Doctor Fate wrote:Again, you infer what you wish and do so inaccurately.

Maybe you could ask a question or two rather than making up stuff?

When I ask questions, you call it 'trolling'.

If 'the only way' Obama can win is if people have no pride, want free abortions and welfare etc, what are we supposed to infer from that about people who vote for Obama, or the positions of his opponent?

So, perhaps instead of attacking ricky for lack of clarity, you could clarify what you did actually mean?

That is if I am now allowed to ask you a question.

Well, I suppose this kind of thing is one way to carry out a political debate.

What? Making stuff up?

He made nothing up. he inferred from your statement something that is not too outlandish - that you were saying support for welfare was not compatible with having pride. I was referring to your statement that disparages people who you associate with supporting Obama.

It's interesting.. when people thought Ricky was saying you did not have America's best interests at heart, he was upbraided and you demanded an apology. When it turned out that he was quoting you, his accusers were a bit quiet and you offered an 'sorry I responded to your trolling' apology to the actual target - freeman2.

And here you are again, making disparaging value judgements about political opponents and not seeing how that might be in some way open to criticism.

I guess IFIYAAR* applies

President Obama is campaigning on establishing the Welfare State, cradle to grave entitlements, if, as Dennis Miller said, you survive to the cradle. If Obama wins, he is basically promising to end the United States as a viable economic entity. He won't say that, but he is promising so much that none can doubt where it takes us--over the fiscal cliff.

So, he's 'campaigning on it', but 'he won't say it'?

He isn't even campaigning on a full universal singlepayer healthcare system.

(*it's fine if you are a Republican)

Doctor Fate wrote:I'm not worried. Obama got a bounce; what goes up . . . comes down.

The question is when. After all, if we are going to trade aphorisms.. 'timing is everything'

Certainly Obama is getting a bounce, and a larger one than Romney got for the RNC. He's also on higher VI figures than before the Ryan pick, indeed since the springtime.

A lack of bounce would be very bad for Obama. If it dissipates over the next few weeks that would also be bad news for him, but let's wait and see if that happens.

On the other hand, there has also been a rise in Obama's Job Approval figures, and he's getting close to 50%. As it is, he's on the highest figure on the RCP averages since June 2011.

The direction of travel (or, 'trend', if you prefer) is looking quite good for Obama. He was a couple of points behind at this stage in 2008.

RCP Job Approval

RCP 2012v2008

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Again, you infer what you wish and do so inaccurately.

Maybe you could ask a question or two rather than making up stuff?

When I ask questions, you call it 'trolling'.

If 'the only way' Obama can win is if people have no pride, want free abortions and welfare etc, what are we supposed to infer from that about people who vote for Obama, or the positions of his opponent?

So, perhaps instead of attacking ricky for lack of clarity, you could clarify what you did actually mean?

That is if I am now allowed to ask you a question.

Actually, that was well done--except rickyp's post was not clear, but that puts no burden on me to clarify what I said. He needs to be more clear when HE posts.

He made nothing up. he inferred from your statement something that is not too outlandish - that you were saying support for welfare was not compatible with having pride. I was referring to your statement that disparages people who you associate with supporting Obama.

He took his misunderstanding to the nth degree. If you want to say he didn't make it up, that's fine. It's wrong, but we live in a free society.

The President's campaign is not "forward" looking (contra its slogan). It is all about handing out "stuff"--college loans, lowering the interest on them, making them easier to pay off; implementing the DREAM act by presidential fiat; increasing entitlements; making sure women get free birth control. It's all about "what the country can do for you."

He is the anti-JFK.

It's interesting.. when people thought Ricky was saying you did not have America's best interests at heart, he was upbraided and you demanded an apology. When it turned out that he was quoting you, his accusers were a bit quiet and you offered an 'sorry I responded to your trolling' apology to the actual target - freeman2.

And here you are again, making disparaging value judgements about political opponents and not seeing how that might be in some way open to criticism.

I did not disparage rickyp. I tried to respond to his post, then realized how incoherent it was.

