What the people think

Duff Miver

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 29, 2009
6,521
55
0
Right behind you
"Do you think the policies of Barack Obama and the Democrats or George W. Bush and the Republicans are more responsible for the country's current economic problems?" N=502 (Version B), margin of error ? 4.5

Obama,
Democrats Bush,
Republicans Both
equally (vol.) Neither (vol.) Unsure
% % % % %

7/18-20/11
29 57 10 3 -

4/29 - 5/1/11
30 55 10 4 -

9/1-2/10
33 53 10 3 1
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Personally, I think both are to blame. And I think both sides need to be realistic to work on the problem. It remains to be seen if they will to any real degree. Both sides have to give in some to make it work. If one side doesn't - it won't work. Pretty simple, really.
 
A

azbob

Guest
If The Obama has not been able to overcome all of these "Bush issues" in three years, and in fact most numbers are worse (deficit, unemployment, housing, GNP to name a few) then how many years would you suggest we give him?

To that end, I guess Bush wasn't effective because he was still trying to overcome the failed presidency of Jimmy Carter.

I guess we will leave it to the historians to decide if a peanut farmer or a community organization was the worse president of all time...how about another poll Duffman?
 

ssd

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 2, 2000
1,837
53
48
Ohio
How about the polling data to back up those #'s, Muff?

What was the sample size and who/ where were they asked?
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,518
217
63
Bowling Green Ky
What the people think is obvious--depending what side of fence they are on.

You have those who have lived their lives responsibly--by working-saving-spending within their means.

--and those that head to the mail box to pick up their checks because they do not work--they have have no savings--are on the top of every credit repair list known to man.

Boths sides will naturally gravitate to those they identify with. :shrug:
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
72
Boston
We were losing $700,000 jobs a month during Bush. He started 2 wars and cut taxes. Obama, to his detriment, was not able to take control and turn the ship. He compromised his mandate and we are all paying the price now. I am no fan of Obama, because of the concessions he has made and for not stopping the wars, but this mess al falls on Bush.
Imagine if Obama did not extend the Bush Tax Cuts and things were like they are today. The Republicans would be yelling from the rooftops that it is because of the taxes.
But the tax cuts have been extended and we are still in this mess.
 

Mags

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 8, 2000
2,813
27
48
We were losing $700,000 jobs a month during Bush. He started 2 wars and cut taxes. Obama, to his detriment, was not able to take control and turn the ship. He compromised his mandate and we are all paying the price now. I am no fan of Obama, because of the concessions he has made and for not stopping the wars, but this mess al falls on Bush.
Imagine if Obama did not extend the Bush Tax Cuts and things were like they are today. The Republicans would be yelling from the rooftops that it is because of the taxes.
But the tax cuts have been extended and we are still in this mess.

Stevie - I (surprise) don't see it that way.

I think one of our biggest issues is that 50% of our population don't pay federal income tax (in fact, some get money back - over and above what they paid in - imagine that!)

See, when you don't have any skin in the game, and aren't paying any federal tax for all the benefits you get by living in America, it is easy to say "just spend more Mr. Obama, and have some else pay for it". Its like getting free lunch every day - you'll eat as much as you want and get fat and lazy.

BUT, if you see your OWN taxes go up due to more government spending, now you have skin in the game. Now you will care about our debt problems and how much money gets spent and wasted - whether it is on the wars, on our military operation, handouts, on implementing a health care bill that the majority still do not back.

We need more people with skin in the game, instead of being oblivious to the world around them.

Roll back ALL the Bush tax cuts - on everyone. Take away all the "earned income credit" nonsense. Share the sacrafice, instead of always asking the top 10% (who already pay 70% of the country's bill) to always have to step up to the plate.

But as long as you have 50% of the folks on a free ride, they will always vote to spend more - cuz it doesn't cost them a dime....
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
72
Boston
Stevie - I (surprise) don't see it that way.

I think one of our biggest issues is that 50% of our population don't pay federal income tax (in fact, some get money back - over and above what they paid in - imagine that!)

See, when you don't have any skin in the game, and aren't paying any federal tax for all the benefits you get by living in America, it is easy to say "just spend more Mr. Obama, and have some else pay for it". Its like getting free lunch every day - you'll eat as much as you want and get fat and lazy.

BUT, if you see your OWN taxes go up due to more government spending, now you have skin in the game. Now you will care about our debt problems and how much money gets spent and wasted - whether it is on the wars, on our military operation, handouts, on implementing a health care bill that the majority still do not back.

We need more people with skin in the game, instead of being oblivious to the world around them.

Roll back ALL the Bush tax cuts - on everyone. Take away all the "earned income credit" nonsense. Share the sacrafice, instead of always asking the top 10% (who already pay 70% of the country's bill) to always have to step up to the plate.

But as long as you have 50% of the folks on a free ride, they will always vote to spend more - cuz it doesn't cost them a dime....

Free ride? Let's talk about a free ride for a minute. Let's take that pig from Ford. They CEO who took a $56,000,000 bonus. One year bonus $56 million.

If instead of Him taking that money out of the economy they could have distributed $5,000 to 10,000 emoployees and the pig could still get a 6 million dollar bonus. But the difference to the country would be that all of those $5,000 checks would find there way back into the economy. People would be buying tv's cars, fixing houses, doing whatever they have been saving for.
That $56 million will never see it's way back into the economy and as the rich get richer this is just just being multiplied.
A question for you because you keep pushing this 50% of Americans are freeloader BS.
How much of a % of income after paying for lifes necessities does the top 5% control?
 

Lumi

LOKI
Forum Member
Aug 30, 2002
21,104
58
0
58
In the shadows
Free ride? Let's talk about a free ride for a minute. Let's take that pig from Ford. They CEO who took a $56,000,000 bonus. One year bonus $56 million.

