OT election

On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:26:40 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 10/29/2012 02:09 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On 29 Oct 2012 13:27:49 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> I am not voting for Obama, but this is just absurd. The Dow didn't
>>>> magically fall because of Obama. He inherited a mess ... and that
>>>> mess wasn't all Bush's fault. The truth is that there has been a lack
>>>> of fiscal stewardship in the US going all the way back to FDR. Until
>>>> and unless the American people quit demanding stuff they are unwilling
>>>> to pay for, nothing will change. There is no difference between
>>>> welfare for the poor, the middle class, or the rich - it's all an
>>>> economically impossible financial hustle.
>>
>> I'm wit you, Tim. Obama created much of that mess with Fannie Mae so
>> he reaped what he sowed. (Google "democratic black caucus" and
>> "fannie mae" and "obama" or something thereabouts for more info.)
>>
>>
>
>This simply isn't true. The Fannie/Freddie debacle starts all the
>way back with Carter (and the ideological underpinning go back
>to LBJ and FDR) when the left decided that home ownership was
>a "right". As much as I disagree with President Obama on all manner
>of issues, blaming him for the mortgage meltdown is simply
>false.

I blame him directly for to the extent that he and the DBC increased
the prevalence of Fannie and for the sheer number of bad loans (even
without the meltdown) out there. Fannie/Acorn/Obama: what a trio.

--
No greater wrong can ever be done than to put a good man at the mercy
of a bad, while telling him not to defend himself or his fellows;
in no way can the success of evil be made quicker or surer.
--Theodore Roosevelt

On 10/29/2012 02:09 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> On 29 Oct 2012 13:27:49 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> I am not voting for Obama, but this is just absurd. The Dow didn't
>>> magically fall because of Obama. He inherited a mess ... and that
>>> mess wasn't all Bush's fault. The truth is that there has been a lack
>>> of fiscal stewardship in the US going all the way back to FDR. Until
>>> and unless the American people quit demanding stuff they are unwilling
>>> to pay for, nothing will change. There is no difference between
>>> welfare for the poor, the middle class, or the rich - it's all an
>>> economically impossible financial hustle.
>
> I'm wit you, Tim. Obama created much of that mess with Fannie Mae so
> he reaped what he sowed. (Google "democratic black caucus" and
> "fannie mae" and "obama" or something thereabouts for more info.)
>
>

This simply isn't true. The Fannie/Freddie debacle starts all the
way back with Carter (and the ideological underpinning go back
to LBJ and FDR) when the left decided that home ownership was
a "right". As much as I disagree with President Obama on all manner
of issues, blaming him for the mortgage meltdown is simply
false.


--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk

On 10/26/2012 5:56 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:

> Romney isn't electable . . .

Oh? Gallup poll has Romney leading Obama 51% to 46% among likely voters.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/election.aspx


Romney holds 47 percent support from likely voters to Obama at 45 in the
latest AP-GfK poll ...
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/263971-poll-romney-leads-obama-nationally-tied-among-female-voters


The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows
Mitt Romney attracting support from 50% of voters nationwide, while
President Obama earns the vote from 47%. ...

The Rasmussen Reports Electoral College projections show the president
with 237 Electoral Votes and Romney 235. The magic number needed to win
the White House is 270. Seven states with 66 Electoral College votes
remain Toss-ups: Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio,
Virginia, and Wisconsin.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

On 10/26/2012 2:09 PM, Jim Weisgram wrote:
> [...snip...]
>> That said, current polls are interesting:
>> Rasmussen: R 50, O 47
>> Gallup: R 50, O 47
>> ABC/Wash Post: R 50, O 47
>> AP: R 47, O45
>> Monmouth: R 48, O 45
>> Politico: R 49, O 47
>>
> [...snip...]
>
> You're looking at the wrong type of poll. The electoral college is
> what matters. In that, Obama still is narrowly ahead by most counts.
>
> Of course, in 2004 it seemed on election day that Kerry had the
> electoral lead according to polls but in the end Bush won almost all
> the close states. Bush had great on the ground organizations in the
> states that mattered and a nice (for him) wedge issue that brought
> voters out.
>
> This year the story is that Obama has far better on the ground
> organizations in the states that matter.
>

Translation: The Chicago Mob and Soros' minions will - if they haven't
already - make sure that the ballot boxes are stuffed heavily in
Odumbo's favor.

On 10/29/2012 07:11 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>> On 10/29/2012 9:18 AM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>> On 10/25/2012 05:01 PM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>>> Any bets on how far the DOW will fall if obama gets reelected?\
>>
>> The upcoming hurricane may have more potential to affect it. What
>> more convenient hedge against inflation is there than stocks?
>
> Large caches of guns, gasoline, bacon and it wouldn't hurt to have some gold
> on hand...
>
>
>> That's
>> the best explanation I have for the lofty-levels they currently
>> maintain. I don't see an Obama-win reducing demand for stocks in the
>> short term.
>
> It won't change the demand, but it could likely have an impact on the growth
> of those stocks. Not much of a hedge if they don't grow.
>

The prospect of increased tax rates on capital gains because of the
"fiscal cliff" may prompt investors to dump stocks before the end of the
year at the currently lower tax rates.


--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

On 10/29/2012 03:06 PM, Bob F wrote:
> Keith Nuttle wrote:
>> Any bets on how far the DOW will fall if obama gets reelected?
>>
>> Based on the recent market reactions when he has gotten favorable
>> reviews, my guess is that at a minimum it will go down a 1000 points.
>>
>> When he entered the Whitehorse 25% of the capital in the US was wiped
>> out when the market fell from about 8500 to 6500 in three months. The
>> third president where the market fell in the last 150 years.
>>
> Idiot. The market fell because of the Bush recession starting in 2007. It has
> been recovering ever since. Obama has been great for the market, as Democrats
> usually are.
>
>
>
2007 is when the Dems took over the House and Senate and exploded the
deficit. Now, in the Senate which they control, they haven't passed a
budget for over three years. However, they did vote down Obama's budget
proposal with every Democrat voting against it.


--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

On 10/29/2012 04:08 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 15:23:02 -0700, Doug Winterburn wrote:
>
>>> Idiot. The market fell because of the Bush recession starting in 2007.
>>> It has been recovering ever since. Obama has been great for the market,
>>> as Democrats usually are.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> 2007 is when the Dems took over the House and Senate and exploded the
>> deficit. Now, in the Senate which they control, they haven't passed a
>> budget for over three years. However, they did vote down Obama's budget
>> proposal with every Democrat voting against it.
>
> And your comment has *what* bearing on a discussion about the gyrations
> of the stock market?
>
Sorry, you're correct - things like huge deficits, monster debt, US
downgrades in it's ability to borrow, etc have no bearing on stock
market gyrations.


--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

On 10/30/2012 11:50 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
> On 10/30/2012 12:26 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>> On 10/29/2012 02:09 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>> On 29 Oct 2012 13:27:49 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> I am not voting for Obama, but this is just absurd. The Dow didn't
>>>>> magically fall because of Obama. He inherited a mess ... and that
>>>>> mess wasn't all Bush's fault. The truth is that there has been a lack
>>>>> of fiscal stewardship in the US going all the way back to FDR. Until
>>>>> and unless the American people quit demanding stuff they are unwilling
>>>>> to pay for, nothing will change. There is no difference between
>>>>> welfare for the poor, the middle class, or the rich - it's all an
>>>>> economically impossible financial hustle.
>>>
>>> I'm wit you, Tim. Obama created much of that mess with Fannie Mae so
>>> he reaped what he sowed. (Google "democratic black caucus" and
>>> "fannie mae" and "obama" or something thereabouts for more info.)
>>>
>>>
>>
>> This simply isn't true. The Fannie/Freddie debacle starts all the
>> way back with Carter (and the ideological underpinning go back
>> to LBJ and FDR) when the left decided that home ownership was
>> a "right". As much as I disagree with President Obama on all manner
>> of issues, blaming him for the mortgage meltdown is simply
>> false.
>>
>>
> For years the social democrats ignored the problems with the home loans that they pushed on financial institution. There were dozens of warning from all points in the three years leading up to September 28, 2008.
>
> If those warnings had been listened to, and if pelosi had not completely reneged on those loans, the current problems would have been significantly less server.
>
> In essence on September 28, 2008, pelosi and the social democrats told the economy that those loans were worthless and the economy responded accordingly.

