Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Obamacare had a better approval rating in 2010.... 10% plus or minus 3.
March 2010
"A new CNN Opinion Research poll, conducted over the weekend as the House debated Obamacare, finds that 59 percent of Americans now stand opposed to the health care legislation in Congress. Just 39 percent of the poll’s 1,030 respondents said they favored the bill. These numbers shouldn’t come as a surprise — even to the White House. In fact, The Washington Post reported this morning that “President Obama is set to begin an immediate public relations blitz aimed at turning around Americans’ opinion of the health-care bill.” The White House plan will be both a short-term strategy to shore up political supporters of the legislation and a long-term effort to bolster Obama’s legacy."
The whitehouse went ahead despite public anger...."As troubling as these numbers are for the White House, Obama’s advisers are confident their savvy public-relations campaign will quell public anger"
then in 2014 - "A majority of Americans disapprove of Obamacare, at 56 percent — a new high, Gallup said."
Defending low poll numbers, the way Democrats do it.....
"CARVILLE: You know what, whether it’s fair or not, that’s public opinion. And I further think that, honestly, I don’t think he much cares about his poll numbers. I think he thinks he’s done and is doing a good job and history will record him. He doesn’t really care."
Cutting taxes didn't work when Reagan did it, didn't work when Bush did it, didn't work when Oklahoma did it, didn't work when Kansas did it, ...
It plain doesn't work.
Economies grow on demand not supply.
Economies grow when demand grows.
The demand for cell phones, servers, software, solar energy, automation, apps, ... is what fuels one section of our economy. But that section can only grow as fast as there is a market willing and able to pay for it.
Which is why cutting taxes on the rich doesn't work and never will. The rich operate on the supply side.
The Waltons are not going to hire more cashiers just because they have more money. They will hire more cashiers when their customers have more money to pay for things -- demand.
Speaking of paying for things, somebody is going to have to pay for bill for these wars we are fighting all over the place.
These wars are running up the national debt, and creating more enemies with no end in sight.
We are not the Roman Empire, are we?
Time to bring folks home and regroup.
I read that we are already selling out the Kurds again, so maybe we're about to wind it up.
If not, we need to raise the cash to pay for them.
Seems that the majority of people realize you can't keep spending more than you take in forever.
Morning Joe show this AM and one of their regulars was pointing to the new tax plan's very unbalanced imposition of heavier tax burden on states with strong Democratic slant--CA, NJ, CN, Nevada (because of property taxes)--couple of others
Going to be massive tax pain in those states--for some rate classes a 5% INCREASE in tax load
That is just unConstitutional IMO--
This tax bill was designed to punish people who voted against Trump
Consider how it punished areas with plenty of universities where grad students will be taxed on their rebated tuition---that certainly punishes a state like CA or NY--not so much Iowa for example or South Dakota or Idaho---
I have yet to read anything in my local TX papers that have come out against that aspect and we have some excellent universities with strong grad schools--and I know there are plenty of people in those schools who will be hurt--
Of course Cruz and Cornyn and most of our GOP Congressreps are dead from neck up re going against "GOP agenda" so they are voting for that bill and they won't take calls or make public appearances when they know they will catch grief...
It is not balanced--if it were it won't have that specific result
So I think the GOP has just thrown any Congressional districts into the fire--and they think I guess they are gerrymandered to the extent that the current GOP members (and there are some) are safe...
This's bill, the GOP's sponsoring of Roy Moore -- I can't understand the long-term logic behind that political decision...
Re the Kurds--
The Russians don't want us to arm the Kurds because Erdogan doesn't want that opposition to be strengthened...
That is a POLITICAL decision based on Russia/Turkey (thanks Trump) not a financial decision or they would cut back on military spending altogether--which ain't happening even if we never fire another bullet in a war zone...
Too much money for too many donors tied to military spending...
Cutting taxes didn't work when Reagan did it, didn't work when Bush did it, didn't work when Oklahoma did it, didn't work when Kansas did it, ...
It plain doesn't work.
Economies grow on demand not supply.
Economies grow when demand grows.
The demand for cell phones, servers, software, solar energy, automation, apps, ... is what fuels one section of our economy. But that section can only grow as fast as there is a market willing and able to pay for it.
Which is why cutting taxes on the rich doesn't work and never will. The rich operate on the supply side.
The Waltons are not going to hire more cashiers just because they have more money. They will hire more cashiers when their customers have more money to pay for things -- demand.
Speaking of paying for things, somebody is going to have to pay for bill for these wars we are fighting all over the place.
These wars are running up the national debt, and creating more enemies with no end in sight.
We are not the Roman Empire, are we?
Time to bring folks home and regroup.
I read that we are already selling out the Kurds again, so maybe we're about to wind it up.
If not, we need to raise the cash to pay for them.
Seems that the majority of people realize you can't keep spending more than you take in forever.
"Cutting taxes didn't work when Reagan did it, didn't work when Bush did it"
Here we go again.
I guess in your liberal mind this is NOT "working".
" Publication: Business Wire
Date: Friday, January 4 2008
More Than 8.3 Million Jobs Created Since August 2003 In Longest Continuous Run Of Job Growth On Record
WASHINGTON -- Today, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released new jobs figures - 18,000 jobs created in December. Since August 2003, more than 8.3 million jobs have been created, with more than 1.3 million jobs created throughout 2007. Our economy has now added jobs for 52 straight months - the longest period of uninterrupted job growth on record. The unemployment rate remains low at 5 percent. The U.S. economy benefits from a solid foundation, but we cannot take economic growth for granted and economic indicators have become increasingly mixed. President Bush will continue working with Congress to address the challenges our economy faces and help facilitate long-term economic growth, job growth, and better standards of living for all Americans.
* Real GDP grew at a strong 4.9 percent annual rate in the third quarter of 2007. The economy has now experienced six years of uninterrupted growth, averaging 2.8 percent a year since 2001.
* Real after-tax per capita personal income has risen by 11.7 percent - an average of more than $3,550 per person - since President Bush took office.
* Over the course of this Administration, productivity growth has averaged 2.6 percent per year. This growth is well above average productivity growth in the 1990s, 1980s, and 1970s.
By 2003, Mr. Bush grasped this lesson. In that year, he cut the dividend and capital gains rates to 15 percent each, and the economy responded. In two years, stocks rose 20 percent. In three years, $15 trillion of new wealth was created. The U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007, and the median household increased its wealth by $20,000 in real terms.
But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years. This was news to theNew York Times, whose astonished editorial board could only describe the gains as a “surprise windfall.”"
And the deficit was DECREASING.
" Economies grow on demand not supply.
Economies grow when demand grows."
WITHOUT MONEY YOU CAN"T AFFORD TO BUY THESE THINGS.
When taxes go DOWN that frees up MORE discretionary income to SPEND on these things.
Another thing to consider is the fallout from increasing the deficit. Yesterday Paul Ryan said the increased size of the deficit would make next year an ideal time to attack entitlement spending.
In other words we cut taxes knowingly increasing the deficit to have an excuse to cut social security and medicare next year.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
