@heckofajobbrownie said:

So you're saying being so poor you're on food stamps and you don't own a car and you have credit agencies coming after you is ...cushy? Good times? I don't know, Cysko. Sounds pretty bleak to me.

The job losses from this recession have overwhelmingly hit lower and middle income people, especially those without college educations. Take a look at this table from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The unemployment rate for people without a high school diploma is 12.0. If you graduated high school, it's 8.8.

If you graduated college it's 4.1%. Essentially, there's no recession for people who went to college. Those are Americans on the higher ends of the income scale. And this is part of a structural shift in our economy. Basically, if you don't have marketable skills, we can automate your job and eliminate it, or find someone overseas to do it cheaper and ship the end product here on a boat.

That's what the government has to figure out: what do we do with all of these Americans that are no longer needed in the economy? It's a big question with a very complicated answer.

I'm not saying its cushy but if you go to cmha nobody's trying real hard to change their situations. If you're poor enough that you're apathetic about life and you're eating the gov't cheese what do you care about job losses? They're not working there anyway...and they're Obama voters one and all.

The job losses from this recession have overwhelmingly hit lower and middle income people, especially those without college educations. Take a look at this table from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The unemployment rate for people without a high school diploma is 12.0. If you graduated high school, it's 8.8.

If you graduated college it's 4.1%. Essentially, there's no recession for people who went to college. Those are Americans on the higher ends of the income scale. And this is part of a structural shift in our economy. Basically, if you don't have marketable skills, we can automate your job and eliminate it, or find someone overseas to do it cheaper and ship the end product here on a boat.

That's what the government has to figure out: what do we do with all of these Americans that are no longer needed in the economy? It's a big question with a very complicated answer.

@heckofajobbrownie said:

I don't get how you keep saying that the bad economy doesn't affect his core supporters while saying that most of the people who vote for him are lower income and middle class people. These are the people most affected by the bad economy.

Maybe, just maybe, they've come to a few of these conclusions that you never seem to be able to take into account:

1) Obama is not solely at fault, or even mostly at fault, for our current economic situation.

2) Obama, more than Romney, understands and represents my interests

3) The economy is not the only issue we vote on.

I disagree that lower income people are most affected by the bad economy. If you're already taking the bus what do you care about the price of gas? If youre getting food stamps what do you care what milk costs? If the bill collectors are already coming after you what's a few more?

Maybe, just maybe, they've come to a few of these conclusions that you never seem to be able to take into account:

1) Obama is not solely at fault, or even mostly at fault, for our current economic situation.

2) Obama, more than Romney, understands and represents my interests

3) The economy is not the only issue we vote on.

@we-need-tom-tupa said:

Barring an unforeseen shock to the economy or an unpredictable war, Obama is going to win in November. Might suit Romney voters better to return to arguing about legislation. Republicans will control the House and have somewhere around 50 votes in the Senate. That's plenty of power to swing around. What's the plan?

First of all war would probably help the incumbent.

Second the bad economy doesn't really affect his core so that's not a problem either.

But let's say there are gains in the Senate.

I Don't see that as a given since if he wins he'll draw more Democrat voters.

So if you are a Republican you want to hold fire until the midterms.

If the country bounces back on some sort of bubble, great.

Personally I have no guess what that may be.

But most likely things will continue to flounder and there should be a big gains in the House and Senate then.

I do get the sense that most of the punish the rich garbage is just that.

I would imagine that among his advisors are people smart enough to know it's just campaign rhetoric and wouldn't work in practice. So I don't really worry about that too much.

But I see and economic cliff on the horizon, just not positive as to how steep.

And as far as the cliff goes I'm disappointed that neither side is going to have a big enough majority to do anything about that anytime soon.

WSS

@heckofajobbrownie said:

So after 4 years of Axelrod speeches and the Dem convention that's the phrase that bothers you?

That's David Axelrod's job! Same with people who speak at conventions. You're neither, so why are you going full Hannity?

"the Democrats main position is f*** the rich!"

You fucking hack. Hahaha.

Shucks, I'm blushing.

Just a hobby old pal.

Real hacks, like Obama, Axelrod and uh, well anyway they get paid for it.

