The point here is that the argument isn't an argumentum ad populem. Even if you could willfully construe it to be that from the way it is written, noone's actually made that argument nor is anyone backing it up. How about looking at the actual argument instead? (Ie. that everyone who's tried is better off with variations of a completely different system)
The unemployment rate dropped in 41 states in September, including many of the top swing states in the presidential race, according to new data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
As we noted this a.m. in Morning Fix, the state-based unemployment numbers can actually be a better indication of how the voters that matter in the 2012 election (i.e. swing state voters) are viewing the economy than the national unemployment figures.
And just as President Obama got a relatively good national jobs report earlier this month, on Friday he got an improved state-based jobs report.
Among the states seeing a decline in their unemployment rate were:
* Colorado (from 8.2 percent in August to 8.0 percent in September)
* Florida (from 8.8 percent to 8.7 percent)
* Iowa (from 5.5 percent to 5.2 percent)
* Nevada (from 12.1 percent to 11.8 percent)
* North Carolina (from 9.7 percent to 9.6 percent)
* Ohio (from 7.2 percent to 7 percent)
* Wisconsin (from 7.5 percent to 7.3 percent)
The rate stayed the same in two states that already have among the lower unemployment rates: New Hampshire (5.7 percent) and Virginia (5.9 percent).
One state where the unemployment rate increased was Pennsylvania (from 8.1 percent to 8.2 percent), which is currently seen as likely to go for Obama even though polls suggest the GOP could compete there.
Given the nationwide unemployment rate drop in September (from 8.1 percent to 7.8 percent), it’s not surprising that a similar shift would happen at the state level.
In addition, as we noted this morning, if you add up the electoral votes in swing states that have unemployment rates higher than the national average and do the same for state below the national average, it splits about 50-50.
But if undecided voters in these states see the improving unemployment rates as a sign of economic progress, it could mitigate concerns about Obama’s handling of the economy.
At the same time, the overall jobs picture is very much a work in progress, and unemployment is still high across the country, which is a big reason Mitt Romney has a good chance at unseating Obama.
On October 20 2012 11:27 oneofthem wrote: i wasn't the poster you were quoting mr. panther.
to explain the situation further. you mistook a suggestion or proposal for epistemic inquiry for a sufficient argument that the policy is better. that's a misrepresentation of the guy's argument.
let me take a screenshot for you so you can survey your post's mismaneuver in the battle of page 914
Well, you were contesting my response to that statement.
You defended his statement. So yeah, I mistook you for him, but my point still stands. If you're now distinguishing your view from his, fine, we're done here.
The unemployment rate dropped in 41 states in September, including many of the top swing states in the presidential race, according to new data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
As we noted this a.m. in Morning Fix, the state-based unemployment numbers can actually be a better indication of how the voters that matter in the 2012 election (i.e. swing state voters) are viewing the economy than the national unemployment figures.
And just as President Obama got a relatively good national jobs report earlier this month, on Friday he got an improved state-based jobs report.
Among the states seeing a decline in their unemployment rate were:
* Colorado (from 8.2 percent in August to 8.0 percent in September)
* Florida (from 8.8 percent to 8.7 percent)
* Iowa (from 5.5 percent to 5.2 percent)
* Nevada (from 12.1 percent to 11.8 percent)
* North Carolina (from 9.7 percent to 9.6 percent)
* Ohio (from 7.2 percent to 7 percent)
* Wisconsin (from 7.5 percent to 7.3 percent)
The rate stayed the same in two states that already have among the lower unemployment rates: New Hampshire (5.7 percent) and Virginia (5.9 percent).
One state where the unemployment rate increased was Pennsylvania (from 8.1 percent to 8.2 percent), which is currently seen as likely to go for Obama even though polls suggest the GOP could compete there.
Given the nationwide unemployment rate drop in September (from 8.1 percent to 7.8 percent), it’s not surprising that a similar shift would happen at the state level.
In addition, as we noted this morning, if you add up the electoral votes in swing states that have unemployment rates higher than the national average and do the same for state below the national average, it splits about 50-50.
But if undecided voters in these states see the improving unemployment rates as a sign of economic progress, it could mitigate concerns about Obama’s handling of the economy.
At the same time, the overall jobs picture is very much a work in progress, and unemployment is still high across the country, which is a big reason Mitt Romney has a good chance at unseating Obama.
and more important, how many of those states are now lower than they were when bush is in office but don't expect fox news to report until that until a republican is in the white house
On October 20 2012 08:51 SayGen wrote: Loving how the 'Binder full of women' is backfiring on the Obama camp. Almost funny how the more they say it the more women voters switch to Romney after they look into what he said and realize he has done more for equality than Obama has.
Best part is, Liberals act like they are the defenders of minorities when facts are Republicans are the ones who have done the most good in our country--after all which party freed the slaves.
Want equality, vote Romney Want more sexism and social injustice, vote Obama
This post was "almost funny" until I realized you weren't joking. Though I urge you send a letter to the Romney Campaign suggesting they adopt the slogan, "Vote Romney, after all which party freed the slaves."
Is he really serious? I thought SayGen was a lefty, and the post is very over the top...
SayGen is to the right of xDaunt. Which is no mean feat ...
I'm not left or right, i'm straight up. Pro freedom, personal accountability, economic freedom, liberty, determent military doctrine, flat tax, etc Left is anti freedom. Right is anti freedom. Left has no personal accountability: Bigger goverment, means more corruption/less transparency Right has little personal accountability supporting an upper class beyond the means of growth incentives, allowing billions of dollars to go overseas. Left has no economic freedom. Right is too weak against monopolies/fair competetion policies
etc etc
both groups/parties suck
This election is nothing more than an example of what Lesser of 2 evils is really all about.
I think I'd give more weight to a stripper lecturing me on particle physics than what you said here.
do you have any idea how much I would pay to have a stripper lecture me on particle physics?
Give her a book and pay her $200, she'll think you're a weirdo but I'm sure you can find one.
nah dude she's gotta know her shit otherwise I can't get off
On October 20 2012 08:51 SayGen wrote: Loving how the 'Binder full of women' is backfiring on the Obama camp. Almost funny how the more they say it the more women voters switch to Romney after they look into what he said and realize he has done more for equality than Obama has.
Best part is, Liberals act like they are the defenders of minorities when facts are Republicans are the ones who have done the most good in our country--after all which party freed the slaves.
Want equality, vote Romney Want more sexism and social injustice, vote Obama
This post was "almost funny" until I realized you weren't joking. Though I urge you send a letter to the Romney Campaign suggesting they adopt the slogan, "Vote Romney, after all which party freed the slaves."
Is he really serious? I thought SayGen was a lefty, and the post is very over the top...
SayGen is to the right of xDaunt. Which is no mean feat ...
I'm not left or right, i'm straight up. Pro freedom, personal accountability, economic freedom, liberty, determent military doctrine, flat tax, etc Left is anti freedom. Right is anti freedom. Left has no personal accountability: Bigger goverment, means more corruption/less transparency Right has little personal accountability supporting an upper class beyond the means of growth incentives, allowing billions of dollars to go overseas. Left has no economic freedom. Right is too weak against monopolies/fair competetion policies
etc etc
both groups/parties suck
This election is nothing more than an example of what Lesser of 2 evils is really all about.
I think I'd give more weight to a stripper lecturing me on particle physics than what you said here.
do you have any idea how much I would pay to have a stripper lecture me on particle physics?
Give her a book and pay her $200, she'll think you're a weirdo but I'm sure you can find one.
nah dude she's gotta know her shit otherwise I can't get off
On October 20 2012 08:51 SayGen wrote: Loving how the 'Binder full of women' is backfiring on the Obama camp. Almost funny how the more they say it the more women voters switch to Romney after they look into what he said and realize he has done more for equality than Obama has.
Best part is, Liberals act like they are the defenders of minorities when facts are Republicans are the ones who have done the most good in our country--after all which party freed the slaves.
Want equality, vote Romney Want more sexism and social injustice, vote Obama
LOL
Oh god, this post. This post... Hall of game quality post right here. The bolded part should be quoted in the OP
But anyway, I think right now Obama would take the election, but he most definitely doesn't have it in the bag. Any significant slip up in the next few weeks could sway the scales, especially considering how sensational the media is and how fickle the "undecided" voters are.
Right now, I'm kind of worried about the lingering rumblings of the Libya ambassador incident. If it stays in the media circuit for too long, and if more negative details are discovered, it would be bad timing for Obama.
The unemployment rate dropped in 41 states in September, including many of the top swing states in the presidential race, according to new data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
As we noted this a.m. in Morning Fix, the state-based unemployment numbers can actually be a better indication of how the voters that matter in the 2012 election (i.e. swing state voters) are viewing the economy than the national unemployment figures.
And just as President Obama got a relatively good national jobs report earlier this month, on Friday he got an improved state-based jobs report.
Among the states seeing a decline in their unemployment rate were:
* Colorado (from 8.2 percent in August to 8.0 percent in September)
* Florida (from 8.8 percent to 8.7 percent)
* Iowa (from 5.5 percent to 5.2 percent)
* Nevada (from 12.1 percent to 11.8 percent)
* North Carolina (from 9.7 percent to 9.6 percent)
* Ohio (from 7.2 percent to 7 percent)
* Wisconsin (from 7.5 percent to 7.3 percent)
The rate stayed the same in two states that already have among the lower unemployment rates: New Hampshire (5.7 percent) and Virginia (5.9 percent).
