Mode: Live Telephone Interviews
Registered Voters (n=2,798,2%)
Obama 52, McCain 42
**Likely Voters Expanded** (n=2,277,2%)
Obama 51, McCain 44
Likely Voters - Traditional (n=2,590,2%)
Obama 49, McCain 46
Well, whatever happened with the expanded likely model yesterday seems to have gone away, and we are back with the more or less expected relationship between the three reported figures.
Posted on October 19, 2008 1:50 PM
My theory on the next 15 days...Obama holds 6-8% lead for next 5 days, drops 1-2 points by next Monday. Has his 30 minute prime time address. Pushes over the top based on that.
McCain camp throws whole house at Obama...Slides off like oil.
Posted on October 19, 2008 2:16 PM
Numbers are just as steady as ever. Looks like we're seeing support solidify for both candidates at these levels. Certainly not good for McCain.
Posted on October 19, 2008 2:17 PM
Zogby, Obama +3
Rasmussen, Obama +6
Diageo Hotline, Obama +7
Gallup Expanded Model, Obama +7
Research 2000/Daily Kos, Obama +7
Weighted average of 6 but modal outcome of 7.
Posted on October 19, 2008 2:18 PM
CNN's Zakaria just endorsed Obama at the end of his Sunday program. He had an harsh assessment of McCain's foreign policy positions (he said McCain wants to start the cold war again) and very nice words about Obama.
Posted on October 19, 2008 2:19 PM
Nice and stable, looking very good for Obama.
Posted on October 19, 2008 2:20 PM
thanks for the calculations, zogbys on crack!
Posted on October 19, 2008 2:21 PM
I just found out that the DNC raised $50M in September, so that is $200M combined. No wonder why the Republicans are all desperate. For the first time the Democrats have more money than Republicans.
Posted on October 19, 2008 2:28 PM
Join my campaign to boycott RealClearPolitics.com
My exchange with RCP's Tom Bevan:
"Hannity and Colmes?
You are now a right wing website and no one can
dispute it. It's been fun. I logged many visits to RCP when it portrayed itself as a moderate website but I won't be back."
Tom's response makes no effort to dispute RCP’s right-wing slant:
“ So anyone who appears on hannity and colmes is right wing? Please. You can decide for yourself whether my analysis is accurate or not, but the idea that appearing on that show somehow taints rcp is beyond juvenile.
I assume you sent an email to mike brown (who appeared with me) saying that you'll never listen to his radio show again. If that's how you operate, GOOD RIDDANCE. Tb”
“Thank you for your response. It will soon be posted on
several mainstream blogs.
It's not the appearances on Fox News that have tainted
RCP, it's the overwhelming right-leaning analysis.
If I sound juvenile it's only because RCP used to be
my favorite website for politics, specifically since
it used to do a great job of remaining objective. I am
disappointed to see that is no longer the case.
I'm not alone in seeing how you have shifted
remarkably to the right this season - read the blogs
and you'll see how many people have filed RCP under
"another right-wing outlet."
The evidence is overwhelming. The way the site picks
and chooses the polls it decides to include is just
There is nothing wrong with being a right-wing site as
long as you come right out and say it. Huffington
Post has no qualms about being Leftist anymore than
Hugh Hewitt's blog is proud to be Right.
If you're trying to be a moderate site then be a
moderate site like you once were. But if you're going
to pick sides (as you have clearly chosen to do) why
not just come out an proudly endorse McCain? What are
you afraid of?
"Good riddance" you say? Perhaps my fellow bloggers
and me should start a campaign to boycott RCP
completely. There are plenty of Lefties who still
visit your site, even with its well-documented bias.
And I'm sure if traffic deceased on RCP, your answer
would be "good riddance," right?
Have a nice day. I wish you and your website the best
Posted on October 19, 2008 2:30 PM
boomcrap, nowhere t obe found!
boom = racist loser
Posted on October 19, 2008 2:33 PM
The 150M is the most meaningful development in my mind. I thought that Obama would be happy for even 100M, but 150M is just incredible. Isn't that about as much money as Bush spent on his ENTIRE 2000 campaign?
Posted on October 19, 2008 2:45 PM
What turns me off posting or reading a site is not bias, I can allow for that. It is when a site is taken over by those who just wish to post insults and hate filled tirades.
Those whe post comments such as calling a candidate a moron or a barbie or things even more disgusting are not debating nor are they making intelligent and civil commment.
Thankfully we don't get much of that here and nor do I see it on RCP. The reader's articles are usually strongly pro-McCain and anti-Obama but reading the heading and the blurb for a particular article usually tells you if it is worth reading.
Daily Kos became unreadable for me many months ago. It is not a site for analysis or debate, only cheerleading for Obama is tolerated.
But of course I see the world through pro-McCain spectacles so others will doubtless disagree. That's debate.
Posted on October 19, 2008 2:48 PM
This only probe that in fact Republicans have become the Democrat's biggest fundraising drive. I think that the rethoric at the Republican Convention just fired up Democrats across this country. Likewise, Michelle B. the MN congresswoman who ranted against Obama and the Democrats in congress helped her opponent raised $500,000 in 24 hours :-)!!!!
Her Democratic opponent, Mr. Ed Tinklenberg had raised $1M in the whole election cycle since launching his campaign back in late September, 2007. Then, on Oct. 17, 2008 she goes on national television and puts her foot in her mouth and Mr. Tinklenberg raises in 24 hours, half the money he raised in 1 year. She really became his best asset :-)!!!
Posted on October 19, 2008 2:54 PM
The only reason Sen. Obama raised $150 million dollars is because of Palin. It it was Mitt on the ticket maybe he would raised $100. Folks are disgusted with Palin, and showed it with their $$ and support.
Posted on October 19, 2008 2:59 PM
Listen up guys... the Michele Bachmann "saga" doesn't stop:
"Bachmann’s 'anti-American' remarks prompt write-in candidacy of GOP’s Immelman"
Now, another Republican is also challenging her, as if she didn't have enough with El Tinklenberg's anew campaign. I told you, this woman is just a disgrace. The DCCC is using her video for a fundraising drive to fill the coffers of Democratic challengers across the country. I got the email this morning and saw the video again. Man, I had to send $25 to the DCCC. Every time I see that woman my blood boils.
Posted on October 19, 2008 3:03 PM
huge huge turnout in nc today for obama, obama looks like he is really gonna use the powell endorsemant bigtime!
Posted on October 19, 2008 3:04 PM
I donated $20.00 every time I heard McCain or Palin say Ayers.
I had to turn off the TV or I was going to go broke. Then they Robo called me during dinner just to make sure I knew Obama had sat on a board of a republican charity with Ayers, I gave Obama $200.00 after that call.
I'm tapped out this cycle, so now my wife and son are contributing to Sen. Obama's efforts.
The "But he's a scary black man who has a Muslim name and might be a terrorist" election pan is not going to work for McCain.
Posted on October 19, 2008 3:07 PM
Point taken, though I'm on the other side of the aisle.
For the most part, the dialogue here is even-tempered. Maybe I'm naive, but 90% (there's that number again!) of the back and forth between Boomshak and his adversaries has a semi-humorous tone to it, even when the needle is more like a stiletto. I find the same somewhat elevated tone in campaigndiaries.com, also a moderate Left site. But dive into politico.com, and you'll feel like you're in a toxic swamp - the hatred that cycles through those posts, coming from both sides, is beyond belief.
