Please log in to view images

« prev   random   next »


Poll: Obama worst president since WWII

By zzyzzx follow zzyzzx   2014 Jul 2, 1:35am 30,635 views   116 comments   watch   nsfw   quote   share

A plurality of voters think Barack Obama is the worst president since World War II, a new poll says.

According to a Quinnipiac University poll released Wednesday, 33 percent of voters think the current president is the worst since 1945.

Obama’s predecessor, former President George W. Bush, came in at second-worst with 28 percent, and Richard Nixon was in third place with 13 percent of the vote. After Jimmy Carter, who 8 percent of voters said was the worst president in the time period, no other president received more than 3 percent.

Thirty-five percent of voters said Ronald Reagan was the best president since World War II, receiving nearly twice as many votes as any other former president. Bill Clinton came in second place at 18 percent, while John F. Kennedy came in third with 15 percent of the vote and Obama came in fourth with 8 percent saying he was the best.

All other remaining presidents received 5 percent or less. Five percent of voters said Dwight D. Eisenhower was the best president since 1945, while 4 percent said Harry Truman. Lyndon Johnson and George H.W. Bush each received 3 percent. George W. Bush came in at 1 percent.

Forty-five percent of voters said the U.S. would be better off with Mitt Romney serving in the White House, compared to 38 percent who said the country would be in worse shape.

The survey comes as Obama in recent weeks has found his popularity at the lowest levels of his presidency.

The Quinnipiac poll reported more bad news about the president’s approval and competency ratings. Forty percent of voters approve of the job Obama is doing, compared with 53 percent who disapprove. Fifty-four percent of voters say the Obama administration is not competent at running the government.

The survey was conducted June 24-30 with 1,446 registered voters on land lines and cellphones. The margin for error is plus or minus 2.6 percentage points.


« First    « Previous    Comments 42 - 81 of 81    Last »

77   indigenous   ignore (0)   2014 Jul 7, 3:11pm     ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Paralithodes says

What happens if one factors in changes to corporate structures, e.g., LLCs? If LLCs did not exist as a corporate & tax structure, and all those profits were recognized in corporate statements vs. owner individual income taxes, would the numbers appear any different?

One of the big factors is flow through taxation in the Regan era. The Libs yammer about how much the upper quintile's income went up. What they fail to realize is that tax law changes allowed for lower taxes to be paid as individuals. So it appeared like their income went up even though it hadn't changed at all. It was just reported as a subchapter S instead of a C corp.

78   rdm   ignore (2)   2014 Jul 7, 3:56pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Paralithodes says

If LLCs did not exist as a corporate & tax structure,

LLC's are not taxed at corporate rates typically they are taxed like partnerships; there is no double taxation. Distributions to the owners are not taxed but profits flow through to the various owners and they pay at the their individual rates. In real estate and some other types of LLC's one can generate substantial cash flow for the owners (often called members) but because of depreciation show little profit or a tax loss, thus creating tax free income for the members. As the name implies they exist to limit the personal liability of the owners without incurring any of the "potential" double taxation of a C corp. Life can be good as an LLC.

79   Bellingham Bill   ignore (5)   2014 Jul 10, 5:21am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Paralithodes says

They mattered then, but not anymore?

Deficits 2003-2010 push our monetary regime into ZIRP.

I'm not a big fan of big deficits, but I understand why we need Big Government recirculating $6T/yr:

to keep the wheels on this cart.

We ~could~ theoretically cut defense 50%, eliminate Medicaid entirely (cash or F- YOU)

but this specific spending is now 5% of GDP alone and its loss would obliterate many local economies dependent on Uncle Sugar, not to mention all the well-paid health-care jobs dependent on gov't subsidies:

% workforce doing healthcare

At this point though, as far as deficits go we're kinda like at 1993, we've put austerity into place and if we maintain the status quo we can probably ride out some growth to get our debt-to-GDP looking better by 2020.

shows the 2008-2012 excursion was 3X that of 1990-1994

So the deficit did matter in 2001 when Cheney wanted his tax cuts -- the Bush tax cuts just went into inflation in housing, health care, and energy, since these are the heavy-hitters of rent-seeking.

Now, however, what's done is done. I'd like to see higher taxes on the top 10% to bring down deficit spending more, but we've got a whole party against that now, and corporate america and "the 1%" have funded a well-oiled propaganda web to keep enough of the electorate bamboozled, unaware of the reality.

Over the TTM the deficit has been ~$600B.

Top 10% paid $700B in taxes, asking another $300B from them would put their tax rate up to 26% from 19%.

The other $300B could come from

of course

80   HydroCabron   ignore (1)   2014 Jul 10, 5:54am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Dirty liberals will be sorry when the Bush tax cuts start to work, in a couple of years.

Obamacare has already failed, but it's still to early to know about those tax cuts!

81   edvard2   ignore (1)   2014 Jul 10, 6:06am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Bellingham Bill says

Now, however, what's done is done. I'd like to see higher taxes on the top 10% to bring down deficit spending more, but we've got a whole party against that now, and corporate america and "the 1%" have funded a well-oiled propaganda web to keep enough of the electorate bamboozled, unaware of the reality.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. But in order for any kind of tax reform happens there needs to be a few steps taken as well as a different tonal quality developed to reset the conversation.

As it is now the situation with taxation has become too politicized with one party taking a sort of Robin Hood stance with regards to higher taxes for the wealthy while the other party has taken the stance that any rise in taxes period is unacceptable while at the same time not coming up with any means in which to collect future taxation.

This is a purely economic problem. One idea I've thought of goes back to what FDR did during the first days of the depression. The immediate result of the crash was a run on the banks. FDR had the banks take a holiday and then that same evening came on the radio and explained in lamen's terms how the banking system worked in an effort to get people to stop pulling their cash. This worked fairly well. These would later be known as FDR's fireside chats.

That same sort of totally frank and to the point discussion about taxes and what they are used for needs to be had. Explain how things are paid for. Then show a chart or charts of where the nation's wealth is divided amongst the classes and then show the potential for future income if those charts were more normalized and adjusted.

But basically people need to become more educated about taxes in general. Its totally unrealistic to continue on with the expectations people have with regard to even basic needs and public institutions without even considering a conversation about taxes and its usage.

« First    « Previous    Comments 42 - 81 of 81    Last »

about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions