OBAMA HAS NO IDEA HOW HIS TAX PLAN WILL WORK
By Imv on June 28, 2008 at 9:30 AM in Barbara Jordan, Social Security
How is Obama going to fix Social Security? The One has NO IDEA. Yet, that’s not stopped him from coming up with more Change We Can’t Believe In.
In Thursday’s Wall Street Journal, Donald L. Luskin reports the following:
Would it help Social Security’s financing problems? Mr. Obama has no idea. One of his senior economic advisers admitted to me that no one on the campaign has run any detailed models or performed any rigorous analysis. When one proposes an enormous tax increase, shouldn’t there at least be a spreadsheet somewhere?
Ya think? Nah, not for The One. He just knows. Trust him.
In a nutshell, Obama says he’ll fix Social Security’s projected deficit by “taxing The Rich”, those rascally, mythical rich (who are looking a lot more like YOU and ME by the minute). In another one of his pretzel proposals, Obama wants to have his payroll cap and eat it, too.
Here’s the deal. If you earn a living, you pay payroll taxes. Your employer matches your taxes dollar for dollar so any increase in payroll taxes is also a business tax. That translates into lost jobs and higher prices. (Yo, Senator Obama, we’re in a recession, so this won’t help.)
The government uses the money to pay for Social Security. Well, that’s the theory. It’s actually a government Ponzi scheme, but that’s beside the point. In general, you pay in during your working life and you draw a check after you retire. That was FDR’s plan.
Now, we Americans are skeptical of The Rich. So, we only pay them Social Security benefits up to a certain amount, no matter how much a person actually earned. Benefits are capped. And, in return, being the fair people we are, we cap Social Security taxes. Whether you make $102,000 or $120 million, you pay the same amount in taxes – because your retirement check will be the same amount.
Here’s an example using this year’s earnings cap of $102,000 in annual wages:
| Earnings | Taxes |
| $10,000 | $620 |
|
$50,000 |
$3100 |
|
$102,000 |
$6324 |
|
$1,000,000 |
$6324 |
|
$10,000,000 |
$6324 |
Keep in mind that The Rich won’t get bigger Social Security checks. That’s why their taxes are capped.
But, this is too simple for Obama. Without doing any research, any financial modeling, any economic impact studies, by fiat he has come up with A Plan to Tax The Rich. He wants to leave the cap, currently at $102,000, not tax earnings between $102,001 and $250,000, and tax earnings over $250,000. Got that? That thunderclap was the collective head slap of payroll managers and CPAs across the country.
Why is Obama taxing wages over $250,000? Well, why not? If you’re going to pull numbers out of your ass, it’s as good as any. The problem is this. He’s not going to pay additional benefits to The Rich. Nope. Uh uh. Nosiree.
Now, I’m not arguing that The Rich can’t afford the extra taxes. They probably can. But, we Americans fought a little war over arbitrary taxes being levied for the sake of it. And, that’s the problem. The Rich won’t get an extra dime. As Luskin explains:
Throughout the history of the Social Security program, there has always been a connection between what you contribute in taxes and what you get back in benefits. If Mr. Obama uncaps the wages subject to tax, but doesn’t uncap benefits, then he has severed the link between them. Social Security would stand revealed not as a work-related contributory retirement system, but simply as a tax-funded welfare and income-redistribution program.
And for all that, Mr. Obama’s proposal won’t help Social Security’s long-run solvency problems.
According to the Social Security Administration actuaries, uncapping all wages subject to the payroll tax (not just those above $250,000) doesn’t make much difference to the system’s long-run solvency. If the increased payroll tax payments earn increased benefits, then only about one third of the system’s 75-year shortfall is addressed. Even if there is no corresponding benefit increase, only about half the shortfall is addressed.
Remember, that inadequate result is what you get when all wages are subject to payroll taxes. Mr. Obama’s plan – even with his household definition of $250,000 income – would collect far less than that. No wonder Mr. Obama’s economic advisers aren’t interested in doing any detailed analysis.
NO DETAILED ANALYSIS? AND, IT WON”T EVEN WORK?
Change You Can Believe In. What’s left of your paycheck. If you still have one.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
On June 21, I published “Why the Polls Are Skewed Towards Obama” here at No Quarter.
