Latest Poll will have Whirlway sweating LMFAO!!!

Hey Whirly here's the latest poll from 2 days ago- Obama's approval rating improved by 6 points and he's leading in every hypothetical match up against the GOP contenders- so put that in your pipe and smoke it: http://www.mediaite.com/online/new-p...esident-obama/

Not surprising at all since the Republican field has had a bad month and Obama has had a pretty good one. But let's be honest. Polls this far out are about as reliable as trying to predict the future by sawing a chicken in half and looking at his guts. This next election is going to be a lot like the Duke of Wellington said of the Battle of Waterloo: "It was a close run damned thing. The closest run damned thing that you've ever seen in your life."

The economy sucks. Obama didn't cause the shit storm that hit it, but it's his now, fair or not. He could have done better in getting it back running. But no matter why it sucks, he's going to get the blame form the voters. The only real hope for the Democrats is if the Republicans somehow screw up and nominate some unelectable idiot. And damned if they aren't falling all over themselves trying to out do each other to do just that!! Goddamnest thing I've ever seen in my life.

I suspect Obama's poll ratings will get even better as we get closer to election. Can't wait to vote next Tuesday for local officials.. well you know how I am voting..lol

Really looking forward to bringing about 5 family members and several friends to go voting next November. We will be hanging out in a local bar watching the election till it's conclusion!

TTH, Obama fueled the shit storm, but the rest of your post is dead on. I've never seen a party so actively try to lose an election.

He arguably fueled it by making the stimulus too small. and he'll be responsible for the next one for not breaking up financial institutions that were (and still are) too big to be allowed to fail. But other than that, he's done OK on management of the economy. Not great, but OK.

I've asked before, please explain how the stimulus helped the economy? Where was the money spent, and what did it produce?

How does 9+% unemployment show good management of the economy?

How does a $16 trillion deficit show good management of the economy?

How's that Obamacare working out? I haven't seen the cost of health care or insurance going down.

How about that trade deficit? Maybe the stimulus money given to Fiskers to build cars will help. Wait, that plant is in FINLAND!

How about that Solyndra plant that Obama visited and touted as a shining example of his green jobs program. They got half a billion dollars. Oh, wait. They went BANKRUPT!

So how did the stimulus help? Where did it help?

And oh yeah, you never provided any reference to where the Tea Party and other similar groups were institutionally racist. Did you forget?

TexHomoHog

He arguably fueled it by making the stimulus too small. and he'll be responsible for the next one for not breaking up financial institutions that were (and still are) too big to be allowed to fail. But other than that, he's done OK on management of the economy. Not great, but OK. Originally Posted by ;1811315

HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! Got to give you credit for either not caring how stupid you look, or not realizing how ignorant you are....either way, it's a gift.....

Sadly the stimulus was not enough and too small to be affective.

The "latest" poll is the October jobs number. A meager 105,000 private sector jobs.

Where are the 200,000/month new jobs promised by Obama if we passed his stimulus plan?

Voting Americans won't be fooled by the Obama campgain antics....he's a goner !

The only question is where will he and Michele go.....like bubba Clinton, Obama loves the limelight and will likely head to NYC for the biggest possible post-Presidency stage.

I think the Republicans have done a pretty good job of people off the people who support them with their antics. I suspect Obama will be re-elected.

Good Grief it's a primary. Wait until it's just BO and whoever.

The focus will be back on Mr Obama and his failures as President.

Lying About Bush's Tax Cuts

By Andrew Foy and Brenton Stransky


The majority of the taxpayers in our country believe it a foregone conclusion that taxes will rise substantially in the near future and that the Bush tax cuts will soon be no more than a footnote of political history. You don't need to be a genius to see that the government will have to raise more revenue to pay for seemingly infinite spending, but before we resign ourselves to higher taxes, we should consider defending the Bush tax cuts against the left.

Two of the most oft-cited objections to the Bush tax cuts by the left are that it helped only the rich and it was largely responsible for the federal deficit at the end of the Bush presidency. Instead, it is true that if the current administration allows any or all of the Bush tax cuts to expire, economic growth will be slowed and tax revenue could actually decrease, perpetuating our deficit dilemma.

The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 broadly lowered income, capital gains, dividends, and estate taxes. Fanning the lie that only the rich benefited, liberal economists Peter Orszag and William Gale described the Bush tax cuts as reverse-government redistribution of wealth, "[shifting] the burden of taxation away from upper-income, capital-owning households and toward the wage-earning households of the lower and middle classes." This criticism stuck so well that it is difficult to find a liberal today who doesn't believe that these tax relief measures were anything more than "tax cuts for the rich."

