Public trusts republicans more than democrats.

[mgguy]

Results of a new Rasmussen poll (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/trust_on_issues/trust_on_issues) show the public trusts the GOP more than democrats on 8 out of 10 key issues, including who can best manage the economy. Respondents rate Obama's performance as more negative than positive. Are republicans staged for a comeback in 2012?

Here is the lead-in to the article:

Voters now trust Republicans more than Democrats on eight out of 10 key electoral issues, including, for the second straight month, the top issue of the economy. They've also narrowed the gap on the remaining two issues, the traditionally Democratic strong suits of health care and education.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that voters trust the GOP more on economic issues 46% to 41%, showing little change from the six-point lead the party held last month. This is just the second time in over two years of polling the GOP has held the advantage on economic issues. The parties were close on the issue in May, with the Democrats holding a one-point lead.

Voters not affiliated with either party trust Republicans more to handle the economy by a 46% to 32% margin. Last week’s report of 9.5 percent unemployment, the highest since 1983, raised doubts about the economy and the president's handling of it. Consumer and investor confidence is now down to the lowest levels in three months. Just 39% now say President Obama is doing a good or an excellent job on the economy while 43% rate his performance as poor. Those are by far the weakest numbers yet for the president.

The president's approval ratings also have fallen to new lows in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll.

[obeygiant]

Just goes to show you how fickle the public can be. I'd like to see the polls before the election.

Maybe the honeymoon really is over.

[Sun Baked]

need the Chainsaw Al political party, to do the painful cuts at some point and balance the budget.

Can't really trust anyone that says the fix isn't going to be very very painful, and may include having to remove a festering gonad.

Though a pat on the head, a smooth talking man, and a bigger bandaid will put it off to the next term.

Edit: sort of scary to see how many government bodies in the US used the accounting tricks to do short term sleight of hand, and those things look like they will implode rather interestingly.

[Thomas Veil]

We're not even six months into Obama's term, and the public wants miracle cures for the most severe recession in 80 years...a recession caused by primarily by Republican economic policies, and secondarily by wimpy blue-dog Democrats who go along with Republican economic policies.

I find it stunning beyond belief that the voters would turn right back to the very people who've been screwing them for nearly 40 years and who are directly responsible for the horrendous mess we're in.

And Republicans edging out Democrats on issues of ethics? *Gag!*

I can't think of too many rational explanations for such results. The only ones that come to mind are:

the poll is seriously flawed;
the poll is jobbed;
the public has the common sense of a brain-damaged chimp.

[.Andy]

I'd agree with this. The less political power a party has the more trustworthy they are.

[LizKat]

~snip~ Are republicans staged for a comeback in 2012?:

Yah let's get to the 2010 polls first. 2012 is spicy fun for bloggers, but the meat and potatoes will be about the Congressional elections.

People now have the attention span of a one-year-old and the expectations to match. Unfortunately the media outlets play to both of those qualities. What a poll asks may not be what the responder hears. What a responder says now may have little to do with how he or she votes in 2010, much less 2012.

The GOP will try in 2010 to pick off what they can, running on tactics that are regional and have worked in the past. Whatever they say now about 2012 is to keep the base interested. What they will do now is work towards Congressional seat gains next year.

Mainly, there is a tremendous amount of background noise right now from people whose professional behavior will be directly affected by impending banking and investment industry regulation changes.

That noise is not being expressed as forthright, boring complaints about the esoterica of credit default swap clearance and systemic risk management. It's being expressed as "Obama will break your middle class piggy bank" --and that attempt to shift voter focus is entirely intentional.

It's about trying to get the Congressional balance altered in 2010, to be able to head off or re-legislate some of the richly deserved regulation coming down the road.

Six months ago people still remembered what a debacle these investment wizards had created, bringing their houses of cards down around us all as their trust in each other vanished, taking trillions of dollars of wealth down with it.

Two months ago people were still incensed at credit rate hikes in advance of enforcement of newly passed legislation.

Now it's summertime and the memories are fading and it's back to the usual drumbeats of the GOP being against "liberal tax and spend policies." I can go down to the general store and say "Look, Obama is not who cratered what was a big fat surplus in the budget." And nowadays all I will hear back is something like "yeah but Obama wants to take all my money to buy free healthcare for some bum who never had a job."

Go figure. I'm not surprised, but I am disappointed at the willingness of people to be fleeced yet again by a party that has shown that it does not have the interests of ordinary working class Americans in mind. I'm thinking I need to keep paying attention myself this year and next, so to be able to take some better arguments down to that general store!

[paddy]

The public have memories like a sieve.

[mgguy]

I can go down to the general store and say "Look, Obama is not who cratered what was a big fat surplus in the budget." And nowadays all I will hear back is something like "yeah but Obama wants to take all my money to buy free healthcare for some bum who never had a job."

Go figure. I'm not surprised, but I am disappointed at the willingness of people to be fleeced yet again by a party that has shown that it does not have the interests of ordinary working class Americans in mind. I'm thinking I need to keep paying attention myself this year and next, so to be able to take some better arguments down to that general store!

But Obama does want to take a large chunk of taxpayer money to buy healthcare coverage for many people who never had a job who are not currently covered. As I understand it, his plan would also cover illegal immigrants and their children, which is a large portion of the current population of those who are uninsured. This proposed spending, along with the large stimulus package and the cost of his proposed cap and trade program, may be what is causing the general public to take a second look at and begin to question his economic policies and spending proposals.

Bush/republicans did go on a spending spree, but Obama is taking it to new heights. How is this good for "ordinary working class Americans" (whoever they are)?

[Prof.]

Ehhhh I still don't trust Republicants.

[mgguy]

I can't think of too many rational explanations for such results. The only ones that come to mind are:

the poll is seriously flawed;
the poll is jobbed;
the public has the common sense of a brain-damaged chimp.