All true but *not President Obama's fault*.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk

On 10/30/2012 12:09 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:26:40 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 10/29/2012 02:09 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>> On 29 Oct 2012 13:27:49 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> I am not voting for Obama, but this is just absurd. The Dow didn't
>>>>> magically fall because of Obama. He inherited a mess ... and that
>>>>> mess wasn't all Bush's fault. The truth is that there has been a lack
>>>>> of fiscal stewardship in the US going all the way back to FDR. Until
>>>>> and unless the American people quit demanding stuff they are unwilling
>>>>> to pay for, nothing will change. There is no difference between
>>>>> welfare for the poor, the middle class, or the rich - it's all an
>>>>> economically impossible financial hustle.
>>>
>>> I'm wit you, Tim. Obama created much of that mess with Fannie Mae so
>>> he reaped what he sowed. (Google "democratic black caucus" and
>>> "fannie mae" and "obama" or something thereabouts for more info.)
>>>
>>>
>>
>> This simply isn't true. The Fannie/Freddie debacle starts all the
>> way back with Carter (and the ideological underpinning go back
>> to LBJ and FDR) when the left decided that home ownership was
>> a "right". As much as I disagree with President Obama on all manner
>> of issues, blaming him for the mortgage meltdown is simply
>> false.
>
> I blame him directly for to the extent that he and the DBC increased
> the prevalence of Fannie and for the sheer number of bad loans (even
> without the meltdown) out there. Fannie/Acorn/Obama: what a trio.
>

But that die was cast before him. Once the Bush administration bought
into the End Of The World theories about what would happen if the
banks actually had to face the music - and thus TARP was passed -
the inertia was there.

Look, I disagree with this President in almost all matters, but it is
unseemly for conservatives and libertarians desperate to him lose next
week to start overstating or outright lying about things. That is,
we should start acting like the left has for decades. We don't need
to lie. Obama's own record is bad enough to convict him...

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk

On 10/30/2012 05:50 PM, Richard wrote:
> On 10/30/2012 11:26 AM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>> On 10/29/2012 02:09 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>> On 29 Oct 2012 13:27:49 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> I am not voting for Obama, but this is just absurd. The Dow didn't
>>>>> magically fall because of Obama. He inherited a mess ... and that
>>>>> mess wasn't all Bush's fault. The truth is that there has been a lack
>>>>> of fiscal stewardship in the US going all the way back to FDR. Until
>>>>> and unless the American people quit demanding stuff they are unwilling
>>>>> to pay for, nothing will change. There is no difference between
>>>>> welfare for the poor, the middle class, or the rich - it's all an
>>>>> economically impossible financial hustle.
>>>
>>> I'm wit you, Tim. Obama created much of that mess with Fannie Mae so
>>> he reaped what he sowed. (Google "democratic black caucus" and
>>> "fannie mae" and "obama" or something thereabouts for more info.)
>>>
>>>
>>
>> This simply isn't true. The Fannie/Freddie debacle starts all the
>> way back with Carter (and the ideological underpinning go back
>> to LBJ and FDR) when the left decided that home ownership was
>> a "right". As much as I disagree with President Obama on all manner
>> of issues, blaming him for the mortgage meltdown is simply
>> false.
>>
>>
>
>
> YEahbit - it's a lot more fun to blame somebody you don't like...

That's true, but I try to avoid this as it's likely to get me
accused of being a leftwinger....

<Ducks And Runs>

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On 11/03/2012 04:47 PM, Bob F wrote:
> Keith Nuttle wrote:
>> While the president can only recommend a budget, the Congress, ie
>> Senate and House, must pass the budget. I have lost track of the
>> budget proposal from the House that the social democrats in the
>> Senate either would not allow to come to the floor or voted it down.
>
> The budget was voted down in the Senate because the House refused to do the
> reasonable think and include modest tax increases on those most able to pay. If
> they had compronised at all, it would have passed.
>
>
>

The Obama budget proposal was voted down 99-0 in the Senate:

<http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/may/16/obama-budget-defeated-99-0-senate/>

--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

On 11/07/2012 09:56 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
> On 11/7/2012 9:38 AM, Leon wrote:
>> On 11/6/2012 7:32 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 10:11:20 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bill wrote:
>>>>> On 10/29/2012 9:18 AM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/25/2012 05:01 PM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>>>>>> Any bets on how far the DOW will fall if obama gets reelected?\
>>>>>
>>>>> The upcoming hurricane may have more potential to affect it. What
>>>>> more convenient hedge against inflation is there than stocks?
>>>>
>>>> Large caches of guns, gasoline, bacon and it wouldn't hurt to have
>>>> some gold
>>>> on hand...
>>>
>>> Roger the guns, gasoline, and bacon but the last two spoil easily. Has
>>> gold *ever* been used as the means of trade in a failed economy?
>>>
>>>>> That's
>>>>> the best explanation I have for the lofty-levels they currently
>>>>> maintain. I don't see an Obama-win reducing demand for stocks in the
>>>>> short term.
>>>>
>>>> It won't change the demand, but it could likely have an impact on the
>>>> growth
>>>> of those stocks. Not much of a hedge if they don't grow.
>>>
>>> Yep. No way I'm getting near stocks for a while.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I was talking to my money manager about the possibility of Obama winning
>> again and pulling out of the market. This guy is about 75 and very
>> successful. He seems to think the market will do fine if he was
>> reelected. Looking at past history, probably so. I have only been in
>> the market since 1993 however I have noticed with data to back it up
>> that beginning with the first Bush as president the markets do much
>> better with a Democrat.
>
> America is going to do find with the AO relection. This is the stock
> market summary as of now 12 Noon the day after the elections.
>
> Market Chart
> Dow Jones 12,912.20 -333.48 (-2.52%)
> S&P 500 1,394.07 -34.32 (-2.40%)
> Nasdaq 2,938.53 -73.40 (-2.44%)
>
> Sometime it hurts to be right. I wonder if it is going to make my 1000
> point loss prediction.

Look at the bright side - when BHO increases taxes on any long term
capital gains from your portfolio, you won't have any gains to be taxed :-)



--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

On 10/30/2012 11:26 AM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> On 10/29/2012 02:09 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On 29 Oct 2012 13:27:49 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> I am not voting for Obama, but this is just absurd. The Dow didn't
>>>> magically fall because of Obama. He inherited a mess ... and that
>>>> mess wasn't all Bush's fault. The truth is that there has been a lack
>>>> of fiscal stewardship in the US going all the way back to FDR. Until
>>>> and unless the American people quit demanding stuff they are unwilling
>>>> to pay for, nothing will change. There is no difference between
>>>> welfare for the poor, the middle class, or the rich - it's all an
>>>> economically impossible financial hustle.
>>
>> I'm wit you, Tim. Obama created much of that mess with Fannie Mae so
>> he reaped what he sowed. (Google "democratic black caucus" and
>> "fannie mae" and "obama" or something thereabouts for more info.)
>>
>>
>
> This simply isn't true. The Fannie/Freddie debacle starts all the
> way back with Carter (and the ideological underpinning go back
> to LBJ and FDR) when the left decided that home ownership was
> a "right". As much as I disagree with President Obama on all manner
> of issues, blaming him for the mortgage meltdown is simply
> false.
>
>


YEahbit - it's a lot more fun to blame somebody you don't like...

Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> writes:
>On 10/30/2012 12:15 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> that they pushed on financial institution. There were dozens of warning
>>>from all points in the three years leading up to September 28, 2008.
>>
>> Nor does the monumental lack of any factual basis for your
>> argument. How about pointing to some of those warnings?
>>
>
>I forget the exact number, but the Bush administration went before
>Barney Frank's committee MANY times (6+) trying to warn them that
>Fannie/Freddie were in trouble. Barney ignored them with what
>amounted to "There's nothing to see here, move along..."

2001:
April: The Administration\u2019s FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac is \u201ca potential problem,\u201d because \u201cfinancial
trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets,
affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity.\u201d

So, they weren't in trouble, just "too big to fail".

2002:

May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles
contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)

So, they weren't in trouble, just should be governed better.

2003:
January: Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years.

Accounting irregularities (or changes in the rules) happen to all large corporations.

February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining
that \u201calthough investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations,\u201d
\u201cthe government has provided no explicit legal backing for them.\u201d As a consequence,
unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing
market. (\u201cSystemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO,\u201d OFHEO Report, 2/4/03).

