Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

CA: 44% Brown, 43% Whitman (Field 6/22-7/5)

Topics: California , poll

Field Poll
6/22-7/5/10; 1,005 likely voters, 3.2% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(Field release)

California

2010 Governor
44% Brown (D), 43% Whitman (R) (chart)

Favorable / Unfavorable
Jerry Brown: 42 / 40
Meg Whitman: 40 / 42

 

Comments
TeaPartyRules:

It's the oil, bankruptcy, immigration, heathcare, global warming, and economy STUPID. LOL!

Just in case you libs were wondering whats happening to your left coast strong hold.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

I tend to round off polls in states like CT or CA or NY in favor of the Democratic candidate. I would say based on this poll, Brown wins by 4 or 5. In states like Missouri or Kentucky, I'll usually give the Republican candidate the edge since there are a lot of Evangelicals, 2nd ammendment people and fewer minorities.

____________________

melvin:

The AP is reporting the Gop is going to hold a 32-18 lead in Governorships after Nov 2nd,am predicting the Gop to hold a 29-21 lead but you never know.Its possible the Democrats will hold a 56-44 lead in the Senate only losing 3 seats,as for the House am predicting the Democrats are going to lose between 20-26 seats,its not going to be a tidal wave like some political experts in the media are predicting,like i said plenty of times this is not 1994.

____________________

dpearl:

The Field poll is one of the good ones in my mind. Live interviewers - up to six attempts to call each subject - staff available to conduct interviews in six different languages - calls to landlines and cell phones - number one in Silver's ratings. This race is close.

____________________

melvin:

The AP is reporting the Gop is going to hold a 32-18 lead in Governorships after Nov 2nd,am predicting the Gop to hold a 29-21 lead but you never know.Its possible the Democrats will hold a 56-44 lead in the Senate only losing 3 seats,as for the House am predicting the Democrats are going to lose between 20-26 seats,its not going to be a tidal wave like some political experts in the media are predicting,like i said plenty of times this is not 1994.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

I have no doubt that Field is a good pollster but I personally believe that California is a tough state to poll. Lots of younger people are out a lot and live extremely busy lives. I think many of them don't use land lines very much. I think the turnout is likely to be higher in CA than it will in other states.

I personally think Nevada may not be as accurate because many people work at night, since casinos are a huge part of the economy. I think states like Iowa, NH or VT would be more accurate since night life isn't as big of a part of the lifestyle.

____________________

Sean Murphy:

Melvin we're well aware of your prediction track record and quite frankly it's not good.

____________________

lat:

Meg Whitman is the one Republican I am rooting for this election cycle.

____________________

vincent106:

Moonbat Brown will go down in november.

____________________

Field issued today's poll for governor. My guess is they issue their Senate poll in the next day or two. Since Whitman is a better candidate than Fiorina, and Boxer is a better candidate than Brown, I would expect Field to show Sen. Boxer with a 4-6 point lead and very close to the 50% mark.

Just a guess. We'll see what they show soon enough.

One other point. CA is an "easy voting" state, with lots of pre-election day voting, mail-in voting, no photo ID nonsense. There is always high turnout and a minimal chance for a so-called "enthusiasm gap" to affect vote totals. Also lots of initiatives, local issues and local races to get people to vote and there are far more Democrats than Republicans. Both Boxer and Brown will win.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Gallup has independent approval of Obama down to 38%, a new low.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/141131/Obama-Job-Approval-Rating-Down-Among-Independents.aspx

"Over the past year, Obama has lost support among all party groups, though the decline has been steeper among independents than among Republicans or Democrats. Today's 38% approval rating among independents is 18 percentage points lower than the 56% found July 6-12, 2009. During the same period, his support has fallen nine points among Democrats (from 90% to 81%) and eight points among Republicans (from 20% to 12%)."

____________________

Farleftandproud:

No Schwartzneggar has messed up things enough in Cal, why would they trust another republican? I mean, just like governors in Michigan, Ny and Mass are getting the blame for their state's unemployment, Arnold got CA in worse debt than they ever were. Granted I think Whitman would be better than Schwartzneggar, Brown needs to show that his agenda is different and needs to take CA in a new direction. If Whitman wins this race, I don't even want to think about how bad the 2010 election could be.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

I think the reason Obama's approval is down is because he hasn't stood up to the right wing enough when they are so damn stubborn to pass financial reform which most Americans want as well as extending benefits. If Obama took charge and passed things piece by piece through reconciliation instead a big overhaul, he might get a few GOP senators on board. I think the overhauls are his downfall.

Obama's approval should be 90 percent among democrats and it is 77 percent and I think if he takes charge and gets things done, his approval will go up among white independents.

What the GOP wants Obama to believe is that he was too left wing to be president of this great Ctr/right country. That is what they want Obama to believe, and that will make him a one-term president like Jimmy Carter. He needs to take charge and expand presidential powers, just like Dick Cheney expanded his role as VP. Instead of taking us to war, we need to cut back defense spending by 1/3 and pass another modest financial overhaul including some tax breaks to small businesses and subsidies.

I am in a small business and guess what? I got a $500 bonus from the federal government. I never got any such thing when Bush was president....nada.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

I meant to say, Obama could try to get a 60th vote from a moderate Republican by passing smaller pieces of legislation and if that didn't work, than go to reconciliation.

____________________

Field Marshal:

I am in a small business and guess what? I got a $500 bonus from the federal government. I never got any such thing when Bush was president....nada.

Bush sent out rebate checks in the spring of '08 for $600 for individuals and $1200 for couples. Not to mention the large drop in marginal tax rate brackets. So, unless you were not working, you got MUCH more from Bush than you will from Obama, especially when he implements the largest tax hike in history next year, in addition to cap and trade and ObamaCare making that $500 you got worthless.

So far, i got nothing from Obama. Nada... zip... zilch. Just a big headache from his horrible leadership and policies.

I think the reason Obama's approval is down is because he hasn't stood up to the right wing enough when they are so damn stubborn to pass financial reform which most Americans want as well as extending benefits.

Obama's approval is down with indies because he isn't standing up to the right? Okay...

The GOP gave the Dems a chance to extend unemployment benies by paying for just HALF of the extension using stimulus funds and the Dems refused. Obviously they need all those stimulus funds to pay off the people and special interests that got them elected and cannot spare $65 billion for anything else like helping people. Just shows that the Dems have no compassion for people and only care about the party and getting votes. Sad.

____________________

rdw4potus:

"Field Marshal:

"Over the past year, Obama has lost support among all party groups, though the decline has been steeper among independents than among Republicans or Democrats. Today's 38% approval rating among independents is 18 percentage points lower than the 56% found July 6-12, 2009. During the same period, his support has fallen nine points among Democrats (from 90% to 81%) and eight points among Republicans (from 20% to 12%).""

Of course, a big part of that decline is due to an increased instance of far-right white men and tea-party enthusiasts identifying themselves as "Independent" and not "Republican" in polling...

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Well unemployment and people taking jobs that are beneath them are very frustrating. It is understandable that would take some toll on Obama's approval but they are still in the minority. Not enough of an issue to bring

Obama's approval down that much, although, Reagan was at 37 percent approval when our unemoployment rate was 10 percent, so I guess that can have devestating affects on a president no matter what party he is from. Reagan for now, in his own way is probably an unexpected inspiration to Obama. Both are well liked personally yet can fall from grace pretty quickly when the economy goes sour.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Maybe Bush did give out checks, in 08 but I guess i never recieved it because I was such a big opponent of his.

____________________

Xenobion:

No governor will fix this state alone... republican or democrat.

____________________

Stillow:

farleft - We know that is why you think O's approval is falling....cus he hasn't stood up to the GOp and he hasn't been liberal enough.

What can I do to make sure you and your fellow libs stick to this line of thinking? It would be best if you think this all the way til election day 2012. Because his dropping approval has absolutely nothing to do with his radical left wing policies.


____________________

HookedOnPolls:

Farleftandproud:
"I think the reason Obama's approval is down is because he hasn't stood up to the right wing enough"

You're right. Obama is a wuss. You elected a wuss!

____________________

vincent106:

@farleft

You seem to have a perpetual case of verbal diarrhea. Any thought that comes to your mind no matter how silly and bizarre which are 99% of them, seem to make their way onto these boards.

____________________

Stillow:

X - this is true. The state needs an ideology makeover. CA was the great liberal expirament which was supposed to show everyone that big powerful g'ment, high taxes and enetitlements u pthe wazoo would work great for everyone. How inflated g'ment pensions would work out in the end. The great liberal expirament has brought the state to its knees...it would continue to bleed until it eventually collapses alltogether...unless it decides before then embrace a more fiscally consevative agenda in which case it has a 10 percent chance of survival.

____________________

seg:

Aaron_in_TX:
I am responding to your responses to me a few days ago about Carter vs Obama.