Another possibility is that Obama is giving them more change than they wanted, and of the wrong kind. Many voters may have thought that he would be more moderate than he is, and now are surprised that he is going way beyond what they thought he was advocating during the campaign.

[NT1440]

Another possibility is that Obama is giving them more change than they wanted, and of the wrong kind. Many voters may have thought that he would be more moderate than he is, and now are surprised that he is going way beyond what they thought he was advocating during the campaign.

Aren't you the guys that keep saying he's brought no change?

So which one is it, none, too much, the wrong kind?

[Tomorrow]

Where were all these people last November?

I'm curious who is participating in these polls. The results are skewed just a little farther right than I would have expected.

[Ugg]

Where were all these people last November?

I'm curious who is participating in these polls. The results are skewed just a little farther right than I would have expected.

I'd like to see an age breakdown as well as the % of cell phones that were called.

I can't see in the polling data where they asked if the person was Dem, Rep or Ind. seems pointless if 75% of those polled were repubs.

[Rodimus Prime]

I'd like to see an age breakdown as well as the % of cell phones that were called.

I can't see in the polling data where they asked if the person was Dem, Rep or Ind. seems pointless if 75% of those polled were repubs.

well it could not be any cell that they called. Cells are off limits to anything like that still.

[LizKat]

But Obama does want to take a large chunk of taxpayer money to buy healthcare coverage for many people who never had a job who are not currently covered. As I understand it, his plan would also cover illegal immigrants and their children, which is a large portion of the current population of those who are uninsured. This proposed spending, along with the large stimulus package and the cost of his proposed cap and trade program, may be what is causing the general public to take a second look at and begin to question his economic policies and spending proposals.

Bush/republicans did go on a spending spree, but Obama is taking it to new heights. How is this good for "ordinary working class Americans" (whoever they are)?

Where did you get your figures on the uninsured?

According to the Kaiser Familiy Foundation on the subject of the uninsured, "79 percent are U.S. citizens, more than 80 percent are from families where at least one person holds a job, and two-thirds earn less than 200 percent of the federal poverty threshold – i.e., less than $42,406 for a family of four in 2007, the most recent year for which Census has figures for the uninsured."

So that would leaves max 21% of the uninsured are immigrants, legal and illegal, but we don't know the breakout.

Here's a link to some info as per above, plus a nice list of other resources at the bottom of the linked piece:

http://www.factcheck.org/politics/the_real_uninsured.html

I have read there and elsewhere that about six million of a total of 45 million uninsured are illegal immigrants. That would be 13% or so. What we do know for sure is that the illegal immigrants avail themselves of far less expensive medical treatment than do other immigrants and US citizens.

So let's not get carried away with the immigration issue in health care reform. They are not the biggest concern in health care reform by any stretch of statistics.

Reform will not be a picnic for anyone. Obama's plan and any other plans being discussed all take a bite out of all of us. We will have to pay for coverage if we can afford it. We will not think we can afford what the government thinks we can afford, so that will be a rude surprise to many of us. We may think we'd rather have another car than pay for health insurance. but as a taxpayer we'd rather everyone else certainly buy health insurance, eh?

We will be asked to be responsible and buy coverage. Possibly we will be penalized for not doing it. So it will feel like a sacrifice, and not a joyfully made one.

It's less of a sacrifice than a practical move, when you think of the fact that everyone is in that boat of not wanting to pay for it but not wanting to pay taxes for other people's coverage either. So it's time to grow up, pay for coverage like it's the same as a utility bill and move on. Reform may need further tweaks in the future. We have to work at it as we see how it unfolds.

I am never impressed by us Americans when we scream as if some unwanted proposal is cast on our gravestones but we're still alive and kicking. It's so phoney and juvenile. As with anything in real life, you make a plan, you try it out, you adjust it, you try it again. We need decent health care in the USA and this is a fine time to make it happen. ANY TIME IN THE PAST TWENTY-FIVE YEARS WOULD HAVE BEEN FINE TOO :)

Another painful reality is that coverage may not be what we would like it to be.. It may be difficult to get coverage of certain procedures, and there may be out of pocket costs there were not before, particularly for people now used to buying Medigap policies to pick up first dollar costs of stuff Medicare does not cover. More yelling and screaming ahead.

But before people start screaming about rationing of health care, it's important to understand that it's already rationed by profit motives in health care right now. For instance, if it were not for foreign doctors and nurses, rural care in the USA would be almost nonexistent in many counties. It's at a bare minimum right now.

The place to put the pressure now is on the drug and insurance companies, not on Obama or on the committees trying to get bipartisan support for their measures. The hospitals have sat down and come to agreements on cost reductions. The drug and insurance companies are still dragging their feet, even though some past insurance company heads have said that yes, they need to knock down cost increases related mostly to keeping profits rising!

You asked who I think are ordinary working class Americans. People whose income is primarily from wages. Wage earners. Not people who mostly live off income from investments. And not earners whose wages are in the stratosphere.

[mgguy]

Aren't you the guys that keep saying he's brought no change?

So which one is it, none, too much, the wrong kind?

Too much (at least as proposed) and of the wrong kind.


I have read there and elsewhere that about six million of a total of 45 million uninsured are illegal immigrants. That would be 13% or so. What we do know for sure is that the illegal immigrants avail themselves of far less expensive medical treatment than do other immigrants and US citizens.


I didn't give any figures on the makeup of the uninsured population, and I really don't want to make this thread just about healthcare. I had heard in various news/talk venues that the uninsured make up 40% of the uninsured. However, even if it is just approaching 15%, that is a huge number of people that arguably shouldn't be covered. Even if you want to argue that it would be fair or more economical to cover them, I think this is one of the factors that turn many people off about universal coverage. In addition, while illegal immigrants may currently not draw the same level of health care services that legal residents do, that would change if they were offered health coverage. If it is available, they will use it more.

