• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama's Approval Rating Drops to Lowest Ever, According to Gallup

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah, what is your point? You say we have a revenue problem? If so you now know where to go to get it. Plus there are 25 million unemployed and under employed Americans that are paying very little in FIT as well. That makes around 90 million Americans paying little if any in FIT
WTF??? You're counting underemployed people twice?? You're counting them in the 47% group and you're counting them in the underemployment group?


:damn
 
Before the Clinton recession and 9/11 we had a growing economy, before the financial meltdown we had a growing economy and growing jobs. Eliminate the Bush tax cuts? why don't you send yours back when you get a paycheck? Why does the govt. have to raise taxes on everyone for you to do what you believe is the right thing to do? How does raising taxes put 25 million unemployed and under employed Americans back to work? When will "your" President create the environment for the private sector to grow jobs? First he offered a stimulus plan that was to create jobs and it failed as there are more unemployed now than when he took office. After seeing this instead of focusing on job growth he moved to Obamacare which again shows his incompetence.

His program SUCCEEDED in turning a negative jobs growth of over 700,000 layoffs per month into positive job growth.
 
Do you have a point? What does that have to do with the 47% of income earners that don't pay any FIT? Those living paycheck to paycheck still have a personal responsibility to pay for what they use and that is the point you continue to miss. You don't know what their living expenses are but think with your heart and judge everyone else by your own standards. To say that income earners cannot pay something net to the Federal govt. for services used is ridiculous and naive.
Quite simply, we don't pay taxes for "services used." We pay taxes for the common good of our country, its part of the "socialism" built into our Constitution.
 
Exactly. And now he will disappear and make the same false claim tomorrow, as if it never happened. :lol:

Going no where, facts speak for themselves, whether it is household or workers is irrelevant, the number is huge and for those worried about revenue, there is where you start AFTER puting 25 million unemployed or under employed Americans back to work. What is the Obama plan to do that? Instead it is promoting class warfare that will do very little to solve the deficit and debt problems.
 
Quite simply, we don't pay taxes for "services used." We pay taxes for the common good of our country, its part of the "socialism" built into our Constitution.

Right now millions and millions aren't doing that yet you want to raise the taxes more on those that do?
 
His program SUCCEEDED in turning a negative jobs growth of over 700,000 layoffs per month into positive job growth.

better get with Pb because his numbers don't show that. Amazing how Obama's stimulus program was signed and went into effect in February 2009 but he isn't responsible for 2009 unemployment numbers. Apparently he isn't responsible for the 2011 numbers either.
 
WTF??? You're counting underemployed people twice?? You're counting them in the 47% group and you're counting them in the underemployment group?


:damn

Aw, this is fun, the liberal sharks are here again showing true ignorance
 
Going no where, facts speak for themselves, whether it is household or workers is irrelevant, the number is huge and for those worried about revenue, there is where you start AFTER puting 25 million unemployed or under employed Americans back to work. What is the Obama plan to do that? Instead it is promoting class warfare that will do very little to solve the deficit and debt problems.

Oh, it's perfectly relevant. You claimed that 47% of all WORKING people paid no taxes, and you were proven wrong. In fact it is 45% of all HOUSEHOLDS, which includes the unemployed, full and part time students, and retirees living on fixed incomes. Very relevant.

And yeah, as I've pointed out to you several times, it is 45% -- not 47%, which was the 2009 figure. But you will go on using the 47% figure even though you know it's wrong.
 
And let me remind you that you called that "Socialist." But we have 47% of workers not paying tax because of Bush's tax cuts which makes him a Socialist for passing Socialist taxes; which makes you a Socialist for voting for a Socialist president and supporting his Socialist policies, ipso facto.

Let me remind you that I have never said we have a revenue problem but instead have a spending problem. I am the one here that doesn't care how much you make and believe you should keep more of what you earn and the fact that doesn't hurt the economy at all.
Which has nothing to do with my post about you tacitly confessing to being a closet Socialist. Don't you feel refreshed coming out of that closet?
 
Interesting how some ignore data and continue to divert from that data. Are the Obama numbers real or nominal when it relates to unemployment and are the U.S. Treasury numbers showing income earners real or nominal numbers?
When Bush killed the economy:

YearJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDecLosses
2008137996137913137841137656137423137245137014136747136313135804135002134383
Job losses-13-83-72-185-233-178-231-267-434-509-802-619-3626
 
Oh, it's perfectly relevant. You claimed that 47% of all WORKING people paid no taxes, and you were proven wrong. In fact it is 45% of all HOUSEHOLDS, which includes the unemployed, full and part time students, and retirees living on fixed incomes. Very relevant.

And yeah, as I've pointed out to you several times, it is 45% -- not 47%, which was the 2009 figure. But you will go on using the 47% figure even though you know it's wrong.

That is typical liberal spin, the IRS data is there for all to see, suggest you learn to read it. Again as liberals always do they focus on the accuracy of the numbers instead of the reality that it is millions and millions of employed people paying zero in FIT. That is the point that you want to distort and actually run from. Give me a number, your number of EMPLOYED PEOPLE not paying any FIT? Think about it
 
When Bush killed the economy:

YearJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDecLosses
2008137996137913137841137656137423137245137014136747136313135804135002134383
Job losses-13-83-72-185-233-178-231-267-434-509-802-619-3626

I see one month over 700K, not months and months as Adam indicates. Still waiting for an explanation as to the failure of the stimulus program and if it was so successful why is the Obama approval rating dropping?
 
