Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

PA: 43% Sestak, 43% Toomey (Quinnipiac 7/6-11)

Topics: Pennsylvania , poll

Quinnipiac
7/6-11/10; 1,367 registered voters, 2.7% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(Quinnipiac release)

Pennsylvania

2010 Senate
43% Sestak, 43% Toomey (chart)

Favorable / Unfavorable
Pat Toomey: 35 / 13
Joe Sestak: 31 / 20

Job Approval / Disapproval
Pres. Obama: 46 / 49 (chart)

If the 2012 election for President were being held today, do you think you would vote for Barack Obama the Democratic candidate, or the Republican candidate?
40% Obama, 41% Republican

 

Comments
Field Marshal:

Wow... on an RV screen, Toomey is tied with Sestak meaning he's probably up by 3 on a LV screen. But more important is that 2012 pres question. The Rep up by 1, again on a RV screen in a state that leans Dem. LOL! I guess people are really waking up.

____________________

Paleo:

After the beating he took for lying in the Bachman thread, FM is back.

Sestak has gained seven points since the last Q poll. He has an excellent shot of winning.

As for Obama, place him up against a real opponent, not generic Republican, and you'll see him ahead. Right now he's got mediocre numbers, but they're still better than Reagan at the same stage in 1982.

____________________

Field Marshal:

LOL. Its like talking to third graders. Really it is. Paleo, are you in the third grade. You certainly sound like it.

First lie, this is a +3 point swing for Sestak and +1 for Toomey since the last poll, net +2 for Sestak.

Second lie, i got beat and "lied" in the Bachmann thread. What a joke you are making yourself out to be Paleo. Go ask any economist what decades were the best in our history in the modern era before you make yourself look more like a fool.

Third lie, Obama is Reagan and will rebound. Remember, Carter was in the same spot too and Obama is MUCH more like Carter than Reagan and what happened to Carter?

____________________

JPB11011:

@Paleo

Where do you see a 7 point swing? I see just 3 point movement since the May release. Some of the other questions are interesting and not good for the democrats this fall.

____________________

djneedle83:

The close senate races are like NBA playoff games. They basically remained tied until the last couple of minutes in the 4th quarter.

Tell me which candidate will be shooting the free throws for the shooting violations? Toomey has been put in a lockbox after seeing how Angle/Rand have been treated for looney toon politics.

Great tea-bag questions for Toomey
1) Will he console rap victims? (Angle)
2) Does he support eliminating unemployment benefits completely? (all teabaggers)
3) Does he support basic notions of the civil rights act that allows blacks to sit at white establishments. (The stupid bs with property rights whether the government has to right to intervene in these cases). (Paul)
4) Bush Tax Cuts- should we extend those, but extend unemployment benefits. (KYL)
5) Cutting the military budget?
6) Immigration reform?

____________________

Paleo:

That 8% unemployment in the Truman administration was a lie, FM. Statistics and charts were linked to establishment what the unemployment rates were between 1946 and beyond. Not only did they not support what you said about Truman, but they debunked your whole argument about the 1980 to 2010 being the best economic period in US history.

You come and say, "go ask any economist." To translate into your language: LOL.

____________________

Paleo:

I was referring to the April Q poll, which had Toomey down by 8 points.

____________________

Paleo:

"Obama is Reagan and will rebound. Remember, Carter was in the same spot too"

Your lack of knowledge of polling history is as bad as your knowledge of economic history. Both Reagan and Obama had to deal with deep recessions in their second year in office. Carter didn't. So, let's compare apples and apples.

____________________

Stillow:

Barry won PA with 55 percent.....now his re-el;ect # here is 40. If you want to talk about swings, then talk about Barry losing 15 points of support if the election were today. Other presidents were able to recover from bad numbers, Clinton because he ran to the right...and Reagan because he was a real leader who enacted the correct poliies which lead to recovery.

Poor barry. Its all falling apart on him.