I hope that McCain wakes up tomorrow and realizes where is is, and thinks about how history will view him. I believe that it was Mondale in 84 who said he wanted to spend the last 2 weeks of the campaign conducting himself in a fashion that he could discuss with his grandchildren with pride. If McCain loses, he remains an important part of the solution to our intractable crises. Screaming about anti-Americanism and creeping socialism won't make that any easier.
McCain would have lost without Palin, just in a more boring way. Now when they lose, it will make highly visible the moral and political bankruptcy of the Rovian revolution, since she will undoubtedly be seen by moderate repubs as a symbol of where their party has gone wrong.
Watch as the revolution eats its own children.
Posted on October 19, 2008 3:09 PM
The 150M is the most meaningful development in my mind.
I think what's even more incredible is that there were 632,000 brand new first-time donors! To be gaining that kind of momentum this late in the game is nothing short of remarkable.
Posted on October 19, 2008 3:12 PM
You are just like me. I am also maxed out with the Obama campaign, so I started giving money to the DNC. You know, helping in any possible way, "my friend" :-)!!!!
Posted on October 19, 2008 3:13 PM
Absolutely true. Palin marks the end of the anti-intellectual, fundamentalist control of the GOP. We'll probably see a return to a more "Libertarian" GOP after this. Thankfully, too. I'm sick of hearing about "God, guns and gays".
Posted on October 19, 2008 3:14 PM
I am voting 10-23. The heck with these polls. All you have to do is go out vin the street and sniff the win. McCain might draw closer because some voters especially older one's will be afraid of change. But it's coming and this is a lull before Obama's last push. McCain whining about campaign finance. How many nominee's could do what is Obama is doing. Just like in DEM primary's. Obama takes advantage of the rules. I don't see buncha Presidential candidates in future opting out of election finance. Obama is a once in a time candidate. Last nite I almost lost it because I hate discussing politics in public. Conversation came up and this guy lives out rural area started saying that blacks had already made T-Shirts saying "My President is Black." I was like man I don't wanna get into it. It's useless. That's all they see is a black guy. Another guy I work with big DEM. He lives out in heavy Republican rural area here in Indiana. He put up Obama/Biden sign. Someone threw a dirty diaper in his yard. He just laughs. I think it's just freaking sad and I am Irish/Catholic white.
Posted on October 19, 2008 3:18 PM
There is some sickening stuff happening out there:
Posted on October 19, 2008 3:19 PM
It would be great if the Republicans returned to more of a center party, like they were before Ronald Reagan's extreme conservatism took hold.
Posted on October 19, 2008 3:21 PM
Well, those people are just lost cause, period. There is nothing we can do to educate that part of the population. They are who they are, and we are who we are.
The nice thing is that we have made history already. We got the First AA nominee for a major party ticket. With our help, he has become the biggest fundraiser in American history, and with our help, he has developed the biggest, best organized campaign in US history as well. This is remarkable on its face :-)!!!
Posted on October 19, 2008 3:23 PM
Another fair and balanced McCain supporter:
Notice Likely Voters Expanded went up from 4 to 7 in one day.............That is a big improvement for Obama......Now we can look forward to winning this thing !
is there any danger that networks may alter there party id advantage this week to play into a mccain comeback narrative? it would be pretty annoying!
Posted on October 19, 2008 3:28 PM
Networks may but credible pollster like Rassmussen wouldnt. You have to give him credit, despoite being a republican, his numbers have been very consistent and solid this election
Posted on October 19, 2008 3:31 PM
Bet the entire farm that it will be the case. Always pay attention to the party ID and compare it to the previous poll from that same organization. They change party ID to make things look the way they want it. Let's see :-)
Posted on October 19, 2008 3:32 PM
By the way, just in case, since it should not be forgotten:
Non-tracker national polls tend not to weight by party ID (eg LA Times/Bloom). We are getting rapidly to the stage where it is in everyone's interest to get it right, I think; but I'm an optimist.
Posted on October 19, 2008 3:34 PM
Gallup's LV model is just bizarre.
I will continue to just look at the RV poll as Obama's "best case scenario."
Seems that this house is near Hicks Blvd. Should explain it.
Research 2000 for Daily Kos. 10/15-16. Likely voters. MoE 4.5% (9/22-24 results)
McCain (R) 49 (52)
Obama (D) 45 (39)
Schweitzer (D) 57
Brown (R) 40
Posted on October 19, 2008 3:38 PM
These Republicans don't know what to do to keep people from voting. Isn't exercising one's right to vote the main point in Democracy?
Now they are whining about NC:
"State GOP lashes out at extra polling sites"
Posted on October 19, 2008 3:40 PM
"Tinklenberg hits $620,000 in donations"
Thank You, Rep. Michele Bachmann :-)!!!!!!!!
Posted on October 19, 2008 3:41 PM
IBD/TIPP Tracking Poll
(touted as the most accurate in 2004)
Obama - 47.2%
McCain - 39.8%
Unsure - 13.0%
What is crazy about this poll apart from its Undecideds, is McCain wins the 18-24 age group 53-41 and Obama wins the middle groups and they almost tie on the over 65 group
Posted on October 19, 2008 3:46 PM
For you lib haters: Maybe Michele Bachmann is right...maybe we do need an investigation into which congress members are pro-american, and which are anti-american.
Posted on October 19, 2008 3:49 PM
did they early voting set up around the st louis rally?
Posted on October 19, 2008 3:52 PM
Dude! You crack my up.
It is boring here without BOOM
I can pretend to be Boomshak if it will make you feel better.
McCain within 2 points (rounding down) of Obama in Zogby who is the only trustworthy pollster. Also Obama is a commie and no one cares about Colin Powell and money won't win this election.
Posted on October 19, 2008 3:57 PM
The TIPP tracking poll shows McCain leading Obama with 18-24 year olds by 10%. This same poll shows Obama getting more Republican support then McCain getting Democratic support, plus Obama leads by 2% with independents.
Posted on October 19, 2008 3:58 PM
Thanks mandalorianarmy, I needed my fix of the day :)
'Socialist,' 'Muslim' — Ugly reception for Obama
By: Politico Staff
October 19, 2008 03:54 PM EST
Barack Obama's stop at Cape Fear BBQ and Chicken in Fayetteville, N.C., this afternoon underscored the continued resistance of some voters to his candidacy — and his identity. The trip, according to a pool report, offered “some powerful and at times ugly interaction.”
Campaigning in a traditionally Republican state, the Democratic nominee found lots of supporters of John McCain, at least one woman who believes the Illinois senator is a "closet Muslim" — and another who repeatedly shouted “Socialist.”
The following is a compilation of pool reports from print, TV and wire reporters who accompanied Obama to the diner:
Obama arrived at the barbecue joint around 12:30 p.m., where an older and majority white clientele of several dozen were eating lunch after church services. Many patrons applauded as he walked into the diner, but Diane Fanning, 54, began yelling “Socialist, socialist, socialist — get out of here!”
Obama did not look directly at her, as she was across the diner, but it was loud enough that he most likely heard her.
The gentleman next to Fanning, Lenox Bramble, 76, flashed an angry look at her. “Be civil, be courteous,” he admonished her. Another woman, Cecilia Hayslip, 61, yelled back at Fanning (per Reuters), “At least he’s not a warmonger!”