One state where the unemployment rate increased was Pennsylvania (from 8.1 percent to 8.2 percent), which is currently seen as likely to go for Obama even though polls suggest the GOP could compete there.
Given the nationwide unemployment rate drop in September (from 8.1 percent to 7.8 percent), it’s not surprising that a similar shift would happen at the state level.
In addition, as we noted this morning, if you add up the electoral votes in swing states that have unemployment rates higher than the national average and do the same for state below the national average, it splits about 50-50.
But if undecided voters in these states see the improving unemployment rates as a sign of economic progress, it could mitigate concerns about Obama’s handling of the economy.
At the same time, the overall jobs picture is very much a work in progress, and unemployment is still high across the country, which is a big reason Mitt Romney has a good chance at unseating Obama.
That could easily just be attributed to people giving up on looking for jobs (and thus not being included in the workforce), like Mitt Romney said during the second debate. That may or may not be true, but it's not like we can draw anything from those stats alone.
On October 20 2012 11:43 Razakel wrote: Unemployment rate continues to fall.
The unemployment rate dropped in 41 states in September, including many of the top swing states in the presidential race, according to new data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
As we noted this a.m. in Morning Fix, the state-based unemployment numbers can actually be a better indication of how the voters that matter in the 2012 election (i.e. swing state voters) are viewing the economy than the national unemployment figures.
And just as President Obama got a relatively good national jobs report earlier this month, on Friday he got an improved state-based jobs report.
Among the states seeing a decline in their unemployment rate were:
* Colorado (from 8.2 percent in August to 8.0 percent in September)
* Florida (from 8.8 percent to 8.7 percent)
* Iowa (from 5.5 percent to 5.2 percent)
* Nevada (from 12.1 percent to 11.8 percent)
* North Carolina (from 9.7 percent to 9.6 percent)
* Ohio (from 7.2 percent to 7 percent)
* Wisconsin (from 7.5 percent to 7.3 percent)
The rate stayed the same in two states that already have among the lower unemployment rates: New Hampshire (5.7 percent) and Virginia (5.9 percent).
One state where the unemployment rate increased was Pennsylvania (from 8.1 percent to 8.2 percent), which is currently seen as likely to go for Obama even though polls suggest the GOP could compete there.
Given the nationwide unemployment rate drop in September (from 8.1 percent to 7.8 percent), it’s not surprising that a similar shift would happen at the state level.
In addition, as we noted this morning, if you add up the electoral votes in swing states that have unemployment rates higher than the national average and do the same for state below the national average, it splits about 50-50.
But if undecided voters in these states see the improving unemployment rates as a sign of economic progress, it could mitigate concerns about Obama’s handling of the economy.
At the same time, the overall jobs picture is very much a work in progress, and unemployment is still high across the country, which is a big reason Mitt Romney has a good chance at unseating Obama.
That could easily just be attributed to people giving up on looking for jobs (and thus not being included in the workforce), like Mitt Romney said during the second debate. That may or may not be true, but it's not like we can draw anything from those stats alone.
isnt it required to look for work to recieve benefits in the US? i keep hearing these claims that people could just be giving up (which makes no sense considering the constant stream of figures about slight improvements in job growth) but how can people give up if they would be without money?
how do all these people who give up eat and sleep?
On October 20 2012 11:43 Razakel wrote: Unemployment rate continues to fall.
The unemployment rate dropped in 41 states in September, including many of the top swing states in the presidential race, according to new data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
As we noted this a.m. in Morning Fix, the state-based unemployment numbers can actually be a better indication of how the voters that matter in the 2012 election (i.e. swing state voters) are viewing the economy than the national unemployment figures.
And just as President Obama got a relatively good national jobs report earlier this month, on Friday he got an improved state-based jobs report.
Among the states seeing a decline in their unemployment rate were:
* Colorado (from 8.2 percent in August to 8.0 percent in September)
* Florida (from 8.8 percent to 8.7 percent)
* Iowa (from 5.5 percent to 5.2 percent)
* Nevada (from 12.1 percent to 11.8 percent)
* North Carolina (from 9.7 percent to 9.6 percent)
* Ohio (from 7.2 percent to 7 percent)
* Wisconsin (from 7.5 percent to 7.3 percent)
The rate stayed the same in two states that already have among the lower unemployment rates: New Hampshire (5.7 percent) and Virginia (5.9 percent).
One state where the unemployment rate increased was Pennsylvania (from 8.1 percent to 8.2 percent), which is currently seen as likely to go for Obama even though polls suggest the GOP could compete there.
Given the nationwide unemployment rate drop in September (from 8.1 percent to 7.8 percent), it’s not surprising that a similar shift would happen at the state level.
In addition, as we noted this morning, if you add up the electoral votes in swing states that have unemployment rates higher than the national average and do the same for state below the national average, it splits about 50-50.
