Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

GA: 2010 Gov, Sen (Kos 4/5-7)

Topics: poll

DailyKos.com (D) / Research 2000
4/5-7/10; 600 likely voters, 4.5% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(Kos release)

Georgia

2010 Governor
45% Barnes (D), 42% Oxendine (R)
44% Barnes (D), 43% Handel (R)
44% Barnes (D), 42% Handel (R)
48% Oxendine (R), 36% Baker (D)
49% Handel (R), 35% Baker (D)
48% Deal (R), 35% Baker (D)

2010 Senate
50% Isakson (R), 34% Baker (D)
53% Isakson (R), 26% Thurmond (D)

Favorable / Unfavorable
John Oxendine: 49 / 36
Karen handel: 43 / 35
Nathan Deal: 40 / 33
Roy Barnes: 48 / 38
Thurbert Baker: 41 / 25
Johnny Isakson: 54 / 38
Michael Thurmond: 23 / 11
Sonny Predue: 36 / 47
Saxby Chambliss: 35 / 41
Barack Obama: 45 / 51

 

Comments
scottkj:

Yeah. Obama 45% approval in Georgia? I think not!

____________________

Farleftandproud:

It isn't impossible that Obama is at 45 percent in Georgia; it is about 35 percent African American, and Atlanta is a fairly liberal city for the south.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

It's favorability, not approval

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Saxby Chambliss isn't all that popular either.

____________________

Westwoodnc Westwoodnc:

Here comes the Dem wave! Brought to you by R2k, where every race is November 2008.

____________________

scottkj:

Where are Pelosi and Reid Favorable.
I'm sure they are at 50%+ with Daily KOS

____________________

Shannon,Dallas,Texas:

This is yet another poll that points to the fact that Republicans haven't put forward viable candidates. We're still months away for the midterms. The economy is improving. Ummm, after the midterms, if Republicans don't produce, we could see a third party move into the picture giving Democrats a decided advantage in 2012.

____________________

Stillow:

Where is the economy improving? If not for all the g'ment census jobs unemployment would ahve gone up. Yesterday first tiem filings for unemployment were up....underemployment is still up around 20 percent. Prices are going up on everything clothing to gas. Early rumors are that intrest rates are being prepped to rise. Foreclosures are expected to spike again this year and next.

I'm not sure where the improvemnt is. Even with the census hiring the unmeployment rate didn't drop, wait til July when all those temp workers get laid off again.............

____________________

Shannon,Dallas,Texas:

40K of the 160K jobs added were in the public sector. The other 120K jobs added were in the PRIVATE sector.

Retail sales were up, more than they have been in the last DECADE, and it had very little to do with people receiving checks from the 'gummit'.

GDP is growing between 3-5%. That compares nicely to the 6% decrease in GDP in Bush's last year.

By almost any measure, the economy is better off now than it was the day Bush left office.

____________________

Shannon,Dallas,Texas:

BTW, China is planning on raising it's interest rates to fend off a bubble in it's own economy. The Chinese housing market is booming. China has signaled that it is going to raise it's interest rates 3%. This means that the cost of Chinese goods will rise 10 - 15%. US manufacturing has risen in recent months. This could be positive for US companies and the US economy.

____________________

Westwoodnc Westwoodnc:

Shannon, when Obama passed the $800 billion+ stimulus bill, he specifically claimed that the unemployment rate would not top more than 8%. Yet, what followed was a lost of 4 million jobs and all but 3 months we lost more jobs than gained. I know presidents should not always get credit/blame for the performance of the general economy, however, Obama SPECIFICALLY championed a policy that he claimed would stop the job losses. That's a lot of money spent to gain just 120,000 jobs in one month. It's either he's responsible for the economy today or he's not. The Democrats would have a tougher time balancing this contradiction than the GOP.

____________________

Shannon,Dallas,Texas:

"He specifically claimed that the unemployment rate would not top more than 8% . . . Democrats would have a tougher time balancing this contradiction than the GOP"

Good luck selling that. Let's poll the public and see who is viewed as being more contradictory, the President or Republican members of Congress. Again, if the economy doesn't contract, people are going to compare his first couple of years in office to those of Reagan and Clinton and conclude that we're in a much better position than we were when he entered the office. It's pretty simple. Are you better off today than the day he took office?

"I know presidents should not always get credit/blame for the performance of the general economy, however, Obama SPECIFICALLY championed a policy that he claimed would stop the job losses."

If you're a Republican, this is what you should say: "Oh, he's not responsible for the turnaround of the economy." It's just not likely to work.

The Republicans painted themselves into a corner by opposing every single measure and saying that ever measure was a job killing socialist plot to take away our freedoms.

As the President takes on more and more complex issues, single issue candidates are going to find out how hard it is to run on a single issue. The economy may only poll as high as 30% in terms of importance to voters. The Supreme Court nomination process may poll higher than it does today. Immigration may poll higher than it does today. And, foreign policy may poll higher than it does today.

