Prediction Map

Prediction States Won

		270 |	538 |
Dem	186
Rep	352
Ind	0

Confidence States Won

		270 |	538 |
Dem	186
Rep	215
Ind	0
Tos	137

State Pick-ups

	Gain			Loss			Hold			Net Gain
	ST	CD	EV	ST	CD	EV	ST	CD	EV
Dem	0	0	0	-14	-1	-173	15	2	186	-173
Rep	+14	+1	+173	0	0	0	22	2	179	+173
Ind	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

Analysis

Romney vs. Obama. Unemployment will remain stuck at 9%, with real unemployment at 15%. Gas will be $4.00+ per gallon. Obama has absolutely no chance whatsoever. The GOP could nominate a hamster and still win.

Prediction History

Comments History - hide

Version: 6

Made a few minor corrections to confidence map.

Version: 5

Minor corrections made on confidence map.

Obama is toast.

Version: 4

Moved New Mexico to 0bama. He's still toast.

Version: 3

Romney vs. Obama. Unemployment will remain stuck at 9%, with real unemployment at 15%. Gas will be $4.00+ per gallon. Obama has absolutely no chance whatsoever. The GOP could nominate a hamster and still win.

Version: 2

I've changed my mind. I'm giving PA to the Republican candidate. The recent downgrading of US debt convinces me that our economy will be a complete disaster come November, 2012. Obama has no chance at all. It'll be a blowout on the order of 1980.

Version: 1

Obama vs. pretty much whoever the Republicans nominate. It won't be Romney. He will not get the nomination. Probably Rick Perry.

Version History

7: 2012-11-02 @ 08:47:04 6: 2012-06-03 @ 16:32:46 5: 2012-04-25 @ 00:47:56 4: 2012-04-21 @ 23:12:01 3: 2012-01-29 @ 12:05:51 2: 2011-08-08 @ 13:41:37 1: 2011-07-21 @ 15:44:53 View Version

Member Comments

By: Twindad46 (R-IL) 2012-01-29 @ 12:07:14
One more thing. The government unions will spend a boatload of money trying to get rid of Scott Walker, money that will not be available for 0bama. And, Walker will be retained in office.

---

By: dnul222 (D-MN) 2012-01-29 @ 13:21:26
This is not possible as there are other states which will go for Obama in the worst case scenario like Minnesota, believe me Independents are not for the GOP this year in MN...

---

By: Twindad46 (R-IL) 2012-01-29 @ 22:06:22
Even if I give you Minnesota, 0bama is still toast.

---

By: MilesC56 (I-VA) 2012-01-30 @ 06:36:43
You're awfully generous to the Republicans...

---

By: dnul222 (D-MN) 2012-01-30 @ 10:22:22
Twindad46- that was one example of worst case scenario...I do not believe Obama is toast, although he is probably baked... A closer election is what I feel will happen-will Obama win (today he would) time will tell which side of the pendulum will swing to the winner... it is not impossible for the House to go DEM, retain senate and lose Presidency...unlikely but possible.

---

By: colin (I-ON) 2012-01-30 @ 10:27:43
Dnul! Hope you are well! What are your thoughts at this point? Loose predictions of House/Senate/Presidency?

---

By: colin (I-ON) 2012-01-30 @ 10:29:21
I happen to agree with you BTW. I just don't see Minnesota or New Mexico swinging GOP.

---

By: Liberallover (-NY) 2012-01-30 @ 12:37:15
remember how many maps looked like this in 2008?

---

By: Twindad46 (R-IL) 2012-02-01 @ 23:44:41
Liberal - In 2008 0bama was not the incumbent, unemployment was nowhere near 10%, gas was $2 per gallon, our national debt was still considerably less than our GDP, we hadn't thrown away $1 trillion on a failed stimulus plan and 0bamacare didn't exist. BTW, the Dems will not take the House. We've had redistricting and most state legislatures are controlled by Republicans.

