Could the panel comment on a recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll that found Sarah Palin has majority of those surveyed view an endorsement from Palin in a campaign as a clear negative.

Also of note: Palin’s favorable/unfavorable rating is upside down at 29% to 43%.

Have we, the public and media, made too much of the tea party movement?

Thanks Tom and Jack, I sincerely cherish you.

Rasmussen is a right-leaning pollster and the bias manifests itself in their poll results. SurveyUSA and Pew are much more accurate.

My only point is that the tea-party may get much more attention than deserved, a small person casting a long shadow.

“51% of voters disapprove of Obama’s performance as president.” -informed American

i.A -This must mean that 49% of voters are socialists!

Apparently, their goal is to crush the middle class and totally trash the economy, so people will get mad at the Dems and vote for them. Do they think people don’t pay attention to their actions in this mess? Oh wait, most people are more interested in “American Idol” or “Real Housewives”(is that totally mis-named or what??) than what is going on under their noses. Never mind.

That South Carolina result really needs more examination. If lots of Republicans crossed over to vote for Alvin Green in that primary, how did that affect Nikki Haley’s competition? Was the DeMint machine behind both outcomes, or did it manipulate the Senate race with a willingness to let the gubernatorial one go where it would? DeMint clearly didn’t want to have to run against a legitimate Democrat candidate, so how does that affect the Tea Party interpretations?

I hope that the unemployed take note of who is denying them benefits. Perhaps some of these “republicans” should become unemployed.

Gee, don’t you know the unemployed are just lazy entitled slobs who could find a job if they REALLY wanted to, you know, working as gardeners, or laborers for the rich for minimum wage. Who cares if that is not enough to support their families, any job is better than no job right??? Dead-beats that they are.

How about we talk about how job recruiters are bypassing people who are unemployed like they have the plague. Because you KNOW its their fault they lost their jobs, couldn’t possibly be the fail policies of the recent past, right.

I can’t believe the democrats refused to pay for the unemployment benefits and because of it put a lot of people off of the government gravy

I can’t believe the democrats refused to pay for the unemployment benefits and because of it put a lot of people off of the government gravy

Posted by JohnP

see you have your “talking points” working early this morning – anything to deflect what the Rebups are actually doing – I guess cutting 130 of 180m from the bill wasn’t enough slash & burn for them – instead let’s leave the people who lives their policies ruined high & dry. That will teach them!!!

Please tell the listenership what the banks have already done or have planned to blunt the effects of the financial regulation reform. The politicans, the pundits, and their allies in the media always brag about how wonderful new financial reforms will be, but never seem to inform the public about what new procedures and fees the banks have planned for the consumers. The banks have already eliminated free checking accounts where I reside. I do not believe that the banks will remain idle and just accept the new reforms.

Unemployment benefits don’t create jobs!

If anything they prevent jobs from being created.

Why work when you have unlimited unemployment benefits. Look to Europe to see how their generous unemployment benefits treat the economy.

If we still counted unemployment using the same metrics we used in the 80′s the unemployment rate would be about 20%+/-1

Do the republicans get any credit at all for thinking long term of the national debt? Given the poll numbers on this issue (compared to jobs), it’s hard to see this as an election winner. It’s especially hard when the media can have such a field day showing the sad stories of all the people out of work who’s benefits are disappearing. I think very little of both sides of Congress, but this does appear to take some courage.

Please JohnP tell us exactly where jobs can be created. Out of thin air perhaps? We no longer make anything in this country – big business sent everything overseas. I didn’t see any of the “Big People” lose their jobs when they crashed the economy, just the expendable “Small People”.

@Chris M: very astute sarcasm.

Just hold on to your seats, this is just the start!

Nothing has been done for the American People, but a lot has been done to Americans.

Let vote for a stimulus package for other country’s
Answer: Yea

Unemployment for those who paid with their jobs and livelihoods, through no fault of there own, for Banks who are now wallowing in our money.
Answer: NAY

Lets’ spend more money on war, or I know! lets start sending the unemployed to fight the war. That’s a win win situation.

Yes JohnP,

Why would anyone work when unemployment pays 25% of what they WERE earning as productive members of society?

They’d much rather live on the government dole, living at less than half the poverty level… that way they’ll be sure to eventually lose their homes, they won’t have to enjoy cable TV or ever going to the movies or out to eat, their children will never have to go to college, and they can buy all their clothes at Goodwill.

… it’s so much more appealing than actually working for a decent wage.

Is McChrystal Obama’s MacArthur? There are obvious similarities, but even greater differences. Bottom line: McChrystal embarrassed himself (with the assistance of subordinates), committing professional suicide. This buck stops with him.

