the power to tax

As he does that, his poll numbers for his policies and personal approval are being spread downward

funny.... if you go to Real Clear Politics, a site that you used to tout as being THE poll of polls, you will see that, since the week of his inauguration, Obama's approval rating has only gone down 7%.

7% in six months is not really that significant, is it?
 
Folks are losing confidence in Obama



Trust in President Barack Obama and his Democratic allies to identify the right solutions to problems facing the country has dropped off significantly since March, according to a new Public Strategies Inc./POLITICO poll.

Just as Obama intensifies his efforts to fulfill a campaign promise and reach an agreement with Congress on health care reform, the number of Americans who say they trust the president has fallen from 66 percent to 54 percent. At the same time, the percentage of those who say they do not trust the president has jumped from 31 to 42.

The president’s party has taken a similar hit since the last Public Trust Monitor poll, with only 42 percent of respondents saying that they trust the Democratic Party, compared with 52 percent who do not. The party’s numbers are nearly the inverse of March’s survey, in which 52 percent said they trusted Democrats and 42 percent did not.

Obama’s personal approval rating has fallen below 60 percent in a number of recent major polls, and according to a Washington Post/ABC News survey out Monday, support for the president’s leadership on several key issues has fallen below 50 percent.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25189.html
 
funny.... if you go to Real Clear Politics, a site that you used to tout as being THE poll of polls, you will see that, since the week of his inauguration, Obama's approval rating has only gone down 7%.

7% in six months is not really that significant, is it?

You once posted "as much as we can squeeze out of them"

"Rich" libs are fleeing states like Ca, MD, NY, and NJ since they are being taxed way to much

Only libs would want to punish achievement, and it looks like Obama is keeping his promise to spread the wealth around

As he does that, his poll numbers for his policies and personal approval are being spread downward

If he gets his Obamacare tax increase he will break another promise (and one of you talking points Conmanfrommaine) that tax rates will be no higher then they were under Clinton
 
WTF???

post #24 is identical to post #20.

Spewing repetitive BS is spam.... pure and simple:pke:

I posted it so perhaps you would reply to the points made - and not ignore them

But it seems I am asking way to much from conmanfrommaine. Like on DP you duck, dodge, hide, spin, and cower behind your keyboard
 
You once posted "as much as we can squeeze out of them"

I said that tongue in cheek... of course... but I do not have any problem bumping the top marginal tax rate up a bit higher.... back at least to where it was when the rich were really getting rich under Clinton

"Rich" libs are fleeing states like Ca, MD, NY, and NJ since they are being taxed way to much

link?


Only libs would want to punish achievement, and it looks like Obama is keeping his promise to spread the wealth around

I would NEVER want to punish acheivement... I would ask that to those who have an excess of riches, that they be willing to share their good fortunes in some marginal way with those who are less fortunate


As he does that, his poll numbers for his policies and personal approval are being spread downward

I am sure he is concerned about the marginal slip in poll numbers... me? not so much

If he gets his Obamacare tax increase he will break another promise (and one of you talking points Conmanfrommaine) that tax rates will be no higher then they were under Clinton

link?
 
CFM, you did mean it when you posted your comment "as much as we can squeeze out of them.ou never retracted it, and stood by it since then

As far as people fleeing tax heavy states - here is one link (there are alot more)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124260067214828295.html

You are your party do wnat to punish achievement. Small business owners, and self employed people will be taxed more, and it will kill jobs. Once you reach a certain level, libs drop the hammer on them with higher and crippling taxes. What do you define as "excess of the rich"? Dining on $100/pd steak? Ordering pizza and having it delivered 650 miles away?

Obama and the Dems are worried about the falling poll numbers. Obama has another cheerleading sesson with the liberal media tonight

Here is what the rates wil be if Obama gets his current tax increase passed

TopTaxRates2.jpg
 
When is enough enough for the left? A tiny monority is already paying a huge majority of taxes - and Obama, Reid, and Pelosi want more from them

If Obama gets his way, this minority will be paying close to 60% of their income to the government

<snip>

The tiny minority has many more options of offsetting their gains with write-offs, unlike the majority.
 
The tiny minority has many more options of offsetting their gains with write-offs, unlike the majority.

and as I proved, that "tiny minority" are fleeing tax heavy states causing those states budgets to increase

So in Liberalville it is fine to tax the hell out of those who use the least in government services while barely taxing those who use the most in government services

Of course on way to "offset" their taxes is to be like leading Democrats and not pay their taxes period
 
typical... I ask red state moron for a link that would support his allegation, and he posts an editorial.

::yawn::
 
typical... I ask red state moron for a link that would support his allegation, and he posts an editorial.

::yawn::

What op-ed. It contained FACTS

And IO posted what the tax rates would be if Obama gets his way - and they are higher then they were under Clinton

Sorry conmanfrommaine you have been proved to be a hack once again. Get fresh talking points if you wish try and compete in this discussion
 
What op-ed. It contained FACTS

And IO posted what the tax rates would be if Obama gets his way - and they are higher then they were under Clinton

Sorry conmanfrommaine you have been proved to be a hack once again. Get fresh talking points if you wish try and compete in this discussion

you posted an editorial.

editorials are OPINIONS.

THAT is a FACT.

sorry red state moron:pke:
 
you posted an editorial.

editorials are OPINIONS.

THAT is a FACT.

sorry red state moron:pke:

No they are FACTS asshole

snip

Updating some research from Richard Vedder of Ohio University, we found that from 1998 to 2007, more than 1,100 people every day including Sundays and holidays moved from the nine highest income-tax states such as California, New Jersey, New York and Ohio and relocated mostly to the nine tax-haven states with no income tax, including Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire and Texas. We also found that over these same years the no-income tax states created 89% more jobs and had 32% faster personal income growth than their high-tax counterparts.

