HuffPost Article: Dem Brand declines 31% since 2008 under Obama

[ncsportsnut1]

Direct from the left wing media to us per the HuffPost. One of their writers analyzes the Gallup Poll released 8/29 showing a 31% decline in the Democrat brand since 2008. Don't shoot me I'm just the messenger, along with those right wing idiots from Huffington Post!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/democratic-party-poll_b_1840776.html

 

[bym051d]

All these reasons you're coming up with why Romney shouldnt lose to Obama.

 

[PhDeac]

Misleading thread title. It's actually down 39%.

The article actually shows that the polarization of the nation and disgust with the political system has caught up to Dems and Pubs haven't recovered. Both parties are underwater in favorability. There's no back and forth. Just disgust. Since 2008, the Dems have gone from normal numbers to an all-time low and Pubs have gone from an all-time low to slightly higher.

This shows the Pubs plan to make Americans disgusted with government is working very well.

 

[DirkTheDeac]

This point cannot be overemphasized. It has been the focus of everything the Republican Party has done since Obama was elected.....the country be damned.

The current administration is working well? In what way? If you claim the hole Bush dug was just more than Obama can fill then maybe you should find the person who can fill it. Obama isn't that guy. His so called giant intellect isn't getting it done. Personally, I think it's policy more than intellect, but that's just me.

 

[PhDeac]

The current administration is working well? In what way? If you claim the hole Bush dug was just more than Obama can fill then maybe you should find the person who can fill it. Obama isn't that guy. His so called giant intellect isn't getting it done. Personally, I think it's policy more than intellect, but that's just me.

I think it would take anybody more than 4 years to bring the US back from a worldwide economic crisis.

 

[DirkTheDeac]

I think it would take anybody more than 4 years to bring the US back from a worldwide economic crisis.

You were too young to remember the Carter years. Things were way worse back then. You had unemployment but on top of that you had big inflation and insane interest rates. Reagan dealt with it.

 

[PhDeac]

Times have changed, Dirk. And Reaganomics were bad for the poor and minorities.

 

[DirkTheDeac]

Times have changed, Dirk. And Reaganomics were bad for the poor and minorities.

Really? In what way... let's see some colorful charts and graphs. I'm wide open... because there are a lot more people on food stamps, welfare and unemployment after three plus years of Obama's term than there were after Reagan's third year. Call me a liar. And the economy in 1975 was way worse than 2007.

 

[Strickland33]

Times have changed, Dirk. And Reaganomics were bad for the poor and minorities.

Not to mention the fact that Reaganomics laid the foundations for this latest Great Depression. Great job, that Reagan did...

 

[PhDeac]

First of all, we're in a truly global economy now. The domestic levers just don't work now. As sailor and I have pointed out, there's too much domestic and international competition with the domestic workforce for investment dollars. What hurts our economy happens all over the world and what will heal our economy does as well. Geez, we're engaged in the longest war in American history and we've managed to tank the economy in that time. If that doesn't tell you things are different, I don't know what will.

 

[ncsportsnut1]

First of all, we're in a truly global economy now. The domestic levers just don't work now. As sailor and I have pointed out, there's too much domestic and international competition with the domestic workforce for investment dollars. What hurts our economy happens all over the world and what will heal our economy does as well. Geez, we're engaged in the longest war in American history and we've managed to tank the economy in that time. If that doesn't tell you things are different, I don't know what will.

You just made a great case for lowering the US corporate tax rate to be more competitive with what other companies have done over the last 15 years.

 

[ncsportsnut1]

Not to mention the fact that Reaganomics laid the foundations for this latest Great Depression. Great job, that Reagan did...

Reagan didn't create the housing crisis. He also didn't create the Great Society with all of the unfunded liabilities our balance sheet is carrying.

 

[PhDeac]

You just made a great case for lowering the US corporate tax rate to be more competitive with what other companies have done over the last 15 years.

No I didn't. It's a domestic lever that doesn't work now. There should be other reforms because it doesn't make much sense. But just lowering the corporate tax rate to put more money in the coffers isn't necessarily going to lead to jobs.

 

[WFFaithful]

Really? In what way... let's see some colorful charts and graphs. I'm wide open... because there are a lot more people on food stamps, welfare and unemployment after three plus years of Obama's term than there were after Reagan's third year. Call me a liar. And the economy in 1975 was way worse than 2007.

Low income wages have not risen with inflation.

Someone making $56K today would be in Reagan's top tax bracket.

 

[WFFaithful]

This point cannot be overemphasized. It has been the focus of everything the Republican Party has done since Obama was elected.....the country be damned.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/robert-draper-anti-obama-campaign_n_1452899.html

Someone should ask Ryan if he, like Romney, wished that Obama had been successful.

 

[Deadbolt]

You just made a great case for lowering the US corporate tax rate to be more competitive with what other companies have done over the last 15 years.

Obama proposed lowering the corporate tax rate.

 

[ncsportsnut1]

Obama proposed lowering the corporate tax rate.

Then why didn't he get it passed in his first two years when he had complete control of both houses of Congress? Answer: He's not a leader and doesn't know how to lead.

 

[RJKarl]

Guys, remember the GOP , ncsports and others don't believe in science or math. It's only about math in this election:

1. No poll has Obama getting less than 94% of the black vote
2. No poll has Obama getting less than 35% win with Hispanics
3. Obama has an average lead of 10% among women

Do the math.

 

[WFFaithful]

Then why didn't he get it passed in his first two years when he had complete control of both houses of Congress? Answer: He's not a leader and doesn't know how to lead.

revisionist history

 

[DeacLaw05]

Times have changed, Dirk. And Reaganomics were bad for the poor and minorities.

Not so much...


http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/315708/our-best-anti-poverty-program-kevin-d-williamson

The great achievement of the Reagan economy wasn’t that the rich got a lot richer (though they did, and good for them!) but that the poor got a lot richer, too. As Treasury figures from the era document, the vast majority (nearly 85 percent) of those who were poor in 1979 (meaning they resided in the lowest income quintile) were in a higher quintile by 1988; even more impressive, two-thirds of them had moved up two quintiles or more. And most impressive of all: Of the people who were in the lowest income quintile in 1979, more had moved to the top quintile by 1988 than remained in the bottom quintile. Which is to say, if you were on the bottom in 1979, you were statistically more likely to be on the top by 1988 than to remain at the bottom.

Some of that is of course the result of passing time: Most people’s incomes go up as they get older. But if you compare the Reagan years with any other stretch in postwar history, you’ll be hard pressed to find a time during which the poor did better. The poverty rate was cut by 16 percent in the Reagan years, and the total income of the bottom 20 percent more than doubled, rising from $181 billion to $476 billion.