Obama Wars
See other Obama Wars Articles
Title: 55 Percent of Likely Voters Find ‘Socialist’ an Accurate Label of Obama?
Source:
NRO
URL Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/campa ... socialist-accurate-label-obama
Published: Jul 9, 2010
Author: Jim Geraghty
Post Date: 2010-07-09 10:41:30 by Badeye
Keywords: None
Views: 61398
Comments: 80
55 Percent of Likely Voters Find ‘Socialist’ an Accurate Label of Obama? July 09, 2010 9:13 AM By Jim Geraghty The latest poll by Democracy Corps, the firm of James Carville and Stan Greenberg, has Republicans leading on the generic ballot among likely voters, 48 percent to 42 percent. Deep in the poll, they ask, “Now, I am going to read you a list of words and phrases which people use to describe political figures. For each word or phrase, please tell me whether it describes Barack Obama very well, well, not too well, or not well at all.” On “too liberal,” 35 percent of likely voters say it describes Obama “very well,” 21 percent say “well,” 21 percent say “not too well,” and 17 percent say “not well at all.” In other words, 56 percent of likely voters consider Obama too liberal. When asked about “a socialist,” 33 percent of likely voters say it describes Obama “very well,” 22 percent say “well,” 15 percent say “not too well,” and 25 percent say “not well at all.” In other words, 55 percent of likely voters think “socialist” is a reasonably accurate way of describing Obama.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-18) not displayed.
.
.
.
#19. To: go65 (#14)
Wow! Who knew that NEWSWEEK was a republican house organ? people are buying into Republican idiocy.
If I could, I would.
But I can't, so I won't.
#20. To: Ignore Amos (#19)
(laughing) He's flailing around a lot these days...kinda a mirror image of the Democratic Party, in a full scale panic.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
#21. To: Badeye (#18)
The results of the poll you posted showed that respondents are buying the line of crap from the GOP that Obama is a socialist. Meanwhile, those who actually know what a socialist is, say he isn't and instead point to Palin as being one of them.
Can you provide something to support this claim?
Being a Republicans means you get to choose your own reality
#22. To: go65 (#21) (Edited)
Can you provide something to support this claim that Republicans are making this assertion in such an overwhelming array of interviews, columns, media ads? No, you can't. Owe-bama's being judged on his actions as POTUS. And the average American isn't just 'underwhelmed' they are frightened. And they know socialism when they see it. This isn't the GOP's doing. You can't support the statement. Its Owe-bama's.
The results of the poll you posted showed that respondents are buying the line of crap from the GOP that Obama is a socialist.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
#23. To: Badeye, lucysmom, sneakypete, war, skip intro, fred mertz, brian s, (#22)
I think we've discovered Fred Flintstone folks. Nobody else can live under a rock that big.
Can you provide something to support this claim that Republicans are making this assertion in such an overwhelming array of interviews, columns, media ads?
Being a Republicans means you get to choose your own reality
#24. To: go65 (#23)
Back up your assertion, or shut up. Bluff called.
Can you provide something to support this claim that Republicans are making this assertion in such an overwhelming array of interviews, columns, media ads?
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
#25. To: go65 (#23)
Patrick, Sponge Bob's friend, lives under a rock.
#26. To: Badeye (#24)
I'll shut up, beats banging my head against a rock.
Back up your assertion, or shut up.
Being a Republicans means you get to choose your own reality
#27. To: war (#25)
Badeye is Patrick? That makes a lot of sense. Patrick, Sponge Bob's friend, lives under a rock.
Being a Republicans means you get to choose your own reality
#28. To: go65 (#23)
Can you provide something to support this claim that Republicans are making this assertion in such an overwhelming array of interviews, columns, media ads? What passes for Republicans today can NOT afford to start throwing the word "socialist" around because they know it would stick to them as well as the Dims. I think we've discovered Fred Flintstone folks. Nope. If you had you would be proclaiming him as a endangered minority,and creating special government programs to help him.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
#29. To: sneakypete (#28)
Okay...that right there is funny...
Nope. If you had you would be proclaiming him as a endangered minority,and creating special government programs to help him.
#30. To: go65 (#26)
Appreciate the choice to shut up. thank you.
Back up your assertion, or shut up.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
#31. To: sneakypete (#28)
Okay...that made me laugh.
