35% want George W back!( 1 out of 3 )

And that surprises who....?

52 percent pay no federal income tax....

And 35% was approximately George II's popularity during his last 3.75 years.

So that means 65% doesn't want him back??

why is this in sales? shouldn't this be in "anything",?

And Obama is a Muslim...and Sarah Palin was actually a VP candidate. Nothing surprises me about the stupidity of the American people.

Obama is not a Muslim and Sarah Palin is a joke and yes the American people can believe stupid thinkgs like taxing people a dollar and redistributing that same dollar produces economic growth.

The point is not growth, its fairness. When you read all the late 19th century/early 20th century debates for the income and inheritance tax, it was ENITIRELY about America not having a permanent aristocracy, robber barons and all that.

jason- so you would rather have poorer economic growth so that people who make higher incomes get more of it taken away by government for reasons of "fairness"????

Fairness is in the eye of the beholder. Call it for what it is. Redistribution.
I'm also getting tired of hearing that lower earners or not earners do nobler things with their money "spend" as opposed to higher earners "save".

Seems it was only a short time ago the accepted wisdom was that there was too much consumption and not enough savings in our economy. So now we want to consume even more and save even less. And add to that those that say if we don't spend more we'll follow he Japanese. Well we're doing exactly like Japan except that the Japanese gov't spending is supported by the high savings rate which we don't have.

It's in the interest of the wealthy to not live in 1789 France, 1917 Russia, 1959 Cuba, or any LatAm place now. Read up on why Prince Otto Von Bismarck - the reactionary, ultra conservative monarchist chancellor of Germany, was the first on Earth to implement social security, universal government health care, unemployment insurance, etc. It cut the teeth of the socialists.

And in fact severalmmore egalitarian countries as per their GIINI have been growing faster than the US over the past decade. Severe income inequality actually hampers growth. In 1929 and now - look at Latam versus Asia for proof.

Jason - please define "fairness"

and in case you forgot, this is America, not some "social democracy"... the goal here is equal opportunity (lot of work to do here) NOT equal outcomes... even the undocumented delivery boys will tell you that

People come to the United States for the opportunity to do bigger and better things. Not for economic "fairness". People aren't flocking to those egalitarisn countries with faster growth over the last decade.

says who Rachel Maddow?

Latin America has no egalitarinism. it has everyone dirt poor with 6 families controlling all the wealth; the exception being Argentina and maybe 2 others. Furthermore I'd love to see the numbers on your growth BS figure. The only growth there would be is on account of our left wing (and right wing) traitor politicians exporting manufacturing jobs to them. Otherwise it would be us immporting fruit coffee and the like from them and that's all. The only reason why Brazil is in the positin that Brazil is in is because we sold out our steel workers in Pittsburgh so plutocrats can get richer and the workers can go become rent a cop guards. The same is true for pretty much every Asian country except Japan.

Time to turn off your Henry Rollins CD and geta clue.

jason.... America has been and should be about equality of opportunity, NOT equality of results. "fairness"---the dumbest idea in the political arena.

Barry Ritholtz did a great piece saying Larry Summers and hoping Geithner joins him, saying obama is basically a George W 3rd term as far as economic policies because he didn't have the "juevos" to undo any of the failed policies, specifically Glass Stegal & Commodity Futures Modernization Act.
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/09/summers-good-riddance/

Failing upwards: When Obama appointment the Rubin duo of Summers and Geithner, it a perverse reward for a job done poorly. The two were creatures of the banking system, and were unlikely to do anything that threatened the existing order. Even worse, it created a dynamic where the new administration was committed to defending the policies that helped to contribute to the crisis in the first place. Instead of To Hell with the Banks, Save the Banking System, we got the exact reverse. This was Rubin’s lasting gift to the Obama White House: A third term for George W. Bush’s economic policies. When Obama becomes a one-termer, it will be his own fault for following this horrific economic advice.

It's also in my interest NOT to live in 1917 Russia or 1959 Cuba. Starving to death and raising and objection to it and then being summarily shot in the back of the head = no fun.

