Poll: 71% shun GOP handling of debt crisis

[Avorysuds]

So even a CBS poll has Obama at odds with his base... Is it shocking that republicans don't do well in a cbs poll? Maybe Fox did the same poll and got the same numbers?

I'd say this is a huge loss for Obama being the main people polled would be part of his base...

I'm not defending Republicans, just trying to point out that this poll would prolly on give us a picture of the Democrat base not the conservative base...

 

[Modbert]

Never heard of checking a story with a different source huh? Why am I NOT surprised?

If someone on this website "checked" their story with DailyKos, you would have laughed in their face. Conservative Commune is clearly a Conservative blog of sorts.

Even so, there's really no need to "check one's story here", especially since the numbers speak for themselves that she and I both posted now.

All her link does differently is by saying CBS is bad.

But nice try.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Tsk tsk...silly dems

Only polls that favor repubs opinions are "real polls" all others can be explained away with a little spin

 

[Avorysuds]

So the Poll is BS and you're still trying to defend it by not defending it?

Lol, whatever I'm out.

 

[Modbert]

You were more interested in insulting than what the numbers actually meant. When confronted with it, we got your usual crap. Yep, your a hack.

Usual crap? I clearly pointed out that the numbers were on the CBS website, clearly they're not trying to hide them or anything. In response to defend Boedicca, you linked to the same exact link I just gave and called me a hack.



Clearly anyone who doesn't agree with you is a hack.

 

[Dr.House]

Well, if posters can post C-BS polls without thought to the impartiality, then I guess FOXNews polls are equally acceptable...



Funniest thread of the day, Doogie...

 

[Avorysuds]

C-it's-BS

 

[Modbert]

Well, if posters can post C-BS polls without thought to the impartiality, then I guess FOXNews polls are equally acceptable...



Funniest thread of the day, Doogie...

Go ahead and post them.

It's like I said before, I posted this poll for the benefit of people like yourself who were using the American people disapproval of raising the debt ceiling as an example as to why we shouldn't.

 

[Kuros]

considering that 51% don't pay taxes and are looking for a continued free ride,

51% of Americans didn't pay FEDERAL INCOME taxes in 2009. Plenty of those Americans, actually 47%, still paid FEDERAL PAYROLL taxes, STATE taxes (both sales and income), and LOCAL taxes.

47 Percent 'Don't Pay Taxes'? No Big Deal - Business - The Atlantic Wire

The 47 percent number is not wrong. [...] But the modifiers here — federal and income — are important. Income taxes aren’t the only kind of federal taxes that people pay. There are also payroll taxes and investment taxes, among others. And, of course, people pay state and local taxes, too.

 

[oreo]

Poll: 71% shun GOP handling of debt crisis - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

Americans are unimpressed with their political leaders' handling of the debt ceiling crisis, with a new CBS News poll showing a majority disapprove of all the involved parties' conduct, but Republicans in Congress fare the worst, with just 21 percent backing their resistance to raising taxes.

President Obama earned the most generous approval ratings for his handling of the weeks-old negotiations, but still more people said they disapproved (48 percent) than approved (43 percent) of what he has done and said.

Even half of the Republican respondents (51 percent) voiced disapproval of how members of their own party in Congress are handling the talks. Far fewer Democrats expressed disapproval of their own party's handling (32 percent) or President Obama's (22 percent) of the urgent quest to raise the nation's debt limit ahead of a looming default on Aug. 2 if action isn't taken.

Sixty-six percent of those polled said they believe an agreement will be reached before the Aug. 2 deadline, while only 31 percent say it's unlikely.

Thoughts USMB?

Yeah-the Dancing with the stars crowd --are not paying attention:

There are 18,000 babyboomers entering social security/medicare DAILY and this will continue for the next 15 years--resulting in another 64 TRILLION in unfunded liabilites on top of the 14.3 TRILLION in red ink now. This equates to $534,000.00 per household in America owed to the Federal Government to pay this tab.

So to make it easy for everyone>



This is 1 billion dollars--$100.00 bills stacked on palets.



This is 1 trillion dollars--$100.00 bills stacked on palets. Can you see the size of the man in this chart? Well-- we only need about 80 of these to break even.



And this is the result--if we don't do something-- 80 TRILLION dollars--will be passed off to our kids and grandkids--which will in effect give THEM a LOWER standard of living than we could possibly conceive of.

 

[Dr.House]

Well, if posters can post C-BS polls without thought to the impartiality, then I guess FOXNews polls are equally acceptable...



Funniest thread of the day, Doogie...

Go ahead and post them.

Not likely... Let's just stick to "generally acceptable" to both sides, unlike the OP...

It's like I said before, I posted this poll for the benefit of people like yourself who were using the American people disapproval of raising the debt ceiling as an example as to why we shouldn't.

