further decreases the potential benefits of outsourcing to China as opposed to Obama's plan which would only further incentivize outsourcing and make moving jobs to China an even more profitable proposition.

OK - so you said nothing concrete..you say "further decease" - decrease by how much? How much more profitable? Numbers please.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 138):
.at lower margins and lower profits, giving them less money to invest, less money to profit share with employees, and less money to service debt, y

Not necessarily.. What makes you think that what you say is a certainty?

Why do companies have "sales" to sell less?



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11793 posts, RR: 15
Reply 140, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 5047 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 127):
Do they have the financial means to create jobs? Obviously. But why would they do it if you're making it impossible for them to do so profitably?

They are paying the least in taxes in the history of the United States. I think they don't have a problem with profit. I think you just don't want them to pay anything. You want all those oil companies and all those energy companies getting billions in welfare and rebate checks. Who do you blame for that? Obama? Or the right-wing who made those deals?

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 127):
In each of those 39 months of job growth, the job growth has been too anemic to even keep up with growth in the workforce

So, you admit there have been 39 months of job growth. If the right-wing would compromise and do what is right for the American people instead of just trying to make Obama a one-term president, maybe you wouldn't have to split hairs.

Let me ask this: What if Romney becomes president and the very first thing Harry Ried says is " our number one goal should be to make Romney a one-term president"? Don't you think every media outlet would keep playing that every hour on the hour and even on the half hour?

But, it's not a big deal when Mitch McConnell says it. It's not a big deal when the number two in Pennsylvania tells everyone, because of voter ID laws, Pennsylvania has been handed to Romney. No one cares about that. But, when Democrats even hint at such a thing, it is un-American? How can that be? One party is fine, the other is evil?

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 127):
what was that August jobs report again? Only 96,000 jobs added?

How many jobs were we gaining this time four years ago?



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently onlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8948 posts, RR: 24
Reply 141, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 5033 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 140):
So, you admit there have been 39 months of job growth. If the right-wing would compromise and do what is right for the American people instead of just trying to make Obama a one-term president, maybe you wouldn't have to split hairs.

As you well know, the popularly used unemployment rate (U-3) is a political creation. U-6, which includes people who have fallen out of U-3 because they have run out of benefits and have given up, is far more realistic.



The job growth from 2010 onwards is nothing to be proud of. If the government had gone on vacation and done nothing, supply and demand would have done as good if not better. The question is how to get U-6 back in line with historical averages of around 8-9% rather than the current rate of 15% - and remember, economists are generally agreed that we are headed for another recession next year.

[Edited 2012-10-01 12:45:50]


Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently onlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1999 posts, RR: 21
Reply 142, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 5024 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 139):
Prove that they got more money than they would have gotten otherwise...

What makes you think they would have gotten more if their profits had been less? They profit-share at a certain proportion of the profits made.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 139):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 138):
It's a misnomer that we would have to lower wages to China's level to be competitive, and Romney's plan which lessens the cost of doing business in the US further decreases the potential benefits of outsourcing to China as opposed to Obama's plan which would only further incentivize outsourcing and make moving jobs to China an even more profitable proposition.

OK - so you said nothing concrete..you say "further decease" - decrease by how much? How much more profitable?

Does it really matter by how much when the other candidate wants to go in the opposite direction? Again you've yet to explain how under Obama's job-costing tax plan it would be better.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 139):
Not necessarily.. What makes you think that what you say is a certainty?

Because I understand how businesses and capital markets work, less profits=less money to spend unless they finance more debt, what are you not understanding here?

Quoting mt99 (Reply 139):
Why do companies have "sales" to sell less?

To mitigate losses on unsold inventory...what does this have to do with Supply-side economics again?

Quoting seb146 (Reply 140):
They are paying the least in taxes in the history of the United States.

Incorrect.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 140):
I think they don't have a problem with profit.

I think they do if you're increasing the minimum wage, making it more expensive to hire people, and burdening them onerous regulations such Obamacare or EPA rules.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 140):
I think you just don't want them to pay anything. You want all those oil companies and all those energy companies getting billions in welfare and rebate checks.

      I honestly don't care what you think I believe or want.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 140):
Or the right-wing who made those deals?

Who was it that just loaned billions of dollars to the Brazilian oil companies to develop their oil industry so we can "Become their best customer"? *cough* Obama *cough*

Quoting seb146 (Reply 140):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 127):
In each of those 39 months of job growth, the job growth has been too anemic to even keep up with growth in the workforce

So, you admit there have been 39 months of job growth.

Not net job growth which is what matters, the number jobless persons under Obama has continued to grow each month.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 140):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 127):
what was that August jobs report again? Only 96,000 jobs added?

How many jobs were we gaining this time four years ago?

So we should accept this ever-increasing joblessness as "good enough"? Who's said it HAS to be that way? Mediocrity is mediocrity, at this point in Reagan's presidency we were creating between 150,000 and 250,000 jobs a month. Why aren't we down to 5% unemployment like Obama said we would be?


User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6674 posts, RR: 6
Reply 143, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 5016 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 142):
What makes you think they would have gotten more if their profits had been less? They profit-share at a certain proportion of the profits made.

