polls/elections

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,475
148
63
Bowling Green Ky
Maybe the dems should not be so jubilant over polls--appears they are not so popular either and consider if they were attacked by press day in and day out for 6 years what their #'s would be--

Negative Numbers

A new Harris poll puts the president's job approval rating at 29 percent, the lowest number of his presidency. The low approval caps a week of negative polls for the president, but the numbers look just as bad, if not worse, for some prominent Democrats.

While a New York Times poll released earlier this week found that 31 percent of Americans approve of the president, just 26 percent hold a favorable view of 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, while 38 percent have an unfavorable opinion. And 34 percent of Americans have a favorable opinion of New York Senator Hillary Clinton, compared to 35 percent who view her unfavorably.

---will get on the grapevine on this article however as they left out important stat also which would be pertinent--and that being % having neg opinion of GW--as I expect it would be high.
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
I think most people kind of hate all politicians these days. Especially those that are middle of the road or either no opinion or anti-political. I think we all just defend our positions and beliefs and that will win out when it comes time to cast that vote. The lesser of two evils will definitely be in play in 06 and 08, don't you think, Wayne? I agree...some of the main combatants in our coming elections are very UNpopular, both democrat and republican. Doesn't bode well for a positive, stimulating election horizon, does it?
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
Ya I could not believe how high Clinton's numbers were after getting attacked everyday for 8 years. Even now he buries Bush 43.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,475
148
63
Bowling Green Ky
"Ya I could not believe how high Clinton's numbers were after getting attacked everyday for 8 years. Even now he buries Bush 43.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I can believe it--1st political he did little--riding the fence on Terror-Immigration-Medicare/Social Security ect--all the controversial issues.. You don't create many waves when you don't do anything.

Then you have your near 90% demographical voting block that will back him even if he cuts their welfare checks.

Then you have to wonder the intelligence of who they poll.

Saw in recent poll ---35% American Idol Voters Think Their American Idol Vote Just As Important As Vote For President--and would venture a guess that many of those voting in American Idol don't even vote for pres.

and the Top Dog- from CNN :)

When asked which man was more honest as president, poll respondents were more evenly divided, with the numbers -- 46 percent Clinton to 41 percent Bush

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/12/bush.clinton.poll/index.html
 
Last edited:

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Clinton accomplishments, which probably provide insight into his high approval ratings - especially with blacks:

? Longest Economic Expansion in U.S. History. In February 2000, the United States entered the 107th consecutive month of economic expansion -- the longest economic expansion in history.

? Moving From Record Deficits to Record Surplus. In 1992, the deficit was $290 billion, a record dollar high. In 2000, we have a projected budget surplus of $167 billion -- the largest dollar surplus on record (even after adjusting for inflation) and the largest as a share of our economy since 1951. This is the first time we have had three surpluses in a row in more than a half century.

? Over 21 Million New Jobs. 21.2 million new jobs have been created since 1993, the most jobs ever created under a single Administration -- and more new jobs than Presidents Reagan and Bush created during their three terms. 92 percent (19.4 million) of the new jobs have been created in the private sector, the highest percentage in 50 years. Under President Clinton and Vice President Gore, the economy has added an average of 248,000 jobs per month, the highest under any President. This compares to 52,000 per month under President Bush and 167,000 per month under President Reagan.

? Fastest and Longest Real Wage Growth in Over Three Decades. The United States experienced five consecutive years of real wage growth -- the longest consecutive increase since the 1960s.

? Unemployment Nearly the Lowest in Three Decades. (WHY DO BLACKS LIKE HIM?)

? Highest Homeownership Rate in History. In 1999, the homeownership rate was 66.8 percent -- the highest ever recorded. Minority homeownership rates were also the highest ever recorded. (WHY DO BLACKS LIKE HIM?)

? Lowest Poverty Rate in Two Decades. The poverty rate fell from 15.1 percent in 1993 to 12.7 percent in 1998. That's the lowest poverty rate since 1979 and the largest five-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years (1965-1970). The African-American poverty rate has dropped from 33.1 percent in 1993 to 26.1 percent in 1998 -- the lowest level ever recorded and the largest five-year drop in African-American poverty in more than a quarter century (1967-1972). (WHY DO BLACKS LIKE HIM?) The poverty rate for Hispanics is at the lowest level since 1979, and dropped to 25.6 percent in 1998.

