Zogby Poll: Perry Plummets to 18%; Trails Cain For Lead

[BrianFromWA]

I root for continuing resolutions to fail, because govt. shutdown will save us money, and we'll realize together the fraction of the missing govt. that we can't do without.

Because the thing we really need in this country is another million+ workers deployed all over the world not getting paid as an experiment to see where we can cut costs...

And when that happens, there will be only ~1.3T more to shave off before we're back to balanced. Because medicare payments (only 700B overrun annually, and going up) and SS payments (ok for now) keep going out in a shutdown.

 

[Denny Crane]

Because the thing we really need in this country is another million+ workers deployed all over the world not getting paid as an experiment to see where we can cut costs...

And when that happens, there will be only ~1.3T more to shave off before we're back to balanced. Because medicare payments (only 700B overrun annually, and going up) and SS payments (ok for now) keep going out in a shutdown.

Those workers go on furlough and get paid in arears when the shutdown is over. But govt. will still be bringing in the tax revenue and they might actually have to prioritize how to spend it.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Ron-Paul-Bests-Obama-in-bw-3821734650.html?x=0

Ron Paul Bests Obama in Latest Poll

LAKE JACKSON, Texas--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- In a new Harris Poll, 2012 Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul beats President Obama 51 percent to 49 percent in a general election race.

“This is yet another poll that clearly proves how competitive Ron Paul is against the sitting President,” said Ron Paul 2012 National Campaign Chairman Jesse Benton. “Dr. Paul is making strides, affirming that the American people are looking for conviction instead of the typical status quo rhetoric being offered by establishment candidates.”

These results come just a few weeks after a Reuters/Ipsos survey showed Ron Paul polling within striking distance of President Obama among registered voters. Furthermore, a late August Rasmussen poll showed him within 1 percent of President Obama in a head-to-head matchup.

Another recent Gallup survey, conducted August 17-18, shows Paul only 2 percentage points behind Obama in a general election match-up. In a similar head-to-head survey from last year done by Rasmussen, Dr. Paul drew a statistical dead heat with the President. And earlier this year in a survey by CNN, he did the best out of the other Republicans put up against Obama in a head-to-head poll.

 

[huevonkiller]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Ron-Paul-Bests-Obama-in-bw-3821734650.html?x=0

Ron Paul Bests Obama in Latest Poll

LAKE JACKSON, Texas--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- In a new Harris Poll, 2012 Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul beats President Obama 51 percent to 49 percent in a general election race.

“This is yet another poll that clearly proves how competitive Ron Paul is against the sitting President,” said Ron Paul 2012 National Campaign Chairman Jesse Benton. “Dr. Paul is making strides, affirming that the American people are looking for conviction instead of the typical status quo rhetoric being offered by establishment candidates.”

These results come just a few weeks after a Reuters/Ipsos survey showed Ron Paul polling within striking distance of President Obama among registered voters. Furthermore, a late August Rasmussen poll showed him within 1 percent of President Obama in a head-to-head matchup.

Another recent Gallup survey, conducted August 17-18, shows Paul only 2 percentage points behind Obama in a general election match-up. In a similar head-to-head survey from last year done by Rasmussen, Dr. Paul drew a statistical dead heat with the President. And earlier this year in a survey by CNN, he did the best out of the other Republicans put up against Obama in a head-to-head poll.

Awesome, but the GOP is desperate for another candidate and is STILL unwilling to support Paul. It is a little surprising that inferior candidates like Newt or Cain have more momentum.

 

[mook]

Looking back over the past 30 or so years, it seems like both parties have had a hard time finding top-notch candidates. For every Bill Clinton or Reagan it seems like there's been half a dozen John Kerrys.

Since 1980, how many times has either party held up a guy they were genuinely excited about? Let alone somebody the majority of Americans were excited about?

My own list goes:

Reagan
Bill Clinton
Obama (first election only)

(Obviously, Obama is losing a lot of his luster. Much like Clinton did after Monica, and Reagan did after the S&L crisis and Iran/Contra. Of course, those blooms were lost AFTER the re-election. But there was no denying that Democrats were genuinely thrilled to have him as a candidate in 2008.)

Compare that to the laundry list of warmed-over retreads (Dole, Mondale, McCain), boring stiffs (Gore, Kerry, Tsongas, Romney, Bush Sr), nice guys but in over their head (Carter, Dubya, Dukakis, Obama is kind of looking that way now) and outright "What the fuck were we thinking?" (Perot, Edwards, you can throw Sarah Palin in there since there was a decent chance McCain could die in office).

Regardless of the politics, the desirables are vastly outnumbered by un-desirables when you tote up the candidates.

*shrug* It's a hard job by nature being president. Compound that with the modern dictate that you have to run to the extreme in your party in the primaries, then charge to the middle in the general election. Maybe under such circumstances almost anyone would look like a geezer, a poindexter or an incompetent.

 

[chris_in_pdx]

I have to admit, the "9-9-9" tax idea intrigues me. Anyone done the math to see if this will actually sustain the country?

 

[ABM]

I have to admit, the "9-9-9" tax idea intrigues me. Anyone done the math to see if this will actually sustain the country?

FWIW, here's a bit of insight regarding the plan:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/sep/26/facts-about-herman-cains-9-9-9-tax-plan/

 

[chris_in_pdx]

FWIW, here's a bit of insight regarding the plan:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/sep/26/facts-about-herman-cains-9-9-9-tax-plan/

So basically it's the old fiscal conservative line: reduce taxes so the economy will grow and more tax revenue will be generated. I have yet to see that work.

 

[Denny Crane]

So basically it's the old fiscal conservative line: reduce taxes so the economy will grow and more tax revenue will be generated. I have yet to see that work.

Tax revenues increased by 25% after year 6 of the Bush tax cuts. It worked EVERY time.

 

[chris_in_pdx]

Tax revenues increased by 25% after year 6 of the Bush tax cuts. It worked EVERY time.

Bullshit.

http://usbudget.blogspot.com/2008/03/effect-of-bush-tax-cuts-on-revenues.html

You know, Denny, when you spout lies, you might want to at least make it LOOK good.

 

[mook]

I have to admit, the "9-9-9" tax idea intrigues me. Anyone done the math to see if this will actually sustain the country?

If a Republican really wanted to go after my vote, he or she would have to have as a centerpiece of their campaign an overhaul of the tax code focused entirely on simplification. Simplifying and reducing government is a core tenant of the party, so it kind of puzzles me why more candidates aren't pushing it.

Unfortunately, both Forbes before him and now Cain are trying to accomplish two things instead of one: Simplify the tax system while making it much more regressive.

Adding that second element changes what could be an easy bipartisan consensus-builder into a non-starter. Shame, really.

We could eliminate the jobs of countless DC lobbyists (and thus making a major step toward cleaning up our political system), hack away a big chunk of government bureaucracy (and the corresponding corporate bureaucracy built around compliance), and free up our citizens to focus on things they really enjoy around April 15th. But one party (the Democrats) don't even seem interested in even discussing it, and the other party aren't interested unless it also helps the poor get poorer.

 

[Denny Crane]

Bullshit.

http://usbudget.blogspot.com/2008/03/effect-of-bush-tax-cuts-on-revenues.html

You know, Denny, when you spout lies, you might want to at least make it LOOK good.

See the $2T in 2000 and the $2.55T in 2007?