Well "re-investing" does not goes into the "profits" does it?

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 142):

Does it really matter by how much when the other candidate wants to go in the opposite direction? Again you've yet to explain how under Obama's job-costing tax plan it would be better.

Its your story man.. not mines.. burden of proof is in you .. P

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 142):
Quoting mt99 (Reply 139):
Not necessarily.. What makes you think that what you say is a certainty?

Because I understand how businesses and capital markets work, less profits=less money to spend unless they finance more debt, what are you not understanding here?

You can make more profits by increasing volume with if you keep the same resources. Is that untrue?

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 142):
Quoting mt99 (Reply 139):
Why do companies have "sales" to sell less?

To mitigate losses on unsold inventory...

Right - so increased sales have a benefit to companies..



Step into my office, baby
User currently onlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1999 posts, RR: 21
Reply 144, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 5011 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 143):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 142):
What makes you think they would have gotten more if their profits had been less? They profit-share at a certain proportion of the profits made.

Well "re-investing" does not goes into the "profits" does it?

What? Re-investing occurs because profits provide the capital to make it possible.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 143):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 142):

Does it really matter by how much when the other candidate wants to go in the opposite direction? Again you've yet to explain how under Obama's job-costing tax plan it would be better.

Its your story man.. not mines.. burden of proof is in you ..

Why am I the only one with the burden of proof here? For the fifth time, you've yet to explain how the alternative (Obama's plan) job-costing plan would do better.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 143):
You can make more profits by increasing volume with if you keep the same resources. Is that untrue?

Only if you're able to lower your costs in some other area...like labor by outsourcing to China.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 143):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 142):
Quoting mt99 (Reply 139):
Why do companies have "sales" to sell less?

To mitigate losses on unsold inventory...

Right - so increased sales have a benefit to companies..

Again, what does this have to do with Supply-side economics?


User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6674 posts, RR: 6
Reply 145, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4932 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 144):

What? Re-investing occurs because profits provide the capital to make it possible.

Right - but if that extra income was re-invested, there is no profit sharing from that. There is not a "fixed" amount for profits

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 144):
Why am I the only one with the burden of proof here? For the fifth time, you've yet to explain how the alternative (Obama's plan) job-costing plan would do better.

Because you are trying to prove to probe that Romney plan is better. Its your sale - not mines

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 144):
Only if you're able to lower your costs in some other area...like labor by outsourcing to China.

Not necessary. If you can sell 1 more donuts in you store with the same number of employees.. you make more $ than the the first donus you sold. That the hole (hehhe) concept behind the "buy 10 get 1 free" punch cards.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 144):

Again, what does this have to do with Supply-side economics?

Dude - bringing taxes back to Clinton levels is not a cataclysmic event.



Step into my office, baby
User currently onlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 1999 posts, RR: 21
Reply 146, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 4913 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 145):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 144):

What? Re-investing occurs because profits provide the capital to make it possible.

Right - but if that extra income was re-invested, there is no profit sharing from that. There is not a "fixed" amount for profits

Considering that profit-sharing is typically calculated as a certain percentage of profits, if profits are larger, profit sharing is larger. But that doesn't matter, even if they do spend more money on reinvestment it's just as positive...it benefits suppliers, contractors, tech-ops employees, etc.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 145):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 144):
Why am I the only one with the burden of proof here? For the fifth time, you've yet to explain how the alternative (Obama's plan) job-costing plan would do better.

Because you are trying to prove to probe that Romney plan is better. Its your sale - not mines

And by contrast you're trying to make the point the alternative to Romney is better which you've yet to make a case for. Where are the numbers for Obama's plan? What's he going to do when he raises taxes and costs the economy tens of thousands of jobs if not more?

Quoting mt99 (Reply 145):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 144):
Only if you're able to lower your costs in some other area...like labor by outsourcing to China.

Not necessary. If you can sell 1 more donuts in you store with the same number of employees.. you make more $ than the the first donus you sold. That the hole (hehhe) concept behind the "buy 10 get 1 free" punch cards.

Yeah...for a donut shop, but for a large-scale manufacturer of goods, the cost-benefit and fiscal situation is quite different.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 145):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 144):

Again, what does this have to do with Supply-side economics?

Dude - bringing taxes back to Clinton levels is not a cataclysmic event.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/...ces/story?id=16794557#.UGsJWI5FCRY

I would call 700,000 jobs pretty cataclysmic, wouldn't you?

...and, again, considering that Bill Clinton himself doesn't think taxes should be raised to the levels of his presidency, why on earth would you think raising taxes in this current feeble economy to levels during the 90's, when the economy was roaring due to the dot com boom, would be a good idea? Keep in mind as well that the majority of filers in the upper income bracket where Obama wants to raise taxes are actually small businesses filing as sole proprietorships, so you also think it's a good idea to raise taxes on small businesses?


User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1500 posts, RR: 4
Reply 147, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 4903 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 133):
Perhaps not from the perspective of the other side of the aisle, but A LOT of Republicans liked what he had to say and were pulling for him.

That might say more about them than him. I really can't stand people who think ignorance is an admirable quality, and he had it in spades. Cain was an almost textbook example of how being a businessman does not automatically mean you have the right qualities for being president.



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.