Every single point you made is on-point, but I consider all of those things superficial compared to the over-riding similarities. First, both campaigned as moderates, made moderate sounds occassionally as president, but was/is more liberal than the public. Second, like Obama, Carter discounted concerns about America's enemies, saw America as unexception and in decline, thought growth was over-rated and thought acceptance of straitened circumstances was wisdom. Both were/are profoundly negative.

Third, both saw themselves as morally superior to their critics and to the public. Ultimately, in my opinion, neither respect the American people.

It is true that Carter was challenged from the left by Kennedy, mostly because Kennedy looked down on him and regretted not running against hapless Ford (his clock was running out even then on ever becoming president). It also showed that Kennedy had no fear of Carter. Nor did anyone else, our foreign enemies, included.

You, yourself, made the point that Pelosi has no fear of Obama and say that he will "blow with the wind." At the moment that is more of a problem in foreign that domestic politics because fellow democrats cannot risk offending black supporters.

However, I do not think Obama is actually weak, as was Carter. I think he is profoundly self-absorbed. He was lucky enough that his detachment could be spun as calm and deliberation prior to the election. It played well against a hyper McCain and abrasive Hillary, but it would not have worked without his Greek chorus in the press and a public that lept at the chance to have a black president who didn't scare them.

I think Obama is capable of facile rhetorical shifts (especially in finding ways to blame his predecessor and present opponents), but I cannot recall a significant change in principle or growth in learning from his opponents. I also think that his life history has taught him that he is always right and his supporters panic too easily.

He went to that well on medical reform, so I think he will keep doing it whether it is because he is pushed by liberal commentators or pulled by a highly developed belief in himself.

The latter is a problem if it induces rigidity. That is one of many things that concern me. The second is what I see as an outlook that is profoundly ignorant of and uninterested in the spectrum of American businesses.

Socialism: Obama is not a communist; he is a European style leftist, who are generally in parties that call themselves "socialist." Some old-line socialist want to nationalize all means of production, most are happy with the fascist version of socialism that settles for neutering it politically and controlling it through regulation, political intrusion, cronism, and intimidation.

Like nanny-state socialists in Europe, Obama and many liberals see citizens as gullible pawns who need to be directed, "nudged," and protected by a benevolent state run by themselves. It is ok to deceive the public because it is ultimately in the public's interest to do so until the latest battle is won.

I am not saying all liberals in the US are like socialists in Europe, but I do think a large fraction see European societies as a sort of promised land. They see the heavily subsidized trains and urban areas and do not see the low-rent housing or the minorities shunted out of sight in suburbia. They do not hear the deep pessism of many Europeans about the future of their society. The very things that American liberals consider "blue-state" are termites eating through the foundations of their way of life.

Many liberals, hopefully not including you, dismiss the long-term downsides to ever more powerful and instrusive government. I suspect Obama could list them, but it would be as debating points to be countered rather than thoughtful concern.

____________________

Field Marshal:

No governor will fix this state alone... republican or democrat.

I would agree with that. Given the Dems in the legislature in Sacramento avoidance of any form of reality, I wouldn't want the job of CA Gov for all the tea in China. NY or MI also. Those states have been destroyed by Dem policies.

Maybe Bush did give out checks, in 08 but I guess i never recieved it because I was such a big opponent of his.

Yeah, i don't think he sent them to democrats. Its a big conspiracy.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Maybe Bush did give out checks, in 08 but I guess i never recieved it because I was such a big opponent of his.

Does that work? You think since I'm such a large opponent of Obama's I won't have to pay his tax hikes?

____________________

melvin:

The Gop dont have a plan at all,they are the reason this Country is in bad shape.Clinton created 22 million jobs'he left a hudge surplus.Bush created only 2 million jobs,he left the biggest deficet in this Country history and now America wants to turn its problems back over to the party who created this mess.Wall Sreet is not giving Democrats anymore money because the Democrats are standing up finally for the people,dont that tells you something? If the Gop regains power this Country is going to go broke,but you can bet the next time the stock market crashes the Democrats wont be their to bail their ass out like they did in October of 2008.

____________________

lat:

Will you folks stop whining about taxes going up. Waaahhhh! Waaaahhhh! The liberals are raising my taxes! Boo hoo! I am going to tell my mommy on you! I have said many times that I have been in the highest bracket for quite some time and my lifestyle has not been altered one way or the other. I am a very lucky man from a financial perspective and do not pretend otherwise. A few percentage points here or there is not going to change anything for me or anyone else. It's just more nonsense for you folks on the right to bitch about.