? Tax Cuts for Working Families. 15 million additional working families received additional tax relief because of the President's expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit. In 1998, the EITC lifted 4.3 million people out of poverty - double the number lifted out of poverty by the EITC in 1993 (WHY DO BLACKS LIKE HIM?).

? The Family and Medical Leave Act.

? Improved Access to Affordable, Quality Child Care and Early Childhood Programs. Under the Clinton-Gore Administration, federal funding for child care has more than doubled, helping parents pay for the care of about 1.5 million children in 1998, and the1996 welfare reform law increased child care funding by $4 billion over six years to provide child care assistance to families moving from welfare to work (WHY DO BLACKS LIKE HIM?).

? Increased the Minimum Wage. The minimum wage has risen from $4.25 to $5.15 per hour, increasing wages for 10 million workers (WHY DO BLACKS LIKE HIM?).

? President Clinton proposed and passed the HOPE Scholarships and Lifetime Learning tax credits to provide tax relief to nearly 13 million Americans each year who are struggling to pay for college. The Hope Scholarship helps make the first two years of college universally available to about 5.6 million students annually by providing a tax credit of up to $1,500 for tuition and fees for the first two years of college. The Lifetime Learning tax credit provides a 20 percent tax credit on the first $5,000 of tuition and fees for students beyond the first two years of college. (WHY DO BLACKS LIKE HIM? - hmm, tax credits for people who attend college and want to become productive, successful members of society that are having a hard time paying for it?)

? The Clinton-Gore Administration cut student fees and interest rates on all loans, expanded repayment options including income contingent repayment, and improved service through the Direct Loan Program. Students have saved $8.7 billion since 1993 through the reduction in loan fees and interest rates.

? More High-Quality Teachers with Smaller Class Sizes. The Clinton-Gore Administration won a second installment of $1.3 billion for the President's plan to hire an additional 100,000 well-prepared teachers to reduce class size in the early grades, when children learn to read and master the basic skills. Already, 29,000 teachers have been hired through this initiative. This year's budget provides $1.75 billion, a $450 million increase -- enough to fund nearly 49,000 teachers.

? Turning Around Failing Schools. 11 million low-income students in 13,000 school districts now benefit from higher expectations and a challenging curriculum geared to higher standards through Title I-Aid to Disadvantaged Students. The FY 2000 budget provides a $134 million accountability fund to help turn around the worst performing schools and hold them accountable for results (Hmm, wonder where Bush got the idea to hold people accountable?) through such measures as overhauling curriculum, improving staffing, or even closing schools and reopening them as charter schools. This year, the President is proposing to double funding for this fund to turn around the nation's failing schools to ensure all children receive a quality education (WHY DO BLACKS LIKE HIM?).

? Lowest Overall Crime Rate in 25 Years. Under the Clinton-Gore Administration, America experienced the longest continuous drop in crime on record. Violent crime rate fell 7 percent in 1998 and 27 percent since 1993. The murder rate was down more than 25 percent since 1993, its lowest point since 1967. The overall crime rate was the lowest in 25 years.

? Putting 100,000 More Police on the Streets. In 1999, ahead of schedule and under budget, the Clinton-Gore Administration met its commitment to fund an additional 100,000 police officers for our communities. As a part of the COPS Program, the President announced new grants to increase community policing in high-crime and underserved neighborhoods. To help keep crime at record lows, the President won funding for the first installment toward his goal to hire up to 50,000 more officers by 2005.

? Lowest Number of People on Welfare Since 1969 as More Recipients went to Work. President Clinton kept his promise to reform the welfare system and move more Americans from welfare to work.

? Created New Tools to Help Families Move from Welfare to Work. The 1997 Balanced Budget Act signed by President Clinton included $3 billion to move long-term welfare recipients and low-income non-custodial fathers into jobs.

? President Clinton signed into law the toughest child support crackdown in history. Federal and state child support programs broke new records in 1999, collecting $15.5 billion -- nearly double the amount collected in 1992 (Hmm, and Bush insisted that Child Support enforcement funds were cut in the last budget bill...interesting).

