Archive for Saturday, September 25, 2010

Poll: Both parties are unpopular, but GOP is more fired up

September 25, 2010

Advertisement

— A political enthusiasm gap is helping Republicans in their effort to roll up big gains in the congressional elections. GOP supporters are a lot more interested in getting their party’s candidates elected than Democrats are in electing theirs, a new AP-GfK poll shows.

Democrats struggling to defend their control of Congress have lucked out in one way: Republicans are at least as unpopular as they are, the poll shows. Yet GOP voters are more fired up, leaving the Democrats little more than a month to energize their supporters.

The Associated Press-GfK Poll this month shows that the public is fed up with both parties. Only 38 percent approve of how congressional Democrats are handling their jobs, and just 31 percent like how Republicans are doing theirs. Fifty-nine percent are unhappy with how Democrats are nursing the economy, 64 percent are upset by the GOP’s work on the country’s top issue.

More than half have negative views of each party. Most say Obama isn’t cooperating enough on the economy, but even more accuse Republicans of the same thing. And former President George W. Bush and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin — the only two Republicans the AP-GfK Poll tested — are significantly less popular than Obama.

Even so, Republicans have the upper hand because their supporters seem significantly likelier to show up and vote. Political scientists say people are likeliest to vote based on present conditions — which today means a wounded economy — rather than choosing between competing philosophies for the future.

In the AP-GfK Poll, 54 percent who strongly dislike Democrats express intense interest in the election, compared with just 40 percent of those with very negative views of Republicans.

Comments

steveguy 4 years, 7 months ago

People forget that the Republicans and Bush started this mess!

booyalab 4 years, 7 months ago

If you're talking about the deficits, that's largely the fault of the Democrat controlled congress. Bush should have vetoed more spending bills, but they were conceived by then Senator Obama and his constituents. If you're talking about the recession, you still have mostly Democrats to blame since they were the most in favor of regulating lending institutions, resulting in risky loans and huge financial losses.

CountyResident 4 years, 7 months ago

You forgot about the Bush tax cuts, that was passed by a republican congress, that added $2.74 trillion dollars to the national debt.

notajayhawk 4 years, 7 months ago

"that added $2.74 trillion dollars to the national debt"

Lay off the kool-aid.

notajayhawk 4 years, 7 months ago

Oh, incidentally, extending the tax cuts for everyone except the wealthy is projected by the Pew Charitable Trusts to increase the debt by another 2.3 trillion dollars over the next ten years. So I assume you're not in favor of extending them?

Carol Bowen 4 years, 7 months ago

Greenspan warned the president and congress that we could not afford both the tax cuts and the war. The tax cuts were passed anyway.

Question: how do "tax cuts" translate to "tax increase"?

notajayhawk 4 years, 7 months ago

Wars are so inconvenient, aren't they?

[Rolling eyes]

booyalab 4 years, 7 months ago

No I didn't forget, because tax cuts don't increase national debt. In fact, under the Reagan administration tax revenue actually increased after his tax cuts because the economy improved, which increased everyone's income enough to cause more taxes to be collected even with lower tax rates.

Jimo 4 years, 7 months ago

A. Ending the balanced budget and building the deficit in spending was begun by a Republican Congress working with a Republican President. Please don't rewrite history. B. Bush didn't veto spending bills. Indeed, as VP Cheney explained "Deficits don't matter." (Of course not, removing taxation from the wealthy and ending regulation on business are all that matter economically.) Please don't rewrite history. C. It's obvious you don't know what "regulating" means. The story of financial regulation over the last decade or so is the gutting of regulatory control (I"m assuming you know what "gutting" means but then again maybe not) - the type of control that Republican's Wall Street masters hate and have bribed Republican Congressmen to remove (but would have prevented all of this fiasco). Please don't rewrite history.

So, other than that, you're exactly correct. Still, very interesting what lies people have to construct to justify their silly beliefs in the face of a wall of contrary facts.

notajayhawk 4 years, 7 months ago

"A. Ending the balanced budget and building the deficit in spending was begun by a Republican Congress working with a Republican President. Please don't rewrite history."

[yawn]

It's getting so tiresome correcting your BS.

The deficit grew from 17.9 billion dollars to 133 billion dollars from Sept 2000 to Sept 2001. This was Clinton's budget.

The national debt increased every year, almost 300 billion dollars in Clinton's last three years. He "balanced" the budget by 'borrowing' money from other federal funds, such as SS and Medicare. This reduced the public debt but still increased the overall national debt.