Obama has no idea how anything works. He just wants power to stroke his ego.
His motto is “What, me worry?”
Right. Just what we need in the White House…Alfred E. Neuman.
Wait sescond, I thought he was alreadt in office for the last eight years. You must be speaking of his bizzaro twin brother, stinky.
Wait sescond, I thought he was already in office for the last eight years. You must be speaking of his bizzaro twin brother, stinky.
OMG you typical whiteys are asking Waffle Man too many hard questions. Bunch of racists!
And if you think that the big businesses bundling millions for him and doing it in support of ANYTHING that will cost them money then you don’t know chit!
hey bo bo butthead….! If it ain’t broke, don;t fix it! Leave the feckin Social Security ALONE! That is OUR money! Keep your boney crackpipe hands off!
Obama’s campaign has reported to the Federal Election Commission that there are actually 358 bundlers who have collected a grand total of $286,381,726.
How this adds up to what they say “The money is coming from hundreds of thousands of donations of $200 or less”
Do you have a source for this because it is what I suspected all along? Please, a source would be very good. Thank you.
Sorry that this was not specific: do you have a source for the FEC statement that BO has 358 bundlers producing $238 million plus? This seems to me to be a critical item of information.
Donations of $200 or less do not have to bave a name and address attached to it. The Rezko-Auchi-Muslim connection have people making 100-200 donations a day, all for $200 or less. Look at it another way, with gas at $4-$5 a gallon and the cost of groceries rising, would you donate $100 to Obama? Not me!
“Here’s the deal. If you earn a living, you pay payroll taxes. Your employer matches your taxes dollar for dollar so any increase in payroll taxes is also a business tax.”
Yes that’s a delight for those of us who are self employed. We’ll get to pay more twice.
Yeah, and I can’t figure out how this will work. Do small business owners simply take no salary to avoid this? Call everything an expense of the business?
I guess that’s one way around it.
That goes only that far - than the IRS comes. They don’t seem to like fudged deductions.
In the early 80’s we “fixed” SS by having people poney up money to pay not only for the people who were currently retired but also to cover some of the cost of their own retirement. Hence the trust fund. The only problem is that the government has been borrowing that money and running up such huge deficits that it will be hard to pay off the amount owed.
So why does Obama think that raising even more money for the system will help? It will only be borrowed like the existin “surplus” unless something is done to deal with our deficit. It is a stupid proposal.
Obama’s entire economic plan is to redistribute wealth. The wrong people have the money so it is only “fair” to take it away. Back in the ABC debate where he originally stumbled on the tax question, he revealed that the basis of his economic plan is not economics at all….it is “fairness.”
Now, why it isn’t “unfair” for Wright to live in a 10 million dollar mansion, I don’t know.
Has anyone seen the polls lately. It is not looking good for us non-obama people.
With all the stuff out there on Obama, I just cant figure out why he is going up and up.
From what I have been seeing I wish there was some way we all could get together and hire a Very Very good investigator.
Maybe I’ve been watching too many TV shows, but isnt there some way to prove some of this junk on him—His BC, his ties with slumlords, Sinclair, whitey tapes and etc.
The only way to bring him down is to actually prove beyond any doubt some of these alegations.
I for one DO NOT trust this guy if he makes it to the Oval office.
You don’t show any polls. I have seen you post here before. I think you are actually a troll who laments Obama’s success to get off a subject … I don’t find you very credible ….
The RCP average is 6.5% in Obama’s favor - the same for a very long time.
The Gallup - which is more reliable - has a one point lead for McCain over Obama. (45 to 44)
What is ‘k’ talking about?
I saw his numbers went up in states that we already knew he’d take.
That won’t help him.
Watch NV, MO, FL, NM for trends, in my opinion.
Gallup showed he and McCain dead even. Yesterday another reputable poll showed him 5 points ahead, with a 4 point error rate. That is nearly dead even.
The only polls I’m seeing that are showing him with a spike have been skewered by analysts for faulty assumptions.
So no, I think he’s doing very badly, actually.
PLUS, McCain has managed to make going Green into HIS platform. LOL* Lordy, while Obama was yammering about race, McCain got out there and took the energy issue from him.
