Perry the GOP frontrunner in Ga., and nationally as well
Via Jim Galloway, a poll of Georgia Republicans by Channel Two Action News and InsiderAdvantage:
Rick Perry: 24 percent;
Herman Cain: 15 percent;
Newt Gingrich: 9 percent;
Michele Bachmann: 8 percent;
Mitt Romney: 6 percent;
Ron Paul: 5 percent;
Jon Huntsman: 1 percent;
Undecided, 20 percent.
It’s no surprise that Perry’s doing well in Georgia, but the size of his lead is a little startling so soon after his entry into the race. The fact that Romney, the longtime frontrunner who has been in the race for months, draws just 6 percent here in the Peach State is a stark reminder of his problems with the party’s conservative base.
In a similar poll taken in Florida earlier this month, before Perry’s official entry, Romney pulled 25 percent, with Perry drawing support from 16 percent and Bachmann getting 10 percent. I doubt those numbers would be duplicated today, with Perry now an official candidate.
The most recent numbers out of South Carolina, another important primary state, date back to mid-July, when Perry was just beginning to make noises about a serious run. Romney drew 25 percent, with Sarah Palin at 16 percent, Bachmann at 15 percent and Cain at 13 percent. But again, Perry’s entry into the race has no doubt altered that landscape.
That’s certainly what has happened nationally. Here’s Rasmussen from earlier this week:
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Republican Primary voters, taken Monday night, finds Perry with 29% support. Romney, the former Massachusetts governor who ran unsuccessfully for the GOP presidential nomination in 2008, earns 18% of the vote, while Bachmann, the Minnesota congresswoman who won the high-profile Ames Straw Poll in Iowa on Saturday, picks up 13%.
Texas Congressman Ron Paul, who was a close second to Bachmann on Saturday, has the support of nine percent (9%) of Likely Primary Voters, followed by Georgia businessman Herman Cain at six percent (6%) and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich with five percent (5%). Rick Santorum, former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania, and ex-Utah Governor Jon Huntsman each get one percent (1%) support, while Michigan Congressman Thaddeus McCotter comes in statistically at zero.
At this point, Perry is probably the frontrunner in the race, with the important proviso that like Bachmann, he has the potential to self-destruct at any moment.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
1,639 comments Add your comment
Dave R. - 3k/4k/5k
August 21st, 2011
12:01 pm
““the president had total control for two years. It was a disaster.”
Of course, this is a partisan lie.”
Of course, if one were to post the oft-repeated link to the lib-generated list of Hope & Downgrade’s ™ “accomplishments” right after the “Of course, this is a partisan lie” comment, one might actually see that there were many so-called legislative wins in his first 2 years that would make the comment about lack of control, well – wrong.
But libs want it both ways. Don’t blame Hope & Downgrade ™ for not having complete control, but list all of his accomplishment that wouldn’t have happened if he hadn’t had control.
Good Little Liberal
August 21st, 2011
12:04 pm
Mick
You are not impressed with a Republican? Say it ain’t so. I’m saying this with all the love in my heart, but I’m pretty sure that you are not the person they are trying to impress. Is there anythuing any Republican could do to make you vote for them?
Kamchak
August 21st, 2011
12:04 pm
Can’t you hear me knockin’?
Drop me down the keys.
Kamchak
August 21st, 2011
12:05 pm
Oops. dropped the linkee.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJ8MvnEVCqM
@@
August 21st, 2011
12:08 pm
Getalife:
I think PoliFore is more than an aspiring comic…he’s an aspiring writer, as well.
And not too shabby in my opinion.
I’m outta here.
Good Little Liberal
August 21st, 2011
12:08 pm
The stooges.
Walks into a political debate with simplistic two chord, outdated rock songs posted on YouTube. LOL!!
Have a good day everyone who didn’t sleep until noon.
Mick
August 21st, 2011
12:11 pm
gll
Yes, bring back eisenhower or even bush the elder. The crew you have out there now is god awful and so far to the right they’ve landed on the moon…
ShazamVet
August 21st, 2011
12:12 pm
One of their best, Kam…
(Some of these boys just can’t take a hint.)
And the fun of watching their heads explode is only good for so many chuckles.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYYTLJ8YHi4
Midori
August 21st, 2011
12:13 pm
dedicated to GLL: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Republicans-are-Morons/174743845928543?sk=wall
Everyone sees you and your ilk for the jokes that you are.