? Expanded Investment in Urban and Rural Areas. The Clinton-Gore Administration created 31 rural and urban Empowerment Zones and more than 100 Enterprise Communities that have created new jobs, new opportunities and stronger communities (WHY DO BLACKS LIKE HIM?).

? President Clinton signed legislation creating Individual Development Accounts, providing incentives for low-income families to save for a first home, higher education, or to start a new business, a key part of his 1992 community empowerment agenda. In FY 1999, $10 million was awarded to establish savings accounts for over 10,000 low-income workers in 40 communities, and an additional $10 million will be awarded in FY 2000. The President's budget provided $25 million for IDAs in FY 2001 and proposes to allow low-income working families to use IDAs to save for a car that will allow them to get or keep a job (WHY DO BLACKS LIKE HIM?).

? Enacted Most Comprehensive Medicare Reforms in History. In the 1997 Balanced Budget, the Clinton-Gore Administration protected, modernized and extended the life of the Medicare Trust Fund while offering new options for patient choice and preventive care.

? Smallest Government Workforce Since the 1960's. There are 375,000 fewer employees in the Federal government workforce than in 1993 -- giving us the smallest Federal workforce since the Kennedy Administration.

? Lowest Government Spending Since 1974. At 18.7 percent, Federal Government spending as a share of the Gross Domestic Product was at its lowest level since 1974.

Just wanted to help remind you of some of the positive things Clinton did for America - many things that seem to come straight out of the conservative handbook, I might add. (Welfare reform, low government spending, smaller government, Individual development/savings accounts, tax cuts, credits and incentives, more police, educational accountability, economic expansion). And, for half his administration, he was dealing with a political minority in the congress. He left office with a 65% approval rating - the highest end-of-term approval rating of any President in the post-Eisenhower era. Bush is sitting at 29%...what do you think he'll end up with two more years to continue to drive it down?

And you say that you have to wonder about the intelligence of who these people poll? You honestly expect a black person to pick Bush over Clinton? And you question THEIR intelligence?!?
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,475
148
63
Bowling Green Ky
Clinton Accomplishments??

Really--in a few areas yes--but bulk of your accomplishments was due to dot.com bubble and the majority in house and senate's Contract with America--and off the top of my head I know--your lowest unemployment-homeowners--crime stats- have been surpassed in this admin in spite of much dire disasters.

again off top of my head NAFTA and Welfare reform were republican bills--and one would have to be dreamer to think welfare reform would have passed in dem controled congess.

I will say one thing--I think having one party pres and other party control house and senate has it's benefits.

P.S. Do you know which pres had lowest poll figures of all time?

Hint--history proved him to be one of greatest pres of all time.

Harry Truman
 
Last edited:

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
72
Boston
Just trying to follow the insurance man's logic. In Dogs eyes Clintons accomplishments are because of the previous admin but Bush's are his own. Unless of course it is something bad then it is Clintons fault as opposed to something bad under Clinton being Clinton's fault. I think I see a pattern growing here. Great post Chadman.
 
Last edited:

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,475
148
63
Bowling Green Ky
If you paid attention Stevie you would notice I've said a hundred times -I do not think ANY pres has much to do with economy.



Clintons greatest achievement>

He and Gore scared the shit out of enough people in 1st few years that he put the Senate and the House of Representatives in the hands of the Republicans for the first time since 1954--

"With Clinton's popularity sagging after the health care debacle, the 1994 elections resulted in the opposition Republican Party winning a majority in both houses of Congress for the first time in 40 years. This historic victory was viewed by many?especially the House Republicans led by Speaker Newt Gingrich?as the voters' repudiation of the Clinton presidency. A chastened Clinton subsequently accommodated some of the Republican proposals?offering a more aggressive deficit reduction plan and a massive overhaul of the nation's welfare system?while opposing Republican efforts to slow the growth of government spending on popular programs such as Medicare."
http://wwwa.britannica.com/eb/article-77914

The bad news is once the Rebs got in-- seems they forgot all about Contract with America--proving you can't trust any politician regardless of party. With Clinton in- Rebs want to cut back Medicare--with GW in- they expand it-- :shrug:
 
Last edited:

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
72
Boston
I agree with you there Dogs, "you can't trust any politician regardless of the party."
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
Clinton taxes cuts worked heck of a lot better then Bush 43. And if V P Gore had not had cast deciding tie breaking vote it might not have happen. Bush's give money a way plan with no way to pay for cuts. Has proved one thing the deficit will grow and eat your lunch.
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
How about these, Dogs:

Distributional Analysis of the Clinton June 1997 Tax Plan

Citizens for Tax Justice has completed a detailed distributional analysis of the effects of the tax cut plan proposed by President Clinton on June 30, 1997. The analysis finds that the Clinton plan differs sharply from the tax bills recently passed by the House and Senate, with far more of the tax cuts under the Clinton plan going to the middle income ranges, and far less going to the highest income taxpayers.

