Poll: Economy No. 1 issue for voters
By David Milstead, Rocky Mountain News (Contact), James Paton, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published August 19, 2008 at 7:25 p.m.
Updated August 20, 2008 at 9:44 a.m.
Colorado voters, worried about the cost of gas and groceries, a possible recession and a weakening job market, are dwelling on the economy more than they have in years.
In a Rocky Mountain News/CBS 4 News survey, 45 percent of respondents said the economy is the most significant problem facing Colorado. By contrast, 13 percent identified the environment and 7 percent cited illegal immigration.
Many of the poll participants said they are driving less, relying on public transportation more and making fewer trips to restaurants and movie theaters.
"We're in a situation where we are constantly stressing money," said Verity Matthews, a 28-year-old Metro State student.
Matthews, who has a 16-month-old child, said her husband earns $12.50 an hour as a machinist, but his hours have been reduced.
"Now it's like we're robbing Peter to pay Paul," she said.
Ron Olson, 51, said his family canceled plans to drive to Disneyland this summer. Once-a-week dinners at places like Golden Corral, Applebee's and Chili's first were cut back to every other week. But with the increases in gas prices, "we've stopped altogether. We're homebodies now," the Pueblo resident said.
Other respondents expressed broader concerns about the direction the economy is heading.
"We're feeling like we're on the precipice of something serious here," said Susan Troen, a retired human resources director who moved to Colorado five years ago and lives with her husband outside Durango.
Troen, 67, said she worries about a decline in the manufacturing sector, jobs being shipped overseas and the huge cost of the war in Iraq, among other issues.
"I look at my own kids and grandkids, and I'm not sure they will even attain middle-class status, and that scares me," she said.
Pollster Lori Weigel, a partner with Public Opinion Strategies, said Coloradans are less troubled by the economy than voters in some others states, such as Ohio. But she noted the data show Coloradans, like voters across the nation, have grown more anxious.
When asked about the most important issue, 45 percent cited the economy, jobs, gas prices or other "pocketbook" issues.
"It sure is a switch from what Coloradans used to be concerned about," said Weigel, whose firm bills itself as the largest Republican polling firm in the nation.
A decade ago, in very different times, only 1 percent of voters identified the economy as the most significant problem for Colorado, while 34 percent cited "growth and traffic." In the most recent survey, 5 percent of the people cited growth and traffic.
The poll, conducted Aug. 11-13 by Public Opinion Strategies, included 500 registered voters. The margin of error was plus or minus 4.38 percentage points.
Pollster Craig Hughes, director of research of RBI Strategies and Research, a firm that generally works with Democratic candidates, said the survey reveals that Coloradans have a wide range of economic fears.
"Clearly a critical issue will be which candidate can convince Colorado voters that they have a plan to get the economy moving in the right direction," said Hughes, who consulted on the survey.
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
August 19, 2008
9:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Mike846 writes:
Well, if this article is right, then the Republicans ought to win state-wide. If you vote Democrat, you're going to get more of the same things "Tax" Ritter, the Romanoff-led State legislature and John "The Buck doesn't stop here" Hickenlooper have given you in the past: higher taxes on everyone, but especially businesses, and most especially those evil energy companies who get all those tax breaks. Elect Democrats, and you'll see fuel costs go even higher, more school taxes (if they can flim-flam another victory bond) even though there are less kids and less buildings, and emergency funding for hospitals, who are going broke because they can't turn away illegal aliens who go to the ER. Wake up, voters. The Democrats will just make it worse. Mike
August 20, 2008
1:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
jacka writes:
YES on Amendment 47 to make Colorado more business friendly and attract jobs.
47 for a better workforce.
August 20, 2008
3:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
Domino writes:
Why do you want to be more business friendly? They will cut your pay.
August 20, 2008
6:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
windbourne writes:
Mike, Jacka; Both of you 2 appear to blame dems, and yet, our federal debt is almost 100% pubs. Even here, owens gutted us and did little to build up small business (the life blood of any state), while ritter has done just a bit more. Pubs controlled the state for the last decade, but did little to nothing for infrastructure. In fact, other than trex, most everything went downhill. Quite honestly, I think that Colorado is being punished by both pubs and dems. The pubs cut back on taxes and infrastructure, while the pubs are pushing new taxes, but only part is for infrastructure. For example Ritter's dang severance tax; 60% to a new social program.
August 20, 2008
6:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
jrock writes:
I can't believe 10 years ago most people were worried about "growth and traffic" What does that even mean?