Common Sense isn't very Common
August 21st, 2011
12:17 pm
where’s that nailin Palin video when we need it for laughs
Brosephus
August 21st, 2011
12:19 pm
Bro 10:53 a revenue neutral overhaul of the tax code boosts growth by improving the allocation of resources.
jm
It sounds fine and good on paper. Do you expect a Congress, this Congress, our Congress to be able to legislate a reformed and streamlined tax code anytime in the near future? This is the same Congress that took a year to deal with the debt ceiling vote, and that vote actually had a defined, drop dead deadline whereas tax code reform has no such limit.
Kamchak
August 21st, 2011
12:20 pm
Walks into a political debate with simplistic two chord, outdated rock songs posted on YouTube.
The most recognizable tune of the post classical/pre-romantic era starts with only two different notes.
Three Gs and an E flat.
1811/0311
August 21st, 2011
12:23 pm
Headline: “Coast Guard struggling to update its aging fleet”
A private cruise line could have had ships up and running in a year or two. It’s the government red tape that makes these endeavors almost impossible.
Maybe we should privatize the Coast Guard ?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-08-21-coast-guard-fleet-upgrade_n.htm
ShazamVet
August 21st, 2011
12:25 pm
Midori, now that’s a hoot.
Remember how George was the butt of endless jokes for his fractured English and Bushisms?
Well, it’s become de rigueur among his spelling and grammar-challenged acolytes…
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pargon/sets/72157623594187379/
Jm
August 21st, 2011
12:25 pm
Bro 12:19
I think it’s possible given how dire our economic situation is.
Is it definitely going to happen? No. Possible? Yes
Likely? Don’t know
ShazamVet
August 21st, 2011
12:28 pm
Note the license plate.
Comedy gold…
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pargon/sets/72157623594187379/
Midori
August 21st, 2011
12:30 pm
LOL, AmVet
and it’s evidenced right here
Mick
August 21st, 2011
12:32 pm
scout
It’s been that way forever, the uscg is the forgotten step child of the dept. of transportation. All we’re ever going to get is navy hand me downs, except for ice breakers…
Brosephus
August 21st, 2011
12:34 pm
jm
You have far more faith in those jackasses than I do.
carlosgvv
August 21st, 2011
12:34 pm
Good Little Liberal
I am not talking about middle-class tax cuts. I am talking about Bush era tax cuts for the RICH. Obama proposed letting them expire and the Republicans said absolutely not!! If this doesn’t show you where their true loyalities lie, then nothing will.
Dave R. - 3k/4k/5k
August 21st, 2011
12:35 pm
You know the libs have lost the argument of ideas when they attack the spelling of the opposition.
getalife
August 21st, 2011
12:37 pm
I propose two more terms for President Clinton after Obama’s second term because we are out of leaders.
When bachmann is considered a serious candidate, this proves my point.
Adam
August 21st, 2011
12:38 pm
GLL: the president had total control for two years. It was a disaster.
No, he didn’t, but never let a good lie die. And keep on going with that pass the buck meaning responsibility and not a bill. That’s what it BECAME, after redefining it, much like redefining socialism and stimulus and compromise….
Adam
August 21st, 2011
12:41 pm
Dave R: If Obama had “total control” then everything he wanted would have happened. TOTAL control is not what he had. But cons want it both ways. Obama is a dictator who forces anything he wants down the throats of Republicans, and yet Republicans are effectively fighting back.
getalife
August 21st, 2011
12:42 pm
w had a gop rubber stamp congress that spent their way to our current disaster.
Mick
August 21st, 2011
12:44 pm
**You know the libs have lost the argument of ideas when they attack the spelling of the opposition.**
No – they are just attacking the spelling of the opposition. Where’s the pride? If you are going to put yourself out there, a simple spell check should be required unless of course you are a simpleton, then…
Bruno
August 21st, 2011
12:45 pm
Perhaps you can find some space here to explain to us all how Bush’s tax breaks for the rich “helped the middle class”.
