Among registered voters, 46 percent of women have a favorable view of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., while 33 percent have an unfavorable view, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll. But only 34 percent of men have a positive view of Clinton and 47 percent have a negative view.
The good news for Clinton is that women made up 54 percent of voters in the past presidential election. But her support among women drops with age: 27 percent of those under age 45 view her negatively, 33 percent of those ages 45 to 64 view her negatively, and 40 percent of those 64 and older view her negatively.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/7
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/8
- Cynical on Death penalty review promised
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/8
- XXX on Open thread 11/8
- Regular on Open thread 11/8
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/8
- XXX on Open thread 11/8
- DavidB on Open thread 11/8
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/7
104 Comments
Either, it is just the way I read it or the way Brownlee presented the numbers; it looks like the women voters have a pack mentality.
The numbers are also meaningless, unless they polled registered voters only.
“Kansas” –
Read the first three words of Brownlee’s original post.
Damn! Are you purposefully ignorant or just stupid?
Stop toking on that joint LTP, perhaps you can act like a reasonable human being if you do.
Is there a breakdown between lesbians and straight women?
I surprised so many have a negative view of Hillary Clinton. If you don’t watch her videos or get to know her, she isn’t all that bad:
Obama & Clinton Attend Church
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UD7K4BK4exc
What’s NOT to like?
Do voters _really_ want 28 years of the Bush v Clinton “dynasties?”
Can’t we just move on?
Well! Clinton still doesn’t give a crap about the poor though. But I’m sure she will get plenty of votes from them.
Joe! And if she did “care about the poor”? You’d be calling her a leftist socialist communist, etc.
Or whining about her wealth and the hypocrisy of claiming to care about the poor.
I think the “excuse” jar must be full of slips today.
At this time four years ago, Howard Dean had a lock on the Democratic nomination.
Anybdy notice how Hill never appears on any of the Sunday morning tv shows, CNN, Fox, etc?
She never drops the carefully cultivated plastic facade.
She may have stood for something once. What it is now is anybody’s guess.
No Ksfrmgrrl. I would not.
I’m just telling the truth.
“She never drops the carefully cultivated plastic facade.
She may have stood for something once. What it is now is anybody’s guess.”
Sounds just like sebelius to me. I wonder if this is the new DLC formula?
So Joe, serious question. What would “caring for the poor” look like for you?
I’m just curious about what it is that makes her an attractive candidate? Is it her ‘health care for everyone’ plan? It it her turn around on the Iraq conflict? Is it her doormat status as the most walked on wife in the US?
I’m serious. By giving healthcare to everyone – isn’t she fostering the nanny state and putting a huge debt or higher taxes on our children and grandchildren? Who will want to work to gain benefits when they can just set around and watch Jerry Springer and Hill will give them all the benefits of working without the worry of earning it.
She told us she voted to go into Iraq ‘after’ talking with Madeline Albright about what she knew. Do we want a prez who can’t even stand behind a decision she made all by herself?
Hasn’t she set women back with her total acceptance of whatever Bill does to her no matter how humilitating it might be? How would this fly in the world as we present her as our leader?
What are her qualifications to be the leader of the civilized world? Could it be the Marxist paper she wrote for her thesis in college? Look beneath that once wrinkled exterior and what do you see? Not much. She never allows anyone behind the facade.
It will be an interesting election for sure.
“Is it her doormat status as the most walked on wife in the US?”
Ummmm…..no.
I think that title is currently held by Wendy Vitter.
Authenticity.
That is what it’s about. Churches say they care about and help the poor. But Churches collect more money than the US government does for their portion of helping the poor. Yet they hardly do anything. The amount of money that churches collect in this county, they can wipe away poverty in this nation, but instead they use it for a nice new BMW for the Pastor.
Same with these politicians. Including Clinton, and yes, it also means Bill Clinton. They don’t care about the poor as the same as George Bush doesn’t care about the poor. They don’t associate with them. It’s just human nature. When you grow up with lots of money or become rich, you don’t hang out with people in the lower economic class, you don’t even want to. We will always have class separation in our world. Even those who so desire for a socialist, communist world, there will still be poor and rich.
You will never find Hillary donating money to the poor or helping a homeless shelter out or opening her home to the homeless. It isn’t going to happen.
Excuse me, but yes I believe the Clintons really DO care about the poor. Bill raised the poverty level when he was in office. There were more of them working their way into the middle class than the backwards movement of today.
Glen Beck last night had this brief discussion with some neocon about the living ability of the poor and the stock market, and the neocon’s response was that since the rich keep driving the economy the poor don’t matter.True neocon values!
The TRUE value of a democrat is to enable the poor to raise THEMSELVES up by working their way up.
The true value of a republican is to exploit the poor for their own gain and block ways to lift themselves.
I so long for the Clinton years…and the rest of the dems here just sit here and buy into that republican nonsense of hating Hillary. You’ve bought their lines AGAIN.
No I’m pretty sure Hillary still has that status..
Farmgrl as bad as the Vitter thing is and I think it is bad. Hypocrites are hypocrites no matter the party – a Prez messing around with other women in the office of our Nations capital while his wife and daughter are upstairs is much worse. No one could have missed that ‘in your face’ hug Monica got when he was out shaking hands with the unsuspecting public. No one who is informed missed the finger pointing prez saying ‘I didn’t have sex with that woman’. I have to question the mental ability of any woman who would go before a national office (Good Morning America) and say ‘it’s a vast right wing conspiracy’ when she knew the truth of the situation by her own admission.
She won’t be my candidate so it won’t be my choice but I can still question her credentials for the office.
“But Churches collect more money than the US government does for their portion of helping the poor. Yet they hardly do anything.”
Joe, you are such a puzzle. Your hate for Christians is so obvious. Yet you look to churches to wipe out poverty. How do you define “they hardly do anything”? How much did atheist organizations contribute to wiping away poverty in comparison to churches? And as you pointed out in a contradictory statement in your same post, “Even those who so desire for a socialist, communist world, there will still be poor and rich”.
And why contribute in this country, when the need is so much greater overseas? In comparison, real poverty hardly exists in the U.S. The relief organization I help support in a small way, is for overseas relief.
If you had a clue Joe, you’d be dangerous.
BILL CLINTON! BILL CLINTON!
Geez, they dont even TRY to hide it anymore.
And Joe? With all due respect, you still didnt answer my question about “what does caring about the poor look like to you?”
What actions would make you think any candidate cared about the poor? I really want to know.
Pmom what exactly was it about the Clinton years that made you feel richer? When the market is going badly and companies are forced to cut back, jobs are lost. Unemployment goes up and salaries go down because when you have a choice you can hire for less. When the unemployment pool increases you pay less because there are more of them.
Maybe this sounds as if the rich are driving the world but it is a fact that it takes rich businessmen to create jobs. Poor people don’t create jobs. They don’t employ people.
What makes you feel warm and cozy when a demo is in the white house even if the unemployment rate is higher than it is today?
Joe go visit the Lords Diner, take a Saturday morning and go to His Helping Hands, I could go on and on but you would never get the point.
Christian organizations that I have worked with distributed over 4 tons of meat to needy families last Christmas and Thanksgiving.
“There are none so blind as those who will not see”.
“Poor people don’t create jobs. They don’t employ people.”
Bullshit.
My income was VERY low last year. But I had 15 w-4’s and 1099’s to get out.
You need to go back to your talking points germ. AND btw, did you research the “market” and employment rates and income rates under Clinton before you launched your talking points?
Obviously not.
I’ll answer the questions you posed ksgrm, and each answer is based on my personal feelings about each. I respect that each person holds their own opinions, these are mine.
The most attractive part of her being a candidate is if elected we would get Bill along with her. I think he would do an exceptional job of diplomacy and would help America heal in areas of foreign relationships.
I believe strongly in health care for all Americans. I also think there are many working poor who don’t have the means to pay for health care and do without.
I admire leaders who are able to ask for advice and weigh other opinions and expert advice before making the final decision. I also admire leaders who are able to admit mistakes, change the course and make corrections.
The personal relationship of Hillary Clinton with her husband isn’t mine to decide. It also isn’t mine to sit in judgment of anyone’s personal life and decisions that do not affect me or anyone else. I don’t believe Hillary’s personal decisions “set women back.” Her husband remains very popular all across the world and I don’t think many wonder about why Hillary wanted to stay in her marriage, so I’ve never wondered about how this would “fly in the world.”
Her qualifications for being leader of the civilized world (although I disagree with your assessment of our country) are many. She is well-educated and has a great deal of experience, is well connected to others with even more experience. I am aware that a complete listing of her qualifications isn’t necessary as anyone who truly wants to know has many sources available. I do believe she is qualified. Your question, followed by your answer indicates you don’t believe she is. That’s why we each get a vote.
I respect education and feel writing a college paper allows a person to be better informed on the subject.
I see something different when I look beneath the exterior than you see. I also see a very attractive exterior. She is obviously a person who cares about her appearance. Within my means I try to enhance my own appearance and appreciate all people who do. To me it indicates a degree of personal pride.
I think I answered each question you posed. I know you disagree with each of my answers. As I said, they are my personal feelings to which I am entitled. You are entitled to your own.
Because since there are more poor and middle class that are dependent upon wages, they are the ones who will determine the economy. You give the poor more buying power and they WILL BUY. In the last 50 years the economy did better when the poor wasn’t so poor. That’s what spurs jobs.
I think germie still believes the Laffer Curve works…
Farmgrl you answered my question and made a big assumption in the process. You are not poor! No matter how you try to couch it you are a business owner that provided employment for several people.