If the economy is improving, then its really bad news for Republicans. The perception that Republicans are rooting against the economy is probably going to grow as Republicans try to tamp down any positive news about the economy.


____________________

Xenobion:

Jobs up in Construction and Manufacturing for 3 months. I know its inconvenient to ignore the facts.

____________________

Westwoodnc Westwoodnc:

Xenobion:
Jobs up in Construction and Manufacturing for 3 months. I know its inconvenient to ignore the facts.

===

Speaking of ignoring inconvenient facts. Long-term unemployment rate is up, the number of people unemployed is up from 19 million last March to 23.8 million.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm (The BLS is a reichwing government organization, so be careful about its facts.)

____________________

Stillow:

When a third of all jobs created are g'ment jobs and most of them are temporary then there's a long term problem. When private sector jobs are only being created because of oversized g'ment contrcts then you have a long term problem. Housing has still not hit bottom yet. Unemployment benefits will eentually begin to expire and those people will ifnd themselves totally broke and ith no income.

This summer will be bad due to all the temp workers being let go. Intrest rates will probably be rising which will criple and already struggling housing market....sorry guys, we are headed stragiht into a double dip....and you can blame g'ment spending which only creates bubbles....the new homebuyer credits expiring, blah blah...just little bubbles to help numbers here and there.

Unless there are solid tax cuts and other things done to free up private capital, thinks will be stagnant for a long time to come.

I am fotunate enough to have a pretty recession proof career, but many of my freins have been out of work for longer than 18 months. I see no recovery in sight....and lets not forget antoher vital part of our economy, fuel prices which have been slowly butt steadily climbing again.

Obama is not joking about trying to europeanize america...and Europe typically enjoys double digit unemploent, even during good times because there tax structure inhibit growth more than ours which of course leads to higher unemployment has business has less money to invest and grow.

In addition there are new taxes coming down the pipe for people just like me, one of those evil high income earners which means I will be spending less in the economy as a result. i will be fine, but perahps I won't do that planned upgrade to my staircase this summer which of course will hurt the company who would ahve done that work..............wake up guys, people with money are far mroe effective than g'ment with money.

____________________

Shannon,Dallas,Texas:

Double digit unemployment isn't anything new.

How long did it take Reagan to reduce the unemployment rate to below 8%?

01/1981 - Unemployment rate 7.5% …. Reagan sworn in.
02/1981 - 7.4%
03/1981 - 7.4%
04/1981 - 7.2%
05/1981 - 7.5%
06/1981 - 7.5%
07/1981 - 7.2%
08/1981 - 7.4% * Reagan CUTS taxes for top 1% and says unemployment will DROP to 6.9%.
09/1981 - 7.6%
10/1981 - 7.9%
11/1981 - 8.3%
12/1981 - 8.5%

01/1982 - 8.6%
02/1982 - 8.9%
03/1982 - 9.0%
04/1982 - 9.3%
05/1982 - 9.4%
06/1982 - 9.6%
07/1982 - 9.8%
08/1982 - 9.8%
09/1982 - 10.1%
10/1982 - 10.4%
11/1982 - 10.8% * Unemployment HITS a post WW2 RECORD of 10.8%.
12/1982 - 10.8%

01/1983 - 10.4%
02/1983 - 10.4%
03/1983 - 10.3%
04/1983 - 10.3%
05/1983 - 10.1%
06/1983 - 10.1%
07/1983 - 9.4%
06/1983 - 9.5%
07/1983 - 9.4%
08/1983 - 9.5%
09/1983 - 9.2%
10/1983 - 8.8%
11/1983 - 8.5%
12/1983 - 8.3%

01/1984 - 8.0%
02/1984 - 7.8%

It took Reagan 28 MONTHS to get unemployment rate back down below 8%.

I seriously doubt if we will have a double dip recession. In the short term, unemployment might tick slightly higher as people re-enter the job market.

Again, if the economy is improving, Republicans are going to have serious issues. Two wars, and a collapse of the financial system have worn the patience of Americans who will tire quickly of fighting ideological battles.

This is going to be the mood come November:

Is the economy better? Good. Let's get back to work.

This is why the wars don't even register. People are taking a break. At the first opportunity, people are going to want to get back to a normal life.

Republicans should be offering plans to do just that: offer policies that return people to normal life. Instead, Republicans are asking people to commit to an ideological revolution. That's just not smart, especially when considering that the economy is improving. Independents will bail as soon as they sense that the economy is on the right track.

____________________

Stillow:

No one is making an argument that it will happen overnight. But reagan put policies in that were pro growth...he cut taxes which provided private sector capital to be freed up which is what real growth comes from.