I guess IFIYAAR* applies

No, but it's not to much to ask to try and communicate with some adequacy, is it? One may certainly disagree with me, but I cannot respond when the disagreement is a muddled mess of letters. I'm not the only one to notice that rickyp tends to lack clarity.

President Obama is campaigning on establishing the Welfare State, cradle to grave entitlements, if, as Dennis Miller said, you survive to the cradle. If Obama wins, he is basically promising to end the United States as a viable economic entity. He won't say that, but he is promising so much that none can doubt where it takes us--over the fiscal cliff.

So, he's 'campaigning on it', but 'he won't say it'?

Yes.

We are heading toward "taxamageddon." What is Obama saying about it?

Nothing.

What has he done about providing the defense cuts that were to have been submitted (by law) with specificity?

Nothing.

What is his plan to balance the budget (ever)?

None.

He isn't even campaigning on a full universal singlepayer healthcare system.

Which I would respect, even if I didn't agree with it.

You could adequately summarize Obama's campaign this way: "It could be worse and trust me, Romney is worse."

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:I'm not worried. Obama got a bounce; what goes up . . . comes down.

The question is when. After all, if we are going to trade aphorisms.. 'timing is everything'

Certainly Obama is getting a bounce, and a larger one than Romney got for the RNC. He's also on higher VI figures than before the Ryan pick, indeed since the springtime.

A lack of bounce would be very bad for Obama. If it dissipates over the next few weeks that would also be bad news for him, but let's wait and see if that happens.

On the other hand, there has also been a rise in Obama's Job Approval figures, and he's getting close to 50%. As it is, he's on the highest figure on the RCP averages since June 2011.

The direction of travel (or, 'trend', if you prefer) is looking quite good for Obama. He was a couple of points behind at this stage in 2008.

RCP Job Approval

RCP 2012v2008

Yesterday, rickyp touted Rasmussen having Obama up 5. Today, it's 2. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... cking_poll

ABC/WaPo 49/48

Obama's edge is that his convention came right on the heels of the GOP convention. This is rare and it stepped on any momentum Romney might have picked up.

I think we've got about another 3 to 4 weeks before we know much.

Ah, so I am allowed to ask a question, but you have 'no burden' to clarify what you meant (despite the fact that you say we are not interpreting it properly).

But perhaps you don't understand what I am saying. I did not mean that your statement was disparaging rickyp, I meant that...

Doctor Fate wrote:If people want abortion on demand paid for by Uncle Sam, food stamps, and welfare, then Obama will win. If there is any vestige of pride or liberty left, he loses.

...is disparaging towards your political opponents and in particular millions of voters who may support them.

If we are wrong about what that means, please clarify. because to me it's little different from

Doctor Fate wrote:He'll only win if there are enough people who care as little about the country as you seem to.

other than that added the smear to a particular member of Redscape?

Doctor Fate wrote:Yesterday, rickyp touted Rasmussen having Obama up 5. Today, it's 2. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... cking_poll

Quoting individual polls (yes, when you do it, or when ricky does it) rarely gives a full picture. MOE is larger than that movement.

Obama's edge is that his convention came right on the heels of the GOP convention. This is rare and it stepped on any momentum Romney might have picked up.

True enough, although a good RNC would perhaps have made things harder for Obama to turn the 'mo' around.

I think we've got about another 3 to 4 weeks before we know much.

I would think if the bounce is temporary, it would be clear in 2 weeks or less. As the first debate (which will be on the critical area of domestic policy) is in 3-4 weeks time, that will be the start of a whole new trend/lack of trend.

danivon wrote:Ah, so I am allowed to ask a question, but you have 'no burden' to clarify what you meant (despite the fact that you say we are not interpreting it properly).

But perhaps you don't understand what I am saying. I did not mean that your statement was disparaging rickyp, I meant that...

Doctor Fate wrote:If people want abortion on demand paid for by Uncle Sam, food stamps, and welfare, then Obama will win. If there is any vestige of pride or liberty left, he loses.

...is disparaging towards your political opponents and in particular millions of voters who may support them.

Yes, there are millions of people who are motivated by what the government can do for them. That is sad.

If we are wrong about what that means, please clarify. because to me it's little different from . . . other than that added the smear to a particular member of Redscape?