You know, Libs, it’s pretty hard to debate ideas/policies when one side lacks basic honesty and can’t bring themselves to admit historical truths. Per “Bush’s tax breaks for the rich”:
(1) The tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 applied to ALL Americans. Here is a tax table which gives the breakdown:
http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm
Prior to 1993, there were three tax rates: 15% for the first tier of income, 28% for the second tier of income, and 31% for anything above the second tier of income. Bill Clinton’s “tax increase for the rich” kept the first two tier rates intact, but created two additional tier rates of 36% and 39.6% for the high earners. Fast forward to 2002 following the first round of Bush’s “tax cuts for the rich”, and the first tier rate was subdivided into 10% for the lowest tier of earnings and kept at 15% for the rest of the lowest tier, while the rest of the tax rates were dropped by a measly 1% to 27%, 30%, 35% and 38.6% respectively. At the same time, the Earned Income Credits for the lowest earners were generously raised. As such, from a marginal standpoint, the first round of tax cuts primarily benefited the lower earners. Following the second round of tax cuts in 2003, the 10% and 15% tier rates remained the same, while the higher tier rates were further reduced by approximately 2-3% across the board to 25%, 28%, 33%, and 35% respectively. As such, the highest earners were still being taxed at a higher rate than they were prior to 1993.
(2) In spite of all the rhetoric about the hated “Bush tax cuts for the rich”, the Democratically controlled Congress extended those cuts in December, 2010. Though Jay and the Lib contingency like to make up excuse after excuse as to why they extended the cuts, the fact is that they did. If they were so unacceptable, either chamber of Congress could have voted them down or Obama could have vetoed the bill. Because they didn’t, regardless of the reasoning ( = excuses), they now have become the “Obama tax cuts for the rich.”
As painful as it is for some of you Libs to admit the raw truth, the historical record doesn’t change. So, quit your whining and own the tax cuts, because they are now yours and yours alone.
Dave R. - 3k/4k/5k
August 21st, 2011
12:45 pm
Adam, I’d ask you to actually read my post and try to understand the dichotomy between the liberal argument, but understanding of any concept foreign to your belief system is impossible.
Simply put, you cannot make the case that all those so-called legislative accomplishments could have occurred if Hope & Downgrade ™ didn’t have control of Congress for two years.
Well, you can if you’re a lib without any shred of intellectual honesty.
Dave R. - 3k/4k/5k
August 21st, 2011
12:47 pm
“w had a gop rubber stamp congress that spent their way to our current disaster.”
So? Does assigning blame for part of this disaster do anything towards getting us out of it?
ShazamVet
August 21st, 2011
12:47 pm
It’s not as if these hyper-numbskull birthers are misspelling six and seven syllable Latin words.
The anti-education crowd cannot correctly spell words that most fourth graders could.
And they expect people to believe that they can put up intelligent arguments?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pargon/4468907149/in/set-72157623594187379
Bruno
August 21st, 2011
12:48 pm
And be forewarned, Libs, Jay in particular. I’ll be repeating this post a few times next week so that the full Lib contingency can face the music. I’m looking forward to see what creative excuses Jay and company will come up with to refute the undeniable historical record.
getalife
August 21st, 2011
12:48 pm
cons ignore the fact that the gop abused the filibuster rule and stated they will not help our President or country for this election.
There is no intellectual honesty from the partisan cons.
Brosephus
August 21st, 2011
12:48 pm
Maybe we should privatize the Coast Guard ?
Would you privatize the Marine Corps? If not, that was about the dumbest question I’ve ever heard.
Dave R. - 3k/4k/5k
August 21st, 2011
12:49 pm
Sorry we can’t all live in your “liberals are so much smarter than conservatives” world, Mick.
The smug (and bigoted) superiority simply drips off the liberals on this blog.
Midori
August 21st, 2011
12:50 pm
AmVet – you have me in tears here
It’s not as if these hyper-numbskull birthers are misspelling six and seven syllable Latin words.
getalife
August 21st, 2011
12:52 pm
“The smug (and bigoted) superiority simply drips off the liberals on this blog.”
Says the most arrogant con partisan on this blog.
Adam
August 21st, 2011
12:52 pm
If you guys are going to mince words over the term “man made” when applied to climate change, then I get to mince words over Obama having total control of anything. Obama didn’t have TOTAL control. And he didn’t have CONTROL. That would be Democrats you’re thinking of, the party, not the President. Again, TOTAL control never happened in either case.
getalife
August 21st, 2011
12:54 pm
Good to see our President moving left on Medicare and immigration.
He is going to govern without congress and you cons deserve it.
Dave R. - 3k/4k/5k
August 21st, 2011
12:55 pm
“If you guys are going to mince words over the term “man made” when applied to climate change, then I get to mince words over Obama having total control of anything. Obama didn’t have TOTAL control. And he didn’t have CONTROL. That would be Democrats you’re thinking of, the party, not the President. Again, TOTAL control never happened in either case.”
Adam-speak for “Crap! I lost another argument when facts were brought up!”