In starting our own business we were what I would call the working poor but we always had a bed to sleep in at night, a roof over our heads and food on the table. Maybe not as much as we would have liked but it was adequate.
We really in many ways don’t really know what it is like to be poor.
“February 26, 2004, 8:52 a.m.Better than Clinton?Putting Bush’s economic record to the reelection test.
By J. Edward Carter
Nine months prior to the 1996 presidential election, Bill Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers cheerfully reported that the “American economy has performed exceptionally well over the past 3 years.” While that may not surprise you, you may however be surprised to learn that President George W. Bush’s economic record is, in many ways, better than the record Clinton ran on for reelection.
Compared with the “exceptional” years of 1993, 1994, and 1995, the first three years of George W. Bush’s presidency featured:
lower inflationlower unemploymentfaster productivity growthfaster labor compensation growth (i.e., wages and benefits)29.4 percent ($6.9 trillion) more economic output45 percent ($960 billion) more exports; andan economic growth rate 81.2 percent as fast as that under Clinton”
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_comment/carter200402260852.asp
Farmgrl as you can see there are many sides to the same picture. In Econ101 we are taught that a rate of 4.7 or lower means that everyone who wants to work is.
Linda you gave a very well thought out response and I respect your opinion. I don’t think Bill is an assest. Character does count for something in my book.
If things stand as they are now HIllary will be elected. I will only hope for the best if that happens. I never trust politicians who govern by polls and she changed her stance on Iraq because the other side was more popular. I think she knows in her heart of hearts that she was right in the first place but didn’t have the strength of character to stand behind her vote.
Giving healthcare to people who choose not to work is wrong, wrong, wrong. You just feed their failings. Socialism has never built a strong country and they have all fallen eventually. When we don’t learn from history we are doomed to repeat it.
LOL of course the National Review is going to say things are better under Bush. Duh. I can find an article written by a left organization that would likely show just the opposite.
Try the actual median sites and sources, or the government’s own resources.
Notice it doesn’t mention the poverty rate nor the wage gap in that article. Hmm…wonder why that is.
heheheh pmom. I notice that too. When asked for “research” she went to NRO. I guess it must have been easier than freeperville.
I guess we should just not annoy “her” with facts. She has her mind made up and THEN goes to find supporting data.
Guilty! Now we’ll have the trial…
I always said the one thing that kept Hillary and Bill together was that they both liked women.
Walk on by…
Actually Outlander! I don’t hate Christians at all. I’m critical of the Church and Organized Religion.
The Catholic Church is paying out over $600 million to pay restitution for sexual abuse victims. It’s it because of Christians? No! It’s because of the Church deliberately hiding these priest and shoving the allegations from Christians down the trash can.
But it’s a neocon response for people like you to try to shed me in a bad light as “Christian haters” as to not debate the particulars of what I’m talking about. And that is the church! The Organization! Not the people.
ksfarmgrrl! I did answer your question. I said Authenticity. If you care about the poor, you really care about the poor.
ksgm! 4 tons of meat aye! Kansas Food Bank does over 100 tons. Who donates the food to the Lords Diner? It’s businesses. I know. Because I know a lot of businesses that donate to the Lords Diner on a regular basis.
I’m not saying Christians don’t donate or help, it’s just that the church receives a hell of a lot more money than any of their charitable contributions.
Joe, I’m serious here.
“ksfarmgrrl! I did answer your question. I said Authenticity. If you care about the poor, you really care about the poor.”
With all due respect Joe, that does NOT answer my question. How do you know when a candidate is authentic about helping the poor?
What action(s) on their part would make you believe they cared for the poor? What would you like to see DONE, not SAID, about helping the poor?
By being humble and donating your own personal wealth to helping the poor by supporting programs and causes that help elevate the poor to help themselves, and for those who cannot help themselves, to always help them.
Be considerate and actually spend time talking with the poor and understanding their plight. Do it in private. Don’t do it with a publicity stunt with tons of cameras around showing you talking to people or shaking their hands.
Sponsor a particular child, who is underprivileged and pay their way through college. Many rich people do this.
Politicians rather use government as a tool, but in all actuality, they want to keep their mansions and many millions to themselves. There hasn’t been any case of Clinton or Bush and many other politicians being personally involved in helping a poor person out with their own charitable contribution and effort.
Bill Gates is spending more than half of his wealth on the poor. With vaccine programs, computers in libraries and schools, college scholarships for Native Americans and the list goes on and on. Warren Buffett is basically spending all of his wealth helping the poor.
You will never see a wealthy politician do that.
ksgrm,
You’re overlooking the fact that America’s BushCo “great economy” is based on borrowing money from dictatorial foreign regimes, such as Communist China ($500 billion and growing), and the Arab oil states, led by Saudi Arabia. You can apply for 10 credit cards, get $100,000 to use and raise your standard of living–until you max out and have to start paying back.