If instead of Him taking that money out of the economy they could have distributed $5,000 to 10,000 emoployees and the pig could still get a 6 million dollar bonus. But the difference to the country would be that all of those $5,000 checks would find there way back into the economy. People would be buying tv's cars, fixing houses, doing whatever they have been saving for.
That $56 million will never see it's way back into the economy and as the rich get richer this is just just being multiplied.
A question for you because you keep pushing this 50% of Americans are freeloader BS.
How much of a % of income after paying for lifes necessities does the top 5% control?

Interesting how you use a Ford as an example, a company who did not need a Washington bailout.

GM, however...

Let's take a ride in the wayback machine....:shrug:

ANd a peek into the future. GE, Obama's chosen NON TAX PAYING CORP ! GE to buy 'tens of thousands' of electric cars

It's pretty clear to me
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
72
Boston
Interesting how you use a Ford as an example, a company who did not need a Washington bailout.

GM, however...

Let's take a ride in the wayback machine....:shrug:

ANd a peek into the future. GE, Obama's chosen NON TAX PAYING CORP ! GE to buy 'tens of thousands' of electric cars

It's pretty clear to me

The bailout is not part of my example. Neither is the pigs competence or all the $7000 rebates the American middleclass paid to allow him to sell those cars.

My point was how one man took 56 million dollars out of the economy.

As for the bailouts I was against them since Bush started it. I was for the free market to take care of it. And once again if it did a case could be made that we would be much better off.
 

Mags

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 8, 2000
2,813
27
48
Free ride? Let's talk about a free ride for a minute. Let's take that pig from Ford. They CEO who took a $56,000,000 bonus. One year bonus $56 million.

If instead of Him taking that money out of the economy they could have distributed $5,000 to 10,000 emoployees and the pig could still get a 6 million dollar bonus. But the difference to the country would be that all of those $5,000 checks would find there way back into the economy. People would be buying tv's cars, fixing houses, doing whatever they have been saving for.
That $56 million will never see it's way back into the economy and as the rich get richer this is just just being multiplied.
A question for you because you keep pushing this 50% of Americans are freeloader BS.
How much of a % of income after paying for lifes necessities does the top 5% control?

Make no mistake, I am not defending the guy from Ford - that is an obscene amount of money.

But when you go down to 5%, you are including (I think) families that make probably $150K (since reportedly the top 2% make $250K or more).

It's nuts that a family making $150K in income pay a lot of tax, while the family making $60K pays none. The the family paying nothing probably takes a lot more out in services.

If the question was "is EVERYONE willing to pay higher taxes for more services" - we wouldn't be in the situation we are in right now. We'd spend much less. But when we exempt 50% from paying ANY federal income tax - that is when you get a severe imbalance and can't solve your spending problem.

Skin in the game.....
 

Mags

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 8, 2000
2,813
27
48
The bailout is not part of my example. Neither is the pigs competence or all the $7000 rebates the American middleclass paid to allow him to sell those cars.

My point was how one man took 56 million dollars out of the economy.

As for the bailouts I was against them since Bush started it. I was for the free market to take care of it. And once again if it did a case could be made that we would be much better off.

I do agree that there should not been a bailout of the auto makers. Obama should not have been picking winners and losers. What about the small business owner who lost his business? Why didn't he get a bailout?

Our automakers had a bad business model (except Ford evidently). There cost basis was way too high also. We should have not bailed them out - but it was a political favor to the union crowd.
 

bleedingpurple

Registered User
Forum Member
Mar 23, 2008
22,438
254
83
52
Where it is real F ing COLD
Make no mistake, I am not defending the guy from Ford - that is an obscene amount of money.

But when you go down to 5%, you are including (I think) families that make probably $150K (since reportedly the top 2% make $250K or more).

It's nuts that a family making $150K in income pay a lot of tax, while the family making $60K pays none. The the family paying nothing probably takes a lot more out in services.

If the question was "is EVERYONE willing to pay higher taxes for more services" - we wouldn't be in the situation we are in right now. We'd spend much less. But when we exempt 50% from paying ANY federal income tax - that is when you get a severe imbalance and can't solve your spending problem.

Skin in the game.....

Are you saying people making 60 grand are not paying taxes??
 

Mags

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 8, 2000
2,813
27
48
Are you saying people making 60 grand are not paying taxes??

Some of them must not be.... I find it hard to believe that 50% of the folks in our country do not have $60K in family income. Maybe there is - I've never looked at those stats. But it doesn't seem unreasonable that the average family has 2 wage earners, working full time, making $15.00 an hour, does it?
 

bleedingpurple

Registered User
Forum Member
Mar 23, 2008
22,438
254
83
52
Where it is real F ing COLD
Some of them must not be.... I find it hard to believe that 50% of the folks in our country do not have $60K in family income. Maybe there is - I've never looked at those stats. But it doesn't seem unreasonable that the average family has 2 wage earners, working full time, making $15.00 an hour, does it?

Not unreasonable but I don't think it is that high. Depends on where you live? I think families making 60 grand are paying taxes not as much as the 150 gs but still paying them
 
A

azbob

Guest
I'll defend the guy from Ford.

That company refused to take any bailout money, changed their business model and is profitable.

That means that thousands of Ford workers and millions of suppliers are still working and in business. I'll take that ROI for $56m versus the money we gave to Chrysler and will never get back or the billions of dollars that go to welfare fraud and the undeserving.

At lease quote the bonuses that were given to AIG and the banks (post bailout) instead of Ford if you are trying to make a point.
 

ssd

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 2, 2000
1,837
53
48
Ohio
Or how about the $1.3 billion dollar loss the taxpayers took on the sale of last Chrysler stock to Fiat SpA?

Ooops.....hadn't heard about that one?
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top