Pollster.com

Anyone know anything about this pollster?

This is a +5.5 point move to Paul from their last one i believe.

After this:

""Jack Conway was in favor of the Bush tax cuts when they first passed (in 2001 and 2003), and he's in favor of extending the Bush tax cuts now," said spokeswoman Allison Haley."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/02/bush-tax-cuts-more-dems-c_n_703973.html

I really don't care if Conway wins. I'm sick of DINOs in the senate.

"FM: Anyone know anything about this pollster? This is a +5.5 point move to Paul from their last one i believe. "

Had Conway up 42-41 last poll.

I don't think Republicans should be pushing tax cuts right now, they need to be pushing less government spending. The Bush tax cuts are/were great for the economy, if the federal government isn't/wasn't wastefully spending. The tax cuts could either lead to the federal government losing money or the federal government gaining money. Either way the government will keep spending. First we need an extremely dramatic cut in government spending and then we can lower taxes.

Cutting taxes and cutting spending are the only way we can get Americans saving and investing their money again. Contrary to the Obama and Bush belief, spending and consuming aren't what grows an economy, it's savings and production.

Anyway, Paul is going to win this race by 8 points.

all paul needs to do is keep his mouth shut and he wins by 10

ndirish11- They aren't puching tax cuts. They're opposing tax hikes. What they should push in not raising taxes coupled with reduced spending.

The problem with raising taxes is that it covers for gov't spending by (temporarily) making the deficit go down. It covers up big spending when people can point at a number and say "see, even with our spending we can lower the deficit" without adding the fact that to do so they have to pillage people's pocketbooks.

I think you need to check your economics ndirish 11. Americans are saving more and paying off debt, which is slowing economic growth. When Americans don't buy goods, companies don't need to produce them or hire workers. Japan is very savings oriented and very productive, but has been in an economic funk for decades. We need the right balance of savings and spending. We had too much spending in the past decade and now the savings rate is holding back economic growth.

Yeah of course. By no means would I want to ever raise taxes. But you can't have lower taxes with an increase of government spending. That was Bush's problem. He lowered taxes yet he ran up deficits higher than any President before him. Now Obama is running up deficits even higher than Bush. So we can't lower taxes until we reduce the size of the government and stop spending.

I don't agree that Paul has this one won.

Conway is a good aggressive candidate who has won statewide (61% in 2007) and Paul has given him much to attack on. The key for Conway is to continue his aggressive attacks on Paul as out of touch with Kentucky and "extreme". And he has to define himself as a "Kentucky DEM" not national. Remember Kentucky has majority DEM voter registration and DEMS dominate on the state level.

I think the main DEM attack this year to survive has to be attack your opponent relentlessly as "extreme"/not mainstream and position themselves as an "outsider". If they are painted as a Washington style Obama DEM...they are toast in most states this year.

@ndirish11: "Now Obama is running up deficits even higher than Bush. So we can't lower taxes until we reduce the size of the government and stop spending. "

Then Obama has to be stopped. Raising taxes now is the most stupid economic move possible. Obama has increased government spending by over 25% in just 2 years. Cut the spending and don't raise the taxes. It's that simple.

Democrats are slipping because people aren't so stupid as to believe that "letting the bush tax cuts expire" is somehow different than "raising taxes". And Obama's tax increases would be the biggest in history - on top of the biggest spending in history.

If he raises taxes like he wants to, we will be in a depression by the middle of next year. I'm beginning to think that's what he wants so he can put on a sweater and have weekly fireside chats to tell people he feels their pain - while eating $150 per pound Kobe beef burgers and sipping on 27 year old scotch.

Spending has to be rolled back to 2006 levels. That's when the democrats took over congress and got us into multi-trillion dollar deficits. That would cut over $1 trillion per year off the deficit. The budget could be balanced in 3 years when the economy boomed as a result.

@Georgia Joe.