Not too shabby.
IN CA, of course, we hate oil rigs off our coast. The rest of the country loves this idea. 67% like it, as a matter of fact.
That was a shrewed move on McCain’s part.
Then, just to keep the pressure up, McCain called for town hall meetings again.
Obama is now looking as though he’s a big ole chicken.
Here’s the reason why the polls may seem in favor of Obama.
A lot of McCain supporters have gotten together to say we’re voting for Obama but we’re really voting for McCain. We want to make sure that Obama thinks he has nothing to worry about and it helps to get the non-Obama supporters to be more active.
You ‘we’re saying we’re voting for Obama, but really voting for McCain’ people are sooo naughty!!
How many more like that are there? Couple dozen?
Well, you might be as surprised as the LGBT community in Colorado was in 1992. When Amendment 2 (designed to prohibit protected status for gays and lesbians) was placed on the ballot, most polls showed that it would be defeated by nearly 20 percentage points (ranging between 56 and 62% against the amendment) which encouraged the community to believe that a strong majority of Coloradans actually stood FOR gay and lesbian rights in the state.
When the results of the election came out, the polls were shown to be well off the mark. The amendment PASSED with 53.4% of the vote. So, what happened? Did the pollsters interview the wrong people? Did the respondents lie about how they voted or planned to vote?
McCain has been taking all of the issues from Obama. The only thing Obama has left is “Hi, I’m Barack Obama and I’m going to tax your ass off because you’ve become successful”. As much as I hate to admit it, I liked getting a tax cut and I don’t look forward to having it taken away from me. Call me greedy, but FYI it went to a good cause, I put it into the grandkids college fund.
I agree that his payroll tax cap made no sense and will present a programming problem if nothing else.
But I’m not too worried about uncapping the payroll tax. That’s OK by me.
I’m a lot more interested in his innae capital gains tax and, if I’m remembering correct, the idiot is suggesting we bring back the inheritance tax law.
Oh lordy, that was one positive gift from Republicans getting rid of that mess.
Hope to see some more articles on this topic. You did a great job explaining it.
Please ’splain how getting rid of the inheritance tax was good?
That is a tax that does not apply to property going through probate from spouse to spouse. And if property goes from one generation to the next, there was an enormous exemption (several hundred thousand), and even when there is exposure, there are trust devices to limit liability.
In other words, it was tax only on very large sums of property. From people who can afford it. And we could use it now, especially since we have an expensive occupation going on, and our bridges, schools, and economy are crumbling here at home.
So, again, how was it good?
It was a flipping nightmare! Why bother to save a penny with rates like that?
Total discouragement to saving for Americans.
Those who did have money had to set up trusts to skip generations to avoid it.
Finally, we got a reasonable rate that made it possible for the middle-class to save.
Before? It was pointless. Why save to give it to the government, anyway?
And all that money had been taxed once already, remember.
Again, huge exemptions applied. Most American (97% by most accounts) pay no inheritance taxes, because they weren’t inheriting enough to pay it.
In other words approximately the top 3% was the only group subject to any inheritance tax.
And if you are in the top 3%, you can probably afford it, especially considering that is more or less the demographic that thinks that paying for expensive invasions and endless occupations is a dandy idea.
http://www.answers.com/topic/inheritance-tax-laws
Concise discussion here of the issues. Remember, this affects small business owners, farmers….we’re not just talking about cash.
I’ve met many people who lost their family farms due to the inheritance taxes.
Anyone ‘losing’ a business or family farm to the inheritance tax either (a) didn’t plan ahead for it through ownership transfer ahead of death, or (b) is cash-poor and doesn’t have the operating capital to continue the concern in question, or (c) has no interest in the continuing the family business or farm.
There is no reason anyone who truly wants their heirs to keep their business, assuming the heirs are willing and able, to make it so.
Yes, cash poor. Farmers are nearly all cash poor.
Republicans had the right idea on this. I certainly hope that the Democrats don’t throw us under that bus.
But Obama most likely will.
Too bad.
And that’s not even nearly as bad as his capital gains tax proposal.
Lordy. The man will be a disaster on the tax front.
