2012 Election Thread

[runawayjimbo]

"No props, notes, charts, diagrams or other writings can be used by the candidates; however, they can take notes on the type of paper of their choosing."

LOL

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/05/mitt-romney-handkerchief-cheat-sheet-debate_n_1942790.html

Mitt Romney Campaign Says Candidate Had A Handkerchief, Not A Cheat Sheet, At The Debate

The internet produced a theory on Friday that at Wednesday night's debate, Mitt Romney snuck a cheat sheet filled with notes on stage. The evidence comes from the first few seconds of the debate, during which Romney takes something out of his pocket and casually tosses it on to the lectern.

So, did Romney push the debate rules by bringing debate instructions on stage with him?

No, his campaign said. Spokeswoman Andrea Saul said the thing Romney pulled out of his pocket was actually a handkerchief.

A separate video has confirmed for many that the item indeed was a handkerchief. Romney is seen wiping his face with it during the closing statements of the debate.

Fair enough. I had forgotten about the handkerchief but remember it now. That sweat glistening on his upper lip kept distracting me the whole damn time. How Nixonian of him.

But I want my scandal!!!

Also, normal people keep their hankys in their pocket.

You didn't actually believe some conspiracy theory that you saw on one of your crazy left wing "news" sites, did you? :wink:

Also, Hicks says "hanky". ::points and laughs::

Well like anyone born after 1970 I don't use them, so perhaps I'm not fully hip to the nomenclature. 

Also, middle class chumps like me call it a "sleeve" usually. 

Also, also yeah I first saw it on a liberal conspiracy site that I believe is called "The Facebooks".

A sleeve? You must be a fancy man. We just rocket them out and try no to get too much on our clothes in Philly.

Well I hoped you learned your lesson: if its on FB, it's probably not true.

That Friday phone is ringing. Quick, somebody say something about Mitt's tax plan or why it's ok for Obama to drone attack me so I can kill the rest of the afternoon good and proper.

[twatts]

That Friday phone is ringing. Quick, somebody say something about Mitt's tax plan or why it's ok for Obama to drone attack me so I can kill the rest of the afternoon good and proper.

You could spend the afternoon railing against Teachers Unions and the failure of the public school system???

T

[runawayjimbo]

That Friday phone is ringing. Quick, somebody say something about Mitt's tax plan or why it's ok for Obama to drone attack me so I can kill the rest of the afternoon good and proper.

You could spend the afternoon railing against Teachers Unions and the failure of the public school system???

I knew I could count on you, T. +k

Now go get your fucking shinebox and fill my ISOs!!!

[sls.stormyrider]

OK, the DLS numbers are flawed. It's been that way for years. The method should be improved. But, at least for now, we can compare apples to apples, sort of. Maybe apples to pears. Now isn't the right time to change them.
The other variable, is that with the stress of the recession, businesses have learned how to do more with less employees. Progress.

On other news, Romney now says his 47% comment was wrong. After he defended it for 2 weeks, he says that he was wrong. Um....sure, Mitt

CNN was calling out Mitt for saying that his health plan covers pre-conditions (see my prior post). After the debate, his aides were backpedalling. AC had Ari Fleischer on tonight - when asked about it, even Ari said - yeah, that comment was a head scratcher.

and we thought Kerry was a flip flopper.

[VDB]

Yeah, I found it awfully convenient that the right picked today's jobs report to get all conspiratorial about the methodology (and, like some did, go so far as to say that the numbers were downright cooked). Seems like they were fine with the methodology when the numbers fit their own narrative.

[nab]

 

Yeah, I found it awfully convenient that the right picked today's jobs report to get all conspiratorial about the methodology (and, like some did, go so far as to say that the numbers were downright cooked). Seems like they were fine with the methodology when the numbers fit their own narrative.

Rule #1 in the lay person's use of supporting data is that the set is always correct when it fits the speaker's assumption and always suspect when it contradicts the listener's narrative. 

