| Author | Post |
|---|
QCVillager
Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 24th, 2008 08:20 pm |
|
Bambi wrote:
If you're among the richest Americans, the top one-tenth of 1 percent, the difference between McCain or Obama in the White House will be a difference that will benefit the middleclass with Obama, and the rich with McCain...simple as that. Len Burman, director of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, says that under McCain, those rich taxpayers would, on average, get a $270,000 tax cut from McCain, but with Obama in the White House, they'd face a $700,000 increase in their tax bill. So if you're rich, you could see nearly a million-dollar swing in your tax bill, depending on who wins the election.
Bambi - if you were faced with the knowledge that you were going to be subject to a $700k tax increase... what would you do ? would you leave your jobs and wealth here in the USA ?
|
gk
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tonga |
| Posts: | 2730 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 24th, 2008 08:06 pm |
|
| That was an excellent analogy Oreo. And I think I like that form of redistribution of wealth better
|
clu
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | TOQC |
| Posts: | 515 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 24th, 2008 08:03 pm |
|
Bambi wrote:
All households, except those in the top 5 percent of the income scale, would benefit from Obama's tax cuts.
No one seems to be able to elaborate any more than this. What does this mean "would benefit." How so? How much? Give concrete examples. It may be that this "benefit" would be very, very small indeed. Maybe $500 a year? Who in their right mind would sell their vote for $500, for example?
Oreoo's statement was DEAD ON and correct. As the diner, he played the role of govt by deciding the waiter's tip was better spent on someone who did NOT earn it, than someone who DID earn it. This should not, and never should be the role of govt. Charity should be left to the individual, not the fed Govt!
Last edited on Fri Oct 24th, 2008 08:10 pm by clu
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3503 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 24th, 2008 07:36 pm |
|
Oreoo wrote: I just read this blog from Greta Wire which I found quite interesting, thought i would share:
"Here’s how Obama’s tax plan works (sent to me and it made sense):
In a local restaurant my server had on a “Obama 08″ tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference–just imagine the coincidence.
When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need–the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.
I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I’ve decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.
At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient needed the money more.
I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application."
I'm having problems connecting with your analogy here.
First of all. Do you understand that we use a progressive tax plan and have used it forever? And do you understand how that plan works? It collects the wealth amongst the American People, based on how much money you make.
So, the rich currently pay a higher tax than the poor do. It's based on what level of income you are in. Nothing has changed there....nothing. Cindy McCain made over $4 million dollars last year, and she paid out 30% of her income...not to the poor but to the IRS. Maryann only made $9000. She paid nothing as that was her tax level. Now, are you saying that Cindy McCain is distributing her wealth to the poor? The large Corporations.....they have so many loopholes to avoid paying any taxes, that by using that same mentality, Cindy is also distributing her wealth to them.
Check out the tax plans I posted on here from the Tax Center. Look to see who McCain's distribution of wealth goes to. Check out who benefits the most from McCains plan, which is nothing but an extension of the Bush Plan, which benefited all his wealthy oil men and eletist corporations.
If you're among the richest Americans, the top one-tenth of 1 percent, the difference between McCain or Obama in the White House will be a difference that will benefit the middleclass with Obama, and the rich with McCain...simple as that. Len Burman, director of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, says that under McCain, those rich taxpayers would, on average, get a $270,000 tax cut from McCain, but with Obama in the White House, they'd face a $700,000 increase in their tax bill. So if you're rich, you could see nearly a million-dollar swing in your tax bill, depending on who wins the election. That's the wealth we are speaking of that Obama and me and the middleclass want to see so it will help our economy continue on a democratic fair basis, rather than on a basis that only keeps making the wealthy oil companies, beer distributing companies, Nike, who pays 6cnts an hour oversees for labor, make their billions. The vehicle used is cutting corporate taxes, so the wealthy stay wealthy with all the tax loopholes provided for Bush's wealthy friends, who are now McCain's wealthy friends from his Base, and that he must "deliver" his promise to protect their wealth.