Some people, myself included, also have a problem paying for coverage for others who are not working and would make no contribution to their coverage. This is just a further expansion of a welfare entitlement that we cannot afford right now. This may be one of the factors driving down Obama's poll numbers.

Reform will not be a picnic for anyone. Obama's plan and any other plans being discussed all take a bite out of all of us. We will have to pay for coverage if we can afford it. We will not think we can afford what the government thinks we can afford, so that will be a rude surprise to many of us.

Hence, the drop in Obama's approval ratings?

[Macky-Mac]

.... Are republicans staged for a comeback in 2012?...:

uh oh...have the republicans already given up on 2010????? Another clobbering in store for them in 2010??? :eek::D

Seriously though, the best thing the republicans have going for them in the near future is that they're the only opposition party we have......given recent history tho, it's possible they'll find a way to make a mess of that

[mgguy]

Seriously though, the best thing the republicans have going for them in the near future is that they're the only opposition party we have......given recent history tho, it's possible they'll find a way to make a mess of that

What recent history/events are you referring to that suggests to you that they may make a mess of being the opposition party? Based on the trend in the polls, they seem to be doing a pretty good job at shifting the public's trust in their favor.

[Macky-Mac]

What recent history/events are you referring to that suggests to you that they may make a mess of being the opposition party? Based on the trend in the polls, they seem to be doing a pretty good job at shifting the public's trust in their favor.

ensign? sanford? :eek: all they have to do to avoid messing up is keep their heads down and stop embarressing themselves.....but they haven't seemed to figure out how to do that yet

still, I'm sure it's nice to have an opportunity to feel optimistic......for a change

[Thomas Veil]

Another possibility is that Obama is giving them more change than they wanted, and of the wrong kind. Many voters may have thought that he would be more moderate than he is, and now are surprised that he is going way beyond what they thought he was advocating during the campaign.Funny how differently we think. I had considered a fourth possibility myself...that Obama hadn't changed enough in Washington, leaving people with the impression that he's just another politician. (Certainly that's the view of more than one person here.)

Frankly, I don't put much stock in either idea as the answer to why the poll skews the way it does.

I'm curious who is participating in these polls. The results are skewed just a little farther right than I would have expected.I'm curious as to this pollster. I couldn't help notice the testimonials at the top of their page...almost all from people or sites who lean towards the right-wing and/or the business community.

If there's any truth to that at all, it'd be like reading a poll from Fox News.

[Shivetya]

We're not even six months into Obama's term, and the public wants miracle cures for the most severe recession in 80 years...a recession caused by primarily by Republican economic policies, and secondarily by wimpy blue-dog Democrats who go along with Republican economic policies.

I find it stunning beyond belief that the voters would turn right back to the very people who've been screwing them for nearly 40 years and who are directly responsible for the horrendous mess we're in.

And Republicans edging out Democrats on issues of ethics? *Gag!*

I can't think of too many rational explanations for such results. The only ones that come to mind are:

the poll is seriously flawed;
the poll is jobbed;
the public has the common sense of a brain-damaged chimp.


LOL - the majority of this was caused by Democrats meddling with lending laws, worse Barney Frank is at it again. The banking collapse is mostly if not all related to lending on homes. When the FED under the direction of Congress reduced the requirements to obtain loans it caused home prices to rise incredibly.

Sorry, ain't going to accept it was just Republicans leading the charge to fiscal idiocy, the Democrats even now seem more than eager to prove they can be even dumber.

[opinioncircle]

LOL - the majority of this was caused by Democrats meddling with lending laws, worse Barney Frank is at it again. The banking collapse is mostly if not all related to lending on homes. When the FED under the direction of Congress reduced the requirements to obtain loans it caused home prices to rise incredibly.

Sorry, ain't going to accept it was just Republicans leading the charge to fiscal idiocy, the Democrats even now seem more than eager to prove they can be even dumber.

You do have a point. Republicans were not the only dumb dumbs in this story. However Dems are trying to apply what they think is the right method. It sure isn't lack of oversight over the financial world like the Republicans and the Bush administration rooted for...

[Thomas Veil]

LOL - the majority of this was caused by Democrats meddling with lending laws, worse Barney Frank is at it again. The banking collapse is mostly if not all related to lending on homes.
So little of this has to do with banking deregulation, huh, which just happens to be the Republicans' favorite topic (after tax breaks)?

The lending laws you mention have been an RNC/Limbaugh talking point, one which they've been trying to gin up considerably to make themselves look less responsible. However, you might want to look up something about the Glass-Steagall act, particularly its repeal. The Democrats were partly responsible in that some of them went along with it, but look whose names are on the repeal bill: Gramm and Leach.

[Badandy]

So little of this has to do with banking deregulation, huh, which just happens to be the Republicans' favorite topic (after tax breaks)?

The lending laws you mention have been an RNC/Limbaugh talking point, one which they've been trying to gin up considerably to make themselves look less responsible. However, you might want to look up something about the Glass-Steagall act, particularly its repeal. The Democrats were partly responsible in that some of them went along with it, but look whose names are on the repeal bill: Gramm and Leach.

There's more than enough blame to throw around. Often overlooked is the moral hazard the topic of bailouts created.


Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard

In the period 1998-2007 regulators kept and published detailed statistics on the ethnicity and location of those receiving loans, but failed to pay similar attention to their credit worthiness, default rates or vulnerability to a housing downturn. The data that the regulators focused on was more relevant to politically mobilizing voting blocks in particular electorates than to keeping the financial system solvent.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Both sides simply take turns screwing the U.S. worker/taxpayer. We shouldnt trust either party period.. I trust neither and find the party out of power allways seems more interested in representing the American worker.

