Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
July 29, 2014, 08:18:03 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: When Romney loses, what will history say  (Read 2836 times)
magikusar
Time Out
Getbig IV
*
Posts: 2830


Team Ayn Rand


View Profile
« Reply #125 on: November 07, 2012, 12:54:35 PM »

voting fraud
lack of voting ID check
and bias left wing media

no other explanation for worst president ever being re releced

although it was hair close

100k people in 6 or so key states wow
Report to moderator   Logged
240 is Back
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 81893


Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com


View Profile WWW
« Reply #126 on: November 07, 2012, 01:09:02 PM »

OBAMA 59,651,236*
ROMNEY 57,028,531

OBAMA is leading by 2.6 million votes right now

Report to moderator   Logged

Primemuscle
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 9688


Be honest...


View Profile
« Reply #127 on: November 07, 2012, 01:18:50 PM »

voting fraud
lack of voting ID check
and bias left wing media

no other explanation for worst president ever being re releced

although it was hair close

100k people in 6 or so key states wow

You are a sore loser.
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 24849


one dwells in nirvana


View Profile
« Reply #128 on: November 07, 2012, 05:34:10 PM »

The Reason Why The Unemployment Rate Dropped: The Labor Participation Rate Is At Fresh 31 Year Lows

Curious why the unemployment rate dropped from 8.3% to 8.1%, even as just 96,000 jobs were added? The labor participation rate declined from 63.7% to 63.5%, the lowest since 1981. It means that somehow in August the labor force declined by 368,000 people, which is a paradox since according to the household survey 119,000 jobs were lost in August, yet at the same time the unemployment rate dropped. Remember: it is an election year.



http://www.zerohedge.com/news/reason-why-unemployment-rate-dropped-labor-participation-rate-fresh-31-year-lows



Thanks for playing
.

LOL after being unable to comment on your lie about the UE rate you decide to pivot to same old chart of the Labor Participation rate

First of all your article from "Tyler Durden" is 2 months out of date.  The Labor participation rate went up in October
http://www.businessinsider.com/labor-force-participation-rate-2012-10

I know you right wingers like to pull out that particular chart because it looks so dramatic and seems to mean something but like your long lost buddy 333 you seem to have no clue why the chart looks the way it does or what it even means.   Did you notice the rate has been dropping since right around 2000.  Why do you think that is so?

Here is an explanation of why it's guys like you who are actually causing the rate to go down (well - you and also the fact that the baby boomers  started to retired rightg around the year 2000

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/10/why-is-the-labor-force-shrinking-blame-young-men-not-the-economy/263368/


Quote
Aggregates can be misleading. For instance, that surge in the participation rate from the 1960's to 1980's is a result of women joining the workforce.  The male rate, on the other hand, has been declining since the 1950's.

Male participation has fallen under President Obama. It fell under President George W. Bush. And President Clinton. It's fallen in every presidential administration going back to at least Eisenhower's, with the exception of Carter's, for whom it was flat.


Why are fewer men choosing to work? For that, we turn to the Census Bureau's 2012 Statistical Abstract. The participation rate is lower for single men than for married men, and marriage rates in the US have been falling for decades, so we'd expect a modest decline from that. Looking by age bucket, it's been pretty steady for single and married men for everyone over the age of 25 since the start of the Great Recession.


The recent decline we've seen has been primarily among young, single men. For single men age 16-19, participation fell by almost 9 points from 2006-2010. For single men age 20-24 it fell by almost 5 points. This could be for a variety of factors, from men deciding it's not worth bothering to apply for a job at the local grocery store, to men more focused on their education with unskilled work harder to find, to those living at home who decide there's no need for spending money when so much entertainment is free online.


Additionally, the acceleration in the labor force decline began when the oldest baby boomers began turning 60. Yes, because of deflated housing prices and retirement accounts, boomers will work longer than they thought. But 60-year olds still work less than 30-year olds, and that demographic shift is being reflected in the data.


What's more, this decline in the workforce is part of a century-long trend towards working less in the United States. Child labor laws were passed during the Great Depression, restricting child labor. During the Truman administration, the US government instituted the 40-hour work week for federal employees. The passage of Social Security and Medicare reduced incentives for seniors to work as well.

This is a good thing. Among his many writings, John Maynard Keynes talked about an eventual 15-hour work week to satisfy the material needs of citizens. We're progressing slower than he thought, but we're getting there.

