I remember BJ Clinton's "middle-class tax cut" all too well....
Posted on 10/20/2008 8:46:37 AM PDT by TSchmereL
Obama was briefed on William Ayers?
That’s what I was thinking also.
Late bump!
Hi my handy Mama.
Oh, believe me, Biden isn’t telling world leaders anything they don’t already know. I’m sure that every national leader has a dossier on Obama’s past as a communist agitator, as a black separatist, and how he is a blow hard naif who thinks he can talk the world right. They’ve already taken his measure, which is why Obama has money flowing into his campaign from the Middle East. They can’t wait to have a Useful Idiot in the Whitehouse.
FIRED?! eeegads...
He was briefed on him a long time ago!
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y180/clintonsucks1/2840292614_6c47e95fe4.jpg
Late: speaking of healthcare
On The Wire: Hawaii Socialized Medicine Program Flops!!!
http://onthewire.blogspot.com/2008/10/hawaii-socialized-medicine-program.html
Gee, could it be that folks will not buy insurance if it’s paid for or a million other reasons like doctors not working for low salaries, quotas, etc.
I remember BJ Clinton's "middle-class tax cut" all too well....
Reviewing the polls printed in The New York Times and The Washington Post in the last month of every presidential election since 1976, I found the polls were never wrong in a friendly way to Republicans. When the polls were wrong, which was often, they overestimated support for the Democrat, usually by about 6 to 10 points.
In 1976, Jimmy Carter narrowly beat Gerald Ford 50.1 percent to 48 percent. And yet, on Sept. 1, Carter led Ford by 15 points. Just weeks before the election, on Oct. 16, 1976, Carter led Ford in the Gallup Poll by 6 percentage points -- down from his 33-point Gallup Poll lead in August.
Reading newspaper coverage of presidential elections in 1980 and 1984, I found myself paralyzed by the fear that Reagan was going to lose.
In 1980, Ronald Reagan beat Carter by nearly 10 points, 51 percent to 41 percent. In a Gallup Poll released days before the election on Oct. 27, it was Carter who led Reagan 45 percent to 42 percent.
In 1984, Reagan walloped Walter Mondale 58.8 percent to 40 percent, -- the largest electoral landslide in U.S. history. But on Oct. 15, The New York Daily News published a poll showing Mondale with only a 4-point deficit to Reagan, 45 percent to 41 percent. A Harris Poll about the same time showed Reagan with only a 9-point lead. The Oct. 19 New York Times/CBS News Poll had Mr. Reagan ahead of Mondale by 13 points. All these polls underestimated Reagan's actual margin of victory by 6 to 15 points.
In 1988, George H.W. Bush beat Michael Dukakis by a whopping 53.4 percent to 45.6 percent. A New York Times/CBS News Poll on Oct. 5 had Bush leading the Greek homunculus by a statistically insignificant 2 points -- 45 percent to 43 percent. (For the kids out there: Before it became a clearinghouse for anti-Bush conspiracy theories, CBS News was considered a credible journalistic entity.)
A week later -- or one tank ride later, depending on who's telling the story -- on Oct. 13, Bush was leading Dukakis in The New York Times Poll by a mere 5 points.
Admittedly, a 3- to 6-point error is not as crazily wrong as the 6- to 15-point error in 1984. But it's striking that even small "margin of error" mistakes never seem to benefit Republicans.
In 1992, Bill Clinton beat the first President Bush 43 percent to 37.7 percent. (Ross Perot got 18.9 percent of Bush's voters that year.) On Oct. 18, a Newsweek Poll had Clinton winning 46 percent to 31 percent, and a CBS News Poll showed Clinton winning 47 percent to 35 percent.
So in 1992, the polls had Clinton 12 to 15 points ahead, but he won by only 5.3 points.
In 1996, Bill Clinton beat Bob Dole 49 percent to 40 percent. And yet on Oct. 22, 1996, The New York Times/CBS News Poll showed Clinton leading by a massive 22 points, 55 percent to 33 percent.
In 2000, which I seem to recall as being fairly close, the October polls accurately described the election as a virtual tie, with either Bush or Al Gore 1 or 2 points ahead in various polls. But in one of the latest polls to give either candidate a clear advantage, The New York Times/CBS News Poll on Oct. 3, 2000, showed Gore winning by 45 percent to 39 percent.
In the last presidential election the polls were surprisingly accurate -- not including the massively inaccurate Election Day exit poll. In the end, Bush beat John Kerry 50.7 percent to 48.3 percent in 2004. Most of the October polls showed the candidates in a dead-heat, with Bush 1 to 3 points ahead. So either pollsters got a whole lot better starting in 2004, or Democrats stole more votes in that election than we even realized.
COPYRIGHT 2008 ANN COULTER
Gasoline at $2.19 in OkC...
This sounds like something is in the works to happen within the US. Martial law? Gun confiscation? This is way beyond scary!!!
LOL, next dumbfounded statement:
“People who were already able to afford mortgage payments began to stop paying them so they could take advantage of the bailout,” said a very surprised President Obama, as he scratched his head and scanned the pages of Das Kapital in search of answers. “I don’t believe that was the intent of the program.”
http://politicsandlife.blogspot.com/2008/10/who-pays-who-gets-it-for-free.html
Opportunity cost: How many job opportunities will Øbama’s high tax rates cost young workers?
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3 The seventh would pay $7. The eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. 'Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers?
How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings). The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28% savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( 22% savings). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. 'I only got a dollar out of the $20,' declared the sixth man.
He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10! "Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too.. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I! "That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!
"Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor! 'The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man (the richest) didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
http://www.ktok.com/pages/mullinsinthemorning.html
oops, wrong link. This will work.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10192008/news/politics/palin_proves_shes_e_quipped_for_snl_134218.htm
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.