Miscellaneous News.

11920222425143

Comments

  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    TRENDING: CNN Poll: Obama at all time low:



    Quote:

    President Barack Obama is contending with the lowest approval rating of his 20-month presidency, a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll finds.



    The president's approval rating now stands at 42 percent ? an all time low in CNN polling and 8 points lower than where Obama was only three weeks ago. Moreover, 56 percent of all Americans think the president has fallen short of their expectations.



    The president's sagging poll numbers couldn't come at a worse time for congressional Democrats, themselves facing a nine-point deficit in the so-called "generic ballot" question heading into the midterm elections. In fact, the president's approval rating is the same as that of President Clinton's in 1994 ? the midterm election year that saw Republicans wrest control of both the House and Senate.



    In even worse news for congressional Democrats, likely voters say they are considerably more likely to vote for a candidate the president opposes than one he supports. On the other hand, 50 percent of voters said they would be more likely to vote for a Tea Party-backed candidate while a third of Americans said Tea Party support would dissuade their vote for a candidate.



    Still, the president can take some solace in the fact several past presidents have been beset by slumping numbers at the 2-year mark: In addition to Clinton, both Reagan and Jimmy Carter found their support at 42 percent at this point in their first term. Of course, Clinton and Reagan went on to big reelection wins only two years later.



  • finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    Quote:



    New York Times:



    Quote:

    Cigarette taxes in New York would jump by $1.60 a pack under a tentative deal reached between Gov. David A. Paterson and legislative leaders, which would give New York the nation's highest state cigarette taxes.



    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_618961.html



    U.S. would reap billions from $1 cigarette tax hike

    By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Editor

    WASHINGTON | Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:42pm EST



    Quote:

    (Reuters) - Adding a $1 per pack tax to cigarettes could raise more than $9 billion a year for states, health advocates said on Wednesday, and a poll released with the study shows Americans would support such a tax.



    The poll, conducted by International Communications Research, found 60 percent of voters would support the tax to help struggling states and would prefer it over other tax increases or budget cuts.



    "An increase in tobacco tax rates is not only sound public health policy but a smart and predictable way to help boost the economy and generate long-term health savings for states facing deepening budget deficits," said John Seffrin, chief executive of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network.



    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6194SD20100210



    Let's see what effect raising Cigarette taxes will have.



    Both are a good idea for raising money for the Feds and states--but not so much for the consumers.
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post


    New York Times:



    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_618961.html



    U.S. would reap billions from $1 cigarette tax hike

    By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Editor

    WASHINGTON | Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:42pm EST



    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6194SD20100210



    Let's see what effect raising Cigarette taxes will have.



    Both are a good idea for raising money for the Feds and states--but not so much for the consumers.



    There are two things I find interesting and somewhat amusing in things like this:



    1. Liberals and democrats often piously chastise others when there any suggestion about regulating what people can or can't do with their bodies (e.g., abortion, sex) but quite willingly seek to ban, tax or restrict the various things people can consume into their bodies.



    2. The recognition that increasing the price of something (e.g., through taxation) leads to less consumption or use of that thing...revealing a correct understanding of basic economics, but a complete inability to recognize how this exact same principle affects other economic activity (e.g., taxing income, savings, wealth, productivity, employment, wages, etc.)
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    There are two things I find interesting and somewhat amusing in things like this:



    1. Liberals and democrats often piously chastise others when there any suggestion about regulating what people can or can't do with their bodies (e.g., abortion, sex) but quite willingly seek to ban, tax or restrict the various things people can consume into their bodies.



    2. The recognition that increasing the price of something (e.g., through taxation) leads to less consumption or use of that thing...revealing a correct understanding of basic economics, but a complete inability to recognize how this exact same principle affects other economic activity (e.g., taxing income, savings, wealth, productivity, employment, wages, etc.)



    And when the higher taxes result in people doing less of the thing that is taxed, and the government starts losing revenue, they either raise taxes on that thing, or find something else to tax instead of cutting back on spending.
  • finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    There are two things I find interesting and somewhat amusing in things like this:



    1. Liberals and democrats often piously chastise others when there any suggestion about regulating what people can or can't do with their bodies (e.g., abortion, sex) but quite willingly seek to ban, tax or restrict the various things people can consume into their bodies.



    Hope that you are not implying that I'm a LibDem---NOT

    Your comments don't make any sense anyway.