Adam
August 21st, 2011
12:56 pm
Dave R: You’re arguing mostly opinion, and you’re incorrect on Obama having control when it comes to the facts.
Bruno
August 21st, 2011
12:56 pm
Yes, a good american union job where people earn decent wages and benefits, an alien concept to most people in georgia and the south. They would rather slave away and carry water for the corporate thugs and convince themselves its better for them.
My second question today is why are so many of you Libs in favor of unions?? In the end, unions are anti-consumer, because they dramatically raise the cost of goods and services across the board for the benefit of the few. It’s a poorly kept secret that the ridiculously high wages/benefits packages offered to the American auto workers is what led to the decline of the American auto industry. Ditto for the local IBEW, the electrical workers union. And let’s not even get started about the teacher’s unions, who make it nearly impossible to fire demonstrably bad teachers.
Just my opinion, but it seems we pay a high cost in terms of prices and worker quality to keep the unions in business.
Dave R. - 3k/4k/5k
August 21st, 2011
12:56 pm
“He is going to govern without congress and you cons deserve it.”
And of course, that would be impossible in our Constitutional Republic form of government.
Someone hasn’t recovered from their Saturday night binge, I see.
Bruno
August 21st, 2011
12:59 pm
The smug (and bigoted) superiority simply drips off the liberals on this blog.
Absolutely, Dave, but I’m pretty much expecting silence when confronted by the cold, hard facts as contained in my 12:45 post. Especially from whiners like carlosgv.
AmVet–You want to take a crack at denying the facts in my 12:45?? You seem to have a deeper hatred for all things Bush than most here.
getalife
August 21st, 2011
1:00 pm
He already did on immigration dave.
ShazamVet
August 21st, 2011
1:01 pm
One might infer that because I highlighted an SUV from Georgia, that I presume these goofballs are generally southern.
Au contraire.
More Teabonics. This time from the Land of Lincoln…
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pargon/4468906425/in/set-72157623594187379
getalife
August 21st, 2011
1:02 pm
Bruno,
The majority of Americans are for tax cuts because our government wastes our money.
Dave R. - 3k/4k/5k
August 21st, 2011
1:06 pm
Adam, there are multiple websites (one of which I believe you may have cited once or twice) out there that are maintained by libs which tout all of Hope & Downgrade’s ™ many so-called “Accomplishments in office”. Note, it doesn’t say “Democrat’s accomplishments in office”, it says “Obama’s”.
Now, you can dance like a prima ballerina all day long on this, but you may not use these accomplishments as being his, then deny they are his when called on the carpet for them (well, YOU can because you’re a hyper-partisan intellectually-bereft lib).
Bottom-line, the Democrats (of which Hope & Downgrade ™ is still a member if I am not mistaken) had control over both houses of Congress for 2 years. No amount of bleating can change that fact. And while some legislation was, indeed, held up by GOP threatened filibusters, Harry Reid had many opportunities to use reconciliation and did not, nor did he even allow votes on certain things to occur in order to minimize his ineffective leadership of the Senate.
Dave R. - 3k/4k/5k
August 21st, 2011
1:07 pm
Executive orders can only take him so far, getaclue.
If he starts to overdo them, he’s so much toast in 2012.
Adam
August 21st, 2011
1:09 pm
Yes, Obama set some goals and Democrats in Congress went along with those and managed to pass a few of them. That still doesn’t mean “Obama had control” and certainly doesn’t mean “Obama had total control.” The idea that Obama has control or total control is ridiculous, but yet it persists, even in the minds of Republicans who say “give us your plan.”
getalife
August 21st, 2011
1:10 pm
dave,
Your party overreached on Medicare and the debt limit terrorism. They lost us a decade of growth in the did not see it coming global collapse.
Factor these facts in your prediction.
Bruno
August 21st, 2011
1:10 pm
The majority of Americans are for tax cuts because our government wastes our money.
getalife–Unless you were just name-jacked, that is the most honest post you have ever made. The bottom line is that we’re spending too much money. Defense spending needs to be drastically cut, and our entitlement programs are far too generous. Unfortunately, neither party has the political will to cut out any of the ridiculous spending, especially the Democrats. Obama’s solution to what ails us now has been to create new program after new program which increases spending, not only at the government level, but in the private sector as well through ObamaCare. I’ve done my best to explain in great detail why Obamacare will absolutely raise costs, but I think there may be a few Libs who still cling to the fantasy that increasing the insurance companies’ roles in our lives will somehow magically lower costs.
Kamchak
August 21st, 2011
1:10 pm
It’s a poorly kept secret that the ridiculously high wages/benefits packages offered to the American auto workers is what led to the decline of the American auto industry.
This is only a partial list, but I recall crazy independent candidate H. Ross Perot saying this at the National Press Club in the early 90s
Unions don’t decide where to build the manufacturing plant.
Unions don’t decide who designs the manufacturing plant.
Unions don’t decide what construction company builds the manufacturing plant.
Unions don’t decide where the raw materials come from for the product they are manufacturing.
Unions don’t decide how the raw materials are transported to the manufacturing plant.
Unions don’t decide what product is manufactured.
Unions don’t decide which tools are used to manufacture the product.
Unions don’t decide the specifics of the product.
Unions don’t decide how the product is transported to the market.
Unions don’t decide on which advertising agency is used to market the products.
Unions don’t decide the particular ad campaign created by the ad agency.
Peter
August 21st, 2011
1:10 pm
Them church going folks, the same ones who voted for prayer meetings on the front lawn of the capitol, will vote for this over the top Republican…..Heck there may be a prayer meeting to stop Terrorism !
Midori
August 21st, 2011
1:11 pm
and every single thing Obama AND the democrats tried to do to HELP “people” were blocked by the party that has absolutely no clue or inclination to help ANYONE other than their donors.
what has the GOP done since regaining congress?
attacked women, NPR, PBS, the poor (they don’t need no stinking refrigerators), science, unions. but hey – they did vote to rename a couple post offices. oh wait — they are attacking the postal service too.
Adam
August 21st, 2011
1:12 pm
Actually Americans like tax cuts because it means they get to keep more money.
Midori
August 21st, 2011
1:12 pm
that should be “regaining control of the house”
ShazamVet
August 21st, 2011
1:12 pm
“AmVet–You want to take a crack at denying the facts in my 12:45??”
Why?
I have said innumerable times that I am no economist and that I feel these topics are MUCH too complex and inter-related to be adequately addressed by me.
I’m just pragmatic in the sense that I look around and see the unquestionable truth – the middle class in this country is getting absolutely and relentlessly hammered. While those at the top have enjoyed jawdropping “welfare for the wealthy”. Earned income tax brackets are not the most significant part of the equation. Unless you really do work for a living and have no access to the contrived handouts reserved exclusively for the wealthy..
I’ve posted numerous facts to corroborate that claim. And no one to date has refuted them.
And I didn’t just roll into town, this has happened right before my eyes. Starting pretty much with Reaganomics…
http://underthemountainbunker.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/345.jpg?w=584&h=209
Bruno
August 21st, 2011
1:12 pm
So how about it, Libs?? Anyone want to take a crack at refuting the historical facts about Bush’s “tax cut for the rich”, or even Obama’s tax cut for the rich??
If you’re unwilling to do so, then you need to STFU.
Peter
August 21st, 2011
1:12 pm
Look…Did anyone see the GOP considering raising taxes……….. WOW……
I guess they waited for wall street to be pissed, then they went along with the thought….. Those Lemmings !
getalife
August 21st, 2011
1:12 pm
Here is another one Bruno.
The majority of Americans are for a smaller government because they waste our money and too involved in our bedrooms.
Dave R. - 3k/4k/5k
August 21st, 2011
1:13 pm
“Yes, Obama set some goals and Democrats in Congress went along with those and managed to pass a few of them.”
A FEW of them?
http://planetpov.com/2011/02/13/a-short-list-of-pres-obamas-accomplishments/
Re-defining the meaning of the word “few” while at the same time re-defining the meaning of the word “control”, Adam?
Pathetic.
Peter
August 21st, 2011
1:14 pm
Please Midori ,,,,, We need to attack another country and forget about folks at home for the GOP to be happy !
getalife
August 21st, 2011
1:17 pm
Another overreach by the gop are the attack on American jobs.
They ran on creating jobs but acted to steal them to get our President.
The majority of Americans do not approve of gop terrorist actions.
Their radical position of no compromise loses the Independent votes that decides this election.
Kamchak
August 21st, 2011
1:17 pm
If you’re unwilling to do so, then you need to STFU.
Could be that we are just not that into you.
Adam
August 21st, 2011
1:18 pm
Surely you realize much of the medical stuff was in that mammoth health care law you guys hate so much, don’t you Dave? that’s why when I list some of his accomplishments, I skip over the ones that are from the health care law (well, that and everyone hates it so I focus on other “accomplishments.”