We need slow economic growth, we need a recession actually. The government didn't let the recession happen in 2008/2009. They stopped it with a stimulus plan that didn't fix any of the underlying problems, but it created the illusion of a growing economy since we got to spend all that cheap government money. The reason we got into this mess is because were living beyond our means. It was because of an excess of consumption, we consumed far more than we produced. Now the production rate is still declining because the government is over taxing businesses which sends them overseas and is enacting policies to keep us spending so we can keep the illusion of growth going.

Americans are paying off debt and saving money. Exactly what they need to. It will lead to a recession if everyone does it, but it is better for the long term health of our economy. We can't keep living in this fairy tale land where our country and all of it's citizens can be consuming and spending while in they are deeply in debt for the rest of eternity.

I agree ndirish. Corporations are deleveraging and households are doing the same. If households keep spending in order to prop up the economy, the same result will occur; massive debt defaults increasing unemployment.

The savings rate is only back to 5%, about where it was in the mid 90's. We need to get it back close to 10%. Those savings are then invested into new technology. Capital investment is the only near-efficient use of capital. Government spending is next to useless.

Good article in today's WSJ about the impending tax increases.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703959704575454061524326290.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Raising taxes? It's Republicans obstructionism that will result in everyone's taxes being raised. Obama campaigned on letting the tax cuts expire for top earners, and he was elected with a majority of the vote. His plan is the right one, and should be passed.

"Good article in today's WSJ about the impending tax increases."

It's an opinion piece, not an article, but this reminds of 1993, when the same crowd was running around like chicken littles claiming that the sky was going to fall in because of Clinton's rate increase on the top earners. Of course, nothing of the kind happened.

If the GOP wins in either CA, CO, NV, IL, DE, WI, or WA I can predict that most of those seats if not all will be back in Democratic hands. Probably 2016 will be a repeat of the 1994- 2000 senate when the climate was terrible for Dems in 94, and good 6 years later. Dems picked up seats that year in FL, DE, Michigan, WA and a few years later IL. The extreme John Ashcroft lost in Missouri too.

It's an opinion piece, not an article,

All articles are opinion pieces.

His plan is the right one, and should be passed.

Actually, there is no bill or plan. He has just stated his preference but the Dems in congress have yet to do anything about it with 85 days to go.

And now more and more dems are siding with the Reps, coming to the realization that increasing tax rates will hurt the economy. Clinton raised taxes well into an recovery and then lowered them again two years later with the cap gains reduction, which coincidentally, is when the real growth of his term kicked into gear.

"Clinton raised taxes well into an recovery and then lowered them again two years later with the cap gains reduction, which coincidentally, is when the real growth of his term kicked into gear."

The income tax increase was in 1993, a stage of the recovery similar to where we are now. The capital gains rate was not cut until 1997, after the recovery had taken off. And it probably was responsible for the tech bubble.

Good points ndirish. The severity of the recession reflects the fact that administrations (and the FED) since 1990 at least have artificially subdued the natural economic cycles. Also, FED policies led us to accept inflation rates over 5% on an annual basis. High inflation discourages saving, yet saving is the basis of capitalism. Facing inflation, people don't want to put their earnings in banks, or even let their home equity grow, because its actual value erodes. Thsi is why it is absolutely the wrong thing to be doing now to run up deficits ever higher. This will ignite inflation again. Increased personal savings rates haveto be joined with greater fiscal responsibility in Washington, otherwise all those people trying to save for the future will be turned into dupes (again) when inflation approached double digits.

Good point too, Ryan. Republicans are not seeking to lower tax rates further, they simply want to maintain the status quo until the economy is moving again. At that point, I would argue some rates could even go lower, and some taxes eliminated entirely, to further increase the incentive to invest in America.

Bukama,

The severity of the recession reflects the fact that administrations (and the FED) since 1990 at least have artificially subdued the natural economic cycles.

Yes, as one of my favorite economists once said, "stability breeds instability and the longer the period of stability, the great variance in the impending instability."