WSS

But he feels better about it when he calls other people the same thing.

That's his m.o. since at least the Shep Obamao worship days.

Scotch?

@heckofajobbrownie said:

How about drastically simplifying the tax code without using it as a pretext to fulfill a Randian fantasy? I'd be for that.

We'll work it out between the two of us, Tupe. I'll trade you a carbon tax for reduced corporate rates. Starting offer.

I'm not from coal country, so unfortunately I dont have the keys to a carbon tax. How about carried interest tax and means-testing of Medicare and SS for people making over $200k? In exchange, I'll take lower corporate tax rates. I'll also trade you a cap on the mortgage interest deduction for lower marginal rates as far across the board as we can afford to extend them with the extra money.

@diehardbrownsfan said:

I don't know about that.

Nick Silver gives Obama a greater than 90% chance of winning if the election was held today. Intrade is the betting market with the lowest odds for Obama, and it has him near 70%. What's going to change things drastically between now and November, Romney's vague references to better government?

@we-need-tom-tupa said:

Barring an unforeseen shock to the economy or an unpredictable war, Obama is going to win in November. Might suit Romney voters better to return to arguing about legislation. Republicans will control the House and have somewhere around 50 votes in the Senate. That's plenty of power to swing around. What's the plan?

I don't know about that.

We'll work it out between the two of us, Tupe. I'll trade you a carbon tax for reduced corporate rates. Starting offer.

That's David Axelrod's job! Same with people who speak at conventions. You're neither, so why are you going full Hannity?

"the Democrats main position is f*** the rich!"

You fucking hack. Hahaha.

Plus some Fox News catch phrases like "class warfare" and "48 months of failure."

These aren't posts that get me excited to agree with you. It's your typical right wing cant, which you've increasingly fallen prey to in the last year or so.

PS - The majority of Romney's votes are also going to come from middle and lower income people, too. Because that's what most of the country is.

@mld-woody said:

That's Retarded Steve

Well that's about as salient is anything you've had to say woody.

Do you have any ideas or thoughts beyond that?

Now that the Democrats main position is f*** the rich nobody, not even the left, thinks that will change much in the economy.

WSS

@westside-steve said:

And, unfortunately for the country, They worsening job situation and economy probably won't hurt Obama that badly. His voters are by and large on the lower end of the scale and don't expect much improvement anyway.

It's kind of like our Browns.

Having a s***** season? The teams going nowhere, no playoffs no Superbowl no nothing.

so what brings us joy?

Watching the Steelers lose.

You have a crappy job if you have one at all so you just live for seeing the rich man taken down a peg or 2.

WSS

That's Retarded Steve

@calfoxwc said:

no, the folks who buy the tickets add to the revenue of schools' sports.

And if the product on the field sucks, I'm not buying.

sorry. I shouldn't laugh at Heckbunker, who probly' needs a walker to get around, only because

Steve has kicked his rear so many times......

@heckofajobbrownie said:

I was referring to your "48 months of failure." Hannity couldn't have said it better. If you're going to keep this up it's probably not worth doing.

So after 4 years of Axelrod speeches and the Dem convention that's the phrase that bothers you?

As for the income breakdown, I suspect he'll trounce Romney among people who make under $50,000, he'll be about even with middle income voters, and lose by a 2-4 point margin with voters over $200,000.

In other words," yes, Steve, you are correct."

You should try that more often.

WSS

What the hell are you smoking heckofahandjob? The only people who will vote for Obama are those who are milking the system for all of the welfare dollars, union workers and diehard commies. People who want a JOB will vote for Romney.

Heckof=a-handjob. you have to be smoking crack to make some of the claims you state.

As for the income breakdown, I suspect he'll trounce Romney among people who make under $50,000, he'll be about even with middle income voters, and lose by a 2-4 point margin with voters over $200,000.

@heckofajobbrownie said:

Here's you: "His voters are by and large on the lower end of the scale."

Here's me: "So to suggest that ... "by and large" they're from the lower end of the income scale..."

So what's the problem? That's me capturing exactly what you said.

Congrats on turning into a talking point machine, though.

Sorry mister " obama's going to win!"

So you say that Obama is equally popular among all voting blocks this time around?

WSS