Our economy went into recession after BushCo was elected. Let’s assume this was a cyclical event that would have afflicted a Gore presidency, which is arguably the case. The fact is, BushCo used Fabian Socialist John Maynard Keynes’ borrow-out-of-recession scheme. So, BushCo proponents can assert, “I’m not a socialist,” but passively accepting heavy national debt incurment to transiently boost our economy, particularly indebting America to a Communist country, means that BushCo supporters are quite dimwitted. Other BushCo supporters understand the goings on, but believe they can personally benefit by feeding at the debt-loaded hog trough, while most Americans will be harmed, which means these supporters are sociopathic parasites.
Halliburton, a “private enterprise” company, has mainly subsisted on public dollars since 2003. It received no-bid U.S. government contracts to provide services in Iraq. Billions of dollars simply disappeared, with Americans being the fleeced patsies. Where are the red-blooded republicans demanding investigations, and criminal fraud and mega-grand-larceny prosecutions?
MPS I really like your postings. You’re an incredibly informed and smart person.
Question for you though. Have you seen the PBS series called “Commanding Heights”?
Pmom I know there are many sides to every issue. As a conservative I quote conservatives as a liberal you quote liberals. There is a middle zone that is probably more right that either of us is.
As cosmos does so frequently I am trying to preserve this nation for my grandkids and I don’t like the path we are on.
The poverty rate is the US is way to high but as the great nation we are wetake care of as many as we can.
ksgrm. You might agree with me on this point. But I think we can do it better, voluntarily than using government and government programs.
The bland and easy generalizations roll off KSgrm’s keyboard.
But is there any truth to them?
Very little.
For every dollar of income tax you and I pay this year, Ksgrm, more than HALF of it will go to the military. 15 cents will go to running the government. And only 8 cents–8 cents–will go to the poor.
If that meets your definition of “we’re doing everything we can to help,” your definition is a lot different than mine.
Capn! But the primary role of the government is to protest us, not to feed us.
Yes, Joe–
I saw it. Self-serving drivel to justify globalization and making the rich richer.
Completely ignores any economic system that doesn’t match unfettered world capitalism without regard for social or environmental costs.
A good example of how the money class makes propaganda films that not only support its economic world view, but present the illusion that there is no other possible alternative.
MPS while I can agree with some of what you say your omissions are glaring. The nation was in the second quarter of a Clinton recession when Bush took over. Many circumstances led to a very short recession because they would have devestated the country if let go.
High taxes have never gotten us out of a recession. The earliest I remember is the Kennedy plan to lower taxes to get our economy back on track. It worked.
I am not defending Bush and his fiscal policies. I firmly disagree with several of them. I do think that raising taxes would spell disaster for us. Think Carter and late 80’s. And while you mention Haliburton, a very large recipient of our tax dollars, you neglect to mention Diane Feinsteins family business which has received billions in no bid contracts.
When we all become honest in our arguments then we will be on the way to a stronger country and that is after all my goal.
I appreciate the honest discourse we have had this morning. It is necessary that we are able to talk together and work together because our nation is facing a great challenge.
Life calls. I will catch up when I return.
Joe–
If I’m dying from sickness or starvation, why the hell do I need to be “protected”?
Answer: I don’t.
And if the taxes I pay for this protection reduce my ability to avoid sickness and starvation (and they do), then isn’t this counter-productive?
Answer: Yes, it is.
Capnplease post links on the facts that 1/2 of every dollar goes to the military..
new concept. thanks
Finstien’s dealings may be corrupt and should be investigated.
But the puny sums of that deal are NOTHING compared to the BILLIONS funnelled to Dick Cheney’s former company.
No comparison.
http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm
51 percent of income taxes go to the military
And this DOESN’T INCLUDE IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN.
Wait . . . CORRECTION: it includes SOME not all of IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN
capn,please post links to the story on Cheney.thanks
Our economy went into recession after BushCo was elected. Let’s assume this was a cyclical event that would have afflicted a Gore presidency, which is arguably the case.Posted by: MPS | July 23, 2007 at 11:33 AM
I find this largely accurate, but I have one quibble, and it’s significant. It revolves around the power of the “bully pulpit.”
The US economy went into recession after:1) BushCo argued vigorously in the national press all through the months of December 2000 and January through February of 2001 that for Congress to NOT pass his first round of tax cuts would wreck Greenspan’s “soft landing” and cause recession.2) BuchCo was in fact sworn in as POTUS in late January 2001. As president, Bush AMPED GEOMETRICALLY in the MSM his false choice of “tax cuts or recession.”CONCLUSION: Moral suasion on the part of the POTUS and its effect on American public and private finance is difficult to overestimate (this is also known as the power of the bully pulpit).
I do find it arguable, however, that the recession might have happened if Gore had been elected. Not necessarily due to technical factors, but because Gore too might have made mistakes in his message causing Greenspan’s soft landing to go bumpy.
As you can see, I think Bush knew exactly what he was doing. He wanted a recession ASAP in his first term in order to time the business cycle and find a rise in time for elections in 2002 & 2004.
You are completely correct in your argument that we owe the growth in GDP under Bush to the GOP’s Borrow & Spend fiscal policies of 2000-2006.
As things stand today, though, the recession lasting from March through November 2001 happens to have occurred on Bush’s watch.
This is indisputable.
2007 is also that year that the US spending on our military will exceed all the military spending of all the other countries in the world, COMBINED.
Our spending on our military runs two to three times higher as a percentage of GNP than any other comparable industrialized country.
For the amount of money that we spend in Iraq in a month, we could buy and distribute enough food to feed the world’s hungry for an entire year.
http://www.umsl.edu/services/govdocs/wofact2003/rankorder/2034rank.html
United States in 2003 used 3.20 percent of their Gross Domestic Product for National Defense. That ranks 47th in the world.
United States in 2007 used 4.06 percent of their Gross Domestic Product for National Defense. That ranks 21th in the world.
In 2003, the country with the number one ranking is North Korea t 33.90 percent of their Gross Domestic Product.
In 2007, the country with the number one ranking is Entrea, 17.7 percent of their Gross Domestic Product.
Entrea – Eastern Africa, bordering the Red Sea, between Djibouti and Sudan. Slightly larger than Pennsylvania. Population – 4,786,994 (July 2006 est.)
CIA World Fact Book
BG–
Three years after the invasion and occupation of Iraq, Halliburton has made 16 BILLION dollars.
http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/home.html
See graph at bottom right of page.
Of course, we’ve now been in Iraq for more than four years . . .
could the recession be from 9/11 events?
Kansas–
Let this be a lesson to anyone who reads Kansas’s facts.
He compares the US to tiny countries that spend a lot on their military.
Compared to England and France (the largest militaries in Europe) we spend about twice as much as a percentage of GDP.
Compared to Japan, we spend about 4 times more.
What does military spending as a share of GDP mean?
Why aren’t you interested in military spending as a share of tax receipts?
The military has no claim on GDP. Through appropriations, it does have some claim on tax receipts.
Arguments about any Federal spending as a share of GDP are specious and are a way to introduce a red herring into what is otherwise a good argument.
I’ve posted this info several times, along with the web addresses to verify. Since those who choose not to research anything that differs from their beliefs it seems an exercise in futility to repost. But, once again:
To define a recession, economists rely on the measurements of the National Bureau of Economic Research, the official arbiter of recessions and expansions.
NBER has been run since 1977 by Harvard economist Martin Feldstein, an architect of the Bush tax cut and an intellectual mentor to many prominent Republican policy-makers, including Glenn Hubbard, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers.
According to NBER’s definition, the recession did not begin until after President Clinton left office. According to NBER, the economy peaked and started shrinking in March 2001, two months after the Bush presidency began. The determination of a peak date in March is thus a determination that the expansion that began in March 1991 ended in March 2001 and a recession began in March. So according to NBER, the most recent recession did not start during the Clinton administration. (Nor did the expansion begin under Clinton; rather, it launched during President Bush the Father’s term.)
Capn,can you prove he benefits from it.. or are you just stating lies that can’t be proven??
I think it is telling that as people get older their support for Hillary C. drops.
Let’s face it, you do not tend to get more stupid as you age.
could the recession be from 9/11 events?Posted by: BG | July 23, 2007 at 12:04 PM
No. The economy as measured by GDP grew every month from 1992 until March, 2001. In real dollars and ceteris paribus the March economy was smaller than the Februrary economy. The economy as measured by GDP continued to shrink until December, 2001.
BG–
I answered your questions.
If you have a point, besides the one on the top of your head, feel free to make it.
Pedant–
I have to respectfully disagree. Looking at military spending as a percentage of GDP gives one an idea of how much that society is allocating for “guns” as opposed to “butter.”
We spend a lot more on guns than butter relative to other industrialized countries.
Also, what is called “military spending” does not include all the costs of the military.
For instance, a good deal of our national debt is the result of military spending. So the 19 percent of the federal budget that goes to “servicing” the debt (paying the interest) is paying interest on military spending debt, but of course that isn’t counted as military spending, even though it is.
“Kansas–
Let this be a lesson to anyone who reads Kansas’s facts.
==================He compares the US to tiny countries that spend a lot on their military.
Complain to the CIA it was from their listing of rankings.=========================Compared to England and France (the largest militaries in Europe) we spend about twice as much as a percentage of GDP.
Perhaps because they (Europeans and Japan) rely on the U.S. to provide the bulk of their defense. U.S. strong military presence in NATO and the Pacific Theather.