[runawayjimbo]

OK, the DLS numbers are flawed.

BLS :wink:

Yeah, I found it awfully convenient that the right picked today's jobs report to get all conspiratorial about the methodology (and, like some did, go so far as to say that the numbers were downright cooked). Seems like they were fine with the methodology when the numbers fit their own narrative.

To nab's point, yesterday Austan Goolsbee said anyone questioning the BLS numbers was an idiot who had no clue how the BLS process worked (paraphrasing obviously). Funny thing: back in 2003, a younger Goolsbee said...wait for it... "In other words, the government has cooked the books." Of course, he gave some long winded explanation about how obviously his claims of manipulation under Bush (and Reagan) was different than what the right was saying yesterday. I LOL'd.

As for the actual numbers, there's a couple nuances about the data to note (wonky time). There are 2 surveys in the BLS numbers, the "establishment data" which samples actual non-farm payroll data (similar to the Wed ADP report) and the "household survey" which polls 50,000 (I think) households about their employment situation. The first survey provides the "jobs number" which was +114k yesterday and is the source for any jobs number related claims (like Clinton's jobs scorecard at the DNC or Obama's 4.5M private sector claim). The second is the source used in the unemployment rate calculation and it said employment increased +873k (hence the 0.3% drop in the unemployment rate). Now, there's always some discrepancy between the two which is mostly statistical noise (just like any 2 polls with the same questions and same sample size can produce different results). But there were a couple of (potentially) legitimate issues with yesterday's report.

First, the discrepancy between the two surveys is unusually large, which seems to suggest something is amiss with at least one of the numbers. Second, while 873k jobs could conceivable be added in times of strong growth, it is hard to imagine that many jobs being added while the economy was growing by just 1.25% in Q3. That kind of increase would make more sense in the context of an economy growing around 5% per year, and we clearly ain't there. Third, it was the first time in the history of the data series that the 20-24 yr old cohort showed an increase in Sept employment as it usually drops with kids going back to school. It could be argued that this implies people are foregoing their education and keeping their jobs due to the dismal employment prospect, but that's hard to square with the record number of student loans/defaults which points to kids staying in school LONGER (i.e., grad school, changing majors) to delay their inevitable death march into a weak labor market. And lastly, of the 873k jobs added, something like 575k were from the so-called "Part Time for Economic Reasons." These are the people who want to be working full time but can't find a job and so have to work part time, as discussed above, likely a function of people running out of their 99 weeks of unemployment benefits. In other words, there may be jobs being added, but they are lower quality jobs than what would be needed to drive a sustainable recovery.

With all that as a backdrop, I have to admit I am suspect of the numbers. And it may sound crazy, but gov'tal statistics can be fudged: Nixon once ordered the Dept of Defense to order 2 yrs worth of toilet paper in an attempt (unsuccessful, I believe) to pad GDP growth; the CPI methodology has been changed to limit the amount of the COLA going to Social Security recipients (most notably in excluding food and energy prices from the "core" measure); and just last week,  Lockheed said they would delay laying off 120k employees until after the election at the White House's request. So political games can be played to help either side's case, and, IMO, it's somewhat naive to pretend these games aren't in fact played. But it seems to some (at least according to Goolsbee), the left's analysis is thoughtful and grounded in fact while the right's is simply wingnut crazies obsessed with conspiracy theories. Neither one of those seem right to me.

Now, I understand that it may not be appropriate for elected officials (like crazy Allen West) to claim that the administration is engaged in a conspiratorial plot to deceive the public of the truth for political gain. I mean, it's not like any Democrat ever claimed "Bush lied, people died.

I think if anything, as sls points out, this whole episode highlights the need for more accurate and transparent metrics with regard to measuring the actual amount of jobs. To highlight that, here is the key point from Goolsbee's 2003 piece that is exactly relevant today (of course I disagree with the more funds part, but the point still stands). And this is what the right misses when it focuses on the conspiratorial issues of the jobs numbers:

Unfortunately, underreporting unemployment has served the interests of both political parties. Democrats were able to claim unemployment fell in the 1990's to the lowest level in 40 years, happy to ignore the invisible unemployed. Republicans have eagerly embraced the view that the recession of 2001 was the mildest on record.