Obama takes the exact oppositee approach. He is raising taxes across the board, allowing Bush tax cuts to expire. that removes capital from the private sector and puts into the hands of g'ment which does not produce anything. Real long term sustainable job growth has to be generated in the private sector and that means they have to have money! Obama is raising taxes...that is by deficinition an anti growth strategy. That will not only dramatically slow any recovery, but probably cause a double dip.

Reagan provided the formula on ho wto end a recession like this...so doing the oppositte will probably have the oppositte result.

I was not joking when I said I probably will not remodel my strairway htis summer, the bid I had accepted for June was $16,000. But my taxes are going up...and things like cap and trade are looming which gives me even more of a tax burden. do you see my point on how higher taxes inhibits growth and slows a recovery. Now that contractor will lose my job. He will lose that income.

No one expects unemployment to drop to 5 percent. But we had a model in how to resolve a recession like this with reagan...and Reagan oversaw the largest peacetime economic expanision in history. And it was driven in large part by the private sector. Obama is taking the Euro model of higher taxes....even talking about the new VAT tax.....and we all know what unemployment is like in Europe due to that higher taxation.

I just hired a new SQL database administrator....That position I use to start it at $70,000 a year...I lowered it to $60,000 because taxes and fees are going up....and projected budgets have to include possible new taxes coming on business. If that is happening in a small company like mine, I can only imagine what its like in larger companies with many more employees.

Both Reagan and JFK also showed us that by lowering taxes you increase revenues to the g'ment. raising taxes only slows growth, shrinks the workforce and gives you sustained higher unemployment. In addition it creates a bubble in essence, because you have an expanding need for the g'ment to raise capital for its growing workforce and entitlements, but it has to get that revenue from a shrinking number of working people.

G'ment debt spending can create a few blips up here and there, but its unsustainable growth because it snot real growth. Real growth comes from people like me paying good salaries for good positions....and also by people like me having money to spend as i nthe example of my staircase remodel.

We must adopt a pro growth strategy and that means freeing up private sector capital, not seizing what little people have left.

My father works for big oil in CA and has for decades, he said CA is looking at a $10 per barrel of oil tax....my dad told me he would literally have to cut 150 poisitons from his district if that happens because there is simply no way they can abosrb that type of tax.

____________________

Westwoodnc Westwoodnc:

Shannon,Dallas,Texas:
Double digit unemployment isn't anything new.

How long did it take Reagan to reduce the unemployment rate to below 8%?

01/1981 - Unemployment rate 7.5% …. Reagan sworn in.
02/1981 - 7.4%
03/1981 - 7.4%
04/1981 - 7.2%
05/1981 - 7.5%
06/1981 - 7.5%
07/1981 - 7.2%
08/1981 - 7.4% * Reagan CUTS taxes for top 1% and says unemployment will DROP to 6.9%.
09/1981 - 7.6%
10/1981 - 7.9%
11/1981 - 8.3%
12/1981 - 8.5%

01/1982 - 8.6%
02/1982 - 8.9%
03/1982 - 9.0%
04/1982 - 9.3%
05/1982 - 9.4%
06/1982 - 9.6%
07/1982 - 9.8%
08/1982 - 9.8%
09/1982 - 10.1%
10/1982 - 10.4%
11/1982 - 10.8% * Unemployment HITS a post WW2 RECORD of 10.8%.
12/1982 - 10.8%

01/1983 - 10.4%
02/1983 - 10.4%
03/1983 - 10.3%
04/1983 - 10.3%
05/1983 - 10.1%
06/1983 - 10.1%
07/1983 - 9.4%
06/1983 - 9.5%
07/1983 - 9.4%
08/1983 - 9.5%
09/1983 - 9.2%
10/1983 - 8.8%
11/1983 - 8.5%
12/1983 - 8.3%

01/1984 - 8.0%
02/1984 - 7.8%

It took Reagan 28 MONTHS to get unemployment rate back down below 8%.

===

I'm on more left-wing blogs more often than in the right-wing ones, so I've seen this EXACT copy and paste of comments from at least one other blog (538.com). I can't believe you actually take solace in this. It would still mean that the Dems get shellacked in November, and even in 1994 when the unemployment rate was almost HALF of what we have now, the Dems still lost. Even in 2006 when again, the unemployment rates was HALF of what it is now, the GOP still lost. While Obama seized sectors of the economy, Clinton never did. The GOP was never ahead in Gallup polling this consistently in 1994. It won't be 1994, it'd be probably even worse for Democrats. The GOP AFAIC can run every god-damn kind of campaign it wants and still clean up in November.

____________________

Shannon,Dallas,Texas:

That's the thing: this isn't 1994. We're coming out of the deepest recession since the Great Depression. It's been 2 years and Independents aren't going to forget that:

1.) It was Bush who signed TARP.
2.) It was Bush who approved GM's bailout which stipulated that the companies must provide warrants for non-voting stock.