Compared to Japan, we spend about 4 times more.==============================Posted by: CapnAmerica | July 23, 2007 at 12:06 PM
We spend more on our military than all the other militaries in the world combined.
That shows how much we’ve sacrificed for the illusion of world domination and empire.
‘Gender, age gap in Clinton support ‘
“Among registered voters, …”Posted by Phillip Brownlee (header)
“The numbers are also meaningless, unless they polled registered voters only.”Posted by: Kansas, the many-named troll | July 23, 2007 at 02:39 AM
Capn,my point is that you have no proof about Cheney and that you also point to agenda driven website..
other than that nothing..
I have to respectfully disagree. Looking at military spending as a percentage of GDP gives one an idea of how much that society is allocating for “guns” as opposed to “butter.”Posted by: CapnAmerica | July 23, 2007 at 12:13 PM
In this context GDP means nothing. If we’re interested in federal spending or military outlays, then the natural comparison point is to compare to income.
We don’t fund our military budget from our GDP. We fund it from our tax receipts and our borrowing capacity.
Comparing military spending to GDP is to build in polemics in the discussion. It’s a way to obscure rather than illuminate.
No matter who does it.
“What does military spending as a share of GDP mean?
Why aren’t you interested in military spending as a share of tax receipts?
The military has no claim on GDP. Through appropriations, it does have some claim on tax receipts.
Arguments about any Federal spending as a share of GDP are specious and are a way to introduce a red herring into what is otherwise a good argument.”
Posted by: Pedant | July 23, 2007 at 12:06 PM
You mean Pedant, you aren’t aware of the revenues generated by the U.S. other than income tax?
Maybe these will ring a bell:
“…social insurance taxes and contributions, excise taxes, trust funds, estate and gift taxes, and Customs duties. Finally, the Government receives earnings from the Federal Reserve System’s lending to financial institutions, fees for permits and regulatory and judicial services, and from gifts and contributions.” Fact sheet from the U.S. Treasury
Okay, compare military spending to income.
That’d be interesting to look at.
I’ve never seen those stats, but they must be out there somewhere.
Irrelevant and annoying.
Yup, Republican-Kansas is running true to form, as usual.
I didn’t limit my comments to income tax receipts, dipshit. You tried to do that for me.
Thanks for playing. Next?
High taxes have never gotten us out of a recession. The earliest I remember is the Kennedy plan to lower taxes to get our economy back on track.Posted by: ksgrm | July 23, 2007 at 11:51 AM
The marginal tax rate was * 91% * when Kennedy lowered it to 70%.
Again, NINETY-ONE PERCENT!
‘JUST LIKE AL [GORE] SAID! Russert pushed them RNC points. Somebody go wake Fred Barnes!http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh120202.shtml
Actually, the U.S. Treasury states that 27 cents on the dollar Income Tax money is used for Military Spending.
The figures Capn provides come from a very much “reworked” pie chart from the Treasury Department that adjusts the figures to suit the editor’s talking points.
=========Pedant,
Percent of GDP is to check the health pulse of a country and is used by ALL countries to determine their economic health.
But thanks for playing and calling names.
Percent of GDP is to check the health pulse of a country and is used by ALL countries to determine their economic health.
But thanks for playing and calling names.Posted by: Kansas | July 23, 2007 at 12:34 PM
It’s used by politicans, both in and out of power.
Think about it.
And a dipshit by any other name (Kansas, Republican, who knows how many) is still a dipshit.
Okay Pedant I won’t argue with you on GDP, but you can read this source if you wish.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product
‘Arms Trade—a major cause of suffering’http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp“This web page has the following sub-sections:
World Military SpendingU.S. Military SpendingIn Context: U.S. Military Spending Versus Rest of the WorldIn Context: US military budget vs. other US priorities…Furthermore, “national defense” category of federal spending is typically just over half of the United States discretionary budget (the money the President/Administration and Congress have direct control over, and must decide and act to spend each year.”
“The unemployment rate bottomed at 3.8 percent in April 2000, and started deteriorating steadily from there (during the Clinton administration).
The fed funds rate — the overnight interest rate administered by Alan Greenspan and the Federal Reserve — peaked at 6.5 percent in 2000, and had to be lowered in an emergency move on January 3, 2001, “in light of further weakening of sales and production” (during the Clinton administration).
As the chart below shows, GDP growth fell off a cliff in the third quarter of 2000 (during the Clinton administration). Despite the shock of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, growth started to revive in the fourth quarter of 2001 (during the Bush administration).”
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/luskin200405050850.asp
We could argue all day about who owned that recession and we wouldn’t change each others minds. So be it. To try to argue that the GDP has nothing to do with tax revenue is taking a head in the sand position.
The Gross Domestic Product is simply a yardstick by which we measure growth. Nothing more or nothing less. It is a good indicator of anticipated tax revenue increases and decreases.
To say 9/11 didn’t affect the economy is being dishonest at best.