[InvalidUserID]

Both sides simply take turns screwing the U.S. worker/taxpayer. We shouldnt trust either party period.. I trust neither and find the party out of power allways seems more interested in representing the American worker.

Ding ding ding...we have a winner.

And when the out of power party regains the power? Right back to the screwing!

I don't trust either/any party.

[Thomas Veil]

Something here doesn't jibe. This (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31892817/ns/business-personal_finance/) isn't a poll on exactly the same thing, but it also doesn't sound like Rasmussen:

The upshot is that more people are optimistic that they’ll eventually be able to get out from under a mountain of bills, a major factor behind the decline in stress from last year, according to a new Associated Press-GfK poll.

Debt-related stress was 12 percent lower this year than in 2008, according to the poll. “People now have some optimism that the worst is behind them,” said Paul J. Lavrakas, a research psychologist and AP consultant who analyzed the results of the survey.

There was a stark break in the poll between Democrats and Republicans.

Democrats reported a big drop in their debt stress, while Republicans registered a sharp rise, a development political scientists attributed to the election of Barack Obama, which put the White House — and economic policy — back in the hands of Democrats following eight years of Republican George W. Bush.

Now 48 percent of those polled say the country is headed in the right direction, compared with just 18 percent who said that in 2008, the poll says.

...Democrats give Obama a 92 percent approval rating, while Republicans give him a 26 percent approval rating, according to the AP-GfK poll. Independents give Obama a 61 percent approval rating, the poll says.Those last two paragraphs are the important ones. Like I said...something doesn't jibe here.

[LizKat]

A lot of people have ditched their landlines in the recent past. Maybe there needs to be a correction for landlines tending now to belong more to rural people who don't get a cell signal where there live. And rural people still tending to be more conservative. Means the whole pool for telephone polling may be shifting to the right.

[mgguy]

Something here doesn't jibe. This (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31892817/ns/business-personal_finance/) isn't a poll on exactly the same thing, but it also doesn't sound like Rasmussen:


The two polls are not the same. Rasmussen asked about opinions about 10 major issues while the poll you cite asked about opinions about Obama. People always say they have a favorable opinion of Obama, but when they are asked about his policy positions, they react more negatively. Keep in mind too that Rasmussen asked about trust in republicans vs. democrats, which has more import in the 2010 congressional and gubernatorial elections.

[mgguy]

Dick Morris offered the following analysis of the poll results:

BAM'S SLIPPING GRIP ON THE PUBLIC

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

Published in the New York Post on July 14, 2009

In the polling hierarchy, the least signif icant data measure is a president's personal popularity. Here, President Obama excels, with most polls showing him in the high 60s. Next comes his job approval, significant but not necessarily predictive.

Obama's approval, in the Rasmussen Poll, has now dipped to 51 percent, one point less than his 2008 vote share of 52 percent. In past polls, most voters registering disapproval for the president had voted for Sen. John McCain. Now, Obama's starting to lose people who backed him last November.

But the true predictive measurement is a chief executive's and his party's ratings on specific issues. As these shift, so usually do his job-approval numbers and eventually his popularity. And current trends suggest that Obama is in for rough sledding -- his job-approval ratings likely will quickly fall into negative territory and then drop further.

Rasmussen asked voters to compare which party was best on 10 issues. While Obama's ratings are likely better than his party's, the Republicans can take heart in trumping their opposition in eight of the 10 categories.

The most significant topic was, of course, the economy. For the second straight month, Rasmussen shows a GOP lead over the Democrats, this time by 46 percent to 41 percent, indicating that the incessant bad news and the collapse of the false hopes the stock market entertained this spring have taken their toll.

And only 39 percent of voters say that Obama is doing an excellent or good job on the economy, 11 points lower than his overall job approval. Forty-three percent say he's doing fair or poor.
As unemployment continues to rise and even Obama predicts that times will get worse, this gap on economic issues will likely rise.

On their competing health-care reform plans, Rasmussen finds Obama and the Republicans drawing equal support. On health care generally, Democrats find their margin down to 4 points from 18 two months ago.

Obama is rapidly losing support on health reform, his key issue. And if he stays behind on health care and the economy for long, nothing much will hold him and his party aloft.

Rasmussen also found a Republican edge on many other issues. Democrats led Republicans 41 percent to 38 percent on education -- but the GOP led 49-40 percent on national security, 40-34 on immigration, 46-39 on abortion, 34-33 on ethics and corruption and -- get this -- 42-37 on Social Security.

When Republicans are winning on Social Security, it's bad news for the Democrats.

Most ominous for Obama is the GOP lead on the economy, taxes and immigration and the party's parity on health-care reform: The issues that will dominate the next few months are all working for the Republicans.

It's amazing how quickly Obama has lost his lead. His ratings had fallen steeply after his inauguration. Most polls had his job-approval dropping 13 points in his first three months. But then his number revived with the adulatory coverage at his first-100-days mark. Buoyed by hopes of a swift recovery, voters and the stock market gave him a break, and his ratings and the Dow rose sharply.

But since April, he has been dropping fast -- and his alarming losses on his central agenda issues portend further declines.

Congressional elections are still more than a year off, but Obama needs strong approval ratings to steer his legislative package through Congress. If he's sagging in the low 40s or high 30s by the fall, he probably won't be able to persuade moderate Democratic senators to walk the plank and vote for cap-and-trade, health-care reform, higher taxes or an immigration amnesty.

[hulugu]

There's more than enough blame to throw around. Often overlooked is the moral hazard the topic of bailouts created.


Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard

Something that bothers me about the "moral hazard" argument is how it attempts to calcify the idea that because agents were working in an environment in which they might be "too big to fail" they aren't at fault. This seems akin to blaming EMTs for your speeding headlong into a telephone pole.

It's probably accurate, but it exposes the amorality and inculcated insanity of those who were handling the financial market and thus makes me trust them, and their other arguments, just a bit less.