Paleo,

The income tax increase was in 1993, a stage of the recovery similar to where we are now. The capital gains rate was not cut until 1997, after the recovery had taken off. And it probably was responsible for the tech bubble.

Not quite. In 1992, the GDP grew just over 4%. In 2009, it grew 0.25%. We may have been in at the same time duration into the downturn, but the economy wasn't nearly on the same economic footing.

As far as the cap gains cut causing the tech bubble, that's a first for me hearing that theory. I would love to hear your evidence behind such a hypothesis.

"the FED) since 1990 at least have artificially subdued the natural economic cycles. Also, FED policies led us to accept inflation rates over 5% on an annual basis. High inflation discourages saving, yet saving is the basis of capitalism. Facing inflation, people don't want to put their earnings in banks, or even let their home equity grow, because its actual value erodes. Thsi is why it is absolutely the wrong thing to be doing now to run up deficits ever higher. This will ignite inflation again."

Huh? What? Sometimes I feel like I'm in bizzaroworld here. Inflation hasn't been over 5% *since* 1990!

http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/HistoricalInflation.aspx?dsInflation_currentPage=1

"Not quite. In 1992, the GDP grew just over 4%. In 2009, it grew 0.25%. We may have been in at the same time duration into the downturn, but the economy wasn't nearly on the same economic footing.

As far as the cap gains cut causing the tech bubble, that's a first for me hearing that theory. I would love to hear your evidence behind such a hypothesis."

A strong second half in '92 bumped the growth rate up. It was under 3% in '93.

Making stocks more attractive by reducing the capital gains tax resulted in a lot of loose money going into "hot" stocks.

Paleo: "It's Republicans obstructionism that will result in everyone's taxes being raised. "

Can you please tell me the bill that you are referring to them blocking, and who's has voted against it to block it? If the dems let a bill go to a vote that extended the current tax schedule, every Republican would vote for it.

It's been well reported (for once) that raising taxes on "individuals" over 250,000 also includes a large portion of small businesses.

There is no bill yet so there's nothing for the republicans to obstruct.

"It's been well reported (for once) that raising taxes on "individuals" over 250,000 also includes a large portion of small businesses."

If you consider 2% to be a "large portion."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/30/AR2010073002671.html

I never said there was a bill. Just as predicting that the sun will rise in the east, you can be sure that when there is one, Republicans will seek to obstruct it.

The top 5% of wage earners pay over 50% of all income tax collected. Whether their taxes go up or not, they are definitely paying at least their fair share.

The Republican party do not want to debate,after Brewers disastrous performance yesterday in ARZ you can see why...The Democrats should force the GOP to have debates...The GOP don't want the truth to come out about where they stand on social security,and the HCB...The media have got to start reporting this,because the Republicans are going to try to get away without debating before the Midterms,and its up to the media to call the Republican party out on this...Its amazing when you have so many close races you wont see 1 debate before the Midterms!! Why is the Major Media letting the Republicans get away with this.

melvin, while i think the republican party is happy to stand for their positions and debate the records of democrats, the party that is ahead usually doesnt want to debate as much. Wish it wasn't the case, but its usually the way it is. Its perfectly logical too. If you were ahead, why would you want to risk having something happen in a debate that could change that dynamic.

As I mentioned in another thread - here in Ohio we are having 2 debates in our Gubernatorial race and three in our senate race. There are also debates scheduled in most other states.

My mistake - inflation in 1990 was 5.39%, but has been lower since. But even at an average of 4% or so, the average cost of things doubles in something like 17 years. And the fact is, if it wasn't for declining food prices, a situation that is not likely to be dulplicated in the coming decades, its the rapid inflation of health care, education, homes, service fees, and other things that cause people to question the wisdom of saving.

Here's a site that talks about the pernicious effect of inflation. http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/boomerbucks/20080326_inflation_a2.asp