The ONLY germane question is what part of Afghanistan being the “graveyard of empires” do our “leaders” not comprehend?

Jane, before one of the breaks, asked guests about the Democrats (sic) abandoning the extension of unemployment benefits. All guests in one way or another indicated that it was Republican opposition (plus 1 Demnocrat)that gave the Dempcrats no alternative. Then after the break Jane returned to pick up one more guest comment on what she AGAIN referred to as the Democrats’ abandonment of the extension. WHY? The first time may have been permissable, but to repeat it after all of her guests had contradicted it?? Did she for some reason decide to stick to pre-written text (unworthy of a host of her calibre); do the opinions of her guests count for little in what she wanted to say on that topic? a political bias?? I hope not, but what is one to think. McChrystal is out because of ill-chosen wording in ill-chosen places. A parallel?

The moratorium would affect 33 exploratory offshore drilling rigs in all of US waters–that’s 33 of the exploratory offshore rigs only, in ALL of US waters. It would not affect any offshore rigs in production. I might add that these 33 exploratory rigs are for deep water drilling only. To put some perspective on the 33 rigs, there are over 3800 deep water production rigs in the Gulf of Mexico alone.That’s 33 compared to several thousand; these are rigs searching for oil compared to rigs producing oil; these are rigs drilling using the same methodology as the one involved in the Gulf disaster; these are rigs with the same lack of response plans as the one that caused the disaster in the Gulf.

I’ve heard conservative pundits and politicians make statements that anywhere from tens of thousands of jobs to hundreds of thousands of jobs will be lost as a result of the moratorium. I think not; maybe thousands of jobs, at most, temporarily.

The judge from Louisiana who blocked the six-month moratorium, Judge Martin Feldman, has financial holdings in several companies related to oil production. He had stock in Transocean and Haliburton but sold those last year, otherwise he would have been recused from presiding…but still.

It is important to note that Judge Feldman presided over another case involving Louisiana residents who sued a president of the New Orleans Home Builders Association. The president used money he had assessed against the residents, after hurricane Katrina, for personal purposes instead of improving their subdivision, as he had promised. Judge Feldman dismissed the lawsuit.

Dear Mr. Ashbrook:

I thought you might be interested in the following musings. You may contact me by telephone at (805) 483-5146, although it is most likely a FAX machine will answer. However, I am more likely to be near the phone and able to answer if you should call after about 10 pm. If you do so and get the FAX, please try again in about five minutes, and again five minutes later. [You may have caught me answering a call of nature, who, when she calls, does not like to be put on hold.]

I have written a couple of tax proposals, such as a tax at a 100% rate on the expenditures for lobbying (See “Three New Taxes”, below.), and also a 100% tax on “speculative gains,” which are often called “capital gains,” on the basis that the owner does nothing to increase the value of an asset, but simply holds it and benefits from it while societal pressures cause its price to increase, so it is society which should have the benefits of any and all such profits. However, there would be two exceptions: When a property, such as newly developed real estate, or an initial issue, such as that to a venture capitalist, of a stock, which has not yet been available for purchase by the general public, is sold [for the very first time] by its original owner(s). These exceptions would encourage investment in new construction projects, and venture capital financing of new businesses. Of course, it would also have the interesting side effect of making inflation quite undesirable!

Above is one of three elements of a tax code I came with, which I fitted [in regular size type] on the “back of a postcard,” the entire code, not just the return to be filed, as is so often the ultimate form promised by legislators. I shall expound upon this later if you would be interested.

Back in 1979[! ], I wrote and had printed a petition to tie the salaries of legislators and top government officials, including President and judges, to inflation—INVERSELY, so a 5% increase in the cost of living would result in a reduction of 5% in salaries of the highest paid government officials and elected persons. And it would be cumulative! And better than term limits!

THREE NEW TAXES

I would like to propose three new taxes, the revenues of which would fund “public” campaign financing:

1. I believe there should be a tax of at least 100% on compensated lobbying expenditures.

Compensated lobbying would include any expenditure made by one party to induce or encourage a second party to advance the agenda, in the widest possible interpretation of the words, of the first party with any government agency or employee. It would include, for example, hiring a bus to transport people to a rally or demonstration, or refreshments provided to people invited to a meeting to “discuss” some governmental function, which could reasonably be expected to result in some of the attendees intervening on behalf of the party providing the refreshments, and the costs of hiring the meeting hall, etc. It would include the costs of printing up and mailing “petitions” or letters to be forwarded to government, or suggesting one should write such a letter, and any costs associated with obtaining signatures for such petitions or letters. It would include the costs associated with phone banks and other efforts to induce others to advance the cause of the first party. Advertising, such as “Harold and Louise,” or more direct messages, would be so taxed as well. (We might even be able to tax the pronouncements of the Rush Limbaughs, and Glenn Becks. [Not likely.])