[LizKat]

Dick Morris offered the following analysis of the poll results: -snip-

I don't think the Democrats are going to get too crazed over anything Dick Morris managed to get printed in the New York Post. Morris is always spinning something, and trying to get traction somewhere since his fall from grace. What a creepy guy...

Obama's stuff has a pretty good chance of getting through. Personally I don't think Americans trust either party much at all, but plenty of pols on both sides of the aisle (and their constituents) do now realize we have to stop with the gridlock, stop pretending we don't have to make hard choices. They are choices that will cost us some new money to replace some of what we might have spent differently in the past eight years. Be that as it may, all we can do now is bite the bullet and figure out how to pay for what's needed. Both houses are trying to get their work done, which is an encouraging sign.

(And it's the height of arrogance to have all these wealthy recipients of Bush era tax breaks screaming about getting a little haircut for healthcare. For shame.)

[mgguy]

I don't think the Democrats are going to get too crazed over anything Dick Morris managed to get printed in the New York Post. Morris is always spinning something, and trying to get traction somewhere since his fall from grace. What a creepy guy...

...

(And it's the height of arrogance to have all these wealthy recipients of Bush era tax breaks screaming about getting a little haircut for healthcare. For shame.)

Dick Morris is very astute about political issues and trends. After all, he did direct the Clinton machine for several years. True, Democrats don't like him much now because he is no longer working for them and opposes most of what they want to do. However, I would imagine he is still considered a masterful political tactician and forecaster by many of them. Can you explain why you think he is creepy?

Re: the tax increases on the "wealthy" to pay for health care, I don't consider over a 5% proposed surcharge on their income just a haircut. And the cuts they were given under Bush merely took their income tax rates closer to a more "fair" one, though it is still much higher proportionally than what is paid by people at the lower income levels. Last I heard, the top 1% of income earners are paying more than 40% of federal income taxes collected, or something like that.

[hulugu]

I don't think the Democrats are going to get too crazed over anything Dick Morris managed to get printed in the New York Post....

I was thinking the same thing. Morris bashes Obama in the New York Post. Sky is blue. Sun rises in west.

It will be interesting to see how this poll compares to others in the next few weeks.

Re: the tax increases on the "wealthy" to pay for health care, I don't consider over a 5% proposed surcharge on their income just a haircut. And the cuts they were given under Bush merely took their income tax rates closer to a more "fair" one, though it is still much higher proportionally than what is paid by people at the lower income levels. Last I heard, the top 1% of income earners are paying more than 40% of federal income taxes collected, or something like that.

How much wealth does the top 1% of income earners retain? Last I saw, the top 1% owns 34.3% of the wealth. BTW, the next 19% owns 50.3%, meaning that 20% of income earners in the US own 80% of the wealth. (If I can just find that link I'll post it).

Also, the top 1% also holds 42.9% of the financial wealth of this country.

It's worth noting that Warren Buffet stated during a fund-raiser in New York that he paid 17.6% of his 46 million while his secretary paid 30% of her $60,000.

So, yes Buffet paid 450 times at much as his secretary in taxes, (assuming my math is correct) but that number hides the reality of how the tax system works.

We'll assume for argument's sake that Buffet's numbers are probably correct.

[mgguy]

How much wealth does the top 1% of income earners retain? Last I saw, the top 1% owns 34.3% of the wealth. BTW, the next 19% owns 50.3%, meaning that 20% of income earners in the US own 80% of the wealth. (If I can just find that link I'll post it).

Also, the top 1% also holds 42.9% of the financial wealth of this country.

It's worth noting that Warren Buffet stated during a fund-raiser in New York that he paid 17.6% of his 46 million while his secretary paid 30% of her $60,000.

So, yes Buffet paid 450 times at much as his secretary in taxes, (assuming my math is correct) but that number hides the reality of how the tax system works.


Why is it that you feel that the government and lower income earners necessarily have a claim on the wealth of others? As you say, Buffet paid 450 times as much as his secretary in taxes. At what point would you consider the taxes he pays fair? Perhaps a million times as much? A billion times as much? At some point, you have created a real disincentive for people to be productive and create wealth. I also doubt whether a secretary making $60,000 in income would pay 30% of it in taxes. Most of that income would be taxed at the 15% level, wouldn't it? Keep in mind too that wealthy people get hit hard with inheritance taxes when they die. I never could figure out how that can be considered fair. If Buffet and others want to donate their wealth to the government for services to others, they can do that. Those who want to keep most of the money they make should have that choice as well.

[hulugu]

Why is it that you feel that the government and lower income earners necessarily have a claim on the wealth of others? As you say, Buffet paid 450 times as much as his secretary in taxes. At what point would you consider the taxes he pays fair? Perhaps a million times as much? A billion times as much? At some point, you have created a real disincentive for people to be productive and create wealth. I also doubt whether a secretary making $60,000 in income would pay 30% of it in taxes. Most of that income would be taxed at the 15% level, wouldn't it? Keep in mind too that wealthy people get hit hard with inheritance taxes when they die. I never could figure out how that can be considered fair. If Buffet and others want to donate their wealth to the government for services to others, they can do that. Those who want to keep most of the money they make should have that choice as well.

How quickly you shift to value judgements and hyperbole. A billion times as much? Really.

I'm arguing a set of specific facts. The wealthiest 1% pay 40% of the taxes and own 34% of the total wealth. As for Buffet's numbers, I'm willing to assume that his example is probably accurate and reflects the reality that Buffet's relationship with wealth is different than his secretary's.

As for disincentives, I simply don't buy this argument. If the tax rate was designed so there was a financial Zeno's Paradox at the higher levels, then I could understand the point. If say you made $1 Million and you would have to pay 60% of your income to taxes, then 70% at $2 Million, then 80% at $3 million, you would expect that people would avoid making more money—at least according to what they send the IRS. However, the tax code isn't designed this way. In fact, as Buffet's example shows, the higher tax brackets exceed a ceiling where each dollar actually becomes worth even more than it would be at a lower level.

