SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (102394)4/6/2011 11:05:24 AM
From: Carolyn2 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224729
 
All ready to cheat.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (102394)4/6/2011 11:32:44 AM
From: TideGlider2 Recommendations  Respond to of 224729
 
Just a bunch of thugs who want a free ride on the backs of the tax payers. The voters are hip to it.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (102394)4/6/2011 11:34:28 AM
From: TideGlider1 Recommendation  Respond to of 224729
 
64% Say Americans Are Overtaxed, Political Class Disagrees
Wednesday, April 06, 2011 Email to a Friend ShareThis.Advertisement
Roughly two-out-of-three voters think Americans are overtaxed, and nearly as many say any federal tax increase should be subject to a vote by the American people. Complicating things for would-be budget cutters, however, is the belief by even more that any changes in Social Security and Medicare also should be voted on by the public.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 64% of Likely U.S. Voters believe America is overtaxed. Twenty-four percent (24%) disagree, and 11% are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

This is virtually unchanged from this time last year.

But the Political Class strongly disagrees. While 79% of Mainstream voters think Americans are overtaxed, 87% of those in the Political Class don’t share that assessment.

Among all voters, 59% say any federal tax increase should be approved by a vote of the American people Twenty-six percent (26%) say such a vote is not necessary. Fifteen percent (15%) are not sure.

Similarly, 68% of voters feel any proposed changes to Medicare and Social Security should be approved by a vote of the American people. Twenty-two percent (22%) disagree and don’t think a public vote is necessary.

(Want a free daily e-mail update ? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.

The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on April 3-4, 2011 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

Support for requiring voter approval of tax hikes is up 11 points from 48% in April 2010. Support for requiring a referendum on changes to Social Security and Medicare is also up from last April but little changed since September.

Most Americans continue to believe middle class taxpayers pay a larger share of their income in taxes than those who are wealthy, and they favor an income tax system where everyone pays the same percentage of their income.

Women voters feel more strongly than men that Americans are overtaxed. Younger voters are more likely to agree than their elders.

Eighty-two percent (82%) of Republicans and 70% of voters not affiliated with either major party believe Americans have to pay too much in taxes. Democrats are fairly evenly divided on the question.

Only 43% of Democrats favor a vote of the American people for any proposed federal tax increase, compared to 71% of GOP voters and 64% of unaffiliateds.

But when it comes to any proposed changes in Social Security and Medicare, Democrats feel nearly as strongly as Republicans and unaffiliated voters that a public vote of approval should be required.

The Political Class is a bit less enthusiastic. Seventy-four percent (74%) of Mainstream voters think any changes in Medicare and Social Security should be approved by a vote of the American people. Political Class voters are evenly divided.

But 51% of those in the Political Class agree with 67% of Mainstream voters that public approval should be required for any federal tax increase.

Voters continue to believe tax cuts and decreases in government spending will benefit the nation’s economy.

With less than three weeks to go until the April 15 deadline, over half of Americans had filed their income taxes, and 43% expected to get a refund.

Americans were receptive late last year to a proposal by President Obama’s bipartisan deficit reduction commission to increase the level of income taxable for Social Security, but most didn’t like the idea of raising the retirement age.

Forty-one percent (41%) of voters now correctly recognize that the majority of federal spending goes to just national defense, Social Security and Medicare, although 39% disagree and say it’s not true. Twenty percent (20%) aren’t sure.

Just 28% of voters believe the federal government today has the consent of the governed.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (102394)4/6/2011 12:07:47 PM
From: chartseer1 Recommendation  Respond to of 224729
 
I too would be fired up if Acorn permitted any election to be lost by only 800 votes. What is the world coming to?

citizen chartseer



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (102394)4/6/2011 2:29:02 PM
From: chartseer1 Recommendation  Respond to of 224729
 
Rising oil prices beginning to hurt US economy!