____________________

dpearl:

This thread seems to be the place to share scattered thoughts so I might as well make a few whacky predictions:

1) The Ohio gubernatorial race is pretty close to a 50-50 deal and it will be decided tomorrow. If LeBron James stays in Cleveland people there will be upbeat and turn out to vote for Strickland. If LeBron goes to another team, Kasich wins.

2) The chances for the Democrats to hold the House of Representatives is pretty close to a 50-50 deal and it will be decided in the next couple of weeks. If the 3.2 million long-term unemployed people do not get their benefits extended, many will drop out of the labor force and the unemployment rate will go below 9% - the Democrats will hold the House. If stimulus funds are used to pay for the extension then jobs will not be created elsewhere and the unemployment rate will rise – the Republicans will take the House.

____________________

Stillow:

lat - Well its just to bad we cannot all be as wealthy as you. Tell the guy making 25k year his taxes are going up. Tell the small business owner with 8 employees who is struggling just to meet payroll in this recession his taxes are going up a few points. Tell all the charities that get donations from people with extra income they will need to do with a little less because some of that extra income has to go to g'ment now which of course will be spent highly efficiently and effectively.

Why do libs not understand the connection between job creation and taxes. Wealthy libs like lat sit around and blabber about how much money they earn while telling eveyrone else to shut up and pay more.

____________________

@Stillow

The economic history of the last 20 years disproves your theory about taxes and job creation. When Clinton raised taxes, 22 million jobs were created during the 8 years of his presidency. When Bush cut taxes, we entered a severe recession and only 2 million jobs were created during his entire 8 years.

Now, what was your theory?

____________________

tjampel:

The Federal income tax burden on Americans hit an all-time low in 2003 and has crept up only marginallysince then.

from WAPO
"The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the average family forked over barely 9 percent of its earnings to the IRS in 2006, the most recent year for which information is available. The effective tax rate hit its all-time low in 2003 and has since crept up only slightly. "

It's just that, for many, all the other add-ons for Federal entitlements plus state and, for many, local taxes bring the totals up around 50%. That seems unbearably huge for them.

As for a tax hike next year...there's the expiration of tax cuts which were enacted by the Bush (W Edition) admin and designed to sunset at this time. A failure to enact new tax cuts in a time of economic crisis and record deficit spending (choose your poison but we have both, not one or the other) is a correct way to characterize this.

The resultant tax schedule will place taxation of those earning more than 200k at the same level as during the Reagan presidency. These folks were paying marginal rates of up to 90% during the Eisesnhower Admin.

____________________

dpearl:

"Tell all the charities that get donations from people with extra income they will need to do with a little less because some of that extra income has to go to g'ment now which of course will be spent highly efficiently and effectively."

Stillow: I don't believe this is right. I think the data shows that higher income tax rates for wealthy donors makes charitable donations more attractive (as long as they are deductible).

____________________

JPB11011:

@lat

Is your post serious or facetious? I think its serious so I will respond to it as such. I believe its absurd to think that just because YOU are okay paying more in taxes that its nonsense for others to not be. Talk about a survey of one! As someone who is also in the top bracket, I would be affected from a financial perspective as I like in an expensive state, NJ where being in the top bracket is not like being in the top bracket in Mississippi. Secondly, the money that is taken away from me by government is less money I can donate to may favorite charities. That may be okay for you who probably doesn't give any as they believe its the governments job to help others, but its not okay for me. Thirdly, after reading posts on this site for months now, I find it comical and pitiful that you of all people are complaining about people whining when all you do is whine about rasmussen and racism 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

____________________

lat:

Stillow,

Sometimes I think you actually believe your own crap. You know damn well that the top rate going from 35 to 39.6 only impacts people making over 250k. So I fail to see how the soup kitchen lines get longer when this happens. Give me a break. We are among the lowest taxed nations on the planet and you know it.

____________________

Stillow:

nelcon1551: - I see you learned the art of spin from msnbc. Tax increases in the 90's came during an economic boom cycle. Private money was flowing into new bsuinesses and new investments were popping up everywhere. Banks were extending credit lines to anyone who wanted them. Plus certain tax hikes were in compromise for controlled spending by the right leaning congress.

Bush tax cuts made the effects of the 2001 recession and the impact of 9/11 much less severe than it probably owuld have been. Since there was more available private capital to tap into to help get us thru both those things.

Reagan cut taxes i nthe early 80's to get us out of a severe recession.