But the data does not support this conclusion. According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Bush tax cuts actually shifted the total tax burden farther toward the rich so that in 2000-2004, total income tax paid by the top 40% of income-earners grew by 4.6% to 99.1% of the total.

This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is sized %1%2 and weights %3.

This shift may have occurred because as the wealthy (who are arguably the most industrious and productive citizens) are better-incentivized to be industrious and productive through lower taxes, they create higher incomes for themselves and end up paying more taxes. The Bush tax cuts did shift the tax burden, but not in the direction most liberals think.

The second major misconception spread by the left about the Bush tax cuts is that the lower tax rates caused the federal deficit woes we face today. Keeping with the party line of blaming the previous administration for all of today's problems, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) quipped in a news conference on January 8 of this year: "Let me just say that the tax cuts at the high end ... have been the biggest contributor to the budget deficit." Of course, the Speaker would have us believe that overspending has nothing to do with our deficit.

In fact, the Bush tax cuts actually increased government revenue. According to economist Brian Reidl of the Heritage Foundation, The Laffer Curve (upon which much of the supply-side theory is based) merely formalizes the common sense observations that

• 1. Tax revenues depend on the tax base as well as the tax rate,
• 2. Raising tax rates discourages the taxed behavior and therefore shrinks the tax base, offsetting some of the revenue gains, and
• 3. Lowering tax rates encourages the taxed behavior and expands the tax base, offsetting some of the revenue loss.

If policymakers intend cigarette taxes to discourage smoking, then they should know that high investment taxes will discourage investment and income taxes will discourage work. Lowering taxes encourages people to engage in the given behavior, which expands the base and replenishes some or all of the lost revenue. This is the "feedback effect" of a tax cut.

The following figure is an illustration of the Laffer Curve. The curve postulates that two tax rates exist between the extremes of no tax and 100% tax that will collect the same amount of revenue: a high tax rate on a small tax base and a low tax rate on a large tax base. Whether or not a tax cut recovers 100% of the lost revenue depends on the tax rate's location on the Laffer curve. When tax rates are above the equilibrium point on the Laffer curve, reducing the tax rate increases revenue.



So what was the effect of the Bush tax cuts? The data reveals that tax revenues in 2006 were actually $47 billion above the levels projected by the Congressional budget office before the 2003 tax cuts. Clearly, tax rates were beyond the point of equilibrium.

The Bush tax cuts were intended to increase market incentives to work, save, and invest and thus create jobs and increase economic growth. An analysis of the six quarters before and after the 2003 tax cuts shows that this is exactly what happened. The following table from Reidl's analysis depicts these effects.



The empirical data makes it impossible to validate the liberal claims that the Bush tax cuts were "for the rich," or that they "caused the budget deficit," or that they were in any way responsible for causing this latest economic crisis. In fact, a study by economist John W. Skorburg underscores the positive effects of the Bush tax cuts. Skorburg's study found that the Bush tax cuts, which lowered the total federal tax burden from 20.9% in fiscal year 2000 to 17.9% in fiscal year 2008 and 2009, were responsible for increasing the economic growth rate. Further, the author concluded that "[i]f President Obama raises tax burdens, trend growth in real GDP will fall."

The bottom line is that tax policy has far-reaching effects, and for decades, liberals have refused to acknowledge them. The dire consequences of higher tax burdens in times of economic weakness were made most clear when FDR raised taxes in 1937, causing a double-dip in GDP that prolonged the Great Depression. If the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire, recovery from the current crisis will likely be prolonged, and we will have no one to blame but ourselves for not observing the lessons of history.

Andrew Foy, M.D. and Brenton Stransky are authors of The Young Conservative's Field Guide and can be contacted through their website at www.aHardRight.com.

The "latest" poll is the October jobs number. A meager 105,000 private sector jobs.

Where are the 200,000/month new jobs promised by Obama if we passed his stimulus plan?

Voting Americans won't be fooled by the Obama campgain antics....he's a goner !

The only question is where will he and Michele go.....like bubba Clinton, Obama loves the limelight and will likely head to NYC for the biggest possible post-Presidency stage. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Hmmm so WW- who are you voting for again?
WW- so if all is true- why is Obama still winning in head to head competition against the GOP??? Perhaps maybe Americans know that Obama on his worst day are better than any of those jackasses on their best days? WW you don't find it odd that despite 9% Unemployment Obama is winning in hypothetical matchups??? Why? Again only way Obama loses is a massive downfall in the net 10 months. Why is it someone like Cain- with no political experience whatsoever is now beating Romney in nearly every poll????? Makes you wonder???