The situation has grown so dire, though, that we can't even tell whether the job market is recovering. The time has come to correct the official unemployment statistics to account for those left out. The government agencies that can give us a more detailed and accurate picture of the nation's employment situation -- the Census, the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Bureau of Economic Analysis -- need additional funds and resources from Congress to do their jobs.

Otherwise, announcements about a rebounding economy will continue to show only half the picture.

[Hicks]

Meh, you can spin conspiracy theories all day long but the simple fact is that businesses have been running skeleton crews for the last two years and with a few glimmers of hope like the housing market coming back, Apple driving massive tech growth with the new iphone and some modest overall economic growth, companies finally feel like they can go out on a limb and start hiring again.

A skeleton crew is no way to run a business, it drives down morale, creates in fighting and resentment and ultimately negatively productivity because workers are so stressed while trying to cope with increased work loads for the same pay.  I should know because I've been a part of one myself since 2009, and guess what: we hired two guys this week to finally get us back to our 2008 level of staffing.  I think for a lot of companies this Christmas season is pretty much make or break, so they might as well go all in and load up on their staff so they can take their best shot. 

I know your thinking "cmon Hicks are you really trying to extrapolate your individual experience to the employment numbers of the entire country?" 

Well, this would tend to reinforce my theory that it really is a widespread phenomenon:

http://retailindustry.about.com/od/usretailsalescalendar/a/Christmas-Shopping-2012Predictions-Holiday-Season-Retail-Sales-Jobs-Hiring-Technology.htm

75% of retail leaders surveyed by management consulting firm Hay Group predicted that sales for the 2012 Christmas shopping season will be higher than they were in 2011. This same group of retail leaders said they planned to start their holiday shopping promotions even earlier than last year, with 42% saying they will start promoting Christmas shopping deals in October.

I dunno, it's pretty sad that when things are finally coming back, at least potentially, people need to start saying it's some kind of trickery just because they don't like the guy in the White House.  It's just so fucking frustrating that there is no sense of the common good in this country anymore, and until we get that back I don't see us solving any of our big problems. 

[sls.stormyrider]

It's just so fucking frustrating that there is no sense of the common good in this country anymore, and until we get that back I don't see us solving any of our big problems.

exactly

[runawayjimbo]

Meh, you can spin conspiracy theories all day long but the simple fact is that businesses have been running skeleton crews for the last two years and with a few glimmers of hope like the housing market coming back, Apple driving massive tech growth with the new iphone and some modest overall economic growth, companies finally feel like they can go out on a limb and start hiring again.

I disagree, and so does the data. The glimmers of hope in housing are false signals from a market that continues to be heavily subsidized by ridiculously low rates (talk about the policies that got us into this mess). Apple's stock price may be exponentially growing, but that doesn't mean they have added to the workforce, at least in the US (now I have no problem with this, but both candidates are engaging in inflammatory trade rhetoric toward China). 1.25% GDP growth is not modest, it is anemic. And with the fiscal cliff and massive uncertainty in US regulatory policy as well a likely global recession starting with year 3 of the Euro crisis (how many times have they been "saved" by expansionary monetary policy from the ECB), companies are not willing to invest in expanding their workforces (and with good reason, IMO). I mean, the fact that the only "growing" jobs are temporary/part time ones kinda belies your point. If companies felt they could start hiring, they wouldn't be hiring these kinds of transitory jobs.

A skeleton crew is no way to run a business, it drives down morale, creates in fighting and resentment and ultimately negatively productivity because workers are so stressed while trying to cope with increased work loads for the same pay.

I agree, staffing is tight in most industries for the reasons I noted above. But what's the alternative? Hire people out of a sense of the "common good"? That may sound good unless it drives companies out of business because of all the new workers they can't afford. Now both the new and existing employees are SOL.