But if undecided voters in these states see the improving unemployment rates as a sign of economic progress, it could mitigate concerns about Obama’s handling of the economy.
At the same time, the overall jobs picture is very much a work in progress, and unemployment is still high across the country, which is a big reason Mitt Romney has a good chance at unseating Obama.
That could easily just be attributed to people giving up on looking for jobs (and thus not being included in the workforce), like Mitt Romney said during the second debate. That may or may not be true, but it's not like we can draw anything from those stats alone.
isnt it required to look for work to recieve benefits in the US? i keep hearing these claims that people could just be giving up (which makes no sense considering the constant stream of figures about slight improvements in job growth) but how can people give up if they would be without money?
how do all these people who give up eat and sleep?
They're entitled moochers who can't take responsibility for their lives.
On October 20 2012 11:43 Razakel wrote: Unemployment rate continues to fall.
The unemployment rate dropped in 41 states in September, including many of the top swing states in the presidential race, according to new data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
As we noted this a.m. in Morning Fix, the state-based unemployment numbers can actually be a better indication of how the voters that matter in the 2012 election (i.e. swing state voters) are viewing the economy than the national unemployment figures.
And just as President Obama got a relatively good national jobs report earlier this month, on Friday he got an improved state-based jobs report.
Among the states seeing a decline in their unemployment rate were:
* Colorado (from 8.2 percent in August to 8.0 percent in September)
* Florida (from 8.8 percent to 8.7 percent)
* Iowa (from 5.5 percent to 5.2 percent)
* Nevada (from 12.1 percent to 11.8 percent)
* North Carolina (from 9.7 percent to 9.6 percent)
* Ohio (from 7.2 percent to 7 percent)
* Wisconsin (from 7.5 percent to 7.3 percent)
The rate stayed the same in two states that already have among the lower unemployment rates: New Hampshire (5.7 percent) and Virginia (5.9 percent).
One state where the unemployment rate increased was Pennsylvania (from 8.1 percent to 8.2 percent), which is currently seen as likely to go for Obama even though polls suggest the GOP could compete there.
Given the nationwide unemployment rate drop in September (from 8.1 percent to 7.8 percent), it’s not surprising that a similar shift would happen at the state level.
In addition, as we noted this morning, if you add up the electoral votes in swing states that have unemployment rates higher than the national average and do the same for state below the national average, it splits about 50-50.
But if undecided voters in these states see the improving unemployment rates as a sign of economic progress, it could mitigate concerns about Obama’s handling of the economy.
At the same time, the overall jobs picture is very much a work in progress, and unemployment is still high across the country, which is a big reason Mitt Romney has a good chance at unseating Obama.
That could easily just be attributed to people giving up on looking for jobs (and thus not being included in the workforce), like Mitt Romney said during the second debate. That may or may not be true, but it's not like we can draw anything from those stats alone.
isnt it required to look for work to recieve benefits in the US? i keep hearing these claims that people could just be giving up (which makes no sense considering the constant stream of figures about slight improvements in job growth) but how can people give up if they would be without money?
how do all these people who give up eat and sleep?
People have definitely given up. 4 years ago 144 million people were employed. Today 142 million people are employed. Despite population growing during this time.
On October 20 2012 11:43 Razakel wrote: Unemployment rate continues to fall.
The unemployment rate dropped in 41 states in September, including many of the top swing states in the presidential race, according to new data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
As we noted this a.m. in Morning Fix, the state-based unemployment numbers can actually be a better indication of how the voters that matter in the 2012 election (i.e. swing state voters) are viewing the economy than the national unemployment figures.
And just as President Obama got a relatively good national jobs report earlier this month, on Friday he got an improved state-based jobs report.
Among the states seeing a decline in their unemployment rate were:
* Colorado (from 8.2 percent in August to 8.0 percent in September)
* Florida (from 8.8 percent to 8.7 percent)
* Iowa (from 5.5 percent to 5.2 percent)
* Nevada (from 12.1 percent to 11.8 percent)
* North Carolina (from 9.7 percent to 9.6 percent)
* Ohio (from 7.2 percent to 7 percent)
* Wisconsin (from 7.5 percent to 7.3 percent)
The rate stayed the same in two states that already have among the lower unemployment rates: New Hampshire (5.7 percent) and Virginia (5.9 percent).
One state where the unemployment rate increased was Pennsylvania (from 8.1 percent to 8.2 percent), which is currently seen as likely to go for Obama even though polls suggest the GOP could compete there.
Given the nationwide unemployment rate drop in September (from 8.1 percent to 7.8 percent), it’s not surprising that a similar shift would happen at the state level.
In addition, as we noted this morning, if you add up the electoral votes in swing states that have unemployment rates higher than the national average and do the same for state below the national average, it splits about 50-50.
But if undecided voters in these states see the improving unemployment rates as a sign of economic progress, it could mitigate concerns about Obama’s handling of the economy.