____________________

SC Guy:

As others in this thread point out, the news that comes out of Pennsylvania of late is not good for the Dems. Obama's overall rating in this poll ties his worst ever and his individual ratings are even worse.
Sure Toomey is tied but they're poll in May only gave him a 2 point lead which is nothing. And Pennsylvanians are heavily against the federal healthcare bill. It seems that PA is finally starting to swing back to the right after dealing the GOP some heavy losses the past couple of election cycles.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Agreed Stillow. Comparing Obama to Reagan is like comparing rusty alloys to solid, 24k gold. [it's definitely not apples-to-apples] Reagan made all the right moves to bolster the economy AND he had to deal with interest rates in the teens! Can you imagine what our economy would look like today if we had the Dems' HORRIFIC economic policies coupled with sky-high interest rates?

To his credit, Bush II made many of the same moves and thus, the recession he inherited was one of the shallowest in history.

Hmmmmmmmm... evidence is mounting here....

____________________

CHRIS MERKEY:

it's basically tied right now without any ads or campaigning. ONce Sestak hits the TV showing Toomey's true colors than the numbers will improve for Sestak. I live in PA. I haven't seen a single ad for either of them or signs really except for one Sestak sign.

Instead of generic Republican, they should use actual candidates like Huckabee, Palin, who come with their own baggage. The numbers would be a lot different. The generic Republican is usally an ideal candidate that doesn't have some of the baggage that the Republican candidates might have. I think some in PA are disappointed in him that voted for him but in no way, would they vote for PAlin or Huckabee.

____________________

Paleo:

"Bush II made many of the same moves and thus, the recession he inherited was one of the shallowest in history."

He didn't inherit it. It started after he took office.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States

And his policies helped create the speculative bubbles and maldistribution of wealth that led to the Great Recession. And the lowest job growth in the post-WWII period:

http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2009/01/20/lowest-job-growth-since-wwii-under-george-w-bush/

____________________

Stillow:

FM - We would have no economy right now if rates were in the teens. I think the rate on my first house was 15.5 percent. If rates even climbed to 8 percent right now our system would collapse.

Our survival has been intertwined with the accessability to credit, if the cost of getting that credit goes up even a bit, we are in trouble.

I still do not beleive Dems have any clue how bad things are going to be for them in 2010 and 2012.

____________________

Stillow:

Paleo - Where can I get tickets to the fantasy world you live in? The economy went into "recession" in March of 2001, just so I understand, your saying Bush caused that? Can I assume you are also a truther and Bush planned 9/11 also....and by proxy its negative impact on the economy? Liberals love to forget that Bush inherited an economic mess and then that mess was amplified 9 months int ohis administration.

Bubbles? The tech bubble formed and popped under Clinton. The housing bubble was driven in large part by Fannie and Freddie providing incentives for bad loans. The poster boy for the wall street bubble was Bernie Madoff.....oh ya, Bernie was a big time Democrat!

Where Bush went wrong is not fighting hard enough to reform things like the Community reinvestment act hwich caused the housing bust....and he also could not control hsi spending the way republicans did in the 90's.

____________________

Field Marshal:

He didn't inherit it. It started after he took office.

You mean the month after he took office? Stop, you're looking foolish now.

And his policies helped create the speculative bubbles and maldistribution of wealth that led to the Great Recession. And the lowest job growth in the post-WWII period:

Which policies were those? Lower taxes? Greater incentives to save? Increased spending on education?

Again, foolish...

____________________

seg:

This will be an interesting election. Sestak is by far the more physically attractive candidate. If he can occupy the center and avoid the L-word tag, he has a decent chance.

If Toomey can soften his conservatism and gain the middle, he will win. He is helped by democrats stinking up the place in PA and nationally.

Note that more and more economic indicators seem to be trending downward, the latest being retail sales. I think there is a real chance that this election becomes completely nationalized and democrats undego a historic wipeout.

It will definitely happen if Republicans let Ryan, Cantor, Daniels, and Jindal put together a strongly positive package of reforms and sell them to the public.

If Republicans do not do something positive, then they may win only 25-40 seats in Congress and only 5 seats in the Senate. They will mop up governors' races, no matter what. The public is learning that democratic governmors are creatures of public employee unions who cannot manage the states' finances.

____________________

Paleo:

Inherited an economic mess? What world are you living in?

