The Stimulus Seems to have failed

[BeAChooser]

Why do you persist in the illusion that I'm a Democrat?

Might it have something to do with the number of times you've joined threads to do what seems to be nothing more than defend democrats and Obama?

I distinctly recall you posting an OP where you advised sane republicans to leave the party because it "it has resorted to openly encouraging mob actions in order to scuttle orderly discussion, debate, and compromise." Meanwhile you completely ignored similar behavior by democrats and even tried to silence comments by others on that fact. And related to that thread, I distinctly recall you giving democrats advice on how they should portray republicans and not "miss their opportunity". I distinctly recall you saying "honestly, I don't think anyone on the Democratic side is attempting to stop anyone from voicing opposing opinions". The only folks I've heard express such nonsense have been the most die-hard democrats.

I've watched you defend Obama over and over and over. You immediately jumped to his defense when comparisons were made between him and Palin, who you were attacking at the time. You jumped in when charges that Obama is a socialist were made. In fact, you claimed he "is a dedicated capitalist with no interest in nationalizing our industries, creating a command economy, or any other such stuff." I've only heard hard-core democrats utter such complete drivel.

I watched you claim Obama is against reparations, despite the fact he belonged to and gave money to a church that for 20 years strongly advocated reparations. Despite the fact that some of major political sponsors are folks who openly advocate reparations. Despite the fact that he endorsed candidates, like Dorothy Tillman, who are preoccupied with obtaining reparations. It's her #1 issue and Obama endorsed her reelection, yet you claim he's against reparations.

I've watched you try and make Obama's redistributive words go away. Watched you ignore the fact that over the past 45 years, the US has spent upwards of $10 TRILLION dollars on a largely unsuccessful war on poverty and you claim Obama isn't forcing his agenda through Congress in order to send even more trillions to that "base" in the form of free education, free health care, free mortgages, free this and free that.

During the election, I watched you support Obama. Challenge the claim that Obama's platform is "for growing the government." Claim that Obama's plans would increase the deficit less than his opponents. I watched you defend Obama's plan to soak the rich because "he doesn't intend to raise taxes on people whose taxes, in his opinion, are too high." Watched you defend Obama's energy plans. Watched you defend his Iraq policy, even though it called for withdrawing from Iraq on schedule regardless of the state of the war.

So call me a skeptic, but you just don't sound like anything other than a run of the mill democrat, Piggy.

 

[BeAChooser]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/143426/Gallup-Finds-Unemployment-September.aspx

Unemployment, as measured by Gallup without seasonal adjustment, increased to 10.1% in September -- up sharply from 9.3% in August and 8.9% in July. Much of this increase came during the second half of the month -- the unemployment rate was 9.4% in mid-September -- and therefore is unlikely to be picked up in the government's unemployment report on Friday.

… snip ...

The government's final unemployment report before the midterm elections is based on job market conditions around mid-September. Gallup's modeling of the unemployment rate is consistent with Tuesday's ADP report of a decline of 39,000 private-sector jobs, and indicates that the government's national unemployment rate in September will be in the 9.6% to 9.8% range. ... snip ...

However, Gallup's monitoring of job market conditions suggests that there was a sharp increase in the unemployment rate during the last couple of weeks of September.

… snip …

Regardless, the sharp increase in the unemployment rate during late September does not bode well for the economy during the fourth quarter, or for holiday sales. In this regard, it is essential that the Federal Reserve and other policymakers not be misled by Friday's jobs numbers. The jobs picture could be deteriorating more rapidly than the government's job release suggests.

Wow, that stimulus sure was a success, Piggy.

 

[BeAChooser]

Before you vote democrat in November, folks … just remember this video …

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAn6XJh4xgo

… and the message at the end.

 

[BeAChooser]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...PEOPLE?SITE=JRC&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Oct 7

… snip …

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A government investigator says 89,000 stimulus payments of $250 each went to people who were either dead or in prison.

The Social Security Administration's inspector general said in a report Thursday that $18 million went to 72,000 people who were dead. The report estimates that a little more than half the payments were returned.

The report said $4.3 million went to a little more than 17,000 prison inmates.

What I wonder is how many jobs it was claimed this spending created or saved?

 

[Piggy]

Might it have something to do with the number of times you've joined threads to do what seems to be nothing more than defend democrats and Obama?

