Jump to content

Latest poll on zerO


Guest Patriot
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Proud American

The latest polls have zerO at 38% positive and 70% think the country is on the wrong track. The Kearny Loonies are quickly becoming an endangered species.

The most recent Gallup and Fox News polls have President Obama's approval rating at 44%. By comparison, in year three, George H. W. Bush was higher (and lost the election in 92) and Ronald Reagan was lower (and won his election in 84).

Considering that the leading Republican candidate for President called Social Security a criminal Ponzi scheme at last night's debate, I'm thinking President Obama's chances are looking real good if Perry wins the nomination. Still early though. Plus, you never know, maybe Palin could jump in and make the nomination race a bloodbath.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Patriot

The most recent Gallup and Fox News polls have President Obama's approval rating at 44%. By comparison, in year three, George H. W. Bush was higher (and lost the election in 92) and Ronald Reagan was lower (and won his election in 84).

Considering that the leading Republican candidate for President called Social Security a criminal Ponzi scheme at last night's debate, I'm thinking President Obama's chances are looking real good if Perry wins the nomination. Still early though. Plus, you never know, maybe Palin could jump in and make the nomination race a bloodbath.

My choice is a Romney/Rubio ticket which would crush zerO. But I think zerO can't win against Perry either. zerO has no record to run on, it's all broken promises, lies and failed policies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The most recent Gallup and Fox News polls have President Obama's approval rating at 44%. By comparison, in year three, George H. W. Bush was higher (and lost the election in 92) and Ronald Reagan was lower (and won his election in 84).

Considering that the leading Republican candidate for President called Social Security a criminal Ponzi scheme at last night's debate, I'm thinking President Obama's chances are looking real good if Perry wins the nomination. Still early though. Plus, you never know, maybe Palin could jump in and make the nomination race a bloodbath.

He's Right. With the caveat of the word "Criminal" being incorrect, it is more like Negligence..Social Security IS in fact a Ponzi Scheme now. IF Congress had not eliminated the separate Fund in the 1960's, and turned the Social Security funds into "Revenues" and put them in the general Fund, then there wouldn't be a problem..however, they Did. And Now, with more and more people Living Longer and longer lives, and the Admission that Current and furute workers are paying into Social Security for a benefit they'll probably never EVER actually Recieve, tell me how it Does NOT Fit into the Merriam-Webster Definition of

Ponzi Scheme: an investment swindle in which some early investors are paid off with money put up by later ones in order to encourage more and bigger risks
Sounds pretty Spot on...Doesnt it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Proud American

He's Right. With the caveat of the word "Criminal" being incorrect, it is more like Negligence..Social Security IS in fact a Ponzi Scheme now. IF Congress had not eliminated the separate Fund in the 1960's, and turned the Social Security funds into "Revenues" and put them in the general Fund, then there wouldn't be a problem..however, they Did. And Now, with more and more people Living Longer and longer lives, and the Admission that Current and furute workers are paying into Social Security for a benefit they'll probably never EVER actually Recieve, tell me how it Does NOT Fit into the Merriam-Webster Definition of Sounds pretty Spot on...Doesnt it?

No, that's not right. Insurance programs, like Social Security, are not Ponzi schemes. Plus, the projected shortfall in Social Security is fixable if there's the political will to reduce benefits or increase taxes:

The risk in the social security system is reduced (almost to zero) by the given fact that payroll taxes can always be increased and/or benefits can always be reduced, as they were in the 1980s under President Reagan. Plus, there is a difference between the timing risk of an insurance program and a Ponzi scheme. This risk is there in the Social Security system given the fact that some contributors will never collect on the premium payments they have made. In the case of retirement income, they would not collect because of death. In the case of disability income, because they do not become disabled. In a Ponzi scheme, a participant is promised a certain return on a certain date (no timing risk). Over time, given the pyramid has no risk to the participant, the pyramid will collapse since it cannot guarantee benefits indefinitely. In an insurance program like Social Security, the promise of a certain return is non-existent since changes can and have occurred to the program structure. Timing risk exists as well since individuals cannot say for certain they will collect on these benefits, it is dependent upon lifespan and/or disability.

