Yep, they actually have a lower approval rating than

• Running From Reality - sm
  • Looks like the children skipped the link - before launching pub battle cries. amfm
  • Why did the economy spiral downward after the - dems took over congress? huh?
    • Veto pen. You seriously believe this freefall - was created in 20 months? sm
      • All you have to do is look at the figures and when they started declining.... - sam
        • That is if you can overlook W's compulsive - deficit spending to fund war. Puh-leeze. szq
    • Exactly...well, they did manage to write and get passed... - sam
    • Yep, they actually have a lower approval rating than - the president, especially Pelosi, the worst.nm

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

x

Very, very contradicting to me.  Obama changing a lot of what he said lately and it gets worse.  He wants us to vote early and take off from work Nov. 4th to help him win.  Fox news also reports Obama and his campaign lays out plans to kill expectations after win because of concerns that many supporters are now harboring unrealistic hopes of what can be achieved.  What the heck?  Now he says, "it will be hard to achieve goals and will take time."  He says one thing and then says another.  I want to know where these unauthorized credit cards came from for his campaign.  I want to see his birth certificate that he cannot cough up and there is a petition out and he is under investigation if he was truly born in the good ole USA.  Call your State Department and they will tell you there is an investigation and they trying to get this resolved before Nov. 4th.  So much uncertainty.   Hope I do not offend anyone, but just like a bumper sticker I read

I'll keep my God, my freedom, my guns, and my money, you can keep THE CHANGE.  VOTE FOR MCCAIN/PALIN.

In response to threads from below:

OK.  If you choose to use an 80% stamp of approval from a state whose population is slightly under that of Austin, Texas as some kind of leverage to argue in favor of what's-her-name, go for it.  It means about as much to me as Obama's 80% approval rating in Europe means to you.  All you are doing is preaching to the choir.

Obama followers will continue to illustrate the zillions of ways this woman is not our idea of leadership.  It will have very little to do with who does or does not approve of her.  It has to do with the difference in the issues that are the underpinnings of NeoCon versus democratic values.  McCain did my party a big favor when he decided to put a token woman in that spot after meeting with her once or twice and deciding she is a younger version of himself...someone who he thinks can bring Hillary supporters into the fold while at the same time energizing his conservative base.  It's like my man said...John McCain just does not get it...and neither do you.

She is Pro-life, promotes creationism over evolution, thinks global warming is not a man-made problem, anti-gun control, is on record against fair pay for women, thinks Hillary is a whiner like McCain thinks American economic refugees are whiners, has accepted the nomination as a token female pawn in McCain's political games while thinking she will be advancing her own anemic political career, is under a state ethics committee investigation while portraying herself as the ethics clean-up maiden, supported the bridge to nowhere before it became more political capitol for her to oppose it, etc....and this is what we are hearing after only 24 hours. 

That is why Obama supporters will energize themselves the way you see them doing here and oppose this ticket on any and all levels of opportunities as they present themselves.  An 80% approval rating against all this is a really weak, limp, lame claim to fame.  Got it? 

Even he see the unfairness here.  Some conservatives are fond of saying that Democrats want to tax the wealthy unfairly, but what I would like to see is the wealthy taxed equally.  "Mr. Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent."  Here is the entire article.  It's a great read.  Trust me.

Tom Bawden in New York

Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner.

Speaking at a $4,600-a-seat fundraiser in New York for Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion (£26 billion), said: “The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.”

Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation.

The comments are among the most signficant yet in a debate raging on both sides of the Atlantic about growing income inequality and how the super-wealthy are taxed.

They echo those made this month by Nicholas Ferguson, one of the leading figures in Britain’s private equity industry, when he criticised tax rates that left its multimillionaire venture capitalists “paying less tax than a cleaning lady”.

Last week senior members of the US Senate proposed to increase the rate of tax that private equity and hedge fund staff pay on their share of the profits, known as carried interest, from the 15 per cent capital gains rate to about 35 per cent.

Lloyd Blankfein, the chief executive of Goldman Sachs, acknowledged in an interview yesterday that there were justified concerns about the huge profits generated by private equity firms and that he worried that income inequality was “poisoning democracy”. He also said that he would be voting for the Democrat candidate at the next election. Mr Blankfein is the highest-paid executive on Wall Street, earning $54 million last year.

Mr Buffett, who runs the investment group Berkshire Hathaway and is widely regarded as the world’s most successful investor, said that he was a Democrat because Republicans are more likely to think: “I’m making $80 million a year – God must have intended me to have a lower tax rate.”

Mr Buffett said that a Republican proposal to eliminate elements of inheritance tax, which raises about $30 billion a year from the assets of about 12,000 rich families, would broaden the disparity between rich and poor. He added that the Republicans would seek to recover lost revenue by increasing taxes for the less prosperous.

He said: “You could take that $30 billion and give $1,000 to 30 million poor families. Or should you favour the 12,000 estates and make 30 million families pay an extra $1,000?”

Could the rest of America be getting a clue?

August 17, 2005

Obama's approval index (number who strongly approve minus number who strongly disapprove) has slipped to +4 from +30 on taking office.  35% strongly approve, 31% strongly disapprove.

Rasmussen polling also shows that more voters would choose a "generic" Republican over a "generic" Democrat in the next election by a 2-point margin.  Similar polling in recent weeks had previously shown the Democrats to an edge of up to 6 pointts.  This has evaporated.

I predict that the slippage will continue as Democrats overplay their hand in Congress, and as the bill for their drunken spending spree and the unthinkable mountain of debt they're accumulating  begins to land on the average citizen, as it ALWAYS does, one way or another (higher local/state/sales taxes, higher license fees, higher prices, wage stagnation, etc.). 

The reason this always happens is because that's the way economics happens to work and neither Obama, Pelosi nor any of their arrogant commie pals can change the rules of economics - even if they do push us into socialism.  (Some of our younger members should study up on the inequality of income that has resulted under ALL of the socialist, "nanny-state" and/or communist systems.  It will disillusion you about all such schemes forever.)   

I won't be surprised to see him in negative territory tomorrow once the American people find out what he actually said today in Cairo.  DISGRACEFUL SPEECH!

The approval index is computed by subtracting the percentage of voters who strongly disapprove of Obama's job performance from those who strongly approve of it.

Once sporting an index in the +30 range, the Big BO (you may interpret "BO" however you wish)  has in a matter of a mere handful of months fallen like Lucifer from Heaven.  May his end be similarly appropriate, politically speaking. Let's make this goofy clown a one-term bozo.