Bramble told Reuters’ pooler that he wasn’t voting for Obama because he didn’t think he had enough experience. Bramble’s wife, Kit, 75, said after meeting Obama, “He was very nice,” but added she’d been a conservative Republican since Barry Goldwater’s era and said she wouldn’t vote for Obama.
Fanning said she’d heard that former Secretary of State Colin Powell had endorsed Obama but said that “Colin Powell is a RINO, R-I-N-O, Republican In Name Only.”
Later, Obama came to the long table where Fanning and other members of a local First Presbyterian church were gathered. He held out his hand to her and asked, “How are you, ma’am?” but she declined to shake his hand.
Fanning asked Obama about a North American union, and Obama responded: “Well, you know, I am opposed to it if it were happening. But it doesn’t seem to be actually be happening. The truth of the matter is there is no plans. I’ve talked to a lot of people, including folks down in Texas. There’s no plan to create a common government between Mexico, U.S. and Canada. That’s just not … that’s just not happening. I know some people have been hearing rumors about it. But as far as I can tell, that’s just not something that’s happening. We would never give up our sovereignty in that way. Any other questions?
In an interview, Fanning said, “I still think he’s a closet Muslim.”
Obama spoke at length with many of the others parishioners at the long banquet table and got a much friendlier reception as he spoke about health care, taxes and Social Security. Fanning told your pooler, “Some of ‘em are just nicer than I am. I know how some of ‘em think.”
But several of her fellow churchgoers said their support was genuine.
Betty Waylett, 76, told Obama, “You’re doing a great job.” She told your pooler that she is a Republican but that she will vote for Obama because she likes the way he speaks and his manner. Waylett, who is white, said Obama’s race is not a factor. “I never thought about it one way or the other.”
Pastor Randal Bremer, also at the table, said Obama told him, “Whether you vote for me or not, I’ll need your prayers.”
“I’m very impressed by his ability to meet people on a down-to-earth level,” Bremer said in an interview. He said that he would pray for Obama but that he planned to vote for McCain, mostly because he prefers smaller government and McCain’s position on the Iraq war. He thinks there have been important gains in Iraq, and “I don’t want to see that damaged by a premature pullout.”
Mike Long, 33, a first-time voter in furniture sales, said after talking with Obama about health care that he’d gone from less than 50 percent likely to vote for him to “98 percent” likely.
Sheila Evans, 39, who is biracial, told Obama, “I’m so proud of you.” She told your pooler Obama had chosen a restaurant frequented more by whites, while one a couple of doors down had predominantly African-American diners on Sundays.
But some of the other older white diners looked surprised and slightly uncomfortable as Obama stopped at their tables to shake hands. “I’m surprised, but I’m not going to say anything else,” said Pat Smith, who was joined by her husband.
A group of six retired women said they were mostly Democrats — but mostly undecided about how to vote.
“I have to pray about it, think about what’s best for our country,” said Dorothy Buie, one of the women.
Obama ordered some food to go for himself and his aides. They ordered chicken, collards, baked beans, slaw and wings. The tab was $13.91. The visit lasted about half an hour.
Posted on October 19, 2008 4:05 PM
Obama.. not afraid to go into the lion's den. Bush would never ever do that, nor would McCain. That's leadership folks.
Posted on October 19, 2008 4:08 PM
What exactly constitutes a "pro-American" Congressperson vs an "anti-American" Congressperson? Who exactly would come up with the criteria, and how would we know it's objective?
I know responding your question with a serious response kind of gives credence to the idea in general, and that's certainly not what I'm trying to do by responding. I'm just pointing out that realistically speaking, your suggestion can't be realized. It would just lead us down the path of national paranoia and hysteria. We'd might as well bring back the Salem witch hunts.
Also, have you seen the old videos of McCarthy, and do you know what McCarthyism lead to in America? I'll give you a hint, it wasn't an increase in "Americanism".
Posted on October 19, 2008 4:09 PM
Guys, Obama is a confident man. It won't hurt his feelings that someone "thinks" or "calls" him X or Y. He knows whom he is and doesn't need anybody to tell him. His mother in heaven must be proud of her son. No doubt she did an excelent job raising Barack :-)
Posted on October 19, 2008 4:11 PM
does rasmussen only push those who are torn between mccain and obama, and not force a 3rd party voter to choose obama or mac?
Posted on October 19, 2008 4:14 PM
McCain defended Palin in an interview with Wallace by saying:
“As a cold political calculation, I could not be more pleased."
Wow . . . And somehow, we're supposed to believe that he put country first in selecting Palin.
Her candidacy is a cold political calculation?
Posted on October 19, 2008 4:15 PM
That story about going to NC shows how Obama is willing to meet with some of the worst people this country has to offer (the ones shouting socialist or muslim) and to try to bring people together. Some people are too stubborn or too tainted with racist thoughts to get their heads outta their asses but others can be persuaded.
I highly doubt McCain could handle a hostile crowd as cooly or as calmly as Obama.
Posted on October 19, 2008 4:16 PM
its not only how the 18-24s vote that are crazy in the IBD/TIPP POLL, in the space of a week obamas hispanic support has grown 28 points.
Posted on October 19, 2008 4:20 PM
Can't we just be honest? Joe the FAKE plumber is a NON story. He owns nothing, doesn't pay his already high taxes anyways, and makes 40,000 per year. He has a **** job in the co., no license, and could NEVER get a bank loan to buy the business. The entire story is STUPID and once again shows the intellectual prowess of Republican low income followers. Good Bye GOP.
Posted on October 19, 2008 4:22 PM
I don't believe for a second that McCain is winning the 18-24 group like the IBD/TIPP Poll is saying.
Just look at a few days before in their Day 3 poll and you see what a big margin in 18-24 he had just a few days ago.
Posted on October 19, 2008 4:26 PM
State your case on taxes without insulting a plumber.
"Spread the Wealth" How did H. Long's career end?
The anti-american congressmen & women are the ones who are collaborating with the terrorists and refuse to bomb iran.
Posted on October 19, 2008 4:28 PM
Yeah, Obama is amazing. What a president he will make if he wins.
Posted on October 19, 2008 4:30 PM
Obama talks about the US military "killing civilians" while Powell actually killed civilians...
Posted on October 19, 2008 4:31 PM
I think it's time for another call to the police, FBI, and all necessary authorities. It's to scary what is going on.
ABP: Boomshak is missing again. Likely hiding in hole after another week of misery at polls. Please send Gov Palin and see if she can use her legs to lure him out his hole again. Please suggest Boom move to Alaska to prevent this happening again.
Posted on October 19, 2008 4:33 PM
Dude! what do you smoke? Me too, me too , I want too!
Posted on October 19, 2008 4:36 PM
Nice (heavy sarcasm). I was wondering when the Republicans would be going after Powell. It really is sad. You don't like the message so the messanger is a terrible person.
Posted on October 19, 2008 4:37 PM
Huey Long was assassinated. What are you trying to say?
Posted on October 19, 2008 4:38 PM
I have lived in Fayetteville NC all my life and I can tell you there are some nasty deep south people here. This is also a military town thanks to its close proximity to Fort Bragg, so there are a lot of republicans here. The fact that Obama came here and was able to socialize with some of the deep southernerns really shows his calmness and great character.
I also don't want to seem like I'm only bashing Fayetteville, the city is growing and it is an extremely diverse city thanks to the military connections, so we are able to interact with MANY different people of all races and cultures. I've seen many Obama signs here (although more McCain) but it is a big difference from the last election when I don't remember seeing a single Kerry-Edwards sign. I really hope NC goes blue this election.
