CNN projects House goes Dem

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Were they right? They have very sophisticated statistical models, and 1% is still a very large sample. Larger than any Gallup poll.

you're so Machiavellian

I don't recall if they were right or not. It's not a very responsible thing to do when polls are still open over the rest of the country. Also, that particular 1% showed the race tipped the opposite of how they were calling it.

I didn't say which race either, if it's a small region, how do you know if 1% is a huge sample or not? Particularly when sampling of the initial ballots are very regionally biased. 1% could be one small highly slanted district.

Frankly, I'd rather have closed results and all announcement made after the last ballots are finalized. If that's not reasonable, then fix the states that take forever so everyone doesn't have to wait.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

Quote

Were they right? They have very sophisticated statistical models, and 1% is still a very large sample. Larger than any Gallup poll.

you're so Machiavellian

I don't recall if they were right or not. It's not a very responsible thing to do when polls are still open over the rest of the country. Also, that particular 1% showed the race tipped the opposite of how they were calling it.

I think you underestimate their prediction protocols. Maybe you even misunderestimate. They have detailed records precinct by precinct, so even if the 1% (which even in a small district is comparable to Gallup's standard sample size) is "opposite", it enables them to see the trend in the district and project an outcome. Were they right?

And the 1st Amendment apparently allows them to do this without your interference

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Ah, there's my lil buddy, you haven't moved to Cuba yet?

Do you still need that tissue, then?

As for your answer...

Look at prices.... look at home ownership...look at jobs created...look at unemployment... THAT'S THE ECONOMY, STUPID!!

How the FUCK do you think that the gov't gets the money for your pet socialist programs?? Through the taxes on the people. If people have more money, they SPEND more money... creating new jobs and, coincidently, more revenue sources for the government.

1963: JFK proposed a tax cut before his death. Johnson and Congress implemented a tax cut across the board and a reduction of the top tax rate to 70%. In the following 3 years (before Johnson raised taxes again), economic growth averaged over 5 percent per year with very low inflation.

1983: Reagan tax cut of 25% for the lower rates and reduction of the top rate to 50%. Economic growth averaged 4 percent per year, inflation falls from double digits to 4%.

2003: Bush tax cuts, resulting in a federal tax receipt gain of 15.4% over 2004 receipts. Individual and corporate tax receipts gained 30% in the 2 years since the tax cuts.

Dow is up 23% since '03, Nasdaq is up 39%. Business capital investment (you know, that stuff that creates JOBS?) is up 22% since 2003.

Fuck me... you're RIGHT, Lucky... better that we tax all those people... they don't need the money!!!

BTW...what do you think the tax hike is gonna do to Granny and Granpa when it comes time to get their prescriptions or send in their copays?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Were they right? They have very sophisticated statistical models, and 1% is still a very large sample. Larger than any Gallup poll.

you're so Machiavellian

I don't recall if they were right or not. It's not a very responsible thing to do when polls are still open over the rest of the country. Also, that particular 1% showed the race tipped the opposite of how they were calling it.

I think you underestimate their prediction protocols. Maybe you even misunderestimate. They have detailed records precinct by precinct, so even if the 1% (which even in a small district is comparable to Gallup's standard sample size) is "opposite", it enables them to see the trend in the district and project an outcome. Were they right?

And the 1st Amendment apparently allows them to do this without your interference

Have their methods and protocols really improved since 2000? You know, when Gore was declared the winner of Florida, while the polls were still open, and then later Bush was declared the winner? How have their methods changed?

[Nightingale 0]

Lucky, increasing minimum wage doesn't work. If it did, I'd be all for it, but I don't see the point of supporting programs that don't work. Better to devote the time and energy into finding something that would actually help.

This is a plan that a friend and I came up with when we were philosophically solving all the world's problems over beer:

Open government stores (or, ideally, stores run by charities) that sell staples at very cheap prices. Just the basics: healthy food, cheap clothes. Sell them at, or even slightly below cost. Instead of just sending people money, if they qualify for assistance, give them a difficult to forge photo ID debit card that only works at stores like this. Put a low amount of money (say $150 per family member) on the card each month. Set an amount of income that's considered "poverty" and use things like those cards and housing vouchers that corporations that run residential apartments must accept as regular currency to help (private landlords, such as people who rent out a room could be eligible to accept these, but they'd have to apply for permission. This is to both prevent slumlords and prevent someone from being required to accept vouchers if they're renting out a room or have a few small rental properties) Landlords are then reimbursed by the government for the face value of the voucher.

For every $100 people make over the set income, they lose $25 in benefits. That way, they're encouraged to work, because they'll still have more money than if they didn't.

Right now, people stay on welfare partially because they have more money than if they went to work. With a system like the above, you end up with a balance. The government helps out with essentials like food, clothing, and shelter only. That way, people have food to eat, clothes to wear, and a roof. Necessities only. Then, when they get a job, they end up with more money to spend than what the government was giving them, which is an incentive to find and keep a job.

This system bypasses the issues involved with minimum wage, because it doesn't cost employers more. It also bypasses the issues with the welfare system of people spending welfare dollars in ways they're not meant to, and encourages people to work because while benefits decrease, they decrease by a value significantly less than the increased income.

I'm sure there'd be some issues with a system like this, but it seems like there would be fewer issues than with our current system.

[rehmwa 2]

I know I don't say stuff like this but:

N'Gale for President '08

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[lummy 4]

Quote

Open government stores (or, ideally, stores run by charities) that sell staples at very cheap prices. Just the basics: healthy food, cheap clothes. Sell them at, or even slightly below cost. Instead of just sending people money, if they qualify for assistance, give them a difficult to forge photo ID debit card that only works at stores like this. Put a low amount of money (say $150 per family member) on the card each month. Set an amount of income that's considered "poverty" and use things like those cards and housing vouchers that corporations that run residential apartments must accept as regular currency to help (private landlords, such as people who rent out a room could be eligible to accept these, but they'd have to apply for permission. This is to both prevent slumlords and prevent someone from being required to accept vouchers if they're renting out a room or have a few small rental properties) Landlords are then reimbursed by the government for the face value of the voucher.

For every $100 people make over the set income, they lose $25 in benefits. That way, they're encouraged to work, because they'll still have more money than if they didn't.

How would this be different than WIC, food stamps and section 8 housing?

I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

The goal of #2 is to specifically enable #1

Yes, but not always. You can run more efficient and reduce the cost it takes to run. An example for the average joe would be to buy in bulk. My company did this; We now order all office supplies in the entire company from one source. Now we get much bigger discounts on the products we need.

Also, by combing job duties, you can increase workload with out hiring. So efficiency is not *always* linked to reduced head count. But I understand your point 100% and agree that reducing employee cost is almost always the reason for a desire of running efficiently.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Open government stores (or, ideally, stores run by charities) that sell staples at very cheap prices.

My plan was close to the same...You have to make it uncomfortable to do nothing. Take all the cash out of the system. Government money should not go to cars, play stations or new kicks. Food/Clothing/Shelter only.

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

How would this be different than WIC, food stamps and section 8 housing?

Because food stamps and WIC are accepted at regular grocery stores, and cash is given as change. I read about a guy who would take $1 food stamps to a store, buy five cent bazooka gum, and take the 95 cents change. He'd do this twenty times over, take the change and buy a bottle of whiskey. My plan eliminates this by using debit cards, and would also eliminate people buying non-essentials with food stamps, and it would also enable people to purchase clothing.



Section 8 housing isn't accepted everywhere. My plan would require any corporation owned apartment building to accept vouchers for part of the rent. Section 8 also costs landlords money by putting caps on the rent.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

For every $100 people make over the set income, they lose $25 in benefits. That way, they're encouraged to work, because they'll still have more money than if they didn't.

How would this be different than WIC, food stamps and section 8 housing?

I think that last paragraph is the kicker. It's a sliding scale for benefits. I may be wrong, but I thought the review process for welfare benefits were fairly far apart, which means if your income rose enough to disqualify you for benefits, there was a significant wait until you could re-enroll.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

SHOW ME THE RESULTS OF SUPPLY SIDE ECONOMICS

1. More people own homes than ever before. We have talked about this, but you "didn't accept that as anything". Even though most of the economic world does.

http://www.danter.com/STATISTICS/homeown.htm

2. The stock market is doing well.

http://money.cnn.com/2006/10/19/markets/markets_0530/index.htm

3. Unemployment is at a low.

http://money.cnn.com/2006/11/03/news/economy/jobs_october/index.htm

Three very good indicators that the economy was on an uptick. (notice I used CNN as the major sources?)

It is going to be fun to watch the Dems not do any better, and listen to your lame excuses why.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

The stock market is doing well.

Oddly enough, the markets are all down, this morning... I just CAN'T imagine why, what with the new, golden era that Pelosico is going to be leading us into...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Were they right? They have very sophisticated statistical models, and 1% is still a very large sample. Larger than any Gallup poll.

you're so Machiavellian

I don't recall if they were right or not. It's not a very responsible thing to do when polls are still open over the rest of the country. Also, that particular 1% showed the race tipped the opposite of how they were calling it.

I think you underestimate their prediction protocols. Maybe you even misunderestimate. They have detailed records precinct by precinct, so even if the 1% (which even in a small district is comparable to Gallup's standard sample size) is "opposite", it enables them to see the trend in the district and project an outcome. Were they right?

And the 1st Amendment apparently allows them to do this without your interference

Have their methods and protocols really improved since 2000? You know, when Gore was declared the winner of Florida, while the polls were still open, and then later Bush was declared the winner? How have their methods changed?

Well, I still doubt they can predict outright thievery.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Because food stamps and WIC are accepted at regular grocery stores, and cash is given as change

Yep, hand out debit cards.

Quote

Section 8 housing isn't accepted everywhere. My plan would require any corporation owned apartment building to accept vouchers for part of the rent. Section 8 also costs landlords money by putting caps on the rent.

I am OK with government housing. It should be like the soldiers have...One room apartments with shared bathrooms, simple furnature. Make it uncomfortable, not cruel, but not nice.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Were they right? They have very sophisticated statistical models, and 1% is still a very large sample. Larger than any Gallup poll.

you're so Machiavellian

I don't recall if they were right or not. It's not a very responsible thing to do when polls are still open over the rest of the country. Also, that particular 1% showed the race tipped the opposite of how they were calling it.

I think you underestimate their prediction protocols. Maybe you even misunderestimate. They have detailed records precinct by precinct, so even if the 1% (which even in a small district is comparable to Gallup's standard sample size) is "opposite", it enables them to see the trend in the district and project an outcome. Were they right?

And the 1st Amendment apparently allows them to do this without your interference

Have their methods and protocols really improved since 2000? You know, when Gore was declared the winner of Florida, while the polls were still open, and then later Bush was declared the winner? How have their methods changed?

Well, I still doubt they can predict outright thievery.

Evidently not for lack of trying...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Oddly enough, the markets are all down, this morning......

lock in your mortgage rates, it's going to get a little bumpy

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[TheAnvil 0]

Both you and Lucky should do a bit of homework on the national debt and how it works. Might I suggest CBO's website?

The reason we have record debt is out of control discretionary spending coupled with unsustainable mandatory spending. Tax cuts do not cause debt. Spending more than you have causes debt.

Tax revenues rise and fall based upon the economy, which can be tweaked by adjusting the taxes on those who pay them - among other things. Taxes were cut, the economy recovered, and now we have record tax revenues. Those who state 'Bush's tax cuts caused the deficit' have no credibility.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Oddly enough, the markets are all down, this morning... I just CAN'T imagine why, what with the new, golden era that Pelosico is going to be leading us into...

Pretty normal, and some things are up. It will take a few years to really know the impact of the move, not one day. However, I feel the repubs focus on business was good. But now it is time to see if those that trashed it all these years do better. (I just wish they didn't have to bet with MY money)

[lummy 4]

Quote

Yep, hand out debit cards.

that was going to be my suggestion as well. I think the overhead of maintaining goverment run stores would make the plan cost prohibitive. I do like the idea of issuing debit cards instead of the funny money food stamps to avoid having them converted to cash.
I seem to recall that you would only get change back tho. If it was over $1 you would receive $1 back in food stamps. Then again, I remeber when I was a kid that there were food stamp coins too.

I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

Spending more than you have causes debt.

Ohhh - you are SO perceptive. So if you spend more you need more revenue? I never would have thought of that.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Ohhh - you are SO perceptive. So if you spend more you need more revenue? I never would have thought of that.

So like a union, you demand more money...Worked great for Delta!

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Spending more than you have causes debt.

Ohhh - you are SO perceptive. So if you spend more you need more revenue? I never would have thought of that.

But you also haven't thought that "more revenue" isn't necessarily served by more taxes. Some economic theories show the opposite effect. More taxes is a VERY short term effect. Again, good intentions, but the exact wrong thing to do.

The better solution is "less spending". That's directly controllable, revenue generation has too many secondary inputs and outputs that loop back.

You guys always (purposely) neglect to ever show the other side of the coin.



Of course - expecting politician to spend less (i.e., stop buying votes from the populace) is even goofier.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Spending more than you have causes debt.

Ohhh - you are SO perceptive. So if you spend more you need more revenue? I never would have thought of that.

But you also haven't thought that "more revenue" isn't necessarily served by more taxes. Some economic theories show the opposite effect. More taxes is a VERY short term effect. Again, good intentions, but the exact wrong thing to do.

The better solution is "less spending". That's directly controllable, revenue generation has too many secondary inputs and outputs that loop back.

You guys always (purposely) neglect to ever show the other side of the coin.



Of course - expecting politician to spend less (i.e., stop buying votes from the populace) is even goofier.

Well, as the right tells us endlessly, a lot of spending is NOT discretionary.

And as far as taxes go, the famous Laffer Curve has two ends. Reaganomics only acknowleged one of them, leading to the huge deficits of the Reagan and Bush presidencies.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I think you underestimate their prediction protocols. Maybe you even misunderestimate. They have detailed records precinct by precinct, so even if the 1% (which even in a small district is comparable to Gallup's standard sample size) is "opposite", it enables them to see the trend in the district and project an outcome. Were they right?

And the 1st Amendment apparently allows them to do this without your interference

Have their methods and protocols really improved since 2000? You know, when Gore was declared the winner of Florida, while the polls were still open, and then later Bush was declared the winner? How have their methods changed?

Well, I still doubt they can predict outright thievery.

You know. It's funny. I've noticed you calling people out for not honestly reponding to other's posts. It's funny because you seem to commit the same sin on a regular basis.

Is this hypocrisy? Who is to judge?

• Quote