But can fewer working young adults possibly be a good thing? It's intuitive that fewer workers means less work and a smaller and weaker economy. But since the decline is mostly among very young men (and, to a lesser extent, young women) we need to understand why they're dropping out.Student loan debt outstanding has grown from $360 billion to $900 billion over the past seven years. The size of this debt is daunting, but it shows that some of the labor force decline is due to young people investing more in their education, an eventual long-term positive.

And those not dropping out for education-related reasons? If it's just a bunch of 17-year olds who are content spending their time on Facebook instead of earning a few bucks bagging groceries, that's one thing. But if it's people who feel shut out of the workforce, that's something policymakers should address.

These are issues we're going to have to grapple with, because with robotic labor on the horizon, our desire and ability to compete with emerging market and silicon-based labor, especially for less-educated Americans, is likely to continue to fall.


* CHART%201.JPG (112.35 KB, 630x378 - viewed 61 times.)

* men22.JPG (103.03 KB, 630x378 - viewed 60 times.)

* women%20(1).JPG (98.33 KB, 630x378 - viewed 62 times.)
Report to moderator   Logged
Fury
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 21035


All aboard the USS Leverage


View Profile
« Reply #129 on: November 07, 2012, 05:37:55 PM »

Is this moron really bragging about the labor force participation rate ticking up 2 tenths of a percent when that still puts it among the lowest levels seen in 3-4 decades? What a stupid mother fucker this 20-year-old Nissan driver is.

If the labor force participation rate was the same as when Obama took office, unemployment would be over 10%. This is a FACT. You can spin it anyway you want but that's irrefutable. Millions of Americans are no longer counted in the labor rolls thanks to having been out of work for so long. That's not going to change thanks to the failed economic policies espoused by this administration.



An article from the Atlantic talking about Keynes? LOL. Your misinformed obsession with that failure of a system never ceases to amaze me. But it's expected as you're just not very smart. One of the worst articles I've ever read and pretty much just a laundry list of unsubstantiated excuses for the failure in the white house. Not surprising coming from a leftist rag like that.

Quick, tell us how trillions more in printed money will fix everything.  Roll Eyes
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 24849


one dwells in nirvana


View Profile
« Reply #130 on: November 07, 2012, 05:40:47 PM »

Is this moron really bragging about the labor force participation rate ticking up 2 tenths of a percent when that still puts it among the lowest levels seen in 3-4 decades? What a stupid mother fucker this 20-year-old Nissan driver is.

If the labor force participation rate was the same as when Obama took office, unemployment would be over 10%. This is a FACT. You can spin it anyway you want but that's irrefutable. Millions of Americans are no longer counted in the labor rolls thanks to having been out of work for so long. That's not going to change thanks to the failed economic policies espoused by this administration.



An article from the Atlantic talking about Keynes? LOL. Your misinformed obsession with that failure of a system never ceases to amaze me. But it's expected as you're just not very smart.

Quick, tell us how trillions more in printed money will fix everything.  Roll Eyes

just watching you get dumber the minute now

you don't really understand the article do you ?
Report to moderator   Logged
Fury
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 21035


All aboard the USS Leverage


View Profile
« Reply #131 on: November 07, 2012, 05:42:48 PM »

just watching you get dumber the minute now

you don't really understand the article do you ?

Yes, yes, Keynesianism is the be-all, end-all.

We know as you never shut the fuck up about it, post office boy. It's funny that you're calling anyone dumb when you're on record advocating for more stimulus. You've clearly never taken a class on economics but it's not surprising as you're just not intelligent.
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 24849


one dwells in nirvana


View Profile
« Reply #132 on: November 07, 2012, 05:44:41 PM »

Yes, yes, Keynesianism is the be-all, end-all.

We know as you never shut the fuck up about it, post office boy. It's funny that you're calling anyone dumb when you're on record advocating for more stimulus. You've clearly never taken a class on economics but it's not surprising as you're just not intelligent.


good lord you're dumb

this has nothing to do with Keynesianism.   I know you saw his name in the article but you actually have to read the words in front and after his name too


countdown to you calling me gay
Report to moderator   Logged
Fury
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 21035


All aboard the USS Leverage


View Profile
« Reply #133 on: November 07, 2012, 05:48:42 PM »

good lord you're dumb

this has nothing to do with Keynesianism.   I know you saw his name in the article but you actually have to read the words in front and after his name too


countdown to you calling me gay

Many of socialist countries in Europe that you idolize have instituted furloughs. Funny you point that out as we're heading down that same path as it's already been happening in California, among other places.