You do not raise taxes in the middle of a severe recession...why the hell would you put more burden on small business and families who ar ealready struggling just to survive right now? This is not 1997 and we are not in the middle of a tech boom where jobs are plentiful...this is 2010 and we are in the midst of a great recession, many feel headed for a double dip and possible depression....the last thing you do is raise taxes and take money away from people.

people are scraping by, many small businesses are clinging to life...and here you liberals come along and tell everyone its a good thing there taxes are going up. Your comparing 2010 with the 1990's. when the correct comparison would be to the early 80's when we also had a severe recession.

Raising taxes right now would almost certianly pluge us right into the double dip recession. Jobs are scarce, business afraid to hire and people scraping by....and yet here come the noble liberals saying let us tax you more, it will help the economy to give g'ment more of your money.

____________________

Field Marshal:

The economic history of the last 20 years disproves your theory about taxes and job creation. When Clinton raised taxes, 22 million jobs were created during the 8 years of his presidency. When Bush cut taxes, we entered a severe recession and only 2 million jobs were created during his entire 8 years.

nelcon,

Your post shows one instance in history as the basis for your theorem. Are you kidding? First off, Clinton raised taxes on the top bracket but lowered capital gains substantially, which had an offsetting effect. Most of the gains during the Clinton presidency came from '97-'00, after the tax CUT. The tax increase came in '93. The economy did slow in '95 but resumed in '96 and then accelerated after the tax cuts in '97.

____________________

lat:

JPB,

I also live in NJ so spare me the sob story. I am going to get hit next year when the taxes go to 39.6, but I am honest in that I will still live in my nice house, I will still take my wife and kids on nice vacations, I will still send my kids to summer camp, etc. None of these lifestyle choices will be effected, and neither will anyone elses. Again, it's just more fodder for the right to complain about.

____________________

Stillow:

lat - Most small businesses are S corps who file as individuals. When you raise the rate 5 points that is a big jump for small businesses....what part of that do you not understand? What is the logic in taking cash away from a small business owners already struggling in this recession? Why owuld you put mroe burden on them? There are small business owners who are struggling for every penny they can get to get thru this recession. they are not all wall street millionaires like yourself....many of them make maybe 500k a year with a handful of employees.

You are out of touch....your greed is astonishing and your lack of compassion for small buiness in this country is astounding and on full display for all to see.

____________________

saywhat90:

Funny how when the highest tax bracket was 39.6 we had the most job created in the post depression era. the highest tax bracket was 39.6 during 1993-2000. During this time 21 million jobs created. During the eight years of Pres Bush where where his tax cuts started in 2003 we had a loss of 900k jobs. Now if im not mistaken if higher taxes is the problem and lower taxes is the solution then that should be reversed.

____________________

lat:

You folks are a laugh out loud! You don't care about the greedy, thieving, kniving, wall st thugs who practically threw the economy off a cliff! But that the income tax rate is going up- Oh it's Armegeddon! Excuse me while I get out my violin for all the Wall St folks.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Stillow,

Obviously since lat will be okay, then EVERYONE else will be too. Its quite clear that the world revolves around lat. LOL. Pathetic.

PS. I'm sure his next defense will be to call you racist and/or a bigot. 3....2....1....


tjample,

Yes, the AVERAGE tax burden has decreased because Bush's tax cuts were skewed so much towards the poor. (I know, i know, that flies in the face of the leftist propaganda from the mainstream media but its true. Research it!) It resulted in a larger portion of the population paying zero income taxes which skews the average substantially. When you have almost 50% of the population paying zero percent of their income in taxes, how can the other 50% push that average much above 9%. Simple mathematics.

____________________

dpearl:

Stillow: I don't believe that the President's proposal to let the Bush tax cuts expire for individual's making over $250K will increase taxes for the person making $25K or the small business struggling to make ends meet that you describe.

____________________

lat:

Stillow,

Who do you think you are fooling here? You honestly expect me to have sympathy for a person who makes 500k a year? And as far as small business go they are taxed on NET income not gross so most will not pay more when the tax hike does kick in. BTW since you are on your high horse about charities I gave over six figures last year to charity. How much did you give?

____________________

lat:

Field Marshall,

How are those sheets doing? Congrats? You won the bet. LOL!

____________________

vincent106:

@saywhat90

wow, whatever school you went to for economics must have been great. Was it taught by a guy named marx?

I personally hope Obama is dumb enough to listen to the morons on the left here advocating increasing the tax rate. Heck, if you are correct saywhat, he should just make it 50% then he will create TWICE as many jobs as Clinton did.