75% of retail leaders surveyed by management consulting firm Hay Group predicted that sales for the 2012 Christmas shopping season will be higher than they were in 2011. This same group of retail leaders said they planned to start their holiday shopping promotions even earlier than last year, with 42% saying they will start promoting Christmas shopping deals in October.

You're talking about one sector of the economy (retail) that makes up 10-15% of the total labor force. And you're citing exactly the kind of temporary jobs I mentioned above. And while I am genuinely and wholeheartedly happy that some people have any income after being without it for however long, my point is not "well F those people," it's that we are not seeing the kind of recovery that will begin driving real growth again.

I dunno, it's pretty sad that when things are finally coming back, at least potentially, people need to start saying it's some kind of trickery just because they don't like the guy in the White House.  It's just so fucking frustrating that there is no sense of the common good in this country anymore, and until we get that back I don't see us solving any of our big problems.

I don't know if that's directed at me directly or at your frustration over the response from conservatives, but I can tell you from my perspective, this has nothing to do with Obama. Remember, my philosophy on economics and capitalism means that I do not believe that Obama COULD do anything about it even if he was able to (although I would argue that, given what he did accomplish with a Democratic majority, his policies would likely not provide anything other than a short term sugar rush anyway). That goes for Romney as well; when he says "my plan will create 12M jobs" I shiver every time: first, there is simply no way anyone could ever possibly accurately forecast the level of job creation  and second, even if there were exactly 12M jobs created I don't believe a president gets credit for it, that's private industry's creation. Believe me, my frustration with Obama comes much more from what I see as his clear abuse of executive power, continued American imperialism, a complete disregard for civil liberties, and an absolutely unaccountable and opaque centralized state (all things he campaigned against and, unlike the economy, policies that he has DIRECT influence over).

My entire issue is that, contrary to the headlines, things are not finally coming back (and are we seriously celebrating an unemployment rate of 7.8%?). It's not trickery on the part of the BLS, there are countless other indicators that point to the fact that we are still in the early stages of a deleveraging that could take a decade or more (see Japan). And trying to artificially inspire confidence to spur demand, whether it's through insanely expansive monetary policy, fiscal gimmicks like payroll tax holidays or rebates, or Keynesian stimulus, is, IMO, unbelievably reckless.

But I absolutely agree with you that the level of polarization and politicization of any and everything is frustrating and will keep us stuck in status quo gridlock until it is broken. That's why I support neither candidate or party unequivocally. Part of me (a very small part of me) would find some solace in a Romney win because then you'd see I am not the right leaning partisan you seem to think I am.

As for the Fox News' of the world who seem to embody all that you hate about our current state of political affairs, fuck 'em. They will manipulate and distort and do everything they can to denigrade the Democrats. Then again, aren't you the guy who posted an unfounded accusation of Romney cheating in the debate that you found on Facebook? :wink:

[mbw]

is anyone going to watch/order The Rumble 2012 tonight? 
http://www.therumble2012.com/index.html

i may just have to to watch o'reilly get whooped, which he of course will.

[ytowndan]

is anyone going to watch/order The Rumble 2012 tonight? 
http://www.therumble2012.com/index.html

i may just have to to watch o'reilly get whooped, which he of course will.

I'm seriously considering it. 

[runawayjimbo]

is anyone going to watch/order The Rumble 2012 tonight? 
http://www.therumble2012.com/index.html

i may just have to to watch o'reilly get whooped, which he of course will.

I didn't realize it was being broadcast. If I can get this goddamned baby to sleep before then I'll definitely check it out. Starts at 8 EST?

[sls.stormyrider]

will have to watch that

That goes for Romney as well; when he says "my plan will create 12M jobs" I shiver every time: first, there is simply no way anyone could ever possibly accurately forecast the level of job creation  and second, even if there were exactly 12M jobs created I don't believe a president gets credit for it, that's private industry's creation.

agreed. It sounds great for him to say "I know how to create jobs, my plan will creat 12  mill" - but I don't see how.

Romney says tax cuts - then he outlines his plan. Lower tax rates, reduce / eliminate deductions. He "promises" it will be revenue neutral. So called experts don't think that his plan is feasible, but I'll take it at face value for argument's sake.
OK - so, you want to reform the tax code. Great idea. It is too complicated and somewhat unfair.
But - and someone help me out here - if the changes are revenue neutral, how does that put more money in the economy to create jobs???

and, nobody mentioned capital gains tax. If someone can explain to me how Mitt (or someone like him, this isn't personal) can make millions of dollars on investments but get taxed at %15, but other people work their asses off and get taxed at higher rates, please let me know. And, I don't buy the explanation that investors should be rewarded for putting $ into businesses - they are rewarded when they get their return.

[runawayjimbo]

Romney says tax cuts - then he outlines his plan. Lower tax rates, reduce / eliminate deductions. He "promises" it will be revenue neutral. So called experts don't think that his plan is feasible, but I'll take it at face value for argument's sake.
OK - so, you want to reform the tax code. Great idea. It is too complicated and somewhat unfair.
But - and someone help me out here - if the changes are revenue neutral, how does that put more money in the economy to create jobs???

Faster growth. More disposable income in the hand of the private sector means greater contribution to economic output. Since taxes are a function of that, it's not unreasonable to conclude you can have higher revenues with lower rates. Now, I'm not suggesting Romney's plan would be such (I'm sure Romney's GDP growth assumptions are on the high end of the range), but it is certainly possible both in theory and in practice.

and, nobody mentioned capital gains tax. If someone can explain to me how Mitt (or someone like him, this isn't personal) can make millions of dollars on investments but get taxed at %15, but other people work their asses off and get taxed at higher rates, please let me know. And, I don't buy the explanation that investors should be rewarded for putting $ into businesses - they are rewarded when they get their return.

Now, lets make a distinction between the capital gains tax itself and the carried interest loophole that lets private equity guys like Romney only pay cap gains rates on their income. The latter is clearly unfair and should be closed (although something tells me this is not on Mitt's list of targeted loopholes). So on this, I'm with you: private equity is in the business of taking risk, so their income should be taxed at the ordinary rate which for most of them would be the top bracket.

But the cap gains tax itself is different. We want to encourage people to save and invest their money, right? Not just super wealthy dickbags like Romney but everyone should want to grow their savings in the best way possible for their given risk tolerance. Also, investing has the added bonus of providing capital to business who can then put money that to productive use by hiring workers or buying new equipment. But the problem with the tax on capital gains is it is double taxation. Because any money you've invested you've already earned and been taxed for. So the cap gains tax is, in effect, punishing you for investing your after-tax money wisely.

There are other effects like distorting the price of stocks (because you might hold when you should sell or sell when you should hold to offset any gains/losses at the end of the year). There's the issue that ordinary income is guaranteed and is taxed when earned while investments can be wiped out and may not be recognized until years after the cap gain was earned. And let's not forget it's not only stocks: if you sell a house that's not your primary residence for more than what you paid (not likely these days but once upon a time it happened) it is a capital gain (there are some other nuanced laws about cap gains and home sales that I'm not familiar with). So it's not just the investor class subject to this double taxation. And yes, the return on an investment is the compensation you get for taking that risk, but higher cap gains taxes along with riskier economic climates like the one we're living through absolutely could discourage total investment which would be a drag on overall growth.

So, while the carried interest loophole is one of the worst examples of cronyism in a tax code laden with special interest handouts, the cap gains tax in and of itself is not necessarily a good thing and I support it's elimination. YMMV

ETA: BTW, cap gains taxes (and I don't know if this includes the carried interest scam or not) generally only make less than 5% of total tax receipts. Like lower income tax rates, the elimination of this distorting tax could be more than offset by contributing to stronger growth and a more productive economy.