Back to my original point about Hillary. She has no leadership skills. Her mantra is whatever she thinks will get her good press that day. I heard her say the other day that when she ‘became prez’ she would make sure New Orleans was rebuilt. The US has thrown billions of dollars at that sinkhole and what do we have to show for it. Nothing.
When the recent floods devastated SE Kansas and NE Okla a decision was made by the corp of engineers to give no flood insurance to those who knowingly build back in a flood plain. The entirety of NO is just that. What kind of ill thought out remark was that for Hillary to make?
I am not attacking her personally. I am attacking her ability to be a good prez. She is resonating well with low income, undereducated women. What does this tell us? No, I am not putting anyone down. These are just the facts. Her largest draw in with this demographic. Do you think it could be because she has promised them the moon?
Just a thought.
From the census bureau on spending, revenues and deficits. Excel format, so I put out the bottom line numbers here.
For 2006, the budget was raised to a total of US$ 535.9 Billionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States
2,285.5 Revenues2,708.7 Spent-423.2 Deficit
535.9 Military Spending2,172.7 Non-defense spending all types
Source: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/07s0460.xls
Website with other facts and figures:http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/federal_govt_finances_employment/federal_budgetreceipts_outlays_and_debt/
I calculated 23.44 percent the amount of military spending takes of the total budget.
This does not appear to be 51 percent of the Federal Budget no matter how you slice.
In other words, CapnAmerica has once again posted false information.
WE EDITORS:
I see yet another fluff piece for Hilary.
When are we going to know her stance on abortion?
When are we going to get any critical commentary on her campaign?
41% of the 2006 tax dollars went to “Current Military Spending & Cost of Past Wars”2% went to “Science, Energy, & Environment”.
http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp#InContextUSmilitarybudgetvsotherUSpriorities“Furthermore, “national defense” category of federal spending is typically just over HALF of the United States discretionary budget (the money the President/Administration and Congress have direct control over, and must decide and act to spend each year.”
Cosmos.
have you commented on the fact that several Military bases have started using wind turbines to produce electicity..And also that Bush has a very enviromental friendly house..
“When are we going to get any critical commentary on her campaign?”
Form the all left, all of the time, Wichita Eagle? Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ya sure, you betcha.
Sorry, that tag should have been “This rag sucks., not This rag sucks? Of well, one mistake a day.
“all left, all of the time” – so THAT explains the endorsements of Tiahrt, Bush, Roberts, etc.
Cosmos:
ALL spending is discretionary spending.
We could argue all day about who owned that recession and we wouldn’t change each others minds.Posted by: ksgrm | July 23, 2007 at 12:54 PM
Not really. There is no argument whatsoever on when the recession began. It’s a moot point. The recession occurred in the first term of GW Bush.
However, I understand that those who prefer revisionist history to what we in the reality-based community refer to, refreshingly, as history, I understand how much it costs such a person to admit when s/he’s wrong.
So be it.
Giving to the poor is noble, but I’d rather them not NEED assistance in the first place.
Give them jobs and decent pay where they can make it on their own.
ALL spending is discretionary spending.
Posted by: GMC70 | July 23, 2007 at 02:44 PM
Yes, Congress can change “entitlement” funding — but it’s not done thru appropriations bills.
Whether it’s done through appropriations or authorizing legislation is irrelevent; it is still discretionary spending. It’s simply disingenuous to rope off some spending as “discretionary” in order to give a false picture of the total budget. And that’s what your “statistic” does.
Entitlement funding is not likely to change significantly, or quickly.
If 20% of someones income went to something they couldn’t easily change (say child support), the remaining 80% is “discretionary”. It’s reasonable to analyze how they budget their remaining 80%.
It’s not “disingenuous” when the meaning of “discretionary” is included, which my post did.
Pendant I have said it before and I will say it again, a recession is defined by specific economical markers. These markers say that we were in the third quarter of a downturn in the economy, which means a recession.
We don’t have to argue the point. The history was written before the events culmenated. This happens alot in politics and the economy.
There have been many ‘facts’ thrown out here today which on retrospect aren’t facts at all. Farmgrl tried to say she was poor when she really has a bed to sleep in, a roof over her head and is able to eat three squares a day.
Few in America can really define the poverty that is prevalent in other countries. My original point about HIllary – if we want her to be our next prez we need to be very certain that she has the credentials and moral trepitude to do the job.
As to who spends the most money in office, it would be a toss up right now. To pretend otherwise would be dishonest. We don’t have a social security lockbox as Al Gore tried to imply when he ran and politicians for years have been raiding this fund. It is now time to pay the piper and we need a prez who will realize this and not try to saddle the country with a universal health care plan that will cripple us for years to come.