At the same time, the overall jobs picture is very much a work in progress, and unemployment is still high across the country, which is a big reason Mitt Romney has a good chance at unseating Obama.
That could easily just be attributed to people giving up on looking for jobs (and thus not being included in the workforce), like Mitt Romney said during the second debate. That may or may not be true, but it's not like we can draw anything from those stats alone.
isnt it required to look for work to recieve benefits in the US? i keep hearing these claims that people could just be giving up (which makes no sense considering the constant stream of figures about slight improvements in job growth) but how can people give up if they would be without money?
how do all these people who give up eat and sleep?
In a world where the government worked properly, you'd be right. Sadly it's far too easy to abuse it.
On October 20 2012 11:43 Razakel wrote: Unemployment rate continues to fall.
The unemployment rate dropped in 41 states in September, including many of the top swing states in the presidential race, according to new data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
As we noted this a.m. in Morning Fix, the state-based unemployment numbers can actually be a better indication of how the voters that matter in the 2012 election (i.e. swing state voters) are viewing the economy than the national unemployment figures.
And just as President Obama got a relatively good national jobs report earlier this month, on Friday he got an improved state-based jobs report.
Among the states seeing a decline in their unemployment rate were:
* Colorado (from 8.2 percent in August to 8.0 percent in September)
* Florida (from 8.8 percent to 8.7 percent)
* Iowa (from 5.5 percent to 5.2 percent)
* Nevada (from 12.1 percent to 11.8 percent)
* North Carolina (from 9.7 percent to 9.6 percent)
* Ohio (from 7.2 percent to 7 percent)
* Wisconsin (from 7.5 percent to 7.3 percent)
The rate stayed the same in two states that already have among the lower unemployment rates: New Hampshire (5.7 percent) and Virginia (5.9 percent).
One state where the unemployment rate increased was Pennsylvania (from 8.1 percent to 8.2 percent), which is currently seen as likely to go for Obama even though polls suggest the GOP could compete there.
Given the nationwide unemployment rate drop in September (from 8.1 percent to 7.8 percent), it’s not surprising that a similar shift would happen at the state level.
In addition, as we noted this morning, if you add up the electoral votes in swing states that have unemployment rates higher than the national average and do the same for state below the national average, it splits about 50-50.
But if undecided voters in these states see the improving unemployment rates as a sign of economic progress, it could mitigate concerns about Obama’s handling of the economy.
At the same time, the overall jobs picture is very much a work in progress, and unemployment is still high across the country, which is a big reason Mitt Romney has a good chance at unseating Obama.
That could easily just be attributed to people giving up on looking for jobs (and thus not being included in the workforce), like Mitt Romney said during the second debate. That may or may not be true, but it's not like we can draw anything from those stats alone.
isnt it required to look for work to recieve benefits in the US? i keep hearing these claims that people could just be giving up (which makes no sense considering the constant stream of figures about slight improvements in job growth) but how can people give up if they would be without money?
how do all these people who give up eat and sleep?
exactly. they keep saying if all these mystery people still counted then unemployment would be over 10% becauese they don't want to talk about how unemployment is now under 8%. hey, if twice as many people wanted jobs unemployment would be 15% but that doesn't make sense. back up the numbers or shut up
On October 20 2012 11:43 Razakel wrote: Unemployment rate continues to fall.
The unemployment rate dropped in 41 states in September, including many of the top swing states in the presidential race, according to new data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
As we noted this a.m. in Morning Fix, the state-based unemployment numbers can actually be a better indication of how the voters that matter in the 2012 election (i.e. swing state voters) are viewing the economy than the national unemployment figures.
And just as President Obama got a relatively good national jobs report earlier this month, on Friday he got an improved state-based jobs report.
Among the states seeing a decline in their unemployment rate were:
* Colorado (from 8.2 percent in August to 8.0 percent in September)
* Florida (from 8.8 percent to 8.7 percent)
* Iowa (from 5.5 percent to 5.2 percent)
* Nevada (from 12.1 percent to 11.8 percent)
* North Carolina (from 9.7 percent to 9.6 percent)
* Ohio (from 7.2 percent to 7 percent)
* Wisconsin (from 7.5 percent to 7.3 percent)
The rate stayed the same in two states that already have among the lower unemployment rates: New Hampshire (5.7 percent) and Virginia (5.9 percent).
One state where the unemployment rate increased was Pennsylvania (from 8.1 percent to 8.2 percent), which is currently seen as likely to go for Obama even though polls suggest the GOP could compete there.
Given the nationwide unemployment rate drop in September (from 8.1 percent to 7.8 percent), it’s not surprising that a similar shift would happen at the state level.
In addition, as we noted this morning, if you add up the electoral votes in swing states that have unemployment rates higher than the national average and do the same for state below the national average, it splits about 50-50.