Investors may not get paid.

September: Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee
to recommend that Congress enact \u201clegislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate
and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored
enterprises\u201d and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.

President Bush's administration wants _more_ regulation (but the republican congress rebuffed him)

October: Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.

Happens to big corporations frequently. Often due to insider fraud and incompetence.

November: Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any
\u201clegislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient
strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk.\u201d To reduce the potential for systemic
instability, the regulator would have \u201cbroad authority to set both risk-based and minimum
capital standards\u201d and \u201creceivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of
a troubled GSE.\u201d (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors
State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03).

Pres. GWB's admin wants _more_ regulation. Congress rebuffs.

2004:
February: The President\u2019s FY05 Budget againhighlights the risk posed by the explosive
growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a
new, world-class regulator: \u201cThe Administration has determined that the safety and
soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their
responsibilities, and therefore\u2026should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator.
(2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)

Another call for more regulation. Republicans say we hate regulations. Business should be
unregulated. Nothing happens.

2007: Bear Stearns and Countrywide collapse due to poor underwriting by lenders, this cascades
to FNMA by virtual of the fact that they bought the poor loans from the lenders/brokers.

>
>There WERE warnings and they WERE unheeded.

The warnings were all about the sub-standard financial regulation of the GSE's, and how they
were too big to fail (too bad they didn't issue similar warnings about Lehman, BofA, et alia);
not about underwriting criteria by the lenders and brokers who create the loads that FNMA
ends up underwriting.

"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Open a bottle of jam. Obama is toast.

If you truly believe that, you can make a lot of money.

http://sports.bovada.lv/sports-betting/political-props.jsp

shows Obama is a huge favorite. As of this morning,
on the line "2012 US Presidential Election - Winning Party" a $2,00 bet on the
Democrats pays $2.88 while the Republicans pays $5.70.

-- Doug

On 10/25/2012 05:01 PM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
> Any bets on how far the DOW will fall if obama gets reelected?
>
> Based on the recent market reactions when he has gotten favorable reviews, my guess is that at a minimum it will go down a 1000 points.
>
> When he entered the Whitehorse 25% of the capital in the US was wiped out when the market fell from about 8500 to 6500 in three months. The third president where the market fell in the last 150 years.
>
> This was on top of the loss when pelosi reneged on home loans 3 month previously 11500 to 8500.

I am not voting for Obama, but this is just absurd. The Dow didn't magically
fall because of Obama. He inherited a mess ... and that mess wasn't
all Bush's fault. The truth is that there has been a lack of
fiscal stewardship in the US going all the way back to FDR. Until
and unless the American people quit demanding stuff they are unwilling
to pay for, nothing will change. There is no difference between
welfare for the poor, the middle class, or the rich - it's all an
economically impossible financial hustle.


--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk

On 10/30/2012 01:02 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Business should be
> unregulated.


It should be until and unless they engage in fraud, at which point
criminal law should apply. If there is no fraud, force, or threat,
they should be free to succeed AND fail without regulatory intervention
AND without being bailed out from their stupidities.

But Freddie/Fannie are not exactly "businesses" and their underwriting
rules were distorted considerably by several generations of social
justice policy positions - starting with Carter.

The record you've documented here clearly shows the Bush administration
repeatedly trying to warn Frank and Co. that there was a problem brewing.
To read this any other way requires some fairly ... imaginative
narratives. This has not stopped the left from saying, "It's all
Bush' fault." No, if anything, it's all FDR's, LBJ's, Carter's, and
Clinton's fault...

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk

"Scott Lurndal" wrote in message news:[email protected]...


Nor does the monumental lack of any factual basis for your
argument. How about pointing to some of those warnings?=
===================================================================================
You're kidding, right?

On 11/6/2012 7:32 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 10:11:20 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Bill wrote:
>>> On 10/29/2012 9:18 AM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>>> On 10/25/2012 05:01 PM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>>>> Any bets on how far the DOW will fall if obama gets reelected?\
>>>
>>> The upcoming hurricane may have more potential to affect it. What
>>> more convenient hedge against inflation is there than stocks?
>>
>> Large caches of guns, gasoline, bacon and it wouldn't hurt to have some gold
>> on hand...
>
> Roger the guns, gasoline, and bacon but the last two spoil easily. Has
> gold *ever* been used as the means of trade in a failed economy?
>
>>> That's
>>> the best explanation I have for the lofty-levels they currently
>>> maintain. I don't see an Obama-win reducing demand for stocks in the
>>> short term.
>>
>> It won't change the demand, but it could likely have an impact on the growth
>> of those stocks. Not much of a hedge if they don't grow.
>
> Yep. No way I'm getting near stocks for a while.
>


I was talking to my money manager about the possibility of Obama winning
again and pulling out of the market. This guy is about 75 and very
successful. He seems to think the market will do fine if he was
reelected. Looking at past history, probably so. I have only been in
the market since 1993 however I have noticed with data to back it up
that beginning with the first Bush as president the markets do much
better with a Democrat.

On 10/25/2012 5:01 PM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
> Any bets on how far the DOW will fall if obama gets reelected?
>
> Based on the recent market reactions when he has gotten favorable
> reviews, my guess is that at a minimum it will go down a 1000 points.
>
> When he entered the Whitehorse 25% of the capital in the US was wiped
> out when the market fell from about 8500 to 6500 in three months. The
> third president where the market fell in the last 150 years.

My historical data shows the DJI 11/07/2008, 8943.89 down to
03/12/2009, 7170.06 about 19.5% drop over a 4.5 month span.


Before Obama was elected, 08/15/2008, DJI 12659.9 down to
10/31/2008, 9325.01 about a 24% drop over a 2.5 month span.

Just before Bush was elected, 10/31/2000. the DJI was at 10971.40.
05/21/2001 the market dropped to 9487.00, about a 14% drop in 7 months.
I will not go into what happened just after 911.

It was not until about 09/29/2006 that the market finally reached the
pre Bush levels and maintained for more than a brief amount of time.


Since Obama has been in office we have seen the market go from a low of
7170.06 to a current 13107.21 or an 83% increase including the recent
drop of 468 points from 13575.36 since 10/05/2012.

I'll take a 1000 jerk knee market reaction any day.

As much as I am not for the left side winning, recent history has shown
that the markets do better under a Democratic president than a
Republican. The markets did very well during Clinton's term.

Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>
>>
> For years the social democrats ignored the problems with the home
> loans that they pushed on financial institution. There were dozens
> of warning from all points in the three years leading up to September
> 28, 2008.

To the Democrat's credit, they wanted more people moved from the "lower
class" into the "middle class." How to do that was the question.

The Democrats looked at the definition of "middle class." One of the
characteristics of a middle-classer was that he owned his own home.
Therefore, the Democrats concluded, and action that makes home ownership
more wide-spread would move more people in the proper direction.

One of the principle arguments in "Quality Control Thinking" is to ask
yourself "What then?" That is, what's the likely outcome once you achieve
your goal?

The Democrats, regrettably, did not ask that question.

Larry Jaques <[email protected]> writes:
>On 29 Oct 2012 13:27:49 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> I am not voting for Obama, but this is just absurd. The Dow didn't
>>> magically fall because of Obama. He inherited a mess ... and that
>>> mess wasn't all Bush's fault. The truth is that there has been a lack
>>> of fiscal stewardship in the US going all the way back to FDR. Until
>>> and unless the American people quit demanding stuff they are unwilling
>>> to pay for, nothing will change. There is no difference between
>>> welfare for the poor, the middle class, or the rich - it's all an
>>> economically impossible financial hustle.
>
>I'm wit you, Tim. Obama created much of that mess with Fannie Mae so

Given that the Fannie Mae was placed into conservatorship in
September 2008, I'm not sure how President Obama could be blamed
for that, as he took office in 2009.

Given that FNMA is expected to begin repaying taxpayers faster
than initially projected, I'd say that the stewardship since
2008 has been satisfactory.

From WSJ 10/26/2012:

The Federal Housing Finance Agency, the companies' federal regulator,
released a report on Friday that estimated they will pay between $32
billion and $78 billion to the U.S. Treasury through 2015. The baseline
forecast assumes that the companies would end up costing taxpayers $76
billion by the end of 2015, down from the current tab of $142 billion.