The answer to the Social Security shortfall is reducing benefits or increasing the social security withholding tax. CBO estimates that over the next 75-years, dedicated social security revenues will fall short of scheduled benefits by 1.33 percent of taxable payroll. In other words, to bring the program into actuarial balance over the next 75 years, payroll taxes could be immediately increased by 1.33 percent of taxable payroll and kept at that higher rate, or scheduled benefits could be reduced by an equivalent amount.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Fact Checker

My choice is a Romney/Rubio ticket which would crush zerO. But I think zerO can't win against Perry either. zerO has no record to run on, it's all broken promises, lies and failed policies.

What about Perry's record or platform makes you think he can beat President Obama in 2012?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nations face choices, just like people do. We could have chosen to let our seniors live in squalor, eating dog food and winding up in the streets, as some of them did a long time ago. Instead, we chose Social Security. People whine and complain that they have to spend money on it but the fact is, it works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, that's not right. Insurance programs, like Social Security, are not Ponzi schemes. Plus, the projected shortfall in Social Security is fixable if there's the political will to reduce benefits or increase taxes:

The risk in the social security system is reduced (almost to zero) by the given fact that payroll taxes can always be increased and/or benefits can always be reduced, as they were in the 1980s under President Reagan. Plus, there is a difference between the timing risk of an insurance program and a Ponzi scheme. This risk is there in the Social Security system given the fact that some contributors will never collect on the premium payments they have made. In the case of retirement income, they would not collect because of death. In the case of disability income, because they do not become disabled. In a Ponzi scheme, a participant is promised a certain return on a certain date (no timing risk). Over time, given the pyramid has no risk to the participant, the pyramid will collapse since it cannot guarantee benefits indefinitely. In an insurance program like Social Security, the promise of a certain return is non-existent since changes can and have occurred to the program structure. Timing risk exists as well since individuals cannot say for certain they will collect on these benefits, it is dependent upon lifespan and/or disability.

The answer to the Social Security shortfall is reducing benefits or increasing the social security withholding tax. CBO estimates that over the next 75-years, dedicated social security revenues will fall short of scheduled benefits by 1.33 percent of taxable payroll. In other words, to bring the program into actuarial balance over the next 75 years, payroll taxes could be immediately increased by 1.33 percent of taxable payroll and kept at that higher rate, or scheduled benefits could be reduced by an equivalent amount.

Proud American is drinking too much of zerO's Kool-Aid. Yesterday's NY election to fill Weiner's seat is a preview of next Nov. The community organizer is leaving for Chicago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Proud American

Proud American is drinking too much of zerO's Kool-Aid. Yesterday's NY election to fill Weiner's seat is a preview of next Nov. The community organizer is leaving for Chicago.

Stop with the name calling and personal attacks. Stick with the facts. Yes, it was a surprise the Democrat lost the Queens/Brooklyn district. The Democratic candidate's position on Israel and his failure to appear at debates hurt him. So did the economy.

Patriot, what did you read into the result of the Congressional special election in upstate New York in late May 2011? The Democrat won in a Republican district:

Democrats have won a heavily Republican upstate New York congressional seat, in a special election that was regarded as a potential bellwether for US national elections next year.

Erie County clerk Kathy Hochul edged past Republican state assemblywoman Jane Corwin to win the seat in the 26th congressional district in north-west New York state.

The rural-suburban district between Buffalo and Rochester is one of the state's most conservative. But Corwin saw her early lead dissolve after coming out in favor of a Republican budget plan that would cut billions from Medicare, the popular government healthcare plan for senior citizens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stop with the name calling and personal attacks. Stick with the facts. Yes, it was a surprise the Democrat lost the Queens/Brooklyn district. The Democratic candidate's position on Israel and his failure to appear at debates hurt him. So did the economy.