The GOP lost in 2006 because we were bogged down in 2 wars. The election in 2006 had nothing to do with employment.

Why do you think there are so many Independents? People ran from the Republican Party. The fact that they're reconstituting is not a surprise to anyone. Can they keep it together? I seriously doubt it. Independents are going to peel away as soon as the economy recovers. Independents are far more pragmatic than ideological.

Mind you that Independents aren't drawn to Democrats or Republicans, they're anti-incumbents until they sense that things are on the right track. Here's what's keeping Independents from supporting incumbents:

1.) The economy (Improving)

2.) The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (Timeline for withdrawal in Iraq is holding)

3.) Health care (It's really going to fade in the eyes of Independents because they're all about moving on. Again, the question for them isn't about ideology. It's about whether the country is on the right track or not.)

Up until now, the fear has been palpable and Republicans have been able to stoke that fear into dissatisfaction. As the economy improves, their ability to do that is gone. I don't think Republicans are going to take the Senate. They may come close in the House but it's doubtful there as well.

What are the possibilities that they'll have the numbers to do what they're saying they will do, namely repeal and replace? They've set themselves up for failure in 2010 and beyond.

____________________

Shannon,Dallas,Texas:

I didn't read this until now:

"Reagan oversaw the largest peacetime economic expanision in history"

Umm, no!! Clinton led the largest peace tine economic expansion in history.

You guys do like to rewrite history.

____________________

Sean Murphy:

I really don't get the appeal of Roy Barnes and I certainly don't think he will win in November. If anything Barnes is benefitting from the fact that he was once governor of GA and that Oxendine is still probably relatively unknown. I expect after the primary in July OX will get a bounce and stay ahead for good.

____________________

notonegativity:

Shannon from Texas, I really, really like your posts and the fact that you refute the conservative's talking points with facts! You're awesome! I get so sick of them blaming unemployment, big "g'ment", bailouts and all their other same old, same old day in and day out on this President, when it was the republicans that did all the spending and didn't create jobs for almost the last decade. You are right that the everyday folks that don't watch cable news and talk radio and read conservative blogs still know who was to blame for the conditions we faced and it sure as heck wasn't Obama. They would NEVER admit Obama does anything right but at least you back up your statements.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Exactly right Stillow.

Reagan implemented pro-growth economic strategies THAT STARTED the best 30 years of economic expansion in this country's history. The two Bushes and Clinton continued it.

The lefties like to compare the situation to obama today. However, Obama has yet to rebound the economy like Reagan did. I think we will start to see minimal job growth as most of the slack in the economy is now gone. Capacity utilization and hours per work week have stabilized. The question is, will they and the economy rebound. 3-5% would be nice but its doubtful we will have more than a quarter or two of that type of growth. GDPs when Bush took us out of the recession he inherited was over 7% in the first quarter of the recovery.

____________________

Stillow:

Shannon,Dallas,Texas: - Turn off msnbc for just five minutes. Bush was a fiscal liberal...I would argue one of the most fiscally liberal presidents we had since WW2. People like myself left the GOP because they spent to much money...and when g'ment does that it puts strain o nthe private sector. I just gave you solid real world examples and you ignored both of them...I just expaline dhow higher taxes on my business forced me to lower the salary for an open poisiton....and how I am cosnidering putting off my staircase remodel because of new taxes I have topay.

Bust supported tarp as did Obama. Thats the problem....as usual, your stuck on the R vs D thing. Its not about that. Bush and Obama are both huge spenders.We've tried the high taxes approach before it doesn't work....the recession of the late 70's was awful.

Tax cuts gave us the booms of the 80's....while the 90's wer ealso good, it was a bubble....it was built on a tech bubble which popped in 2000 nad millions of investors are still in the whole from that bust. It was also driven in the 90's by brewing financial scams from companies like Worldcom and Enron.

Unlike you hyper partisans, I don't care if you have an R or a D next to your name....its about being fiscally liberal or conservative. Republicans left Bush over spending, myself icnluded. Obama has totally doubled down on Bush's spending.

Its such a simple concept to understand, higher taxes lead to a shrinking economy. It leads to higher unemployment. Europe is a good model ofr you to look at. There higher taxes lead to higher unemployment, less productivity and less income for the masses.

You can poitn fingers and paly the R vs D game all you want, but its about g'ment, nor R vs D. The housing bubble was powered in large part due to pressue g'ment put on banks to lend money to people who should not ahve had the money lent to them. Staring in the late 90's we entered the era of bubbles....sort of a pump and dump strategy. Right now g'ment is the biggest bubble...and when it pops it is going to kill us.

Lower taxes, free up that capital so people can spend, invest and take risk. That is how real growth is generated and sustained. Removing money from the private sector in the form of taxes only shrinks the eocnomy....espeically when the g'ment cannot seize enough money to pay its bills. Obama has tripled Bush's deficit. I never thought I'd live to see a trillion dollar deficit, but Obama gave us one.