---

By: albaleman (D-MN) 2012-02-02 @ 13:34:23
LOL... this map is gonna be a lot of fun when every single prediction on it turns out to be wrong (though I do expect Republicans to keep the house). "In 2008 0bama was not the incumbent, unemployment was nowhere near 10%, gas was $2 per gallon, our national debt was still considerably less than our GDP, we hadn't thrown away $1 trillion on a failed stimulus plan and 0bamacare didn't exist." Love the revisionism. Where were you in 2008? The economy was collapsing, gas was at $4, not $2 a gallon, the deficit was extremely high (though not as high because unemployment was lower over the 1st part of 2008). And the stimulus was certainly not at all failed. Here's the facts: when Obama was sworn in, we were losing 750,000 jobs PER MONTH. The stimulus stabilized the economy, creating or saving 2.5 million to 3.6 million jobs according to estimates, and many economists say it saved us from a second great depression. Is unemployment still too high? Yes, but imagine where we'd be with 2.5 million to 3.5 million fewer jobs. Not to mention that health care reform, which has more roots in the Republican party than in the Democratic party, will result in near-universal coverage and lower costs, according to the CBC and the results seen in Massachusetts where a very similar plan was put into place. So the reality is that the Obama presidency has very successful, but the mess he stepped into was just too big to fix in one term especially with the opposition in congress hell-bent on blocking absolutely everything.

---

By: Twindad46 (R-IL) 2012-02-03 @ 00:49:30
albaleman - The average price for gas on November 3, 2008 was $2.40 (Source: http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2008/11/nov-gas-prices.html). Today where I live it is $3.45 and will go way past $4.00 this summer, possibly even $5.00 So, basically you're saying that it could be worse. Is that the best you Democrats can do? And even if the stimulus created the number of jobs you claimed, it's still about $275,000 per job. How can anyone defend spending that kind of money for one job? As for 0bamacare, it is patently unconstitutional. There is no way the federal government has the authority to require individual citizens to buy anything. Period. Show me the part of the constitution that allows this.

---

By: MilesC56 (I-VA) 2012-02-03 @ 01:22:35
albaleman, do you still take twindad seriously?

---

By: albaleman (D-MN) 2012-02-03 @ 15:14:21
"albaleman, do you still take twindad seriously?" Yes. Sadly, this is what the Republican party is turning into. Though I do have fun demolishing these flimsy Republican talking points. "The average price for gas on November 3, 2008 was $2.40" Yes, the price of gas fell when the economy tanked because demand fell sharply, but prior to that it was up around 4 bucks a gallon. "Is that the best you Democrats can do?" When 80% of bills are filibustered, as during the 111th congress, yes. And that was back when Democrats controlled the house and 57-60 seats in the senate. But the reality is, this mess was going to make anyone look bad. "And even if the stimulus created the number of jobs you claimed, it's still about $275,000 per job. How can anyone defend spending that kind of money for one job?" Because it would have cost us more in the long term. Tax revenues would have been lower and demand for government programs higher. And it's not just the direct cost for the government. For every point the unemployment rate rises, studies show, you see an certain increase in the number of heart attacks, and suicides, and homicides and so on and so forth. How much do a thousand heart attacks cost? And how do you put a price tag on a person's life? And a job not just money, it's also something a person is very invested in, and proud of. How do you put a price tag on a worker's pride? Not to mention that the stimulus was a lot less expensive than either the Bush tax cuts or the Iraq war which created far fewer jobs (but created a huge wealth disparity). "Show me the part of the constitution that allows this. " Sure. The constitution gives the government the power to regulate interstate commerce, and it's absurd to say Health Care doesn't involve interstate commerce. And the "mandate" is really just a fee, not a mandate to buy health insurance since one can simply pay the fee and go without health insurance. Last Edit: 2012-02-03 @ 17:09:53

---

By: Nagas (D-CA) 2012-02-03 @ 18:51:18
Always nice to get a good laugh!

---

By: Twindad46 (R-IL) 2012-02-03 @ 19:56:07
albaleman - I pity anyone who thinks the federal government should have such unlimited power. It's really hard to take you seriously. BTW, if you actually read what the founders said about the interstate commerce clause, you'll find that it was written solely to prevent states from imposing tariffs on products coming in from other states. Your comment on the cost of the porkulus bill is pure speculation. Let me know when you come up with some actual facts. BTW, there are 1.1 million fewer private sector jobs than there were when 0bama took office. And today's recent "good" news about unemployment is complete fiction. It's easy to reduce the unemployment rate when you remove 1.2 million people from the labor force in one month.

---

By: albaleman (D-MN) 2012-02-03 @ 21:54:29
"BTW, there are 1.1 million fewer private sector jobs than there were when 0bama took office." "I pity anyone who thinks the federal government should have such unlimited power." What's so crazy about giving the power to regulate commerce? That's what the founders did. After all, the Constitution was written specifically to be vague, to allow it to adapt to changing circumstances and to avoid having it block progress. That's why it's lasted for so long. Effectively, all the mandate is is a tax on people who don't have health insurance. Do you have any idea how much money the system loses from uninsured patients who can't afford their medical bills? Who pays for all of that? We all do, of course, through higher insurance premiums. This fee is just simply common sense, and it's a proposal that generally has come from conservatives. You know, I think it's really unfortunate how Republicans have taken such a sharp turn in the past few years towards looniness. Back in the old days (like say the '90s and early 2000s) many conservatives actually looked for creative solutions to complex problems. I could see where they were coming from in many areas and they could work with Democrats. Now to be a conservative you have to say that any government involvement is always bad, which quite frankly is crazy. You have to worship Rush Limbaugh, and even nominal attempts to pursue creative policies in the past are now seen as heresies. Obama's presidency has actually been quite conservative. A lot of his ideas have come from creative conservatives like the old Newt Gingrich, but in an attempt to oppose everything he proposes, the GOP has had to resort to radical, libertarian ideas that were laughed at up until a few years ago. "Let me know when you come up with some actual facts." Those are the facts. When people lose their job, they stop paying taxes and need unemployment insurance and other welfare benefits, so it would have been more expensive in the long term for government not to have done something. And yes, government projections do show that the stimulus saved or created 2.5 to 3.6 million jobs. As I said before, we were losing jobs at a rate of 750,000 jobs a month prior to the stimulus. That all stopped when the stimulus was implemented. Do the math. Just four more months of job losses like we were seeing gets you to 3 million jobs lost. If you look at it that way, that number doesn't look far out at all. "BTW, there are 1.1 million fewer private sector jobs than there were when 0bama took office." This is a complete distortion. Roughly 3.5 million jobs were lost in the first few months of the Obama presidency, before any of his policies had taken effect. Since then, more than 2.5 million have been created. So you can hardly say his policies had anything to do with that. Last Edit: 2012-02-08 @ 15:16:13

---

By: thachem (I-DC) 2012-02-07 @ 02:33:56
Correct me if I am wrong. Obama inherited a slumping economy from the republicans. So who got us where we are in the first place? Wasn't it the 8 years of Bush?

---

By: satyrday (I-MI) 2012-02-11 @ 00:05:31
Time to revise. Unemployment is at 8.3%, and dropping FAST. Watch Obama cruise to re-election.

---

By: FiveSenses82 (D-MO) 2012-02-11 @ 13:13:20
This is a map made by an obviously biased person who refuses to acknowledge reality. Though this map is certainly *possible* under the right circumstances, it is highly unlikely and all the current evidence points away from this. Our economy would have to take a turn for a the worst (instead of slowly slowly but surely improving as it is now), a scandal would have to erupt, or some other unexpected major surprise for this to unfold. Anyone who has their feet on the ground should understand that this election could go either way, and it seems to be a slight Obama advantage (and grows more in Obamas favor with each passing week it seems) Last Edit: 2012-02-11 @ 13:14:46

---

By: FiveSenses82 (D-MO) 2012-02-11 @ 13:18:07
And I bet you *10 thousand dollars* that the individual who made this map, was predicting that in 08, Obama was going to get blown out of the water too. Do these people ever learn their lesson?