About the only thing that would not be so taxed would be the cost of a stamp for a personal letter to a governmental representative, agency, or employee, or the cost of a personal call or telegram addressing some direct concern of the sender. In other words, the individual actually approaching the employee, agency, or representative, would not be taxed on his expenditures, rather only the expenditures aimed at getting him to do so to advance the agenda of another person or entity, even if the individual shares the concerns of the party spending the money. Taxed expenditures would also include attorneys’ fees unless they arose directly as a result of the drafting and/or negotiation of an actual contract, but not excepting the jockeying for a contract, or arose in an action in a court, or a situation which could reasonably be expected to lead to an action in a court; this provision is to be very narrowly interpreted and very strictly enforced! So let the Supreme Court allow corporations, unions, and wealthy individuals to “speak” as much as they want, [I really think that organizations in no way approach human status, so they are not entitled to any of the rights guaranteed individuals, or any privileges or powers which are not specifically granted under the legislation which creates the corporation or organization. Congress could simply redefine the concept of incorporation and so restrict organizations in the new authorizing language.], but tax them heavily should they choose to spend their monies in such fashion. This tax would apply equally to individuals as well as organizations, so it is non-discriminatory.

The entity making the expenditure would be responsible for paying the tax, as a purchaser is responsible for paying a sales tax, but, if the spender fails to pay the tax, it will be levied upon the person or entity doing the lobbying. This would mean that a lobbyist would be working for nothing if his client failed to pay the tax. The tax would be collected by the recipient of the monies at the time of the expenditure, again just like a sales tax.

This tax would at least double the costs of hiring lobbyists and should also include lobbying expenditures by state and local governments, since they are competing for a portion of the general funds paid by all Federal taxpayers. Thus it may actually lead to a decrease in Federal government spending. And if it doesn’t significantly reduce the influence of lobbyists, it can always be raised, perhaps to 500 to 1000%, although lobbyists wouldn’t much like it. But the man in the street would absolutely love it!

2. The second tax would be assessed at the same 100% rate and would apply to broadcast political advertisements of less than 300 seconds duration. The 300 second figure would just about insure that a candidate or interest group would actually say something which might help a citizen decide how to vote, rather than the negative sound bites which we have heard so often over the last few years. People would still be allowed to air negative ads, but 300 seconds of negativity would be extremely hard to sustain. Besides encouraging substantial communication in political advertising, this tax might also decrease the number of political ads in any election, something the normal voter would indeed cheer!

3. The third new tax would also levy at a rate of 100% the expenditures or contributions of any individual, including unions and corporations, which exceeded the current limit on individual political contributions now set by Congress, whether the expenditure or contribution was intended to advance or impede any candidate or any issue to be voted upon in any legislative body or during any election of officials, from the first instance of a candidate declaring for any office, or the issue being introduced in some legislative body, including a committee working in conjunction with the legislative body or for the executive branch.

And I have laid out another inflation-related proposal: That Cost-Of-Living-Adjustments for social security and government pensions be equitable, such that one calculates the total expected cost of a percentage COLA, as is done presently, reduces it by some reasonable percentage [say 20%] and then splits the remainder equally among all the recipients, so that each person receives exactly the same amount in dollars as the next fellow. Those at the top end of the scale would receive a lesser percentage, but they have less need of it, while those at the bottom, who could really use it, would receive a greater percentage. But it would be hard for the top-enders to complain very loudly, since everyone would receive exactly the same dollar increase!

Pretty simplistic concept.

GALLUP: Conservatives outnumber liberals 2-1…

November 2010 is but 5 months away.

In the Gallup Polls, from 1993-2002, of the people polled, 40% identified as moderate, 38% as conservative, and 19% as liberal. In the recent 2010 poll, roughly 35% identify as moderate, 42% as conservative, and 20% as liberal.

If this reflects anything it’s that the percentage of people with moderate views is shrinking, and the people who were moderate in their views are becoming more ultra conservative, with people who hold liberal views virtually staying the same but with a very slight increase. This fits in with the changing Republican party’s “big tent” inclusiveness that is shrinking, becoming more exclusionary. More moderate Republicans are being alienated from the GOP, leaving many supporters of conservatism in a position of being disenfranchised.

The recent Gallup polls reflect a changing Republican party. 72% of Republicans polled identify themselves as conservative (since 2002 this has increased by 10 percentage points), 24% identify themselves as moderate Republicans (as opposed to 31% back in 2002), while 3% identify themselves as liberal Republicans (down from 6% on 2000).