Since the companies were placed into conservatorship by the government
in 2008, they have drawn nearly $188 billion from the Treasury and paid
back $46 billion in dividends. The government assisted the companies to
preserve functioning mortgage markets, taking preferred shares of stock
in exchange for that support.

>he reaped what he sowed. (Google "democratic black caucus" and
>"fannie mae" and "obama" or something thereabouts for more info.)

How about you simply post a link to whatever scurrilous claims you
intended to parrot?


>The thing is, we DON'T need deficit spending to get what we need. All
>that's required is to take a hard look at gov't branches and prune
>heavily those which don't do anything but suck money from the

Instead of vague generalities, why don't you specify
exactly what branches should be pruned and why?

>taxpayers. By my count, over half of them are that way.

Names and examples. And you may also wish to post your
C.V. whose qualifications enable you to judge the usefulness
or lack thereof.

>Reducing the
>size of gov't gives us a whole lot more money to distribute to the
>poor, aged, and homeless if we so choose.

A vague platitude. You must like the fact-free campaign by ex-governor
Romney.

scott

Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> I am not voting for Obama, but this is just absurd. The Dow didn't
> magically fall because of Obama. He inherited a mess ... and that
> mess wasn't all Bush's fault. The truth is that there has been a lack
> of fiscal stewardship in the US going all the way back to FDR. Until
> and unless the American people quit demanding stuff they are unwilling
> to pay for, nothing will change. There is no difference between
> welfare for the poor, the middle class, or the rich - it's all an
> economically impossible financial hustle.

I completely agree with the analysis, though I WILL vote for Obama. That
is because his stewardship will be immeasurably better than I would
expect from Romney & Co, i.e. austerity for the masses but give me my
pound of flesh. Business will thrive when customers can afford the
products and are educated enough to appreciate what they pay for. We
need investment for our future, even if that means deficit spending for
now.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Han wrote:
>
>>
>> I completely agree with the analysis, though I WILL vote for Obama.
>> That is because his stewardship will be immeasurably better than I
>> would expect from Romney & Co, i.e. austerity for the masses but give
>> me my pound of flesh. Business will thrive when customers can afford
>> the products and are educated enough to appreciate what they pay for.
>> We need investment for our future, even if that means deficit
>> spending for now.
>
> I'm not sure it's going to be different under either of them, but how
> long have we been deficit spending now? Through how many
> administrations? Shouldn't we have hit prosperity by now if that's the
> secret?
I agree that it /may/not be different. However ...
We have hit "dis-prosperity" as a consequence of what? (I have my
ideas!). Everything, wars not paid for etc, etc, take the whole damned
Dem list of cpmplaints, and until 2007 everything was hunky dory. So it
isn't cause of, or in spite of deficit spending. It's just that Greece
is an example of how NOT to commit the crime of excessive austerity.

> I agree with what I think is a big part of what you are saying, in
> that appreciation for what one pays for and has, as well as
> appreciation for the concept of working for those, is central to any
> future improvements. But... that's a social issue in my mind and
> until we change the mindset of entitlements and handouts, we aren't
> like to get there. I haven't heard anything from either one of them
> that inspires me that they are thinking this way.

I'm getting lots of entitlements now that I am retired. Luckily, I still
have extra income from my savings, and still pay taxes, including those
that pay for the "entitlements" of others now and in the future. I'm not
sure what handouts you mean, but if you mean unemployment or disability
payments, I believe (liberal as I am) that most likely that helps those
people and the economy much more than it hurts the ones who pay for it.
I fully agree that abuse and mismanagement should be fought hand and
tooth. There is no excuse for it. OTOH, it isn't right IMO that
executives get paid tens of millions to leave a company, or just to do
their jobs, while the workers get peanuts. In the mean time, I think we
should get MUCH closer MUCH faster to a balanced budget than we are
likely to under either candidate.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 10/29/2012 07:11 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Bill wrote:
>>> On 10/29/2012 9:18 AM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>>> On 10/25/2012 05:01 PM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>>>> Any bets on how far the DOW will fall if obama gets reelected?\
>>>
>>> The upcoming hurricane may have more potential to affect it. What
>>> more convenient hedge against inflation is there than stocks?
>>
>> Large caches of guns, gasoline, bacon and it wouldn't hurt to have
>> some gold on hand...
>>
>>
>>> That's
>>> the best explanation I have for the lofty-levels they currently
>>> maintain. I don't see an Obama-win reducing demand for stocks in the
>>> short term.
>>
>> It won't change the demand, but it could likely have an impact on the
>> growth of those stocks. Not much of a hedge if they don't grow.
>>
>
> The prospect of increased tax rates on capital gains because of the
> "fiscal cliff" may prompt investors to dump stocks before the end of
> the year at the currently lower tax rates.

There have been shifts back and forth between dividend stocks and growth
stocks before. Rule changes like that offer great opportunities for the
discerning (and stupid) investor.
Which brings me to my favorite loophole in the cap gains rules: Donate
appreciated stock to a favorite charity and get a deduction for the FMV.
Just like that. No need to cash in the stock and pay cap gains, retrace
the basis history or whatever ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Han wrote:
>
>> We have hit "dis-prosperity" as a consequence of what? (I have my
>> ideas!). Everything, wars not paid for etc, etc, take the whole
>> damned Dem list of cpmplaints, and until 2007 everything was hunky
>> dory. So it isn't cause of, or in spite of deficit spending. It's
>> just that Greece is an example of how NOT to commit the crime of
>> excessive austerity.
>
> We weren't doing any much better in 2007 (surely some...), it is just
> a matter of Washington cooks the books. The practices were the same
> then, and today it is just a matter of it all catching up with us.

After 2007 the bubble blew. Until then everyone was blissfully ignorant
of that sword hanging over them (except a very few Cassandras of course
warning us then, and saying I told you so now). It is the financial
system collapse that made this so bad. Go back in history and find where
things recovered quickly after such a collapse.

>> I'm getting lots of entitlements now that I am retired.
>
> The difference is that you worked for them and paid into the system
> that provides them to you today. That is not what people mean when
> they talk about entitlements.

Yes, but there may be far more people like that who are all being smeared
with the entitlement brush. They may have paid into the system, or they
are young and will pay into the system. We got some benefits too, when I
had just started here in the US, such as WIC.

>> but if you mean unemployment or disability payments,
>
> I don't mean unemployment but disability (in the way it is so commonly
> abused today) is another story.

I am sure it is being abused by some, and they should be punished. I
have also heard of people who get the holy run around when they are
entitled to benefits. I am especially upset by the abuse of veterans I
hear about at times in news reports.

>> OTOH, it isn't right IMO that executives get paid tens of
>> millions to leave a company, or just to do their jobs, while the
>> workers get peanuts.
>
> As much of a Captialist as I am, I am in fierce agreement with you on
> that point! Especially when that happens after they have run the
> company down!
>
>> In the mean time, I think we should get MUCH closer MUCH faster to
>> a balanced budget than we are likely to under either candidate.
>
> Again - agreement... but that's not likely to happen in our lifetimes.
> Washington has the taste of blood in their mouths...

I am hoping that with social media we can get some pressure on the
congresscritters to do the right thing. I can hope, can't I?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Wow are you clueless.

No president has been in the black really for a long time.

I think Romney is just like every other bought president. He's a
politician.. in the black.. no.. better? I don't know.

I think the only guy that would really get spending and taxes under
control would be Ron Paul, but he will never get in. We Americans are
stupid.. we like to elect people who look or sound good, but are just
like the past guys... beholden to those who buy them.

Paul will never get far.. he lets no one buy him. He speaks straight..
we prefer snake oil salesman..

I like a lot of what he says, but I'm not a cult follower.. just someone
who investigated his past and beliefs.. He's not your normal
politician.. actually the anti politician.. Therefore no other
politician wants him in power... they can't control him.

On 11/3/2012 9:06 AM, Dave wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:25:19 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>> Ha! You guys don't know what bacon is. Hint - Ham is not bacon! You want
>> some real bacon, come on down.
>
> Riiiiggghhht! Like there's any chance hell of US bacon being
> comparable to Canadian back bacon. It's more likely that Romney will
> win with a 90% support vote and have US spending in the black within a
> year.
>

Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 22:28:51 -0500, Gordon Shumway
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 18:01:26 -0400, Keith Nuttle
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Any bets on how far the DOW will fall if obama gets reelected?
>>
>> I pray we will never know.
>
> Start grabbin' yer ankles. It's gonna happen unless the Ron Paul
> write-in miracle does first. The Romney isn't electable, especially
> after he's alienated more than half his potential base.