____________________

melvin:

The Gop is going to have to Major problems come 2012.(1) How to tell Sarah Palin not to run without hurting her feelings (2) How to convince the Tea-party to support the Republican nominee after throwing Sarah Palin under the bus. Am convinced Sarah Palin is going to run for President in 2012 with or without the support of the Republican party behind her.Sarah Palin knows only the far-right comes out to vote in primaries which means she is going to be the Republican nominee in 2012.If the Republicans try to destroy her character its going to divide the Republican party, which means Obama is going to win in a landslide.Can we say over 400 Electoral votes

____________________

Stillow:

Taxes will go up for everyone next year, nost just rich folks like lat.

You libs are comapring now to the 90's. In the 90's we were not coping with a severe recession. The accurate comparison woudl be the early 80's whne we faced an equally severe recession....and we climbed out of it by cutting taxes which freed up private cpaital to be used by businesses.

You libs are going to drive us right into a double dip. For reasons God himself cannot explain, you guys actually think raising taxes in the middle of a severe recession is good.

You have zero compassion for struggling families or struggling businesses in this current recession. all you seem to care about is how you can get mroe powwer and more money to g'ment.

Any objective person can see the failed ideology of what you libs represent. Anyone can see that raising taxes in this type of recession is a recipe for disaster. Putting more wight on people's back to carry is not the answer....you can play your big g'ment takeoever games whn the recession is over....we are talking about the well being of people here...without a pro business climate, then businesses cannot hire.

I'm no millionaire like lat is, I just earn a modest 6 figure income and I can tell you that having to pay even another 5k in taxes a year will hurt. Limo libs may be ok with that, but those of us who live i nthe real world get impacted by these things. And yes read the papers, everyday there are stroies on small buisness owners doing everything they can just to stay in business right now during this recession.

Wake up liberals, there are some things more important than feeding g'ment....it really is amazing how easily liberals are willing to step on the necks of people and businesses to advance there agenda of bigger and bigger g'ment.

____________________

Field Marshal:

lat,

When are you or president and party going to apologize for the oil spill? I mean, Obama apologized so willingly to other nations for America's past transgressions so i would have thought his apology would have been prompt. Yours too.

____________________

Field Marshal:

I agree with Vincent. We should be encouraging the libies to increase taxes substantially. Then we will all be basking in economic nirvana with 3 jobs available for every job applicant, incomes rising by 10% per year with zero inflation. Oh yeah, and i will be married to megan fox. LOL! Unbelievable.

____________________

lat:

Well let's see Field Marhsall since you already apologized to BP.... I tell you what when you apologize to Wall St for the government trying to regualte them we can talk about a nationwide apology for the oil spill.

____________________

Field Marshal:

lat,

I didn't apologize to anyone. I would have though. And i will once you apologize to the millions of small business being demonized, the millions facing the prospect of paying more of their hard earned money in taxes to a government that basically flushes it down the toilet, the bowing to Saudi sultans, and health care reform bill.

____________________

saywhat90:

Vincen let me get something straight. I neither advocate or oppose tax cuts or hikes. I believe there is a time for higher taxes and a time to lower them. What I am saying is there is no absolute correlation between taxes and jobs. If so then the pre 1950's which Republicans hawk as the good old days would have been the worst time period economically of american history ,which of course they weren't, with the exception of the 1930's. And in that case it was the banks not taxes that drove us into economic turmoil. Eerily similar to what went on now. Banks pulling dirty tactics to maximize profits and Americans paying the price for it.

____________________

lat:

Field Marshall,

You mean paying their hard earned money to the undeserving? Don't you?

____________________

Bigmike:

Stillow:

"Why do libs not understand the connection between job creation and taxes."

It is obvious that no one in BO's administration has any idea how or why jobs are created. After their stimulus and the job creator in chief's laser focus, we have fewer people actually working.

____________________

hoosier_gary:

Obama isn't going to destroy the rich with higher taxes - they'll barely feel the bump. He will bankrupt hard working americans, though. When his massive income tax increase goes through, a couple each working and each making minimum wage will see their taxes go up by 40%. A family of 4 making $60K per year will see a 28% increase in their federal tax.

I make a little above average but not in the 6 figures. I calculated my tax increase from the crippling Obama tax and the devastating monstrous obamacare increases. Obama is going to cost me $6,300 per year. That's 40% more than I pay now. I barely pay my bills now - where the hell am I going to come up with an extra $6300 per year.