Patriot, what did you read into the result of the Congressional special election in upstate New York in late May 2011? The Democrat won in a Republican district:

Democrats have won a heavily Republican upstate New York congressional seat, in a special election that was regarded as a potential bellwether for US national elections next year.

Erie County clerk Kathy Hochul edged past Republican state assemblywoman Jane Corwin to win the seat in the 26th congressional district in north-west New York state.

The rural-suburban district between Buffalo and Rochester is one of the state's most conservative. But Corwin saw her early lead dissolve after coming out in favor of a Republican budget plan that would cut billions from Medicare, the popular government healthcare plan for senior citizens.

OK, let's stick with the facts. zerO's approval rating is down to 45%, unemployment is over 9% (black unemployment is almost 20%), his lies and broken promises are endless, this Solyndra fiasco of pissing away one half billion will further drag zerO down, zerOcare has turned into a nightmare with exemptions being handed out left and right. zerO is borrowing 1.4 billion EVERY DAY just to pay his entitlement giveaways. Is that enough "hope & change" for you ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Proud American

OK, let's stick with the facts. zerO's approval rating is down to 45%, unemployment is over 9% (black unemployment is almost 20%), his lies and broken promises are endless, this Solyndra fiasco of pissing away one half billion will further drag zerO down, zerOcare has turned into a nightmare with exemptions being handed out left and right. zerO is borrowing 1.4 billion EVERY DAY just to pay his entitlement giveaways. Is that enough "hope & change" for you ?

You started with facts, up until the unemployment statistic and then you spiralled back down to name calling and hysteria.

Yes, approval rating is down to 45%. That's not a great number but there's still time. Here's some facts for you: Ronald Reagan began 1983 with an approval rating of JUST 35%. Reagan was re-elected in a landslide the following year. Yes, unemployment is over 9%. Unemployment was 10.4% at the beginning of 1983. Reagan was re-elected in a landslide the following year. Oh yeah, I said that already.

Since you're probably someone who canonizes Ronald Reagan, I thought this example would be instructive for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You started with facts, up until the unemployment statistic and then you spiralled back down to name calling and hysteria.

Yes, approval rating is down to 45%. That's not a great number but there's still time. Here's some facts for you: Ronald Reagan began 1983 with an approval rating of JUST 35%. Reagan was re-elected in a landslide the following year. Yes, unemployment is over 9%. Unemployment was 10.4% at the beginning of 1983. Reagan was re-elected in a landslide the following year. Oh yeah, I said that already.

Since you're probably someone who canonizes Ronald Reagan, I thought this example would be instructive for you.

So you choose to ignore the Solyndra fiasco and the 1.4 billion zerO is borrowing every day? Instead you bring up unemployment numbers from 27 years ago? Typical Loony, stick with your talking points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Proud American

So you choose to ignore the Solyndra fiasco and the 1.4 billion zerO is borrowing every day? Instead you bring up unemployment numbers from 27 years ago? Typical Loony, stick with your talking points.

My point (fairly obvious I think) was that Presidential poll numbers and unemployment rates the year prior to an election year are a bad predictor of election results. I presumed that your posts highlighting President Obama's poll numbers and the unemployment rate, combined with your constant rants against the President, entitling your post "Bye Bye Zero" and calling the President a one termer, was an attempt to link the numbers with his re-election prospects. I think I handily rebutted your linkage with facts. Ronald Reagan had worse numbers and was re-elected. George H.W. Bush had better numbers and was not re-elected.

As to the borrowing point, I'll go back to your canonized Ronald Reagan's 8 years in office:

The fiscal shift in the Reagan years was staggering. In January 1981, when Reagan declared the federal budget to be "out of control," the deficit had reached almost $74 billion, the federal debt $930 billion. Within two years, the deficit was $208 billion. The debt by 1988 totaled $2.6 trillion. In those eight years, the United States moved from being the world's largest international creditor to the largest debtor nation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point (fairly obvious I think) was that Presidential poll numbers and unemployment rates the year prior to an election year are a bad predictor of election results. I presumed that your posts highlighting President Obama's poll numbers and the unemployment rate, combined with your constant rants against the President, entitling your post "Bye Bye Zero" and calling the President a one termer, was an attempt to link the numbers with his re-election prospects. I think I handily rebutted your linkage with facts. Ronald Reagan had worse numbers and was re-elected. George H.W. Bush had better numbers and was not re-elected.