History will view Bush and Obama as dumb and dumber. Bush's overspending by g'ment started it....obama increasing that g'metn spending will finsih it.

Everyone wants the free lunch from g'ment, but with g'ment growth and spending more free lunches are given out....because thsoe higher taxes make for higher unemployment....at some point and its probably not that far away, the need for free lunches will exceed the ability of the othrs to pay for them.

The other day it was released in the SSJ, only half the country now pays any federal income tax....you have half the country now paying for the other half...and the trend is wrosening...pretty soon it will be 45 percent paying for 55 percent....that is not sustainable.

You can whine about R vs D or talk about talking points, blah blah...but we have real world examples...We can reference Europe, w can reference Reagan tax cuts and look at the results.

Every g'ment program is in debt, every level of g'mnt is spending to much....tax payers are already strapped, the economy sees no real growth....and new taxes taking affect along with new proposed taxes coming will only stall and reverse any glimmer of a recovery.

How am I supposed to hire 3 more people if my taxes go up 10 percent?

Try and spend less time pointin fingers at Bush and less time on your knees at obama's alter...an wake up. Conservatives are just as pissed at Bush as they are at Obama...that is why so many of us became indy's ad didn't even vote for Bush in 2004.

____________________

Stillow:

oh and speaking of Indy's...I am ifnding hilarious how lefties are repeatedly saying indy's will support Dems. In NJ and Va Indy's broke to GOP 2 to 1...and in MA hwere Scott brown's #1 camapign issue was being the vote to stop HCR, indy's broke to the GOp 3 to 1.

Look at O's approval ratings, he is losing support among Indy's, not gaining it. Even in 94 the GOp was not holding these kinds of consistant leads in the generic ballot with pollsters like Gallup.

I will grant you this much, when the GOp wins this November, they only have one chance left to prove they can be fiscal conservatives. If they fail again and become no different than liberals on spending, if they fail the way Bush did....its over for the GOP and they owuld probably slowly collapse i nthe coming years and be replaced by a new party.

So they will have one final chance to prove they are fiscal cons....they will campaign this fall on being such and they will campaign on controlling and cutting spending and shrinking g'ment...and they will win huge for it, but they best back it up....it is indeed there last chance.

____________________

Shannon,Dallas,Texas:

@Stillow

You're proving my point. You saying that Obama's policies are job killing policies.

Obviously, that's not the case. You're saying that he's bad for the economy, that's not the case.

Positive GDP growth and positive jobs growth.

Every day, its going to become increasingly harder for you to make those claims (without any factual support I might add). You've resorted to personalizing your arguments and that's not going to persuade Independents.

The best thing for Republicans to do is to go into areas where the economy is still on the downturn, places like MS, IN, MO, and WV. There a major issues with the economic infrastructure in these areas that isn't going to be solved in the short term. It's akin to what's going on in Detroit. This isn't going to help much because most of these areas are in red states with the exception of WV, WA and WI. Michigan is actually moving out of the recession. WA and WI are probably going to be able to recover shortly.

Here's a map of which states are moving out of a recession and which one's are still mired in a recession:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/01/recession-over-economic-a_n_521808.html

Again, the trend is that things are improving:


http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/04/the_economy_of_the_2010_electi.html

My best suggestion for Republicans is to say "Well he hasn't raised taxes yet, but he will". Or, Republicans should simply pull a John McCain and ignore the economy. They should focus solely on foreign policy.

I'm not sure. I think that Democrats are going to do better than what's expected and that's a problem for the GOP. The GOP has set their expectations too high. They've promised too much to their constituents that they won't be able to deliver on (like repeal and replace). They won't be able to keep the anger going against a President who comes across as unwilling to engage in a fight. He continually approaches the GOP in a bipartisan effort. This might be the GOPs waterloo.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

With Reagan it looks like the market clearly got progressive worse for the first 2 and a half years after he was president. Obama never ever said that after his Stimulus, which is not a unique liberal idea, that it would take as long as two years to see significant improvement. If the unemployment rate is down to 9.4 in May, and than down to 8.8 before the end of the summer, I would not be surprised.

The Reagan record in job creation in the early part of his term is typical of letting the free market do everything for you. W. his first 5 years lucked out. We were riding high from the surplus and the Clinton years of growth in high tech, but as that slowed down, Bush's tax cuts for the rich, and increased outsourcing, and Wallmart's monopolies putting smaller chains and stores out of business began to ad to our decay of jobs.

There is no doubt Obama owns the economy now, and has to get us out of this mess, but nobody has any idea just how things bad might have been without the stimulus. Of course conservatives will be united in their opinions, but I am convinced that history will show what Obama has done with our economy will be seen as the better strategy in a recession.

____________________

Field Marshal:

"You're proving my point. You saying that Obama's policies are job killing policies.