So if the Corporations/owned by the wealthy/ get a tax cut, then who brings in the difference to make our economy keep functioning? The middleclass have had that responsibility. Paying the wealthy's share of the amount needed to run this Country. That's called spreading a deficit amongst the middleclass on behalf of the wealthy, who pay in next to nothing under the Bush/McCain plan. And the middleclass are tired of taking on those rich people's burden who have been getting off easy, so they are rebelling and saying......it's our turn....give us some of that money the government has been allowing you to keep, by reducing our tax burden and increasing theirs. If you want to call that "spreading the wealth" then so be it. I call it a fair distribution of the wealth amongst the American Citizens of this Country...a country we are all supposed to be able to prosper in, not just a few with good connections.
Now if you're in that top 5%, then complain. But if you are not, you are shooting yourself in the foot. You should be happy.
Let's compare:
McCain:
- All households would receive some type of tax break under McCain, with the biggest breaks going to the top 1 percent of wealthy households. For instance, households earning $3 million a year would get, on average, a tax break of close to $270,000.
- Taxpayers making between $160,000 and $225,000 would get a $4,400 tax break on average.
- Families making less than $20,000 would get about a $19 break.
Obama:
- All households, except those in the top 5 percent of the income scale, would benefit from Obama's tax cuts.
- Taxpayers earning between $160,000 and $225,000 a year would, on average, see their taxes reduced their taxes by $2,800.
- Households making less than $20,000 would, on average, get a $570 break.
Source: Tax Policy Center
|
DavidB
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 416 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 24th, 2008 06:32 pm |
|
| That's AWESOME. It sure puts it in perspective when it effects your pocketbook, doesn't it? Last edited on Fri Oct 24th, 2008 06:52 pm by DavidB
|
Oreoo
Member
| Joined: | Thu Oct 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 18 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 24th, 2008 04:20 pm |
|
I just read this blog from Greta Wire which I found quite interesting, thought i would share:
"Here’s how Obama’s tax plan works (sent to me and it made sense):
In a local restaurant my server had on a “Obama 08″ tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference–just imagine the coincidence.
When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need–the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.
I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I’ve decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.
At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient needed the money more.
I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application."
|
gsbill
Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 24th, 2008 03:43 pm |
|
| That Bigfoot story made many news sources and remained in the news cycle for a bit. The news sources didnt make it up. They just reported what the idiot claimed. He made national cable news doing interviews before the truth came out.
|
geaston
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jun 27th, 2008 |
| Location: | Queen Creek |
| Posts: | 68 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 24th, 2008 07:14 am |
|
not sure what it ended up being, but you can't say that everything on their site is made up. of their in-house articles, there's on about a school that celebrated national coming out day for kindergarteners.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78829 is their byline article
and here's an actual tv news story about it.
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/east_bay&id=6467358
so you can't say that everything they say is lies. you sprinkle a little truth and then everyone's confused
|
QC Boiler
Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 24th, 2008 06:43 am |
|
geaston wrote:
they actually called in a friend of mine to consult on the authenticity of this bigfoot. this guy dropped out of the loop and dedicated his life to being a Sasquatch hunter. and now he's the authority on it. he actually gets paid by rich guys who believe in Sasquatch and he's interviewed all the time for any Sasquatch stories.
(in case anyone is wondering, it wasn't real...)
Let me guess, it turned out to be a plastic costume and a lie. Yet this website chooses to keep this lie on their website along with all their other fantasy articles. It's a perfect "source" for the simple minded.
|
geaston
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jun 27th, 2008 |
| Location: | Queen Creek |
| Posts: | 68 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 24th, 2008 06:39 am |
|
they actually called in a friend of mine to consult on the authenticity of this bigfoot. this guy dropped out of the loop and dedicated his life to being a Sasquatch hunter. and now he's the authority on it. he actually gets paid by rich guys who believe in Sasquatch and he's interviewed all the time for any Sasquatch stories.