Nope. If you had you would be proclaiming him as a endangered minority,and creating special government programs to help him.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
#32. To: go65 (#27)
Back to personal attacks..and getting them from the now discredited dwarf? Damn shame. Telling..but still a damn shame.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
#33. To: go65 (#21)
On the other hand, socialist (according to the GOP spin machine) California, the the third largest oil producing state, has no severance tax on oil and issues no wealth redistributing checks to its residents.
Meanwhile, those who actually know what a socialist is, say he isn't and instead point to Palin as being one of them.
#34. To: lucysmom (#33)
Yeah, its issuing IOU's instead....(laughing)
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
#35. To: lucysmom (#33)
The people of Alaska get dividend checks from oil revenue because those resources are legally owned by the citizens of the State, not because of some socialist program.
has no severance tax on oil and issues no wealth redistributing checks to its residents.
#36. To: no gnu taxes (#35)
Yes, as has already been stated, that is precisely a Socialist position.
The people of Alaska get dividend checks from oil revenue because those resources are legally owned by the citizens of the State, not because of some socialist program.
#37. To: no gnu taxes, badeye (#35)
Republicans in the state legislature have all signed a pledge, "no gnu taxes". It takes a 2/3 majority vote to pass a budget in California and that's why the budget is perpetually late, not balanced, and state workers are issued IOUs.
no gnu taxes
#38. To: lucysmom (#36)
No, the socialist position would be for the State to keep the money and set up government programs complete with all the accompanying bureacracy for the "good" of the people. Returning the dividends to the people for them to spend as they see fit is a quintessential anti-socialist course of action. It's the people's money.
#39. To: no gnu taxes (#35)
Section 8.11 - Mineral Rights. Discovery and appropriation shall be the basis for establishing a right in those minerals reserved to the State which, upon the date of ratification of this constitution by the people of Alaska, were subject to location under the federal mining laws. Prior discovery, location, and filing, as prescribed by law, shall establish a prior right to these minerals and also a prior right to permits, leases, and transferable licenses for their extraction. Continuation of these rights shall depend upon the performance of annual labor, or the payment of fees, rents, or royalties, or upon other requirements as may be prescribed by law. Surface uses of land by a mineral claimant shall be limited to those necessary for the extraction or basic processing of the mineral deposits, or for both. Discovery and appropriation shall initiate a right, subject to further requirements of law, to patent of mineral lands if authorized by the State and not prohibited by Congress. The provisions of this section shall apply to all other minerals reserved to the State which by law are declared subject to appropriation. Section 8.12 - Mineral Leases and Permits. The legislature shall provide for the issuance, types and terms of leases for coal, oil, gas, oil shale, sodium, phosphate, potash, sulfur, pumice, and other minerals as may be prescribed by law. Leases and permits giving the exclusive right of exploration for these minerals for specific periods and areas, subject to reasonable concurrent exploration as to different classes of minerals, may be authorized by law. Like leases and permits giving the exclusive right of prospecting by geophysical, geochemical, and similar methods for all minerals may also be authorized by law.
#40. To: no gnu taxes (#38)
Ypu are, my friend, a good Socialist!
Returning the dividends to the people for them to spend as they see fit is a quintessential anti-socialist course of action. It's the people's money.
#41. To: no gnu taxes (#38) (Edited)
Nope. The Socialist model is exactly this. The State would claim that the ownership of the resources is in the people and would determine what share of the profits gleaned from the development of those minerals the people would be entitlted to. The oil companies extract according to their abilities and the society benefits according to its needs. It does not get any more Marxist than that. Returning the dividends to the people for them to spend as they see fit...It's the people's money. WOW...what a GOOD little Marxist you are.
#42. To: lucysmom, no gnu taxes, badeye (#37)
Republicans in the state legislature have all signed a pledge, "no gnu taxes". It takes a 2/3 majority vote to pass a budget in California and that's why the budget is perpetually late, not balanced, and state workers are issued IOUs. State governments have basically three options - raise taxes, cut spending, or a combination of both. (In addition to these, the fedgov has four - the forth being to print money) Question: In your world, is cutting spending EVER justified? Or would you be in favor of just cutting out the middleman by having ALL wealth go to the state, and the state doling out a pittance to us?
no gnu taxes
If I could, I would.
But I can't, so I won't.