Independents: 44% considered themselves moderate in 2000; now, only 41%. In 2000, 29% considered themselves conservative; now, 36%. In 2000, 21% considered themselves liberal; now, 19%. Among independents, it appears the moderate faction of people who call themselves independent voters has shrunk, as well.

We have a shrinking middle class; we also have a louder voice among neo-conservative factions, e.g., Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Palin, the Tea Party, etc.

Accurate observation, Brett…as I’ve said, the tea party is a gateway for those previously excluded from politics by the “elite”.

Anyhoo…not a good day for the un-underemployed. If you’re unemployed at 40, forget it…your career has stalled and you need to reinvent yourself for a new career path, probably at less money. It happened to me in the mid 80′s and I survived…actually, life got better. And contrary to Peter from yesterday, you might try a bit of prayer…like chicken soup for a cold, it couldn’t hoit.

Take care

“…the tea party is a gateway for those previously excluded from politics by the “elite”.” -Bush’s fault

This may be true, but is populism anything new? And, are the political figures who engage in populist rhetoric to pander to people who feel disenfranchised really providing people with anything of substance? Or, is this just a way for political figures of marginal potential to develop good governing abilities to step into the arena and gain power? Also, do the media outlets that offer sensationalized and overtly biased “news” slants serve to inform or distort and obfuscate?

So did Obama fire him, or did McChrystal resign first? I think that makes a difference.

Hello, I will not feel that justice has been done until I get my money back. Because of mortgage fraud, predatory lending and foreclosure, i have suffered greatly and am still in finacial pain. No reform can cure that. Eugenia Renskoff

Alex,
While I don’t know any specifics about the events that prompted the foreclosure on Eugenia’s home, I have noticed that she periodically comments here at On Point’s forum and has also intimated a current situation which includes extended homelessness and genuine prolonged despair. The website to which she has provided a link contains some of her writing; the entries indicate such a dire situation. I am sincerely sorry for her predicament and hope she can somehow pull herself out of whatever it has been that caused her spiral downward.

I probably wouldn’t have phrased my comment to her the way you have, particularly because I have some sense of her current predicament. I also simply do not know what lead to her situation…judge not lest ye be judged, that sort of thing.

Anyway, however, I will say I am in complete agreement with the overall general opinion you’ve expressed in your comment.

Perhaps the unscrupulous lenders were the main culprits contributing to the collapse of the housing market, but it was, is and always will be the home buyer’s responsibility to attend to his/her own finances; this includes having at least some basic knowledge of the responsibilities of home ownership. The buyer needs to understand the basics of, say, fixed-rate mortgages vs. adjustable-rate mortgages. Having some basic understanding of one’s own budgetary needs toward affordable housing would be crucial, as well, i.e., how much can one afford to pay for a mortgage each month based on one’s income. Considerations for one’s job stability should also be a factor in considering purchasing a home. Other costs of home ownership should also be considered, e.g., insurance, utilities, maintenance costs, etc.

I believe it is also important for a home buyer to have some knowledge of how to sell a home and when one should consider selling one’s home. Keeping an eye on the market over, say, a decade, including housing market trends and the general trends in the economy (and how those can not be extricated from each other) is very important to understand for one to truly accept the responsibility of home ownership.

All too often during the housing bubble, lenders told home buyers they were qualified for a mortgage and not to worry about affordability. But, for the home buyer to not have questioned any of the process and to not have had the basic common sense to know that , for example, making fifteen dollars an hour is not a safe and secure income for a mortgage on a $200,000 house (especially knowing one needs to eat, pay utilities and provide for one’s transportation on top of paying a mortgage), was, simply, irresponsible!

Week in the news

“UN chief Ban Ki-moon has said the plan to demolish Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem to make way for a tourist park is illegal and unhelpful.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/10400282.stm

Knocking down Palestinian homes to make way for a Israeli tourist park how low can you go.

Them darn old teaparty members rioted in the streets of Toronto at the summit this weekend. Bad bunch of terrorists they are as depicted by the left!
Liberalism always fails in the end.

Asked if she’s a ‘legal progressive,’ Kagan says: Huh?…

Hey progressives, Kagan doesn’t even recognize you.

‘DAILY KOS’ ADMITS PUBLISHING FRAUDULENT POLLS…

Plans Suit Against Firm…

Fraud, lies, dishonesty, and corruption. Just another day for libs and dems at the office.

Jeffe:

I came across your “Where is the financial transactions tax?” just today. You might like my post of 25 June. Please let me know if it would meet your requirements.

Plus, I would really like to see some discussion of my proposals. Honest!

SRS