fivethirtyeight.com— Some fascinating data based on more than 120,000 interviews completed over the past four months, on the way that partisan identification breaks down by age.
May 10, 2009View in Crawl 4
Novenator - Oh, and Obama cannot blame this deficit on Bush. That claim just doesn't wash any more, not even to Reuters."OBAMA: "Number one, we inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit. ... That wasn't me." - in Missouri.THE FACTS:Congress, under Democratic control in 2007 and 2008, held the purse strings that led to the deficit Obama inherited. A Republican president, George W. Bush, had a role too: He signed the legislation.Obama supported the emergency financial bailout package in Bush's final months - a package Democratic leaders wanted to make bigger.To be sure, Obama opposed the Iraq war, a drain on federal coffers for six years before he became president. But with one major exception, he voted in support of Iraq war spending.The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has estimated Obama's policy proposals would add a net $428 billion to the deficit over four years, even accounting for his spending reduction goals. Now, the deficit is nearly quadrupling to $1.75 trillion."From <a class="user" href="http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_FACT_CHECK_OBAMA?SITE=TNKNN&amp;SECTION=HOME&amp;TEMPLATE=DEFAULT">http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_FACT_CHE ...</a>
@samsmartjrsamsmartjr The fact that there's no government financial assistance under libertarianism does not mean that the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor. Statism is more likely to do that. How many fat cats did we just bail out? Under Libertarianism, people would rise and fall according to their own abilities. Their would likely be much more social mobility, for better AND worse, under Libertarianism, not less. Why? Because under Libertarianism, the state doesn't rig the game in the favor of the rich. But, you do have a valid point. People do tend to vote for those they believe will promote their own interests. Right now, most people feel that the benefits they expect to receive from government programs are in line with what they pay in taxes. Will that still be the case when the majority of baby boomers are drawing social security and medicare & we have to increase taxes dramatically to fund those programs?
Has Carter haunted the democrats for years?No. But, he was considered a wimp, not a tyrant. Neither is good. But, we'll forgive a wimp much more easily than a tyrant.
dreadpirateMay 11, 2009
Novenator - Oh, and Obama cannot blame this deficit on Bush. That claim just doesn't wash any more, not even to Reuters."OBAMA: "Number one, we inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit. ... That wasn't me." - in Missouri.THE FACTS:Congress, under Democratic control in 2007 and 2008, held the purse strings that led to the deficit Obama inherited. A Republican president, George W. Bush, had a role too: He signed the legislation.Obama supported the emergency financial bailout package in Bush's final months - a package Democratic leaders wanted to make bigger.To be sure, Obama opposed the Iraq war, a drain on federal coffers for six years before he became president. But with one major exception, he voted in support of Iraq war spending.The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has estimated Obama's policy proposals would add a net $428 billion to the deficit over four years, even accounting for his spending reduction goals. Now, the deficit is nearly quadrupling to $1.75 trillion."From <a class="user" href="http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_FACT_CHECK_OBAMA?SITE=TNKNN&amp;SECTION=HOME&amp;TEMPLATE=DEFAULT">http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_FACT_CHE ...</a>
mnementh2230May 13, 2009
Oh, something else I should have mentioned - I'm 27.
venusflytrap09May 19, 2009
@samsmartjrsamsmartjr The fact that there's no government financial assistance under libertarianism does not mean that the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor. Statism is more likely to do that. How many fat cats did we just bail out? Under Libertarianism, people would rise and fall according to their own abilities. Their would likely be much more social mobility, for better AND worse, under Libertarianism, not less. Why? Because under Libertarianism, the state doesn't rig the game in the favor of the rich. But, you do have a valid point. People do tend to vote for those they believe will promote their own interests. Right now, most people feel that the benefits they expect to receive from government programs are in line with what they pay in taxes. Will that still be the case when the majority of baby boomers are drawing social security and medicare & we have to increase taxes dramatically to fund those programs?
venusflytrap09May 19, 2009
Has Carter haunted the democrats for years?No. But, he was considered a wimp, not a tyrant. Neither is good. But, we'll forgive a wimp much more easily than a tyrant.
venusflytrap09May 19, 2009
Ummm, Bush wasn't voted out of office. He wasn't eligible for a 3rd term. Not that he'd have won had he tried.