It's always funny watching someone from California talk economics. I'm guessing you voted for prop 30 last night, too.
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 24849


one dwells in nirvana


View Profile
« Reply #134 on: November 07, 2012, 05:52:23 PM »

Many of socialist countries in Europe that you idolize have instituted furloughs. Funny you point that out as we're heading down that same path as it's already been happening in California, among other places.

It's always funny watching someone from California talk economics. I'm guessing you voted for prop 30 last night, too.

who mentioned furloughs

If you're going to rant like a moron can you at least try to address something that's actually in the article
Report to moderator   Logged
Fury
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 21035


All aboard the USS Leverage


View Profile
« Reply #135 on: November 07, 2012, 05:54:27 PM »

It's like talking to a wall. No wonder you drive a fucking beater and you can't spell "relevant" correctly. You're certifiably retarded (again, we all knew that).

Christ, I hope 333 comes back so you can go back to stalking him while ranting about how great the post office is doing (being $5 billion in debt and all) or how liberal George Washington was. LOL.
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 24849


one dwells in nirvana


View Profile
« Reply #136 on: November 07, 2012, 05:57:35 PM »

It's like talking to a wall. No wonder you drive a fucking beater and you can't spell "relevant" correctly. You're certifiably retarded (again, we all knew that).

Christ, I hope 333 comes back so you can go back to stalking him while ranting about how great the post office is doing (being $5 billion in debt and all) or how liberal George Washington was. LOL.

LOL - now back to spelling and anything else to change the subject

you're the one who brought up Labor Participation and now you not even capable of talking about it ?

remember this was your pivot after lying that UE was higher now then when Obama got in office


Report to moderator   Logged
whork
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5328


Getbig!


View Profile
« Reply #137 on: November 08, 2012, 04:53:49 AM »

LOL - now back to spelling and anything else to change the subject

you're the one who brought up Labor Participation and now you not even capable of talking about it ?

remember this was your pivot after lying that UE was higher now then when Obama got in office




Fury will just keep switching talking points to try to cover up the fact his knowledge is very limited

Report to moderator   Logged
LurkerNoMore
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 12381

Tossing sand in your Va-Jay-Jay


View Profile
« Reply #138 on: November 08, 2012, 08:44:17 AM »

Fury will just keep switching talking points to try to cover up the fact his knowledge is very limited




Truth!

You can expect some generic ad nauseum reply from him in response.  And probably a request to supersize your fries as well.
Report to moderator   Logged
Gregzs
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 4957


Getbig!


View Profile
« Reply #139 on: November 08, 2012, 05:15:47 PM »

History will say ..."He was never supposed to win"

How else can you explain such a shitty choice of candidate, so completely out of touch with average Americans, whose position changed to whatever direction the wind blew, every time the wind blew?

History will say if Republicans really wanted to take back the White House, they wouldn't have robbed Ron Paul in the primaries. It's interactive theatre with audience participation, but the direction, script and final act were already predetermined.

I saw an article this afternoon that puts Mitt Romney at the top of the list of frontrunners for Republican candidate for 2016. History will say they made the same mistake twice.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/109905/the-revenge-rick-perry#

How Rick Perry–Mr. "Oops"–Helped Kill the Romney Campaign


Of all the characters who littered the strange campaign of 2012, none was a bigger laughingstock than Rick Perry, who will go down in political lore for three things: threatening bodily harm to the chairman of the Federal Reserve, declaring that our staunch ally Turkey is run by "Islamic terrorists", and, oops, I can’t remember the third thing. But now that the election is over, it’s looking like Perry had the last laugh.


It’s been so long now that it’s easy to forget, but 15 months ago, the governor of Texas was looming as a force to be reckoned with. After mulling a run for president, he decided to jump in, with a potent fundraising base and the presumptive support of most of the delegate-rich South behind him. Sure, he wasn’t considered the sharpest pitchfork in the barn, but he had never lost an election and, with his brief flirtation with secession, had tapped into the anti-Washington fervor of the moment far better than any other Republican in the field. Premier national political magazines dispatched reporters to do long profiles of him. And the frontrunner for the Republican nomination fatefully decided that Perry was such a threat to his prospects that he would … try to destroy him by running to his right on immigration.


Mitt Romney repeatedly attacked Perry for his support of in-state tuition for undocumented students at Texas colleges, declaring at one debate that it "made no sense at all" and running what was probably the nastiest ad of the primaries, a Web ad (since disappeared) that concluded with a clip of former Mexican president Vincente Fox praising Perry, as if that in and of itself was disqualifying. (Separate from the attacks on Perry, Romney also declared he would veto the Dream Act, which provides a route to citizenship for young illegal immigrants, and proposed a policy under which undocumented residents would "self-deport.") It was a brazen gambit. For one thing, Romney had had a spot of trouble some years earlier for employing illegal immigrants at his Belmont, Mass. manse, which Perry made sure to mention in what became the most heated exchange of the primary season. For another thing, it cynically overlooked the reality of Texas, where vast numbers of young undocumented residents are a reality to be reckoned with and where the tuition policy had broad legislative support. It was left to Perry to utter the defense that arguably sealed his fate even before his debate snafu: "If you say we should not educate children who come into our state … by no fault of their own, I don't think you have a heart."


But even as Romney was glorying in the move, its risks were plain to see. After vanquishing his foes amid a virtually all-white primary electorate, Romney was going to face a general election in which he could not afford to do worse than John McCain had with Hispanics—a 32 percent share. His harsh rhetoric was, for many voters, going to be inextricable with the litany of Republican callousness on the issue—Tom Tancredo, Maricopa County Sherrif Joe Arpaio, Arizona’s draconian anti-illegal immigration law and its copycats in Alabama and elsewhere, and on and on. Hispanic Republicans warned Romney to cool it, but he blustered on. What was he thinking? Probably, that he had managed so often in other contexts to play the opportunistic Etch-a-Sketch game, so why not think he could do the same here? Come general election time, he would have his son Craig tape Spanish-language ads, and would load up the Tampa convention with Hispanic Republicans, and would appear at a Univision forum with an oddly-tinted skin tone.


No dice. As the campaign went on, it became clear that Romney's immigration flanking of Perry was an "original sin," as Ron Brownstein put it. In a year when many Hispanic voters surely were gettable, out of frustration with a slow recovery and Obama’s failure to pass comprehensive immigration reform, Romney’s share of the Hispanic vote on Tuesday plunged to 27 percent—while the Hispanic share of the electorate ticked inexorably up by about a third, to 10 percent. Somewhere in West Texas, a man in cowboy boots named "Freedom" and "Liberty" was cackling.


A final cautionary note on this: even as the Republicans’ woes with Hispanic voters are drawing overdue attention—even Charles Krauthammer was hitting Romney on this score after the votes came in—it is important to keep some regional context in mind. The GOP’s Hispanic deficit is a huge Electoral College problem for the party in Florida, Colorado and Nevada, and will soon become a problem in Arizona and maybe even Georgia and (dreamers can dream) Texas. But it is a negligible factor in the Democrats’ Midwestern firewall, the swath of states that guaranteed Barack Obama’s victory Tuesday night: Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin and Minnesota. While it’s proper for demographers to herald the Democrats’ expanding, multi-hued coalition, it is also worth remembering that Obama won Ohio because of a) huge turnout by African-Americans and b) his ability to hang onto far more working-class white voters than he did in other parts of the country—and to even pick up some more along the way. Check out this terrific New York Times map showing the shifts in party support between 2008 and this year. Not surprisingly, given Obama's narrower edge this time around, most of the country shifted red to a certain degree. But look what shifted more Democratic even than in Obama’s big 2008 win—much of central Ohio. Much of that is due to the increasingly cosmopolitan Columbus metro area. But it’s also a reflection of shifts in deeply middle- and working-class towns like Chillicothe, the seat of Ross County, where Obama somehow managed to improve substantially over his 2008 vote share. In places like this, what mattered was less Mitt Romney demagoguing Rick Perry on immigration than his blithely offering the Texas governor a $10,000 bet.
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 24849


one dwells in nirvana


View Profile
« Reply #140 on: November 08, 2012, 05:19:02 PM »

We know know the official talking point of why Romney lost

Obama voters want "stuff"

Report to moderator   Logged
George Whorewell
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 6876


THEY DONT KNOW


View Profile
« Reply #141 on: November 08, 2012, 05:36:49 PM »

Like the fact the majority of gov't assistant recipients are Republicans?

Citation please.
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 24849


one dwells in nirvana


View Profile
« Reply #142 on: November 08, 2012, 05:46:52 PM »

Quote
the Tax Foundation — a conservative Washington-based think tank — has, however unintentionally, provided the answer. In 2007, the foundation published a survey of 2005 federal spending in each state and compared that with each state’s contribution in federal taxes. In other words, the foundation identified the states that sponge off the federal government and those that subsidize it. The welfare-queen states and the responsible, producing states, as it were.

The list, alas, hasn’t been updated — in part, no doubt, because conservatives didn’t like what it revealed: that those states that got more back from our government than they paid in were overwhelmingly Republican. The 10 biggest net recipients of taxpayers’ largess were, in order, New Mexico, Mississippi, Alaska, Louisiana, West Virginia, North Dakota, Alabama, South Dakota, Kentucky and Virginia. The 10 states that paid in the most and got back the least were New Jersey, Nevada, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Illinois, Delaware, California, New York and Colorado.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/welfare-queen-states/2011/05/17/AFzTK45G_story.html
Report to moderator   Logged
War-Horse
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6494


View Profile
« Reply #143 on: November 08, 2012, 05:59:29 PM »

great observation as always

the economy is definitely worse than when Obama first took office

unemployment is worse, the stock market is worse, housing prices are worse

Hopefully when Romney gets elected he will restore it to that pristine condition it was when Bush left office

lol   Grin
Report to moderator   Logged
Gregzs
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 4957


Getbig!


View Profile
« Reply #144 on: November 08, 2012, 06:02:40 PM »

I found the article I saw. I mistakenly typed Romney above. It is Ryan that has a chance in 2016.

http://nationaljournal.com/politics/ryan-emerges-from-campaign-with-higher-profile-2016-options-20121107

Ryan Emerges From Campaign With Higher Profile, 2016 Options

BOSTON –Paul Ryan won’t be helping Mitt Romney lead the country in a new direction from the White House. But the congressman from Wisconsin, famous for his small-government budget blueprints, has emerged from his first national race with high visibility and a top spot on any list of 2016 presidential prospects.
 
Ryan's immediate future lies on Capitol Hill. As chairman of the House Budget Committee, he will be making an abrupt transition from the glare of the campaign trail to the back rooms of Capitol Hill as Congress heads into a lame-duck session and negotiations on how to avoid a “fiscal cliff” of automatic tax increases and spending cuts.
 
Ryan did win an election on Tuesday night: the race for his House seat in Wisconsin where state election law allowed him to run concurrently with his vice presidential bid. Unless he resigns from the House--a fate that longtime aides and close confidantes have a hard time imagining--Hill staffers expect he’ll have no trouble obtaining the necessary waiver on term limits to keep his chairmanship in the next Congress.
 
“I think at the end of the day, he's committed to advancing these ideas in a political forum, which suggests elected office,” said Matthew Spalding, a vice president at the conservative Heritage Foundation and a longtime Ryan friend.
 
Ryan issued a statement on Wednesday addressing his short-term plans. “I look forward to spending some time with my family in the coming days and then continuing my responsibilities as chairman of the House Budget Committee and representative of Wisconsin First Congressional District,” he said, after saying he was “immensely proud” of the GOP presidential campaign and grateful to nominee Mitt Romney for putting him on the ticket.
 
There was a time when Ryan considered quitting Congress: in 2006, after Democrats won both chambers. It was a “gut-check” moment, as one longtime aide described it, and after much soul-searching the episode led Ryan to write his first “Road Map for America’s Future.” The document marked Ryan’s head-first jump into the sensitive issue of entitlement reform and made him into a popular target for Democrats. But it also made him the intellectual leader of the House Republicans, a stature that will only be enhanced by his vice presidential run and the debt and spending issues at the top of the national agenda.
 
“With the fiscal cliff issues and everything that’s looming … he's going to be center stage in the negotiations and at some level will have claim to be titular heir to the Republican Party,” said Steve Schmidt, a GOP strategist who worked on John McCain


’s 2008 presidential bid.
 
The big question that remains, then, is what the next cycle will hold for Ryan. At the request of many conservatives, he explored the possibility of his own presidential bid this year, but ultimately opted to sit out the cycle due to the pressures on his young family--his children are 10, 9, and 7--and a sense that Congress was the best place to change national policies.
 