If you want to argue about the merits of inheritance taxes or luxury taxes that's fine, but I think that's a separate issue. Inheritance taxes may be higher for the rich, but sales taxes affect the middle class far more.

As has been pointed out in other threads, many people in the middle class pay almost 40% of their income once you include property taxes, sales taxes, state income tax, and federal income taxes. The wealthy do not pay this same percentage of their wealth.

[Ugg]

Why is it that you feel that the government and lower income earners necessarily have a claim on the wealth of others?

Perhaps because as a result of reaganomics, the bulk of that wealth was earned on the backs of the poor as well as through Madoff Ponzi schemes and Worldcom and Enron ripoffs.

Had the wealthy truly labored for their money, it might be different. So much of their wealth has come through ill gotten gains that if Jesus were suddenly to appear, you can bet your booties that he would dispossess the bulk of them.

[Badandy]

How quickly you shift to value judgements and hyperbole. A billion times as much? Really.

I'm arguing a set of specific facts. The wealthiest 1% pay 40% of the taxes and own 34% of the total wealth.

This very fact dictates that earnings are indeed taxed progressively.


As for Buffet's numbers, I'm willing to assume that his example is probably accurate and reflects the reality that Buffet's relationship with wealth is different than his secretary's.

Of couse people ought to know that Buffett's income came from investment activities which are taxed at capital gains rates, while his secretary was receiving salary...

As has been pointed out in other threads, many people in the middle class pay almost 40% of their income once you include property taxes, sales taxes, state income tax, and federal income taxes. The wealthy do not pay this same percentage of their wealth.

That's simply not true. Your first statistic proves it and so do the tax returns of wealthy people that I help audit.

And I can assure you, insinuating that the wealthy do not pay their fair share of taxes is downright offensive to those who pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes per year.


Perhaps because as a result of reaganomics, the bulk of that wealth was earned on the backs of the poor as well as through Madoff Ponzi schemes and Worldcom and Enron ripoffs.

Seriously? It was the wealthy whose financial lives were ruined by Madoff's criminality and whose portfolios were wiped clean by Enron and Worldcom's collapses. It's not just the lower level employees who lost their jobs...

Had the wealthy truly labored for their money, it might be different. So much of their wealth has come through ill gotten gains that if Jesus were suddenly to appear, you can bet your booties that he would dispossess the bulk of them.

The wealthy don't truly labor for their money? Oh my goodness.

[Wotan31]

Ding ding ding...we have a winner.

And when the out of power party regains the power? Right back to the screwing!

I don't trust either/any party.
x2 on that. They're all politicians. Voting is not choosing which person you like best; it's choosing which person you think sucks the least.

[hulugu]

This very fact dictates that earnings are indeed taxed progressively.

I agree.


Of couse people ought to know that Buffett's income came from investment activities which are taxed at capital gains rates, while his secretary was receiving salary...

Exactly the point, the wealthy can afford to have their money work for them, they have more to invest and pay a different tax rate than money garnered through salary. Their income is taxed differently.

That's simply not true. Your first statistic proves it and so do the tax returns of wealthy people that I help audit.

My first statistic proves that the secretary paid 30% of her income to Federal income tax and I've seen figures indicating that the middle-class typically pay another 10% of their income to ancillary taxes.

So, what's the percentage of total taxes (sales taxes, state income taxes, property taxes) paid as a percentage of income for the people you audit? Is it more or less?

And I can assure you, insinuating that the wealthy do not pay their fair share of taxes is downright offensive to those who pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes per year.

I'm not insinuating anything, the tax code is designed to encourage income like capital gains over salaries. I've carefully avoided making a specific value judgement about fairness, rather I'm just pointing out what the facts are according to sources (which I really need to find links for; I wrote all this stuff down in Yojimbo and forgot the damned links.)

Seriously? It was the wealthy whose financial lives were ruined by Madoff's criminality and whose portfolios were wiped clean by Enron and Worldcom's collapses. It's not just the lower level employees who lost their jobs...

I think we can stipulate that everyone got hit with a shovel by Enron/Worldcom and Madoff's criminality is hitting wealthy movie stars as well as charities.

The wealthy don't truly labor for their money? Oh my goodness.

Labor? No. Labor is bricklaying or farming. That aside, do the wealthy work? Of course they do, and many work very hard and very long hours working and garnering wealth. The difference is, the wealthy can stop.

I liken to wealth to escaping a gravity well. Once you get into a high-enough orbit, so to speak, you just need a small altitude adjustment to stay there.

But, if you have to hover a foot above the ground, all your energy and time will be spent trying not to crash into the ground. It's the difference between a butterfly and a geosynchronous satellite.

[Badandy]

Exactly the point, the wealthy can afford to have their money work for them, they have more to invest and pay a different tax rate than money garnered through salary. Their income is taxed differently.

In 2002, about 50% of Americans owned individual stocks. (http://www.sptimes.com/2002/09/27/Business/More_Americans_invest.shtml)

Some people are more successful at it than others? The intial money is the difference, you say? Many companies offer either normal compensation or lower compensatio + stock options. You'll find that sometimes those wisest with their money will take the initial salary hit for future reward. The point is, a ton of American families have the means to own stocks, but not all of them have the knowledge. You don't need an Ivy League education to make money. The internet is an invaluable resouce.


I don't know where to find this information, but when you look at the ultra-wealthy, yes, much of their income comes from investing activities. This is that Buffett vs. secretary case he talked about. I doubt his case can be extrapolated to include most wealthy people. In the case of those ultra-wealthy, worth mentioning is that many of them started the very companies that are doing this investing and are being taxed additional money as well. Starting a business in the U.S. and running it to success is not very hard when compared to the same task in many other countries, but it's getting difficult. The taxes are piling up and contributions to various places are always increasing. There's a tax in California for just being self-employed! How's that for incentive?