But, if you’re right, and Obama has accomplished so much, then I guess it logically follows that he must have had control, right?
Midori
August 21st, 2011
1:18 pm
if anyone needs to STFU, it’s you.
Dave R. - 3k/4k/5k
August 21st, 2011
1:18 pm
The new liberal redefining of words.
When you demand more accountability from government, it is an “attack”.
Got it.
Bruno
August 21st, 2011
1:19 pm
Unless you really do work for a living and have no access to the contrived handouts reserved exclusively for the wealthy.
Am–The facts are laid out in a nice, simple tax table for you. Here is the link again:
http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm
Please show me any of these mythical “contrived handouts”.
I’m just pragmatic in the sense that I look around and see the unquestionable truth – the middle class in this country is getting absolutely and relentlessly hammered.
There is no doubt that the rich have been becoming richer the past 20-30 years, but I don’t see it as coming at the expense of the middle class. Any objective comparison of our standard of living from say, the 1950s until now, shows that our standard of living is much higher now than ever before in terms of material comforts. The fact that those at the top have experienced an even sharper increase in standard of living than the rest of us doesn’t bother me so much. Also, if it makes you feel any better, the rich have been getting much poorer the last 2 years due to the tanking economy. And that decline hasn’t helped anyone in the middle class as far as I can see.
Dave R. - 3k/4k/5k
August 21st, 2011
1:20 pm
Keep flailing, Adam.
I love it when prey wriggles.
Bruno
August 21st, 2011
1:22 pm
Could be that we are just not that into you.
if anyone needs to STFU, it’s you.
Well, two brilliant responses so far. Especially coming from that self-identified genius Kamchak who claims Mensa membership.
The facts are laid out. Can you refute the facts, or do you only have more insults??
Aquagirl
August 21st, 2011
1:22 pm
My second question today is why are so many of you Libs in favor of unions??
Unions don’t give me a Matthews-like shiver up my leg, but workers have a right to organize. Even (gasp!) government workers.
It’s a common conservative mistake that if you think something should be legal (unions, gay marriage, Sunday liquor sales, etc.) then it’s all about you wanting to get utterly $#!^faced every Sunday to marry your gay pet iguana shop steward.
getalife
August 21st, 2011
1:23 pm
Then you have the gop house accomplishments.
They passed partisan crap that the senate laughed at.
Once again, proving how the gop govern.
They can’t govern.
Worst house ever.
Adam
August 21st, 2011
1:24 pm
Hmm so if I mention that people are redefining terms, suddenly I’m the one who’s redefining terms? Interesting. I believe that’s called projection, Dave.
Kamchak
August 21st, 2011
1:24 pm
Especially coming from that self-identified genius Kamchak who claims Mensa membership.
Nope, never made that claim.
I have been asked several times to apply for membership, but I have always declined.
Bruno
August 21st, 2011
1:26 pm
The majority of Americans are for a smaller government because they waste our money and too involved in our bedrooms.
getalife–I couldn’t agree with you more about the infringement of our personal liberties by so-called conservatives. To me, Rick Perry is the poster child of what is wrong with the Republican Party these days. If they could only return to their TRUE conservative roots, no Democrat would ever be elected again.
Kamchak
August 21st, 2011
1:29 pm
Oh and as to this: Can you refute the facts, or do you only have more insults??
Not even gonna speculate as to why you erroneously equate rejection with insults.
Peter
August 21st, 2011
1:29 pm
Hey Bruno..Who was the last real Republican President, cause I can’t remember the real deal.
Please don’t say Regan, cause he wasn’t !
Bruno
August 21st, 2011
1:30 pm
I have been asked several times to apply for membership, but I have always declined.
Ok, I stand corrected. You’re simply above applying for membership. I thought you had made reference to attending one of their meetings. Maybe it was Thomas who claimed membership.
At any rate, why are you having such a hard time defending the “Bush tax cut for the rich” mantra which has become a staple of the Left. Maybe because it’s not true?? You can not be “into” me, Bruno, all you want, but the facts stand. And I’ll be around to remind you of those facts from here on out unless Jay bans me because he can’t handle the truth either. I’m still waiting for him to defend his “most racists are conservatives” charge in any meaningful way. He’s admitted in so many words that he can’t, but still won’t retract the charge.
ShazamVet
August 21st, 2011
1:30 pm
OK, brother B, here are some “myths” associated with the 2004 tax cuts:
Of the total of $670 billion in cuts, $364 billion, more than half, arises from the elimination of taxation on most corporate dividends.
And which individuals exactly is it that have the gargantuan share of those corporate dividends?
Ain’t me and you.
Another $236 billion in the Bush plan comes from accelerating the tax cuts that were adopted in 2001 and scheduled to be phased in gradually over the next seven years. These include cuts in income tax rates and inheritance taxes that, again, largely benefit the rich.
Not exclusively, but LARGELY.
Confirmed by the tables you linked.
Another $575 billion was for relief of the Adjusted Minimum Tax, which at the time affected only high-income taxpayers. But would begin to hit large sections of the middle class within a decade.
Face it, he with the gold makes the rules…
getalife
August 21st, 2011
1:30 pm
If you want to look at facts, look at the gop actions after they lost.
They played politics after a global collapse and united to bail out the banks only.
They attacked American jobs to lose thousands more “to get our President.”
They used terrorism on the debt limit and stopped the jobs being added by our President.
Their strategy was to derail our economy for this election.
These gop actions are boarder line treason.
getalife
August 21st, 2011
1:31 pm
And they voted to end Medicare.
Bruno
August 21st, 2011
1:32 pm
but workers have a right to organize. Even (gasp!) government workers.
Not denying that, Aquagirl. Just pointing out that unions are ultimately anti-consumer. Do you agree or disagree with that?? I’ve never proposed making unions illegal, though I think the recent changes in how unions can become voted in show a bias on the part of the Dems toward unions.
Peter
August 21st, 2011
1:35 pm
Forget the Bush tax cut myths……. Bus was the only President in the history of the US, that cut taxes and started a war.
So why was he the ONLY President to ever do that ? Cause he is DUMB !
Adam
August 21st, 2011
1:35 pm
I disagree unions are ultimately anti-consumer. That assumes 1) that corporations are PRO consumer, which many are not, just pro-bottom line, and 2) that people who are in unions are not consumers themselves.
Soothsayer
August 21st, 2011
1:37 pm
On January 12, 2003, the state of Georgia passed strong anti-fraud laws drafted by consumer advocates. Four days later, Standard & Poor announced that if Georgia passed anti-fraud penalties for corrupt mortgage brokers and lenders, packaging [into mortgage-backed securities] including such debts could not be given AAA ratings.
Because of the state’s new Fair Lending Act, S&P said that it would no longer allow mortgage loans originated in Georgia to be placed in mortgage securities that it rated. Moody’s and Fitch soon followed with similar warnings.
It was a critical blow. S&P’s move meant Georgia lenders would have no access to the securitization money machine; they would either have to keep the loans they made on their own books, or sell them one by one to other institutions. In turn, they made it clear to the public that there would be fewer mortgages funded, dashing “the dream” of homeownership.
The message was that only bank loans free of legal threat against dishonest behavior were deemed legally risk-free for buyers of securities backed by predatory or fraudulent mortgages. The risk in question was that state agencies would reduce or even nullify payments being extracted by crooked real estate brokers, appraisers and bankers.
Friends, if you think this whole S&P “downgrade” is anything but a wholesale rip-off of the American public and taxpayers, you should read this article. If you can’t take the time to read it now, bookmark it for later. Warning, you may this article enraging.
By the way, this is not a Left or Right issue. I encourage my friends on the Right to read it also.
I’m out for the rest of the day — got things to do.
getalife
August 21st, 2011
1:38 pm
Unions are great for the American worker.
The gop are at war with the American worker so they attack the unions.
Peter
August 21st, 2011
1:39 pm
Bruno….. Unions are not anti-consumer, they try to protect the rights of workers.
We have today on the Republican Blog Kyle goofball, stating the minimum wage should be lowered, that way business will hire…..as if folks bills are getting cheaper.
The GOP and guys like KYLE are exactly why Unions are in place….. I guess some think table scraps are ok for Human beings to live on, while the FAT RICH, gorge on anything they want.
Bruno
August 21st, 2011
1:39 pm
This is only a partial list, but I recall crazy independent candidate H. Ross Perot saying this at the National Press Club in the early 90s
I thought you weren’t into answering my questions, Kamchak?? Or does that excuse only apply when you have no intelligent rebuttal. I’m not absolving the management of our car companies in any way, but at an estimated $72 or more per hour per worker, how is that sustainable?? Do you make $72 per hour?? I don’t, and I’ve got far more education, experience, etc. than any auto worker that I know.
Kamchak
August 21st, 2011
1:40 pm
Ok, I stand corrected. You’re simply above applying for membership.
Or below.
Or maybe I’m merely not a “joiner.”
And I’ll be around to remind you of those facts from here on out unless Jay bans me because he can’t handle the truth either.
You seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that you are the first to post this talking point.
This is posted and replied to at least twice a week.
The president compromised on this issue for UI benefits.
Most liberals are still p*ssed off about it also.
Peter
August 21st, 2011
1:42 pm
The real issue is the GOP has never ever figured out a way to pay for the George Bush Wars……thus they screwed the American people, and the people do understand that !
Common Sense isn't very Common
August 21st, 2011
1:44 pm
ShazamVet@12:28 pm
I think I recognize the woman in the picture. If so she ain’t faking being a member of DENSA.
Kamchak
August 21st, 2011
1:45 pm
I thought you weren’t into answering my questions, Kamchak??
You are questioning your own thoughts?
Or does that excuse only apply when you have no intelligent rebuttal.
No Bruno, that was a flip response on my part to what has become a very tiresome, “why don’t you libs respond to the Obama tax cuts” meme.
Bruno
August 21st, 2011
1:49 pm
Of the total of $670 billion in cuts, $364 billion, more than half, arises from the elimination of taxation on most corporate dividends.
And which individuals exactly is it that have the gargantuan share of those corporate dividends?
Am–You’ve stated several times that you utilize an S-corp primarily for tax reasons. As an individual, dividing income into “individual earnings” and “corporate earnings” can result in a net tax decrease due to a reduced FICA tax. But, in the end, you still only pay taxes ONCE for the dollars you bring in.
Shifting the focus onto publicly held corporations, it’s a different story altogether. Corporate profits are ultimately taxed twice, first at the corporate level, then at the individual level via taxes on salaries and capital gains taxes. How is this “fair”??
Aquagirl
August 21st, 2011
1:51 pm
Just pointing out that unions are ultimately anti-consumer.
That’s only if you’re assuming companies are pro-consumer. They’re not, they’re pro-profit. Sure, unions can push the price of goods higher. However, if you look at places like Wal-Mart, we end up paying for employees children through Peachcare while waxing lyrically about how we can buy their plastic crap for amazingly cheap prices. I’d rather pay the true cost of an item, rather than have a company take all the profit while using workers like disposable commodities.
Bruno
August 21st, 2011
1:54 pm
Bruno….. Unions are not anti-consumer, they try to protect the rights of workers.
That’s funny. Peter. I thought that’s what OSHA laws, Child Labor Laws, Equal Employment Opportunity laws, etc. were for. What laws have unions passed that protect anyone?? They exist only to pressure employers into paying out more. Perhaps a noble goal, but ultimately anti-consumer because they raise the final price of the product or service involved.
getalife
August 21st, 2011
1:58 pm
cons don’t want to debate the facts because they lose.
Mick
August 21st, 2011
1:59 pm
dave r bruno
Talk about smug and condescending, dave r you take the cake on that?
Yeah bruno, you forgot to mention that obama made a deal to continue unemployment benefits and not raise the tax rate. Those tax rates prior to the two bush tax cuts were more equitable for everyone, look what has happened to the deficit this past decade?
As far a unions go, you always go with the worst scenerio. My dad raised nine kids as a union plumber and we all had dental and health benefits. Every job he ever ran was finished on time and under budget and you could throw away the chipping hammer because he was a mechanic and engineer who knew his math, so when he laid out a job, that’s where the pipes went. Thank god we have union mechanics servicing those jets or else they would be falling out of the sky like dead flies. In conclusion, roll back to clinton rates and don’t stereotype all unions, I rest my case…
Streetracer
August 21st, 2011
2:00 pm
Bruno @ 1:49 – Taxing corporate profits twice has got to be “FAIR” cause it is other people’s money.
Matti's Sunday
August 21st, 2011
2:01 pm
Hey Bruno!
Um.. thanks for putting this one in my head.. Haha!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIw9waVI-m8
Bruno
August 21st, 2011
2:02 pm
This is posted and replied to at least twice a week. The president compromised on this issue for UI benefits.
As stated above, Kamchak, I’m not interested in “explanations” ( = excuses). Obama campaigned on repealing the misnamed “Bush tax cuts for the rich”, then turned around and extended them.
Most liberals are still p*ssed off about it also.
Then I’m sure you will have no problems agreeing with the new name for them, the “Obama tax cuts for the rich”. That is even though they primarily benefit the middle and lower class.