He has had no conversations about 2016 among his closest staff, according to a longtime aide who was granted anonymity to speak more freely. If he decides to run, he will do so from a more advantageous position. Close to 40 percent of people hadn’t heard of him before he was nominated; but, according to CNN/ORC polling, that had dropped to single digits within about 10 days. His favorability has stayed the same.
 
“He's well respected, and he's done a good job as the VP candidate,” said Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol. He predicted that Ryan would start with an edge among the deep bench of Republicans who may consider a run, including New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida
. Indeed, Ryan proved to be an effective campaigner who even held audiences captive when he began using a slide show about the rising debt at town halls.
 
The Romney campaign projected rosy images of Ryan as a legislator in search of bipartisanship, but his appeal at this point is concentrated among conservatives who like his prescriptions, which include steep cuts in taxes and spending, and restructuring Medicare as a voucher program.
 
Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, the senior Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said that Ryan is a passionate advocate, not a lawmaker who pursues compromise. Both are necessary to tackle the nation’s deficits and debt, he said. “Will he continue to be the standard-bearer for the Far Rright of the Republican Party, or will he demonstrate a new willingness to work together in order to meet our budget challenges?” Van Hollen asked of Ryan in an e-mail.
 
It’s a question that underscores the strengths Ryan would bring to a presidential primary race, and the strategic decisions he’ll have to make with an eye on his future.
Report to moderator   Logged
Primemuscle
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 9688


Be honest...


View Profile
« Reply #145 on: November 08, 2012, 06:30:59 PM »

Citation please.

The reason some people feel comfortable making these outrageous claims is because they cannot be proved. When someone applies for public assistance, they aren't asked their party affiliation. It is also true that when someone registers to vote, they aren't asked if they have ever, or are currently receiving public assistance. Hence there is no way to know for certain if Republicans or Democrats are more likely to be on public assistance.

One can make assumptions though as long as they realize that there is a risk of accuracy when it comes to assuming things. For example, one can assume that the number of people on public assistance is higher in states where the poverty rate is also higher. The 10 states with the highest poverty rates are: Texas, West Virginia, South Carolina, Louisiana, Arkansas, Kentucky, Alabama, District of Columbia, New Mexico and Mississippi. Of these, New Mexico is the only state which voted for Democratic Presidential candidate. This would lead one to assume that there is greater poverty in Republican leaning states and thus the likelihood of folks being on public assistance being on public assistance is greater. Note: D.C. is not officially a state although it was listed in these statistics as one.

Citations:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/21/poverty-rises-despite-end-of-recession_n_1023946.html#s424704&title=1_Mississippi

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html
Report to moderator   Logged
Primemuscle
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 9688


Be honest...


View Profile
« Reply #146 on: November 08, 2012, 06:35:11 PM »

I found the article I saw. I mistakenly typed Romney above. It is Ryan that has a chance in 2016.

http://nationaljournal.com/politics/ryan-emerges-from-campaign-with-higher-profile-2016-options-20121107

Ryan Emerges From Campaign With Higher Profile, 2016 Options

BOSTON –Paul Ryan won’t be helping Mitt Romney lead the country in a new direction from the White House. But the congressman from Wisconsin, famous for his small-government budget blueprints, has emerged from his first national race with high visibility and a top spot on any list of 2016 presidential prospects.
 
Ryan's immediate future lies on Capitol Hill. As chairman of the House Budget Committee, he will be making an abrupt transition from the glare of the campaign trail to the back rooms of Capitol Hill as Congress heads into a lame-duck session and negotiations on how to avoid a “fiscal cliff” of automatic tax increases and spending cuts.
 
Ryan did win an election on Tuesday night: the race for his House seat in Wisconsin where state election law allowed him to run concurrently with his vice presidential bid. Unless he resigns from the House--a fate that longtime aides and close confidantes have a hard time imagining--Hill staffers expect he’ll have no trouble obtaining the necessary waiver on term limits to keep his chairmanship in the next Congress.
 
“I think at the end of the day, he's committed to advancing these ideas in a political forum, which suggests elected office,” said Matthew Spalding, a vice president at the conservative Heritage Foundation and a longtime Ryan friend.
 