I'm not saying he caused the (mild) recession,. I'm just saying that he didn't "inherit" it.

And you won't see me defending much of Clinton's policies. Repealing Glass-Steagal and exempting derivatives from regulation occurred on his watch. The tech bubble was also on his watch. But the housing bubble wasn't the only thing responsible for the Great Recession. A lax regulatory environment and tax policy that encouraged excessive speculation also was responsible.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Good post Stillow.

The CRA was pittance compared to Fannie and Freddie which Bush tried to reform 7 years ago. Meanwhile, the Dems continue to funnel hundreds of billions of dollars to them quietly without ANY reform to them whatsoever. The fact that they left them out of the finreg bill is illustrating to their culpability to the problem.

Economic bubbles have been occurring for hundreds of years going back to the 15th century. Blaming Bush or conservative policies for them is just downright stupid.

Again, more wealth was created in the last 30 years than in all of history combined! To say that the last 30 years were not our best is completely ludicrous and intentionally obtuse.

____________________

Louis:

First of 2012 is two and a half f----king years from now trying to do polling on it is for the headlines but means nothing. Second the number of undecideds mean basically you are just getting the hardcore for each party and that appears to be about even. As for the Sestak and Toomey again as even as it gets, again puting a likley voter screen in a poll done three and a half months before the election would tell you very little. Starting in October likley voter screens do begin to make some sense,
In other words people come down all this poll tells us is there is very much a race which is still to be decided.

____________________

Paleo:

"To say that the last 30 years were not our best is completely ludicrous and intentionally obtuse."

Intentionally obtuse. You've described yourself perfectly. Because no matter how much *evidence* is offered to the contrary, you persist in your *opinion*. You certainly are entitled to your opinion, but not to the facts.

____________________

Xenobion:

Who keeps using "approval %" to = "vote %"? Stillow does! D- on the statistics exam.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Intentionally obtuse. You've described yourself perfectly. Because no matter how much *evidence* is offered to the contrary, you persist in your *opinion*. You certainly are entitled to your opinion, but not to the facts.

Wow, what an argumentative response? Basically equivalent to the old recess adage of "I know you are but what am i?"

What facts have you presented except left-wing nutty propaganda that is completely distorted?

____________________

Publius:

Stillow and Field Marshall:

Are you counting all of the times Reagan stealthily raised taxes to save the economy because the conservative's original ideas weren't working? How about Bush I actually doing the right thing and setting the stage for a recovery and surplus under Clinton?

The period from the late 1940s to the 1970s saw the greatest expansion of the middle class, the highest middle class buying power and the lowest level of personal debt of the post-war era. 1980-today saw an expansion and an explosion of wealth at the top of the income scale, but stagnation in the middle and huge personal and corporate debts. That's not the way to make lasting improvements in the country. And yes, Democrats had a hand in that too.

At least use your history correctly.

____________________

Stillow:

X must have not read past the first line as usual.

"If the 2012 election for President were being held today, do you think you would vote for Barack Obama the Democratic candidate, or the Republican candidate?
40% Obama, 41% Republican"

See X, thats not an approval #, that is a would you re-elect #...and its 15 poitns lower than his elect # in 2008.

I kno wbeing a liberal, who claims he is not one, though he supports libs 100 percent of the time keeps you busy, but reading does help my freind.

Reading Test - D.

____________________

vincent106:

@field

That is funny and very true. Paleo maybe you can tell us what period of time you think was better for our country?

____________________

Paleo:

Oh brother. Just look at the links I've posted the last two days, and compare them to the ones you're posted.

And you dismiss anything that disagrees with your position as "nutty left-wing propaganda." I guess a lot of you folks on the right do create your own reality.

____________________

Paleo:

vincent106:

The period roughly from 1948 to 1973. I suggest you consult the Bachman thread on this.

____________________

JPB11011:

@Publius

Are you old enough to remember the 70's let alone lived through them? I am. The 70's were a terrible time period for our country for everyone. Every here of stagflation that occured for more than half the decade? I'll tell you something, it's not a good thing. The 70's were awful for the middle class as inflation eroded their incomes energy prices killed their cash flow.