Honestly, who goes to bed at night worrying about the traffic?
I guess if you can't afford to drive and pay for gas then it's not a worry now adays.
August 20, 2008
6:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
mrfxx writes:
An additional note - Obama co-sponsored a bill to "punish" companies that offshore by taking away tax credits and "reward" companies that maintain or increase their US workforces - the GOPs on the committee killed it. He has pledged to bring that back if elected.
August 20, 2008
6:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
Dustoff76 writes:
So, if a party promises to cut your taxes, you don't mind if they also bungle a war, fail to provide adequate care for the troops who served in that war, stretch the military to its breaking point, repeatedly bypass the Constitution, damage the nation's international credibility, fail to respond to a major hurricane, effectively withdraw from the Geneva conventions, drastically increase the national debt, cause gas prices to nearly triple, and generally make a gigantic mess that someone else will have to clean up?
John McCain voted with Pres. Bush 95% of the time over the last 7 years (when he actually showed up--he hasn't voted since April 8th), so I fail to see how he's going to magically solve all of the problems that he helped to create. It only takes about 5 minutes' worth of research to learn that Obama's tax program actually cuts middle class taxes more than McCain's, without increasing the deficit, so someone is going to have to explain why voting Republican in this election isn't a terrible, self-defeating idea.
August 20, 2008
6:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
youngman writes:
Its a very easy comparison..just look at Democratic controlled cities and states and see how they are doing financally...then compare the Republician controlled cities and states..The Republicians win hands down as being better managers and keeping within their budgets. Period
August 20, 2008
6:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
Commentary: Is McCain another George W. Bush? - CNN.com*
Go and read this one.
August 20, 2008
7:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
jacka writes:
YES on 47 will create a better workforce because more businesses will want to locate jobs in Colorado.
YES on 47 is not a Dem or GOP issue ... its workplace choice issue that stops forced unionism and forced union dues.
YES on 47 will help reform our schools and curb the Big Union influence that allows 30%+ HS kids to drop out.
Besides the Gov. gave state workers the Right-to-Work in 2007, shouldn't the rest of Colorado have the Right-to-Work?
August 20, 2008
7:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
HolierThanThou writes:
Amendment 47 is a tool to destroy the bargaining ability of Colorado workers. The economy is sinking because working middle-class Americans are getting paid less.
The rich get tax cuts and the costs get passed to the middle class. You don't like taxes? At least when you pay your government you usually get something back. Taxation is now being privatized to large corporations that take your money and keep it.
Health insurance is probably the largest scam. Most of it goes to profit. You get nothing for that. Corporations also tax you for drugs and fuel. Oil companies got you over a barrel.
Add the flood of immigrants both illegal and legal. The working poor must cope with a flood of illegal competition for jobs. But skilled middle class Americans are being replaced by H1B, L1, and PERM imported slaves. Many of the job openings are nothing more than a scam where corporations merely want to get your name and list you as unqualified. Then they hire their L1 and pay him what he was making in India. You are out of a job.
So, if you want to be stupid and give the bosses more power than vote for Amendment 47. Just remember that you're not just screwing yourself. When your kids are staying at the shelter while you are sleeping in your car, write 47 on a sheet of paper and display it proudly on your dashboard.
Vote to empower yourself. Never vote for a conservative huckster that empowers the bosses to screw you harder. Vote NO on 47.
August 20, 2008
7:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
ActualThinker writes:
How do people not realize republicans are bad for the economy by now? Obama's plan raises taxes if you make more than $250K or your small business does. The rest of it is mostly better tax cuts than McCain is pushing. It's pure nonsense yet people still equate democrats to unnecessary taxes instead of reading whats actually being pushed. It's been 30 years since republicans gave help to the middle class, they care only about the rich but people keep voting for them anyway. Look at how well the economy and our surplus flourished back under the last "tax" democrat Clinton. Back then traffic was our biggest worry. We went from that surplus to a staggering amount of debt over the last 8 years and yet republicans want to credit themselves as being the better ones for the economy? Perhaps you may want to look up the stock market and economy history since the great depression, it does considerably better under democratic presidents.
August 20, 2008
7:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mayor_Quimby writes:
mrfxx writes: "An additional note - Obama co-sponsored a bill to "punish" companies that offshore by taking away tax credits and "reward" companies that maintain or increase their US workforces - the GOPs on the committee killed it. He has pledged to bring that back if elected."