Obviously, that's not the case. You're saying that he's bad for the economy, that's not the case.

Positive GDP growth and positive jobs growth."
==========

You do realize that over 2 million people have lost their jobs since Obama become president, right? We have had one positive month of job growth. And in actuality, you need more than 150k new jobs just to break even, thus we really haven't had any net reduction in total unemployed.

____________________

Field Marshal:

The problem is you will never know what Obama's policies have done to our economy. If it grows by 3% over the next 5 years (an optimistic outcome IMO) he will claim 'victory'. However, with better policies, it could have grown by 3.5% or even 4% with better, more pro-growth policies.

If the unemployment rate drops to 8% by 2012, he will also claim victory. But what would it have been with better policies?

This is the problem with economic results and attributing them to presidents. As much as we as humans like people to blame, the president has very little control over an economy with the size and dynamism as ours.

Yes, Reagan, Bush I & II, and Clinton policies probably aided the economy slightly and harmed it slightly in ways. However, the amount of contribution that these people added to the growth was minimal at best.

The FED does add more to the outcome of the economy compared to the executive branch with FOMC operations and discount rate management but again, its just nudging it at the edges rather than controlling the outcome. There is a reason why the economy goes into recession every 7 years, on average.

____________________

Shannon,Dallas,Texas:

@Field Marshal

So, are you arguing that the stimulus had no effect?

____________________

Lt. Cmdr. Walrus:

@Field Marshal

"The problem is you will never know what Obama's policies have done to our economy. If it grows by 3% over the next 5 years (an optimistic outcome IMO) he will claim 'victory'. However, with better policies, it could have grown by 3.5% or even 4% with better, more pro-growth policies."

If we will never know what Obama's policy have done to the economy, how can we know what supposedly "better" policies would have done?

____________________

Field Marshal:

@Shannon-

No, i am not arguing that at all. If you throw $800B into the economy, it will have a positive effect. However, how much positive effect is debatable. The type of stimulus in the bill was not very effective with most going to secure state budget deficits and towards keeping up social services which has zero simulative effects.

@Walrus-

This is the job of most economists who use theory, logic, and mathematics to formulate hypothesis into what works and what doesn't.

Christina Romer, Obamas Economic advisor, has a paper that states the best stimulus for the macro economy is a tax cut and that every 1% in PERMANENT tax change results in a 3% inverse GDP change.

____________________

Stillow:

Shannon,Dallas,Texas:

Again, you have totally skirted my points. I gave you two perfect examples of how higher taxes burden the economy. No one is perosnalizing anything, I wrok in a small business, less than 250 employees, my situation is just like that of tens of millions of other people. Just as me deciding to hold off on seveveral home upgrade projects, that is the case with millions of peole because we have to account for higher taxes.

You are not listening to anything i have said. Look around, g'ment on every single level is bankrupt. Read some newspapers, local and state g'ments are laying people off because they do not ahve the money. The Feds do not have the money either, but they are borrowing and printing at an ever accelrating rate. Obama is now at a 1.4 trillion annual deficit. My God man, you cannot do that without causing serious pain down the road. The interest payment alone o nthe debt in a fe w years would be enough to provide healthcare to every man, woman and child and have some left over for various other programs.

Maybe you don't care, but I do....I have kids and I am watching them be put into financial slavery before they even turn into adults. They will spend there entire lives working to pay our creditors like China. The debtor is always slave to the creditor. When you owe money to someone they can impose a certain level of control over you and your assets.

There is this almost religious devotion to Obama by some on the left whose devotion totally blinds them to what is happening. We are in the process of putting in new taxes and restrictions everywhere i nthe private sector. We will take a once thriving private sector and are putting in under direct control of the feds....who have shown they can run very little. Spend a day at your local DMV office if you want to know more about that.

We are headed stragiht to a Euro style way of life with permanant double digit unemployment and an ever increasing tax burden. Look at greece, that is AMerica in 10 years if we do not dramatically change our spending habits.

Obama is the poser child for an entire segment of our nation who beleives they are owed soemthing....that someone else should be responsible for their needs. Obama has never been told no in his life.....these days the word no is a dirty word.

No matter what happens soemthing is going to give. Right now we are a ubber band being stretched, eventually it will snap. Overspending, punittive taxation, larger and larger g'ment seizing more and more of our freedoms and choices. Somehting is going to give and probably sooner rather than later.

Those of you who enjoy living on your knees and who have this cult like support for obama will wake up one day from your daze I think, but it will have been to late. Slow and steady erosions of the country are easier to accomplish than a sudden change........and change is not always a good thing.

I have no explanation why htis cult like support for obama exists, perhaps its from the entitlement generation who simply "needs" that authority figure to take care of them. When a man loses his ability to think, to wrok, to provide for himself, then that man is nothing but a slave to whoever he looks to to provide for him. If that means walking off a cliff, so be it.