I apologize for the Powell remark... maybe I should just insult a plumber.
Posted on October 19, 2008 4:39 PM
Thank you for the info. Lets all hope it goes blue :)
Posted on October 19, 2008 4:40 PM
The Republicans should have taken the lessons learned from the 2006 elections when the Dems moved a little center to capture the House and Senate. The Republicans constant running to the base (which is far right) only alienates center right, center and center left independents. These election losses can be laid squarely at the feet of Rove who was the architect of building a reliable base on the christian right and garnering just enough of the center independents to winn elections. But once in power the Reps did not do enough to satisfy their base and went too far right to maintain the moderates. This will be the challenge of the Dems. They need to govern as a centrist party which helps all Americans not just those that vote Democratic.
Posted on October 19, 2008 4:45 PM
And Republicans wonder why they're losing this election . . . you hammered all of the moderates Tom Delay style when they didn't agree with the party line. Now, all thats left are the rabid supporters that would swear that the last eight years were the best on Earth.
I'm not a Republican... I'm just alarmed at the cult of personality being created. No one ask Him about taxes or His propoganda arm will crush you!
Posted on October 19, 2008 4:51 PM
I was the media that uncovered and has been taling about Joe the plumber; not Obama. It was McCain that brought him up in the debate. The media was just wanting Joe's reaction to his new found publicity. They checked his background, probably to find a good narrative in which to present his story. Once the media found out what it did, they had a journalistic responsibility to tell that narrative.
Posted on October 19, 2008 4:55 PM
Seriously though, care to explain the reference to Huey Long getting killed in our discussion of this year's election?
Name me one example when Obama has refused to talk about his tax plan when asked. What Obama and his supporters object to and will not address with any seriousness are these heavy-handed fear-mongering labels (socialist) thrown around not for the purpose of prompting substantive discussion of the issue, but only for knee-jerk political gain.
Posted on October 19, 2008 5:01 PM
I would say that Gen Powell pretty much put McCain's 'socialist' attacks to rest - although McCain will continue to use it since it's just about all he has left. Like the General said, the tax policy of this nation since it's inception has always been a 'redistribution of the wealth' - it's just been redistributed to the filthy rich. To call it socialism is far-reaching and inaccurate.
But, keep going there since it's all you have left. I'll be interest to see how long it takes for Rev Wright to become a fixture of the campaign. McCain has repeatedly forbid it, but as a last resort, I guarantee you the hillbilly-half-wit-she-bush will start bringing it up over and over again.
Posted on October 19, 2008 5:03 PM
He will not take any questions regarding the subject. Axelrod was asked how Obama would define a $250K small business, is it net, gross, receipts, inventory? Axelrod's answer... well I will have to get back to you on that.
Posted on October 19, 2008 5:04 PM
MSM would rather look into a plumber who asked Obama a question than look into... oh I don't know... let's say Bill Ayers.
Posted on October 19, 2008 5:06 PM
Axelrod's answer... well I will have to get back to you on that.
You mean like how Palin still has to get back to Katie Couric on just exactly how John McCain is a 'maverick'? Still waiting on that one.
Posted on October 19, 2008 5:07 PM
How does Powell put the socialism charge to rest? Powell spoke in front of the UN in support of this ill-advised war... now he backs Obama because of generational changes.?!
Posted on October 19, 2008 5:09 PM
"He will not take any questions regarding the subject."
He sure seemed to take plenty of questions about it from Joe the pseudo-plumber, despite the fact that Joe clearly had no intention of voting for him.
"Axelrod's answer... well I will have to get back to you on that."
Boy, that sure is a fine example of Obama's "propaganda arm" crushing the questioner then, isn't it.
My point is, be more accurate and less hyperbolic in your posts if you wish to be taken for something other than an "in-the-tank" Republican.
I guess you miss the NYT piece on the Obama/Ayers connection or Foxnews' constant drumbeat about Ayers (including Hannity's special about it. Or the many local and national publications that looked into the Obama/Ayers connection during the primaries. When there is nothing newsworthy of an issue, the media tends to let it go. (that's why it is called news)
Posted on October 19, 2008 5:11 PM
this is not a socialist country. The British wanted the wealth spread over seas... When i spread butter on my child's bread I do not want somebody knocking on my door demanding butter for theirs.
Posted on October 19, 2008 5:12 PM
Have you seen ONE attempt bt the MSM to get an interview with Ayers?
Posted on October 19, 2008 5:14 PM
Ayers probably refuses inteviews. If someone doesn't want to be interviewed it is hard to ask them questions. Kinda like Palin.
Posted on October 19, 2008 5:15 PM
Regarding the supposed 150 million that Obama raised in September, this must be just a plot by ACORN; they've made up these 632,000 names of people who have supposedly donated to the campaign, and they expect to assume this is legit. Well, it's not! The Obama campaign should be ashamed of itself.
Posted on October 19, 2008 5:18 PM
Why don't we just look into AIP, US Council for World Freedom, and Charles Keating? The truth of the matter is that you guys don't have enough goodwill or cash to go negative at this point. Bringing up Ayers only takes away from the dollars that you have to reach independents about the economy. I heard Alex Castellano on CNN talk about the fact that the robo calls are taking hold, and he pointed to internal polling numbers that suggest their campaign is working. Again, this is a numbers game. You base shrank. You should fire anyone who said that the best political move was to appease the base. The VP pick doomed McCain in a way that he is not going to recover. The Ayers attack only appeals to the Republican base. I would suggest that any path to victory for McCain has to include CO and MO. If he can't present an argument that will sway voters in those 2 states, he loses.
HAHA. That really made me laugh...As one of those 3.1 million donors (and knowing dozens of others personally).
Posted on October 19, 2008 5:20 PM
"How does Powell put the socialism charge to rest?"
Forgive me for seeming to pick on you today, but I'm finding your comments to be unusually ill-advised.
US tax code already spreads the wealth around. Under current tax code, the middle class (taxable income of $32,550 and $78,850) are in the 28% tax bracket, while those making between $164,550 and $357,700 are in the 33% tax bracket.
Please explain to me how this is NOT socialism, but raising the upper income tax bracket to 36% and lowering the middle class tax bracket to 27% IS socialism. Is there some arbitrary definition of socialism that I'm unaware of that states that a tax policy becomes socialism when you tax the rich any higher than 33%?
A flat tax has been proposed many, many times over the years and has never caught on with the American public, so it seems like they are relatively at ease with our current policy of taxing the wealthy at a higher rate than those less well-off, no?
Actually, Cindy McCain donated all that cash. If you have any more ridiculous comments, direct them to her.
Posted on October 19, 2008 5:21 PM
Have you heard of any efforts to interview Ayers? Any efforts to interview friends, co-workers, students, or associates of Ayers? At least Wright did interviews.
Sounds like you have a job! Go for it. Be a citizen-journalist. Lots of people do it. I wish you the best. Just stop whining please...
Posted on October 19, 2008 5:23 PM
Well, maybe not all of them are illegitimate, but certainly a significant number of them.
Posted on October 19, 2008 5:25 PM
I'm unaware of that states that a tax policy becomes socialism when you tax the rich any higher than 33%
I didn't know that socialism was based on percentages. I guess we were socialists under Bill Clinton. However, now that W is President and has partially taken over our banking system, we returned to a capitalistic foundations because the top 5% received a tax cut so that their tax burden is below 33%.