This is by far and away the dumbest bill to ever come before congress or for a candidate for president to state. It shows just how dumb and out of touch Obama on economics. Ask any econ professor whether this would be good. How many companies do you think will create a new plant here if they know that they cannot move any of the jobs overseas? These jobs are not the governments jobs, these are the companies and they should be able to do what they want with them. This is America but Obama doesnt like America so....
August 20, 2008
7:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
HolierThanThou writes:
Conservatives always tank the economy. Reagan and Bush did it in the 1980s. Colorado was on the ropes. We actually lost population in a few of those years.
The problem with conservatism begins with innumeracy. They never balance the budget. They don't know how to balance because they don't care. They want everything to go "right" as in right into the red ink.
The first reason why conservatism will never balance a budget it that they give tax cuts to the wealthy. When they do that, fees for everything else get passed on to the middle class, which means you.
The second reason why conservatism will never balance a budget is that a conservative is NOT YOUR REPRESENTATIVE. He represents the bribe masters who control his campaign cash. The same is true of liberal politicians but at least they don't like it. Conservatives embrace the bribery system of governance heart and soul.
The third reason why conservatism will never balance a budget is that those bribes passed via the campaign system are paid back in multiples using your tax dollars. This means less of those tax dollars go towards purchasing services that help you and your neighbors while more goes into corporate welfare such as subsidies for oil, war profits and bank failures.
Elite conservatives have no conscience. They're traitors to the American people. They screw us to get more money. But anyone who follows conservatism and supports it just because it sounds good is an idiot.
August 20, 2008
7:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
jacka writes:
YES on 47 affirms YOU CAN’T BE FORCED to join the Union and pay Forced Union dues.
Right-to-Work is simple, fair, sustainable and tested by Bill Ritter.
Amendment 47 text from State website:
Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Colorado:
SECTION 1. Article XVIII of the constitution of the state of Colorado is amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION to read:
Section 16. Right to work.
(1) THIS AMENDMENT SHALL BE KNOWN AND MAY BE CITED AS THE “COLORADO RIGHT TO WORK AMENDMENT”.
(2)(a) NO PERSON SHALL, AS A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT, BE REQUIRED TO:
(I) BE A MEMBER OF A LABOR UNION; AND
(II) PAY ANY DUES, FEES, ASSESSMENTS, OR OTHER CHARGES OF ANY KIND TO A LABOR UNION OR TO ANY CHARITY OR OTHER THIRD PARTY, IN LIEU OF SUCH PAYMENTS.
(2)(b) NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL PREVENT ANY PERSON FROM VOLUNTARILY BELONGING OR VOLUNTARILY PROVIDING FINANCIAL SUPPORT TO A LABOR UNION.
(3) ANY PERSON WHO DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY VIOLATES ANY PROVISION OF THIS SECTION COMMITS A MISDEMEANOR AND UPON CONVICTION THEREOF SHALL BE PUNISHED BY A FINE IN AN AMOUNT EQUIVALENT TO THE MOST STRINGENT MISDEMEANOR CLASSIFICATION PROVIDED BY LAW.
(4) THIS SECTION SHALL APPLY TO ALL UNION EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION AND SHALL APPLY TO ANY RENEWAL OR EXTENSION OF ANY EXISTING UNION CONTRACT.
(5) AS USED IN THIS SECTION, “LABOR UNION” MEANS ANY ORGANIZATION OF ANY KIND, OR AGENCY OR EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATION COMMITTEE OR ORGANIZATION, THAT EXISTS FOR THE PURPOSE, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, OF DEALING WITH EMPLOYERS CONCERNING WAGES, RATES OF PAY, HOURS OF WORK, OTHER CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT, OR OTHER FORMS OF COMPENSATION; ANY ORGANIZATION THAT EXISTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING OR OF DEALING WITH EMPLOYERS CONCERNING GRIEVANCES; AND ANY ORGANIZATION PROVIDING OTHER MUTUAL AID OR PROTECTION IN CONNECTION WITH EMPLOYMENT.
SECTION 2. Effective date. This amendment shall take effect upon proclamation of the vote by the governor.
August 20, 2008
7:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
LingLingfor_prez writes:
Well, as long as I have income coming in, I will continue to live within my means and plan for the worst. Why should I wait for politicians to help me out?
August 20, 2008
8:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
bronco writes:
Unbeliavable that some of you are blaming the Democrats for the economy even though we've had this moron republican in office for the last eight years piss away $3 Trillion. What did you expect, that there would be no consequences to an illegal war and privitization of as much of the military as possible. THINK FOR YOURSELVES FOR ONCE. rosenn and rush are full of BS to put it nicely.
