Economy Getting Stronger

[BSB]

Breaking News Alert
The New York Times
Friday, March 9, 2012 -- 8:37 AM EST
-----
U.S. Economy Added 227,000 Jobs in February;
The report followed a flurry of positive economic reports about the American economy, including a continued rise in consumer confidence, business plans to hire more workers this year and growing strength in the manufacturing sector.
Read More:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/10/business/economy/us-added-227000-jobs-last-month-rate-at-8-3.html?emc=na

[sirs]

Hardly breaking......Please get back to us when unemployment actually starts going down, debt actually starts going down, misery index actually starts going down, gas prices actually start going down.

I mean, I realize how beholden you are to Obamination, but a querk of NYTimes good news about Obama is hardly earth shattering, given how the MSM is circling their wagons around him.  You erroneously posted news on Peyton, you erroneously posted claims of the GOP's agenda of trying to deny BC to women, you erroneously referenced how the Patriots didn't "cheat", when that's exactly what they were caught doing, despite your semantic somersaults......I basically see a pattern here, and this is yet likely another example.

It's the GOP's presidential race to lose.  And they could very well do that, but that's the current economic & political reality.  Simple as that

[Xavier_Onassis]

I expect the GOP will lose, because they have no plans other than to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

They deserve to become effing extinct. And the sooner the better.

[sirs]

I expect the GOP will lose

LOL...STOP THE PRESSES, our most ardent Obama cool-aide drinking supporter expects the GOP will lose. 

because they have no plans other than to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

Not to mention they want to kill children and make grandma eat dog food.  Or is it the other way around?  Oh, and they want to force all women to use BC.  I think that covers all the asanine hyperbole     

[Xavier_Onassis]

And lose they will, because they are assholes. Latino-hating, woman-hating racist assholes.

[Plane]

Does it matter that making the rich poorer will make the poor poorer faster?

[Xavier_Onassis]

That is hardly true.

That is simply right wing nonsense. It will make the country stronger if there is less debt and inflation less likely.

[Plane]

  Sure it is true , it is even quite intuitive.

  Do the poor hire more than the rich?

If the rich are really hated perhaps we should try to get the poor to do all the hiring.

The poor just are not made poor by the rich , getting rich, that is some kinda nonsense.

I imagine that super high taxes are like making Unkle Sam the one really rich guy, whoever U.S. can't hire is outa luck.

[sirs]

And lose they will, because they are assholes. Latino-hating, woman-hating racist assholes.

I hope that mirror didn't crack after spewing that garbage

[Xavier_Onassis]

It is not a question of hating the rich. Hatred has not one damned thing to do with it.

The issue is that the top 1 or 2% have gamed the system to grab off a huge amount of the national wealth, and they want an even larger share. This is called "increasing the market share", meaning that they want more of what is now yours for themselves.

It is simply about raising their taxes proportionate to the gains they have made in market share.

The entire debate has been about raising the tax rate on the wealthiest by a lousy 3% on income over $250K. They way the ratbag right talks about this, they want people to think that the rich should be dragged from their McMansions, barbecued over a flame, and eaten for dinner.

[sirs]

It is not a question of hating the rich. Hatred has not one damned thing to do with it.

Sure it is...bitterness...jealously...hatred.  You've made that abundantly clear in numerous posts where when the fallacy of trying to raise taxes on the rich does NOT equate to increased revenues, but instead drags the economy down even more, with less hiring as a result, and more importantly wouldn't even dent the debt, your most frequent implied response is to "tax their sorry asseses anyway"

No one has "gamed the system", outside of DC.  Washington Politicians are the ones who have gamed any system, facilitating lobbiests to dole out millions in contributions, with the appropriate quid-pro-quo legislation which leads to more $$$$ for lobbiests and who they represent, leading to more contributions, and the viscious cycle continues.  DC has even gamed it so that they can get away with their version of insider trading, that would have you or me going to prison, if we tried to do the same

Sorry Xo, the rich are getting richer, and SO ARE THE POOR.  "The poor" in this country often have cable TV, 2 to 3 cars, air conditioning, and a whole host of other luxuries that REAL poor, in places like Somalia or Haiti couldn't even dream of

And the debt, that you seem to be concerned about is due, in no uncertain terms, by the elephant in the room....SPENDING, as directed by Obama and his Socialist-lite agenda.  If you want to control debt, not only is trying to "raise the taxes on the rich" not only counterproductive to the economy, it wouldn't even scratch the surface of the debt we've incurred, under this President, and his Democrats

[sirs]

Breaking Poll Alert

The latest national survey from Rasmussen -- whose numbers tracked President Obama creeping back to 50 percent approval in late February -- is getting the "shock poll" treatment from Drudge.  Romney by five:

With the perception growing that he will be the GOP nominee, Romney leads President Obama by five points in a hypothetical 2012 matchup. Today's numbers show Romney at 48%, Obama at 43%. That’s Romney’s largest lead since December.

If Santorum is the Republican nominee, he is up by one point over the president, 46% to 45%.

This is the second time since polling began in 2011 that Santorum has had a slight lead over Obama. Romney is the only other candidate to lead the president more than one time in the polls.  Overall, 44% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president's job performance. Fifty-four percent (54%) at least somewhat disapprove.

Earlier in the week, I saw David Axelrod making the television rounds, shrugging off the notion that anybody could beat Obama, and dismissing the recent Gallup/USA Today poll as the one and only outlier.  Well, add another "outlier" to the pile, I suppose.  Also, don't forget that:
- a majority of Americans say Obama's presidency is a failure,
- a majority doesn't think he deserves a second term,
- swing state voters lean Republican,
- GOP-aligned citizens are more enthusiastic about the election,
- most voters view the president's views as too liberal,
- and Obamacare is a lead weight around the president's neck. 

Gee, maybe the public isn't enthralled with Obama's war on jobs, and couldn't care less about the Democrats' manufactured "war on women" silliness.

As I've written previously, polling at this stage of the game is useless.  Presidential surveys won't really matter until September, and a lot can -- and will -- change between now and then.  However, these polls serve as helpful motivators to resist the fatalism that has gripped some conservative opinionmakers.  Team Obama's chest-beating is a bluff.  They know they're in trouble, and they're flailing to hold on to power.

The GOP's to lose

[BT]

The entire debate has been about raising the tax rate on the wealthiest by a lousy 3% on income over $250K. They way the ratbag right talks about this, they want people to think that the rich should be dragged from their McMansions, barbecued over a flame, and eaten for dinner.

Umm wrong.

The issue is whether there is a need to raise taxes at all. If a tax increase can be proven to be needed, then let the Bush tax cuts expire. To single out one quintile is to perpetuate and legitimize class warfare. And that would not be a good thing.

[sirs]

Ummm...wrong

At no time has Obama been pushing the notion of merely letting the Bush tax cuts expire, so no, that's not the issue, as framed by Obama & the Dems.  they claim its absolutely needed, and that its on "the rich" that it would be implimented

[BT]

Did i claim Obama was pushing for repeal of the Bush tax cuts?

Don't think so.