Well, if it were credible you might have a point....

Absent that it just remains a partisan hackjob....

Still, it was funny in that you gave it credibility...

 

[The Rabbi]

So stupid only Democrats could come up with it.

Interesting. Does the term TEFRA ring a bell?

Politics, Not Economics, Drives Anti-Tax Stand: Albert Hunt - Bloomberg

There is no such confusion when it comes to taxes. With enforcers such as the anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist looking over their shoulders, Republican politicians know that if they even entertain the idea of higher taxes, they throw away any national ambitions, may be threatened in a primary, and, if in a position of leadership, face a revolt from the rank and file.

The political hero for these conservatives is Reagan, who did slash taxes his first year as president. What the Eric Cantors of the world don’t know or ignore is that in 1982 -- in the midst of what was then the worst economic downturn since the Depression -- Reagan approved the largest peacetime tax increase in history. On Sept. 3, 1982, the day he signed the tax hike, the jobless rate was 10.1 percent.

In today’s dollars, TEFRA (The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibilities Act) and an accompanying small increase in gas taxes would have raised the equivalent of almost $1 trillion dollars over 10 years.

The result: the economy boomed in 1983 and 1984, and that year, Reagan successfully ran for re-election on the theme of “Morning in America.” (Reagan also approved three more major tax increases, starting with higher Social Security levies in 1983).

Though I have a strong feeling if President Reagan was alive today, he'd be considered a "RINO" by someone like yourself.

Oohhh. It's GOTCHA!, Right, Junior? You sure showed me.
Too bad the actual facts are that Reagan was promised spending cuts that never happened. He reluctantly agreed to the deal and regretted it ever after that. He would never sign a tax increase, instead asking "where are those 3 dollars you promised?"
I voted for Reagan, twice. That was before you were born, of course.
Go back to grade school, sonny.

And the program didnt work, btw. The deficit was higher after that and the tax revenue failed to materialize. Something to consider today.

 

[Modbert]

Oohhh. It's GOTCHA!, Right, Junior? You sure showed me.
Too bad the actual facts are that Reagan was promised spending cuts that never happened. He reluctantly agreed to the deal and regretted it ever after that. He would never sign a tax increase, instead asking "where are those 3 dollars you promised?"
I voted for Reagan, twice. That was before you were born, of course.
Go back to grade school, sonny.

And the program didnt work, btw. The deficit was higher after that and the tax revenue failed to materialize. Something to consider today.

Except for all those times he did. By the way, the deficit was higher because Reagan kept spending like the top marginal tax rate on the rich was 70%. The more you know.

Ronald Reagan Myth Doesn't Square with Reality - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

And while Reagan somewhat slowed the marginal rate of growth in the budget, it continued to increase during his time in office. So did the debt, skyrocketing from $700 billion to $3 trillion. Then there's the fact that after first pushing to cut Social Security benefits - and being stymied by Congress - Reagan in 1983 agreed to a $165 billion bailout of the program. He also massively expanded the Pentagon budget.

Meanwhile, following that initial tax cut, Reagan actually ended up raising taxes - eleven times. That's according to former Republican Sen. Alan Simpson, a longtime Reagan friend who co-chaired President Obama's fiscal commission that last year offered a deficit reduction proposal.

"Ronald Reagan was never afraid to raise taxes," historian Douglas Brinkley, who edited Reagan's diaries, told NPR. "He knew that it was necessary at times. And so there's a false mythology out there about Reagan as this conservative president who came in and just cut taxes and trimmed federal spending in a dramatic way. It didn't happen that way. It's false."

It's important to note that Reagan's tax increases did not wipe out the effects of that initial tax cut. But they did eat up about half of it. And as Peter Beinart points out, the 1983 payroll tax hike went to pay for Social Security and Medicare. ("Reagan raised taxes to pay for government-run health care," Beinart writes.) Reagan also raised the gas tax and signed the largest corporate tax increase in history, an act Joshua Green writes would be "utterly unimaginable for any conservative to support today."

 

[The Rabbi]

Oohhh. It's GOTCHA!, Right, Junior? You sure showed me.
Too bad the actual facts are that Reagan was promised spending cuts that never happened. He reluctantly agreed to the deal and regretted it ever after that. He would never sign a tax increase, instead asking "where are those 3 dollars you promised?"
I voted for Reagan, twice. That was before you were born, of course.
Go back to grade school, sonny.

And the program didnt work, btw. The deficit was higher after that and the tax revenue failed to materialize. Something to consider today.

Except for all those times he did. By the way, the deficit was higher because Reagan kept spending like the top marginal tax rate on the rich was 70%. The more you know.