The NY Times analyzed the four major causes of the "swing" from *projected" surpluses to current deficits. They found that approximately 33% of the current red ink was due to Bush policies (not just tax cuts, but such things as Medicare part D). Approximately 30% is on Obama's shoulders, from continuation the same policies or actions of his own. Of course, he's only been in office for two years (only one with his own budget), Bush had eight.

And a bigger culprit than either of those was the business cycle. That accounted for 37% of the "swing" according to the Times.

Oh, and you may want to look at the increase in entitlement spending, particularly Medicare.

"very interesting what lies people have to construct to justify their silly beliefs in the face of a wall of contrary facts"

Like yours, for instance.

Jimo 4 years, 7 months ago

ROFL

Seriously? I have to argue with such selective dishonesty? Busted!

This "NY Times" analysis pins $201B of a $1,215B deficit directly on Obama. That's 16%. That's 16% doing exactly what every serious economist recommends for economic downturns - borrow and spend. It's not a vice; it's a virtue.

To hear you tell it, Obama the master Socialist nearly single-handedly dreamed up a trillion dollar spending boondoggle. Your analysis places 55% of the deficit directly on the policies of George Bush!

To quote - YOUR - analysis: "When Bill Clinton left office in 2001, the budgets for 2009-2012 were expected to have an average surplus of almost $850 billion." !!!!

Here's a summary chart - the tiny arrows at the bottom are Obama: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/06/09/business/economy/20090610-leonhardt-graphic.html

notajayhawk 4 years, 7 months ago

You never learn, do you, jimmie?

"Mr. Obama’s main contribution to the deficit is his extension of several Bush policies, like the Iraq war and tax cuts for households making less than $250,000. Such policies — together with the Wall Street bailout, which was signed by Mr. Bush and supported by Mr. Obama — account for 20 percent of the swing."

"About 7 percent comes from the stimulus bill that Mr. Obama signed in February. And only 3 percent comes from Mr. Obama’s agenda on health care, education, energy and other areas."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/business/economy/10leonhardt.html?_r=1

See, jimmie, 20% plus 7% plus 3% comes out to 30%.

That was MY source, jimmie. As usual, you're lying when you say that quote came from MY source. But then, lies are all you ever have to come back with.

notajayhawk 4 years, 7 months ago

Oh, and by the way, jimmie - your original contention was that Clinton balanced the budget - which I see you ignored. Still sticking with that fallacy?

booyalab 4 years, 7 months ago

Jimo, A. Obama inherited the deficit from fiscal year 2007, when the Democratic party controlled congress. It's barely worth mentioning what the deficit was like with the Republican congress under Bush as it is so much worse now. http://redressofgrievances.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/federal-deficit-borrowing-3.jpg

B.http://articles.cnn.com/2007-11-13/politics/bush.budget_1_spending-bill-veto-mandatory-spending?_s=PM:POLITICS

C. governing or directing according to rule..........was i close?

(p.s. You're welcome for not returning the bizarre vitriol you bestowed on me. I think it's better to cut to the chase)

Scott Drummond 4 years, 7 months ago

There's also, of course, the matter of the Iraq War and the untold billions in tax payer funds directed to right wing military and industrial interests.

I think it probably had some impact on the deficit.

booyalab 4 years, 7 months ago

The stimulus bill passed by congressional democrats in 2009 cost more than the entire American campaign in Iraq.

Mr_B9 4 years, 7 months ago

Steve you really need to rethink your statement. It is and sounds foolish.

Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress, and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democrat Party. They controlled the budget process for FY 2008 and FY 2009, as well as FY 2010 and FY 2011. In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.

For FY 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the FY 2009 budgets..

And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete FY 2009. Let's remember what the deficits looked like during that period:

If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the FY 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets. If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.

In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.

Steve these are the facts and I hope this helps you for future votes. Life is too short going around being ignorant and duped. You still have time to be a responsible voter.

Al Deathe 4 years, 7 months ago

and 19 months later its still Busch's fault, that seems to be the Democrat creed. When exactly will the Dems have any responsibility?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 7 months ago

The explanation is pretty simple-- for a large percentage of Republicans, actual policy is irrelevant. It's all about supporting "their team."

Carol Bowen 4 years, 7 months ago

Actually, Tom, Dems are less likely to support their team. They tend to be less focused and independent. The Repubs are even closing ranks around the new conservatives. The Repubs are pulling their team together to win.

MarineVet 4 years, 7 months ago

Could have sworn that the dem's do the same thing.

Nick Yoho 4 years, 7 months ago

It's just a dog and pony show. We are all wage slaves for our corporate masters.