About 57% of the net Clinton tax cuts would go to families in the middle and fourth income quintiles. This compares to only 18% under the House tax plan and 21% under the Senate plan.

Taxpayers in the bottom 40% of the income scale would receive, on average, no benefit from Clinton's proposed tax cuts. Those in the bottom 20% would pay higher taxes, and those in the second 20% would pay about the same as now. The small income tax cuts in these groups are more than offset by higher excise taxes, primarily on airline tickets and cigarettes. In this regard, the Clinton plan is similar to its congressional counterparts.

The top 5% of taxpayers would receive 13% of the tax cuts under the Clinton plan. In contrast, the House plan offers 56% of its tax cuts to the top 5%, and the Senate plans offers 53%.

Unlike the congressional tax plans, the Clinton plan does not threaten to bust the budget after 2002. The House and Senate tax plans threaten to bust the budget not only in fiscal 2002 but to an ever-increasing extent in later years. Because the Clinton plan lacks the back-loaded, fast-growing provisions of the House and Senate plans and does not rely on optimistic estimates regarding capital gains taxes, the Clinton plan does not share this defect.

I found that very enlightening...thanks for asking us to look...
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,475
148
63
Bowling Green Ky
CHAD CHAD CHAD---If you ever consider getting "opinion" from other than ultra liberal blogs--it would lend to some credibilty--heres a little on your outfits reporting--of course they tried to spin these #'s the other way--I wonder why???



Anything but Avoidance: Citizens for Tax Justice?s Blundering Corporate Tax Report
by Norbert J. Michel, Ph.D.
WebMemo #586

October 13, 2004 | |



The nonprofit group Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ) recently blasted U.S. corporations for increasing their ?tax avoidance? behavior during the presidency of George W. Bush. The CTJ report ?Corporate Income Taxes in the Bush Years?[1] examines the annual financial reports of a group of large U.S. corporations and purports to show how little these companies paid in taxes from 2001 to 2003. But the report fails to disclose that corporations? tax return data are not publicly available, a fact that makes CTJ?s analysis imprecise at best. Because of this shortcoming and other errors, CTJ?s conclusion that ?loophole seeking-corporations? aren?t paying their fair share of taxes falls flat.

Corporations? annual reports can only be used to derive crude estimates of corporate taxable income and taxes paid. The CTJ paper appears to have accounted for some differences between financial reporting rules and tax filing rules, but the paper?s discussion of methodology does not provide an adequate explanation of these adjustments. Regardless, it is impossible to account for all of these differences without access to private information.

CTJ also omits other vital details that seriously weaken its conclusions. For example, the paper fails to name any recent tax legislation despite its accusation that Congress and the administration are tweaking tax policy for corporate gain. The following list summarizes the report?s major omissions and errors.