I laugh when Obamabots tell me I should vote my interests.
Okie dokie. That’s a surefire Republican vote.
I don’t tell anyone how to vote. If you’re a republican, no problem. That must mean you’re not real big on the fiscal discipline, balanced budget thing, you think invading Iraq was a grand idea, illegal eavesdropping and DOJ hiring methods are OK, torture is no problem, unless it’s our boys going through it, busting up all our alliances and goodwill throughout the world is fine, and we don’t ever talk to ‘evil’ nations, unless of course we do (N Korea).
Yeah, there’s more, but that is just the start of the fun of being a republican voter.
You’re full of beans.
But not soybeans. *heh
You seem to be quite dense. There are industries - among them is agriculture - where the investment in land, machinery, buildings, etc. are huge, but they produce only a modest living. These people don’t starve, but probably never had so much excess that would allow them to save for the incredible inheritance tax. It is not funny to have to sell part of the farm to pay that tax. It can be complete killer for smaller farms.
Besides that the income was already taxed.
You actually sound like the one that has no idea what you are talking about. But I will say it again for the benefit of the impaired: there are ways to transfer ownership PRIOR to death to avoid ‘losing the farm. Yes it will involve a transaction, or several transactions and you will have to hire an attorney and CPA, but it can be done.
OK…now we’re down to it. Let’s make the estate lawyers wealthy!
LOL*
That’s a great idea.
Sorry, Roundhouse, but when my mother died just 6 years ago and prior to the changes in inheritance tax, the deduction to pass to next generation was $600,000. I’ll bet you know people that have homes that are worth that much before you even start looking at what else they may own.
Additionally, everything over that $600,000 is taxed at full value as of date of death and I think the tax started at something like 38% and went up quickly after that. In other words, you do not get to charge off the initial cost (which would have been paid by money you already paid income tax on years before). If the original cost of the $600,000 house was $300,000, you still pay on the entire $600,000.
Bye Bye family home or farm . . .
How is that fair or equitable?
My parents started out with nothing. They sacrificed (the back of their sofa for several years was a stovepipe wrapped in a blanket) so my father could go to school. They invested small amounts to begin with but put something aside for investment every week. They lived a comfortable existence and enjoyed themselves but they always shopped for the deals and bought pre-owned cars.
All that time, they always invested — so they would be able to pay in cash, never owe anyone for anything.
Then when Mom died, the government took a third of that.
How did the government or anyone else earn the right to what my parents worked so hard to save?
Now, my father had a saying that “income taxes are a pleasant kind of pain” because you were happy you had enough to pay income tax on.
BUT, double taxation is crazy.
And wait until OBambi decides to tax all your dividends made on 401Ks and other investments at double the income tax rate. Woo Hoo! What a country!
I don’t think that the inheritance tax should be abolished, but there isn’t any reason why the exemptions couldn’t be raised to account for situations like yours. Like the AMT, the stated amounts in the tax code were from many years ago. But I will say it again…there are ways to avoid the full blow. Gifting, trusts.
But your point on 401k taxation is way off. First, Obama has said nothing of the kind, and second the whole idea of a 401k is that dividend and other income within the plan is not taxed. Just like an IRA. This sounds like scare-mongering.
No, I’m not scaremongering with respect to 401Ks. I have heard several financial advisors on television discuss this.
Obama has said a lot of things and they change depending on to what group he is talking.
I know for sure that stock dividends are currently taxed at the same rate as income. There is no logic in why they should be taxed at double the income tax rate or more (I have seen different speeches where he has said anything from 30% to 39% on dividend taxation).
How would people on fixed incomes supplemented by dividends from a few investments made continue to live if their dividends are suddenly taxed at double the income tax rate (or possibly more).
Finally, you talk about different tax shelters but I don’t agree that there should be a need for those methods. There is no reason for the tax system to be so complicated that people need to find loopholes or pay lawyers thousands of dollars to set up trusts. So sorry if that puts some laywers or CPAs out of work. LOL.
Thank you! He shocked me in that debate. What in the world? That’s going to kill my generation. We were switched over to 401k funds in the middle. Our fixed retirement programs stopped being so rich.