First, it doesn't really matter how Romney's "base" feels about him; this
is, in large measure, going to be a referendum election, rather than a
preference one. That is, people will be voting AGAINST a candidate rather
than FOR a candidate.

Second, remember, polls are LAGGING indicators; it's the trend - sometimes
called momentum - that matters. Right now, ten days out, Romney has it.

That said, current polls are interesting:
Rasmussen: R 50, O 47
Gallup: R 50, O 47
ABC/Wash Post: R 50, O 47
AP: R 47, O45
Monmouth: R 48, O 45
Politico: R 49, O 47

In fiarness, there are a couple of minor polls showing Obama ahead, but
they're clearly outliers (IBD, CBS, Wash Times).

Third, Ron Paul, or anyone else, cannot, by law, be elected president by a
write-in. Voters do NOT vote for president directly, they vote for
presidential electors. And Ron Paul does not HAVE any nominated electors.
Besides which, Ron Paul is a loon.

Douglas Johnson wrote:
> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Open a bottle of jam. Obama is toast.
>
> If you truly believe that, you can make a lot of money.
>
> http://sports.bovada.lv/sports-betting/political-props.jsp
>
> shows Obama is a huge favorite. As of this morning,
> on the line "2012 US Presidential Election - Winning Party" a $2,00
> bet on the Democrats pays $2.88 while the Republicans pays $5.70.
>

I wish I had the money. Regrettably, these last four years...

On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 22:28:51 -0500, Gordon Shumway
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 18:01:26 -0400, Keith Nuttle
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Any bets on how far the DOW will fall if obama gets reelected?
>
>I pray we will never know.

Start grabbin' yer ankles. It's gonna happen unless the Ron Paul
write-in miracle does first. The Romney isn't electable, especially
after he's alienated more than half his potential base.

--
The ultimate result of shielding men from folly
is to fill the world with fools.
-- Herbert Spencer

The polls mean squat, except in the swing states. CNN has an interactive e=
lection map -- http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/ecalculator?hpt=3Dhp_t2#?ba=
ttleground =20

See if you can figure a way for Romney to amass 270 electoral votes. I can=
't. And while I am luke warm toward four more years of the crap we've seen =
out of Washington, Romney's flippin and floppin reminds me more of a car sa=
lesman than a commander in chief. Who the heck knows where he really stand=
s on anything?=20

Larry



On Thursday, October 25, 2012 5:01:27 PM UTC-5, [email protected] wro=
te:
> Any bets on how far the DOW will fall if obama gets reelected?
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Based on the recent market reactions when he has gotten favorable=20
>=20
> reviews, my guess is that at a minimum it will go down a 1000 points.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> When he entered the Whitehorse 25% of the capital in the US was wiped=20
>=20
> out when the market fell from about 8500 to 6500 in three months. The=20
>=20
> third president where the market fell in the last 150 years.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> This was on top of the loss when pelosi reneged on home loans 3 month=20
>=20
> previously 11500 to 8500.

[...snip...]
>That said, current polls are interesting:
>Rasmussen: R 50, O 47
>Gallup: R 50, O 47
>ABC/Wash Post: R 50, O 47
>AP: R 47, O45
>Monmouth: R 48, O 45
>Politico: R 49, O 47
>
[...snip...]

You're looking at the wrong type of poll. The electoral college is
what matters. In that, Obama still is narrowly ahead by most counts.

Of course, in 2004 it seemed on election day that Kerry had the
electoral lead according to polls but in the end Bush won almost all
the close states. Bush had great on the ground organizations in the
states that mattered and a nice (for him) wedge issue that brought
voters out.

This year the story is that Obama has far better on the ground
organizations in the states that matter.

On 10/30/2012 12:15 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> that they pushed on financial institution. There were dozens of warning
>>from all points in the three years leading up to September 28, 2008.
>
> Nor does the monumental lack of any factual basis for your
> argument. How about pointing to some of those warnings?
>

I forget the exact number, but the Bush administration went before
Barney Frank's committee MANY times (6+) trying to warn them that
Fannie/Freddie were in trouble. Barney ignored them with what
amounted to "There's nothing to see here, move along..."

There WERE warnings and they WERE unheeded. Unfortunately, when Reality
came calling, the politicians on both sides caved to the doomsday
scenarios projected by the bankers advising them: "Oh Hai, we
just completely screwed up our businesses and if you don't give
us a ton of corporate welfare, the economy is dead. Oh, and if you
do give us the money, we'll still screw up the paperwork AND not
lend that money out. Kthxbai."

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk

On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 12:19:13 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 10/30/2012 12:09 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:26:40 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/29/2012 02:09 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>> On 29 Oct 2012 13:27:49 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I am not voting for Obama, but this is just absurd. The Dow didn't
>>>>>> magically fall because of Obama. He inherited a mess ... and that
>>>>>> mess wasn't all Bush's fault. The truth is that there has been a lack
>>>>>> of fiscal stewardship in the US going all the way back to FDR. Until
>>>>>> and unless the American people quit demanding stuff they are unwilling
>>>>>> to pay for, nothing will change. There is no difference between
>>>>>> welfare for the poor, the middle class, or the rich - it's all an
>>>>>> economically impossible financial hustle.
>>>>
>>>> I'm wit you, Tim. Obama created much of that mess with Fannie Mae so
>>>> he reaped what he sowed. (Google "democratic black caucus" and
>>>> "fannie mae" and "obama" or something thereabouts for more info.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> This simply isn't true. The Fannie/Freddie debacle starts all the
>>> way back with Carter (and the ideological underpinning go back
>>> to LBJ and FDR) when the left decided that home ownership was
>>> a "right". As much as I disagree with President Obama on all manner
>>> of issues, blaming him for the mortgage meltdown is simply
>>> false.
>>
>> I blame him directly for to the extent that he and the DBC increased
>> the prevalence of Fannie and for the sheer number of bad loans (even
>> without the meltdown) out there. Fannie/Acorn/Obama: what a trio.
>>
>
>But that die was cast before him. Once the Bush administration bought
>into the End Of The World theories about what would happen if the
>banks actually had to face the music - and thus TARP was passed -
>the inertia was there.
>
>Look, I disagree with this President in almost all matters, but it is
>unseemly for conservatives and libertarians desperate to him lose next
> week to start overstating or outright lying about things. That is,
>we should start acting like the left has for decades. We don't need
>to lie. Obama's own record is bad enough to convict him...

True, true.

--
No greater wrong can ever be done than to put a good man at the mercy
of a bad, while telling him not to defend himself or his fellows;
in no way can the success of evil be made quicker or surer.
--Theodore Roosevelt

Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 10/27/2012 10:30 AM, Douglas Johnson wrote:
>> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Open a bottle of jam. Obama is toast.
>>
>> If you truly believe that, you can make a lot of money.
>>
>> http://sports.bovada.lv/sports-betting/political-props.jsp
>>
>> shows Obama is a huge favorite. As of this morning,
>> on the line "2012 US Presidential Election - Winning Party" a $2,00 bet on the
>> Democrats pays $2.88 while the Republicans pays $5.70.
>>
>> -- Doug
>>
>When did it change? Romney has been the odds favorite for weeks, at
>least up until last week

Don't know. I just started looking at it a few days ago. But

http://www.oddschecker.com/specials/politics-and-election/us-presidential-election/winner

shows similar odds on lots of sites. I have no idea what the predictive power
of this is. -- Doug

Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> writes:
>On 10/30/2012 12:26 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>> On 10/29/2012 02:09 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>> On 29 Oct 2012 13:27:49 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> I am not voting for Obama, but this is just absurd. The Dow didn't
>>>>> magically fall because of Obama. He inherited a mess ... and that
>>>>> mess wasn't all Bush's fault. The truth is that there has been a lack
>>>>> of fiscal stewardship in the US going all the way back to FDR. Until
>>>>> and unless the American people quit demanding stuff they are unwilling
>>>>> to pay for, nothing will change. There is no difference between
>>>>> welfare for the poor, the middle class, or the rich - it's all an
>>>>> economically impossible financial hustle.
>>>
>>> I'm wit you, Tim. Obama created much of that mess with Fannie Mae so
>>> he reaped what he sowed. (Google "democratic black caucus" and
>>> "fannie mae" and "obama" or something thereabouts for more info.)
>>>
>>>
>>
>> This simply isn't true. The Fannie/Freddie debacle starts all the
>> way back with Carter (and the ideological underpinning go back
>> to LBJ and FDR) when the left decided that home ownership was
>> a "right". As much as I disagree with President Obama on all manner
>> of issues, blaming him for the mortgage meltdown is simply
>> false.
>>
>>
>For years the social democrats ignored the problems with the home loans

An ad-hominem doesn't help your argument.

