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: 62560
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 (1-28) not displayed.
.
.
.
#29. To: sneakypete (#28)
Okay...that right there is funny...
Appreciate the choice to shut up. thank you.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
Okay...that made me laugh.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
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.
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.
Yeah, its issuing IOU's instead....(laughing)
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
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.
Yes, as has already been stated, that is precisely a Socialist position.
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, 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.
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.
Ypu are, my friend, a good Socialist!
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.
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?
If I could, I would. 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
There is no "need" qualification for the issuance of the dividends.
The need to survive is predicated upon money.
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.
Thanks, Karl, got it the first time.
That would be a 'no' huh? (laughing)
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
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?
If I could, I would. I'm thinking the "no gnu tax" guys should take a pay cut.
What would expect to accomplish by taxing gnus?
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.
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.
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.
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?
If I could, I would. I remember that. Arnold sentenced him to do push-ups and I don't think Arnold called on him again.
Christie is disproving this notion in New Jersey.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
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.
If I could, I would. 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.
This one is a Republican third rail Prior to 1978, local governments in California (as elsewhere in the nation) could set their own property tax rates and spend the money that they raised on local needs. But the Republicans did not trust local governments or local voters with the power to tax local property or to spend that revenue as they thought appropriate. ... Prop 13 took away the cities' power to set property tax rates or levy property taxes, and gave all such power to the state -- where it would be subject to Prop 13’s strict limits and the 2/3 rule – in other words, subject to the statewide anti-tax minority’s veto, regardless of the wishes or needs of local officials or voters. http://open.salon.com/blog/micha...ver_the_effect_of_prop_13
Why bring partisanship into it? Are you interested in solving problems, or just promoting a partisan agenda?
If I could, I would. Ya think? lmao Not to mention going back 32 years, into the previous century...
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
Because this is an issue that has been driven by California Republicans specifically and Republicans in general. The California Republican party is not interested in solving the problem, they are looking for ideologically pure (according to the dictates of Grover Norquist) candidates, not problem solvers.
Again proving that you don't know what you're talking about.
If we're ever going to solve any problems, we're going to have to get past the republicans/bad - democrats/good BS. Just sayin' Besides, I can tell you that republicans aren't the problem. Here in New York, we've run all the republicans out. And we're in just as deep sh*t as California.
If I could, I would. As one who has been here 25 years, they did a good job of eating themselves.
The funny thing is, Patterson has long been proposing the same draconian measures that Christie ran on in NJ. And while Christie is going to out on his ass in 3 years, Patterson will be out in a few months.
I did the math, perhaps you can't? Sheesh. You cited something from 32 years ago. Reread your own post, use a calculator.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
Besides, I can tell you that republicans aren't the problem. Here in New York, we've run all the republicans out. And we're in just as deep sh*t as California. ding! ding! Ding! We have a winner!
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
Comments (70 - 80) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestNope. If you had you would be proclaiming him as a endangered minority,and creating special government programs to help him.
#30. To: go65 (#26)
Back up your assertion, or shut up.
#31. To: sneakypete (#28)
Nope. If you had you would be proclaiming him as a endangered minority,and creating special government programs to help him.
#32. To: go65 (#27)
#33. To: go65 (#21)
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)
#35. To: lucysmom (#33)
has no severance tax on oil and issues no wealth redistributing checks to its residents.
#36. To: no gnu taxes (#35)
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)
no gnu taxes
#38. To: lucysmom (#36)
#39. To: no gnu taxes (#35)
#40. To: no gnu taxes (#38)
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)
#42. To: lucysmom, no gnu taxes, badeye (#37)
no gnu taxes
But I can't, so I won't.
#43. To: Ignore Amos (#42)
Question: In your world, is cutting spending EVER justified?
#44. To: war (#41)
#45. To: no gnu taxes (#44)
There is no "need" qualification for the issuance of the dividends.
#46. To: war (#41)
#47. To: no gnu taxes (#46)
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)
#49. To: lucysmom (#43)
(Edited)
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.
But I can't, so I won't.
#50. To: Badeye (#48)
That would be a 'no' huh? (laughing)
#51. To: lucysmom (#50)
I'm thinking the "no gnu tax" guys should take a pay cut.
#52. To: Ignore Amos (#49)
So - cutting personnel costs is always an option - albeit not an easy one.
#53. To: Ignore Amos (#49)
Can it not be fixed?
#54. To: lucysmom (#53)
#55. To: lucysmom (#53)
It has become the third rail in California politics
But I can't, so I won't.
#56. To: war (#54)
#57. To: Ignore Amos (#55)
It has become the third rail in California politics There are too many "third rails" - that is the problem.
#58. To: Badeye (#57)
Christie is disproving this notion in New Jersey.
But I can't, so I won't.
#59. To: Ignore Amos (#58)
#60. To: Ignore Amos (#55)
There are too many "third rails" - that is the problem.
#61. To: lucysmom (#60)
This one is a Republican third rail
But I can't, so I won't.
#62. To: Ignore Amos (#61)
or just promoting a partisan agenda?
#63. To: Ignore Amos (#61)
Why bring partisanship into it? Are you interested in solving problems, or just promoting a partisan agenda?
#64. To: Badeye (#62)
Not to mention going back 32 years, into the previous century...
#65. To: lucysmom (#63)
(Edited)
But I can't, so I won't.
#66. To: Ignore Amos (#65)
Here in New York, we've run all the republicans out.
#67. To: Ignore Amos (#65)
And we're in just as deep sh*t as California.
#68. To: lucysmom (#64)
Not to mention going back 32 years, into the previous century... Again proving that you don't know what you're talking about.
#69. To: Ignore Amos (#65)
If we're ever going to solve any problems, we're going to have to get past the republicans/bad - democrats/good BS. Just sayin'
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]