---

By: Twindad46 (R-IL) 2012-04-21 @ 23:10:10
FiveSenses82 - you just lost $10,000. I didn't make any predictions for 2008. As for the official unemployment rate. It's complete bunk. All they did was remove people from the workforce with absolutely no explanation. You do that often enough, it's easy to reduce the unemployment rate. Ignore the U3 number the media reports. The real number that matters is the U6 number which is around 15%. That includes people who have not looked for work in the previous 4 weeks and people who would like to work full-time but can only get part-time hours. That's the one that matters so naturally the media ignore it. BTW, when gas hits $5.00 per gallon this summer, even the official unemployment rate will go back up above 9%. It can't not happen. Alba - so someone has to pay a fine (which is what the administration argued at the Supreme Court when they said it wasn't a tax) if they do not buy health insurance. Just like someone has to pay a fine if they drive too fast. Which means it's illegal not to have health insurance just as it's illegal to drive faster than the posted speed limits. Why should the federal government make it illegal to not buy something? What part of the constitution allows that? When does this stop? What you're saying is that the federal government can force individual citizens to enter into contracts with private companies. This totally upends 300 years of jurisprudence on contracts. If you've ever taken Business Law 101, you will know that the first element of a contract is free will on the part of both parties. If one party is forced by the government to enter into a contract, he has no free will and the contract is null and void. You may not have a problem with throwing out centuries of contract law, but I do.

---

By: BYUmormon (R-UT) 2012-04-21 @ 23:41:16
@thachem, you said to correct you if you were wrong. Yes Obama inherited a slumping economy from Bush, but he only took a bad situation and made it worse. Yes, Bush started an expensive war, but Obama kept the war, and wasted even more money making things worse. You may say that things were going down hill since he took office(which is true to a degree), but it was no coincidence that things went even worse when Barack took over. If he gets re-elected he will go even more crazy because he doesn't have to get re-elected. I can see clearly if Obama gets re-elected this is what will happen:The economy will go worse and worse, but Liberals will say that the horrible economy has little to do with Obama, they will instead blame it on Bush,Republicans, and also say that his administration is not the reason for our problems. Either that or they'll let people beat up on him since he doesn't have to be re-elected anymore.

---

By: dnul222 (D-MN) 2012-04-22 @ 05:54:25
Well, first there is more gasoline in the country today than ever, problem is speculation. Our energy exports are higher than back in the 1980's. The Bush-Obama energy diviersification is working and the open market is just playing the Europe/Iran game on speculation. More oil is being drilling now than in recent history...5.7 million as opposed to 5 nillion barrels jsut a few years ago. And the liquid natural gas is off the charts. I thank George Bush (never thought I would say that) and Obama whos policies have helped make America an energy exporter again.. Now over here in Japan where they have shut down all nuclear reactors and are importing more fuel than ever they have a trade deficit big time.... So it will be interesting to see how this is played in the press and by the two parties...

---

By: albaleman (D-MN) 2012-04-22 @ 12:58:38
"Yes Obama inherited a slumping economy from Bush, but he only took a bad situation and made it worse." That's another outrageous lie. When Obama took over, we were in free fall, losing 750,000 jobs a month. His stimulus stopped that free fall, saving millions of jobs, whether you like it or not. Unfortunately it was too small (as economists on the left and right predicted) to actually do more than stop the free fall, but without it we'd have been headed for a second Great Depression. A second one would have been an excellent idea, unfortunately he has been handicapped by a do nothing congress (which has also blocked several other excellent ideas), with a Republican party that has been determined to block everything he proposes, (and in his first 2 years succeeded 80% of the time), as well as a Democratic party with a group of moderates eager to block reforms to show how "independent" they are. However, even given the absolute determination of the Republicans to block everything using the senate filibuster, he did sign a historic health insurance reform law that will expand coverage and cut costs and a bill to restore some regulation to Wall Street that the financial collapse made clear was much needed, which again is quite amazing considering the strength of the forces working against him. "Yes, Bush started an expensive war, but Obama kept the war, and wasted even more money making things worse." Another lie. Obama has ended the Iraq war and is winding down the war in Afghanistan. And he has not "wasted money". Again, for the one millionth time this deficit was not caused by "out of control spending". It was created because under Bush's presidency we passed massive, unaffordable tax cuts largely for the richest Americans, fought two extremely expensive wars, enacted a massive prescription drug benefit program that was essentially a handout to big pharma, and the economy collapsed. Is it larger under Obama than Bush? Sure, for one simple reason: the economy is bad. Again, I think he wanted to change much of this but was handicapped by the Republicans who were willing to do anything to maintain the status quo (look at the deal to keep the Bush tax cuts). Still, he ended (or is on his way to ending) the wars, the one major thing he as commander in chief could do alone. "If he gets re-elected he will go even more crazy" To suggest that is ridiculous. The president can't do much without congress, and if you think the obstructionism his first term was bad, it'll be much much worse in the second term because in his first term he at least had for 2 years a comfortable Dem majority in the house and a near filibuster proof Dem majority in the senate. There's no chance he'll have anything like that in a second term. Last Edit: 2012-04-22 @ 21:11:59