Now, he’ll tax us on capital gains which supplement an unliveable SS amount?
We’ll end up living in shelters if this keeps happening.
Talk about changing the rules in mid-stream.
My generation already got whammied with the last stock plunge. Here it comes again.
How many retirees do I know who took a cheerful view and just kept working?
Will they be so cheerful the second round? How about the people in their 70s who, frankly, shouldn’t be working?
I’m totally opposed to Obama’s tax plan, as you can see.
It’s serious. It’s not just a matter of having money for a cruise.
ANd I think people really SHOULD vote their interests on this.
Otherwise, the middle class is going to end up begging their children for food.
Supposedly, Ann, he says that senior citizens making under $50,000 total income per year will pay NO taxes.
But I don’t see it happening.
The Dem Congress hasn’t done a damm thing about the AMT for my son & daughter-in-law, and I don’t think the sr.citizen under 50 grand will pass Congress, either.
He can SAY all he wants to, but the Dem Congress he’ll be dealing with is a Blue Dog PAYGO Congress. They’ll not pass most of his expensive agenda. (Including UHC…it was the Dems who torpedoed Hillary’s efforts in the 1990’s).
The 401k and IRA are not taxed while IN the account. Remember, you never paid taxes on this money. Once you start drawing it out, it’s taxed at the going rate. So, if Obama raises the income tax, than when you start using your money, more will go for income taxes and less of your money will go into your pocket.
Oh, it gets worse. If your estate is in the stock market, you’d get double whammied on already taxed money.
Capital gains if you sell off to raise the cash to pay the inheritance tax.
And the IRS has a way of wanting it…now. It’s hard to convince them to wait until the stock drops.
Yes Ann - been there, done that.
The problem with BO it seems to me is what he considers rich. He seems to be including part of the middle class in his definition of “rich”.
Yes, Ann.
Not to mention the huge cap gains on any home sold as part of an estate.
Obama has a plan. He is going to appoint Todd Bently as Secretary of Health and Human Services. This will not only give Obama the Evangical vote but save money on National Health Care to be used for S.S.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YU6YOVnJkJ4
Oh, and by the way, I was reading something to the effect that the entire notion that SS has a problem has been highly debated.
I take it that he’s turning this into some kind of political issue when it’s not.
Last I heard the biggest problem with Social Security is that bush keeps taking money out of the trust fund and throwing it down a rat hole called Iraq.
There is a small problem way down the road for SS and removing the cap could solve it but the big problem is really Medicare which will have a serious problem in as little as ten years. No
one even talks about that.
That’s what I gathered. Thanks, Karen.
It’s the health care costs.
Obama’s plan was to encourage us to eat more wisely so we don’t need medical attention so often.
Beehop if I were you and I had read what I wrote I would have been smart enough to have done my own research before calling anyone a troll.
I only wish this was my message was from a troll and was unverifiable.
I have been spreading everything that Larry has posted though out any blogs I post on. So here is the link to RealClear Politics.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html
I don’t get it. Yesterday’s poll shows tie. One showed 4.
What’s your concern?
gallup has them dead even for the third day in a row…
This is the only true poll.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/108433/Gallup-Daily-Obama-McCain-Still-Tied-44.aspx
Comment by beebop | 2008-06-28 09:51:29
You don’t show any polls. I have seen you post here before. I think you are actually a troll who laments Obama’s success to get off a subject … I don’t find you very credible ….
============================================
Furthermore it is posters like you who blast posters without research that give sites a bad reputation.
I respect this site far more than to use name calling, especially using name calling when I have not researched the subject matter.
What was HRC plan? i.e how does this compare to hers? I can’t remmeber but it’d be useful to contrast differences !!
Anyone?
Gallup Poll is only one showing a tie. I truly hope that they did the best polling.
Others are showing Obama gaining in numbers. Maybe its only a couple of points. But over the last two or three weeks Obama has been moving up a couple of points every week.
All I was asking if there was something else all of us could do to get the message out there.
If asking about some plan to undermine Obama is being a troll then so be it.
Check your own link again. Do you, btw,understand error rates?
When a poll shows only 4 pts differences with a 3% error rate, that means it could well be 1 pt apart.