#43. To: Ignore Amos (#42)
Where would you cut spending? Or would you be in favor of just cutting out the middleman by having ALL wealth go to the state, and the state doling out a pittance to us? Check out what prop 13 did for commercial property taxes Goldberg calculates that Disneyland, which hasn't had a reportable change of ownership since, well, forever, is currently taxed at an average of about a nickel per square foot. For comparison, a median California home bought last year out of foreclosure, measuring 1,600 square feet and selling for about $330,000 (these are averages from the California Assn. of Realtors), would incur property tax of about $3,300 per year, or $2.06 per square foot. http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jul/13/business/fi-hiltzik13
Question: In your world, is cutting spending EVER justified?
#44. To: war (#41)
There is no "need" qualification for the issuance of the dividends.
#45. To: no gnu taxes (#44)
The need to survive is predicated upon money.
There is no "need" qualification for the issuance of the dividends.
#46. To: war (#41)
And the money distributed to citizens of the State comes solely from the sale of the States natural resources, which the citizens own. It is nothing more than dividends on stock performance.
#47. To: no gnu taxes (#46)
Thanks, Karl, got it the first time.
And the money distributed to citizens of the State comes solely from the sale of the States natural resources, which the citizens own.
#48. To: lucysmom (#43)
That would be a 'no' huh? (laughing)
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
#49. To: lucysmom (#43) (Edited)
There are no easy answers, of course. I work for an organization (not a gov't entity) and, without getting too specific - it has been faced with some tough choices due to the crappy economy. We found out - just recently - that every staff employee will be getting between a 5 and 8 percent pay cut. Tough choices, indeed. But the way I look at it - it beats layoffs (which so far they have not had to do.) So - cutting personnel costs is always an option - albeit not an easy one. And aren't these people (legislators) elected to make tough choices. Can it not be fixed?
Where would you cut spending?
Check out what prop 13 did for commercial property taxes
Not being a Californian, I only have a vague idea of what Prop. 13 is/was. What you posted certainly points out a problem. No law is ever perfect, however. Unintended consequences always occur.
If I could, I would.
But I can't, so I won't.
#50. To: Badeye (#48)
I'm thinking the "no gnu tax" guys should take a pay cut.
That would be a 'no' huh? (laughing)
#51. To: lucysmom (#50)
What would expect to accomplish by taxing gnus? I'm thinking the "no gnu tax" guys should take a pay cut.
#52. To: Ignore Amos (#49)
Been there done that, the court gave it the thumbs up. Not being a Californian, I only have a vague idea of what Prop. 13 is/was. What you posted certainly points out a problem. No law is ever perfect, however. Unintended consequences always occur. Last year I paid less than $2,000 property taxes on what then had a market value of $2+ million. The unintended consequences of prop 13 are pretty significant and far reaching.
So - cutting personnel costs is always an option - albeit not an easy one.
#53. To: Ignore Amos (#49)
It has become the third rail in California politics. The low, low tax base can be passed from one generation to the next. Its one of those things that just about everyone recognizes needs to be changed but no one has the guts to try.
Can it not be fixed?
#54. To: lucysmom (#53)
Warren Buffet called for an increase in property taxes in CA. He said that the taxes that he paid on his multi-million dollar Malibu home were less than his not even $1MM home in NE.
#55. To: lucysmom (#53)
There are too many "third rails" - that is the problem. I suppose the only solution is default or bankruptcy. Unfortunately, the fedgov will probably end up bailing out the states - which will just shift (not solve) the problem. What do we do when the fedgov goes bankrupt?
It has become the third rail in California politics
If I could, I would.
But I can't, so I won't.
#56. To: war (#54)
I remember that. Arnold sentenced him to do push-ups and I don't think Arnold called on him again.
#57. To: Ignore Amos (#55)
Christie is disproving this notion in New Jersey.
It has become the third rail in California politics There are too many "third rails" - that is the problem.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
#58. To: Badeye (#57)
True enough. Let's see if he prevails against the usual suspects - i.e. gov't employee unions, teachers, and various deadbeats - and doesn't get run out of town.
Christie is disproving this notion in New Jersey.
If I could, I would.
But I can't, so I won't.
#59. To: Ignore Amos (#58)
So far the voters seem to be backing him, last poll related to the teachers union showed they took a huge hit after taking Christie on. Personally, I think the guy is great. He's not going to be intimidated by these punks.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
.
.
.
Comments (60 - 80) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]