I think the current admin has done an OK job so far, although right now I'm not too pleased with them. (But not for the same reasons that the Teabaggers are angry at them.)

But see, that's the thing about solution-based voters... we're not obsessed with party, and we're free to criticize or support anyone based on what they do.

A failure to hate Obama doesn't make a person a Democrat.

I distinctly recall you posting an OP where you advised sane republicans to leave the party because it "it has resorted to openly encouraging mob actions in order to scuttle orderly discussion, debate, and compromise." Meanwhile you completely ignored similar behavior by democrats and even tried to silence comments by others on that fact.

The entire purpose of that thread was to criticize the current GOP leadership for abandoning the mainstream conservative principles which I support in favor of hard right-wing idiocy, thereby decimating the party, and to advocate for the formation of a new mainstream conservative party.

As in all threads I start, I objected to off-topic posts, and discussions of the Democratic party, liberals, and lefties were all clearly off-topic. The mods agreed.

And related to that thread, I distinctly recall you giving democrats advice on how they should portray republicans and not "miss their opportunity".

I wasn't giving anyone advice. I was pointing out how politically inept the Democrats were (and still are). If I were a Democrat, I would have made hay, but they seem incapable of taking advantage of even the most blatant and easy political opportunities.

I've watched you defend Obama over and over and over. You immediately jumped to his defense when comparisons were made between him and Palin, who you were attacking at the time. You jumped in when charges that Obama is a socialist were made. In fact, you claimed he "is a dedicated capitalist with no interest in nationalizing our industries, creating a command economy, or any other such stuff." I've only heard hard-core democrats utter such complete drivel.

You're obviously wrong about that last statement, because you've heard it from me. You simply categorize anyone who fails to hate Obama as a hard-core Dem.

I am not an Obama hater. I think he's been pretty much as advertised (not as maligned by the torch and pitchfork crowd).

He is clearly not a Socialist. That's absurd. I've lived in a socialist country, so I know what it is. And if you'll check, I was right on both counts there. The gov't didn't nationalize the banks (despite many economists' urging to) and no effort has been made to establish a command economy.

As for Palin, she's a savvy media personality, but politically she's a dangerous fool. As I said, I switched my vote from McCain when they brought her on board.

I watched you claim Obama is against reparations, despite the fact he belonged to and gave money to a church that for 20 years strongly advocated reparations. Despite the fact that some of major political sponsors are folks who openly advocate reparations. Despite the fact that he endorsed candidates, like Dorothy Tillman, who are preoccupied with obtaining reparations. It's her #1 issue and Obama endorsed her reelection, yet you claim he's against reparations.

I pointed out that he's against reparations because he's against reparations. You can't even cite any instance of him advocating for reparations.

I've watched you try and make Obama's redistributive words go away. Watched you ignore the fact that over the past 45 years, the US has spent upwards of $10 TRILLION dollars on a largely unsuccessful war on poverty and you claim Obama isn't forcing his agenda through Congress in order to send even more trillions to that "base" in the form of free education, free health care, free mortgages, free this and free that.

Dude, all those guys are funneling money to their bases, right left and center. Have you not noticed?

And btw, I agree with you that the "war on poverty" cannot succeed. Neither can the "war on drugs".

One of the biggest problems with liberals is that they believe human nature can be changed by re-structuring the environment. They are wrong.

During the election, I watched you support Obama. Challenge the claim that Obama's platform is "for growing the government." Claim that Obama's plans would increase the deficit less than his opponents. I watched you defend Obama's plan to soak the rich because "he doesn't intend to raise taxes on people whose taxes, in his opinion, are too high." Watched you defend Obama's energy plans. Watched you defend his Iraq policy, even though it called for withdrawing from Iraq on schedule regardless of the state of the war.

Once again, my friend, for us independent thinkers, supporting particular policies of any particular candidate does not make us members of their party.

Neither does living in reality and bothering to argue against false accusations leveled against any candidate or office holder.

The reason I'm so quick to argue against lies against Obama is that they hurt conservatives by making us all seem like ignorant lunatics.

I did support Obama once McCain lost control of his own campaign and brought on that idiot Palin.

Now that he's in office, I like a lot of his approaches. I think Geitner has done well, too. And I'm 100% certain that the hands-off, let-em-fail, right-wing branch of the GOP, if in power, would have made us much worse off than we are now.