I think using the 40's as an example is not really applicable given that WWII greatly skews those numbers.

____________________

Xenobion:

"Barry won PA with 55 percent.....now his re-el;ect # here is 40. If you want to talk about swings, then talk about Barry losing 15 points of support if the election were today."

You flunked yourself Stillow... You somehow predispose that all undecideds in this poll vote for the generic Republican candidate? Thus keeping Obama at 40%? Yeah look at that amazing 15% swing that is not realistic.

____________________

Publius:

@JPB11011

Yes I am, but perhaps I should have been more specific. The period 1946-1973 was the most economically expansive. Clearly, the rest of the 70s were pretty bad.

As for WWII, even if you started the numbers in 1952, it would still be the most expansive period. But that's like saying, in the future, that if you included 2008 then your numbers would be skewed. You can only use what history gives you.

____________________

Paleo:

"The 70's were a terrible time period for our country for everyone. Every here of stagflation that occured for more than half the decade? I'll tell you something, it's not a good thing. The 70's were awful for the middle class as inflation eroded their incomes energy prices killed their cash flow."

I remember them. And they weren't as bad as you portray, and as the myth that's been created. There's a reason 1979 is you as a marking point for stats like real wages, real wage growth, and median income. Because the 1970s were actually a fairly good decade for job and wage growth. Inflation was the problem. But that followed the 1973 and 1979 oil shocks.

And it's perfectly legitimate to start the clock at circa 1948. There was a big burst of inflation after the war ended, but that was gone by then.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Toomey reminds me a lot like John Thune or JOhn Ensign (On the issues; not his personal life) because they don't come across as contreversial and present themselves in a more rational manner; not like Infofe, Demint, Bunning, or John Kyl, who make devisive statements.

This is why TOomey's favorables are up there. In Sestak's case, it is going to come down to Toomey's voting record, and Sestak's strength on foreign policy. PA's economy is in a mess, and Toomey wants to privatize social security.

____________________

Stillow:

X - No X, I called you out on your error where you said I was using approval = votes....which I was not. Like it or not, he has lost 15 points on those who would vote for him. He is at 40....get over it. You can play with undecideds all you want, the FACT is only 40 percent today say they would vote for Barry...that is a drop of 15 points no matter how you cut the pie. You can put your nice cozy spin on it, but it is what it is.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Paleo,

You realize you posted just one link on the Bachmann thread?

Anyway, back to the debate. I will cede you that the time period you cite, was a very good one. However, i would also state that the time period was also skewed, like JPB states, because of the depression and WWII. What you saw was the country rebounding from the horrible economic calamities from the 15 years before that period. I don't believe for one second that it can be replicated.

In addition, significantly more wealth was created during the last 30 years compared to the time period you cite- even adjusting them for equal durations.

Maybe you can help me by citing what economic policies from the period you believe contributed to that economic growth?

____________________

Field Marshal:
____________________

Xenobion:

"Like it or not, he has lost 15 points on those who would vote for him. He is at 40....get over it."

You really translate a push poll on voting vs. a generic republican candidate as a loss of 15%? You know elections involve typically 2 people do you?

Now if I was a Right-win-nut-job and I was asked this question... my dreamy candidate would have the body of Ronald Regan, the brain of Dick Cheney, the political fiendishness of Richard Nixon, and the eyes of Marlon Brando. That would pretty much take out Obama IMO.

____________________

Paleo:

True. Which is one more link than you posted there. But I cited information from previous links in some of the posts. And I've provided a link to real job growth in this thread.

As for your total net worth chart, so what? Given the bubbles in stocks and real estate that occurred more frequently in those years, it's not surprising. It's meaningless without taking into account the median net worth, and adjusting for inflation. I won't argue that the wealthy had a great 30 years. But that just supports the fact that there has been a maldistribution of wealth during that time. That's why the gap between the rich and everyone else grew, and why the gap between management and workers grew as well.

____________________

Stillow:

X - Nice try. But your falling flat on your face. Barry has lost 15 points....you look silly trying to claim that is not a bad thing. If people liked Barry, that 40 would be much higher. To go from 55 who voted for you, to 40 who say they would not vote for you is a very bad thing and it is a huge shift.