>that they pushed on financial institution. There were dozens of warning
>from all points in the three years leading up to September 28, 2008.

Nor does the monumental lack of any factual basis for your
argument. How about pointing to some of those warnings?

>
>If those warnings had been listened to, and if pelosi had not completely
>reneged on those loans, the current problems would have been
>significantly less server.
>
Ah, you've some phobia of Rep. Pelosi. Like she passes laws
all by herself, I guess. The fact that the senate and the
President must also agree before a law is passed seems to have
escaped notice.

>In essence on September 28, 2008, pelosi and the social democrats told
>the economy that those loans were worthless and the economy responded
>accordingly.

Many loans _were_ worthless. The fact that they were bundled and sold
as CDO's made disentangling the worthless loans from those that weren't
much more difficult (if not impossible).

Nobody held a gun to the lenders telling them they had to loan money
to recipients unable to repay the loans, in spite of the constant
claims to that effect by certain politicians and pundits.

The fact that countrywide was making loans that couldn't meet
underwriting rules, and they were pushing minorities and subprime
borrowers into higher-interest loans seems to have escaped your notice.

When, in 2007, investors stopped buying the mortgage-backed securities
that were Countrywide's only income source, the company melted down,
went bankrupt and was purchased by BofA.

This all happened long before Sept 28, 2008; The republicans had a
majority in the house from the 104th congress (1995) through the
109th congress (2007) - hard to blame Rep. Pelosi. The democrats
had house majorities from the 81st congress (1949) through the
108th congress (1995).

On 10/26/2012 7:56 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 22:28:51 -0500, Gordon Shumway
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 18:01:26 -0400, Keith Nuttle
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Any bets on how far the DOW will fall if obama gets reelected?
>>
>> I pray we will never know.
>
> Start grabbin' yer ankles. It's gonna happen unless the Ron Paul
> write-in miracle does first. The Romney isn't electable, especially
> after he's alienated more than half his potential base.
>
> --
> The ultimate result of shielding men from folly
> is to fill the world with fools.
> -- Herbert Spencer

Johnson looks good to me. CB

On 10/27/2012 10:30 AM, Douglas Johnson wrote:
> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Open a bottle of jam. Obama is toast.
>
> If you truly believe that, you can make a lot of money.
>
> http://sports.bovada.lv/sports-betting/political-props.jsp
>
> shows Obama is a huge favorite. As of this morning,
> on the line "2012 US Presidential Election - Winning Party" a $2,00 bet on the
> Democrats pays $2.88 while the Republicans pays $5.70.
>
> -- Doug
>
When did it change? Romney has been the odds favorite for weeks, at
least up until last week

On 10/29/2012 9:18 AM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> On 10/25/2012 05:01 PM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>> Any bets on how far the DOW will fall if obama gets reelected?\

The upcoming hurricane may have more potential to affect it. What more
convenient hedge against inflation is there than stocks? That's the best
explanation I have for the lofty-levels they currently maintain. I don't
see an Obama-win reducing demand for stocks in the short term. Of
course, stocks are always free to give up 10 or 20% without consulting
me...lol.

Bill


>>
>> Based on the recent market reactions when he has gotten favorable
>> reviews, my guess is that at a minimum it will go down a 1000 points.
>>
>> When he entered the Whitehorse 25% of the capital in the US was wiped
>> out when the market fell from about 8500 to 6500 in three months. The
>> third president where the market fell in the last 150 years.
>>
>> This was on top of the loss when pelosi reneged on home loans 3 month
>> previously 11500 to 8500.
>
> I am not voting for Obama, but this is just absurd. The Dow didn't
> magically
> fall because of Obama. He inherited a mess ... and that mess wasn't
> all Bush's fault. The truth is that there has been a lack of
> fiscal stewardship in the US going all the way back to FDR. Until
> and unless the American people quit demanding stuff they are unwilling
> to pay for, nothing will change. There is no difference between
> welfare for the poor, the middle class, or the rich - it's all an
> economically impossible financial hustle.
>
>

Han wrote:

>
> I completely agree with the analysis, though I WILL vote for Obama.
> That is because his stewardship will be immeasurably better than I
> would expect from Romney & Co, i.e. austerity for the masses but give
> me my pound of flesh. Business will thrive when customers can afford
> the products and are educated enough to appreciate what they pay for.
> We need investment for our future, even if that means deficit
> spending for now.

I'm not sure it's going to be different under either of them, but how long
have we been deficit spending now? Through how many administrations?
Shouldn't we have hit prosperity by now if that's the secret?

I agree with what I think is a big part of what you are saying, in that
appreciation for what one pays for and has, as well as appreciation for the
concept of working for those, is central to any future improvements. But...
that's a social issue in my mind and until we change the mindset of
entitlements and handouts, we aren't like to get there. I haven't heard
anything from either one of them that inspires me that they are thinking
this way.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Bill wrote:
> On 10/29/2012 9:18 AM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>> On 10/25/2012 05:01 PM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>> Any bets on how far the DOW will fall if obama gets reelected?\
>
> The upcoming hurricane may have more potential to affect it. What
> more convenient hedge against inflation is there than stocks?

Large caches of guns, gasoline, bacon and it wouldn't hurt to have some gold
on hand...


> That's
> the best explanation I have for the lofty-levels they currently
> maintain. I don't see an Obama-win reducing demand for stocks in the
> short term.

It won't change the demand, but it could likely have an impact on the growth
of those stocks. Not much of a hedge if they don't grow.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Han wrote:


> We have hit "dis-prosperity" as a consequence of what? (I have my
> ideas!). Everything, wars not paid for etc, etc, take the whole
> damned Dem list of cpmplaints, and until 2007 everything was hunky
> dory. So it isn't cause of, or in spite of deficit spending. It's
> just that Greece is an example of how NOT to commit the crime of
> excessive austerity.
>

We weren't doing any much better in 2007 (surely some...), it is just a
matter of Washington cooks the books. The practices were the same then, and
today it is just a matter of it all catching up with us.


>
> I'm getting lots of entitlements now that I am retired.

The difference is that you worked for them and paid into the system that
provides them to you today. That is not what people mean when they talk
about entitlements.


> but if you mean
> unemployment or disability payments,

I don't mean unemployment but disability (in the way it is so commonly
abused today) is another story.


> OTOH, it isn't right IMO that executives get paid tens of
> millions to leave a company, or just to do their jobs, while the
> workers get peanuts.

As much of a Captialist as I am, I am in fierce agreement with you on that
point! Especially when that happens after they have run the company down!

> In the mean time, I think we should get MUCH
> closer MUCH faster to a balanced budget than we are likely to under
> either candidate.

Again - agreement... but that's not likely to happen in our lifetimes.
Washington has the taste of blood in their mouths...

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Keith Nuttle wrote:
> Any bets on how far the DOW will fall if obama gets reelected?
>
> Based on the recent market reactions when he has gotten favorable
> reviews, my guess is that at a minimum it will go down a 1000 points.
>
> When he entered the Whitehorse 25% of the capital in the US was wiped
> out when the market fell from about 8500 to 6500 in three months. The
> third president where the market fell in the last 150 years.
>
Idiot. The market fell because of the Bush recession starting in 2007. It has
been recovering ever since. Obama has been great for the market, as Democrats
usually are.

On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 15:23:02 -0700, Doug Winterburn wrote:

>> Idiot. The market fell because of the Bush recession starting in 2007.
>> It has been recovering ever since. Obama has been great for the market,
>> as Democrats usually are.
>>
>>
>>
> 2007 is when the Dems took over the House and Senate and exploded the
> deficit. Now, in the Senate which they control, they haven't passed a
> budget for over three years. However, they did vote down Obama's budget
> proposal with every Democrat voting against it.

And your comment has *what* bearing on a discussion about the gyrations
of the stock market?

--
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross.