    You posted the bit about taxing alcohol and I only added the comment about taxing tobacco to see if there is any deterrent in reducing consumption--or at least having a source of revenue. HATE SMOKERS WITH A PASSION--[Unlike Clinton--I have to inhale sometimes and I don't like it.--This is a joke.]







    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    2. The recognition that increasing the price of something (e.g., through taxation) leads to less consumption or use of that thing...revealing a correct understanding of basic economics, but a complete inability to recognize how this exact same principle affects other economic activity (e.g., taxing income, savings, wealth, productivity, employment, wages, etc.)



    True--but if it reduces smoking--I could go for it; also the revenues should be tied to medical care to the smokers--treatment for heart disease and cancers.
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post


    Hope that you are not implying that I'm a LibDem---NOT



    I wasn't actually.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post


    Your comments don't make any sense anyway.



    My first point was that liberals and democrats often piously chastise others when there any suggestion about regulating what people can or can't do with their bodies (e.g., abortion, sex) but quite willingly seek to ban, tax or restrict the various things people can consume into their bodies...like smoking...or trans fats...or fast food...or sugar...or whatever. I was trying to shine some light on the general hypocrisy of a group that says you can't criminalize abortion because a woman has right to do with her body what she wants, but then turns around (out of the other side of their mouth) and calls for taxes (sometimes punitive) designed to essentially regulate and discourage and control what people consume into their bodies.
  • john galtjohn galt Posts: 957member
    Kids 0, Insurance 0 - The first fruits of ObamaCare



    Quote:

    This week, almost every big insurance company in America?including Aetna, Cigna, UnitedHealth Group, WellPoint, Humana, Coventry, some Blue Cross Blue Shield affiliates and others?stopped writing "child-only" policies in the individual market. ...



    This drives up premiums for the healthy, encouraging consumers in turn to drop coverage, and eventually it leads to what's known as a "death spiral," the industry term for an insurer with rapidly increasing costs as a result of population changes in its coverage pool. The child-only market is a particular death-spiral risk because it is so small and unstable, which explains why so many insurers left in a stroke.



    Conspiracy theory is that this is exactly want Obamacare seeks to achieve - eliminate private insurance in favor of a government bureaucracy.
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by john galt View Post


    Kids 0, Insurance 0 - The first fruits of ObamaCare







    Conspiracy theory is that this is exactly want Obamacare seeks to achieve - eliminate private insurance in favor of a government bureaucracy.



    Not sure if you can call it a conspiracy theory when it appears to be so transparently obvious. They will, of course, claim innocence ("See, we told you they were greedy! It was those greedy insurance companies that did this! Thankfully we're here to save the day.")



    The next big thing will be private employers preferring to just drop insurance and pay the tax (err..."fine") to wash their hands of the whole insurance mess. Other insurance companies dropping out. By 2020 over half the country will be on a government insurance plan.



    They planned for single payer all along...they just chose a more stealth (and patient) tactic to achieve it.



    That or they are completely and utterly stupid and they didn't see this coming. I keep going back and forth between evil and stupid. The evidence isn't always clearly pointing either direction.
  • john galtjohn galt Posts: 957member
    It's not my intent to dismiss this as unfounded conspiracy. The single-payer goal was always thinly veiled, if at all. The main liberal criticism of Obamacare is its lack of a "public option", despite the fact LBJ's Medicare was supposed to have addressed that already.



    Right now the gargantuan insurance industry is content to have secured legislation that assures their continued growth and profitability. What business wouldn't want consumers forced to buy its products?



    The intelligence belongs to the insurance lobby; Congress serves as their "useful idiots".



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    ... I keep going back and forth between evil and stupid. The evidence isn't always clearly pointing either direction.



    Evil requires intelligence. Intelligence is finite. Stupidity, limitless.
  • hands sandonhands sandon Posts: 5,270member
    Ed Miliband has been voted Labour's new Leader. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...our-leadership
  • finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    by JOEL ROSE

    September 26, 2010



    Quote:

    Independent voters helped sweep President Obama and other Democrats into office in the last two election cycles. But with less than six weeks to go before the 2010 midterms, independent voters are swinging decisively to the Republican side, according to a report from the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.



    According to the report, almost half of independent voters say they are planning to cast ballots for Republicans this year. Janis Nadler of Haverford, Pa., who was at an upscale shopping mall in a Philadelphia suburb, is one of them.



    "I think there's a backlash, and I'm going to probably be part of the backlash of people who won't vote for the Democrats," he says.