"a few months at $150 a barrel could push the economy back into recession."

news.yahoo.com

citizen chartseer



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (102394)4/6/2011 2:59:14 PM
From: chartseer1 Recommendation  Respond to of 224729
 
"In recent weeks, uber investors Bill Gross and Warren Buffett made headlines with their negative views on the U.S. Treasury bond markets."

Ahh! What the heck do they know?

citizen chartseer



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (102394)4/6/2011 3:04:19 PM
From: chartseer1 Recommendation  Respond to of 224729
 
Speaking of fired up did you enjoy the Barnhardt You Tube reply to jack ass Graham? She seemed all fired up. You have yet to comment?

youtube.com

citizen chartseer



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (102394)4/6/2011 3:14:24 PM
From: JakeStraw4 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224729
 



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (102394)4/6/2011 4:13:13 PM
From: tonto1 Recommendation  Respond to of 224729
 
Of course they are...I cannot believe how close the vote is...you have to give the unions credit, they did a powerful job with their members and with their dishonest ads.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (102394)4/6/2011 6:29:35 PM
From: lorne1 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224729
 
ken...hussein must be in real trouble if he has to stoop to al the crazy..course he stooped to a moslum king...

President Obama looks to Rev. Al Sharpton for help in 2012 reelection bid
BY Jonathan Lemire
DAILY NEWS CITY HALL BUREAU

Wednesday, April 6th 2011
nydailynews.com

President Obama is making his second visit to the city in as many weeks - and is calling upon an unlikely ally to shore up the support of his political base.

Obama will be speaking Wednesday for the first time as commander in chief at the annual convention of the National Action Network and standing with its founder, the Rev. Al Sharpton - whom the President largely ignored before his 2008 election.

The symbolic speech at the Sheraton in midtown - coming just days after the President held two events in Harlem - indicates that Obama, who is battling slipping poll numbers, is trying to bolster his standing among African-Americans, political scientists said.

"It proves again that 2012 will be very different than 2008," said Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia. "Then, Obama was very wary of the race issue and of being labeled as a 'black candidate.'"

"But some of the enthusiasm surrounding that election has faded," said Sabato. "He needs an injection of energy and Sharpton can provide some of that, at least in the black community."

Obama and Sharpton have always been uneasy partners.

Sharpton - whose own political campaigns were defined by racial issues - initially questioned the Illinois senator's qualifications, and at first seemed inclined to support Hillary Clinton.

Obama spoke to the National Action Network in 2007. Although Obama often seemed to hold the Harlem icon at arm's length, he has consulted with Sharpton more frequently in recent years.

"The men will both benefit from the meeting," said political consultant Hank Sheinkopf.

"This shows clout and power for Sharpton," Sheinkopf said, "and for Obama the message he's sending is clear: 'I'm African-American, I'm protecting my base, and AlSharpton is going to help me do it.'"

"Obama knows he's going to need the minority voter and the liberal white voter to turn out in big numbers if he has a real opponent next November," he said.

Obama, who officially announced his reelection bid this week, will likely win the vast majority of the African-American vote, but political strategists see the Harlem events and the National Action Network speech as a way to inspire turnout.

"Obama needed four out of 10 white votes in 2008, so he had to strike a different tone [than Sharpton] and form a different coalition," said Sabato.

"But he can't forget this part of his constituency either," Sabato said. "He may not need the base in 2012, but he doesn't want to take any chances. He doesn't want to look back and say 'If only I had met with Al Sharpton.'"



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (102394)4/6/2011 6:30:44 PM
From: lorne1 Recommendation  Respond to of 224729
 
More good news for you ken...

Left seeks foe for Obama in primary
Kucinich rules out a run for president
By Stephen Dinan
-
The Washington Times
Monday, April 4, 2011
washingtontimes.com

With President Obama officially running for re-election, the call from the left for a primary challenge was gaining steam - though no challenger so far is stepping forward.

Mr. Obama’s decision Monday to forgo civilian trials for the mastermind of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks is only the latest in what liberal activists say is a long list of concerns they would like to see raised in a full campaign setting, which will only happen if someone challenges the president for the Democratic nomination.

But Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio Democrat and a two-time candidate whose name has been floated by activists, ruled out a bid Monday, flatly answering “No” when asked by The Washington Times if he would challenge the president.

He said that doesn’t mean he doesn’t oppose some of the president’s recent actions, including his decision to attack Libya without first seeking congressional approval. And he said he hopes other members of Congress follow his lead.

“I don’t have to be a candidate for president to challenge Mr. Obama,” he said.

At stake in the search for a challenger is the credibility of the anti-war movement and its ability to hold the Democratic Party’s feet to the fire.

“Many of us are meeting and tossing around names all the time, but every time we talk to those people they’re not up for the task,” said Medea Benjamin, co-founder of anti-war group Code Pink. “So at this point it’s still looking around for people who have a following, who have an articulate voice, and who can get out a message.”

In addition to Mr. Kucinich, another name that activists mention is former independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader. He didn’t return a call seeking comment Monday, though he has gone on record saying someone must mount a challenge to Mr. Obama.

And earlier this month Sen. Bernard Sanders, a Vermont independent who caucuses with Democrats, told WNYC radio that, while he won’t run as a Democrat, someone else could “enliven the debate” by making a primary bid.

Meanwhile, one talk-show host, blogging at the Los Angeles Times this week, said the time is ripe for Hillary Rodham Clinton, Mr. Obama’s 2008 Democratic rival opponent and now his secretary of state, to run.

Progressive Democrats’ list of worries over Mr. Obama has grown just in the last month with his decision to attack Libya and his about-face Monday, when his Justice Department said it will try the Sept. 11 masterminds in a military tribunal, not the civilian courts the president had vowed during his last campaign. Activists say they were already unhappy over Mr. Obama’s troop surge expanding the war in Afghanistan.

Asked what his supporters would think about the broken campaign promise, White House press secretary Jay Carney explained that Mr. Obama was bowing to political realities in Congress, where closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, has proved deeply unpopular.

“I think that the president’s primary concern here is that the perpetrators — the accused perpetrators of that terrible attack on the American people —be brought to justice as swiftly as possible and as fairly as possible,” he said.

Patrick J. Buchanan, the conservative commentator and former White House aide who mounted the last serious challenge to a sitting president with his run against President George H.W. Bush in 1992, said liberal groups have an obligation to recruit someone.

“If you believe in a cause or a movement, and that cause or movement’s being betrayed, I think some leader’s got something of an obligation to represent that cause,” he said. “If the anti-war movement in the Democratic Party doesn’t mount an opposition candidate in the primary, I think it will have lost all credibility.”

Tom Jensen, director of Public Policy Polling, a Democratic firm, said Mr. Obama “is in no danger of losing a primary.

“Only 9 percent of Democratic voters in the country think he’s too conservative. Democrats unhappy with Obama on the left constitute a very small minority of the party’s voters,” Mr. Jensen said.

He said there are actually slightly more Democrats - 12 percent - who believe Mr. Obama is too liberal.

While Mr. Obama is the only major Democrat running, at least a dozen others have filed paperwork with the Federal Election Commission, according to thegreenpapers.com, which tracks election information. The most noteworthy of them is Randall A. Terry, founder of pro-life group Operation Rescue.

Mr. Buchanan said former Sen. Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin would have been a viable challenger from the left to Mr. Obama if he had not lost his own re-election bid in November.

Mr. Buchanan’s high point in the 1992 campaign was New Hampshire, where he ran 15 percentage points behind Mr. Bush.

But the other model for a primary challenger could be 1968, when President Lyndon B. Johnson withdrew from the presidential race after winning less than 50 percent of the vote in the New Hampshire primary against anti-war candidate Sen. Eugene McCarthy. Mr. McCarthy’s challenge showed Johnson was vulnerable and helped usher Sen. Robert F. Kennedy into the race.

That scenario could be the opening Mrs. Clinton could use to jump in the race, Mr. Buchanan said, but he stressed that “she can’t move until [Mr. Obama] decides he’s not in.”