Hey, as the self-appointed conscience of Redscape, I guess you are free to repeat things ad nauseum. Knock yourself out.

The President's campaign is not "forward" looking (contra its slogan). It is all about handing out "stuff"--college loans, lowering the interest on them, making them easier to pay off; implementing the DREAM act by presidential fiat; increasing entitlements; making sure women get free birth control. It's all about "what the country can do for you."

I'm not surprised you are easily confused Fate. You haven't really figured out that governing in a true democracy is dependent upon the majority of people feeling that the government is acting in their best interests. Over the years the US govenrment has increased its inclusive nature and more and more people gained from the inclusiveness. Women gained the vote and the gained things like equal pay and employment protection. Blacks gained and used the vote, and won civil rights.
When progressive taxation came into place the US became a country where anyone could start from meagre means and become middle class, or even rich.
Today that upward mobility is greatly diminished.
After WWII the GI bill educated a lot of young men who went on to become solidly middle class... Today the cost of a secodnary education is so great that even acheiving the education and the employment that comes with it usually comes with a debt load that is crushing...
All those "benefits" you deride are part of the structure that made the US a place where social mobility was easy for the talented and hard working. Taking them away, destroys opportunity for many .
This election is about the middle and working class. They are the ones who suffered the most in the crash of 08. If they value things like Pell grants, affordable and universal health insurance and the right to control their life when it comes to pregnanacy (a freedom you are oppossed to) . Then Obama wins, Not because these people lack pride. They got plenty . Want they want is a govenrment that benefits them.
Perhaps that why Mitt is now walking back his claims on health care, essentially saying he'd keep most of Obama care? (At some point he'll start reclaiming Mitt Care won't he?)
And as for you taxamegdon claim... You do admit that tax rates are at the lowest level in the US since 1940, don't you? And that raising them a little isn't a return to the taxation that people paid from 1945 through 2000.... is it?

You know, I haven't started calling you names, or putting up comics of you. I do that because i try to follow the philosophy of reciprocity.
But I'm beginning to think, since you claim to be an adherent of the same philosophy, that thats how you want to be treated... Is that it? Or are you just a huge hypocrit?

rickyp wrote:

The President's campaign is not "forward" looking (contra its slogan). It is all about handing out "stuff"--college loans, lowering the interest on them, making them easier to pay off; implementing the DREAM act by presidential fiat; increasing entitlements; making sure women get free birth control. It's all about "what the country can do for you."

I'm not surprised you are easily confused Fate. You haven't really figured out that governing in a true democracy is dependent upon the majority of people feeling that the government is acting in their best interests.

1. You should not write condescendingly. It doesn't suit you.
2. I'm not confused.
3. "Best interest" should not be confused with "bribery in order to gain vote."
4. How is it in anyone's best interest to speed down the road to national bankruptcy?

Over the years the US govenrment has increased its inclusive nature and more and more people gained from the inclusiveness. Women gained the vote and the gained things like equal pay and employment protection. Blacks gained and used the vote, and won civil rights.

None of that has anything to do with what I posted. I posted about things that cost money and/or skirt the law. None of the things you posted (above) does either.

When progressive taxation came into place the US became a country where anyone could start from meagre means and become middle class, or even rich.
Today that upward mobility is greatly diminished.

Again, not responsive to anything I said, but I don't want to be accused of belittling you by your barrister.

After WWII the GI bill educated a lot of young men who went on to become solidly middle class... Today the cost of a secodnary education is so great that even acheiving the education and the employment that comes with it usually comes with a debt load that is crushing...

Not if young people join the service . . . hey, that would be like the GI Bill!

On the other hand, just giving them money toward college (writing off loans, creating a gigantic college loan bubble, which the GOVERNMENT, not the market, is currently doing) costs money and has no tangible benefit for society. Not everyone should be in college, as is evidenced by the number of ridiculous degrees you can get. Ethnic, sexual ID majors? What do you do with them? Answer: get an advanced degree and perpetrate the fraud on the next generation.

All those "benefits" you deride are part of the structure that made the US a place where social mobility was easy for the talented and hard working. Taking them away, destroys opportunity for many .