(in case anyone is wondering, it wasn't real...)
Last edited on Fri Oct 24th, 2008 06:40 am by geaston
|
QC Boiler
Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 24th, 2008 06:26 am |
|
gk wrote: Here Boiler, this outta bite yer a**
ELECTION 2008
Obama 'admits' Kenyan birth?
Campaign doesn't respond to claims in lawsuit over birth certificate
Nope, this sort of garbage surely gets your panties wet. However, please note your source is also reporting this.
Claim: Dead Bigfoot stored on ice
Hunters promise to release pictures, DNA evidence of Sasquatch creature
Posted: August 13, 2008
8:25 pm Eastern
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
Hunters in northern Georgia claim they have a "Bigfoot" carcass stored in a freezer and promise to release telling photographs and DNA evidence of the legendary creature.
Matthew Whitton and Rick Dyer plan to fly to Palo Alto, Calif., and unveil proof of their discovery at a noon press conference Friday at the Cabana Hotel, according to a report by Searching for Bigfoot Inc. The event will be open to members of the news media only.
GK, do yourself a favor and don't believe everything you read. Heaven forbid you read the comics. You might think Superman is real!!! You're such an idiot.
|
Oreoo
Member
| Joined: | Thu Oct 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 18 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 24th, 2008 03:52 am |
|
gk wrote: Here Boiler, this outta bite yer a**
ELECTION 2008
Obama 'admits' Kenyan birth?
Campaign doesn't respond to claims in lawsuit over birth certificate
Posted: October 21, 2008
9:22 pm Eastern
By Drew Zahn
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
Pennsylvania Democrat Philip J. Berg, who filed a lawsuit demanding Sen. Barack Obama present proof of his American citizenship, now says that by failing to respond Obama has legally "admitted" to the lawsuit's accusations, including the charge that the Democratic candidate was born in Mombosa, Kenya.
As WND reported, Berg filed suit in U.S. District Court in August, alleging Obama is not a natural-born citizen and is thus ineligible to serve as president of the United States
. Though Obama has posted an image of a Hawaii birth certificate online, Berg demands that the court verify the original document, which the Obama campaign has not provided.
Now Berg cites Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which states that unless the accused party provides written answer or objection to charges within 30 days, the accused legally admits the matter.
Since Obama has only filed motions to dismiss and has not actually answered the charges in the lawsuit, Berg claims, according to Rule 36, Obama has legally admitted he is not a natural-born citizen.
Now Berg is asking the court for a formal declaration of Obama's admission and asking the Democratic National Committee for another presidential candidate.
In a statement released today, Berg argues that he filed Requests for Admissions on Sept. 15, meaning Obama had until Oct. 15 to answer or face the consequences of Rule 36.
"Obama and the DNC 'admitted,' by way of failure to timely respond to Requests for Admissions, all of the numerous specific requests in the Federal lawsuit," Berg's statement reads. "Obama is 'not qualified' to be president and therefore Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for president and the DNC shall substitute a qualified candidate."
Berg's original lawsuit leveled several charges at both Obama and the DNC – accusing the former of lying about his place of birth, faking his birth certificate and fraudulently running for office; and accusing the latter of not properly vetting its candidate.
Though it hasn't given Berg the evidence he seeks, the Obama campaign has publicly answered allegations that the candidate was born in Kenya and faked his Hawaii birth certificate.
"Smears claiming Barack Obama doesn't have a birth certificate aren't actually about that piece of paper," says the "Fight the Smears" section of Obama's website, "they're about manipulating people into thinking Barack is not an American citizen.
"The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America," the campaign website states. It also includes images of a Hawaii birth certificate bearing the name Barack Hussein Obama II.
Berg has also taken the controversy public through his website and through repeated public offers to revoke the lawsuit if Obama will produce legal documents that establish his citizenship.