What the hell,all you libs are weak today....you guys usually put up a much better fight than this....everything from you ugys today is subpart. I'll write this one off as just a bad day for you guys, but I expect you back up to speed tomorrow.

____________________

Xenobion:

Good argument Stillow.

Lack of warrants... check
Lack of justification... check
Lack of any cogent thought of why... check

You'd be a great lawyer. Your logic is as sound as any hack lawyer who doesn't put any effort into their arguments.

You can go around and say, "heh heh come on dumb liberals, I thought you'd put up more of a fight." But it doesn't look so becoming when you're black and blue after 15 people have kicked your arguments in the ribs.

____________________

Field Marshal:

As for your total net worth chart, so what? Given the bubbles in stocks and real estate that occurred more frequently in those years, it's not surprising. It's meaningless without taking into account the median net worth, and adjusting for inflation. I won't argue that the wealthy had a great 30 years. But that just supports the fact that there has been a maldistribution of wealth during that time. That's why the gap between the rich and everyone else grew, and why the gap between management and workers grew as well.

The total net worth shows the amount of wealth the economy created. I think its very apt and shows the extent to which the economy expanded during the last few decades.

The inequality distribution ALWAYS expands during good times and contracts during bad times. That is fact. During the 30's the wealth gap dropped dramatically because the wealthy became much poorer. During the boom, the wealthy got much richer. That is not a bad thing contrary to most liberal thinking. The reason is that the economic environment was altered so that entrepreneurship, productivity, and capitalism could thrive. And thus, many people took advantage becoming very wealthy.

Also, i question the use of the start year 1948. Why pick that date? The reason most pick 1980 was because 1981 was the start of a completely different economic/political philosophy. As far as your time period, there is little correlation between Truman and Eisenhower/Kennedy and LBJ/NIxon. There really is three different economic philosophies during the period.

Maybe you can cite what aspects of their economic philosophies you feel are responsible for the great growth (and i will cede you there was) during the time period you cite?

____________________

Stillow:

X - Checkmate. thank you.

____________________

Poll Troll:

35% approval or less by next summer, guaranteed.

____________________

Paleo:

"The inequality distribution ALWAYS expands during good times and contracts during bad times. That is fact."

Whether it is or not is not relevant. Check the inequality in the 1948-1973 period and compare it to your period. You'll find one with far less inequality than the other. That's the point.

"Also, i question the use of the start year 1948. Why pick that date? The reason most pick 1980 was because 1981 was the start of a completely different economic/political philosophy. As far as your time period, there is little correlation between Truman and Eisenhower/Kennedy and LBJ/NIxon. There really is three different economic philosophies during the period."

Through Democratic and Republican presidents, the same basic economic philosophy governed. After all, it was Nixon who said "we are all Keynesians now" as he imposed wage and price controls. Something no Democratic president had done in "peace time."

____________________

seg:

1970s:
Saying the 1970's were great except for the inflation is like saying my feet are fine except for the gout.

In both cases, when it is bad, it is awful. Making it go away is everything. Thatcher and Reagan are my heroes for that reason (and for several others). After having campaigned for him, I came to loathe Jimmy Carter for his all-round fecklessness. Dealing with inflation was just one example.

When it is as high as the Carter years, it produces widespread suffering and widespread distortions in economic behavior. You spent every penny of income because saving was for fools. With the high taxation rate, if you were rich you invested heavily in money-losing enterprises. Furthermore, statistics on income growth and standard of living become nearly meaningless.

I remember that time extremely well. Your standard of living depended on when you got your mortgage as much as your income level. If you had a variable rate mortgage, you were truly screwed.

As high as inflation was, it was under-reported greatly. As a major labor leader once testified to Congress, a can of meat balls and spagheti went from 5 meatballs to 3. That kind of deterioration in quality was ubiquitous. The world of products became steadily shoddier in front of our eyes.

If you were on a fixed income, you were f*****. As a low-paid state regulator at the time, my income was frozen for 3 years. I had to take increasing additional outside work just to keep even. It had nothing to do with what I regulated, of course.