As to the borrowing point, I'll go back to your canonized Ronald Reagan's 8 years in office:

The fiscal shift in the Reagan years was staggering. In January 1981, when Reagan declared the federal budget to be "out of control," the deficit had reached almost $74 billion, the federal debt $930 billion. Within two years, the deficit was $208 billion. The debt by 1988 totaled $2.6 trillion. In those eight years, the United States moved from being the world's largest international creditor to the largest debtor nation.

So by your own calculations, in almost 8 years of the Reagan administration, 2 trillion was added to the national debt. NEWS FLASH !! zerO added that much just last year.

BTW ... Did you read where zerO's hometown newspaper, the Chicago Tribune is suggesting that zerO not seek re-election, that he step down and allow someone else (Hillary?) to run. That's just about the kiss of death for zerO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Proud American

So by your own calculations, in almost 8 years of the Reagan administration, 2 trillion was added to the national debt. NEWS FLASH !! zerO added that much just last year.

BTW ... Did you read where zerO's hometown newspaper, the Chicago Tribune is suggesting that zerO not seek re-election, that he step down and allow someone else (Hillary?) to run. That's just about the kiss of death for zerO.

Again, you avoid the point and shift your argument. I take it that you have accepted the fact that poll numbers in the year preceding an election year is not a good predictor of the election outcome. Now to address your latest posting, you provide incomplete information. It was ONE columnist for the Chicago Tribune, Steve Chapman, who recommendeded the President not run for re-election. The columnist was previously employed at the American Spectator and National Review publications, two hard-right periodicals. Mr. Chapman has been and will continue to be a critic of the President.

As to the nation's total debt, it now stands at $14 trillion. Most of it was because of two wars (started by George W. Bush), an unfunded prescription drug plan (initiated by George W. Bush) and the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts. The Obama-sponsored stimulus was approximately $800 billion. The stimulus may not have been effective, but it's a very small portion of the nation's $14 trillion debt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So by your own calculations, in almost 8 years of the Reagan administration, 2 trillion was added to the national debt. NEWS FLASH !! zerO added that much just last year.

BTW ... Did you read where zerO's hometown newspaper, the Chicago Tribune is suggesting that zerO not seek re-election, that he step down and allow someone else (Hillary?) to run. That's just about the kiss of death for zerO.

The Tribune is a Conservative publication. Just like most large cities (and even small ones), there are multiple daily newspapers in Chicago. The Chicago Sun-Times is the city's major liberal outlet. I'm pretty sure Barack would consider the latter his "hometown newspaper."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, you avoid the point and shift your argument. I take it that you have accepted the fact that poll numbers in the year preceding an election year is not a good predictor of the election outcome. Now to address your latest posting, you provide incomplete information. It was ONE columnist for the Chicago Tribune, Steve Chapman, who recommendeded the President not run for re-election. The columnist was previously employed at the American Spectator and National Review publications, two hard-right periodicals. Mr. Chapman has been and will continue to be a critic of the President.

As to the nation's total debt, it now stands at $14 trillion. Most of it was because of two wars (started by George W. Bush), an unfunded prescription drug plan (initiated by George W. Bush) and the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts. The Obama-sponsored stimulus was approximately $800 billion. The stimulus may not have been effective, but it's a very small portion of the nation's $14 trillion debt.

OK, you choose to ignore zerO adding over 2 trilion to the debt in less than 3 years. How about the 1.4 billion zerO is adding to the debt every day, any concerns there?? Or how about the hundreds of billions that he's secretly "lending" to various "green" companies??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you choose to ignore the Solyndra fiasco and the 1.4 billion zerO is borrowing every day? Instead you bring up unemployment numbers from 27 years ago? Typical Loony, stick with your talking points.