On 10/29/2012 6:23 PM, Doug Winterburn wrote:
> On 10/29/2012 03:06 PM, Bob F wrote:
>> Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>> Any bets on how far the DOW will fall if obama gets reelected?
>>>
>>> Based on the recent market reactions when he has gotten favorable
>>> reviews, my guess is that at a minimum it will go down a 1000 points.
>>>
>>> When he entered the Whitehorse 25% of the capital in the US was wiped
>>> out when the market fell from about 8500 to 6500 in three months. The
>>> third president where the market fell in the last 150 years.
>>>
>> Idiot. The market fell because of the Bush recession starting in 2007.
>> It has
>> been recovering ever since. Obama has been great for the market, as
>> Democrats
>> usually are.
>>
>>
>>
> 2007 is when the Dems took over the House and Senate and exploded the
> deficit. Now, in the Senate which they control, they haven't passed a
> budget for over three years. However, they did vote down Obama's budget
> proposal with every Democrat voting against it.
>
>
ON September 28, 2008, the pelosi plunge destroy about 30% of the US
capital as measured by the DOW. After pelosi reneged on the home loans
the Dow went from 11500 to 8500 in about 2 weeks.

The fact the market fell another 2000 points with the obama slide from
when he took office until the middle of March 2009 only made things
worse. The lost of another 25% was not a great stimulus to the economy.

Between the two, the US lost over 40% of its capital that is needed to
fund all types of industrial growth, in the time period between
September 28, 2008 when the market was over 11500 until the middle of
March 2009, when the slide stop at about 6500. You can not have a
recovery with out the capital to fund it.

While the president can only recommend a budget, the Congress, ie Senate
and House, must pass the budget. I have lost track of the budget
proposal from the House that the social democrats in the Senate either
would not allow to come to the floor or voted it down.

I heard a comment yesterday. obama keeps saying he will have a balanced
budget, BUT how can he when the Senate has blocked every budget for
years and there is no budget.

While the President can not create a budget by himself, HIS ATTITUDE
toward business can stimulate business, or repress it. Compare the
economy under Reagan with his positive attitude toward business, and the
failure of the economy under obama.

Dave wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 10:11:20 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>> Large caches of guns, gasoline, bacon and it wouldn't hurt to have
>> some gold on hand...
>
> Fine, go seclude yourself. Just leave *our* bacon alone. We've got all
> our gasoline, bacon and the occasional hidden gun squirreled away too.

Ha! You guys don't know what bacon is. Hint - Ham is not bacon! You want
some real bacon, come on down.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On 10/30/2012 12:26 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> On 10/29/2012 02:09 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On 29 Oct 2012 13:27:49 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> I am not voting for Obama, but this is just absurd. The Dow didn't
>>>> magically fall because of Obama. He inherited a mess ... and that
>>>> mess wasn't all Bush's fault. The truth is that there has been a lack
>>>> of fiscal stewardship in the US going all the way back to FDR. Until
>>>> and unless the American people quit demanding stuff they are unwilling
>>>> to pay for, nothing will change. There is no difference between
>>>> welfare for the poor, the middle class, or the rich - it's all an
>>>> economically impossible financial hustle.
>>
>> I'm wit you, Tim. Obama created much of that mess with Fannie Mae so
>> he reaped what he sowed. (Google "democratic black caucus" and
>> "fannie mae" and "obama" or something thereabouts for more info.)
>>
>>
>
> This simply isn't true. The Fannie/Freddie debacle starts all the
> way back with Carter (and the ideological underpinning go back
> to LBJ and FDR) when the left decided that home ownership was
> a "right". As much as I disagree with President Obama on all manner
> of issues, blaming him for the mortgage meltdown is simply
> false.
>
>
For years the social democrats ignored the problems with the home loans
that they pushed on financial institution. There were dozens of warning
from all points in the three years leading up to September 28, 2008.

If those warnings had been listened to, and if pelosi had not completely
reneged on those loans, the current problems would have been
significantly less server.

In essence on September 28, 2008, pelosi and the social democrats told
the economy that those loans were worthless and the economy responded
accordingly.

On 10/30/2012 1:15 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> This all happened long before Sept 28, 2008; The republicans had a
> majority in the house from the 104th congress (1995) through the
> 109th congress (2007) - hard to blame Rep. Pelosi. The democrats
> had house majorities from the 81st congress (1949) through the
> 108th congress (1995).

Pelosi was Head of the House and controlled what Bills the House
considered. As head of the House she also has control over the Democrat
controlled house. The same could be said about Reid who control what
comes before the Senate. The head of the Senate and House have a lot of
control over what comes before those bodies.

Because both houses of Congress was controlled by the social democrats
including obama the social democrats block all attempts to correct the
home loan situation. The social democrat committees that regulated the
financial transaction were controlled by democrats refused to admit that
the bad loans were a problem.

This is from the point of view Freddie Mac. In the last half of the
interview, he says many times he was under government pressure to make
the bad loans:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/05/business/05freddie.html?pagewanted=all

If you don't believe this interview there are 100's of others but you
have to take time to find them as they were quickly buried.

This is from
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704268104576108162251726084.html

"commission's final report, which the panel sent off to President Barack
Obama Thursday morning, found the crisis was caused by widespread
failures in financial regulation such as the Federal Reserve's failure
to stem the tide of toxic mortgages over the past decade"

Doug Winterburn wrote:
> On 10/29/2012 04:08 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 15:23:02 -0700, Doug Winterburn wrote:
>>
>>>> Idiot. The market fell because of the Bush recession starting in
>>>> 2007. It has been recovering ever since. Obama has been great for
>>>> the market, as Democrats usually are.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> 2007 is when the Dems took over the House and Senate and exploded
>>> the deficit. Now, in the Senate which they control, they haven't
>>> passed a budget for over three years. However, they did vote down
>>> Obama's budget proposal with every Democrat voting against it.
>>
>> And your comment has *what* bearing on a discussion about the
>> gyrations of the stock market?
>>
> Sorry, you're correct - things like huge deficits, monster debt, US
> downgrades in it's ability to borrow, etc have no bearing on stock
> market gyrations.

Like the downgrade by Mooneys of the US notes, which they specifically said was
due to the Republicans refusal to raise taxes.

Keith Nuttle wrote:
> While the president can only recommend a budget, the Congress, ie
> Senate and House, must pass the budget. I have lost track of the
> budget proposal from the House that the social democrats in the
> Senate either would not allow to come to the floor or voted it down.

The budget was voted down in the Senate because the House refused to do the
reasonable think and include modest tax increases on those most able to pay. If
they had compronised at all, it would have passed.

On Sat, 03 Nov 2012 16:47:52 -0700, Bob F wrote:

> Keith Nuttle wrote:
>> While the president can only recommend a budget, the Congress, ie
>> Senate and House, must pass the budget. I have lost track of the
>> budget proposal from the House that the social democrats in the Senate
>> either would not allow to come to the floor or voted it down.
>
> The budget was voted down in the Senate because the House refused to do
> the reasonable think and include modest tax increases on those most able
> to pay. If they had compronised at all, it would have passed.

Give it up Bob, Keith is a lost cause :-).

Politics is getting really humorous - or pathetic. The Republicans say
the Democrats caused the housing bubble with the Affordable Housing Act.
The Democrats say the Republicans caused it by loosening regulations on
banks et al. Neither would have caused it if there hadn't been a bunch
of crooks out there just looking for a loophole to jump through.

Perhaps that's the basic problem - believing that people are perfectible.

Naah - just politicians enabling their own particular crooks - i.e.
donors.

--
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross.

On 11/7/2012 9:38 AM, Leon wrote:
> On 11/6/2012 7:32 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 10:11:20 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Bill wrote:
>>>> On 10/29/2012 9:18 AM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>>>> On 10/25/2012 05:01 PM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>>>>> Any bets on how far the DOW will fall if obama gets reelected?\
>>>>
>>>> The upcoming hurricane may have more potential to affect it. What
>>>> more convenient hedge against inflation is there than stocks?
>>>
>>> Large caches of guns, gasoline, bacon and it wouldn't hurt to have
>>> some gold
>>> on hand...
>>
>> Roger the guns, gasoline, and bacon but the last two spoil easily. Has
>> gold *ever* been used as the means of trade in a failed economy?
>>
>>>> That's
>>>> the best explanation I have for the lofty-levels they currently
>>>> maintain. I don't see an Obama-win reducing demand for stocks in the
>>>> short term.
>>>
>>> It won't change the demand, but it could likely have an impact on the
>>> growth
>>> of those stocks. Not much of a hedge if they don't grow.
>>
>> Yep. No way I'm getting near stocks for a while.
>>
>
>
> I was talking to my money manager about the possibility of Obama winning
> again and pulling out of the market. This guy is about 75 and very
> successful. He seems to think the market will do fine if he was
> reelected. Looking at past history, probably so. I have only been in
> the market since 1993 however I have noticed with data to back it up
> that beginning with the first Bush as president the markets do much
> better with a Democrat.