Then if he adds the socialist VAT, that will add another $2,000 per year. I can't afford $8,300 per year for Obama's socialist experiment. I'll have to file bankruptcy. When I do, I'll lose my financial liability bond and when I lose that - I'll lose my job.

How much money is that filthy leech Obama going to get from me when I lose my job, house, car, and am living on the street?

That's why Obama's approval has fallen. He is a failed miserable leech trying to suck the lifeblood out of american workers.

He doesn't even realize that European socialism has failed and economies around the world are ending the experiment and going back to a system that works. I just hope he can't do much more damage before he gets voted out in 2 years.

____________________

Field Marshal:

What I am saying is there is no absolute correlation between taxes and jobs.

Saywhat, that would be news to about 99.9% of economists out there. The correlation is not nearly as strong as it was 3 decades ago thanks to multitudes of safety nets and new job services out there but i assure you, there is still a strong correlation.

Pointing to one instance where income taxes went up and jobs were still created and saying that there is no correlation or that it will have no effect on the economy is ridiculous.

Obama is not very bright. His speech today shows that someone told him something about jobs, taxes and regulation. He sounded much more like Clinton. However, the Obamabots on here who think that Obama ranks up there with Da Vinci, Newton and Einstein in terms of intelligence are just blinded by their love for the guy. They are the easily persuadable. If you read economic journals and papers released in the last 12 months, you would be hard pressed to find any supportive of the economic policies of this administration nor many thinking that higher taxes won't effect the economy or jobs. But what do they know? Obama's got a law degree from Harvard. He clearly knows better....

____________________

lat:

Everyone break out the violins for all the sympathy that is needed on here. You people make me sick. You bash Obama for simply allowing the old pre-president moron tax rates to kick in, but you give the wall st scumbags who caused 90 percent of this mess a free pass.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

"Stillow:
farleft - We know that is why you think O's approval is falling....cus he hasn't stood up to the GOp and he hasn't been liberal enough.

What can I do to make sure you and your fellow libs stick to this line of thinking? It would be best if you think this all the way til election day 2012. Because his dropping approval has absolutely nothing to do with his radical left wing policies."

I know for a fact that people want financial reform, and I don't truly believe that extending unemployment benefits to those who have to feed families is radical.

Obama wants immigration reform, because he knows Hispanic voters are frustrated as well. I think many independent Whites are just tired of the gridlock in Washington, and are probably simply not going to vote at all in the midterms.

I think the 40 percent who have been united to oppose everything Obama does just about are never going to approve of him; to the 40 percent of self identifying conservatives, they would have called any Democratic president a radical. They did the same thing with Bill Clinton his first 2 years as well. Clinton had the advantage of being from the south and being more popular in that part of the country. Obama has to try a different strategy.

Obama needs to try to win back support of the 10 percent of the voting block that has lost faith in him.

____________________

Field Marshal:

LOL. Actually, most of the mess was caused by government. 75% of the mess to be exact. But don't worry lat, no one takes your loony posts seriously....

____________________

lat:

Right FM,

I forgot it was the govt who did 40 to 1 leveraging, it was the govt who approved credit default swaps, it was the govt who did not reserve properly against these risks. Who do you think you are kidding with those talking points? I work with these people and I know most of them. There moral compass is about one notch above child molester the govt did nothing to stop them I will give you that, but wall st caused this hands down.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Actually, the government was doing something in the realm of 100-1 leveraging at Fannie and Freddie. But lets ignore that convenient fact. Lets also ignore the fact that the gov't is the one who guaranteed mortgages (thank you Dems) so that the banks would loan to more "questionable" (poorer and minority) borrowers. If Wall St moral compass is equivalent to a child molester, than gov't is akin to a person who is both a serial killer and child rapist.

I'm not saying that Wall St didn't have a hand in the downturn, but gov't had a bigger hand not to mention all the borrowers out there who took out loans they couldn't afford.

____________________

lat:

You know FM I actually feel sorry for people like you because you actually believe this crap hook, line and sinker. I sat in on some of these meetings where the top execs at my company said and I quote "Don't worry if this screws up the govt will be right there to back us up". It was wall st that put these schemes into motion and promoted them. The govt was a stupid accomplice and an enabler if you will.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Thanks lat. If you feel sorry for me than i know i'm correct. I work on Wall st from CO and made a bunch of money from inept gov't programs. You apparently have a fetish for demonizing Wall St the same way that Obama does. Apparently you both read the same socialist handbooks. That's fine.

Wasn't i also saying the same thing, that the gov't precipitated the whole thing with their ridiculous programs and incentives. When you create perverse incentives, unintended consequences occur.