But if undecided voters in these states see the improving unemployment rates as a sign of economic progress, it could mitigate concerns about Obama’s handling of the economy.
At the same time, the overall jobs picture is very much a work in progress, and unemployment is still high across the country, which is a big reason Mitt Romney has a good chance at unseating Obama.
That could easily just be attributed to people giving up on looking for jobs (and thus not being included in the workforce), like Mitt Romney said during the second debate. That may or may not be true, but it's not like we can draw anything from those stats alone.
isnt it required to look for work to recieve benefits in the US? i keep hearing these claims that people could just be giving up (which makes no sense considering the constant stream of figures about slight improvements in job growth) but how can people give up if they would be without money?
how do all these people who give up eat and sleep?
exactly. they keep saying if all these mystery people still counted then unemployment would be over 10% becauese they don't want to talk about how unemployment is now under 8%. hey, if twice as many people wanted jobs unemployment would be 15% but that doesn't make sense. back up the numbers or shut up
US politics is as about as choppy as this thread. It is important to note during campaign season the difference between politics and policy. Politics is relevant, but policy is really of a vastly greater significance. This is the fourth presidential election I have been able to vote in, and hence have watched very closely. It is an interesting election, because there are some fundamental differences in the two parties that give the voter a rather clear choice to voice what governmental philosophy they prescribe. That being said, the integrity of the US political system and the superficial media creates fallacy in our options.
There are many big issues to consider, and people’s values and interests tend to isolate a handful of issues and set the rest of the issues to the back burner. For me, foreign policy and economics are the most important. For others, it might be woman’s rights or environmental protection. It is important in political discussion to recognize this point. Two people with their primary interest in tax policy (as an example) can certainly engage in a productive debate, but when people with difference priorities try to trade jabs it is seemingly pointless. The specific points are not as important as the overarching values behind each individual’s perspective. For example, attempting to defend Romney’s record and agenda on women’s rights is not as important as arguing why the issue should be at the top of the debate. That should be the basic framework of a discussion, and the details can follow from there.
Being the fourth election I have watched closely, one of the most important things I have learned about presidential elections is that campaign agendas are important, but the ability to construct a political platform is not a litmus test for a presidency. The president’s primary job is to make decisions, and how the president is going to make decisions will define the presidency and the socio-economic results for the rest of us. For this reason, I have always been a supporter of Obama. I don’t get worked up by his speeches, and take issue with some of his policy, but of the options on the table if I had to choose one man to make an extraordinarily hard decision with incalculable consequences, Obama would be the man.
There are various reasons I feel this way. For one, he does not jump to conclusions or act on emotion. We first saw this during his first presidential campaign when Russia invaded Georgia. McCain took a hawkish approach attacking Russia for their aggression. Obama said we need to wait for the facts; an approach that was strongly attacked by republicans and Obama was accused of being “soft”. It turned out, Georgia had a played a role in instigated the conflict, and Obama ended up looking cool headed, while McCain appeared to want to rush us off to war. We have seen these same kinds of cool-headed calculations throughout his presidency, specifically in foreign policy. Whether it was his painfully long Afghanistan review process, or his refusal to allow Netanyahu to pressure him into action on Iran, his decisions are calculated and balanced. For two, he makes decisions despite his own interest. He took a job destined to have a bad economic record and he continues to support his role in a stimulating the economy despite the false perceptions about the damage it has done. Again, his approach is balanced, and ultimately consistent with a majority of experts in the respective fields he makes decisions in. His decision-making skills trump any political platform proposed. Without painfully tossing through each issue at stake, the economy is accepted as the most pressing concern. Here, the Romney/Ryan plan has a lot to be desired. Their proposed tax policy quite simply doesn’t make sense, and some of their arguments are flat incorrect. As cited many times, the Tax Policy Center has studied his tax plan and deemed it mathematically impossible to cut taxes by 20% without raising taxes on the middle class. The reason being, there are not enough deductions and loop holes to close for the wealthy to make up for the revenue short fall. Romney/Ryan both make the argument that the tax cuts will create enough economic growth that the improving economy in itself will make up the difference. They cite “6 studies” that “prove” this.
Two of those studies are actually blog posts. One was written by one of his economic advisors. One was written by the Heritage foundation, which is not considered objective. Certainly not as objective as the Tax Policy Center. Bias aside, there is clearly a reason why the numbers add up differently. The Tax Policy Center ran a static economic model, meaning they took current tax returns and adjusted to returns to Romney’s tax structure. The Heritage foundation (and other studies I have read) created a dynamic economic model, meaning the model takes into account the potential economic gains of the tax cuts. The problem with the dynamic model, is that the economic gains are essentially guesses about the impact of the tax cuts. Frankly, there is not enough evidence supporting the size of growth predicted by the tax cuts. Looking at the last 50 years of policy, tax cuts have not been followed by significant economic growth, and tax increases by significant economic regression. The assumptions are solely based on economic theory around incentives. This is a bet that is to the tune of trillions of dollars, and is irresponsible at best.