Ryan issued a statement on Wednesday addressing his short-term plans. “I look forward to spending some time with my family in the coming days and then continuing my responsibilities as chairman of the House Budget Committee and representative of Wisconsin First Congressional District,” he said, after saying he was “immensely proud” of the GOP presidential campaign and grateful to nominee Mitt Romney for putting him on the ticket.
 
There was a time when Ryan considered quitting Congress: in 2006, after Democrats won both chambers. It was a “gut-check” moment, as one longtime aide described it, and after much soul-searching the episode led Ryan to write his first “Road Map for America’s Future.” The document marked Ryan’s head-first jump into the sensitive issue of entitlement reform and made him into a popular target for Democrats. But it also made him the intellectual leader of the House Republicans, a stature that will only be enhanced by his vice presidential run and the debt and spending issues at the top of the national agenda.
 
“With the fiscal cliff issues and everything that’s looming … he's going to be center stage in the negotiations and at some level will have claim to be titular heir to the Republican Party,” said Steve Schmidt, a GOP strategist who worked on John McCain


’s 2008 presidential bid.
 
The big question that remains, then, is what the next cycle will hold for Ryan. At the request of many conservatives, he explored the possibility of his own presidential bid this year, but ultimately opted to sit out the cycle due to the pressures on his young family--his children are 10, 9, and 7--and a sense that Congress was the best place to change national policies.
 
He has had no conversations about 2016 among his closest staff, according to a longtime aide who was granted anonymity to speak more freely. If he decides to run, he will do so from a more advantageous position. Close to 40 percent of people hadn’t heard of him before he was nominated; but, according to CNN/ORC polling, that had dropped to single digits within about 10 days. His favorability has stayed the same.
 
“He's well respected, and he's done a good job as the VP candidate,” said Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol. He predicted that Ryan would start with an edge among the deep bench of Republicans who may consider a run, including New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida
. Indeed, Ryan proved to be an effective campaigner who even held audiences captive when he began using a slide show about the rising debt at town halls.
 
The Romney campaign projected rosy images of Ryan as a legislator in search of bipartisanship, but his appeal at this point is concentrated among conservatives who like his prescriptions, which include steep cuts in taxes and spending, and restructuring Medicare as a voucher program.
 
Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, the senior Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said that Ryan is a passionate advocate, not a lawmaker who pursues compromise. Both are necessary to tackle the nation’s deficits and debt, he said. “Will he continue to be the standard-bearer for the Far Rright of the Republican Party, or will he demonstrate a new willingness to work together in order to meet our budget challenges?” Van Hollen asked of Ryan in an e-mail.
 
It’s a question that underscores the strengths Ryan would bring to a presidential primary race, and the strategic decisions he’ll have to make with an eye on his future.


Thanks for clearing that up. I thought I had misread an article I read this morning suggesting that Ryan might be the Republican front runner in 2016. The same article suggested that Hillary Clinton could be the Democratic front runner in 2016. It went on to suggest that Mrs. Clinton had the best chance of being the next U.S. President in 2016. Of course, she would have to decide to accept the nomination.
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 24849


one dwells in nirvana


View Profile
« Reply #147 on: November 08, 2012, 06:50:59 PM »

Bum -why are you moving War Horses post ?

It hardly offensive compared to the shit people say directly to me
Heck, it not even as offensive as the stuff  we've said to each other in the past

LOL - now back to spelling and anything else to change the subject

you're the one who brought up Labor Participation and now you not even capable of talking about it ?

remember this was your pivot after lying that UE was higher now then when Obama got in office



Straw man. I dont know where you get the energy to talk to these retarded idiots like fury, but i do find amusing seeing the monkeys dance.. Cool
Report to moderator   Logged
War-Horse
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6494


View Profile
« Reply #148 on: November 08, 2012, 07:06:28 PM »

Hahaha.   Bums a sensitive guy.    Straw is slamming people with facts and common sense. Its hilarious to watch....thats all i meant Grin
Report to moderator   Logged
The True Adonis
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 40964


"We Will Correct All This."


View Profile
« Reply #149 on: November 08, 2012, 07:15:30 PM »

Hahaha.   Bums a sensitive guy.    Straw is slamming people with facts and common sense. Its hilarious to watch....thats all i meant Grin
He has been rather touchy since Obama won.  I suspect he is completely crushed.

I have seen this in Religious people in person when shown an undeniable fact.  They begin to question their very existence and everything they have ever been told for a split second before turning their anger against you.

Its almost surreal.
Report to moderator   Logged

E
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!