Without those documents, Berg has chosen to file two additional motions in district court in Philadelphia. The first asks the court to notify Obama and the DNC of what Berg understands they have now legally "admitted," and the second asks for an expedited ruling, given the quickly upcoming Nov. 4 election.
"It all comes down to the fact that there's nothing from the other side," Berg told Jeff Schreiber for his blog, America's Right. "The admissions are there. By not filing the answers or objections, the defense has admitted everything. He admits he was born in Kenya. He admits he was adopted in Indonesia. He admits that the documentation posted online is a phony. And he admits that he is constitutionally ineligible to serve as president of the United States."
Spot on, it is also a matter of fact he also traveled to Pakistan in 1981 which banned US citizens from entering that country at the time. (He had an Indonesian Passport, not a US one).
I find it very odd that he flew off to Hawaii today, of all days when this is going to a higher court there. Using the reason that his grandmother is very ill and she is so important to him is also odd because if she meant so much in his life why didn't he take Michelle & the kids? I know I would include my spouse if the person who raised me was on their death bed.
How hard is it really to just order a copy if you lost it and submit it? The public deserve some real answers about what his past is.
- Another point, this guy Berg has also gone after GW Bush so it isn't the right attacking the left, it's just someone who cares about the Constitution.
Last edited on Fri Oct 24th, 2008 03:55 am by Oreoo
|
gk
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tonga |
| Posts: | 2730 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 24th, 2008 03:33 am |
|
Here Boiler, this outta bite yer a**
ELECTION 2008
Obama 'admits' Kenyan birth?
Campaign doesn't respond to claims in lawsuit over birth certificate
Posted: October 21, 2008
9:22 pm Eastern
By Drew Zahn
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
Pennsylvania Democrat Philip J. Berg, who filed a lawsuit demanding Sen. Barack Obama present proof of his American citizenship, now says that by failing to respond Obama has legally "admitted" to the lawsuit's accusations, including the charge that the Democratic candidate was born in Mombosa, Kenya.
As WND reported, Berg filed suit in U.S. District Court in August, alleging Obama is not a natural-born citizen and is thus ineligible to serve as president of the United States
. Though Obama has posted an image of a Hawaii birth certificate online, Berg demands that the court verify the original document, which the Obama campaign has not provided.
Now Berg cites Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which states that unless the accused party provides written answer or objection to charges within 30 days, the accused legally admits the matter.
Since Obama has only filed motions to dismiss and has not actually answered the charges in the lawsuit, Berg claims, according to Rule 36, Obama has legally admitted he is not a natural-born citizen.
Now Berg is asking the court for a formal declaration of Obama's admission and asking the Democratic National Committee for another presidential candidate.
In a statement released today, Berg argues that he filed Requests for Admissions on Sept. 15, meaning Obama had until Oct. 15 to answer or face the consequences of Rule 36.
"Obama and the DNC 'admitted,' by way of failure to timely respond to Requests for Admissions, all of the numerous specific requests in the Federal lawsuit," Berg's statement reads. "Obama is 'not qualified' to be president and therefore Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for president and the DNC shall substitute a qualified candidate."
Berg's original lawsuit leveled several charges at both Obama and the DNC – accusing the former of lying about his place of birth, faking his birth certificate and fraudulently running for office; and accusing the latter of not properly vetting its candidate.
Though it hasn't given Berg the evidence he seeks, the Obama campaign has publicly answered allegations that the candidate was born in Kenya and faked his Hawaii birth certificate.
"Smears claiming Barack Obama doesn't have a birth certificate aren't actually about that piece of paper," says the "Fight the Smears" section of Obama's website, "they're about manipulating people into thinking Barack is not an American citizen.
"The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America," the campaign website states. It also includes images of a Hawaii birth certificate bearing the name Barack Hussein Obama II.
Berg has also taken the controversy public through his website and through repeated public offers to revoke the lawsuit if Obama will produce legal documents that establish his citizenship.