The arguments that the marginal tax rates are preventing small business growth are equally as wrongheaded. The businesses at hand are pass through entities. Corporations are not pass through entities, meaning the corporation is taxed, and then the shareholders are taxed, along with the employees. Essentially the revenue is taxed twice. With a pass through entity, the businesses sales are not taxed at the marginal rate. The profits are taxed at the marginal rate as the income of the owners. There are two components to this; 1) large businesses that are not incorporated have the advantage of being taxed once (although run higher liability), and 2) because the profits are taxed, a growing business that is looking to expand and hire new employees will not see a tax increase on those expenditures. In other words, there is no reason to not expand as a small business. The marginal profits will be taxed at a higher rate, but there will always be increased profits. Marginal higher taxes will never lower income. Therefore, the incentive to expand and hire more workers will always be there. The fact that the Romney/Ryan ticket is making this argument goes to show their lack of understanding.
Romneys advocacy in declaring China a currency manipulator is not in our best interest. China has begun to let their currency float. Their economy is slowing down, and there are other avenues to take. Obama has filed several trade disputes with the WTO, for example. China does not “play fair”, but they are also on track to being the largest economy in the world, they are a major global exporter, they increasingly are engaged in the economies of less developed countries, and they will potentially have the largest middle class in the world for us to export to. It is detrimental to damage the trade relationship with China, and declaring them a currency manipulator will do just that.
Romney’s constant referral to oil prices is also questionable. Oil prices are set in the global market. Even if the US was 100% self reliant for oil, the price would still be set in the global market. It would create some domestic jobs and put us into a position to focus our foreign policy away from the Middle East, but constantly connecting oil prices to his energy policy as if that is going to lift our economy, is misguided.
There are obviously other issues to take up with their economic policy, like their treatment of Medicare for example, but one should not even have to look that deep to question their support for Romney’s economic policy. He is inconsistent and his policies illogical.
On October 18 2012 20:41 DoubleReed wrote: Unless we're talking about Obama being a metrosexual nice guy and Romney being a bad boy, let's drop that thread, shall we?
The original point was to debunk the irresponsible advice that acting like Obama would be attractive to women.
Here's a pretty good example of behavior from a presidential candidate that's actually attractive:
really? that is supposed to be a fun nonpartisan event and almost every "joke" romney said was an insult and attack on obama.
Don't be mad just because your pet candidate didn't come out on top. Roasting the opposing candidate is a traditional part of the Al Smith dinner.
On October 20 2012 10:59 nevermindthebollocks wrote: i can understand a republican audience laughing at all of that but romney deserved to be booed. then again look at the crowd at the end and you see all rich white men so i guess it was a republican audience
It's Republican-leaning (as fundraisers with $2500 tickets tend to be), but it's a mixed audience. That woman you see behind Romney is Katie Couric.
On October 20 2012 11:43 Razakel wrote: Unemployment rate continues to fall.
The unemployment rate dropped in 41 states in September, including many of the top swing states in the presidential race, according to new data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
As we noted this a.m. in Morning Fix, the state-based unemployment numbers can actually be a better indication of how the voters that matter in the 2012 election (i.e. swing state voters) are viewing the economy than the national unemployment figures.
And just as President Obama got a relatively good national jobs report earlier this month, on Friday he got an improved state-based jobs report.
Among the states seeing a decline in their unemployment rate were:
* Colorado (from 8.2 percent in August to 8.0 percent in September)
* Florida (from 8.8 percent to 8.7 percent)
* Iowa (from 5.5 percent to 5.2 percent)
* Nevada (from 12.1 percent to 11.8 percent)
* North Carolina (from 9.7 percent to 9.6 percent)
* Ohio (from 7.2 percent to 7 percent)
* Wisconsin (from 7.5 percent to 7.3 percent)
The rate stayed the same in two states that already have among the lower unemployment rates: New Hampshire (5.7 percent) and Virginia (5.9 percent).
One state where the unemployment rate increased was Pennsylvania (from 8.1 percent to 8.2 percent), which is currently seen as likely to go for Obama even though polls suggest the GOP could compete there.
Given the nationwide unemployment rate drop in September (from 8.1 percent to 7.8 percent), it’s not surprising that a similar shift would happen at the state level.
In addition, as we noted this morning, if you add up the electoral votes in swing states that have unemployment rates higher than the national average and do the same for state below the national average, it splits about 50-50.
But if undecided voters in these states see the improving unemployment rates as a sign of economic progress, it could mitigate concerns about Obama’s handling of the economy.
At the same time, the overall jobs picture is very much a work in progress, and unemployment is still high across the country, which is a big reason Mitt Romney has a good chance at unseating Obama.