A national poll is nearly meaningless. Look at the individual states, that will give you a clearer indication of where the race is, right now, 4 1/2 months before people will actually vote. Right now McCain has the advantage mostly where you would expect, and Barack has the advantage mostly where you would expect, plus a few place where McCain should.
Right now it looks good for Barack, and for the country. But it is still a long time until anyone actually votes, and enough time for mischief-making NQ’ers to try to ratf#k the opportunity to avoid extending disastrous Republican rule.
You mean like NV? Where is this Latino support there? Why is McCain ahead? Ditto for NM, where McCain inched forward this week. THat doesn’t line up with the spin that Obama is knocking down the Latino voters already.
I agree with you about watching the state votes. The head-to-head polls, though, are indicative of trends.
He’s not budging.
NM, NV=”red” states. No surprise there. Again, 4 1/2 months till election day.
*blink*
OK, so to you the SW isn’t the swing areas?
That’s interesting. Then Obama essentially doesn’t need Latinos.
He’s not going to carry Texas, for sure. He’s already got CA.
So why bother to court them at all?
Again, 4 1/2 months until the election. SW is indeed swing territory, but overall conservative. Wouldn’t be easy for any Dem there. But look at CO right now, encouraging news there. And I live in the middle of Latino-central, and Obama will certainly carry the day here. Rest of the state, not so sure (TX).
Give him some time, he just got through a bruising battle where the everything including the ‘kitchen sink’ was thrown at him, remember? Although I am not counting on most NQ’ers supporting him, there does seem to be a high level of bitterness here.
No, we’re on different sides. He threw it at her, first of all. I paid attention and watched every one of his ads. He lied about her proposals, he lied about her positions, and he was on the attack on her character non-stop since he lost Texas. So no. She was hardly allowed to campaign against him, frankly. He got the white glove treatment from her and from the media.
Which is ending…*heh
CO is interesting. We’ll see how that goes.
Oregon he’s already losing.
Better hope Georgia comes through.
I’m just going by what Hillary’s campaign said back in the spring, when Obama had the big momentum after Supe Tuesday before OH & TX. “Kitchen sink.” Their words, not mine.
And if you really think he’ll lose OR…..pass some of that stuff my way!!
He’s lost 5 points there this week.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/or/oregon_mccain_vs_obama-548.html
Probably because their republican senator aired a commercial saying how he & Obama are BFF. A republican backing Obama…that’s got to hurt a little bit in OR.
Again, 4+ months till vote day.
But, au revoir, Ann. Gotta go. Even though you ain’t having any of Barack, you don’t seem half as whacky as most of the rest of NQ. I mean that as a compliment.
We should cherish the back-handed compliments we have come to know so well from the Obama campaign.
LOL. I don’t know about you, but my “kitchen sink” isn’t fur lined and made of styrofoam.
Silly Obama supporter…
Don’t count on CO. The polls are taken in Denver and Boulder, elsewhere in the state it’s solid GOP. I’ve only seen 1 Obama sticker in my area.
As a New Mexican, I’ve been talking to people and listening to local pundits. I’m not sure Obama will carry NM. Hillary took NM in the deomocratic primary, but I believe after Gov Richardson ‘flipped’ on Hillary we may see McCain take the state. Just an opinion.
Thought I’d throw this in, too: I have family in North Carolina. NC is NOT happening for Obama. It’ll go McCain, too.
You also need to look at the questions the polls are asking otherwise they are just numbers and you assume what you want to assume.
Also some of the polls are 1 to 2 weeks old.
Right now, the analyst say the lead Obama may have is an insignificant bump from Hillary suspending her campaign. The analyst expected a double digit bump which Obama didn’t get.
The Washington Post Poll analysis states that Obama has the same numbers as Kerry did, this early in the race.
Pollsters are also oversampling Dems IMO. Gives a nice pychological boost to the Hussein Obama is inevitable meme, but a lot can change in 4 1/2 months, and it doesn’t take long.
Just look at how quickly Hussein Obama’s negatives went up during the Wright flap. It’s stabalized but, say, unleashing the Michelle Whitey tape 2-3 weeks before the election would be Obama’s kiss of death. Precious media oxygen consumed on the tape and they would have to play defense.