Without those documents, Berg has chosen to file two additional motions in district court in Philadelphia. The first asks the court to notify Obama and the DNC of what Berg understands they have now legally "admitted," and the second asks for an expedited ruling, given the quickly upcoming Nov. 4 election.
"It all comes down to the fact that there's nothing from the other side," Berg told Jeff Schreiber for his blog, America's Right. "The admissions are there. By not filing the answers or objections, the defense has admitted everything. He admits he was born in Kenya. He admits he was adopted in Indonesia. He admits that the documentation posted online is a phony. And he admits that he is constitutionally ineligible to serve as president of the United States."
Last edited on Fri Oct 24th, 2008 03:36 am by gk
|
gk
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tonga |
| Posts: | 2730 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 24th, 2008 03:12 am |
|
You fell asleep at the throttle again ole boy. I don't believe the polls but you're Obamacon pals made a big point of posting polls here, I just returned the favor.
"kool aid from the crazy right wing fountain"
is that opposed to the cazy left wing diaper?
|
gsbill
Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 24th, 2008 02:35 am |
|
|
QC Boiler
Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 24th, 2008 02:30 am |
|
gk wrote: Most accurate pollster in 2004 election shows: Obama 44.8%, McCain 43.7%, Not Sure 11.6%...
Surely you're smart enough (a clear exaggeration of your obviously narrow and limited mental capacity) to know that national polls, the popular vote, are meaningless. If you care to understand our election process instead of only drinking the Kool-Aid from your crazy right wing fountain, then take a moment to look at the polls in the battle ground states. They're more telling than even your "most accurate" national poll from 2004. It's funny you consider that an indicator of future reliability.
Feel free to breathe the fresh air when you remove your head from the sand, thanks.
Last edited on Fri Oct 24th, 2008 02:38 am by QC Boiler
|
gk
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tonga |
| Posts: | 2730 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 24th, 2008 01:30 am |
|
Most accurate pollster in 2004 election shows: Obama 44.8%, McCain 43.7%, Not Sure 11.6%...
|
gk
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tonga |
| Posts: | 2730 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 23rd, 2008 08:42 pm |
|
Today
WASHINGTON (AP) - The presidential race tightened after the final debate, with John McCain gaining among whites and people earning less than $50,000, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll that shows McCain and Barack Obama essentially running even among likely voters in the election homestretch.
The poll, which found Obama at 44 percent and McCain at 43 percent, supports what some Republicans and Democrats privately have said in recent days: that the race narrowed after the third debate as GOP-leaning voters drifted home to their party and McCain's "Joe the plumber" analogy struck a chord.
That should make some Dumpocrats a little cranky!
|
geaston
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jun 27th, 2008 |
| Location: | Queen Creek |
| Posts: | 68 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 23rd, 2008 07:27 pm |
|
hi bambi, you forgot to post todays poll results. looks like mccain is closing the gap- 50-43. good times. should i have started another thread for today's poll results?
Last edited on Fri Oct 24th, 2008 04:25 am by geaston
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3503 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 22nd, 2008 09:16 pm |
|
QCVillager wrote: Shall we even discuss how the Democrat controlled Congress' favorability ratings have plummeted?
The Guardian,
Wednesday October 1 2008 Congress's public approval rating was down to 18% before the crisis (the BAILOUT)hit. By some estimates, it is now 10% and falling. Washington has seen a "throw the bums out" mood before, notably Newt Gingrich's 1994 anti-government "Republican revolution". But this is something else. Like some others, Gingrich is calling for the resignation of Hank Paulson, the treasury secretary, for presiding over a train wreck and then failing to persuade people why $700bn was needed to get back on the rails.
"Primal Leadership" By Daniel Goleman, Robert Boyatzis and Annie McKee A great book that will help you understand human nature, the inner workings of groups and the genetic makeup of politics.
But, I will say, I am disappointed with many Congressmen. Many work hard and diligent and others never show up or play around with the Pages.