We already knew you would have no intelligent response. You never do. You live in a simplistic world that exists only in your imagination.

Here's the truth, not that you'll understand it. Our economy has been completely transformed. It is now global. With the fall of Communism and the rise of India and China as players in the capitalist system, more than two billion people are now competing against US citizens for prime jobs. In previous times, we built the transcontinental railroad (Lincoln) and the interstate highway system (Eisenhower and others). Facing a known challenge from our dependence on oil, what did we do? Nothing. That is why we are in trouble.

You right wingers become angrier and angrier because no matter who you elect, it doesn't get better. It didn't better under Bush, it got worse. Clinton actually put us on a path to fiscal responsibility but it meant higher taxes to get there, so you got your guy in office and he nearly ruined the country. That's what Obama inherited.

To get out of it - for things to get better - we would have to invest, like we did under Lincoln and after World War II, but you knuckle-draggers keep insisting that we march back to the 18th century, which is impossible. You can't slap 18th century economics onto a 21st century economy. Countries must adapt to changing times but instead of adapting, you're trying to turn back the clock. It can't be done, and that's why you're never satisfied.

That's not a talking point, it's the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We already knew you would have no intelligent response. You never do. You live in a simplistic world that exists only in your imagination.

Here's the truth, not that you'll understand it. Our economy has been completely transformed. It is now global. With the fall of Communism and the rise of India and China as players in the capitalist system, more than two billion people are now competing against US citizens for prime jobs. In previous times, we built the transcontinental railroad (Lincoln) and the interstate highway system (Eisenhower and others). Facing a known challenge from our dependence on oil, what did we do? Nothing. That is why we are in trouble.

You right wingers become angrier and angrier because no matter who you elect, it doesn't get better. It didn't better under Bush, it got worse. Clinton actually put us on a path to fiscal responsibility but it meant higher taxes to get there, so you got your guy in office and he nearly ruined the country. That's what Obama inherited.

To get out of it - for things to get better - we would have to invest, like we did under Lincoln and after World War II, but you knuckle-draggers keep insisting that we march back to the 18th century, which is impossible. You can't slap 18th century economics onto a 21st century economy. Countries must adapt to changing times but instead of adapting, you're trying to turn back the clock. It can't be done, and that's why you're never satisfied.

That's not a talking point, it's the truth.

How interesting. Communism, India, China and Bush are to blame while zerO is just an innocent

bystander and anyone that doesn't agree is a knuckle-dragger. Well that makes it easy, we'll just

blame Solyldra, Lightsquared, 2 trillion added to the debt just last year, unemployment over 9% (with

black unemployment over 16%), stock market diving, etc. etc. etc. on Communism (I like the sound of

that).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Proud American

OK, you choose to ignore zerO adding over 2 trilion to the debt in less than 3 years. How about the 1.4 billion zerO is adding to the debt every day, any concerns there?? Or how about the hundreds of billions that he's secretly "lending" to various "green" companies??

No, I didn't ignore the accumulation of debt during the last three years. In fact, I gave you the reasons for that accumulation. Let's try again:

Most of [the debt] was because of two wars (started by George W. Bush), an unfunded prescription drug plan (initiated by George W. Bush) and the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts. The Obama-sponsored stimulus was approximately $800 billion. The stimulus may not have been effective, but it's a very small portion of the nation's $14 trillion debt.

Do you get that the wars didn't end on January 19, 2009? Or that the unfunded Medicare prescription drug plan didn't end on January 19, 2009? Or that lowered tax rates (included an insane 15% rate on carried interest) didn't go up on January 20, 2009?

As to providing loans for start-up green companies, like Solyndra which manufactured solar panels, that's a policy goal funded in the federal budget and one that many on Capitol Hill have supported. In fact, the Republican Majority Leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, lobbied the Obama administration for assistance under the same program to a "green" company in his home state with questionable financials.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We already knew you would have no intelligent response. You never do. You live in a simplistic world that exists only in your imagination.

