|
|
On October 20 2012 13:10 sam!zdat wrote:
And the fact remains that many of the jobs that do exist are not in fact worth doing
edit: can we all take a moment to ponder what exactly is the difference between the two phrases "make work" and "create job"
Perhaps one day society will be so productively advanced that it will not be necessary for most able bodied people to work full time to produce enough wealth to support society.
Perhaps that day is today and we just forgot to eliminate scarcity in our post-scarcity society 
|
Somebody who thinks you can fix the economy please tell me, what sort of jobs do you envisage being created?
|
LG-IMMVP for prez!!!!
or at least for sexy sexy times
|
On October 20 2012 15:57 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2012 14:15 nevermindthebollocks wrote:
today is so bad. mc is 0-3 in osl and there are a lot of polls with romney ahead.
someone post some good news Romney being ahead IS good news 
Then I have some bad news, kmillz. 
|
I heard political analyst Dick Morris say something about polling data that maybe someone from America can clarify because I'm Aussie and we don't have as much polling.
Basically he says that the polling data is skewed in favour of democrats because when they do a phone survey, they get a lot of old people who are at home, and a low amount of minorities (black people, hispanics etc). So then what they do is take the minority votes and try to predict the real minority vote percentage based off the 2008 election data, which supposedly had record minority turnout. Morris believes the minority votes swung the election for Obama in '08 (or at least played a big a factor) and will not participate as much this time. Thus he believes Romney is winning in most of the polls, despite the figures. He backs this up by saying that polling data based off the 2004 election model is more accurate, and these have Romney up by several points.
|
On October 20 2012 17:21 sam!zdat wrote:
Somebody who thinks you can fix the economy please tell me, what sort of jobs do you envisage being created?
Just the regular jobs that are already there.
Only more of them
|
On October 20 2012 17:21 sam!zdat wrote:
Somebody who thinks you can fix the economy please tell me, what sort of jobs do you envisage being created?
I'd start with the American energy sector. There are easily over a million jobs that could be created merely by cutting the administrative red tape that the federal government has placed over the sector. Government expenditure wouldn't even be necessary. Just let the energy companies drill. Not only will drilling jobs be created, but many more jobs will be created "downstream" as people provide all of the goods and services that are necessary to support a drilling operation and bring the oil to market, including those precious manufacturing jobs that everyone talks about. Downward pressure on the oil prices from increased American supply will also provide other economic benefits to any industry reliant upon energy (which is everyone), further spurring job creation.
Oh, and are we really serious about curing our budget problems? Here's a really easy solution: open up federal lands to drilling. The government can sell leases to the oil companies, retain large royalty interests (revenue streams) in the oil production, and literally make hundreds of billions of dollars per year in oil revenue by doing nothing other than letting oil companies drill.
|
Basically he says that the polling data is skewed in favour of democrats because when they do a phone survey, they get a lot of old people who are at home, and a low amount of minorities (black people, hispanics etc). So then what they do is take the minority votes and try to predict the real minority vote percentage based off the 2008 election data, which supposedly had record minority turnout.
This is a weird way of correcting poll results,though i guess it is not impossible or unreasonable if the poll is indeed biased.
Normally the poll is already corrected for this.
They would make sure that the group of people who responds is an accurate representation of the voting population and not biased in anny way.
|
Just seems to be a miserable choice this time round. I'm usually supportive of Republican moderate policies but Mitt is crazy and completely amoral. He lies and flip flops every chance he gets.
Obama has proven again and again he's more concerned about his PR image and while he occasionally makes nice speeches with the help of a teleprompter, he's made barely any leeway in the economy and his spend spend spend policies are scary. Obamacare is a great idea and definitely will benefit many, as will some of his social programs. I just wonder if now is the best time to execute them when the jobs environment is so bleak. You don't want to make it harder for employers to hire and ultimately, Obamacare adds costs.
Wish either Hillary or McCain ran again. Hillary appears competent, McCain straightforward.
Probably write off America for the next 4 years unless the country can get out of the mess they're in DESPITE the president.
|
On October 20 2012 19:11 Poorlilrich wrote:
I heard political analyst Dick Morris say something about polling data that maybe someone from America can clarify because I'm Aussie and we don't have as much polling.
Basically he says that the polling data is skewed in favour of democrats because when they do a phone survey, they get a lot of old people who are at home, and a low amount of minorities (black people, hispanics etc). So then what they do is take the minority votes and try to predict the real minority vote percentage based off the 2008 election data, which supposedly had record minority turnout. Morris believes the minority votes swung the election for Obama in '08 (or at least played a big a factor) and will not participate as much this time. Thus he believes Romney is winning in most of the polls, despite the figures. He backs this up by saying that polling data based off the 2004 election model is more accurate, and these have Romney up by several points.
This is incorrect as any competent analyst will tell you, and every model already accounts for this bias in the polls. Dick Morris also thought Romney's "I'm a businessman" and subsequent attack on Obama was a perfect explanation of his tax plan.
|
On October 20 2012 19:11 Poorlilrich wrote:
I heard political analyst Dick Morris say something about polling data that maybe someone from America can clarify because I'm Aussie and we don't have as much polling.
