Is there any way to short the Romney Campaign?

Given that the numbers I cite are actuals, not hypotheticals, I can't say that it was unreasonable to reject the offer if the analysis of the hypotheticals led the GOP to believe the actuals would be much different. Also, that 6 to 1 was the minimal optimum ratio of cuts to hikes. In the US case, the actual optimum could be 10 to 1 or 20 to 1 or a 1000 to 1.

If the Dems had an iota of credibility on any topic relating to spending, it would help.

Like I said earlier, the optimal solution is the breakup of the country, since there is way too much bad blood between the two camps and it's only getting worse. As there should be, since the ideas around which the dispute centers are important ideas.

 

It was a question no one should have answered, because there is no right answer.
The best answer would have been ..." Lets compromise and cut $9, In the end its all the same

 

isn't it funny how they can never get together and compromise, but somehow the fiscal cliff, the automatic tax increase and the automatic cuts according to people that study these things are even better than the Ryan budget as far as the deficit goes. So the best thing for the country would be for congress to do nothing, but before the do nothing congress can do what's best for the country, they will get together and compromise.

 

logic man: The OECD did a survey of a number of countries which faced the need to raise taxes and cut spending in light of financial crises and a rise in debt/GDP ratios where the US is at now.

The data suggested that the optimal mix of tax hikes to spending cuts was on the order of $1 in hikes for every $6 in spending cuts. That seems about right to me.

So, if the Dems want to put a proposal on the table in about those ratios of hikes to cuts, that would be a good start.
--------------------------------------------------

I'ed appreciate a reference for this comment.

 

But the reps already said they wouldn't approve such a proposal even if it were ten to one.

 

You do realize that the GOP has been rolled on this very issue in the past, right?

Any GOP negotiating team has to assume the Dems are negotiating in bad faith. To not assume that would be dereliction of duty.

 

We assume the same of them, with equal conviction.

 

You have heard about the situation in Ohio regarding dems dealing with the GOP?

The dems negotiated in good faith, and got fukked hard.

 

Why don't you imagine the converse: identify an opportunity that would benefit from an Obama win.

 

BECAUSE YOU WOULD SEND ME ALL OF YOUR MONEY

writing covered call
low price
pm me just before you write it

With that kind of reasoning, you are clearly a blow hard who isn't making money.