Obama will withdraw in 2012

[auditor0007]

Intrade is pricing in Obama as the nominee at 90%. If you believe that Obama is going to withdraw, sell contracts for 90 cents. If he does, you pay out nothing and earn 90 cents for every contract sold. If he is the nominee, then you pay out a $1. But because you sold it for 90 cents, your loss is 10 cents per contract. IOW, the payoff is 9:1 if you are right that Obama will withdraw.

I imagine no one here will make that bet.

I'm sure a lot of people here would put a flier on it, but I doubt any would mortgage their house.

 

[xsited1]

Intrade is pricing in Obama as the nominee at 90%. If you believe that Obama is going to withdraw, sell contracts for 90 cents. If he does, you pay out nothing and earn 90 cents for every contract sold. If he is the nominee, then you pay out a $1. But because you sold it for 90 cents, your loss is 10 cents per contract. IOW, the payoff is 9:1 if you are right that Obama will withdraw.

I imagine no one here will make that bet.

Why do you believe nobody here would make that trade?

 

[Toro]

Roosevelt prolonged the Great Depression. I'm hoping that's what you meant to say.

i said what i meant.

nonsense about him prolonging the depression. that's rightwing propaganda because they hate roosevelt and have always hated the new deal.

Uh, no. This isn't a partisan issue, although I see you're a partisan until the end. There are plenty of studies to prove this. Here's a description of one for the non-partisans:

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate / UCLA Newsroom

It is a partisan issue. The economists only dealt with NIRA and wages, and made certain assumptions about the flexibility of wages which are highly debatable. I do not believe they dealt with other New Deal programs such as the creation of the FDIC nor the abandonment of the gold standard. To characterize the New Deal as the NRA while excluding other New Deal programs such as the FDIC and the revaluing of the dollar gives an incomplete picture.

 

[Toro]

Intrade is pricing in Obama as the nominee at 90%. If you believe that Obama is going to withdraw, sell contracts for 90 cents. If he does, you pay out nothing and earn 90 cents for every contract sold. If he is the nominee, then you pay out a $1. But because you sold it for 90 cents, your loss is 10 cents per contract. IOW, the payoff is 9:1 if you are right that Obama will withdraw.

I imagine no one here will make that bet.

Why do you believe nobody here would make that trade?

I have offered it up several times and no one whom I have asked has said they've taken it.

It's a great trade if you think you're right. I wouldn't take it though.

 

[xsited1]

i said what i meant.

nonsense about him prolonging the depression. that's rightwing propaganda because they hate roosevelt and have always hated the new deal.

Uh, no. This isn't a partisan issue, although I see you're a partisan until the end. There are plenty of studies to prove this. Here's a description of one for the non-partisans:

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate / UCLA Newsroom

It is a partisan issue. The economists only dealt with NIRA and wages, and made certain assumptions about the flexibility of wages which are highly debatable. I do not believe they dealt with other New Deal programs such as the creation of the FDIC nor the abandonment of the gold standard. To characterize the New Deal as the NRA while excluding other New Deal programs such as the FDIC and the revaluing of the dollar gives an incomplete picture.

So what study do you believe provides a complete picture?

 

[xsited1]

Intrade is pricing in Obama as the nominee at 90%. If you believe that Obama is going to withdraw, sell contracts for 90 cents. If he does, you pay out nothing and earn 90 cents for every contract sold. If he is the nominee, then you pay out a $1. But because you sold it for 90 cents, your loss is 10 cents per contract. IOW, the payoff is 9:1 if you are right that Obama will withdraw.

I imagine no one here will make that bet.

Why do you believe nobody here would make that trade?

I have offered it up several times and no one whom I have asked has said they've taken it.

It's a great trade if you think you're right. I wouldn't take it though.

I'll take that trade, but first I have to sign-up with Intrade.

 

[Charles_Main]

Had to start this one.

Rising oil prices + Rising food prices = Economic downturn

Presidential elections are determined by the economy. Ours will be in the tank this fall and I see Obama pulling an LBJ move.

ROFLMAO cmon people. I want to see him gone as much as the next Fiscal Conservative does, But this is bordering on the ridicules. There is no way in hell he will not be running.