August 20, 2008
8:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
mtnboy75 writes:
HolierThanThou,
In your last post, you can replace the word "conservatives" with the word "democrats" in all cases, and there would be an equal amount of truth. The fact is, both parties have sold out the American public. Regardless of political party, the primary objective is to make the government larger and more powerful, thereby taking power and freedoms away from the people. Until the majority of people begin to realize this, and also realize that there are other alternatives than to vote for Populist Party R or Populist Party D, things will continue to get worse.
Unfortunately, most people are sold on soundbites and don't even bother to scratch beneath the surface and educate themselves on the issues. I tend to hear more campaign slogans than educated arguments. Its gotten to the point where these elections have about as much substance as a student body election at your nearest high school...it's just a popularity contest.
In most cases, especially with the presidency, I cannot vote for either of these two parties and maintain a clear conscience. Although I do intend to vote. At this time all I can hope for is that in each electrion cycle, there are (a.) quality independent candidates, and (b.) these candidates will continue to see a larger share of the votes, hopefully to a point that soon they begin to make an impact.
August 20, 2008
8:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
Willy writes:
1. Niether candidate knows diddly squat about economics. the only people who know less are reporters who write and talk about it. IMHO - the number one failing of our school systems is the lack of economic education.
2. It is congress, not the president who has the tools to really influence the economy. The president has very little power to do anything with the economy without the support of congress.
August 20, 2008
8:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
HolierThanThou writes:
A lot of disasters look good on paper. Any engineer can tell you that.
I have to give Jonathan Coors and his staff of lawyers some credit. That 47 sure looks like a work of brilliance to me! Would that they could get me out of paying taxes!
I want all the benefits of American citizenship yet I also want the "right" to be taken off the tax roll! Let me keep all my money, OK? Just because I drive on the roads, use the post office, and expect my government to keep the Islamic terrorist hordes at bay doesn't mean I'm obligated to fund all that, does it?
That Jonathan Coors is a swell guy. Even though he was born with silver spoon in hand, he shall carry on the Coors family tradition of self-sacrifice in support of the working people of Colorado.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage...
No doubt that young Jonathan Coors, like the scions of many a multi-billion dollar fortune, would eagerly sacrifice it all just to ensure that working Americans have good-paying jobs with generous retirement benefits and health care programs, not to mention college funding for their kids, two cars in every garage and a chicken in every pot.
August 20, 2008
9:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
Citizen21 writes:
Reganomics work. Trickle down worked. Economic policies are not instant, they take time to work. Clinton road the coatails of those economic policies. A President always inheriets the benefits or problems of the prior administration. Does everyone have such a short memory and a need for instant gratification that you are willing to ignore the facts. This is a capitalistic society - unless you want the problems that California has. Let's see, rolling blackouts, severe fiscial issues, companies leaving that state due to all the regulation and restrictions - increasing unemployment. Raising taxes won't fix the economy. Tax cuts enable companies and private individuals to put money back into the economy. Why - because they have it to invest.
August 20, 2008
9:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
If Obama won't even lift a finger to help his own family, then you can't expect him to make any effort to help YOUR family.
Just ask his brother..... the American media refuses to report about the Obama family, but more objective media sources in the rest of the world (not controlled by the fawning leftwing American media) are willing to do so.
Obama has more than $9 million in wealth, and yet he refuses to do anything for his own brother who is forced to live in a hut on less than $1 a MONTH! ""I live here on less than a dollar a month.""
Obama vacations at $1,000 a night resorts in the Carribean and Hawaii twice in less than 90 days, and yet he refuses to even lift a finger to help his brother who is forced to live in a 6 foot by 9 foot boarded up hut in a shanty town on the outskirts of Nairobi.
Obama used his brother's sad life story in his book (which Obama made more than $7 million on), but when they met for one day during Obama's celebrity tour of Africa, his own brother said he acted like he was meeting a complete stranger. Obama used his brother and then cast him aside when he was no longer of any value to his publicity tour.
No wonder Obama's own family is ashamed of him. ""If anyone says something about my surname, I say we are not related. I am ashamed," he said." How pathetic of a human being do you need to be, to have your own family members ashamed to have anyone know you are related to you?