And Heaven help us if crazy teabaggers like Rand Paul, Christie O'Donnell, and Carl Paladino get any sort of real power.

Doesn't make me a Democrat.

I have voted for Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, and independents. I consider myself a Rockefeller Republican, although right now I want absolutely nothing to do with the GOP, which has been hijacked by fools.

I want a viable conservative party in this country. Right now we don't have one. And I'm not as scared of the loony left as I am of the loony right, because the loony left is so hopelessly disorganized that they are much less dangerous.

 

[BeAChooser]

I think the current admin has done an OK job so far

Now how can you expect us to believe you aren't a democrat when you keep uttering nonsense like that, Piggy?

As in all threads I start, I objected to off-topic posts, and discussions of the Democratic party, liberals, and lefties were all clearly off-topic.

Funny thing about that claim. You stated in the OP that sane republicans should leave the party because it "it has resorted to openly encouraging mob actions in order to scuttle orderly discussion, debate, and compromise". That was the on-topic topic. So why didn't you complain to moderators when Ziggurat, Drysdale, Brainster, and several others suggested you were ignoring left wing mob actions? They did this for TWO DAYS before I first posted on the thread and you complained. Why did you not complain to the moderators when that long drawn out discussion of democrat behavior began? Perhaps because up to when I entered the thread you thought you were getting the better of the debate while defending democrats?

I wasn't giving anyone advice. I was pointing out how politically inept the Democrats were (and still are).

Oh, so I just misinterpreted your *tone* when you said "If the Dems had a lick of sense, they'd portray these mini-mobs as infringing on other voters' rights. That's how to tap into the majority's distaste for this kind of thing -- it's the same sort of emotion that people feel for folks who cut into lines or use the shoulder to move up in traffic. People hate that. But typically, they're missing their opportunity." I see.

I am not an Obama hater.

No, that's clear enough. You actually come out to defend him over and over.

He is clearly not a Socialist. That's absurd.

It's not absurd at all … not when he willing surrounded himself with dozens of socialists and communists (who often disguise themselves as socialists) over the years … people he has called mentors, friends and father figures. Not when he's still bringing them into his administration and placing them in top positions. The latest example of that is Peter Rouse … a Fabian socialist. Just like I suspect Obama is at heart.

The gov't didn't nationalize the banks (despite many economists' urging to)

Speaking of which, Elizabeth Warren, the women Obama just named to head the newly created, and potentially very powerful, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, was one of those who advocated doing just that when she chaired the Congressional Oversight Panel (http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/21/co...arp-opinions-columnists-elizabeth-warren.html ). The fact they didn't do it probably has more to do with the resistance they would have seen to trying, than anything else. Warren, by the way, like Obama, also likes to hang around and work with socialists … like the coauthors, Steffie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein, of some of her articles on bankruptcy. They're socialists.

and no effort has been made to establish a command economy

Really? Do you know what makes the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, (which Warren will head via a backdoor appointment that avoided the need for Congressional approval) so dangerous? It's a big step on the road to establishing government control of the economy. Afterall, this new Bureau, an idea that was supposedly the brainchild of Barney Franks and Chris Dodd (who together helped corrupt Fannie May and Freddie Mac, leading to the financial collapse), will have the ability to "prescribe rules . . .as may be necessary or appropriate to enable the Bureau to administer and carry out the purposes and objectives of the Federal consumer laws, and to prevent evasions thereof." That rulemaking power covers almost every aspect of consumer financial products. It effectively gives control the financial sector to the government, much like Obamacare let's the government control healthcare. And at least for now that Bureau will be run by an unelected "czar" appointed by his majesty, Obama, without Congressional approval. And that czar is so anti-business that she wasn't expected to get confirmed even with a democrat-controlled Senate.

As for Palin, she's a savvy media personality, but politically she's a dangerous fool.

Well I consider Obama politically savvy but a dangerous fool.

As I said, I switched my vote from McCain when they brought her on board.

But it didn't bother you that Obama brought on board, in the exact same position, Joe Biden, who is a *proven* fool and not even a savvy media personality? Again, you expect us to believe you aren't a democrat?

I pointed out that he's against reparations because he's against reparations. You can't even cite any instance of him advocating for reparations.