- I would say more than three squares a day -
“I see yet another fluff piece for Hilary.When are we going to know her stance on abortion?When are we going to get any critical commentary on her campaign?Posted by: Nathan | July 23, 2007 at 01:22 PM ”
Nathan, you would not believe anything reported on Hillary anyway, unless it was said she was the anti-Christ. Why keep ranting?
Cosmos -
Unfortunately, you didn’t define it. You (or rather, the guy in his pajamas from whom you get your numbers – check out the “globalissues.org” site) imply that some spending is unchangable, and beyond the reach of Congress to change. Of course, that is not the case.
What you and he speak of, of course, are “entitlements,” moneys dedicated to funding programs where persons must simply meet predetermined qualifications and apply in order to receive the benefit. Those programs are “nondiscretionary” only because Congress chooses not to change the law authorizing the qualifications and disbursement. That’s not “nondiscretionary” at all, of course. It’s authorized spending, executing laws made at the discretion of Congress, and can be changed at the discretion of Congress.
Roping off that spending as if it was untouchable makes your stats, therefore, disingenuous. You know that, of course. Let’s just make sure that others here know that as well.
“When the recent floods devastated SE Kansas and NE Okla a decision was made by the corp of engineers to give no flood insurance to those who knowingly build back in a flood plain. The entirety of NO is just that. What kind of ill thought out remark was that for Hillary to make?Just a thought.Posted by: ksgrm | July 23, 2007 at 12:54 PM ”
Huh? Can you give some more info on that? I was under the impression that insurance companies decided who could get flood insurance, not the Corps of Engineers. And what does that have to do with Hillary?
I think ksgrm means that the U.S. Corp of Engineers can decide what areas are flood plains and those area are not flood plains.
Insurance companies will determine by risk analysis which areas they will insure and which areas they won’t insure.
I owned a house that was in a flood plain and could not get flood insurance for it from a private insurer.
Thanks KS, that makes a little more sense :)
Well Brian the corp will survey and define a flood plain. Insurance agencies will/can not issue flood insurance unless your home is in this plain. This flood insurance is underwritten by the federal government. If you home is not in a designated flood plain you can’t get flood insurance.
After many years of overlooking this requirement the decision was made to no longer allow any house which had over 4′ of water in it to be rebuilt on the same site.
This should also be the case in New Orleans as well as the barrier islands on the east coast where homeowners are allowed to rebuild over and over again even though they are shown to be in an area not suitable for building.
My point on this was that Hillary made that ridiculous statement without even knowing the bare minimum of facts. This is not a person suitable for prez. A shoot from the hip and ask questions later type. Before you throw Bush in here – he isn’t running.
Ya, forgot to mention that that house I bought wasn’t on the government’s list of Flood Plain Zones, but was historically flooded every 5 years or so.
It was a high risk zone, but the houses were very cheap. :D
…a recession is defined by specific economical markers. These markers say that we were in the third quarter of a downturn in the economy, which means a recession.Posted by: ksgrm | July 23, 2007 at 05:15 PM
Yeah, it’s too bad you don’t know what those “specific economic markers” are, or choose to dissemble (lie) about it.
Because you’re just simply wrong.
“The past pattern of the U.S. economic data shows first a caving-in suddenly last summer and in the fourth quarter, then an apparentfirming of real economic growth at a low single-digit rate, about 1%, indeed ticking up to an expected 1-1/2% in the first quarter, but now significant probability for another ratcheting downward into some sort of recession during the second quarter and beyond, with the best guess a significant pick up, at the earliest, by the fourth quarter; or the latest by the second half of 2002.”
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:egGMGXkd1PUJ:www.wrhambrecht.com/sinai/mkt_perspectives/pdf/20010410.pdf+economic+markers,+recession,+nasdaq&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
This was written by Dr. Allen Sinai, President and Chief Global Economist.
He had no axe to grind nor any political position to postulate. He merely stated the facts and the economic indicators used for years to predict recessions. As you can see it started in the summer of 2000. You can track the NASDAQ and see what was happening. As the false economy of the tech market began to collapse the economy especially in CA turned sour.
Just the facts Pendant. Sorry you don’t like them but they are true. The Clinton economy was given a giant shot in the arm by the tech stocks which were built on sand. When they collapsed the economy started down with them. In my opinion the lower taxes of the Bush administration lessened this somewhat.
Because you’re just simply wrong.
Posted by: Pedant | July 23, 2007 at 06:08 PM
Saying someone wrong and proving they are wrong are two separate things.
Now prove it Pedant.
Hello im 25,he’s 57,we have been friends for over 3 years,and now we have become best freind’s.He’s just a wonderful person,smart,very mature and sensitive.I met him on the net Agelesscupid.com three years ago. I am now a happy woman who is deeply in love and planning a wedding ceremony before the end of this year by the grace of God.
“Poor people don’t create jobs. They don’t employ people.”
You need to go back to your talking points germ. AND btw, did you research the “market” and employment rates and income rates under Clinton before you launched your talking points?