That could easily just be attributed to people giving up on looking for jobs (and thus not being included in the workforce), like Mitt Romney said during the second debate. That may or may not be true, but it's not like we can draw anything from those stats alone.
isnt it required to look for work to recieve benefits in the US? i keep hearing these claims that people could just be giving up (which makes no sense considering the constant stream of figures about slight improvements in job growth) but how can people give up if they would be without money?
how do all these people who give up eat and sleep?
Some people retire. Others go back to school. Yet more rely on support from spouses and other family. Finally, some go into poverty.
On October 20 2012 10:59 nevermindthebollocks wrote:
On October 20 2012 10:44 sunprince wrote:
On October 18 2012 20:41 DoubleReed wrote: Unless we're talking about Obama being a metrosexual nice guy and Romney being a bad boy, let's drop that thread, shall we?
The original point was to debunk the irresponsible advice that acting like Obama would be attractive to women.
Here's a pretty good example of behavior from a presidential candidate that's actually attractive:
On October 20 2012 10:59 nevermindthebollocks wrote: i can understand a republican audience laughing at all of that but romney deserved to be booed. then again look at the crowd at the end and you see all rich white men so i guess it was a republican audience
It's Republican-leaning (as fundraisers with $2500 tickets tend to be), but it's a mixed audience. That woman you see behind Romney is Katie Couric.
Chris Matthews was also there (behind the speaker's left shoulder) and cracked up at a couple of specific jokes Romney made. The CSPAN feed in particular showed a view that you can see him on. Romney made plenty of jokes at his own expense and Obama poked fun at Romney and himself as well.
@nevermindthebolloks basically, it's ok to poke fun at yourself and the other side sometimes. Putting all the animosity aside, raising some money for charity, and having a good time for an hour is a tradition at the Al Smith Dinner that goes back to the 1960 election.
Actually, nevermind's post reminds me of a Meet the Press Press Pass that David Gregory did with Jay Leno where Gregory asks the difference between Republicans and Democrats and Leno basically says Republicans laugh at themselves more.
On October 20 2012 11:43 Razakel wrote: Unemployment rate continues to fall.
The unemployment rate dropped in 41 states in September, including many of the top swing states in the presidential race, according to new data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
As we noted this a.m. in Morning Fix, the state-based unemployment numbers can actually be a better indication of how the voters that matter in the 2012 election (i.e. swing state voters) are viewing the economy than the national unemployment figures.
And just as President Obama got a relatively good national jobs report earlier this month, on Friday he got an improved state-based jobs report.
Among the states seeing a decline in their unemployment rate were:
* Colorado (from 8.2 percent in August to 8.0 percent in September)
* Florida (from 8.8 percent to 8.7 percent)
* Iowa (from 5.5 percent to 5.2 percent)
* Nevada (from 12.1 percent to 11.8 percent)
* North Carolina (from 9.7 percent to 9.6 percent)
* Ohio (from 7.2 percent to 7 percent)
* Wisconsin (from 7.5 percent to 7.3 percent)
The rate stayed the same in two states that already have among the lower unemployment rates: New Hampshire (5.7 percent) and Virginia (5.9 percent).
One state where the unemployment rate increased was Pennsylvania (from 8.1 percent to 8.2 percent), which is currently seen as likely to go for Obama even though polls suggest the GOP could compete there.
Given the nationwide unemployment rate drop in September (from 8.1 percent to 7.8 percent), it’s not surprising that a similar shift would happen at the state level.
In addition, as we noted this morning, if you add up the electoral votes in swing states that have unemployment rates higher than the national average and do the same for state below the national average, it splits about 50-50.
But if undecided voters in these states see the improving unemployment rates as a sign of economic progress, it could mitigate concerns about Obama’s handling of the economy.
At the same time, the overall jobs picture is very much a work in progress, and unemployment is still high across the country, which is a big reason Mitt Romney has a good chance at unseating Obama.
That could easily just be attributed to people giving up on looking for jobs (and thus not being included in the workforce), like Mitt Romney said during the second debate. That may or may not be true, but it's not like we can draw anything from those stats alone.
isnt it required to look for work to recieve benefits in the US? i keep hearing these claims that people could just be giving up (which makes no sense considering the constant stream of figures about slight improvements in job growth) but how can people give up if they would be without money?
how do all these people who give up eat and sleep?
People have definitely given up. 4 years ago 144 million people were employed. Today 142 million people are employed. Despite population growing during this time.
The labor force participation rate has been projected to decrease for a long time. The baby boom generation will begin to retire, and the labor force participation rate will naturally drop. This is the premise behind social security problem. There is still a significant amount of people "marginally attached" to the labor force, but the focus on the labor force participation rate as economic policy failure is largely political.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/xbcpr.png)