As I told you back then, it depends on how you define "reparations". I would call many of his current actions vis a vis "redistribution of wealth" a form of reparations, since they are designed to benefit, in particular, the black community. His actions speak louder than any statements denying support for reparations or statements openly advocating reparations. Like I said, he's politically savvy and is not going to hurt himself by saying what he really thinks about the issue knowing how most Americans would view that.

And here are his actions. For 20 years he chose to associate with a radical church that strongly advocated reparations. He chose to endorse Dorothy Tillman, whose #1 issue was obtaining reparations … who said "Chicago has become the de facto center of the slavery reparations movement". He chose to help black farmers in the Pigford case. During the campaign, he picked Linda Darling-Hammond (LDH) as his top education advisor. During his campaign, she fully endorsed the reparations-for-slavery notion called the "education debt" that Ayer's has promoted for a decade. Obama stated on Meet the Press in July 27, 2008 that "The biggest problem that we have in terms of race relations, I think, is dealing with the legacy of past discrimination which has resulted in extreme disparities in terms of poverty, in terms of wealth and in terms of income. Our inner cities are a legacy of what happened in the past. And the question is less assigning blame or rooting out active racism, because that's not the reason that those inner cities are in such bad shape, but rather figuring out are we willing to make the investments to deal with that past history so we can move forward to a brighter future?" That bolded phrase sure sounds like a code word for reparations to me, Piggy.

Dude, all those guys are funneling money to their bases, right left and center. Have you not noticed?

See, there you go again, defending Obama and the liberal agenda again … this time with the ol' *they all do it* argument.

Once again, my friend, for us independent thinkers, supporting particular policies of any particular candidate does not make us members of their party.

LOL! I think you doth protest too much.

I think Geitner has done well, too.

LOL! Earlier you said there's been no effort to establish a command economy. Not true. Certainly there were efforts in that direction. Last March, Giethner provided a draft of a bill to give him the power (called "resolution authority") to take over large financial institutions. The bill would have granted the U.S. government (specifically the Executive Branch) the authority to put a big financial company into receivership or conservatorship. A nationalization plan. And it finally passed into law in May of this year.

And it's a matter of opinion whether Geithner has done well. I don't quite agree given the current state of the economy. I also find it ironic that Obama, who made such a big deal about attacking "special interests" during his campaign, should bring into his cabinet a person who has been described (http://www.aim.org/aim-column/the-big-money-behind-geithner/ ) as a "wheeler-dealer for powerful special interests." At minimum, I think Giethner is a useful tool who dismisses the socialism charge as ridiculous … just like you. Hopefully you didn't also cheat on your taxes?

And I'm 100% certain that the hands-off, let-em-fail, right-wing branch of the GOP, if in power, would have made us much worse off than we are now.

And mischaracterizing what the vast majority of republicans actually want in terms of regulation, doesn't make me think you are one. It just makes me think you are out to demonize republicans at almost every opportunity.

And Heaven help us if crazy teabaggers like Rand Paul, Christie O'Donnell, and Carl Paladino get any sort of real power.

No, instead we have the likes of Barney Franks, Maxines Waters and Nancy Pelosi in power. Not to mention Obama and his skeletons.

I consider myself a Rockefeller Republican, although right now I want absolutely nothing to do with the GOP, which has been hijacked by fools.

LOL! Color me skeptical, Piggy. A Rockefeller Republican is a fiscally conservative republican with liberal social views. But you don't sound like you are all that fiscally conservative. Rockefeller Republicans opposed socialism and redistribution of wealth, although they believed in the New Deal and a social safety net. You don't seem concerned at all about socialism or wealth redistribution, but I bet you support the New Deal just like you support Obama's New New Deal. Sadly, Rockefeller Republicans thought they could "out" New Deal the democrats. Best them at their own game. And ended up only helping democrats get us into the financial and social mess we now find ourselves. Nowadays, most of us just call RRs what they really are. RINOs.

I want a viable conservative party in this country. Right now we don't have one.

LOL! He says … just before a November election where democrats face what can only be characterized as an election disaster at the hands of the republican party.

And I'm not as scared of the loony left as I am of the loony right

Except the loony left currently has the power of fiat and seems to have no compunction using it.

 

[Piggy]

Now how can you expect us to believe you aren't a democrat when you keep uttering nonsense like that, Piggy?