 

[Toro]

Uh, no. This isn't a partisan issue, although I see you're a partisan until the end. There are plenty of studies to prove this. Here's a description of one for the non-partisans:

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate / UCLA Newsroom

It is a partisan issue. The economists only dealt with NIRA and wages, and made certain assumptions about the flexibility of wages which are highly debatable. I do not believe they dealt with other New Deal programs such as the creation of the FDIC nor the abandonment of the gold standard. To characterize the New Deal as the NRA while excluding other New Deal programs such as the FDIC and the revaluing of the dollar gives an incomplete picture.

So what study do you believe provides a complete picture?

There is no one study that provides a complete picture. I do agree that the NIRA was terrible economics. I'd be surprised to find any economist today, including liberal economists, who didn't think that. I also believe that liberals over-estimate the affect of the New Deal.

I also forgot, the data the UCLA economists' using was flawed.

The data that these economists excludes jobs from the WPA. The chief statistician at the time made judgments about "real" jobs. He didn't think that the jobs created by the New Deal were "real" jobs so he didn't count them. So the 3 million people hired for make-work jobs weren't counted. Of course, concluding that the New Deal didn't work based on this data is preposterous because the whole point of the New Deal jobs programs were to hire people. Starting in 1947, the BLS (or whomever it was) started counting all jobs, including those jobs the chief statistician excluded.

More here.

The right-wing New Deal conniption fit - How the World Works - Salon.com
http://www.nber.org/papers/w0088.pdf

 

[xsited1]

Had to start this one.

Rising oil prices + Rising food prices = Economic downturn

Presidential elections are determined by the economy. Ours will be in the tank this fall and I see Obama pulling an LBJ move.

ROFLMAO cmon people. I want to see him gone as much as the next Fiscal Conservative does, But this is bordering on the ridicules. There is no way in hell he will not be running.

I certainly agree it is highly unlikely, but with all the lies and cover-ups anything is possible.

 

[Toro]

Why do you believe nobody here would make that trade?

I have offered it up several times and no one whom I have asked has said they've taken it.

It's a great trade if you think you're right. I wouldn't take it though.

I'll take that trade, but first I have to sign-up with Intrade.

Cool.

 

[candycorn]

There's no chance that Obama is going to drop out. He'll most likely win re-election, too.

I fear you're right.

 

[Zander]

He will run. He will trot out a new bullshit slogan.."don't give up" or some other nonsensical trope that fools and followers love. The simpletons who voted for him last time will line up like lemmings again......He will never drop out- he has an enormous ego and an out-sized image of himself. But in the end he will lose. The middle will abandon him, and the hard left will stay home. He's not an unknown anymore - he's a known now, a known failure.

 

[Avorysuds]

He will run. He will trot out a new bullshit slogan.."don't give up" or some other nonsensical trope that fools and followers love. The simpletons who voted for him last time will line up like lemmings again......He will never drop out- he has an enormous ego and an out-sized image of himself. But in the end he will lose. The middle will abandon him, and the hard left will stay home. He's not an unknown anymore - he's a known now, a known failure.

Yeah, "Win the Future" just didn't catch on like they hoped it would, lol.

 

[xsited1]

It is a partisan issue. The economists only dealt with NIRA and wages, and made certain assumptions about the flexibility of wages which are highly debatable. I do not believe they dealt with other New Deal programs such as the creation of the FDIC nor the abandonment of the gold standard. To characterize the New Deal as the NRA while excluding other New Deal programs such as the FDIC and the revaluing of the dollar gives an incomplete picture.

So what study do you believe provides a complete picture?

There is no one study that provides a complete picture. I do agree that the NIRA was terrible economics. I'd be surprised to find any economist today, including liberal economists, who didn't think that. I also believe that liberals over-estimate the affect of the New Deal.

I also forgot, the data the UCLA economists' using was flawed.

The data that these economists excludes jobs from the WPA. The chief statistician at the time made judgments about "real" jobs. He didn't think that the jobs created by the New Deal were "real" jobs so he didn't count them. So the 3 million people hired for make-work jobs weren't counted. Of course, concluding that the New Deal didn't work based on this data is preposterous because the whole point of the New Deal jobs programs were to hire people. Starting in 1947, the BLS (or whomever it was) started counting all jobs, including those jobs the chief statistician excluded.