Oh, it's perfectly relevant. You claimed that 47% of all WORKING people paid no taxes, and you were proven wrong. In fact it is 45% of all HOUSEHOLDS, which includes the unemployed, full and part time students, and retirees living on fixed incomes. Very relevant.

And yeah, as I've pointed out to you several times, it is 45% -- not 47%, which was the 2009 figure. But you will go on using the 47% figure even though you know it's wrong.
Without telling the full story about how these people pay no FIT is nothing more than class warfare. Those low earners who do pay some FIT wonder why and become resentful. This is why Fox and conservatives repeat it so often.
 
Aw, this is fun, the liberal sharks are here again showing true ignorance
Oooh, we're "sharks" now, are we? :roll: Do we smell Conservative blood?

You're the one saying 47% of workers pay little or no tax while also saying 90 million are paying little or no tax.

Well, Einstein, explain your math? My calculator tells me 47% of 153 million workers is 72 million -- not 90 million.
 
Without telling the full story about how these people pay no FIT is nothing more than class warfare. Those low earners who do pay some FIT wonder why and become resentful. This is why Fox and conservatives repeat it so often.

Did you or did you not say we have a revenue problem? Regardless of the actual number of INCOME EARNERS paying zero in Federal Income taxes, is it your contention that they cannot or should not pay something? Why focus on those that do and not call that class envy?
 
I see one month over 700K, not months and months as Adam indicates. Still waiting for an explanation as to the failure of the stimulus program and if it was so successful why is the Obama approval rating dropping?

Are you blaming Obama for these losses?


YearJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDecLosses
2009133563132837132041131381130995130493130193129962129726129505129450129320
Job losses-820-726-796-660-386-502-300-231-236-221-55-130-5063
 
Oooh, we're "sharks" now, are we? :roll: Do we smell Conservative blood?

You're the one saying 47% of workers pay little or no tax while also saying 90 million are paying little or no tax.

Well, Einstein, explain your math? My calculator tells me 47% of 153 million workers is 72 million -- not 90 million.

Your math is wrong because there aren't 153 million income earners, there is a1 53 million labor force, a reduction of about a million since Obama took office. Millions of that labor force are unemployed and there are millions more under employed. As usual you focus on the accuracy of the number instead of the fact that there are millions and millions of income earners not paying any FIT. How many is that?
 
Last edited:
Are you blaming Obama for these losses?


YearJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDecLosses
2009133563132837132041131381130995130493130193129962129726129505129450129320
Job losses-820-726-796-660-386-502-300-231-236-221-55-130-5063

A stimulus program was passed to provide funding for shovel ready jobs and was supposed to cap unemployment at 8% so yes, I am blaming Obama for spending 800 billion and getting these results. Why aren't you?
 
I see one month over 700K, not months and months as Adam indicates. Still waiting for an explanation as to the failure of the stimulus program and if it was so successful why is the Obama approval rating dropping?

Jobs_through_May2010.JPG
 
A stimulus program was passed to provide funding for shovel ready jobs and was supposed to cap unemployment at 8% so yes, I am blaming Obama for spending 800 billion and getting these results. Why aren't you?
Why don't you answer my question? Spending $800 billion didn't cause them.
 

So with those great Obama numbers why is there a net job loss and a declining approval number? LOL, you believe there were over 400,000 jobs created in May 2010? Why not just claim that we have full employment? Numbers confuse you. Your lack of economics understanding and civics is absolutely stunning.
 
When Bush killed the economy:

YearJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDecLosses
2008137996137913137841137656137423137245137014136747136313135804135002134383
Job losses-13-83-72-185-233-178-231-267-434-509-802-619-3626
Check out the deficits Bush's budgets gave us:

FY2002: 420,772,553,397.10
FY2003: 554,995,097,146.46
FY2004: 595,821,633,586.70
FY2005: 553,656,965,393.18
FY2006: 574,264,237,491.73
FY2007: 500,679,473,047.25
FY2008: 1,017,071,524,649.92
FY2009: 1,885,104,106,599.30

Now compare those with what Bush inherited:

FY2001: 133,285,202,313.20

After 8 Bush budgets, our deficit increased ten fold.

But it's all Obama's fault. :roll:
 
Why don't you answer my question? Spending $800 billion didn't cause them.

Spending 800 billion was supposed to solve the problem and now we find out that those so called shovel ready jobs "weren't so shovel ready" according to "your" President so where is your outrage? Yes, Obama is responsible for wasting money and increasing unemployment. He continues to do that today
 
Check out the deficits Bush's budgets gave us:

FY2002: 420,772,553,397.10
FY2003: 554,995,097,146.46
FY2004: 595,821,633,586.70
FY2005: 553,656,965,393.18
FY2006: 574,264,237,491.73
FY2007: 500,679,473,047.25
FY2008: 1,017,071,524,649.92
FY2009: 1,885,104,106,599.30

Now compare those with what Bush inherited:

FY2001: 133,285,202,313.20

After 8 Bush budgets, our deficit increased ten fold.

But it's all Obama's fault. :roll:

US Treasury shows over 4 trillion added to the debt since Obama took office and those are the numbers he is responsible for. Good leaders accept responsibility, Obama and liberals can only place blame.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom