Romney election surprise, who wants to see that and why?

@Hypocrisy_Central: “Are you hoping for a Romney win and why would you personally wants to see that?”

No. I don’t make that kind of money. Also, I’m not a sociopath.

If your’e super rich, you’d want to see it, because Romney will make you a lot richers. He’ll also make people a lot poorer, so they’ll be willing to work for less, thus making the rich even richer. Also, Romney will destroy health care coverage for folks, meaning that they will be poorer and sicker and die sooner, or be more disabled, thus leaving more jobs open for others. Although, oddly, he wants to cut education and immigration, which means that no one will be qualified to do the jobs that are available, so more businesses will move overseas. Where the rich people will make even more.

Somehow, Romney has convinced a lot of people that what’s good for the wealthy is good for the poor people, too. I don’t know how. Maybe they believe his lies. Maybe they aren’t to quick on the uptake. Maybe it’s ideological. Maybe it’s the size of his smile or the cut of his toupee.

Personally, I think it would be utterly delicious if Romney won the popular vote but lost the Electoral vote.

So I kind of have my fingers crossed for that.

I’ve been looking at jobs in Canada for the past few weeks.

Just in case Romney wins.

lol

Considering Obuma increased the national debt 60% in his fist two years, I don’t see how it could be any worse than it is now.

@DrBill Actually in his first two years Obama raised the debt a bit under 2 trillion dollars, which would’ve been about 1/7th of the total debt at the time (roughly 14 trillion), or about 14%.

And it could be a lot worse if you are like Romney, and you haven’t proposed cutting any one of the expenditures that Obama used to add to our debt, but have in fact proposed adding additional expenditures and revenue cuts to the budget.

But we’ve already established you aren’t so solid at math, so oh well.

@tedd
I have not proposed anything. The debt at the end of his second year was $16 trillion, a full 60%, and you have proven the only way you can find fault is by changing the conditions and publishing lies. So if you cannot answer the question without making personal attacks, try not commenting. My math is a lot more accurate than yours.

@DrBill
At the end of his second year, the debt was 14 trillion, not 16.
See here: http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm

You are the one lying, and you still have not apologised for the lies on your recent poll.

I’d be better off financially with Romney but that’s in no way worth four years of social, political, international, and environmental backsliding. The only “Romney surprise” I want is seeing him defeated in a D (or Green) landslide and a windfall of seats for D’s in congress, and maybe Big Bird flipping him off.

@ragingloli

I noticed you picked an unreliable source known to follow party lines rather than follow true numbers.

I have not lied and again you have taken the path of a loser by calling names rather than dealing with the truth.

it is true I have not apologized for truthfully pointing out your errors. It is pathitic you have to call names to hide your lack of facts.

@DrBill
Unreliable source?
Oh, would you rather have your trusty fascist Fox News set you straight instead?
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2010/10/11/debt-national-security-issue/
Says right there 13.9 (or roughly 14) trillion.
Stop screwing around.

@ragingloli

So you quote a source that YOU said is unreliable? And you wonder why your facts, are not facts.

It shows that even a far right source that is completely opposed to Obama shows that you are unequivocally wrong.

@ragingloli

That is only your opinion, I would rather have my eyes open.

A source is reliable or it is not, but you would rather quote them or question them depending on what you want them to say.

14 trillion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget
13.5 trillion: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_debt_chart.html
13.5 trillion: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
13.5 trillion: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0470.pdf
And from the most unbiased news source in the world:
14 trillion: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-13906274

Obama hasn’t added to the debt as much as G.W. had he?

This is like being in jr. high. One of the teachers on Fluther should really make this a math word problem for their students.

Obama assumed office January 20, 2009.
A: On Jan 20/2009 the debt was 10,626,877,048,913.08
B: On Jan 20/2011 the debt was 14,056,313,474,932.58

A * % = B, % = B/A; % = 1.3227 (rounded)

So, that’s an increase of 32.27% in his first 2 years.

Treasury Direct is the source, if you don’t like my dates feel free to plug in any you care to. Disagree with their accounting? take it up with them; but I don’t see where you’re going to find more “reliable” data.

The debt wasn’t >16T until 8/31/2012.

W. was @ 5,727,776,738,304.64 on 1/19/2001 and 10,626,877,048,913.08 on Jan 20/2009.
It’s 16,197,815,714,310.70 as of 10/26/2012.

W. watched the debt increase by 85.5% during his 8 years.
Obama’s seen the debt go up by 52.4% over his roughly 3 and ¾’s.
Same Treasury direct source.

I would like to see it just to see how it pisses my sister-in law off.

I am really not thrilled about either ‘viable’ candidate.

@wonderingwhy The only catch to your numbers I would note is that they don’t seem to take into account the debt added under Bush’s watch in the closing months of his presidency. During the immediate economic crisis about 1.1 trillion dollars were added to the debt, putting the total around 11 trillion total. That 1.1 went on Obama’s first deficit, since the incoming president shares one budget year with the outgoing president (as budget years end in October).

But past that, thank you for pointing out the exact math for the good @DrBill . He seems to be pretty lacking in that department of late.

Actually I don’t see a Romney win as any surprise. I put the line at Romney by 6 points in the popular vote. Independents and women are moving to the Romney category at a reasonable rate. By election day we should be seeing the last of Obama and his $6 trillion debt. I love the way you all want to start counting from 2010 to avoid the stimulus, cash for clunkers, auto bailouts, etc. Hell pretend they didn’t happen or pretend it was Bush. Why not Obama blames all his failures on Bush. Anyway, it will be nice to have someone take responsibility for their own actions for a change. Now that change I can believe in.

@Jaxk You must not have read the entire thread. We were starting at 2010 because @DrBill was attempting to say that Obama got the debt up to 16 trillion by the end of his second years (Jan-2010). And it’s Obama’s 5 trillion as we’ve pointed out several times. In fact after inheriting 1.1 trillion from Bush on their shared budget year, even after adding the Stimulus, Cash for Clunkers (which was part of the stimulus numb nuts), and the auto bail outs.. Obama still only got the annual deficit up to about 1.4 trillion.

Also, I’m not sure what numbers you are watching. Obama is about a 3 to 1 favorite to win the election. 538 ran numbers from all elections with enough polling data, and found that no candidate has ever lost a state where they averaged a 2 point or more lead with 10 days to go (30 something samples found). Obama has a 2 point or more lead in Nevada, Iowa, Wisconsin, and most importantly Ohio, which will put him over 270 handily… with Colorado, Virginia, and New Hampshire still on the line as toss ups. And the largest popular vote spread I’ve seen in recent days was about 2 points in either direction.

And lastly, it’s pretty easy to blame Bush for the current economic crisis since he got us into it. I mean if I blame one guy for making it rain, just because the next guys umbrella hasn’t covered my entire body doesn’t mean I suddenly blame him for the rain.

Deficits aside, why a Romney Presidency? What specific will we _gain as oppose to what we will lose?_