Re: the Powell endorsement
Powell's endorsement will simply be taken as some black guy endorsing another black guy.
Sorry to say it, but that's reality. There is otherwise no objective reason that Powell would endorse him, e.g. when one looks at Obama's foreign policy agenda it is pretty much diametrically opposed to Powell's.
(Powell is not qualified to make endorsements based on potential Supreme Court nominees, at least, no more qualified than you, me, the guy waiting for the bus, or Joe the Plummer.)
So, it made the news for today but tomorrow will be forgotten.
Posted on October 19, 2008 5:26 PM
Obama wants to give the 40% of the population that do not pay taxes a check. Where does that money come from? This is an incentive killer for those who might want to take financial risks to create more wealth. "Too many people are pulling themselves up by their bootstraps." Yes Obama this is America.
Because neither you nor I have heard of any efforts does not mean that there weren't any. Did Hannity or Oreilly try to interview him or co-workers? They are part of the MSM. Are you accusing them of being in the pocket of Obama?
Posted on October 19, 2008 5:27 PM
Sure "Joe the Plumber" can question Obama about his tax plan. But how about being honest in doing so, not lying about his name, his occupation, his "independent voter" status, his tax bracket and his plans to "buy a business." None of those proved to be legit, yet there was McCain using him (over and over and over again) as an example of how Obama's tax plan would kill "struggling wanna-be business owners'" American Dreams by raising their taxes three percent. Kinda hard to be a symbol of something you are being deceitful about.
And it really wasn't Obama's "Propoganda Arm" that victimized the guy. McCain HIMSELF apologized to "Joe"/Sam for making him a celebrity when he (allegedly) had no idea he would become one. When someone becomes a celebrity, overnight or otherwise, the press descends like vipers on that person, and their job, (sadly) is to check out their background, to fill their silly columns and news shows with some substance. Sorry if the guy's BS was so easily exposed, but he wasn't exactly Jason Bourne or anything. The guy (and the metaphoric jab McCain tried to make of him) were equal parts unauthentic.
Even McCain said that "he didn't care about any old washed up terrorist" so why would anyone be camped out at his door. Again, the only people who care are hard core members of the Republican base.
You'd understand if Democrats were calling for news trucks to be stationed outside of the house of Vicki Isleman.
Posted on October 19, 2008 5:29 PM
Posted on October 19, 2008 5:30 PM
I'm not sure what you mean, but it sounds like you thought I was criticizing Obama's plan as socialism. Just the opposite. I fully support Obama and was just pointing out to wakeup how absurd it is to call his plan socialism when US tax policy has always (in the modern era) "spread the wealth" around to some extent.
BTW, the highest tax bracket (for those earning over $349,700) is actually 35%.
Posted on October 19, 2008 5:31 PM
It was not who asked the question, it was the question and how it was answered.
Fox did try to 'ambush' Ayers and Ayers said he would never give an interview to Fox News.
Joe was mentioned, Ayers was mention... who got all the attention?
Posted on October 19, 2008 5:36 PM
There's a precedent for this. W already handed out a tax rebate. He called for a round of stimulus and sent out another check. EVERY has given up on trickle down economics. There was a referendum and you missed it. The verdict was that it just didn't work. W and the Republicans in congress are willing to concede this point. It's just McCain that's talking about given an additional billion dollar tax break to the wealthiest corporations.
The fact that they lose fringe benefits when the Bush tax cuts are not made permanent isn't going to bother anyone making less than $250,000. You can attempt to scare them by saying they will lose their jobs but they having been facing that possibility for years.
"Obama wants to give the 40% of the population that do not pay taxes a check."
Please provide a non-biased, non-partisan source for this staement and I will happily look at it and respond to the best of my ability. If you don't have such a source for this information then I will assume it is just another Republican sound bite as I have heard it repeated ad nauseam over the past several weeks.
Posted on October 19, 2008 5:37 PM
Please provide a non-biased, non-partisan source for this statement and I will happily look at it and respond to the best of my ability. If you don't have such a source for this information then I will assume it is just another Republican sound bite as I have heard it repeated ad nauseam over the past several weeks.
Posted on October 19, 2008 5:38 PM
Sorry for the double post :-)
Posted on October 19, 2008 5:39 PM
I realize how desperately Repubs want to believe that Gen. Powell's endorsement of Obama will be forgotten by tomorrow, whitetower and wakeup. Don't think so. He is simply too well respected and there was too much media hype leading up to this for it to be forgotten so quickly. No -- and though I have no real data to back it up, just a hunch -- I think it could easily be worth 1% of the elctorate's vote in Obama's favor.
Posted on October 19, 2008 5:42 PM
it's Sunday. Where is the tied race? Or is that supposed to be NEXT sunday?
Posted on October 19, 2008 5:43 PM
If you think you can continue talking about Joe the Plumber until Nov. 4, go right ahead. The McCain campaign's win the day strategy is a losing effort. He should have figured this out by now.
Posted on October 19, 2008 5:44 PM
If you are going to make accusations or state tax policy as facts, please provide some legitimate evidence. If you can't, it only makes you look pretty pathetic. It's sort of the way the McCain campaign is now - all talk, no evidence, no real honest argument. It's not working in America, and it definitely won't work on this board.
Posted on October 19, 2008 5:45 PM
Everybody together now ---- Joe then non-plumber actually gets a huge tax cut under the Obama tax plan, but gets next to nothing in the McCain tax plan. If he chooses to vote for McCain, that's completely up to him. Does anyone else think it's funny that McCain bashes the banks for giving out loans to people who can't pay them back, but thinks this guy should get a loan to buy his business? Whatever happened to the 2000 McCain?
Posted on October 19, 2008 5:46 PM
To all those people still talking about socialism and Joe the plumber, prepare to be blown away once Obama runs his 30 minute campaign ad. McCain won't have the resources to respond. He get on Fox News and make some new attacks but it's not likely to have traction.
Posted on October 19, 2008 5:48 PM
Only 60% of the US adults pay income taxes.
A source, well here is where I get crucifde, I do not have a specific source to provide at this very moment. But please do look into it and provide me with a source that says otherwise.
Yes, delay game six of the World Series 30 minutes... American's will love that!
I bow before you as not having viable sources to provide. But please direct me toward sources that prove your point; What % of US population pays income taxes?
Posted on October 19, 2008 5:53 PM
I couldn't find an article to support you so I thought I'd look at who actually pays taxes in this country. Turns out it isn't the big corporations that John McCain wants to give a tax break.
So let me get this straight, they rarely pay taxes now, they are laying off 100K+ people a month and we should give them even more money?
Just because you decided to pull something out of your rectum doesn't make it true. Facts + Analysis = Critical Thinking. Try it sometime.
Posted on October 19, 2008 5:56 PM
"But please do look into it and provide me with a source that says otherwise."
Sorry, man. You make the claim, you provide the evidence. If it's not worth your time to verify the accuracy of the "facts" you use to decide who you'll be voting for then maybe you shouldn't vote.
Posted on October 19, 2008 5:58 PM
"prepare to be blown away" those who are not hypnotized are immune to your Master's words. We see through words, you are cattle that wonder what those words on the barn wall say.
sorriest excuse ever for an argument. "I don't have evidence, but you counter it." I thought you were smart, but evidently I was wrong. Disprove me asshole.
Here's a fact...The loweest income people in America pay an effective tax rate of 4.3%
If you want to say some % don't pay federal income tax, that is correct, but there are other taxes (payroll and SS) that are paid by everyone.
I'll never do this again for you, so consider yourself lucky.
PS. You suck.
Posted on October 19, 2008 5:59 PM
My bad, I thought I was arguing with a sane person. I'm sure now that you are one of those Republican value-voters and that means you can't do basic math, economics or anything else that a reasonable person would be expected to do.
Please do me a favor and ignore my post above, because I obviously won't stupe to having a conversation with someone who can't think for themselves.
Posted on October 19, 2008 6:02 PM
As usual, some people are throwing around claims about X% of working people not paying federal taxes, then providing statistics on people who don't pay federal INCOME tax. What they are failing to disclose is that many such people pay federal PAYROLL taxes.
You win this round...
Corprations never pay taxes... they just raise prices. Sure raise taxes on corporations because I am sure none of them will raise prices to create a cycle of inflation. Your link led me to empty page, thanks.
Posted on October 19, 2008 6:03 PM
@wakeup...I gave you the evidence. What's the matter? Can't counter it with some fake argument? Asshole.
Posted on October 19, 2008 6:08 PM
Is it okay for me to cut and paste something? I do not want to be called a "troll."
Posted on October 19, 2008 6:10 PM
Please, I beg you, no name calling...
Posted on October 19, 2008 6:12 PM
20 minutes ago the AP reported that McCain said:
Attacks on 'Joe' are attacks on business
One problem: Joe doesn't run a business. Joe makes 40k.
Here is the latest chart of dailies which we are about to update for Sunday. As always, we include in brackets who the paper went with in 2004 with B=Bush and K=Kerry.
102 daily newspapers total
Over 10 million circulation (we are still counting)
Tuscaloosa News (K):
Arkansas Times (K): 34,000
The Argus (Fremont) (K): 26,749
Contra Costa Times (Walnut Creek) (K): 183,086
Daily Breeze (Torrance)
Daily Review (Hayward) (K): 30,704
The Fresno Bee (K): 150,334
La Opinion (Los Angeles) (K): 114,892
Long Beach Press Telegram (B)
Los Angeles Daily News
Los Angeles Times (N/A): 773,884
Marin Independent-Journal (K)
The Modesto Bee (K): 78,001
The Monterey County Herald (K): 28,933
Oakland Tribune (K): 96,535
Pasadena Star-News (B)
The (Stockton) Record (B): 57,486
The Sacramento Bee (K): 288,755
San Bernardino Sun (B): 54,315
San Francisco Chronicle (K): 370,345
San Jose Mercury News (K): 234,772
San Mateo County Times (K): 25,982
Santa Cruz Sentinel (K): 23,290
Tri-Valley Herald (B): 29,759
Boulder Camera (K)
Cortez Journal (K): 6,700
The Denver Post (B)
The Durango Herald (K): 8,870
Gunnison Country Times (N/A): 4,000
Ouray County Plaindealer (K): 3,000
New Haven Register (B)
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
The Washington Post (K): 673,180
Daytona Beach News-Journal
Miami Herald (K):
Naples Daily-News (B)
Orlando Sentinel (K):
Sarasota Herald-Tribune (K)
Atlanta Journal-Constitution (K)
Honolulu Star-Bulletin (K): 64,305
Idaho Statesman (K):
Chicago Tribune (B): 541,663
Chicago Sun-Times (K):
Daily Herald (Arlington) (K)
Rockford Register (K)
Southwest News-Herald (K)
Mason City Globe Gazette (B)
The Storm Lake Times (K): 3,200
Lexington Herald-Leader (K)
Bangor Daily News (K)
Brunswick Times-Record (K)
The Boston Globe (K): 350,605
The Standard-Times (New Bedford) (K): 30,306
Detroit Free Press (K):
The Muskegon Chronicle (K): 41,114
Columbia Daily Tribune
Kansas City Star
St. Louis Post-Dispatch (K): 255,057
Concord Monitor (K)
Nashua Telegraph (K)
Las Cruces Sun-News (B)
Santa Fe New Mexican (K): 25,249
Las Vegas Sun (K)
Buffalo News (K)
The Daily News (B)
el Diario: 53,856
Asheville Citizen-Times (K): 50,160
News & Observer (Raleigh) (K)
Wilmington Star-News (K)
Akron Beacon-Journal (K):
The (Toledo) Blade (K): 119,901
Dayton Daily News (K): 116,690
The (Canton) Repository (B): 65,789
Times-Reporter (New Philadelphia)
Springfield News-Sun (K): 24,684
The Plain Dealer (Cleveland)
Register-Guard (Eugene) (K):
Mail Tribune (Medford) (K): 30,349
The Oregonian of Portland (K)
Yamhill Valley News-Register
The Daily Item of Sunbury
The Express-Times (Easton) (B): 44,561
Philadelphia Inquirer (K):
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (K): 214,374
Chattanooga Times (K): 71,716
The Commercial Appeal (Memphis) (K): 146,961
The (Nashville) Tennessean (K): 161,131
Austin American-Statesman (B)
Bryan/College Station Eagle
Houston Chronicle (B)
The Lufkin Daily News (K): 12,225
The Salt Lake Tribune (B):
Burlington Free Press (K)
Falls Church News-Press (K): 30,500
The Columbian (B): 44,623
Seattle Post-Intelligencer (K): 129,563
The Seattle Times (K): 220,883
Yakima Herald-Republic (B)
The Charleston Gazette (K): 48,061
Huntington Herald-Dispatch (K)
The Capital Times (Madison) (K): 16,335
Wisconsin State Journal (Madison) (B): 87,930
32 newspapers total
About 2.5 million daily circulation (we are tabulating)
Bakersfield Californian (B)
Napa Valley Register: 16,283
Riverside Press-Enterprise (B)
The San Francisco Examiner (B): 80,000
San Diego Union-Tribune (B)
Mountain Valley News (Cedaredge): 2,000
The Daily Sentinel (Grand Junction) (B): 31,349
The Pueblo Chieftain (B): 49,169
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
The Washington DC Examiner (N/A): 100,073
The Baltimore Examiner (N/A): 50,000
Boston Herald (B): 182,350
The (Lowell) Sun (B): 44,439
Foster’s Daily Democrat (B): 22,547
Union Leader (Manchester) (B): 51,782
Las Vegas Review (B)
New York Post (B): 702,488
Fargo Forum (B)
Bend Bulletin (B)
Columbus Dispatch (B)
The (Findlay) Courier (B): 22,319
Amarillo Globe-News (B): 44,764
Corpus Christi Caller-Times
Dallas Morning News (B):
San Antonio Express-News
Wharton Journal Spectator
Wichita Falls Times Record
The Daily Press (Hampton Roads) (K)
The Winchester Star
(Spokane) Spokesman-Review (B): 89,779
Wheeling News-Register (B): 12,821
Posted on October 19, 2008 6:13 PM
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten
comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would
go something like this: The first four men (the poorest) would pay
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the
arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are
all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your
daily beer by $20."Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the
first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what
about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the
$20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted
that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would
each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested
that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same
amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 ( 25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( 22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued
to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to
compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed to
the tenth man," but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar,
too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when
I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get
anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat
down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill,
they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between
all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our
tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most
benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being
wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start
drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
Posted on October 19, 2008 6:14 PM
Worst argument ever. I feel no sympathy for taxing wealthy people. None. As someone who is taxed in the one of highest tax brackets in America I feel no anger for paying my share. All I want is my tax dollars to be used appropriately. My tax dollars for me are a priveledge to live in this country, and a blessing that I am able to make a excellent living here.
I am more likely to leave the country because my tax dollars are being used correctly (stupid wars, not enough for education, bad health care options). With the argument above I assume you want a flat tax, which punishes poor people unfairly. Is that correct?
Under Obama's plan I get taxed an additional $700 dollars per year. If that gets us better schools and better health care for people, it's a pleasure for me to pay it.
Posted on October 19, 2008 6:26 PM
I am more likely to leave the country because my tax dollars are NOT being used correctly (stupid wars, not enough for education, bad health care options). With the argument above I assume you want a flat tax, which punishes poor people unfairly. Is that correct?
Posted on October 19, 2008 6:27 PM
OK DEMS - What you fail to understand is the 'real' language. By socialist - they don't mean Obama will take from the rich and give to the poor - what they are really saying and what southerners really underestand is that Obama will take from the hard working whites and give to the unemployed blacs. Aint that right you knuckle dragging right wing trolls. I know a righty political consultant real well, and I know how this tests, and I know what the uneducated hear. Beleive me if you make $0K a year - your all for a Republican re-distributing wealth - b/c you figure it will benefit you, but when its said about Obama - you think he's gonna raise your taxes to give money to black folk on welfare. No matter that it is clearly untrue - which is the Real Story about Joe - he would benefit greatly from the Obama's tax plan, but b/c he won't say out loud what he really beleives and why.
Posted on October 19, 2008 6:31 PM
The problem with your analogy is that the beer does not equate to money. The men in your example drink the beer and then it is gone. In the real world people SPEND money, therefore putting it back into the economy. People spend money, demand for products & services goes up, businesses have to increase output to meet the increased demand. This creates jobs which allows more people to spend more money increasing demand and the cycle continues. The money doesn't just vanish. The commodity in your example just gets turned into piss; I don't see that that is a valid comparison.
Posted on October 19, 2008 6:33 PM
sorry that should be $40K per year. Failing key board.
You act like people are starving dead in the gutters. I have a concept for you... INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY. Does that scare you? You want the government to decide where money should go. How would a cult of personality corrupt such a thing??!!??!!
Let's not look to much into the beer thing, only meant to be food for thought.
Why bring up race?
Posted on October 19, 2008 6:37 PM
The rich have had higher taxes before, I think they can make it. Also seeing as they hold more wealth then ever before.
Before Bush The wealth ratio went like this.
Top 1% = 20% of the wealth.
99% down to 80%= 30% of the wealth.
79% down to 50%= 30% of the wealth.
49% or less = 20% of the wealth.
After 8 years, CEO to worker pay ratio has gone so far of the charts that is unbelievable. CEO pay has jumped 400% in 8 years, as worker pay has fallen 5%. You want to know why our market is doing so ****ty it’s because of the high pay that CEO are getting, even if there company does poorly. I’m all for capitalism but this is just too far. This isn’t a capitalistic nation anymore, it a Greedy nation.
After 8 years of Bush/GOP rule, wealth in America looks like this.
Top 1% = 30% of all wealth
99% to 80% = 30 of all wealth
79% to 50 = 25% of all wealth
49% or less = 15% of all wealth.
So going back to Bush 41 years and have the tax at level would even the playing field more for lower class Americans.
PS: I’m in the top 5% of the tax bracket, I will get tax more and I’m fine with it. With my company I will get more tax breaks under Obama, if I employ more people, and I will. Also under McCain’s plan (which I have looked at) my employees would get tax another 10,000 because of their healthcare plan. I would most likely have to drop that plan and find another one, or tell my employees to go find another plan on their own.
I have 500 Employees.
Posted on October 19, 2008 6:39 PM
If you don't think these are tragedies in our country, there is nothing I can say that will change your mind. Please note the poverty numbers of people under 18 and over 65 and the increasing numbers. Take a trip to some poor areas of America and see the problems in our own country.
Americans without health insurance coverage at some time during 2007 totaled about 15.3% of the population, or 45.7 million people.
The official poverty rate in 2007 was 12.5 percent, not statistically different from 2006.
In 2007, 37.3 million people were in poverty, up from 36.5 million in 2006.
Poverty rates in 2007 were statistically unchanged for non-Hispanic Whites (8.2 percent), Blacks (24.5 percent), and Asians (10.2 percent) from 2006. The poverty rate increased for Hispanics (21.5 percent in 2007, up from 20.6 percent in 2006).
The poverty rate in 2007 was lower than in 1959, the first year for which poverty estimates are available, while statistically higher than the most recent trough in 2000 (11.3 percent).
The poverty rate increased for children under 18 years old (18.0 percent in 2007, up from 17.4 percent in 2006), while it remained statistically unchanged for people 18 to 64 years old (10.9 percent) and people 65 and over (9.7 percent).
Posted on October 19, 2008 6:44 PM
Is there not another way to to fix the CEO pay ratio?
Capitalism by nature eats it's young... I know there needs to be regulations.
Sub-prime lending has played a role in the finacial crisis.
I would also like to see the numbers you gave me for the Carter years.
Posted on October 19, 2008 6:47 PM
@wakeup...Where is your proof on the subprime lending? Where is your information on who got subprime loans? Here's a hint, as a total % of the entire problem less than 2% of the total equity at risk...Do a google search and find the rest.
Posted on October 19, 2008 6:50 PM
And where is your retort to uninsured and poverty rates? Should I bring up our high school gradation rate, and our adults in prison rate compared to the rest of the world? Open your eyes man...
Posted on October 19, 2008 6:52 PM
I've already noted that you are overlooking federal payroll taxes. As far as I can tell, so does your analogy, and in any event is not really relevant to the discussion.
As for the corporate tax, as I have noted here several times now, economists long ago determined that the corporate tax does not fall on consumers, but instead falls on those who provide capital to corporations. To summarize once again, prices in competitive markets are set by supply and demand, so corporations simply cannot add a tax to their prices. Rather, corporate taxes have to come out of their profit margins, which is why they come out of those who supply capital.
WAKE UP, Capitalism as we know it is over. Let’s face the facts, we have entered a age where greed eats everyone. Case in point look at Russia it’s not a nation anymore it’s a Corporation. Do you want the US to go down that road? The only way to move wealth around is by taxing; now I’m not for gov't give out, and I don’t completely agree with Obama, but most of the wealth that will be tax from will go to programs that will improve the future of this nation. By the way the figs I gave you are the figs of today. History likes to repeat it’s self.
Oh and as far as US companies paying the highest taxes in the world or 2nd highest that a flat-out lie. There are so many Loopholes, my company only pays 20% of what it should really pay, the tax system is a ****ing joke. If you have one good tax lawyer you can end up paying 50% less in taxes, legally
Posted on October 19, 2008 6:56 PM
I will study payroll tax in the next day, your point is well taken. But if it costs more to run a business... well you balance the books.
How could a cult of personality corrupt such a system? We might very well find out.
Posted on October 19, 2008 7:06 PM
@wakeup...No comment on American problems? None?
Posted on October 19, 2008 7:10 PM
It’s a proven fact if you help the poor it ends up making most everyone wealthier in the end.
I’m going to tell you right now people don't want full blown socialism. But they want the capitalism we have now to work for everyone more equally. That’s I want and what Mr. Obama want to put forward.
We had the redistributing of wealth happen already over the last 8 years and look where that got us. It’s not as bad as before 1929, but it damn well could get that bad.
I can see the Republican Party has sold you, I have seen many elections. I will say AS a Republican. Republicans are great campaigners but not good at the governing part anymore.
Posted on October 19, 2008 7:14 PM
By the way the Democrats are not anymore better then Republicans, but history has shown that they are more able to deal with this problem then the republican party.
You guys are to young to let party politics get in the way of what is right and what is wrong.
Posted on October 19, 2008 7:19 PM
A proven fact??? you lost me.
Socialism is a slippery slope...
You could say the exact same thing of Democrats.
Posted on October 19, 2008 7:20 PM
With respect to the corporate tax, obviously corporations do have to "balance the books". But they can't do that by simply deciding to increase revenue through higher prices. Indeed, another way to think of this point is that if by raising prices they could increase revenue, they would have done so already, tax or no tax.
So how do they "balance the books"? Again, they basically just cut payments to those who provided capital, in one way or another. This gets complicated if you factor in debt, so suppose the corporation is entirely equity financed, and the corporation distributes its profits to its shareholders in the form of dividends. The corporate tax then comes out of the profits, and hence the dividends will be cut accordingly to pay the tax.
Posted on October 19, 2008 7:25 PM
Your right Socialism is a slippery slop. But, FDR took us down this lane and we came back. What I’m going to say is this: today we are heading towards socialism.
But history repeats it’s self; we will head towards Socialism, and with the rebirth of a more moderate Republican party they will pull us back from that. This is what happened during 1940s and 1950s. In 8 years we will be in the mitts of the largest economic growth in human history. From that will come a more moderate Republican party that will turn back some of the more liberal reforms that will be made. This happens every 30 to 40 years. It’s like a rubber band, American capitalism will come out stronger then every after Obama is done his 8 years. ( if he get elected this time he will get elected again)
Posted on October 19, 2008 7:30 PM
Fist point would get you a C- in Economics 101, point two gets a C+ in Economics 301. I am trying to amuse not insult.
On the accounting front, do you think that assets can be valued in many ways and the sub-primes kind of threw the system off?
Plenty of earnings reports out this week...
Posted on October 19, 2008 7:35 PM
I consider you silence an acknowledgement that you admit are wrong...(This uses your kind of logic).
Posted on October 19, 2008 7:38 PM
I can help you here.... Look up this "glass steagall act"
That's the main fire starter with our economic problems.
The repelling of that caused most of the problems we have today.
Posted on October 19, 2008 7:40 PM
As I noted, the point I am making about the corporate tax is not particularly new. I freely admit, however, I am dumbing down the discussion, and in fact I am the wrong person to talk to for a real discussion (since I am not an economist). So if you want a serious discussion, see Harberger's classic paper on the subject:
Arnold Harberger, "The Incidence of the Corporate Income Tax," Journal of Political Economy 70: 215 (1962).
As for accounting, I am not sure if you are continuing this discussion or raising a new topic. But suffice it to say there are legitimate difficulties in valuing many assets. Subprime mortgages themselves are not particularly difficult assets to value, however. Rather, what got difficult to evaluate were the very complex securities built upon various mortgage bundles (the complex CDOs and such), and unfortunately it seems like various entities may have been deliberately using these instruments in accounting schemes.
Posted on October 19, 2008 7:55 PM
TRYING TO MAKE SENSE OF GALLUP:
Among RV's Obama has a sizeable 10 point lead, growing 4 points in 2 days.
Among traditional LV's (the only real measure that we KNOW works), the lead is only 3 and a very tight race.
Is it normal for their to be such a HUGE difference between RV's and LV's?
I dunno. It just seems odd.
REGARDING "EXPANDED" LV'S:
In a 3 day moving average how the hell does the lead shrink by 2 one day and then expand by 3 the next day? The underlying swings in the daily vote would have to be VERY big in opposite directions for something like that to occur.
I dunno, just odd. Still, the traditional LV's is the ONLY number that counts and that can be compared with all the other polls as they only record traditional LV's.
Posted on October 19, 2008 8:00 PM
Indeed, it does seem like the repeal of Glass-Steagall set off the securitizations at the core of these problems.
Posted on October 19, 2008 8:01 PM
MOONBATS, PLEASE EXPLAIN SOMETHING TO ME:
No other tracking poll has this bullsh*t "expanded" version. Why not? Because it is bullsh*t.
So why must we compare the "expanded version" againts everyoe else's "traditional version".
Gallup has this a 3 point race. Not some 7 point bullsh*t.
Posted on October 19, 2008 8:03 PM
keep dreamin boomcrack!
powell+buffet+clintons = game over!
Posted on October 19, 2008 8:24 PM
Hi Boom! My APB worked. Good to find you.
Pick a 3 point poll you like (one with 10 point RV lead) and hold on it to it. Just like you always do. Don't mind gallup and his explaination. He is out to get you and your friends!
Boo to transparency! Boo to new models! We are stuck in time!
Posted on October 19, 2008 8:39 PM
I've come to the conclusions that alankeyes is an Obama plant! By making consistently outrageous claims, he has successfully exposed the vacuousness of the neo-con perspective.
That is the only possible explanation. After all, nobody can REALLY believe that stuff, can they?
Posted on October 19, 2008 8:47 PM
Likely voter models have always varied somewhat from pollster to pollster, and pollsters sometimes change their likely voter models between elections in light of new data and analysis. Indeed, that is only to be expected--both the nature of the American electorate and the circumstances in which they find themselves are likely to change over time, so the likely voter model which works best at one point in time may not continue to work as well at another.
The only thing really remarkable about what Gallup is doing is not making a choice between their two models for this election. More than anything else, I think that is Gallup's way of acknowledging there is much about this contest which is unprecedented, and so we are all forced to make some educated guesses about what is going to happen on Election Day. And Gallup is just giving us the tools to make some of our own guesses, as opposed to leaving them all up to Gallup.
Posted on October 19, 2008 9:11 PM
There is no such concept of a "share of the wealth."
Since wealth is the rightful possession of individuals, individuals possess the wealth that they have earned -- unless, of course, they obtain their wealth by theft, inclusive of government taxing others and distributing it to them.
By the way, the wealthy already pay for nearly every function of government -- the lowest 50% of taxpayers only pay about 3% of the total tax burden.
(scroll down to the chart "Total Income Tax Shares, 1980-2006")
Posted on October 19, 2008 10:58 PM
"By the way, the wealthy already pay for nearly every function of government -- the lowest 50% of taxpayers only pay about 3% of the total tax burden. "
The Rich may, collectively have a larger tax burden than the poor. However individually, the rich pays much less taxes than the poor, and that is the inherent unfairness of the Republican style tax cuts. Warren Buffet, the 2nd riches person in the world pays about 17% payroll and income tax, yet his employees pay 30%. On an individual basis, why do I have to pay 13% more taxes than the rich? Unlike Warren Buffet I might need that extra 10% to buy food and pay rent.
Posted on October 20, 2008 12:27 AM
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)
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.
Please email us to report offensive comments.
See our comment policy here. Note that we require commenters to share their email address via Typekey. We will never share your email address with anyone without your explicit permission.
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