Companies use financial accounting rules to derive the figures in their annual reports. But tax law and financial accounting rules differ significantly, creating legitimate differences between values reported on financial statements and those reported on tax returns. These discrepancies, known as ?book-tax differences,? cannot be accurately reconciled using only information that is publicly available. The CTJ study ignores this shortcoming in its analysis and, even worse, mischaracterizes book-tax differences as tax avoidance schemes.
CTJ estimates corporations? average tax rates using figures that almost certainly differ from their true values because tax return data are not publicly disclosed. The CTJ paper does not mention this serious, even crippling, limitation of its analysis. Worse, CTJ misrepresents its estimates of corporations? tax payments as actual tax payments, though these estimates may be grossly inaccurate.
Certain tax laws reduce a corporation?s tax payments in a given year at the expense of limiting future deductions. CTJ ignores this difference between the timing and magnitude of tax benefits. Consequently, CTJ misrepresents the use of accelerated depreciation and net operating losses (NOLs), both of which can reduce a corporation?s tax burden in a given year, as illegitimate tax subsidies. But the lower payments that CTJ condemns are only half the story: a corporation that uses accelerated depreciation or NOLs this year trades away the use of these deductions in future years.
When discussing corporate tax rates, CTJ uses the wrong measure. The CTJ study estimates the average effective tax rates for its sample of companies, but it does not discuss the companies? marginal tax rates. While average tax rates are calculated by dividing taxes paid by total income, marginal tax rates apply to additional increments of income?the next dollar earned. Except by fluke or error, no individual makes decisions based on average tax rates; rather it is marginal rates that govern whether to work another hour or produce one more widget. CTJ?s own estimates suggest that companies? marginal tax rates are twice as high as their average rates. By this more appropriate measure, corporations? tax rates are much higher than CTJ implies in its analysis.
In characterizing the corporate tax benefit from granting stock options to employees as a ?tax loophole,? CTJ misrepresents the deductibility of salaries and wages as a tax avoidance scheme. But corporations don?t pay taxes on wages and stock options because their employees, the recipients of these benefits, pay taxes on them at the individual level. And while there has been controversy over stock option ?expensing,? it concerns the accounting treatment of these options, which has almost nothing to do with how the options are taxed.
CTJ bemoans the decline in the relative share of ?corporate? taxes collected by the U.S. Treasury without looking at changes in the economy that may account for it. An increasing number of individuals are running their own businesses as non-corporate entities, such as S-corporations and limited liability companies (LLCs). These individuals do pay taxes on their business income but not through the corporate tax system. This trend away from the traditional C-corporation has surely contributed to the decline in the relative share of corporate tax revenues, but CTJ simply ignores it.
CTJ also overlooks the use of reasonable tax planning strategies that may reduce tax revenues. Unlike most countries, the United States taxes corporate income wherever it is earned, placing U.S. companies at a competitive disadvantage abroad. It is understandable that corporate boards use all legal methods to minimize this disadvantage, including reincorporating in a foreign nation. Indeed, failing to use all legal methods of tax planning would make corporate managers derelict in their responsibility to shareholders. But to CTJ, even playing by the rules is still unjust tax avoidance.
The CTJ paper does not provide the proper statistical context for its estimates of average tax rates. While the study reports that corporations in its sample paid an average tax rate, over three-years, of 18.4 percent, it neglects to point out that average tax rates ranged from 6.7 percent to 30.14 percent for these companies. This much variation in CTJ?s average tax rates, combined with CTJ?s imprecise methodology for computing the tax rates, renders any use of the 18.4 percent average rather limited.
Most disturbingly of all, CTJ professes in its report to show the ?actual? tax payments of 275 large U.S. corporations, but it never admits that this information is not publicly disclosed and that the report?s ?actual? payments are merely estimates, and shaky ones at that. Indeed, several companies have publicly taken issue with CTJ?s estimates and methodology, and at least one earlier CTJ estimate has been proven grossly inaccurate:

According to SBC spokeswoman Anne Vincent, ?It?s just not true that we [SBC] got a half-billion dollar check back from the federal government.?[2]


continued --WITH 3RD PARTY REFERECNCES INCLUDED
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,475
148
63
Bowling Green Ky
Pepsi?s Kelly McAndrew said, ?It is impossible for us to determine how they calculated the tax rate, which is also incorrect.?[3]
In an earlier report, CTJ claimed that Enron received a net refund of $278 million on its federal income taxes in 2000[4]. But Congress?s Joint Committee on Taxation reported in 2003 that Enron paid $63.2 million in federal income taxes in 2000, consisting of $21.3 million under the federal income tax and $41.9 million under the corporate alternative minimum tax (AMT).[5]
Finally, CTJ charges that Congress and the Bush administration changed the tax laws to benefit ?loophole seeking-corporations.? But because the CTJ paper does not list any recent legislation and contains only one page on methodology, which is described with few details, it is difficult to evaluate this specific claim.