America is going to do find with the AO relection. This is the stock
market summary as of now 12 Noon the day after the elections.

Market Chart
Dow Jones 12,912.20 -333.48 (-2.52%)
S&P 500 1,394.07 -34.32 (-2.40%)
Nasdaq 2,938.53 -73.40 (-2.44%)

Sometime it hurts to be right. I wonder if it is going to make my 1000
point loss prediction.

On 11/7/2012 9:38 AM, Leon wrote:
> On 11/6/2012 7:32 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 10:11:20 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:

> I was talking to my money manager about the possibility of Obama winning
> again and pulling out of the market. This guy is about 75 and very
> successful. He seems to think the market will do fine if he was
> reelected. Looking at past history, probably so. I have only been in
> the market since 1993 however I have noticed with data to back it up
> that beginning with the first Bush as president the markets do much
> better with a Democrat.

America is going to do find with the socialist obama's re election.
This is the stock market summary as of now 12 Noon the day after the
elections.

Market Chart
Dow Jones 12,912.20 -333.48 (-2.52%)
S&P 500 1,394.07 -34.32 (-2.40%)
Nasdaq 2,938.53 -73.40 (-2.44%)

Sometime it hurts to be right. I wonder if it is going to make my 1000
point loss prediction or fall further.

Remember Roosevelt's socialist policies and big spend created a
depression where the market truly did not recover until the early 1950's
http://www.google.com/finance?q=INDEXDJX%3A.DJI&ei=r5CaUNikBovD0AGCNw

1929 to about 1953

On 11/7/2012 9:38 AM, Leon wrote:
> On 11/6/2012 7:32 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 10:11:20 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Bill wrote:
ow.
>>
>> Yep. No way I'm getting near stocks for a while.
>>
>
>
> I was talking to my money manager about the possibility of Obama winning
> again and pulling out of the market. This guy is about 75 and very
> successful. He seems to think the market will do fine if he was
> reelected. Looking at past history, probably so. I have only been in
> the market since 1993 however I have noticed with data to back it up
> that beginning with the first Bush as president the markets do much
> better with a Democrat.

America is going to do find with the socialist obama's re election.
This is the stock market summary as of now 12 Noon the day after the
elections.

Market Chart
Dow Jones 12,912.20 -333.48 (-2.52%)
S&P 500 1,394.07 -34.32 (-2.40%)
Nasdaq 2,938.53 -73.40 (-2.44%)

Sometime it hurts to be right. I wonder if it is going to make my 1000
point loss prediction or fall further.

Remember Roosevelt's socialist policies and big spend created a
depression where the market truly did not recover until the early 1950's
http://www.google.com/finance?q=INDEXDJX%3A.DJI&ei=r5CaUNikBovD0AGCNw

1929 to about 1953

On 10/29/2012 01:06 PM, Leon wrote:
> The markets did very well during Clinton's term.

Correlation and cause are not the same thing (the sun does not
set because the street lights go on). Clinton inherited
several major forces he had absolutely nothing to do with:

- A post cold-war surplus of ability, money, and people
being rechanneled from military weapons systems development
into the private sector.

- Communications costs falling so that the internet could become
a viable private sector technology.

- A previously passed tax law that taxed stock options (like the
kind most people got during the Dot Com explosion) at the
time of *exercise* not liquidation. That means people had to
pay taxes on these options *before they actually made any money
on them*. During Dot Com, this alone drove billions in new
tax revenue.

Clinton - whatever else his failings - was smart enough to ...
do nothing ... and let these things run their course. In a weird way,
a center left President was more laissez faire than many of the
so-called fiscal conservatives before- and after.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk

On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:25:19 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>Ha! You guys don't know what bacon is. Hint - Ham is not bacon! You want
>some real bacon, come on down.

Riiiiggghhht! Like there's any chance hell of US bacon being
comparable to Canadian back bacon. It's more likely that Romney will
win with a 90% support vote and have US spending in the black within a
year.

On 29 Oct 2012 13:27:49 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:

>Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> I am not voting for Obama, but this is just absurd. The Dow didn't
>> magically fall because of Obama. He inherited a mess ... and that
>> mess wasn't all Bush's fault. The truth is that there has been a lack
>> of fiscal stewardship in the US going all the way back to FDR. Until
>> and unless the American people quit demanding stuff they are unwilling
>> to pay for, nothing will change. There is no difference between
>> welfare for the poor, the middle class, or the rich - it's all an
>> economically impossible financial hustle.

I'm wit you, Tim. Obama created much of that mess with Fannie Mae so
he reaped what he sowed. (Google "democratic black caucus" and
"fannie mae" and "obama" or something thereabouts for more info.)


>I completely agree with the analysis, though I WILL vote for Obama. That
>is because his stewardship will be immeasurably better than I would
>expect from Romney & Co, i.e. austerity for the masses but give me my
>pound of flesh. Business will thrive when customers can afford the
>products and are educated enough to appreciate what they pay for. We
>need investment for our future, even if that means deficit spending for
>now.

The thing is, we DON'T need deficit spending to get what we need. All
that's required is to take a hard look at gov't branches and prune
heavily those which don't do anything but suck money from the
taxpayers. By my count, over half of them are that way. Reducing the
size of gov't gives us a whole lot more money to distribute to the
poor, aged, and homeless if we so choose. But the Fed will be stuck
helping the States with unemployment for the millions they lay off, so
the reduction won't be as high until the economy blossoms again. It's
still depressed and dropping out here.

--
No greater wrong can ever be done than to put a good man at the mercy
of a bad, while telling him not to defend himself or his fellows;
in no way can the success of evil be made quicker or surer.
--Theodore Roosevelt

On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 10:11:20 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Bill wrote:
>> On 10/29/2012 9:18 AM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>> On 10/25/2012 05:01 PM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>>> Any bets on how far the DOW will fall if obama gets reelected?\
>>
>> The upcoming hurricane may have more potential to affect it. What
>> more convenient hedge against inflation is there than stocks?
>
>Large caches of guns, gasoline, bacon and it wouldn't hurt to have some gold
>on hand...

Roger the guns, gasoline, and bacon but the last two spoil easily. Has
gold *ever* been used as the means of trade in a failed economy?

>> That's
>> the best explanation I have for the lofty-levels they currently
>> maintain. I don't see an Obama-win reducing demand for stocks in the
>> short term.
>
>It won't change the demand, but it could likely have an impact on the growth
>of those stocks. Not much of a hedge if they don't grow.

Yep. No way I'm getting near stocks for a while.

On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 18:01:26 -0400, Keith Nuttle
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Any bets on how far the DOW will fall if obama gets reelected?

I pray we will never know.

On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 10:11:20 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>Large caches of guns, gasoline, bacon and it wouldn't hurt to have some gold
>on hand...

Fine, go seclude yourself. Just leave *our* bacon alone. We've got all
our gasoline, bacon and the occasional hidden gun squirreled away too.

Jim Weisgram wrote:
> [...snip...]
>> That said, current polls are interesting:
>> Rasmussen: R 50, O 47
>> Gallup: R 50, O 47
>> ABC/Wash Post: R 50, O 47
>> AP: R 47, O45
>> Monmouth: R 48, O 45
>> Politico: R 49, O 47
>>
> [...snip...]
>
> You're looking at the wrong type of poll. The electoral college is
> what matters. In that, Obama still is narrowly ahead by most counts.
>

You're right, of course. I've noted below toss-up states along with their
electoral votes. Union members are the bulk of the Democrat's "ground game,"
so I've separated the list along that line.

Significant union presence
Michigan (16)
Nevada (6)
Ohio (18)
Wisconsin (10)
Total: 50

Unions almost unknown
Colorado (9)
Florida (29)
Iowa (6)
New Hampshire (4)
North Carolina (15)
Virginia (13)
Total: 76

Split
Pennsylvania (20)

Open a bottle of jam. Obama is toast.