    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=130112301



    September 23, 2010

    Independents Oppose Party in Power ... Again

    More Conservative, More Critical of National Conditions



    F
    Quote:

    or the third national election in a row, independent voters may be poised to vote out the party in power. The Republican Party holds a significant edge in preferences for the upcoming congressional election among likely voters, in large part because political independents now favor Republican candidates by about as large a margin as they backed Barack Obama in 2008 and congressional Democratic candidates four years ago.



    http://people-press.org/report/658/
  • john galtjohn galt Posts: 957member
    Independents usually vote against incumbents in a midterm election. That's nothing new. What's different about this one is that the Democrats are losing their base:



    The Obama Heyday Is Over



    Number of House and Senate Democrats who voted for Obamacare: 279

    Number campaigning on that vote: 0



    Ok, so keep Obamacare on the down low. What else do they have to campaign on?



    Stimulus:

    Cap-and-tax:

    Banking "reform":



    To succeed in their reelection bid, Democrats are going to need support from their traditional sources - rampant voter fraud:



    Quote:

    Most of the findings focused on a group called Houston Votes, a voter registration group headed by Steve Caddle, who also works for the Service Employees International Union. Among the findings were that only 1,793 of the 25,000 registrations the group submitted appeared to be valid. The other registrations included one of a woman who registered six times in the same day; registrations of non-citizens; so many applications from one Houston Voters collector in one day that it was deemed to be beyond human capability; and 1,597 registrations that named the same person multiple times, often with different signatures.



    http://www.texaswatchdog.org/2010/08...2684719.column

    http://www.truethevote.org/
  • finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    By ALBERT R. HUNT

    Published: September 26, 2010



    Quote:

    WASHINGTON ? With the U.S. midterm elections five weeks away, the Tea Party movement is already the big winner of 2010.



    This anti-government, grass-roots Republican offshoot has rattled the party establishment ? making the former governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, the party?s most prominent 2012 presidential possibility ? and has dominated the debate this campaign season.



    The Tea Partiers believe they are on the cutting edge of a revolution: the ?future of politics,? as Ms. Palin says. More likely, they are a short-term catalyst for Republicans and a long-term problem.



    Nevertheless, their victories are impressive ? toppling the Republican Party?s choices in Senate primary races from Alaska to Delaware, with Nevada, Colorado and Kentucky in between. Scores of candidates for the House of Representatives around the United States have embraced the Tea Party agenda.



    The Tea Party agenda is not well defined, though it is anti-government, anti-spending, anti-immigration and anti-compromise politics. In a United States beset by a 9.6 percent unemployment rate and plenty of anxiety and anger, there is a receptive audience.



    A number of Republican strategists say there is little evidence the Tea Party agenda will turn off voters. That observation may hold true for a midterm election, which is often a referendum on the incumbent party rather than a contest. But it may not apply if the party acquires power, or in a presidential election year. A number of the most prominent Tea Party candidates this year embrace views that may not appeal to swing voters.



    More than a few House Republican candidates talk about privatizing Social Security and cutting back on support for Medicare. That will not sit well with senior citizens, a majority of whom are expected to vote Republican in November.



    The Tea Party?s official 10-point agenda, called the Contract From America, is not so incendiary, though calls for a balanced budget, a single flat tax rate and lower taxes, including those on capital gains and estates, are a challenging policy prescription.



    This movement is not tolerant of dissent within the ranks, which may cause some other Republican politicians indigestion. For example, this year, the Tea Party took over the Maine Republican Party convention and adopted a platform that called for imposing a 12-year term limit for senators, ending the congressional health care plan, opposing abortion and abolishing the Federal Reserve Board.



    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/27/us...tter.html?_r=1
  • wormholewormhole Posts: 864member
    Tea Party Funding



    the grass roots of the tea party must be for very tall grass.
  • finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    By Brad Knickerbocker, Staff writer / September 26, 2010



    Quote:

    For now, at least, the ?ground zero mosque? in New York and threats to burn copies of the Quran are no longer front-page news. But Americans remain wary of Islam as the FBI and other law enforcement agencies investigate a growing list of attacks on mosques and threats to Muslims



    .http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society...-wary-of-Islam



    The Pew Report:



    http://pewforum.org/uploadedFiles/To...ull-report.pdf
  • camp davidcamp david Posts: 692member
    Didn't you expect this?



    Obama Administration-sponsored book burning...

    September 25, 2010

    http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/09/25/boo...yed/index.html

    Pentagon destroys thousands of copies of Army officer's memoir...
Sign In or Register to comment.