Obama's electability

McGentrix wrote:

Hmph, I didn't intend a rant, but there it is.

It was a good rant.

Foxfyre wrote:

I won't give you the You Tube clip as 'voluntary' as this was him in an interview answering a direct question re his feelings about flag and country and that doesn't count in this context. But I'll give you two out of the three. Good job.

Well, thank you, teacher. Can I get a sticker?

FreeDuck wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

Hmph, I didn't intend a rant, but there it is.

It was a good rant.

Agreed. You're making lots of sense lately, McG. See if you can help Fox with her homework.

'reality' to me is that we are 9 trillion in debt and that has gone up by over half during the last Republican administration, who claimed that cutting taxes would help the economy. See, your side of the fence IGNORES THE DEBT like it doesn't exist. It does exist. The larger it gets, the larger the debt service payments are from our general fund, and eventually it's going to be a serious problem.

If we don't start addressing this problem soon, it is going to collapse our economy, and that will be Very Bad. It isn't a matter of which party we are talking about here, it's a matter of survival. So pardon me if I'm not too upset when I hear talk of tax raises.

I also would point out that taxation is currently at the lowest levels it's been at for about a century, at least in the last 80 years. Your parents and grandparents and mine got the job done whilst paying more then you and I are, so I find the modern complaints about taxation to be a bunch of whining from pussies who have no idea what heavy taxation looks like.

Cycloptichorn

Your tough talk on taxation amuses me. How much do you pay in taxes?? It is fairly easy to talk about needed tax increases when they are carefully arranged so as to be paid by someone else.

Obama's spending plans are estimated to far exceed any net increases in tax revenue - thus exacerbating the debt issue that troubles you so much. (The truth is that our debt as a % of GDP is not unusually high.)

I agree that the Bust Administration has failed to adequately control and limit Federal expenditures, thus contributing to the present situation. However the right remedy is limitations on spending - not wholesale increases in both spending and taxes.

Under both plans, all American taxpayers could pay a price for their tax cuts: a bigger deficit. The Tax Policy Center estimates that over 10 years, McCain's tax proposals could increase the national debt by as much as $4.5 trillion with interest, while Obama's could add as much as $3.3 trillion.

How the candidates' tax plans would affect economic growth is an open question. "It depends on how the deficits are closed," Burman said.

Tax studies have shown that when tax cuts are deficit funded and they're paid for by raising taxes in the future, "the economy is worse off than if you didn't cut at all," Burman said

Cycloptichorn wrote:

'reality' to me is that we are 9 trillion in debt and that has gone up by over half during the last Republican administration, who claimed that cutting taxes would help the economy. See, your side of the fence IGNORES THE DEBT like it doesn't exist. It does exist. The larger it gets, the larger the debt service payments are from our general fund, and eventually it's going to be a serious problem.

If we don't start addressing this problem soon, it is going to collapse our economy, and that will be Very Bad. It isn't a matter of which party we are talking about here, it's a matter of survival. So pardon me if I'm not too upset when I hear talk of tax raises.

I also would point out that taxation is currently at the lowest levels it's been at for about a century, at least in the last 80 years. Your parents and grandparents and mine got the job done whilst paying more then you and I are, so I find the modern complaints about taxation to be a bunch of whining from pussies who have no idea what heavy taxation looks like.

Cycloptichorn

Your tough talk on taxation amuses me. How much do you pay in taxes?? It is fairly easy to talk about needed tax increases when they are carefully arranged so as to be paid by someone else.

Obama's spending plans are estimated to far exceed any net increases in tax revenue - thus exacerbating the debt issue that troubles you so much. (The truth is that our debt as a % of GDP is not unusually high.)

I agree that the Bust Administration has failed to adequately control and limit Federal expenditures, thus contributing to the present situation. However the right remedy is limitations on spending - not wholesale increases in both spending and taxes.

Uh, oh.

Looks like Cyc is giving the boot to yet ANOTHER democrat! Before long it will be just a nice circle jerk of like-minded drones huddled around a campfire sing kumbya believing in change.