Ronald Reagan Myth Doesn't Square with Reality - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

And while Reagan somewhat slowed the marginal rate of growth in the budget, it continued to increase during his time in office. So did the debt, skyrocketing from $700 billion to $3 trillion. Then there's the fact that after first pushing to cut Social Security benefits - and being stymied by Congress - Reagan in 1983 agreed to a $165 billion bailout of the program. He also massively expanded the Pentagon budget.

Meanwhile, following that initial tax cut, Reagan actually ended up raising taxes - eleven times. That's according to former Republican Sen. Alan Simpson, a longtime Reagan friend who co-chaired President Obama's fiscal commission that last year offered a deficit reduction proposal.

"Ronald Reagan was never afraid to raise taxes," historian Douglas Brinkley, who edited Reagan's diaries, told NPR. "He knew that it was necessary at times. And so there's a false mythology out there about Reagan as this conservative president who came in and just cut taxes and trimmed federal spending in a dramatic way. It didn't happen that way. It's false."

It's important to note that Reagan's tax increases did not wipe out the effects of that initial tax cut. But they did eat up about half of it. And as Peter Beinart points out, the 1983 payroll tax hike went to pay for Social Security and Medicare. ("Reagan raised taxes to pay for government-run health care," Beinart writes.) Reagan also raised the gas tax and signed the largest corporate tax increase in history, an act Joshua Green writes would be "utterly unimaginable for any conservative to support today."

Congress passes budgets, not the president, sonny. Aren't you up past your bed time?

 

[Modbert]

Congress passes budgets, not the president, sonny.

The Rabbi, meet The Rabbi:

It would seem you are a clueless moron who does not understand the meaning of the word "veto".

Same thread too.

It's not like Reagan was afraid to use that veto pen though, like when it came to the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986.

Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

President Ronald Reagan, believing that the law's punitive sanctions would lead to more violence and more repression in South Africa, vetoed the law but was overridden by Congress (by the Senate 78 to 21, the House by 313 to 83). In the week leading up to the vote, President Reagan appealed to members of the Republican Party for support, but as Senator Lowell P. Weicker, Jr. would state, "For this moment, at least, the President has become an irrelevancy to the ideals, heartfelt and spoken, of America".[3] This override marked the first time in the twentieth century that a president had a foreign policy veto overridden.[2]

Want to keep going?

 

[EriktheRed]

Now they're posting DailyKos links...





This thread is the funniest one today.... Kudos....lol

And of course we all know that dailykos isn't skewed at all......

The only thing at that link was this cartoon I wanted to share:

I figured some fellow libs on here would find it funny like I did.

 

[saveliberty]

Obama is making this a crisis. Simply politics of fear, which seems to be the only way he can get anything big accomplished.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So stupid only Democrats could come up with it.

Interesting. Does the term TEFRA ring a bell?

Politics, Not Economics, Drives Anti-Tax Stand: Albert Hunt - Bloomberg

In today’s dollars, TEFRA (The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibilities Act) and an accompanying small increase in gas taxes would have raised the equivalent of almost $1 trillion dollars over 10 years.

The result: the economy boomed in 1983 and 1984, and that year, Reagan successfully ran for re-election on the theme of “Morning in America.” (Reagan also approved three more major tax increases, starting with higher Social Security levies in 1983).

Though I have a strong feeling if President Reagan was alive today, he'd be considered a "RINO" by someone like yourself.

Highly doubtful.

Changing history after the fact won't work.

So your opinion of Reagan's 1982 massive tax increase, during a recession, in order to raise revenues to deal with the looming deficits would be??

Hmmm....lemme guess...

 

[NYcarbineer]

Fortunately this nation is not governed by push polls.

The GOP is right. IF we raise taxes we will not only not lower the deficit (because raising taxes never lowers the deficit), .

Really? So the 1993 tax increase that was followed by 7 years of progressively lower deficits cannot be argued as a cause for those reductions?

If not why not?

 

[Wry Catcher]

I'd say they've both handed us a Rome in flames and cut the water off.

I'd like to see a poll in which everyone's taxes are going to be raised and see how many approve.

Taxes need to be raised, and no one likes to hear that. If a poll had been taken in the Winter of 2003 and the question was stated thusly:

Do you support a tax increase to support the invasion and occupation of Iraq which is necessary as we the government believe some day Iraq will have a weapon of mass destruction?

Yes or No?

If a poll was taken in the winter of 2009 as the number of the unemployed was growing by the hundreds of thousands each month, and a poll asked:

Do you support a government tax increase to support the hiring of newly unemployed workers to stimulate the economy?

Yes or No?

These examples are why we elect representatives to study and debate policy matters, and why direct democracy is not viable. Sadly our representatives no longer debate on matters of substance, or on the merits of issues. Their sole concern is the next election and how well their party will do.