Here's the truth, not that you'll understand it. Our economy has been completely transformed. It is now global. With the fall of Communism and the rise of India and China as players in the capitalist system, more than two billion people are now competing against US citizens for prime jobs. In previous times, we built the transcontinental railroad (Lincoln) and the interstate highway system (Eisenhower and others). Facing a known challenge from our dependence on oil, what did we do? Nothing. That is why we are in trouble.

You right wingers become angrier and angrier because no matter who you elect, it doesn't get better. It didn't better under Bush, it got worse. Clinton actually put us on a path to fiscal responsibility but it meant higher taxes to get there, so you got your guy in office and he nearly ruined the country. That's what Obama inherited.

To get out of it - for things to get better - we would have to invest, like we did under Lincoln and after World War II, but you knuckle-draggers keep insisting that we march back to the 18th century, which is impossible. You can't slap 18th century economics onto a 21st century economy. Countries must adapt to changing times but instead of adapting, you're trying to turn back the clock. It can't be done, and that's why you're never satisfied.

That's not a talking point, it's the truth.

!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We already knew you would have no intelligent response. You never do. You live in a simplistic world that exists only in your imagination.

Here's the truth, not that you'll understand it. Our economy has been completely transformed. It is now global. With the fall of Communism and the rise of India and China as players in the capitalist system, more than two billion people are now competing against US citizens for prime jobs. In previous times, we built the transcontinental railroad (Lincoln) and the interstate highway system (Eisenhower and others). Facing a known challenge from our dependence on oil, what did we do? Nothing. That is why we are in trouble.

You right wingers become angrier and angrier because no matter who you elect, it doesn't get better. It didn't better under Bush, it got worse. Clinton actually put us on a path to fiscal responsibility but it meant higher taxes to get there, so you got your guy in office and he nearly ruined the country. That's what Obama inherited.

To get out of it - for things to get better - we would have to invest, like we did under Lincoln and after World War II, but you knuckle-draggers keep insisting that we march back to the 18th century, which is impossible. You can't slap 18th century economics onto a 21st century economy. Countries must adapt to changing times but instead of adapting, you're trying to turn back the clock. It can't be done, and that's why you're never satisfied.

That's not a talking point, it's the truth.

Here's another issue the knuckle-draggers don't want to talk about: education. The United States has been falling behind for decades. (See**** What are we doing about it? Nothing.

What should we do about it? The countries that are succeeding have national education policies. All the knuckle-draggers want to talk about is local control of the schools.

Drag your own knuckles all you want. Stop dragging this country back to the dark ages.

Edited by KOTW
Link broken. Link Removed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's another issue the knuckle-draggers don't want to talk about: education. The United States has been falling behind for decades. (See**** What are we doing about it? Nothing.

What should we do about it? The countries that are succeeding have national education policies. All the knuckle-draggers want to talk about is local control of the schools.

Drag your own knuckles all you want. Stop dragging this country back to the dark ages.

So KOTW, what's the point of having a link feature that doesn't work and removing all the links?

Those interested in the facts about how the US is falling behind in education should consult the OECD PISA 2009 database.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So KOTW, what's the point of having a link feature that doesn't work and removing all the links?

Those interested in the facts about how the US is falling behind in education should consult the OECD PISA 2009 database.

The link was removed because KOTW could not find the website the poster was attempting to link to. If you have the correct website link, please post it. KOTW tries not to approve posts with bad links. We usually correct the link when the error is obvious but in this case it wasn't.

KOTW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The link was removed because KOTW could not find the website the poster was attempting to link to. If you have the correct website link, please post it. KOTW tries not to approve posts with bad links. We usually correct the link when the error is obvious but in this case it wasn't.

KOTW

Fair enough. Let's try again. Works for me: http://www.oecd.org/...28/46660259.pdf

Edited by KOTW
KOTW Note: Be Patient After Hitting the Link, It takes some time to load the pdf file.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...