Certainly, the Obama cult followers will attack this poor man. They'll do anything to make his life even more miserable, just to protect their selfish celebrity messiah who is spending $200 million to promote his "image". They'll want the world to ignore what Obama does to his own family. They'll attack anyone who reports that Obama even has brothers living in such poverty. And Obama will take comfort in knowing that he can continue to spend $5,000 on flashy designer suits, take 2 week vacations at $1,000 a night resorts every 3 months..... and use his poverty stricken family members to sell a few more million in book sales to gullible readers who worship the selfish blowhard.
And meanwhile, Obama's family members will continue to try to survive on 3 cents a day and exist in their 6 by 9 foot hut. All so that Obama's celebrity image won't be tarnished... and Obama won't have to spend a dime of his $200 million campaign helping his own family.....because that money needs to be wasted trying to boost Obama's IMAGE.
Better think about which candidate will help your family on economic issues..... because if Obama is so selfish that he won't give a dime of his wealth to help his own family members.... he certainly doesn't care about YOUR family.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newst...
August 20, 2008
9:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
holierthanthou, just to help educate you on the facts......... Reagan brought the United States out of economic disaster created when Jimmy Carter was President. That's the FACT, but hey, if you don't want to be informed of the facts, so be it.
Funny that Bush is blamed for everything people don't like that's going on, but it's not so simple. For instance, Obama voted for corporate welfare in 2005. The Democrats voted with Republicans to put the United States in Iraq. Since the Democrats have been in charge of the Senate and Congress, gas prices not only went over $3.00 a gallon, but over $4.00. And since they've been in charge, the country went from having housing prices rise each year to now being in a mortgage crisis. I don't agree with everything that Bush has done, but I'm even more unhappy with what the Democrats have done. We don't need tax after tax heaped upon us. The Democrats plan for a windfall tax on retirement income is a kick to the groin for senior citizens. The plan to have a windfall tax on oil profits doesn't mean we benefit, because the money doesn't end up in our pockets, it goes to special interests, and the oil companies will only raise prices to pay for that tax meaning we pay more at the pump. Remember this, Bush is leader of the country, but the Senate and Congress write legislation and they're failing the country badly.
I'll vote for Amendment 47. I don't like the idea Governor Ritter gives bargaining power to state employees who already had one of the best compensation packages for state employees in the country. It wasn't necessary, but it's a Democrat payback to special interests. Ritter is a do-nothing Governor and I can't wait until we have the chance to boot him out of office. The worst Governor this state has had since at least the 70's.
August 20, 2008
9:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
jacka writes:
Amendment 47:
22 states allow their citizen's to AVOID FORCED UNIONISM and FORCED DUES with the "Right-to-Work", shouldn't Colorado also extend these rights?
"Right-to-Work" states attract new job development, a boon for Economic Develop.
Creating more commerce drives taxes that help fund our roads, schools, and healthcare allowing Coloradans to live a better lifestyle.
New businesses also drive greater non-profit contributions.
CNBC recently released the 2008 results for its annual "America’s Top States for Business" survey, its findings can be found at http://www.cnbc.com/id/25501924.
The top 8 or the top 9 states are all right-to-work states.
Of the top 12 states, 10 are right-to-work states.
Of the top 25 states, 15 are right-to-work states.
Of the bottom 25 states, 18 are non-right-to-work states.
August 20, 2008
9:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
DenverDan writes:
Bush and republicans never do anything bad. They are perfect. His Economy is the best ever.
August 20, 2008
10:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
Obama is sinking like a rock.
Today's headlines from Reuters prove it.
"Poll shows McCain in 5-point lead over Obama
Wed Aug 20, 2008 8:01am EDT"
And the poll shows McCain leads Obama 49-40 on which is a better manager of the economy!
http://www.reuters.com/article/politi...
August 20, 2008
10:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
froward, just to keep this pretty simple for you......... what did Jimmy Carter do for the economy? Reagan jumpstarted the economy after Carter's disaster. Oh yeah, and Carter tried a windfall tax on oil and what did it create? Higher gas prices and long lines at the pump. Don't Democrats learn from history, and how that's a recipe for failure?
Citizen21, nice post.
August 20, 2008
11:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
timeandagain writes:
Yep, the tide is changing!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080820/t...
Obama's ship is sinking FAST. It will right itself next week and for the weekend after the convention but - thereafter - McCain will continue his slow and steady surge towards the Presidency.
Talk to me about Obama in 8 years. He may be ready to lead after several more years in Washington (and a better voting record). This country WILL NOT elect the MOST LIBERAL SENATOR IN CONGRESS and this poll is only the beginning of his (near-term) demise.