Scott Drummond 4 years, 7 months ago

Have the righties succeeded in abolishing the Constitution? Unless they have, President Obama will remain in office for the remainder of his 4 year term.

Kyle Reed 4 years, 7 months ago

Lol, nice math skills scott. 4 years minus the 2 he's been in office equals 2 left.

"Many people believe this and this is why he's out in two years."

See how that works?

Scott Drummond 4 years, 7 months ago

Yes, I realized that after posting. The statement can also be read as being out in only two years, which is how I took it.

Scott Drummond 4 years, 7 months ago

And there is polling from the AP today that reveals (in the mainstream press, anyway) that Americans who believe health care reform should have gone further outnumber those who are all agitated about the "socialist" grab of government power by a 2-1 margin.

So, the story is not that voters want to punish Democrats and hand over power to the republicans. More likely, voters are largely unhappy with the DINO approach of the corporate Democrats. Some good old government socialism seems to be preferred over reforms passed to please right wingers and insurance industry lobbyists.

All of the corporate media predictions of republican landslide at the midterms may just have been premature.

grammaddy 4 years, 7 months ago

Let's hope so. Why would we vote in more of the folks who got us in this mess? Does the whole country have amnesia?

Scott Drummond 4 years, 7 months ago

Nope, but they do have a media owned by large corporations pumping out news that largely supports and validates their world view. And then there is Faux "News" which is simply a right wing propaganda operation. They sell us right wing politics like it was Coke, or Taco Bell or WalMart.

And it works.

manfred 4 years, 7 months ago

The liberally biased news sources don't even come close to the bias of Fox News. When Bush was in the White House, they received memos on which talking points to highlight. They've never endorsed a democrat (whereas even the New York Times has endorsed republicans), and they've even defended their channel in court as 'entertainment' rather than news. You definitely seem like a Fox News viewer, in that you just believe whatever you're told, no matter the evidence to the contrary.

notajayhawk 4 years, 7 months ago

"So, the story is not that voters want to punish Democrats and hand over power to the republicans. More likely, voters are largely unhappy with the DINO approach of the corporate Democrats."

Keep believing that, scottie. For another few weeks, anyway.

Jimo 4 years, 7 months ago

Maybe Democrats should have pushed a law requiring all citizens to vote or be taxed before they pushed to tax people for not buying health insurance. Why is voting optional while jury duty is required? How is it more acceptable to draft kids and send them to war than to push them to mark up a ballot?

Rasmussen long ago discovered that regardless of what the people in general might think, those who show up to vote on Election Day are usually weighted toward the Republican Party (the Geriatric Party).

Oh well, you can be certain that if the situation were reversed, the GOP would have forced mandatory voting (wrapped up in the flag) long ago. No surprise seeing that Democrats lack the 'backbone gene'.

Scott Drummond 4 years, 7 months ago

Nah, they just control the voting machines these days. As demonstrated by Gore and Kerry, they can be pretty blatant about their theft of elections these days and not suffer any consequence.

notajayhawk 4 years, 7 months ago

"How is it more acceptable to draft kids and send them to war than to push them to mark up a ballot?"

Psssst: Jimo - there hasn't been a draft in this country for 37 years. Which, from the look of your posts, is in the neighborhood of 30 years before you were born.

Jimo 4 years, 7 months ago

Errr....every 18 year old guy registers with the Selective Service by law. What do you think the purpose of this is, so the government can send out birthday greetings, oh clueless one?

notajayhawk 4 years, 7 months ago

Your comment, since you are either incapable of understanding what you write yourself, incredibly forgetful, or just plain trying to take the dearly missed porch_person's place as Garfinkeler in chief, was "How is it more acceptable to draft kids and send them to war". Remember that?

You didn't say "registers with the Selective Service". You said "draft kids and send them to war". Got it yet?

Here, it's just a little way up the page:

Jimo (anonymous) says… "Maybe Democrats should have pushed a law requiring all citizens to vote or be taxed before they pushed to tax people for not buying health insurance. Why is voting optional while jury duty is required? How is it more acceptable to draft kids and send them to war than to push them to mark up a ballot?" - September 25, 2010 at 12:33 p.m. http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2010/sep/25/poll-both-parties-are-unpopular-gop-more-fired/#c1374371

Or, in other words, you were just flat out wrong before, and now you're lying about what you said.

IndusRiver 4 years, 7 months ago

Kansas voters need to vote Republican so we can get Kansas out from under Socialist dictatorship.

whats_going_on 4 years, 7 months ago

You do realize that comments like that probably make anybody on the fence vote the other way, right?

Get a life.