Giving people stuff for nothing benefits no one. Teaching them to fend for themselves benefits everyone.

This election is about the middle and working class.

The answer is not the government dole.

They are the ones who suffered the most in the crash of 08. If they value things like Pell grants, affordable and universal health insurance and the right to control their life when it comes to pregnanacy (a freedom you are oppossed to) . Then Obama wins, Not because these people lack pride. They got plenty . Want they want is a govenrment that benefits them.

Obama's vision will add trillions more in debt and push us to a point where the interest on the Debt is the biggest part of the budget. That will not work.

Perhaps that why Mitt is now walking back his claims on health care, essentially saying he'd keep most of Obama care? (At some point he'll start reclaiming Mitt Care won't he?)

He didn't say "most."

And as for you taxamegdon claim... You do admit that tax rates are at the lowest level in the US since 1940, don't you? And that raising them a little isn't a return to the taxation that people paid from 1945 through 2000.... is it?

It's not just tax rates--look it up or shut up, you don't know what you're talking about.

You know, I haven't started calling you names, or putting up comics of you. I do that because i try to follow the philosophy of reciprocity.

Feel free. The day you dish out something I can't take . . . I'll be taking my last breath.

If you want to really make my day, try posting things that make sense. That would be terrific. Really.

But I'm beginning to think, since you claim to be an adherent of the same philosophy, that thats how you want to be treated... Is that it? Or are you just a huge hypocrit?

Nope. If you can be coherent, feel free to attack me. The problem for you is always the first part.

so I notice you haven't been making your regular references to recent polls Fate.
Why is that?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

rickyp wrote:so I notice you haven't been making your regular references to recent polls Fate.
Why is that?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

Because I've been busy.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/daily/ob ... s-20121002

And, it's not like the tide of news is favorable to the President. Even his cheerleaders will have to pay it some attention. Fast and Furious--a mess. Libya cover-up--a worse mess. The 2007 video--Rev. Wright-ish.

I'm still optimistic. We've got two more job reports coming--this Friday and right before the election. No one is going to be confused about what kind of job Obama has done. If they vote for him, they deserve what they get, which is going to be even worse than these four years have been.

Today's jobs report was not that bad - July and August revised upwards, and an increase for September in new jobs - crucially, the rate going under 8%.

It's by no means a great set of figures, but it's not as dire as some were expecting.

danivon wrote:Today's jobs report was not that bad - July and August revised upwards, and an increase for September in new jobs - crucially, the rate going under 8%.

It's by no means a great set of figures, but it's not as dire as some were expecting.

Economic trend.

I submit the books were cooked, or more politely, will be adjusted upward in future months (perhaps after the election). Why?

1. The 114,000 new jobs not only doesn't keep up with population increase, but is actually below the average of new jobs for the year (146K).

2. The official number of unemployed people fell by 456K.

3. The number of officially employed people rose by 873K (seasonally adjusted).

4. The GDP and many indicators (factory orders, etc.) are heading south.

The numbers are very odd. I've no doubt the White House will trumpet them, but that tepid job growth number can't be masked for long. My guess is they're hoping to fool just enough people to win.

I expected point 1. Points 2 and 3 need to be taken into account with the question of how many people are entering/leaving the workforce. But the fact that you don't trust the figures is not real evidence of fakery. You were happy with the stats when they were showing worse!

Comparing with factory orders belies the general observation that they do not tend to coincide on trend, there is isually an offset. Unemployment lags by about 6 months usually. GDP is still growing, and factory orders is only an indication of industrial sector (as opposed to service sector) possible future trends.

If the best the GOP have is insinuation that the figures are fixed, that is an indication that they are better than they hoped - and it's a little depressing to think that serious national politicians would want to see higher unemployment just so they can win an argument.

Ido not think it will affect polling much. Rather, it would have done if the figures were as low as anticipated, and Romney would have had another stick to beat Obama at a time when he needs some momentum. I expect the polls to close, but not to the point of neck-and-neck.

I'm moving to the economic trends forum. But, not before I note recent polls show Romney leading in FL and VA.

Next week, he'll lead the national and most swing states.