The problem is yours, BAC.

You are such a rabid hyperpartisan that you cannot even imagine anyone failing to hate any Democrat, or failing to suck up even the most outrageous lies about any Democrat, without being a die-hard Democrat.

So be it. I'm not your babysitter.

 

[Piggy]

Oh, so I just misinterpreted your *tone* when you said "If the Dems had a lick of sense, they'd portray these mini-mobs as infringing on other voters' rights. That's how to tap into the majority's distaste for this kind of thing -- it's the same sort of emotion that people feel for folks who cut into lines or use the shoulder to move up in traffic. People hate that. But typically, they're missing their opportunity." I see.

So... you don't see how that statement right there is equivalent to this?:

I was pointing out how politically inept the Democrats were (and still are).

Thank you for proving the point I made in my previous post.

I rest my case.

 

[Piggy]

See, there you go again, defending Obama and the liberal agenda again … this time with the ol' *they all do it* argument.

So, in your world, condemning everybody = defending everybody.

We are through the looking glass, gentlemen!

 

[Piggy]

No, instead we have the likes of Barney Franks, Maxines Waters and Nancy Pelosi in power.

Dude, as much as you may dislike them, these folks are experienced DC grinders, just like their GOP counterparts. They are not naive idiots like O'Donnell, conspiracy theorist nutjobs like Paul, or gutter thugs like Paladino.

ETA: Paladino is the white Sharpton. If Sharpton were in a position of power, you'd have a point.

 

[Piggy]

A Rockefeller Republican is a fiscally conservative republican with liberal social views. But you don't sound like you are all that fiscally conservative. Rockefeller Republicans opposed socialism and redistribution of wealth, although they believed in the New Deal and a social safety net. You don't seem concerned at all about socialism or wealth redistribution, but I bet you support the New Deal just like you support Obama's New New Deal.

I don't "support" anything that happened in the past and is over. That would be stupid.

But yes, you've got this one right, and yes, I fit the Rockefeller Republican mold.

I do agree that we need to keep a very sharp eye on where the "sweet spot" is, between keeping the economy from stalling, and creating a fiscal time bomb.

That's why I'm very concerned about where the administration is right now. They're talking a good game about reining in the spending, but they don't seem to have the political savvy or muscle to actually make it happen. That's truly scary.

It would be less scary if the current Republican caucus showed any interest in tackling the deficit, but their pandering policies are likely to make things just as bad, or worse, as the Democrats' strategies. Their "pledge" is a ********* train wreck!

And that was my primary reservation about Obama. He was a guy who got promoted through the ranks too quickly, without having the time to learn the lessons he needed to learn at each step, and without having to make enough hard decisions to establish him within the system of trade-offs that directly determines how politics play out in DC.

Nobody owed him anything, because he had never had sufficient influence to do any good deeds for anyone. He was the fair-haired boy of the Democratic image machine -- lots of good ideas, some great rhetoric, but no history of tip for tap.

So that's the real concern.

Socialism is not the real concern. That's a red herring. It's a distraction. Better to deal with the actual threats.

Right now I sense that the Obama administration has finally figured out that its Silicon Valley fueled populist approach has run out of steam. (Hell, just look at that *************** of a Gulf-oil-spill speech -- no solutions, just a promise to keep an ear out for ideas.) And I'm not seeing any alternatives coming out of the inner circle.

We can only hope that the 2-year-shakeup will bring in some fresh blood.

But since Congress -- red and blue -- appear intent on abdicating their responsibilities, I'm not very hopeful.

 

[Piggy]

And mischaracterizing what the vast majority of republicans actually want in terms of regulation, doesn't make me think you are one. It just makes me think you are out to demonize republicans at almost every opportunity.

You need to read more carefully. I was not describing what the majority of Republicans want, but rather what the fringe wants. I specifically said "the hands-off, let-em-fail, right-wing branch of the GOP", not the middle-of-the-road Republicans.

And sadly, after the McCain debacle, the fringe are the ones who hold the reins of power in the party.

And if the teabaggers have their way, all of the mainstreamers will be labeled RINOs and kicked out.

 

[Piggy]

Except the loony left currently has the power of fiat and seems to have no compunction using it.

Well, thank you Jesus, but they don't.

