JFLNYC wrote:As of today there's not a single Senate race the Republican candidate leads and which is outside the margin of error. The Dems have 8.

Wait, what?

I mean, Dems would probably hold the Senate if the elections were today...but that's wayyyyy off.

Now you're just trolling.

jerseyhoya wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:As of today there's not a single Senate race the Republican candidate leads and which is outside the margin of error. The Dems have 8.

Wait, what?

I mean, Dems would probably hold the Senate if the elections were today...but that's wayyyyy off.

Check the RCP polls.

Note: I'm not talking about so-called "safe seats." Only those where there's an actual contest. The Dems aren't losing the Senate, even if Romney wins.

JFLNYC wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:As of today there's not a single Senate race the Republican candidate leads and which is outside the margin of error. The Dems have 8.

Wait, what?

I mean, Dems would probably hold the Senate if the elections were today...but that's wayyyyy off.

Check the RCP polls.

Democrats have 23 seats up for election this cycle, Republicans have 10.

Nine of the Democrats' seats are basically uncontested, while another eight are also pretty much safe leaving CT, MT, NE, ND, VA and WI as real potential GOP pickups. NE is almost certain to go Republican. I think MT, ND, VA and WI are all about 50/50 (and if the wind starts blowing in the right direction, they should move together). Linda McMahon is hanging in there against Murphy. It seems like it should be a long shot, but she's running a good race.

Five of the Republicans' seats are basically uncontested. Democrats are going to pick up ME (as long as Angus King caucuses with them). MA might be leaning toward Warren at this point. I think NV, IN and AZ are all better than even GOP holds.

Republicans need to pick up 3-4 seats to take back the Senate depending on whether Romney wins. With Missouri coming off the table as a potential pickup, and a couple GOP seats becoming more endangered, the Senate landscape has become more favorable to the Dems.

But I still have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

JFLNYC wrote:Note: I'm not talking about so-called "safe seats." Only those where there's an actual contest. The Dems aren't losing the Senate, even if Romney wins.

This makes marginally more sense but is still cherry picking and wrong

Debate notwithstanding, Romney is still an asshole who wants to take as much money from the middle class as he can to give to his rich friends. Nothing has changed. The millionaire in mom jeans is still the millionaire in mom jeans. The fact that he's a shapeshifting narcissist just shows you how impotent and weak he is. He doesn't have the courage of his own convictions, but says the middle class and poor are too weak and irresponsible to take care of themselves. Terrible human being.

Werthless wrote:

pacino wrote:cutting taxes also doesnt really do anything for the economy. if it did, then companies would currently be hiring people by the millions since they have the most cash on hand ever at the moment.

A lot of this cash was earned overseas, and since we make them pay taxes again to bring it back, they just sit on it. Brilliant, really, all around. They uphold their fiduciary duty, and Congress gets to grandstand about evil corporations. And we all suffer. If only the corporate tax code was different...

... it wouldn't really matter. More favorable corporate tax code, tax cuts for the "job creators", etc. won't result in more hiring, only larger cash capital reserves.

There's a reason supply side stuff like this doesn't (and can't) "trickle down"... it completely relies on companies violating core principles of business. Cardinal rules like "Thou shall not outproduce demand lest thou shalt go out of business".

Payroll is an expense all companies have. Since slavery isn't allowed anymore, you gotta pay your workers (gaddam government telling businesses what to do). For a company to continue to be in business, they have to find that balance of lowest human resource cost to product/service demand. If demand for their product or service doesn't increase, they ain't gonna expand their workforce and increase payroll expense. You don't waste money hiring more people to meet the same demand.

For the "trickle down" premise to work, companies would have to hire additional people before demand increases (ie, more people than they need), with the hope demand will increase and "catch up". Problem is, it would be foolish for Cogswell Cogs to hire more people and out-produce demand because it wastes money and capital (production cost, payroll cost, the cost of warehousing surplus, etc), not to mention how such a surplus would decrease the value of the product. Mr. Spacely would just laugh at Mr. Cogswell for committing corporate suicide. Joe the Plumber ain't gonna hire additional plumbers, journeymen, etc. if he can meet the existing demand for his services without doing so. It would be foolish to pay people to sit on their asses all day doing nothing.

So even if you have the extra money, if demand doesn't dictate expanding your workforce then you're just going to sit on that monies... hence record cash reserves. You won't even increase the research/development budget unless you get very favorable demand predictions for whatever they'd be developing. You'd just piggy bank that money instead of wasting it. Extra monies in cash reserves = more favorable fiscal reports = better stock valuation.