In one way it was good for me, personally: I learned that finding a market for your skills and learning skills for the market are infinitely better than depending on the government to show basic competence and take care of you.

____________________

Paleo:

Widespread suffering? Must have been all that disco dancing and polyester. As I posted above, the Carter years were very good for job growth:

http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2009/01/20/lowest-job-growth-since-wwii-under-george-w-bush/

And the capital gains rate was cut during the Carter years. So, I would think you would have been pleased.

The tax rates were just as "high," if not higher from 1948 to 1973. Periods of economic growth with low inflation. So much for the "high rate of taxation" boogeyman.

____________________

seg:

Reagan:
Pointing out that Reagan was not a knee-jerk conservative is accurate and a great tribute to him. No leader should be inflexible. No good leader ever has been.

The odd thing is that was that liberals then and since criticized him as if he had been unthinkingly rigid, not to mention as being a light-weight, callous, cowboy warmonger.

Typically, they were dead wrong on every count. He was a serious (if unoriginal) political philosopher, he cared deeply about people and about avoidance of nuclear war, he invaded one country (Grenada) and left Lebanon with all due humility and resolve not to put troops into such a stupid position again.

Oddly, although many conservatives worship him now, they did not during much of his first term. However, their criticisms were nothing compared to liberals, whose criticism was ferocious and unrelenting. Many often spoke of impeaching him and tried to use Contra-gate as a vehicle for it.

Funny, looking back, Eisenhower, Reagan, and Bush I actually look pretty darn good. Neither liberals nor conservatives seem to know when they are well off.

____________________

seg:

Paleo:
"Widespread suffering?"
As I recall, the "misery index" was the highest ever. I can tell you from personal observation that it was a terrible time to be a working man.

Were you there? You speak so dismissively of "disco dancing and polyester." You also did not respond to the bad things I pointed out. Will you tell blacks years from now that "must have been all that hip-hop and break-dancing" if they complain that the Obama years really were not good times?

Although Carter did not speak use the words "national malais," they captured what he meant very well. He was right about that one thing.

____________________

Xenobion:

Good argument Stillow.

Lack of warrants... check
Lack of justification... check
Lack of any cogent thought of why... check

You'd be a great lawyer. Your logic is as sound as any hack lawyer who doesn't put any effort into their arguments.

You can go around and say, "heh heh come on dumb liberals, I thought you'd put up more of a fight." But it doesn't look so becoming when you're black and blue after 15 people have kicked your arguments in the ribs.

Don't throw the game before its over Stillow, you've been doing it for a year now. Stop playing chess on the football field, you're bound to get sacked time and time again!

____________________

Paleo:

"As I recall, the "misery index" was the highest ever."

That was in the last year or so of his presidency. I'm not saying he was a good president. In fact, I think he was a lousy president. But statistics don't lie. There was strong job growth during his tenure.

And, for the average working man, things have gotten worse since 1979. Loss of manufacturing jobs, loss of pension benefits, stagnant real wages and income, and paying more for health care.

____________________

Stillow:

X - My poor freind, no games. It is you who play games...claiming, I'm no liberal, I'm no liberal....yet you cannot point to a single thread where you do not tow the liberal line....then you get irritated when somoene calls you out on it. Just like you did here in this thread when you setup your strawman about approval=votes.....then when I had to quote you the poll since you clearly didn't read it, you changed the subject and try to lowe rthe debate into one of your fun little gotcha sessions.

You lost. The poll shows a drop of 15 points in those who voted for him and would do so again....everyone reading ti can see it....all your tactics of distraction don't work on those not easily fooled. you got called out on your misleading accusation....just like you do for being called a liberal.......and it eats you up inside.

No worries, the readers can decide...and based on your statements, it makes it pretty easy.

____________________

Field Marshal:

That ridiculous. Things have gotten substantially better since 1979. Wages are stagnant in real terms because of the embedded health care costs. When you include full benefits into wages, real wages have increased sharply.

Secondly, income mobility has increased substantially. After 1980, you were more than 3 times as likely to move up an income quintile than you were prior to Reagan. Thus, people were able to move up the income chain, so to speak, much more rapidly.