The loony left are furious at Obama for not catering to them.

That's why I still hold out hope that he'll pull it together.

His situation is not unusual for a first-termer in his second year.

The problem, tho, is that the circumstances are very unusual, and mistakes right now could have serious repurcussions for generations to come.

 

[PixyMisa]

I don't "support" anything that happened in the past and is over. That would be stupid.

But yes, you've got this one right, and yes, I fit the Rockefeller Republican mold.

I do agree that we need to keep a very sharp eye on where the "sweet spot" is, between keeping the economy from stalling, and creating a fiscal time bomb.

That's why I'm very concerned about where the administration is right now. They're talking a good game about reining in the spending, but they don't seem to have the political savvy or muscle to actually make it happen. That's truly scary.

In fact, their actions don't appear to match their words at all.

It would be less scary if the current Republican caucus showed any interest in tackling the deficit, but their pandering policies are likely to make things just as bad, or worse, as the Democrats' strategies. Their "pledge" is a ********* train wreck!

That's precisely why the establishment GOP is getting steamrollered by the Tea Party. And part of why, in 2008, the GOP vote was so lackluster. The performance of the Congressional Republicans has been dismal.

And that was my primary reservation about Obama. He was a guy who got promoted through the ranks too quickly, without having the time to learn the lessons he needed to learn at each step, and without having to make enough hard decisions to establish him within the system of trade-offs that directly determines how politics play out in DC.

Nobody owed him anything, because he had never had sufficient influence to do any good deeds for anyone. He was the fair-haired boy of the Democratic image machine -- lots of good ideas, some great rhetoric, but no history of tip for tap.

I honestly don't see the good ideas, and I certainly don't hear the great rhetoric. His delivery is wooden, and the content is numbingly banal.

Socialism is not the real concern. That's a red herring. It's a distraction. Better to deal with the actual threats.

I think socialism is at least a concern here. But the main concern is simply low-quality government from all sides and at all levels.

Right now I sense that the Obama administration has finally figured out that its Silicon Valley fueled populist approach has run out of steam. (Hell, just look at that *************** of a Gulf-oil-spill speech -- no solutions, just a promise to keep an ear out for ideas.) And I'm not seeing any alternatives coming out of the inner circle.

Yep.

We can only hope that the 2-year-shakeup will bring in some fresh blood.

But since Congress -- red and blue -- appear intent on abdicating their responsibilities, I'm not very hopeful.

Yep. There are some decent legislators in the House - though they seem to be in the minority - but I wouldn't give a diseased fig for the entire Senate.

 

[Piggy]

That's precisely why the establishment GOP is getting steamrollered by the Tea Party.

Not yet, they're not.

Primaries are just kissing and holding hands.

We'll see who gets in bed with whom come November.

It may well be that these Tea Party candidates end up back home on their couches all alone.

The Tea Party may end up being the GOP's Ralph Nader.

 

[Piggy]

I honestly don't see the good ideas

If you see the economy working at all, and gains finally being made in jobs and economic growth, then you see the good ideas.

Look, we all borrowed exhorbitantly on phony capital that never existed, and then it all came tumbling down. It's a wonder that things turned around as soon as they did, and that unemployment is only at 10%.

 

[Piggy]

I think socialism is at least a concern here. But the main concern is simply low-quality government from all sides and at all levels.

Nah, nobody's got the stomach for socialism around here.

In this environment, even if any higher-ups wanted to go that route, there's no way they could.

But I'd go even farther than you on that last point -- the main concern is a failure to govern altogether.

 

[PixyMisa]

Not yet, they're not.

Primaries are just kissing and holding hands.

We'll see who gets in bed with whom come November.

True enough, but the Tea Party are winning lots of primaries.

It may well be that these Tea Party candidates end up back home on their couches all alone.

The Tea Party may end up being the GOP's Ralph Nader.

Based on the polling results so far that seems implausible. But we'll see soon enough.

 

[PixyMisa]

If you see the economy working at all, and gains finally being made in jobs and economic growth, then you see the good ideas.

No, that's just handwaving. Hey, the economy isn't completely dead, we must be good!

 

[Piggy]

Based on the polling results so far that seems implausible. But we'll see soon enough.

Not on the polls I'm seeing.

If you'd care to make a cash wager, PM me. I'm game.