More here.

The right-wing New Deal conniption fit - How the World Works - Salon.com
http://www.nber.org/papers/w0088.pdf

Well, okay. You said it is a partisan issue and I'll concede that point only because everything is a partisan issue.

I can see why you would think the excluding the New Deal jobs would be preposterous. My father got a job with the CCC. (It was actually 4 million workers in the Civil Works Administration by 1934.) But FDR raised taxes to pay the unemployed for their attendance at government-run public works projects and borrowed the rest. When you do this, you're usually substituting government jobs for private sector jobs. Even with this, the total level of unemployment the 1930s didn't change much. Some might argue that FDR was basically buying votes by putting people to work. So I'm not sure if I buy the "preposterous" argument.

Anyhoo, if you find a paper that satisfies whatever criteria you require, let me know.

 

[casper4020322]

If he does run I hopes he loses. I am so sick and tired of seeing this man being run over the coals by ppl who hate him b/c of his heritage and who will never agree with anything he does. He could jump in the Atlantic Ocean and save a person from drowning and there will be ppl in this country who will find fault instead of giving him credit for saving a life.

 

[Bosun]

Had to start this one.

Rising oil prices + Rising food prices = Economic downturn

Presidential elections are determined by the economy. Ours will be in the tank this fall and I see Obama pulling an LBJ move.

Well, it will be Hillary's turn to run after all. It just might happen now.

i would vote for hillbillary over obamanation any day... but to tell you the truth, i don't want to waste or throw away votes... hillbillary could do a much better job than obamanation is doing... there is no leadership in the current adminstration.

 

[Mr Liberty]

people like him.

well, at least the ones who don't have obama derangement syndrome do... even when they don't agree with him on everything.

plus, given the prior 8 years, to most people it doesn't seem that bad...

unless, like i said, one suffers from obama derangement syndrome.

That..and there haven't been any screwups. If anything..President Obama's been one of the most accomplished and given the circumstances, successful American leaders in American History.

Which is why..he's very likely to win re-election.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAHAHAHA haAHahHAhahahahahaHahhahahaha hah HUuuUUu HuuUUUU HHahAhahahhaHAhahahahaa...>....HuuuU HHuUUU AAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHAHHHA AHA HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHhahahH Ahahahahahaa!


Harding pulls the US out of a Depression by shrinking Government... Obama Spends trillions and has to fluff the numbers to even make it seem like there is a change in the numbers. Yes, he is right up there as a top President.

Let me Guess what Obama will run off of...

Ending Iraq war
Ending Afghanistan War
Ending the Libya War
Ending Torture
Ending Homeland security
Ending the Bush tax cuts
Ending Bail outs for rich
Ending The Illegal immigration Issue
Bring the parties together
Not being Bush
Pretty much everything he ran off in 2008... Odd ther was ZERO repeal. Swallow is gonna run out and vote for Obama asap, lolz.

He also promised to end NAFTA.

 

[jillian]

Had to start this one.

Rising oil prices + Rising food prices = Economic downturn

Presidential elections are determined by the economy. Ours will be in the tank this fall and I see Obama pulling an LBJ move.

is that why the right is working so hard to destroy any possible chance of the economy improving?


you do know he's still at about 47/48% realclear politics average, right?

fox actually has him at 49%.

oops...

The Right? gas prices alone will destroy any hope of recovery. And it's on Obama

absurd

 

[jillian]

I find it absolutely amazing that Obama has an approval rating close to 50% after all of his screw-ups. Even the Republicans eventually saw through Bush and yet Obama is not only making the same mistakes that Bush made, he's screwing up in ways nobody even predicted.

people like him.

well, at least the ones who don't have obama derangement syndrome do... even when they don't agree with him on everything.

plus, given the prior 8 years, to most people it doesn't seem that bad...

unless, like i said, one suffers from obama derangement syndrome.

You always find a way to make me laugh.

i speak true, kimosabe.

 

[editec]

Had to start this one.

Rising oil prices + Rising food prices = Economic downturn

Presidential elections are determined by the economy. Ours will be in the tank this fall and I see Obama pulling an LBJ move.

A distinct possiblity.

You quite correctly note, just as the Clinton people did in their run-up for the oval office that that election that...

"It's about the economy, stupid!"​