Thirdly, manufacturing job losses is because of huge advances in productivity. I guess we can go back to everything being done by hand and all consumer goods costing 10x as much but that would probably suck for most of us.

Lastly, pension benefits are destroying this country. Defined benefit plans are decreasing our competitive advantage. All plans should be shifted to defined contribution plans anyway.

In terms of the last 30 years though, quality of life has skyrocketed. The cost of goods has dropped dramatically thanks to Walmart, free trade, technology advancements, etc. Today, the avg person works for less than 3 days to pay for their food for the month. 50 years ago, its was longer than 2 weeks! Flying, electronics, AC, livable square footage per person, clothing, cars; virtually everything the average person buys has dropped significantly over the last 30 years in terms of the number of days of work it takes to acquire those goods. Thus, standard of living has increased DRAMATICALLY.

Liberals favor European type economic philosophies. From 1980 to 2009, real GDP per person - the best broad measure of both productivity and standard of living - grew 6% faster in the U.S. than in Europe. Sounds like a small difference, but it isn't. In 1980, the average American produced just $4,500 more in GDP, after adjusting for inflation, than the average European. Today, the gap is $8,236 - and growing wider.

____________________

Xenobion:

I'm an independent. Not hard to understand. I'm pro-gun rights towing the republican party and NRA. Don't label me what you want me to be to fit me into your straw-man arguments.

I think I deliver a decent point here and there when I'm not trolling you or Field Marshall. Its so easy to square peg me into being a liberal because you really don't want to do the work, to think of sound logical arguments. So sad...

____________________

Paleo:

Where did you pull those stats out of? On second thought, don't bother. I can probably guess.

"Secondly, income mobility has increased substantially. After 1980, you were more than 3 times as likely to move up an income quintile than you were prior to Reagan. Thus, people were able to move up the income chain, so to speak, much more rapidly.

Thirdly, manufacturing job losses is because of huge advances in productivity. I guess we can go back to everything being done by hand and all consumer goods costing 10x as much but that would probably suck for most of us.

Lastly, pension benefits are destroying this country. Defined benefit plans are decreasing our competitive advantage. All plans should be shifted to defined contribution plans anyway."

As to the last point: stick it to the workers. Typical of an economic elitist.

Mechanization was going on for a long time prior to 1980. The difference in the last 30 years is governmental policies, tax and so-called "trade agreements," that have made it easier for manufacturers to outsource jobs in their search for cheap labor.

Income mobility? Yeah, that works downwards as well as upwards. Tell that to a former manufacturing worker whose pay and benefits at Wal-Mart pale in comparison to what he or she were making before. But I'm sure you're pleased with that because it fits into your elitist, cheap labor, philosophy.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Yeah, why would i bother? Clearly you've been so indoctrinated with lies and misinformation from the likely loony-left sources that you would never alter your opinion. I've studied economic history for a long time, got a masters in Economics, and work in the field. But i'm sure i know nothing. Keep on drinking the kool-aid. The stupidity of your comment about outsourcing workers demonstrates to me that you are beyond hope in educating you on the subject. Most liberals, including the dumbo in the White House, are.

____________________

Stillow:

X - If you can point to a single comment in a thread where you are not a lock step liberal, please do so. Until then....shhhhh!

____________________

Paleo:

Well clearly your education was restricted to one economic school of thought. You sound as if you swallowed a Von Hayek book with a Chicago school chaser, and never absorbed anything further. Your statement that pensions are destroying this country is all I need to know. And on Bastille Day yet.

____________________

Xenobion:

How bout this one... where I said I like guns. There ya go Stillow. I know its hard to think of independents who are split on issues between Dems/Republicans. But typically I'm not throwing my ideology here, I'm typically placing my opinion on a poll. Something you should learn to deal with.

____________________

Stillow:

X - Nice try. You hve been posting a long time I have never seen you disagree with barry or any liberal policies i na single thread. i asked you to point to one and you cannot do it. I will try in the future to find instances where you are not a lock step liberal. Until then, the label will stick. throwing out soemthing today in your defense doesn't hold water. points for trying, but nothing more.

____________________



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