IndusRiver 4 years, 7 months ago

Voters are not powerless. The trick is to vote to rout out the politicians who we discover have lied to us and rout them out after just one term. One term will drive the point home to these jokers. We can let them in and let them out of office so fast they're heads spin. WE impose the term limits.

Either they represent the American people or they pack up and get the H on home.

notajayhawk 4 years, 7 months ago

scott3460 (anonymous) replies…

"And there is polling from the AP today that reveals (in the mainstream press, anyway) that Americans who believe health care reform should have gone further outnumber those who are all agitated about the "socialist" grab of government power by a 2-1 margin.

"So, the story is not that voters want to punish Democrats and hand over power to the republicans. More likely, voters are largely unhappy with the DINO approach of the corporate Democrats. Some good old government socialism seems to be preferred over reforms passed to please right wingers and insurance industry lobbyists.

"All of the corporate media predictions of republican landslide at the midterms may just have been premature."

Geez, scottie, did you even read the story, let alone the poll?

"The poll found that about four in 10 adults think the new law did not go far enough to change the health care system, regardless of whether they support the law, oppose it or remain neutral."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100925/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_poll

In other words, scottie, a number of those who think the bill "did not go far enough" belonged to the 30% that approve of the bill and the 30% that are neutral - they're not all in the 40% opposed.

Also from the AP story:

  • Only about a third of the "do-mores" favor mandating people to buy insurance, with about a third opposed and a third neutral.

  • Only a little over half of the "do-mores" think insurance companies should be forced to cover people with pre-existing conditions.

  • "Broad majorities of both the "get-outs" and "do-mores" said medical care, health insurance and prescription drugs cost too much."

That last one is pretty astute of the people polled, since it shows they recognize what the problem really is - which happens to be something the 'reform' package did nothing - absolutely nothing - to help.

Don't get too excited, scottie. It's just as valid an interpretation of the poll data to say those who complained the bill didn't do enough said so because they wanted costs addressed, or wanted that other 20 million people (the ones Obama ignored) covered, too.

Richard Heckler 4 years, 7 months ago

Why would a country ever vote republican again after these crimes against america?

  1. Bush/Reagan Iran – Contra Secret Weapons Affair A. http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/execsum.htm B. http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/24/spy.network.probe/index.html

  2. Nixon's Watergate http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/watergate/index.html

  3. Bush/Cheney dropping the ball thus 9/11/01

  4. The Bush/Cheney money hole aka their multi-trillion dollar violent occupation of Iraq,Afghanistan,Pakistan

  5. The Reagan/Bush Savings and Loan Heist http://rationalrevolution0.tripod.com/war/bush_family_and_the_s.htm

  6. Bush family of politicians "Rebuilding America's Defences," openly advocates for total global military domination. Many PNAC members held highest-level positions in the George W. Bush administration. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Project_for_the_New_American_Century

  7. The Bush/Cheney Wall Street Bank Fraud on Consumers http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2009/0709macewan.html

  8. What did Bush and Henry Paulson do with the $700 billion of bail out money? http://www.democracynow.org/2009/9/10/good_billions_after_bad_one_year

  9. Why did GW Bush Lie About Social Security?( This would cost taxpayers $4 trillion,place taxpayers insurance money at risk and wreck the economy) http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2005/0505orr.html

  10. Still A Bad Idea – Bush Tax Cuts - The ENTITLEMENT program for the wealthy at the expense of the middle class http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2001/0301miller.html

  11. The "tea parties" BTW are part of the wreckanomics program funded by the Koch Brothers... well known oil billionaires. These thinkers back a tax payers bill of rights which is another scheme to reward the upper 1% AKA The Other ENTITLEMENT Program for the Wealthy http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2005/0705rebne.html

Isn't it odd each time our nations financial institutions crumble there are Bush family near by and a McCain still in office? http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/1989-11-29/news/mccain-the-most-reprehensible-of-the-keating-five/1

This type of arming the world activity needs investigated: http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0208-05.htm http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/4120/we_arm_the_world/

manfred 4 years, 7 months ago

But Obama's a secret muslim who wants to take our guns!

Richard Heckler 4 years, 7 months ago

The S&L scandal is by no means the only incident of questionable, and actually illegal, financial activity that the Bush family has been involved in. The line of questionable, illegal, and unethical businesses practices goes back at least to Prescott Bush Sr., George Bush Sr.’s father.

Prescott Bush was a Senator from 1952 – 1963. Previous to his time as a Senator Prescott was a banker and businessman. Prior to the American entry into WWII Prescott Bush was director of Union Banking Corporation. Union Banking Corporation helped to finance Hitler’s regime.