August 20, 2008
11:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
froward, Ford was President before Carter. Carter was the worst American President in the 20th Century. Reagan won in a LANDSLIDE after the debacle that was Carter, using your words. A "visionary"........ and Carter's the one that created long gas lines and higher gas prices.
By the way, the thing that kept George HW Bush to a single term was Ross Perot, and Clinton trying desperately to attach himself to the legacy of John F. Kennedy...... the last great Democrat to be President.
August 20, 2008
11:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
Gonzopozo writes:
The National Debt..
1/2000 = 5.7 Trillion
7/2008 = 9.5 Trillion
The numbers don't lie. Don't tell me this is anything but a
DISASTER.
August 20, 2008
11:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
Benighse writes:
It'll be nice to see Obama nominated and the real campaign can begin. Then it'll be the issues that count: the economy, housing, healthcare, ending Iraq, energy solutions with solar and wind power, regaining world respect in international relations.....Until then we see Mccain becoming so silly....He looked like Jimmy Cagney on that oil well yesterday: "I'm on top of the world, Ma!" (that's the part right before the fireworks in the movie and the ending credits of his spotlight candidacy.)....And did you see the drilling news today that 18 million acres were in fact up for oil leases as previously approved for off-shore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and only 2 million acres of them got leased at all, and they are expected to at best actually be producing in 5 to 8 years.....Now that's a Bush/Mccain energy solution.....Let's put Obama to work for all America and get some real solutions and turn this economy around!
August 20, 2008
11:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
timeandagain writes:
mymilehi -
promise? i mean really...promise??
August 20, 2008
12:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
froward, Ford was President before Carter, elected or not. Get your facts straight!
And Reagan still wiped the floor with Carter in a landslide.
August 20, 2008
12:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
HolierThanThou writes:
"The National Debt..
1/2000 = 5.7 Trillion
7/2008 = 9.5 Trillion
The numbers don't lie. Don't tell me this is anything but a
DISASTER."
As you can see from the replies that conservatives give us to these reality checks, they are innumerate.
You could feed a piece of cake to a monkey but you'll be waiting an awful long time for him to figure out how bake one.
So, it is with conservatives. Those numbers have about as much meaning to them as a cake recipe does to a monkey.
August 20, 2008
1:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
it's still the economy, stupid.
this should be a pretty easy decision for the american voters, considering the republican track record on the economy...but then again....as many of our regular conservative posters prove on a daily basis...there are many americans out there who simply don't vote in their own best interests in regards to policy stances.
August 20, 2008
2:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Willy writes:
Once again children - It is the House of Representative that is required to initiate all tax and spending bills. The primary responsibility lies with them no matter to which party they belong.
August 20, 2008
3:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
speaking of data, willy...how do you explain this little ditty?
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
even mccain has admitted that people have been worse off under the republicans....which is ironic...considering he represents a third bush term:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pi...
August 20, 2008
3:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
"it's still the economy, stupid. this should be a pretty easy decision for the american voters"
Which must be why the majority of voters are rejecting Obama.
And why McCain leads Obama (aka Empty Suit) by 9% points on which candidate can better manage economic issues for the country.
Of course, Obama ignoring his poverty stricken family members, lying to Democrats about offering free tickets to his speech (and then selling them secretly for $1,000 per ticket), requiring Denver to shut down ever longer than originally promised, flunking his first debate test at Saddleback, and demonstrating a complete inability to talk coherently when he's not being fed lines from his handlers using a teleprompter.... it all adds up. Voters are rejecting Obama at ever increasing rates!
August 20, 2008
3:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Willy writes:
Jay - I in no way defended either party. They are equally responsible in my mind. I was simply reminding folk who had skipped their civics class that all spending and tax bill must originate in the House, therefore the House bears primary responsibilty - regardless of which party is in control.
August 20, 2008
3:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
actually....they aren't equally responsible, willy...as the data illustrates....which is my point.
rickybobby...here are the latest national numbers...and can i ask you a question?
which color is the line that is consistently above the other one in the graph seen here?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epol...
by the way...when looking at the data....why do you think mcsame's policy stances are more successful economically than obama's?
that's not rhetorical...i'm asking you to rationalized the numbers of the last 8 years.
August 20, 2008
4:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Willy writes:
Jay - Like I said I am not defending either party. The president, whether is Rosevelt, Kennedy, Reagan or Bush cannot initiate tax or spending. All he can do is ask the House to initiate that process. It is the House members' responsibility to have the oysters to stand up to the president and tell him no. It is called a system of check and balances. The fact that we are in this mess is a sign that our system, at best, has cracks in it that must be fixed.