Spending; people, it has to stop.

This whole things bothers me to no end. I feel very badly for my kids....we will be leaving them a nation in financial ruin, a nation which offers far less opporutnity than it had just a couple decades ago....and if they are one of the lucky few who can find a way to succeed, the g'ment will simply punish that success thru higher and higher taxation.

Make no mistake, we are in a g'ment bubble right now....and this blind devotion by some on the left for Obama better stop. People like me had the courage and intelectual honesty to turn against our party's guy a few years ago because he represented wreckless spending which was damaging....O is doingt he same, yet like lemmings, a portion of the left are willing to follow him right off the damn bridge.

The entitlement generation will probably oversee the downfall of the country Because just plain old fashioned common sense tells you this amoutn of spending and debt is not sustainable.

____________________

Stillow:

Shannon,Dallas,Texas:

Oh and again, the GOp doesn't need help with the Indy's...they already have them. Even in Gallup today Obama is 45 approve and 48 disapprove. Indy's are moving away from Obama, not to him.....the GOp just needs to keep opposing bad policy and Obama will continue to bleed Indy support....as is evidenced by VA, NJ and MA.

____________________

Lt. Cmdr. Walrus:

@Stillow

"We will take a once thriving private sector and are putting in under direct control of the feds....who have shown they can run very little."

The entire private sector? That's impossible, even if the government wanted to do it-the private sector is simply too big. Even with the bank and auto bailouts that's still a very small chunk of the private sector that the government owns, and they weren't exactly enthusiastic about doing it either.

____________________

Stillow:

Lt. Cmdr. Walrus:

Its not just banking and auto. Its also now healthcare and they are now tryign to take over the energy sector. The feds are wanting to totally take over student lending too...giving them more control over education.

This thing is coming apart piece by piece.

____________________

Lt. Cmdr. Walrus:

@Stillow

Are you referring to cap and trade legislation? If so that's far from a government takeover of anything. The health bill isn't either:

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2010/feb/24/cw-bill-young/bill-young-claims-house-plan-was-government-takeov/

And how do the new student loan rules equate to government taking "more control over education"? The new rules do nothing to the institutions, they just (as I understand) stop using private lenders to issue a lot of federal student loans.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"No one is perosnalizing anything, I wrok in a small business, less than 250 employees, my situation is just like that of tens of millions of other people. Just as me deciding to hold off on seveveral home upgrade projects,"

Stillow, you said you're not personalizing anything, but then you immediately start talking about your personal situation and applying it writ large. And then you start talking about your own children. If that's not personalizing, I don't know what is. Shannon was right.

"we will be leaving them a nation in financial ruin, a nation which offers far less opporutnity than it had just a couple decades ago"

I can literally copy and paste quotes from the congressional record from the 1960s by people like John Tower or Barry Goldwater and it would be almost identical. Hell, I can find you quotes from the 1790s that are similar. Fiscal conservatives have been saying a variation of this for our entire history and somehow, the nation survives.

Just so you know, most student loans already are federal and those interest rates are reasonable. Mine are in the 6% range. The big problem were loans given by private banks, mostly for expensive professional schools, (I'd bet med school is the primary one) where students borrowed $80-100K at 15-20% interest.

____________________

Stillow:

aaron - "Most" people are employed by small business. I had to reduce the salary of a sql dba...if that is happening to me, I promise you its happening to other small businesses. I have to not only account for higher taxes, but now new health care costs as a result of HCR.

I'm not really interested in what quotes you can pull from when or from whom. Quotes can be dragged on on every topic from every side going abck hundreds of years. The fact is we are more in debt than ever before. We owe more now in simply entitlement benefits than ever before. The consumer is now carrying more debt than ever before. Our population is bigger than ever before........and also my young freind, you yourself have mentioned on this very site that you thought opportunity would be harder to come by for your generation that is was for mine.

The bottom line is that my business is struggling just like everyone elses. And new taxes and higher fees imposed on us will only lead to more layoffs.

CNN had a great two hour story today which aired at noon pacific time called Your Money. It was all about the debt and deficits....and how the next generations expereince in this countyr is going to be much different because we have forced them into financial ruin. They had several good panel members who discussed what will happen if various things are done and are not done, but everyone agreed that if something is not done about the deficit/debt, this country would probably collapse in on itself financially. You cannot raise taxes high enouhgto meet our obligations. We owe over 60 trillion in entitlement obligations. You cannot plunder that amount of money from the private sector and not expect a huge econmic depression to occur.

Our economy is about 70 percent consume rbased....every dollar you take away from the consumer is a dollar that leaves the economy and goes to g'ment who nearly right of fthe bat wastes about 25 percent on pure red tape.

I hope you realize aaron, its your generation which will probably suffer most. Truth is I will probably be fine and others my age who have prepared will probably be fine until we die....your generation will inherit whatever we have left, but how muhcwill that be after all the new taxes, etc? And what of your kids?