The Concentration Camps of Nazi Germany were labor camps that the Nazis used to make products for their regime as well as for sale to raise money. Prescott profited directly from the Auschwitz labor camp.

In 1942, after Hitler declared war on America the United States government seized the Union Banking Corporation under the Trading with the Enemy Act as a front operation that was supporting the Nazis. Much of the profits from the operation were already pocketed by Prescott however, and $1.5 million was put in a trust fund for George Bush Sr.

For more on Prescott Bush's ties to the Nazis see: http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1312540,00.html

notajayhawk 4 years, 7 months ago

"10. Still A Bad Idea – Bush Tax Cuts - The entitlement program for the wealthy at the expense of the middle class"

Geez, you can't even try to scroll past mertle's posts without another liberal lie jumping off the page at you.

At the "expense of the middle class", mertle? The Bush tax cuts gave over three times as much money back to the middle class taxpayers than it did to those "wealthy" ones, mertle. That's okay - you've cut-and-pasted the same tired BS so many times it's understandable there's no room left in your head for facts.

Richard Heckler 4 years, 7 months ago

Repubs feared reprisal after sending the economy down the tubes AGAIN so they created the Tea Party..... those in control are still the same.

Carol Bowen 4 years, 7 months ago

How do conservatives rationalize tax cuts with no way to pay for them?

notajayhawk 4 years, 7 months ago

How do liberals rationalize tax increases with nobody to pay for them?

But more seriously, the deficit and increased debt are the result of over-spending, not under-collecting. Federal revenues increased dramatically after the Bush tax cuts. Many refuse to believe that the cuts were responsible for that increase, and argue the (untestable) theory that revenues would have increased even more without the cuts. Fine, it was all a lucky coincidence (and sadly, our current president does not seem quite as lucky with his own interventions). Nonetheless, revenues DID increase - spending increased faster. THAT was the problem, that IS the problem, and that will continue to be the problem until we stop doing it.

Carol Bowen 4 years, 7 months ago

Interesting. I hadn't heard the connection between the tax cuts and increased revues.

notajayhawk 4 years, 7 months ago

I'm sure it was just a lucky coincidence. Nothing more than a coincidence that, for example, capital gains tax revenues more than doubled with the decrease in the capital gains tax rate. But you know what? If it was just a lucky coincidence, then Obama sure doesn't seem to have much luck.

notajayhawk 4 years, 7 months ago

Blah blah blah.

It is not an "income shift" if the people at all levels are making more. The "shift" did not make one piece of the pie smaller in order to make the other bigger - the pie got larger. For the umpteenth time I'll ask: Why can't liberals measure their status in any other terms than relative to someone else's? Just once I'd like to hear a liberal come up with something other than 'I'm doing better, but HE got a bigger increase than me, so that means I somehow lost something.'

Find a way to measure yourself other than in comparison to everyone else. You'll be a lot happier.

notajayhawk 4 years, 7 months ago

Speaking of failure, aggie - a term you're no doubt familiar with - I can't help but notice you failed to say a single thing that disputed in any way, shape, of form what I said. Which was, since you apparently didn't read the post you attempted to respond to: "It is not an "income shift" if the people at all levels are making more." Are they making less, aggie? Not as a percentage, that all you whining liberals seem to think you're somehow entitled to, but in real terms, are the people you claim this money was "shifted" from making less?

Here, let's see if I can put this in terms simple enough for even you to understand. If you're making $7.25/hour and get a raise to $8/hour, and the guy that owns the company you work for doubles his profits and his income increases from $100K to $200K, his increased wealth did not come at your expense. He didn't take anything from you. You are not, regardless of what your monumental and unjustifiable sense of entitlement tells you, somehow owed any part of his increased profits. Your "share" is the hourly wage you agreed to when you took the job, and absolutely nothing more.

The best part is, if you were getting paid on the basis of some kind of "share" in the proceeds, and sales fell off and the company started losing money, you'd be the first one screaming, and screaming the loudest, that your pay shouldn't be cut.

Carol Bowen 4 years, 7 months ago

Distribution of income has been bimodal for quite a few years. When we read that the average annual income is $40,000, the natural assumption is that $40k is at the peak of a normal curve. Not so. The average salary is in a deep valley between high and low incomes. The higher peak is at less than $10 an hour.

notajayhawk 4 years, 7 months ago

Interesting word: "Distribution". Yes, I am aware of the sense in which you used the word, and its meaning in the realm of statistics. But there are far too many people that somehow believe income is something that should be 'distributed'.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.