So, what's the percentage of total taxes (sales taxes, state income taxes, property taxes) paid as a percentage of income for the people you audit? Is it more or less?

It's about 50%. I generally see federal income taxes averaging about 25-30% (graduated scale based on income), state income taxes of 7-9%, property taxes that were constantly rising because of the housing bubble and state spending sprees, and various other fees and taxes that add up to a total of about 50%. There's payroll taxes for self-employed, self-employment taxes for the self-employeed, taxes on insurance coverage, and pretty much anything else you can think of.

Labor? No. Labor is bricklaying or farming. That aside, do the wealthy work? Of course they do, and many work very hard and very long hours working and garnering wealth.


I was responding to Ugg, who said:

Had the wealthy truly labored for their money, it might be different. So much of their wealth has come through ill gotten gains that if Jesus were suddenly to appear, you can bet your booties that he would dispossess the bulk of them.

But, if you have to hover a foot above the ground, all your energy and time will be spent trying not to crash into the ground. It's the difference between a butterfly and a geosynchronous satellite.

Yes, but in real life the butterfly had/has the opportunity to become that geosynchronous satellite.

[Eraserhead]

In 2002, about 50% of Americans owned individual stocks.

That seems average Americans are taking too big a risk there. Surely the median American won't be able to afford to own enough shares to balance their risks?

[rdowns]

That seems average Americans are taking too big a risk there. Surely the median American won't be able to afford to own enough shares to balance their risks?


The vast majority of those do not own individual stock but own mutual funds.

[Eraserhead]

The vast majority of those do not own individual stock but own mutual funds.

Ah, that makes much more sense.

[Badandy]

The vast majority of those do not own individual stock but own mutual funds.

Ah, that makes much more sense.

That statistic was from stock-based mutual funds.

[Peterkro]

The vast majority of those do not own individual stock but own mutual funds.

True, that percentage of those with individual stock holdings is around 20%. Not only that but who owns stocks has skewed towards the wealthy in recent times."Well before the ownership society had a neat label, its creation was central to the success of the right-wing economic revolution around the world. The idea was simple: if working-class people owned a small piece of the market--a home mortgage, a stock portfolio, a private pension--they would cease to identify as workers and start to see themselves as owners, with the same interests as their bosses. That meant they could vote for politicians promising to improve stock performance rather than job conditions. Class consciousness would be a relic."
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080218/klein

@Badandy:I believe it was you who mentioned class warfare,it does indeed exist and has since the beginning of the United States, it's waged by the wealthy on the poor.

[Zombie Acorn]

Both sides are crooks, I don't blame them either, we keep voting them back in.

I was at least hoping Obama was going to shift the status quo on how our bills are prepared and passed. "Line by Line" my ass.

[Badandy]

"The idea was simple: if working-class people owned a small piece of the market--a home mortgage, a stock portfolio, a private pension--they would cease to identify as workers and start to see themselves as owners, with the same interests as their bosses. That meant they could vote for politicians promising to improve stock performance rather than job conditions. Class consciousness would be a relic."


Or it is a way for companies to attract investment and expand business operations better than they could hope to do with a simple bank loan. :rolleyes:

Of course, what fun is the simple explanation when it can be twisted into some form of class warfare? There's no conspiracy here on the part of the "rich". It's another way for businesses to raise investment dollars and be more profitable. Further, anyone can by common stock, so it's hardly some form of institutional control to keep the blue-collar man "down".

By the way, "The Nation" is a joke of a website. You can't really get your news on America from there, can you? I love pieces that start not with facts, but with "connect the dots", advertisements directly bashing their competitors, and a front page columnist whose latest book talks about how "defense hawks hijacked 9/11".

[Peterkro]

Or it is a way for companies to attract investment and expand business operations better than they could hope to do with a simple bank loan. :rolleyes:

Of course, what fun is the simple explanation when it can be twisted into some form of class warfare?

Well if it is a way to attract investment it's particularly ineffective as a glance at the graph above shows.

In answer to your edit:

Derision is not a very effective means of criticism.

[Badandy]

Well if it is a way to attract investment it's particularly ineffective as a glance at the graph above shows.

That's what stocks are.

[Peterkro]

That's what stocks are.

Well we agree on that,what I was saying however is the push to extend share ownership was particularly ineffective because the vast majority of Americans don't have the money to invest,especially now after having to bail out the financial markets with billions of dollars.

[Badandy]

Well we agree on that,what I was saying however is the push to extend share ownership was particularly ineffective because the vast majority of Americans don't have the money to invest,especially now after having to bail out the financial markets with billions of dollars.

We agree on that. I'll have a more in-depth response tomorrow, I'm far too tired to type anymore today.

[solvs]

Odd, can't seem to find this anymore. When I click the link, it doesn't seem to work. Hm. Looking places like here (I have others), like the last big Ras poll on abortion (when a poll the week before elsewhere showed the exact opposite, as did one taken not too long after), the results elsewhere are a little different:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

For the record, I'm unhappy with the Dems and Obama right now, like so many others, and would give disapproval to. Doesn't mean I like the GOP. Not now, not anymore. While the Dems have been disappointing, I still find them better than the GOP. Not much, but there is a difference, even if some of you pretend not to see it. Just because they both suck, anyone who says they both suck equally is being completely disingenuous. I would take talking about gay rights and wanting to stop torture, even if little is done about them, over actively trying to stop gay rights and torturing people secretly while getting nothing out of it any day. They aren't even trying to do anything about the Fairness Act or guns, or the military. They even added a rider to let guns in National Parks to get you to sign on to their legislation (which most of you still didn't).

All you seem to have is that he's spending money, just like Bush did, even as you ignore exactly what he wants to spend it on, and how much he's trying to bring you to the table over it.


But Obama does want to take a large chunk of taxpayer money to buy healthcare coverage for many people who never had a job who are not currently covered.
No he doesn't. Most of them are already covered by Medicaid. Most of whom don't work for reasons like disability, or because they're in school, but aren't covered by their parents. His plans are to cover the working poor and those who fall between the cracks, like temps and small businesses that can't afford regular coverage. And even that's being watered down in the name of the bipartisanship from people like you who are either completely misinformed or so far to the right they won't support anything he wants to do.

As I understand it, his plan would also cover illegal immigrants and their children, which is a large portion of the current population of those who are uninsured.
Again, you understand incorrectly.

Another possibility is that Obama is giving them more change than they wanted, and of the wrong kind. Many voters may have thought that he would be more moderate than he is, and now are surprised that he is going way beyond what they thought he was advocating during the campaign.
Where exactly is this? I've seen the far right make this claim about the left, but the left, and moderates as well, actually say the exact opposite. Gay rights, single payer healthcare, stronger environmental policies, the wars, torture... I could go on. They're disappointed because he hasn't done ENOUGH. Them, and the experts of the economy and healthcare, who also say he isn't doing, again, ENOUGH. That he should be doing more. The far right is just going to call him a socialist and refuse to work with him anyway, even as he and the Dems bend over backwards to try and compromise with them. Even though all they're doing is compromising their principles, while the right refuses to compromise at all, unless compromise means "do everything we want and nothing you do". And they still won't vote with him, even after they are given what they say they want.

The only people who are disappointed in him for bring too much change are those who would never vote for him anyway, and again, I ask what (and again, can't say stimulus, because again, by all accounts he isn't doing enough).


LOL - the majority of this was caused by Democrats meddling with lending laws, worse Barney Frank is at it again. The banking collapse is mostly if not all related to lending on homes. When the FED under the direction of Congress reduced the requirements to obtain loans it caused home prices to rise incredibly.
Once again, swing and a miss. CRA (that thing you're talking about) was only responsible for about 16% of the bad loans. The rest, like the ones Bush himself was pushing as part of his home ownership society (like deregulation already pointed out, a bipartisan effort), were not under those guidelines. Were they, we wouldn't be anywhere close to this mess, because besides a lot of them not happening, or at the least, being better regulated, if that was all there was, we could easily pay it all off for less than the stimulus, and no banks would be worse for the wear. Unfortunately, it's FAR more complicated than that. Having to do with a lot of manipulations by the banks and others, as well as things like credit default swaps, that went unregulated for years. This was a bubble waiting to pop.

And as I, among other here, based on those we were reading who have been completely right about this the whole time, have been saying for years, the economy has not been good, and what we were doing has not been sustainable. I remember right around the time Krugman (or someone like him, maybe not him) was on TV being mocked for pointing this out in '05 or '06, I mentioned in a thread about the economy that things weren't great, and was also mocked by those on the right. Now those same people who were so wrong while it was happening are telling you this partisan claptrap to lay the blame on poor people, and you lot are still eating it up. Well you're still wrong. Glass-Steagal was only the beginning. It was far worse. And again, bipartisan. Though the charge was led by the conservative voices if we want to go there.

Normally, when I mention this, righties ask what CRA is, proving my point.


Dick Morris offered the following analysis of the poll results:
Dick Morris? Really? That's funny. If you're listening to him, no wonder.

Felt the same way when he was helping the Clintons.


If this tired old shtick is the best you've got, and it seems to be, don't expect a blow out victory (or any for that matter) in the next election, no matter how much the Dems continue to suck, especially as they do so trying to please you, even though they never will, as you call them all sorts of -ists anyway.

[Eraserhead]

Once again, swing and a miss. CRA (that thing you're talking about) was only responsible for about 16% of the bad loans. The rest, like the ones Bush himself was pushing as part of his home ownership society (like deregulation already pointed out, a bipartisan effort), were not under those guidelines. Were they, we wouldn't be anywhere close to this mess, because besides a lot of them not happening, or at the least, being better regulated, if that was all there was, we could easily pay it all off for less than the stimulus, and no banks would be worse for the wear. Unfortunately, it's FAR more complicated than that. Having to do with a lot of manipulations by the banks and others, as well as things like credit default swaps, that went unregulated for years. This was a bubble waiting to pop.

And as I, among other here, based on those we were reading who have been completely right about this the whole time, have been saying for years, the economy has not been good, and what we were doing has not been sustainable. I remember right around the time Krugman (or someone like him, maybe not him) was on TV being mocked for pointing this out in '05 or '06, I mentioned in a thread about the economy that things weren't great, and was also mocked by those on the right. Now those same people who were so wrong while it was happening are telling you this partisan claptrap to lay the blame on poor people, and you lot are still eating it up. Well you're still wrong. Glass-Steagal was only the beginning. It was far worse. And again, bipartisan. Though the charge was led by the conservative voices if we want to go there.

Normally, when I mention this, righties ask what CRA is, proving my point
Nice long piece and I'd already disproved that theory in another thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=8080267#post8080267) :p.

[solvs]

Nice long piece and I'd already disproved that theory in another thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=8080267#post8080267) :p.

I (and others) have pointed this out several times as well, but those same posters keep repeating it as if it were true. The "liberal" media lets the talking heads do it too. So it becomes "fact" even though it isn't. And as I said, the Dems do little to change the rhetoric, the MSM treats those who have been right as kooks and those who've been wrong as sages, and we're left with a populace that has no idea how it got fleeced, to the point where some of them ignore those actually responsible to blame those trying to fix it.

Can't we just get a WRONG button to use anytime someone posts something long since disproved?