Right now it should be the younger generations who should be the most angry about there futures being sold to serve the present. G'ment is putting you in a position where you iwll have no choices because the demands of the debt will overtake any options that once existed.

Opprunitty is at its highest when people are free...and people are only free if they are not beholden to others....and when you carry such a massive amount of debt, you must serve and meet the demands of your creditors.

To an extent I guess your right, its all personal. I have kids, you have mentione din a previous post you are expecting a child soon...back when you were complaining about HC. Do you not want him/her to have opporurnity? to live the life he/she wants? Not to be born into instant debt and having no choices becuase the country cannot offer those choices because we are so indebted to other nations our choices are made for us. even now China is able to use its financing over us to alter some of our foreing policy decisions. That type of influence will only grow and expand over time.

At current projections, we will be at a debt burden of 20 trillion in 10 years. That is above GDP estimates. We will owe more than our nation is even worth. Sort of similar to the housing bubble....and what happened with that? the creditors took posession of the homes and sold them off for pennies on the dollar from what was owed.

Talk to your grandparents who lived during the depression. They didn't expect anything....they didn't sit around waiting for some free handout. they did what they had to do to survive. And they were greatful for what they had. The entitlement generation ha stotally reversed that mentaility. Now its all about what you can get from someone else.

We must stop the spending and we have to do something with these entitlement obligations. This mindset that everyone is owed soemthing has to stop. We have formed a multi trillion dollar bubble at the g'ment level...its unsustainable just as smaller bubbles were, the techs, the credit bubble, the housing bubble, etc....they always go bust.

A nation can provide safety nets to its people without transofmring that nation into a nanny state. Think of the things we could do if we did not have thsi growing debt to contend with. HC could be solved almost immeidately.

We are sacrifising the next generation for the comfort our own...and that has never happened in this country before. That was always the other way around....perhaps aaron when your childis born you may have a change of heart in the way you think....as a little switch goes off in your head and everything suddenly is all about them.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"Opprunitty is at its highest when people are free...and people are only free if they are not beholden to others....and when you carry such a massive amount of debt, you must serve and meet the demands of your creditors."

I'm glad that you are now interested in this debt problem. I wish you had been concerned during the Bush years. Or did you think youth graduated college with an average of $23,000 debt just when Obama became president? If you knew anything about what young people go through, you'd know it's been this way for a while. Entry level jobs are about as hard to get now as they were a few years ago because in many cases they've been off-shored, at least in my experience. A job paying more than $40K is like winning the lottery. We've been at a disadvantage for quite some time, and yes, some of us would prefer to NOT add $10-100K medical debt on top of what we already have in the unfortunate scenario that would occur if we get sick. The government can't pay for health care, but neither can individuals. It already consumes more than 1/5 of most family budgets. My grandparents didn't have to deal with that.

At least the dems tried to do something...republicans ignored the problem, or in Bush's case made it worse.

So yes, I know we're going to be worse off. We have to take on more personal debt in order to get the same standard of living our parents and grandparents got.

Yet the politicians continued to cater to the older people, giving them more generous health care while we were told we weren't going to get social security back when I was in high school. So we better save our pennies from the jobs that require more education yet pay less when compared to what our parents could get at our age. You act as if the state of affairs that's been going on for years is all Obama's fault. If anything, young people were gullible for thinking Obama could (or would) really do anything about it.

Oh, btw, I'm looking at getting married fairly soon, but not having kids anytime in the near future. One of us needs a job that offers some damn health care for that.

____________________

Xenobion:

Shannon,Dallas,Texas welcome to the forums. You provide a lot of good insight to keep some of our conservative clowns running. I welcome you to post more. As you said it yourself the revisionist history goes far here as a couple here are Rush Ditto heads that just repeat what they heard on his latest program. :p

____________________

Stillow:

aaron - What are you talking about? i have been ticked about spending for a long time. Bush lost my vote in 2004 because of his spending...along with many other conservatives.

And for the record I know its tought when your young. My first job I made less than $4 an hour. I learned good skills coming out of the service, but I went into debt to get my masters...I didn't finish paying it off til my late 30's.

Its supposed to be tough, that is called LIFE. Its not easy, its never been easy at any point in history. Its a challenge...and is supposed to be that way. This is what I mean when I refer to the entitlement generation. For us old fogies, we were taught life was tough, it required hard work and tons of sacrifise if you even wanted to survive out in the real world.

Today I look around and no one wants to work, every one has a hand out and kids coming out of school are expecting six figure salaries.

It does not work that way, it never has and it should never be. If todays young people spent as much energy and creativity in finding ways to excel instead of whining, they'd be much better off.

True opportunity only exists if you control your decisions and the outcome is dependent on your ability to take risk and work......it should not be dependent on what g'ment allows you to do.


____________________



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