The errors and omissions in the Citizens for Tax Justice?s study of corporate taxation are myriad. CTJ misrepresents its own error-prone estimates of corporate tax payments as corporations? ?actual? payments. It mistakes the differences between tax accounting rules and financial accounting rules as evidence of tax avoidance. It ignores the very significant difference between tax strategies that affect the timing of tax benefits and those that affect how much tax is paid. It trades on the recent ?stock option expensing? controversy as justification for branding single-taxation (as opposed to double-taxation) of employee compensation as a ?tax loophole.? CTJ ignores economic trends that would explain some of the drop in the relative share of corporate tax collections. It implies that playing by the rules in tax planning is somehow unjust. And finally, CTJ uses the wrong measure, the average tax rate, to assess corporations? tax rates even though the marginal tax rate, which is usually much higher, is the more appropriate measure. For these reasons and more (watch for a forthcoming Center for Data Analysis Report from the Heritage Foundation), CTJ?s ?Corporate Income Taxes in the Bush Years? presents an exceedingly misleading picture of corporate taxation in America.



Norbert Michel, Ph.D., is Policy Analyst in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Robert S. McIntyre and T.D. Coo Nguyen, ?Corporate Income Taxes in the Bush Years,? Citizens for Tax Justice, September 2004, at http://www.ctj.org/corpfed04an.pdf.

[2] Sanford Nowlin, ?Valero, SBC Hit By Tax Study; Watchdog Groups Say No Income Tax Paid, Firms Deny Figures,? San Antonio Express News, September 24, 2004, p. 1C.

[3] Julie Moran Alterio, Congressional Acts Let Some Businesses Avoid Paying Federal Income Taxes, The Journal News, September 24, 2004, p. D1.

[4] Citizens for Tax Justice, ?Less Than Zero: Enron's Income Tax Payments, 1996-2000,? January 17, 2002, at http://www.ctj.org/html/enron.htm

[5] Gary A. McGill and Edmund Outslay, ?Lost in Translation: Detecting Tax Shelter Activity in Financial Statements,? National Tax Journal, Vol. LVII, No. 3, September 2004, pp. 746 ? 747.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Wonder how many others likewise find their reported opinion--as fact-- and enlightening. :shrug:
 
Last edited:

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,475
148
63
Bowling Green Ky
You think constant media bombardment doesn't effect how some people think---
What would this poll indicate?

Home Sweet Home

Some striking contrasts in a current poll on whether the country is on the right track. It seems that the closer things are to home, the better people think they're going.

The latest Washington Post poll shows that 69 percent of Americans feel the country is "pretty seriously off on the wrong track." But just 52 percent said the same when asked about how things are going in their own state.

And a majority of Americans ? 58 percent ? said things were going in the right direction in their local communities.
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
WAYNE WAYNE WAYNE---I will consider info from any source, as far as that line of commentary is concerned. I believe your comment was asking djv to mention some of the tax cuts that Clinton proposed - the insinuation being that I guess he made none. It was supposed to be a trip of enlightenment, right? I took about 2 minutes to look for what you asked for and found it. Are you disputing what I posted? Would you prefer it to be said differently? Does it have to be from a conservative or non-liberal site to be considered true or a valid thought? Are you saying that what I posted (not some other commentary that you dug up for whatever reason - I guess to deflect from the information) is incorrect?
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
And as far as your last poll question...I guess I don't understand your point. Are you saying that public perception is flawed, because they think the current administration is making a mess of many things, while locally they feel that things are being handled better?

How is that a stretch? That's about as true as it can get for most people, I would think. I can certainly say I feel that way living here. I think the administration is doing a horrible job - probably one of the 1 or 2 worst in my lifetime, but I feel that at the state and local level, things are going much better. And we currently have a republican governor, who I might even vote for because of it.

Yeah, it's just because of the media. That's the only reason to think the Bush administration is doing a bad overall job. What a complete and total cop-out. Typical...deflect blame, accept no responsibility, criticize those with differing viewpoints. Gotta love conservatism these days.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,475
148
63
Bowling Green Ky
Last poll question was to imply that via news media many think times are bad --however not for them.

back on the tax cuts--the intial question was list the tax cuts that Clinton proposed.
I was looking for which tax cuts Bill passed that were proposed by him vs those proposed by GOP.

Don't know if you are aware but Citizens for Justice is an union backed org--here is interesting read on their statislical tabulations--
http://new.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/cda04-13.cfm
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top