In terms of electability, this is an interesting tidbit from First Read:

Quote:

From NBC's Mark Murray
In the latest NBC/WSJ poll, Obama leads McCain by six points (47%-41%) among registered voters. While polls can't accurately gauge an election five months out -- after all, so much can still happen -- it's worth putting Obama's lead into this perspective: Bush never trailed Kerry in the 2004 NBC/WSJ polls that measured registered voters' preference for Bush, Kerry, and Nader. And Bush's lead was never bigger than four points.

Bush won that presidential election by three percentage points, 51%-48%.

Here were the NBC/WSJ trial heats from March 2004 (when Kerry pretty much locked up the nomination) to late October 2004:
March (Mar.6-8): Bush 46%, Kerry 43%, Nader 5%
May (May 1-3): Bush 46%, Kerry 42%, Nader 5%
June (June 25-28): Bush 45%, Kerry 44%, Nader 4%
July (July 19-21): Bush 47%, Kerry 45%, Nader 2%
August (Aug.23-25): Bush 47%, Kerry 45%, Nader 3%
September (Sept.17-19): Bush 48%, Kerry 45%, Nader 2%
Mid October (Oct.16-18): Bush 48%, Kerry 46%, Nader 2%
Late October (Oct.29-31): Bush 48%, Kerry 47%, Nader 1%

Fat Lady Not Singing Yet (Except in California)

Three recent polls show Barack Obama in the lead. According to the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, he leads John McCain by 47 to 41 percent.

According to Gallup, he leads him by 48 to 42 percent. And Rasmussen has Obama ahead by 49 to 44 percent. From Obama's standpoint, that's certainly better than polls showing him trailing McCain. Presidential races aren't like horse races. It's not better to hang back until the stretch. But it's also not reason to declare victory.

Before September, when the campaign begins in earnest, and voters begin to pay close attention, presidential polls are heavily influenced by overall party preferences. If one party is ahead in generic party polls, its presidential candidate is likely to be ahead. And that's the case here. According to the Rasmussen poll, Democrats lead Republicans among likely voters by 47 to 34 percent. So some of Obama's edge has nothing to do with him. It could increase or could also decrease in the fall.

You can look at two past elections where the Democratic candidate and generic Democrats led in June, but where the candidate's and the party's lead faded in November. In June 2004, John Kerry led George Bush by 51 to 44 percent in Los Angeles Times poll. He led by three percentage points in the Time poll and by two in Fox's poll. A month later, the polls showed the race a dead heat.

In June 1988, Gallup had Democrat Michael Dukakis leading George H. W. Bush by 52 to 38 percent; the Washington Post had the lead as 51 to 39 percent. In this case, Dukakis didn't surrended his lead in the polls until the fall. But that's also when most voters became familiar with him. So it's important not to draw firm conclusions from these early polls.

One notable figure in these polls is Obama's lead among Latino voters--by 62 to 38 percent in the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll by 62 to 29 percent in the Gallup May poll. During the primary, Obama got little support among Latino voters against Hillary Clinton, but these voters may be prepared to back Obama--or they may simply be registering at this point their preference for a Democrat over a Republican.

There is one polling result from which it is possible to draw some conlcusions. California's well-regarded Field Poll found last month that California Democrats, who backed Hillary Clinton in the Feb. 5 primary, now preferred Obama. Latino voters retained their support for Clinton, but Asian voters - also thought be a problem for Obama in California--threw their support to him. Asian voters backed Clinton over Obama by 71 to 25 percent in the primary. In the May Field poll, they back Obama by 56 to 33 percent. It's a small sample, but it may indicate that a significant part of the California electorate is going to vote for Obama, and that the state itself will not be in play in November.

--John B. Judis

Cyclo
As much as I hate too I have to agree that the rich don't pay their share of taxes. Just as in insurance rates the more you insure for in value the more you have pay. It should be so in taxation as well. The more value one has to protect the more they should pay in taxes. Corporations as well as individuals. But since we have to depend on politicians to right this wrong I wont hold my breath until it happens.

What is their fair share?

Of course Im not quite right with my insurance analogy. But close enough. The more wealth one has the more they should pay for protection. Thats what taxes are. Protection.

What "protection" is provided to me ... by ... squirrel mating research...

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

What "protection" is provided to me ... by ... squirrel mating research...

You have to ask?

joefromchicago wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

What "protection" is provided to me ... by ... squirrel mating research...

You have to ask?

Does it involve nuts?

I agree that the Bust Administration has [...]