---

By: albaleman (D-MN) 2012-04-22 @ 13:10:58
"As for the official unemployment rate. It's complete bunk. All they did was remove people from the workforce with absolutely no explanation." That's a total distortion. The unemployment rate is being calculated as it has always been. You don't have to like it but that's the truth. The economy is getting better, that's the reality. Since Summer of 2009, we've gained roughly 2.9 million jobs - a number that would have been much larger had it not been for the massive budget cuts used to balance budgets at the state and local levels. "BTW, when gas hits $5.00 per gallon this summer, even the official unemployment rate will go back up above 9%." Well, it's very unlikely that gas will go that high now that Obama has threatened to bust the speculators driving up the price of gas (though that all could change depending on what happens with Iran). "Alba - so someone has to pay a fine " No that's not true. It is a "penalty" (the wording used in the law). A penalty that fits the definition of a tax. So it falls under the government's right to tax. And furthermore, the government does require businesses to do things all the time, such as perhaps requiring a construction company to buy hard hats for all of their employees, and it of course requires people to buy car insurance. So it's really not "unprecedented", it's just a logical extension of precedent. Last Edit: 2012-04-22 @ 21:11:07

---

By: Americanadian (D-ON) 2012-04-22 @ 17:34:28
Al, Don't take this guy seriously. Did you notice on his confidence map that 11 out of 11 tossups are ALL going to Romney. Not one state was "lean" Obama but 9 states were "lean" Romney. There was obviously no thought put into this map - only hackery! PS to the twin - you have PA as strong GOP yet MO is a tossup and states like SC are only leaning towards Romney??? Go back to school and take American politics 101 !!!

---

By: Twindad46 (R-IL) 2012-04-25 @ 00:46:20
alba - what I said about the unemployment rate was not total distraction. It's exactly what they did. Just look at the size of the labor force participation rate. In January, 2009, it was 65.7%. Now it's down to 63.8%. That represents the disappearance of 3 million people from the labor force. When you take 3 million out of the labor force, it's easy to make it look like unemployment is going down. It's not. It's as bad or even worse than it was 3 years ago. Too bad you didn't pay attention to what the administration argued at the Supreme Court. They said repeatedly that the fine was not a tax. Had it been a tax, the SC couldn't hear the case because the tax hadn't actually been levied against anyone yet. It's not a tax. It is a fine.

---

By: dnul222 (D-MN) 2012-04-25 @ 04:37:33
Romney may well win but he is not ahead yet and may not win either. There is a lot of time to go and although unemployment is high, too high you must append how people think things are going and in that things are improving, many states have declining unemployment rates because business is good...whether that be little ND on its energy boom, or even Ohio where the rise in manufacturing jobs is real with automotive and other jobs reappearing. Let us remember that as wages improve in the countries like India and China jobs flow back...this is where our prductivity can equal out wage differences that are narrowing...yet there are many challenges and the biggest is the bloat of spending in my mind and the debt.... the next few years need solutions but will they happen in the era of non compromise..sadly no - no matter who wins... in my humble viewpoint...

---

By: BYUmormon (R-UT) 2012-04-25 @ 11:22:55
I think it's pretty safe to say that Mitt Romney has the GOP nomination in the bag, but he needs to win it ASAP before all his rival Republicans damage his image even further which could very negatively affect how he does in the general election.