Read this article and educate yourself.

http://www.aei.org/docLib/05-June-FSO-g.pdf

____________________

seg:

nelcon1551:
My memory is that Clinton was an incredibly fortunate president. He inherited an economy that was already recovered from the 1987 crash by the time he took office, and he left immediately before the next big recession hit.

His only contributions to the economy of the time that I recall is Kubuki fighting over 0.5% of the budget with Republicans, instituting a modest tax increase, happily sharing with Graham responsibility for watering down Glass-Steagel, and ignoring the asset bubbles of the dot-com idiocy.

He benefitted, in my opinion, from the reforms made by Reagan and Volcker.

Imagine if Bush's reign had ended in 2006. He would have handed off low deficits (compared to now) and super low unemployment rates.

If Obama in 2012 has turned around today's economy, he will deserve all of the praise he gets.

In engineering, we would talk about opportunity to succeed or fail. In diving, it would be "degree of difficulty." Reagan and Obama faced/face terrific degrees of difficulty. Clinton did not. He made his success the old-fashioned way: he was in the right place at the right time.

____________________

lat:

FM,

Educate myself? I have had dinner at Lloyd Blankfein's house, played Golf with Vikram Pandit multiple times, Brian Moynihan from BoA is a personal friend of mine (and he unlike most actually has a moral code). I think I have educated myself fairly well. Don't even try this wall st babe in the woods routine with me. And yes I will demonize wall st because they deserve it. I have had and continue to have very proud career on Wall st and thank god I have not been part of any of this horrible stuff that went on. These folks knew exactly what they were doing, and knew exactly what the consequences could be. The only "unintended consequence" as you put it was that they got caught.

____________________

SC Guy:

It's quite something what's happening in California. It looks like the GOP's 2 women there have an excellent shot. That would be something.

____________________

tjampel:

Field Marshal:

"tjample,

Yes, the AVERAGE tax burden has decreased because Bush's tax cuts were skewed so much towards the poor. (I know, i know, that flies in the face of the leftist propaganda from the mainstream media but its true. Research it!) It resulted in a larger portion of the population paying zero income taxes which skews the average substantially. When you have almost 50% of the population paying zero percent of their income in taxes, how can the other 50% push that average much above 9%. Simple mathematics."

Please look at the average tax burden in % for the rich and upper middle class today (accounting for inflation) and compare with that in 1950, 1960, 1970 and get back to me with your results. Tell me if its increased or decreased. Tell me if I am right or wrong that expiration of the current Bush tax cuts will not raise taxes beyond the marginal rates enacted by Reagan, which represents a large tax CUT over what was in place before him (under Carter and earlier)

____________________

Field Marshal:

I have had dinner at Lloyd Blankfein's house, played Golf with Vikram Pandit multiple times, Brian Moynihan from BoA is a personal friend of mine (and he unlike most actually has a moral code). I think I have educated myself fairly well.

Did you come out and blame them for the mess to their faces? Use some common sensee. If Wall St knew what it was doing why did they lose so much money in the crisis. Seems to me that if they were complicit in the crisis as you say, they would have MADE tons of dough in the downfall. Facts completely discredit your obviously biased theory.

____________________

lat:

In answer to your question FM. Yes, I did including Brian Moynihan who has been a friend of mine for over 10 years. I told them in polite terms that this was pure greed and creative accounting. Citigroup and Lehman more than anybody else was "counting" on a government backstop. I will quote Dick Fuld to you at a roundtable discussion from 3 1/2 years ago "The govt will not let these institutions fail because they cannot afford to". Ironically he was right with one exception- His own firm!

____________________

Field Marshal:

tjample,

Looking at the average tax burden itself is misleading. The fact is that the rich are now disproportionally paying more in income taxes than previously. I can find records for these stats only going back to 1980. In 1980, the top 1% paid 8% of all income taxes. Today its 23%. The top 5% went from 20% to nearly 40%. Yes, its true that those filers earn a larger percentage of income as well but its not nearly the rise that the percentage of their taxes went up.

Couple that with the percentage of tax revenues per GDP which as historically been in the high teens. Today, its in the high twenties. Thus, tax revenues to GDP has stayed flat since the 50's excluding the last few years. If the percentage of tax revenue to GDP is the same plus the percentage of revenue from the rich has increased, that tax burden from the rich has also increased while most other (those outside of the top 5% of income filers) has seen a decline in tax burden.

____________________



Post a comment




Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR