538 is a political statistical projection sign ran and created by the creator of the PECOTA baseball projection system, Nate Silver. It has had stunning accuracy in the past.Quote:
Originally Posted by yomamaimontv
Printable View
538 is a political statistical projection sign ran and created by the creator of the PECOTA baseball projection system, Nate Silver. It has had stunning accuracy in the past.Quote:
Originally Posted by yomamaimontv
I see you ran away like a punk from the discussion we were having in the other thread a few weeks back and are now back to your mindless bombthrowing.Quote:
Originally Posted by yomamaimontv
Get bent.
Huh, I just read the wiki on fivethirtyeight. Very interesting. I will have to look at this more. Good stuff!
Glad to see your e-boner is still rock hard for me! I thought it had gone soft. Then you really would have been useless!Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobie
Quote:
Originally Posted by yomamaimontv
Yeah!
GET EM
/yawn
More inane drivel from the miserable tosser who has Rollen Stewart as his forum avatar. I didn't realize they'd let you use the internet in federal prison.
Intelligent.
Ohhhhhh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobie
STRIKE BACK
Funny story. Rollen Stewart, who is in prison for kidnapping a hotel maid several years back because he thought the rapture was happening, is nuttier than holy hell and spends his time writing (literally) colorful crank letters to various media outlets around the country, talking about the impending apocalypse and whatnot. A few years back, he sent one to our paper. One of our editors still has it. It's freakin' bizarre.Quote:
Originally Posted by OregonDuck1989
Attachment 38545
Snakes!
IIRC Obama had a 7-8 point lead over Romney across all major polls days before the Ryan announcement, to the point that a lot of commentators thought Romney was making the announcement specifically to head off that momentum.
http://www.classwarfareexists.com/ye...#axzz23auOHDPR
Guess if you're not rich, you should die in the street if you believe in this Ryan fellow as well.
http://www.salon.com/2012/08/14/paul...nt_build_that/
How do people seriously fall for this ****ing nonsense? Ryan, like so many other so-called "conservatives" in today's Republican Tea Party, isn't about cutting government spending and limiting governmental influence. He's about doing whatever it takes to bolster the wallets of him and his rich pals in business. If that means funding $40 billion subsidies to the oil industry by cutting educational aid to college students, then so be it. So long as the rich get richer, Ryan doesn't care how it happens. And middle and lower class people ACTUALLY fall for the BS and believe that Romney, Ryan and their colleagues act with THEIR interests in mind. Baffling. Absolutely baffling.Quote:
Or does he? What’s funny is that Mr. Anti-Spending secured millions in earmarks for his home state of Wisconsin, including, among other things, $3.3 million for highway projects. And Ryan voted to preserve $40 billion in special subsidies for big oil, an industry in which, it so happens, Ryan and his wife hold ownership stakes. Yet Ryan wants to gut financial aid for college students, food stamps for hungry families, Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security — the very things that have, historically, helped poor families climb the ladder of opportunity in America.
And this is precisely the problem with the Romney-Ryan vision for America: It takes the ladder of opportunity and public infrastructure that helped the previous generation and yanks it up for the next generation. Your grandfather went to college on the GI Bill? We’re not even going to give you measly Pell Grants! Your grandmother lived independently thanks to Social Security? We’re giving yours to Wall Street to crash with the rest of our economy! Your great-grandfather got rich building public railways and roads? We’re going to cut taxes for the rich to historic lows and raise taxes on the struggling middle class to barely cover the cost of plugging potholes!
It’s “I Got Mine, Now Screw You!” economics. This kind of hard-heartedness may appeal to the extreme fringe base of Republican voters, but it is as repulsive to mainstream voters as it is corrosive to the American dream. The Romney-Ryan budget focuses 62 percent of its cuts on programs that help the poor — in order to pay for more tax breaks for the already-rich and, incidentally, raise the deficit.
It's because so much of the conservative platform involves playing to their constituents' morality on "how things should be." You shouldn't give welfare because they didn't earn that money. Rich people shouldn't be taxed more because they shouldn't be punished for success. Government shouldn't borrow money because regular people can't. It can be a very compelling message, especially someone that lives in a more sparsely-populated area. When you live in a small town, the necessity of government isn't as readily apparent, and so people hear their conception of "how things should be" reinforced, and they buy in.
On an intellectual level, it's obviously not very logical. Government needs to respond realities, and it can't govern effectively if it is simply trying to conform it's actions with what people considered "fair" in other contexts and in other time frames. Wholly separate from whether conservatives actually govern in conformance with those morality plays (we all know people win elections on rhetoric and not results, and that both parties generally are just figuring out ways to get theirs, but I digress), the sooner we get morality plays out of general policy conversations, the better.
Now, you won't ever take morals out of debates on abortion, gay marriage, or other issues that implicate religion, and that's fine. But when talking about anything invoking money--be it tax policy, social security, industrial subsidies, restrictions on credit, welfare, health care, etc.--there is simply no reason to argue about something being fair or not fair. Both sides are at fault, because while conservatives love to make the arguments, you get plenty of liberals willing to engage it. Cries about class warfare are stupid either way. When you talk about progressive income tax, it has nothing to do with punishing the rich. Progressive income tax does not exist to be Robin Hood. The reason you place a higher tax burden on the wealthy is because it's the best way to maximize government revenue without damaging the economy. Taking money from someone who already has more money than they can and will prudently spend doesn't implicate economic growth the way that taking money from someone with an average income would. Similarly, giving people welfare seems like free money for someone who doesn't earn it, but it's still a good investment because otherwise that same person would likely resort to crime to make ends meet, ending up in the criminal justice system and costing the government far more to handle.
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by haveacigar