A former top executive at Citigroup who participated in the deregulation of Wall Street during the Clinton administration and recently was tapped by President Barack Obama for a top White House post told a Senate panel last week that deregulation didn't lead to the recent financial crisis.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/21/obama-nominee-jacob-lew-f_n_732594.html

Democrat leaning PPP polled Bush beating Obama 50-42 in Ohio, even tho Bush only won Ohio
by 3-4 points in 2000 and 2004.

'Latin America has no egalitarinism. it has everyone dirt poor with 6 families controlling all the wealth; the exception being Argentina and maybe 2 others."

Shit you are stupid. LatAm was an example of what I said we should NOT be, precisely because there GINI coefficient is so much higher. What a moron you are.

"Furthermore I'd love to see the numbers on your growth BS figure."

The US has the highest GINI coefficient of any OECD nation save Mexico. Its higher now that any time since 1929. See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality

We are just below Ghana and Turkmenstan and just above Sengal and Cambodia.

However, the fastest growth rates in the OECD for 1975-2000 was

Rank Countries Amount
# 1 Korea, South: 6.2%
# 2 Ireland: 4%
# 3 Luxembourg: 3.9%
# 4 Portugal: 2.9%
# 5 Japan: 2.7%
# 6 Norway: 2.6%
# 7 Spain: 2.2%
= 8 Turkey: 2.1%
= 8 Italy: 2.1%
= 10 United States: 2%

Among the countries with better GINI scores than us,

"Sarah Palin is a joke"

Is she really such a joke? Bums me that conservative woman are given no support by feminists & are cannibalized by the media simply because they're conservative. This is why I no longer contribute to NOW.

Unfortunately, the more left the media goes, the more right I pull. I marvel to think that JFK, a cold warrior, would be considered somewhat far right today. Mais, c'est la guerre.

For the last five years, we also do not rank #1. Not even close.

Average GDP growth 2005-2009
Slovak Republic 5.3%
Poland 5.0%
Turkey 4.2%
Luxembourg 3.9%
Switzerland 3.9%
Czech Republic 3.3%
Spain 3.2%
Norway 2.8%
Greece 2.7%
Korea 2.6%
Australia(2) 2.6%
New Zealand 2.5%
Sweden 2.4%
OECD-Europe 2.4%
Mexico 2.4%
Netherlands 2.3%
Euro area 2.3%
Austria 2.2%
Italy 2.1%
Portugal 2.1%
France(3) 2.1%
Belgium 2.1%
Hungary 2.1%
Iceland 2.0%
Finland 2.0%
OECD-Total 2.0%
Germany 2.0%
Ireland 2.0%
United Kingdom 2.0%
Canada 1.9%
Denmark 1.8%
Major seven 1.8%
United States 1.7%
Japan 1.4%

Source: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/48/4/37867909.pdf

and

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp_gro_dur_197_200-gdp-growth-duration-1975-2000

No, The problem with Sarah Palin is not because she's conservative.
It's her lack of understanding the issues, being unprepared to be vice-president and quitting as governor.

Its amazingly how myopicly those on the right say "USA, FUCK YEAH!!!!" and don't have check the facts.

Even if you take JUST 2005-2008, the US is still near the bottom.

No matter how you slice it, we have not had the fastest GDP or GDP per capita growth in the OECD for many decades. Not since Johnson.

Hey River!! Happy New Year!!

In retrospect, I don't agree that she has a "lack of understanding the issues" & not sure she's "unprepared to be vice-president". Yes, she did quit as gov, but, maybe she felt that was a better choice than to fight for her issues while in office.

"lack of understanding the issues" & "unprepared to be vice-president".

Were these not similar allegations flung at Regan or even Truman? Perhaps when one examines issues, one can be cognizant of the minutia, but, it's understanding the big picture that is important.

please tell me that you're kidding. which big picture is palin on top of?

"Were these not similar allegations flung at Regan or even Truman?"

No, becausee Truman was already VP when he became president.

not true. when roosevelt added truman to the ticket, he was widely criticized. read truman by david mccullough (sp).

Dwell,
Happy and healthy!

In my mind once a chief executive quits I would be of the opinion it could happen again. To me it shows a lack of commitment to the office. Also the Couric interviews just said it all for me. I can't see her leading a country. I believe Palin's importance is that as a fund raiser/rain maker. She performs that task well.

How qualified is the leader of the regime? A community organizer for the welfare state.

Morons.