Basically he says that the polling data is skewed in favour of democrats because when they do a phone survey, they get a lot of old people who are at home, and a low amount of minorities (black people, hispanics etc). So then what they do is take the minority votes and try to predict the real minority vote percentage based off the 2008 election data, which supposedly had record minority turnout. Morris believes the minority votes swung the election for Obama in '08 (or at least played a big a factor) and will not participate as much this time. Thus he believes Romney is winning in most of the polls, despite the figures. He backs this up by saying that polling data based off the 2004 election model is more accurate, and these have Romney up by several points.
he sounds like an idiot
|
On October 20 2012 16:13 TheFrankOne wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2012 13:18 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 20 2012 11:10 BluePanther wrote:On October 20 2012 11:08 oneofthem wrote:
that's not the argument. the argument is that if everyone else is doing it, smart, well run systems at that, then it's probably got some merit to it.
especially you've got a well run, nationalized healthcare system right in your backyard in the VA system, while the private system is bloated as fuck. That was exactly what your argument was. You claimed it was the right thing to do because "everyone else was." Do you know what the strawman fallacy is? Just because one random guy gives the worst possible form of a particular argument doesn't mean you should address that particular form. In fact, in any intellectual realm, it's wise to try to argue against the best possible stance of your opponent because doing otherwise makes you look like a tool. At what cost- at the cost of higher taxes thus less economic freedom, for each indivisual.
how about you pay for your own HC cost via an insurance system if you so choose.
Oh wait that's what we used to have, and ya i'm pretty healthy- cna't even remember the last time I got sick. My last injury was self inflicted (broken arm). It has healed excelently, to the point I couldn't even tell which arm I broke mere months after it happened. Adding to my tax burden lessens my chances of moving up. More money I have, the more I can invest into my future- whehter it be education, health, finance, etc. Telling me how to budget is beyond inexcuseable. You can hypothesize on this all you want. Too bad the facts should that socioeconomic mobility is significantly lower in the U.S. compared to several nations that have national healthcare systems, like every Scandinavian country. I love how the post starts all high and mighty calling out a fallacy and then ends with a causation-correlation fallacy putting socioeconomic mobility implicitly on nationalized healthcare's shoulders. Good job man.
It does no such thing. It merely eliminates the conclusion that nationalized healthcare = less social mobility due to higher taxes.
|
Socialized Healthcare costs less. How could that reduce economic freedom and social mobility? You're paying either way, just one way the person you're paying isnt directly trying to fuck you over and avoid doing their job.
|
On October 20 2012 20:50 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2012 19:11 Poorlilrich wrote:
I heard political analyst Dick Morris say something about polling data that maybe someone from America can clarify because I'm Aussie and we don't have as much polling.
Basically he says that the polling data is skewed in favour of democrats because when they do a phone survey, they get a lot of old people who are at home, and a low amount of minorities (black people, hispanics etc). So then what they do is take the minority votes and try to predict the real minority vote percentage based off the 2008 election data, which supposedly had record minority turnout. Morris believes the minority votes swung the election for Obama in '08 (or at least played a big a factor) and will not participate as much this time. Thus he believes Romney is winning in most of the polls, despite the figures. He backs this up by saying that polling data based off the 2004 election model is more accurate, and these have Romney up by several points. This is incorrect as any competent analyst will tell you, and every model already accounts for this bias in the polls. Dick Morris also thought Romney's "I'm a businessman" and subsequent attack on Obama was a perfect explanation of his tax plan.
I'm aware he is rooting for a Romney victory so take it with a grain of salt, but I think it's fair to say the minority turnout won't be as high as '08. So when they get, say, 7% black people on the phone who mostly vote for Obama, and then try and extrapolate that based on the 2008 turnout, their results are somewhat skewed are they not?
|
On October 20 2012 20:08 openbox1 wrote:
Just seems to be a miserable choice this time round. I'm usually supportive of Republican moderate policies but Mitt is crazy and completely amoral. He lies and flip flops every chance he gets.
Obama has proven again and again he's more concerned about his PR image and while he occasionally makes nice speeches with the help of a teleprompter, he's made barely any leeway in the economy and his spend spend spend policies are scary. Obamacare is a great idea and definitely will benefit many, as will some of his social programs. I just wonder if now is the best time to execute them when the jobs environment is so bleak. You don't want to make it harder for employers to hire and ultimately, Obamacare adds costs.
Wish either Hillary or McCain ran again. Hillary appears competent, McCain straightforward.
Probably write off America for the next 4 years unless the country can get out of the mess they're in DESPITE the president.