Did the greater prosperity in low-tax states happen by chance? Is it coincidence that the two highest tax-rate states in the nation, California and New York, have the biggest fiscal holes to repair? No. Dozens of academic studies -- old and new -- have found clear and irrefutable statistical evidence that high state and local taxes repel jobs and businesses.

Martin Feldstein, Harvard economist and former president of the National Bureau of Economic Research, co-authored a famous study in 1998 called "Can State Taxes Redistribute Income?" This should be required reading for today's state legislators. It concludes: "Since individuals can avoid unfavorable taxes by migrating to jurisdictions that offer more favorable tax conditions, a relatively unfavorable tax will cause gross wages to adjust. . . . A more progressive tax thus induces firms to hire fewer high skilled employees and to hire more low skilled employees."

More recently, Barry W. Poulson of the University of Colorado last year examined many factors that explain why some states grew richer than others from 1964 to 2004 and found "a significant negative impact of higher marginal tax rates on state economic growth." In other words, soaking the rich doesn't work. To the contrary, middle-class workers end up taking the hit.

Finally, there is the issue of whether high-income people move away from states that have high income-tax rates. Examining IRS tax return data by state, E.J. McMahon, a fiscal expert at the Manhattan Institute, measured the impact of large income-tax rate increases on the rich ($200,000 income or more) in Connecticut, which raised its tax rate in 2003 to 5% from 4.5%; in New Jersey, which raised its rate in 2004 to 8.97% from 6.35%; and in New York, which raised its tax rate in 2003 to 7.7% from 6.85%. Over the period 2002-2005, in each of these states the "soak the rich" tax hike was followed by a significant reduction in the number of rich people paying taxes in these states relative to the national average. Amazingly, these three states ranked 46th, 49th and 50th among all states in the percentage increase in wealthy tax filers in the years after they tried to soak the rich.

This result was all the more remarkable given that these were years when the stock market boomed and Wall Street gains were in the trillions of dollars. Examining data from a 2008 Princeton study on the New Jersey tax hike on the wealthy, we found that there were 4,000 missing half-millionaires in New Jersey after that tax took effect. New Jersey now has one of the largest budget deficits in the nation.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124260067214828295.html

and here are the tax rates if Obama gets his way dipshit

TopTaxRates2.jpg
 
no proof that rich people move BECAUSE of high tax rates... just evidence that they move. Nothing there shows that they did not move because of the weather or to be closer to the grandkids.

sorry red state moron... it is just WSJ opinions as to the meaning of data...
 
no proof that rich people move BECAUSE of high tax rates... just evidence that they move. Nothing there shows that they did not move because of the weather or to be closer to the grandkids.

sorry red state moron... it is just WSJ opinions as to the meaning of data...

The numbers are there and go back for years. They are clear, the higher the taxes the more people flee the state

You still think with obama's tax increases rates will still be the same under Clinton

It takes a man to admit when he is wrong - that rules you out from the start CFM
 
and as I proved, that "tiny minority" are fleeing tax heavy states causing those states budgets to increase

So in Liberalville it is fine to tax the hell out of those who use the least in government services while barely taxing those who use the most in government services

Of course on way to "offset" their taxes is to be like leading Democrats and not pay their taxes period

Yet curiously enough, you failed to note that the tiny minority got disproportionately large tax breaks under bush and that the highest earners doubled their incomes while their tax rates actually fell.

"The 21st century Gilded Age party really got going before the U.S. economy went bust.

It was a party disproportionately enjoyed by high-income Americans, the 400 wealthiest of which actually doubled their share of all U.S. income between 1996 and 2006, new statistics released by the Internal Revenue Service show.

And during the first six years of George W. Bush's presidency, the average income of those 400 people actually doubled to $263.3 million, according to the data.

Between 2005 and 2006, those 400 Americans saw their income rise nearly 23 percent, and through the first six years of the Bush administration their average tax rate fall by a third, to 17.2 percent, Bloomberg reported.

That 17.2 percent tax rate was the lowest the group has paid on average since the IRS began keeping track of the country's 400 biggest taxpayers in 1992, the agency's data shows.

The big reduction -- from 2001's 22.9 percent tax rate for the group -- was "due largely" to ex-President George W. Bush’s push to cut tax rates on most capital gains to 15 percent in 2003, Bloomberg reported. Bush administration tax cuts that benefit the wealthy will expire by 2011, unless extended or made permanent by Congress and the president.

The IRS released the new data Thursday, one day before the government revealed the U.S. economy contracted 3.8 percent during the final quarter of 2008, its fastest rate since 1982.

"Until recently, we had a financial system that rewarded investors, and we have a tax system that does as well," said Robert McIntyre, the director of Citizens for Tax Justice, in this International Herald Tribune article.

Now wealthy people, McIntyre said, pay income tax rates far less than those of working-class citizens because of tax breaks. The current 15 percent capital gains tax, down from 28 percent in 1997, benefits investors with big portfolios, the International Herald Tribune reported.

“The conservative approach of putting big corporations and the very wealthy ahead of the middle class has failed to create prosperity that can be shared by all Americans," writes Think Progress.

The 400 richest U.S. taxpayers in 2006 paid slightly more than $18 billion in U.S. government income taxes in 2006 -- an average of $45 million -- on a record $105 billion in total income.

The combined taxes paid by all other individual taxpayers was nearly $1 trillion in 2006, the new IRS data shows."

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2008/Richest_Americans_income_doubled_during_Bush_0131.html
 
Back
Top