---

By: Ickey415 (--IA) 2012-04-25 @ 11:28:02
I'm curious as to your reasoning on MN. The state GOP is millions in debt, the only campaign office is being evicted due to being a year past due on its rent, the state GOP chairwoman is involved in a sex scandal and the state party is being abandoned by people seeking to avoid that, Klobuchar is cruising to re-election statewide without a real opponent, Bachmann's approval is in the toilet and the GOP House delegation is likely to lose one member (although probably not her due to seniority) and Romney got just 8K votes in the state's primary finishing 3rd and has only been grudgingly endorsed by Pawlenty who will not be campaigning for him this year after losing to him, and Romney further plans to avoid spending any of his own money in the state or even campaign there. For the most part, the entire Minnesota state GOP is basically folding up its tent. So I'm wondering about any prediction that puts Mitt even competitive in the state or considers it a battleground in any way. What evidence would you or other people use to base such a prediction on? Just curious. -Jeff

---

By: BYUmormon (R-UT) 2012-04-25 @ 11:40:39
Face the facts: UNLESS WE MAKE SOME BUDGET CUTS, TAX INCREASES OR BOTH OUR ECONOMY IS GOING TO BURST. Obama should look at ALL the government programs and ask, "Is this so important that we need to borrow money from China to pay for it?" and if not get rid of it, and for anything else that is getting overpaid but should not be entirely destroyed, cut it's funding. You may say that it's Bush's fault and that Obama is doing everything he can, but the reality is we MUST MAKE CUTS, or we will RUN OUT OF MONEY. He just needs to balance a budget. It's the truth though someone with lots of free time can make it look stupid and untrue.

---

By: albaleman (D-MN) 2012-04-25 @ 21:17:56
"It's as bad or even worse than it was 3 years ago." Except for the fact that, since Summer of 2009, more than 2.9 million jobs have been created. That's a fact. Obama was put into a horrible situation - 750,000 jobs being lost monthly, and he managed to stench the bleeding, even though gridlock with congress prevented him from doing anything more. "It's exactly what they did." Which is a lie. You don't have to like it, but unemployment is being the calculated the same way it always has been. There are many legitimate ways to explain a drop in labor force participation. "Too bad you didn't pay attention to what the administration argued at the Supreme Court. They said repeatedly that the fine was not a tax. " Ah I see. Because the guy who defended the law, by all accounts inept, says it is a fine, it is a fine. Unfortunately, that just isn't true. It fits the definition of a tax. It's a tax. It's perfectly legal. Furthermore, I would argue that the government has the right to make health insurance mandatory on the same grounds it has to make car insurance mandatory. Now I know what you're going to say: if you don't have a car, you don't have to have health insurance. Well, here's my response: if you'll never need health care, then you shouldn't have to carry health insurance. But since everyone needs health care at some point in their life, requiring everyone to carry health insurance is perfectly legitimate. "UNLESS WE MAKE SOME BUDGET CUTS, TAX INCREASES OR BOTH OUR ECONOMY IS GOING TO BURST." That's just not true. On the other hand, if we cut spending anywhere near as fast as Republicans say we need to, then our economy WILL bust, and we will have a much larger deficit because the economy will suck. That's what virtually every economist is saying. "Obama should look at ALL the government programs and ask, "Is this so important that we need to borrow money from China to pay for it?"" NO HE DOESN'T HAVE TO DO THAT! "OUT OF CONTROL" SPENDING IS NOT WHAT CAUSED THIS PROBLEM. We just don't have to make massive cuts to the safety net, to health care, to education and entitlements that would wreak havoc on the already struggling middle class and poor - and we shouldn't, given how the middle class and poor have suffered so much recently. Instead, we really need to raise taxes, especially on the wealth, close loopholes and cut military spending. That way we could cut the deficit, while at the same time combating the massive income inequality problem we have on our hands, instead of worsening it dramatically. But the reality is that he can't do it alone, in fact congress has to do the heavy lifting. The political will (and, most importantly, the votes) has to be there in congress, and it just isn't. He has done the best he can. I don't agree with what they (Simpson-Bowles) did, but the fact is that Obama supported and tried to pass a bill to create a bipartisan deficit reduction committee that would have actually have had the power to put its plan into effect. And it was filibustered. On what was basically a party line vote. By the Republicans. Even though they originally said they strongly supported it. So he created Simpson-Bowles by executive order, but because it was created by executive order and not by congress, they didn't have the power to put their plan into effect, so it was just talked about and little was done. Last Edit: 2012-04-26 @ 10:28:39

---

By: dnul222 (D-MN) 2012-04-25 @ 21:34:47
Well, spirited debate and I will cast my fishing line in the water here... The American economy is reviving and creating jobs and some states as I mentioned above are doing quite well, others have still tanked. However, the debt needs servicing and the hundreds of billions for interest payments are wasted monies...I would support tax increases to reduce the debt.... Of course that means we need a balanced budget first in my mind, that calls for simple entitlement reform, means testing, increasing age limits etc. some of that has been agreed to in conference committees, no brainer. Every department can afford cuts as the government is overextended in my mind and we should reduce the total amount of spending in most areas including defense and entitlements... OK, the good things, we are exporting energy, we have more gasoline around than we are using, our diversification of energy is making us self sufficient thanks to Bush/Obama policies.. Manufacturing jobs are up as some flow back due to the rise in wage rates in some countries and the curtailing of benefits by unions and comapnies working together... As my fellow MN says we have created jobs in the last few years....are some off the employed lists yes-some are back in school retraining, some are back at home raising the family, some are retired...but we have a long way to go and we need to make tough choices...so I say is either party ready to do this....or will we have another let us not have any successes congress....

---

By: BYUmormon (R-UT) 2012-04-26 @ 00:09:29
I say unless a major change is made, we are going to collapse. You think things are recovering and it will all get better. I will return to the subject in a few years(after Obama is re-elected)when one of us is right. I think our economy is in a serious financial crisis that won't go away on it's own and we need to listen to things like Paul Ryan's "Roadmap for America's Future." Unfortunately I believe such conservative voices will be ignored, and the economy will go down with them. Only time will tell who is right, and I want us both to agree that if you are right I will admit it, and if I am right you will. Only time will tell, but believe me it will tell, and someone is going to be wrong.

---

By: dnul222 (D-MN) 2012-04-26 @ 06:09:49
Now remember the congress was on a verge of a big cut with both sides compromising but in the end the GOP balked at tax increases for the rich. I am not saying that was wrong but there was an attempt to get something big done. Now it does not matter what they do because somethign will automatically ahppen if they do not do something and it goes by the name of squeastering which will increase taxes and cut government drastically. This happens after the election-so if they do nothing a lot is going to happen to balance the budget. What will they do against that challenge..some compromise will be needed... if Obama is elected, if GOP get it all then they will change that and cut even more ...and a lot of what the GOP is saying about cutting government is okay but a lot is based on the back of the middle class which is why the conservative Catholic church is fighting against Ryan on the economic front while fighting against Obama on the social front...interesting.

---

By: albaleman (D-MN) 2012-04-26 @ 08:56:53
"You think things are recovering and it will all get better." Which is just not true. I never said that. I have a plan that would drastically improve things as far as the deficit is concerned. But things are improving, things are getting better on many fronts even though the deficit is getting to unsustainable levels. "Paul Ryan's "Roadmap for America's Future."" Seriously? The Ryan plan would be a unmitigated disaster. Massive spending cuts (most of the federal government would virtually have to disappear) that would destroy the middle class and poor, combined with massive tax cuts mostly for the rich that would do nothing for anybody. It would raise already high levels of income inequality to those of a banana republic. And of course it would virtually end the safety net as we know it, ending Medicare as we know it. Last Edit: 2012-04-26 @ 08:57:21

---

By: BYUmormon (R-UT) 2012-04-26 @ 14:49:03
Too bad I like Paul Ryan's plan anyway. And besides, it hasn't been enacted, nobody knows what would happen. I think that it would be nice but we have differences in opinion, which is why I'm Republican, and you're Democrat.

---

By: BYUmormon (R-UT) 2012-04-26 @ 15:31:32
Re:Dnul222, I agree that the Democrats and Republicans will have to work together more if they want to accomplish anything. I am not extremely against tax increases for the rich at the time being, but I think that the Government could do a better job at balancing the budget, and not just borrowing money from China. I also am against big government, and any form of Communism.

---

By: dnul222 (D-MN) 2012-04-26 @ 18:55:12
I do not disagree- I am a skintflint New England er and think the budget needs to be balanced first and formost and without a tax increase. I would save the tax incvrease for reducing the debt which I am in favor of. I just think that the bloat of government is overstated but the need to cut is real. And I think they will be lazy and let squeastering do it and blame the other for not getting something else done....

---