Dick Morris is a conservative talk guy. You need to take what he says with a grain of salt. He's right in that polls skew older because you can't robo-call cell phones. In Wisconsin politics we rely much more on the Marquette Law Poll simply because they do manual calls and therefore can call the cell phones. It's somewhat true that it does tend to trend more Republican than the others. It has Romney closer than in any other poll.
|
From wiki, this is Dick Morris
Morris went on to become campaign manager of Bill Clinton's successful 1996 bid for re-election to the office of President. His tenure on that campaign was cut short two months before the election, when it was revealed that he had allowed a prostitute to listen in on conversations with the President. Morris then turned his focus to media commentary
Why would anyone listen to what this guy has to say? There is no political commentator out there with a more clear chip in his shoulder and an axe to grind. He hates the DNC with every fiber of his being. It's all he knows.
|
On October 21 2012 00:08 Leporello wrote:From wiki, this is Dick Morris Show nested quote +Morris went on to become campaign manager of Bill Clinton's successful 1996 bid for re-election to the office of President. His tenure on that campaign was cut short two months before the election, when it was revealed that he had allowed a prostitute to listen in on conversations with the President. Morris then turned his focus to media commentary Why would anyone listen to what this guy has to say? There is no political commentator out there with a more clear chip in his shoulder and an axe to grind. He hates the DNC with every fiber of his being. It's all he knows.
Well, doesn't that make him like the perfect guy for his current job? :D
Also the partisan bickering in here is getting more intense, seems to be a good indicator of the election not being all that far away anymore 
|
On October 21 2012 00:20 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 00:08 Leporello wrote:From wiki, this is Dick Morris Morris went on to become campaign manager of Bill Clinton's successful 1996 bid for re-election to the office of President. His tenure on that campaign was cut short two months before the election, when it was revealed that he had allowed a prostitute to listen in on conversations with the President. Morris then turned his focus to media commentary Why would anyone listen to what this guy has to say? There is no political commentator out there with a more clear chip in his shoulder and an axe to grind. He hates the DNC with every fiber of his being. It's all he knows. Well, doesn't that make him like the perfect guy for his current job? :D Also the partisan bickering in here is getting more intense, seems to be a good indicator of the election not being all that far away anymore
Partisan bickering has been there from the get go (and xDaunt is also part of that, sorry), only now more republican voters are willing to stand up since Romney has raised some real issues and hasn't looked completely retarded in the debates. It would seem that the debates have pushed Romney foreward, mostly among doubters and it has broken a lot of the horrible image the democrats tried to build around him. Now foreign policy seems to be up on monday and that is likely not gonna be a good topic for Romney in any way, shape or form. Let us see how it looks by then.
|
On October 21 2012 00:49 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 00:20 Doublemint wrote:On October 21 2012 00:08 Leporello wrote:From wiki, this is Dick Morris Morris went on to become campaign manager of Bill Clinton's successful 1996 bid for re-election to the office of President. His tenure on that campaign was cut short two months before the election, when it was revealed that he had allowed a prostitute to listen in on conversations with the President. Morris then turned his focus to media commentary Why would anyone listen to what this guy has to say? There is no political commentator out there with a more clear chip in his shoulder and an axe to grind. He hates the DNC with every fiber of his being. It's all he knows. Well, doesn't that make him like the perfect guy for his current job? :D Also the partisan bickering in here is getting more intense, seems to be a good indicator of the election not being all that far away anymore Partisan bickering has been there from the get go (and xDaunt is also part of that, sorry), only now more republican voters are willing to stand up since Romney has raised some real issues and hasn't looked completely retarded in the debates. It would seem that the debates have pushed Romney foreward, mostly among doubters and it has broken a lot of the horrible image the democrats tried to build around him. Now foreign policy seems to be up on monday and that is likely not gonna be a good topic for Romney in any way, shape or form. Let us see how it looks by then.
yeah, romney's not great with foreign stuff. he's very bush-esque in his policies.
|
On October 20 2012 22:57 Poorlilrich wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2012 20:50 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 20 2012 19:11 Poorlilrich wrote:
I heard political analyst Dick Morris say something about polling data that maybe someone from America can clarify because I'm Aussie and we don't have as much polling.
Basically he says that the polling data is skewed in favour of democrats because when they do a phone survey, they get a lot of old people who are at home, and a low amount of minorities (black people, hispanics etc). So then what they do is take the minority votes and try to predict the real minority vote percentage based off the 2008 election data, which supposedly had record minority turnout. Morris believes the minority votes swung the election for Obama in '08 (or at least played a big a factor) and will not participate as much this time. Thus he believes Romney is winning in most of the polls, despite the figures. He backs this up by saying that polling data based off the 2004 election model is more accurate, and these have Romney up by several points. This is incorrect as any competent analyst will tell you, and every model already accounts for this bias in the polls. Dick Morris also thought Romney's "I'm a businessman" and subsequent attack on Obama was a perfect explanation of his tax plan. I'm aware he is rooting for a Romney victory so take it with a grain of salt, but I think it's fair to say the minority turnout won't be as high as '08. So when they get, say, 7% black people on the phone who mostly vote for Obama, and then try and extrapolate that based on the 2008 turnout, their results are somewhat skewed are they not?
They aren't doing that. Pollsters don't "adjust their data," at least not reputable ones a.k.a. the ones that are given weight in every statistical aggregator.
Edit: When you see a survey that says "47% of likely voters believe x" that's exactly what they mean. Their methods targeting likely voters produced a sample in which 47% of likely voters believe x. They don't "correct" it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