Monkeyboy wrote:Debate notwithstanding, Romney is still an asshole who wants to take as much money from the middle class as he can to give to his rich friends. Nothing has changed. The millionaire in mom jeans is still the millionaire in mom jeans. The fact that he's a shapeshifting narcissist just shows you how impotent and weak he is. He doesn't have the courage of his own convictions, but says the middle class and poor are too weak and irresponsible to take care of themselves. Terrible human being.

Remember how he had that chance to kill Hitler but he went out for ice cream instead? What a jerk.

+115k jobs, unemployment down to 7.8%. August revised up 50k.

due to optimism over Romney winning the debate

Jack Welch ‏@jack_welch
Unbelievable jobs numbers..these Chicago guys will do anything..can't debate so change numbers

:computer numbers:

Conn Carroll ‏@conncarroll
I don't think BLS cooked numbers. I think a bunch of Dems lied about getting jobs. That would have same effect.

jesus

JUburton wrote:+115k jobs, unemployment down to 7.8%. August revised up 50k.

We need around 100k jobs created per month to keep up with population growth. The drop in the unemployment rate is thus almost entirely attributed to people dropping out of the labor force. (I havent read any articles on it this month, but I assume that's what the analysts are saying)

http://www.economicpopulist.org/content ... ion-growth

Werthless wrote:

JUburton wrote:+115k jobs, unemployment down to 7.8%. August revised up 50k.

We need around 100k jobs created per month to keep up with population growth. The drop in the unemployment rate is thus almost entirely attributed to people dropping out of the labor force. (I havent read any articles on it this month, but I assume that's what the analysts are saying)

http://www.economicpopulist.org/content ... ion-growth

U6 stayed the same at 14.7 so I don't think that's the case this time.

And politics wise, it doesn't matter since the only thing people see is 7.8%.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

u-6 is down 1.7% since september 2011

JUburton wrote:

Werthless wrote:

JUburton wrote:+115k jobs, unemployment down to 7.8%. August revised up 50k.

We need around 100k jobs created per month to keep up with population growth. The drop in the unemployment rate is thus almost entirely attributed to people dropping out of the labor force. (I havent read any articles on it this month, but I assume that's what the analysts are saying)

http://www.economicpopulist.org/content ... ion-growth

U6 stayed the same at 14.7 so I don't think that's the case this time.

And politics wise, it doesn't matter since the only thing people see is 7.8%.

yeah seems that the biggest reason u1-u5 moved down but not u-6 is that only u-6 counts part-time people looking for full-time as unemployed

td11 wrote:Jack Welch ‏@jack_welch
Unbelievable jobs numbers..these Chicago guys will do anything..can't debate so change numbers

:computer numbers:

WaPo already ripping him for that nonsense.

In the wake of a jobs report showing unemployment below 8 percent for the first time in four years, former General Electric CEO Jack Welch accuses the White House of skewing the numbers to help President Obama win.

For the record, career professionals at the Bureau of Labor Statistics come up with the monthly jobs report in total secrecy, walled off from all political staff.

They would do it all with absolute discretion during an eight-day security lockdown, signing confidentiality agreements each morning, encrypting their computers and locking data into a safe every time they walked 10 yards away to use a bathroom. “Is your workstation secure?” asked a sign in the hallway.

Like News Corp. CEO Richard Murdoch, Welch wants Mitt Romney to win but has a habit of giving the Republican candidate unsolicited (and perhaps unwelcome) advice. This time, he’s not getting much support.

Former Bush administration spokesman Tony Fratto quickly weighed in:

Tony Fratto @TonyFratto BLS is not manipulating data. Evidence of such would be a scandal of enormous proportions & loss of credibility.
5 Oct 12 ReplyRetweetFavorite

Former Obama administration economic adviser Austan Goolsbee was more direct:

Austan Goolsbee @Austan_Goolsbee love ya jack but here you've lost your mind @jack_welch Unbelievable jobs #s. the Chicago guys will do anything..can't debate, change #s
5 Oct 12 ReplyRetweetFavorite

The more popular Republican line is that if so many people hadn’t given up on looking for work in the past four years, the unemployment rate would be higher.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/10/05/jack-welch-accuses-obama-of-cooking-jobs-numbers/?wprss=rss_election-2012

JUburton wrote:+115k jobs, unemployment down to 7.8%. August revised up 50k.

!!!!!!!!!!!!

Though 115k is uninspiring. But now the unemployment rate is down to near 1984 Reagan landslide reelection level (it was 7.7% on Election Day 1984).

republicans were really counting on a bad number. really threw a wrench into their campaigning plans