Ras and Surveyusa as well as ARG show Obama ahead within the margin or error.
Newsweek showed Obama ahead because they had a biased poll sample. Newsweek(which works with MSNBC) is in the bag for Obama.
Stop worrying about the polls — we have a hell of a long way before the convention — and then the General Election.
At this point in time — Obama should have been WAY ahead — if he were truly the choice of real democrats then everyone would have pulled together and we’d have seen OVER 10 points lead. However, to see a tie or a statistical tie at this point — DOES NOT LOOK GOOD for BOBO — even with the media whores shilling for him.
PUMAs are having an impact — estimated at 24% and holding steady. But ANY of the polls are shaky and not worth being concerned about at this point.
BOBO still has a lot more people that he hasn’t even tried to piss off. We can probably repeat the list of folks he’s tossed under the bus.
Over polling is not a good idea — and repeated polling will have a negative effect. There are a lot of people who are still making up their minds and if they are pushed — their response will be unreliable.
If you are addicted to polls — then look at the ones from the swing states. Ignore the rest.
Obama is going to lose — National Security — losing issue. Economics — losing issue. Likability - losing issue. Experience, competence, — losing issues.
He is just icky.
BOBO’s trolls are worst than icky.
PUMA
Larry, this is off topic, however, it would be great to see a link to the Beachwood Report on your site:
As Phil Ponce put it, Barack Obama made a “rare” appearance before Chicago reporters on Wednesday, and he made a challenge to the locals that they failed.
“You will recall that for my entire political career here, basically, I was not the the endorsed candidate of any political organization here. That I didn’t go around wielding a bunch of clout. That my reputation in Springfield was as an independent. And my reputation here was also as somebody who would to try to work with everybody. There is no doubt I had friends and continue to have friends who come out of the more traditional school of Chicago politics but that’s not what launched my political career and that’s not what I’ve ever depended on in order to get elected and I would challenge any Chicago reporter to dispute that basic fact.”
Ooh, ooh! Me! Me!
“But you once told Emil Jones that he could make you a United States Senator. And you exchanged endorsements with Richard M. Daley - whom your wife once worked for - and your political career here was funded by Tony Rezko. You also endorsed the organization candidate over the reformer every single time and never spoke out against ‘the more traditional school of Chicago politics’, by which you mean ‘corrupt,’ or led an independent or reform movement. In fact, while traveling around America as the candidate of change, you recently told the Tribune editorial board that you would leave criticism of Chicago corruption up to others, like John Kass.”
Not a single reporter said anything even close to that. In fact, in the video of this exchange I saw on Chicago Tonight, no reporter responded to Obama’s challenge.
But the Sun-Times has an entire page today about what’s on Obama’s iPod, another half-page about good luck charms he and others carry in their pockets, and Obama’s response to Ralph Nader’s ridiculous proposition that Obama is “talking white” to appeal to voters
http://www.beachwoodreporter.com/column/the_friday_papers_117.php
The “Monkey Business Challenge” issued by BO.
Anna Ana Mus…this is twightlight zone material to you too? I thought I was alone.
Implementing the Greenspan Commission’s recommendations to “prefund” the deficit created a surplus which was used to fund various tax cuts for the rich. I have no problem with getting it back from them using the payroll tax. That said, I do fear that Obama’s buy-in to the “Social Security is in trouble” fraud opens him to considering other possibilities, such as privatization.
Why do I keep thinking that those new tax $$ are for Richard Daley?
This is OT, but is anyone watching coverage of McCain’s speech on CNN? Too bad that major media outlet can’t afford decent sound. McCain sounds like a 100 year old broadcasting from Mars. Oddly, he’s coming in pretty good on CSPAN. Sounds like a real person with a full voice.
Thanks for observing and noting that!!!
Like the Dean Scream, eh?
I’m an economist. I’ve been trying to figure out Obama’s economic plan for a few months now. As far as I can tell, he has none. I’ve looked at his tax plan and going back to the old Clinton tax rates is about it.
Considering our problems with the economy right now, you think the democratic nominee would be right out front with something.
His economic plan is appears to be just more blurry generalities and feel good comments.