I am disappointed with Barney Frank and Chuck Dodd regarding Fannie and Freddie. That was wrong of them to allow F/F to continue unregulated. Many of them became lazy and looked for payoffs in those good days and it's disgusting. I think they all should look over their requirements of public service and abide by them, otherwise get out. Those two guys are sharp, but old and worn out. Get some young blood in there and you'll see the approval ratings go up I bet. As time goes on, they'll probably get lazy and greedy too.....nature of the beast.
Congress is the legislative, or lawmaking, branch of our government. It shares power with the president and the Supreme Court. The writers of the U.S. Constitution thought Congress was so important, they listed it first! In fact, John Adams thought Congress was enough to rule the Country and didn't want a President.
Congress has two parts, the Senate and the House of Representatives. There are 100 Senators, two from each state. The House of Representatives has 435 members.
The House and Senate meet separately in the same building, The Capitol in Washington, D.C. Each year, they consider more than 10,000 bills. Bills are proposals for new laws. Only about 650 of those bills ever become law.
Adapted from Scholastic News.
Now someone needs to clue Sarah Palin in about how Congress works. And most important, what her job description is if she becomes VP. She seems to think she would be over Congress as their leader and that she can vote and make policy. That's what she told a 3rd grader yesterday. All untrue. Another reason she isn't qualified.
Last edited on Wed Oct 22nd, 2008 09:17 pm by Bambi
|
TheBigShow
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 11th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1133 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 22nd, 2008 07:09 pm |
|
Jeff, you show me a poll that shows congress ever above 50% and I'll gladly come to your conclusion that only the democrats could be that low. Congress ALWAYS has low approval ratings. Being a congressman is the most thankless job you could have. Bring home the bacon to your home community, people complain. Bring nothing home, people complain. You can never vote the right way...blah blah blah.
PS, thank you for at least posting a legitimate source unlike DS.
Last edited on Wed Oct 22nd, 2008 07:09 pm by TheBigShow
|
QCVillager
Member
|
Posted: Wed Oct 22nd, 2008 07:04 pm |
|
Shall we even discuss how the Democrat controlled Congress' favorability ratings have plummeted?
The Guardian,
Wednesday October 1 2008 Congress's public approval rating was down to 18% before the crisis (the BAILOUT)hit. By some estimates, it is now 10% and falling. Washington has seen a "throw the bums out" mood before, notably Newt Gingrich's 1994 anti-government "Republican revolution". But this is something else. Like some others, Gingrich is calling for the resignation of Hank Paulson, the treasury secretary, for presiding over a train wreck and then failing to persuade people why $700bn was needed to get back on the rails.
Last edited on Wed Oct 22nd, 2008 07:05 pm by QCVillager
|
TheBigShow
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 11th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1133 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 22nd, 2008 06:58 pm |
|
| Shall we even discuss how Carribou Barbie's favorability ratings have plummeted?
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3503 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 22nd, 2008 03:10 pm |
|
geaston wrote: so when are you posting today's poll?
That is today's poll. No change so far. Just check out the site I posted on a daily basis.
|
geaston
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jun 27th, 2008 |
| Location: | Queen Creek |
| Posts: | 68 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 22nd, 2008 03:09 pm |
|
| so when are you posting the next poll? Last edited on Wed Oct 22nd, 2008 03:10 pm by geaston
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3503 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 22nd, 2008 02:16 pm |
|
On Oct. 21st, Crimefighter posted a Gallup Poll result from October 16th., when in fact on Oct. 21st, the Polls result's were Obama 52% and McCain 41%.
These polls change, so to use an old poll from an earlier date, on the date it changed is disingenuous. I questioned it, so I verified it.
Don't you think that if we are going to state facts from research and a specific poll company, that one should make sure what the results are for that day? Not for several days prior, as they change constantly.
http://www.gallup.com/Home.aspx
|
Current time is 10:07 pm | Page:   1 2 |
|
|
|