Journal/NBC Poll: Perry’s ‘Ponzi Scheme’ Rhetoric In Tune with GOP Voters

Rick Perry isn’t the only one who considers Social Security a “Ponzi scheme.”

WJS:

Fifty-four percent of likely Republican primary voters agree with the Texas governor that the retirement program resembles a Ponzi scheme, or fraudulent system designed to collect more money than it pays out, according to the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll. Forty-one percent of GOP primary voters disagree with that view.

Mr. Perry provoked an outcry from Democrats and Republicans alike during his first presidential debate when he restated his belief that younger Americans have little to gain from Social Security. Mitt Romney immediately seized on Mr. Perry’s rhetoric to attack the Texas governor, who was then soaring in the polls. Mr. Perry’s support has since cratered, following a string of shaky debate performances, but it appears his views on Social Security resonate with most GOP voters.

The same can’t be said for the electorate as a whole. Sixty-four percent of all adults interviewed for the poll said they disagree with Mr. Perry, while only 29% support his view.

Read the full story at the WJS

Collin Co. Election Precinct Redistricting For 2012

Sharon Rowe, Collin County Elections Administrator, sent out a press release last week stating the county has redrawn election precinct boundaries in the wake of the 2010 census driven Congressional, State Senate, State Board of Education, and State House redistricting changes made by the 2011 Texas legislative session. Collin County Commissioner precincts lines have also been redrawn for the 2012 election cycle.

The new plan splits several of the current 179 election precincts into 23 new precincts creating a total of 202 precincts for the 2012 election cycle. (click on the map right to enlarge - precinct split table at bottom of this article)

According to Collin County Elections Administrator Sharon Rowe:

"Occupy Wall Street:" An Inevitable Moment for America

by Joe Sestak

America's character is based on an alliance of rugged individualism and common enterprise -- a fair individual opportunity and the commonwealth of our country. Shared opportunity is shared prosperity, and common wealth is common strength.

As predictable as our revolution was against England's rulers more than two hundred years ago, so were the ones in the Middle East and North Africa in these last several months. Predictable simply because what was good for the powerful and well-connected was not good for the rest of the citizenry.

There emerged competing realities: the reality that the powerful pursued and the reality within which people actually lived. Simply put, the leaders pursued their own interests without thinking about the interests of their people; they thus lost the support of the people. In my 31 years of naval service across the globe, I came to understand that while many in the world may respect the power of America's military and the strength of its economy, they admire the power of our ideals -- it's why the young Egyptian officer commented as he did, and why the uprisings were inevitable. And it is why my political experience convinces me that the reason the people revolted is a lesson that applies not only to leaders overseas, but also to our own leaders here at home.

25% Of Millionaires Pay Lower Taxes Than Middle Class

It is not surprising that conservatives, like GOP candidate Mitt Romney, slam the Buffett Rule as “class warfare” simultaneously benefit from the same sort of preferential treatment.

A new report by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service finds that 25 percent of the nation’s millionaires have a lower effective tax rate than 10.4 million middle-class Americans:

About 25 percent of millionaires in the U.S. pay federal taxes at lower effective rates than a significant portion of middle-income taxpayers, according to a legislative analysis.

Preferential treatment of investment income and the reduced impact of payroll taxes on high earners lets about 94,500 millionaires pay taxes at a lower rate than 10.4 million “moderate-income taxpayers,” representing about 10 percent of those making less than $100,000 a year, according to the report by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service dated Oct. 7.

In direct conflict with a favorite Republican talking point, the report also found that very few business owners are millionaires and “played down the impact of higher tax rates on job creation.” “The small share of taxpayers with small-business income in the millionaire category suggests that tax reform policies designed to ensure adherence to the Buffett Rule will affect few small businesses,” it said. This bolsters the claims from economists and business owners alike that higher tax rates on the rich make “zero difference” in hiring.

Numerous polls continually show that Americans support raising the tax rate on millionaires. But rather than raise the rates on those who should pay their fair share, Republicans respond with even more tax increases on the middle class. “Class warfare,” indeed.

Occupy Wall Street Organizers Call Saturday A Global Day Of Action

“Occupy Wall Street” organizers have called for a global day of action to take place on Saturday, Oct. 15. Events have been planned in 719 cities in 71 countries around the world, coordinated through a special website dedicated to the Oct. 15 actions that helps interested participants find events near them.

Poll: ‘Occupy’ Movement More Popular Than Tea Party, Obama

A poll by Time released Thursday, which asked participants’ opinions on President Barack Obama’s job performance, the impact of the tea party and views of “Occupy Wall Street,” reveals that the “Occupy” movement has a higher approval rating than President Obama or the Tea Party. The poll also found that a full 86 percent agree that Wall Street and its lobbyists have “too much influence in Washington,” and 68 percent agree that wealthy Americans should pay more in taxes.

Occupy Wall Street enjoys majority backing among men (57 percent) and women (51 percent), young (60 percent of respondents 18 to 34) and old (51 percent). Self-identified Democrats, unsurprisingly, comprise the left-leaning movement's largest bloc, with 66 percent professing support. But more than half of independents (55 percent) harbor favorable views of the protesters, as do a third of Republicans.

Overall, the poll found that 65 percent of respondents believe the tea party had either a “negative impact” (40 percent) or very little impact at all (25 percent). The poll shows that President Obama has an approval rating of just 44 percent, with 50 percent disapproving and six percent not sure. That stands in contrast to the 54 percent who say their opinion of “Occupy Wall Street” is either “very favorable” or “somewhat favorable.”

Comparatively, the tea party, which is essentially Republican Party coordinated campaign committee, largely funded by a few billionaire conservatives, only has a 27 percent approval rating, with just 8% being “very favorable” and 19% being “somewhat favorable.”

A new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll shows that Americans support the Occupy Wall Street protests by a two-to-one margin (37 percent in favor, 18 percent opposed) while more Americans view the Tea Party negatively (28 percent in favor, 41 percent opposed).

This means the Occupy Wall Street protests have a net favorability of +19 percent while the Tea Party has a net favorability of -13 percent, as the chart at right, produced by ThinkProgress, shows.

Texas Agency Censors Climate Change References In Key Scientific Report

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) doesn’t want to say who’s responsible for deleting all mentions of climate change from part of a forthcoming scientific report, and that’s got at least one scientist hopping mad.

Dr. John B. Anderson (pictured, left), an oceanographer at Rice University, told Raw Story that his report on the Galveston Bay estuary, and the effects of rising sea levels on its fragile ecosystem, was censored for purely “political” reasons.

“This is a clear-cut case of censorship,” he said in an exclusive interview. “It’s not scientific editing. It was strictly deletion of virtually any information that related to global change.”

“This is the TCEQ’s report which we contracted with Houston Advance Research Center to publish regarding the State of Galveston Bay,” the [TCEQ] agency said in its prepared statement. “It would be irresponsible to take whatever is sent to us and publish it. And here, information was included in a report that we disagree with.”

“That chapter that was censored was actually a summary of scientific literature,” Anderson told Raw Story. “There’s no new data that was actually presented in that chapter. [...] One of those statements was even lifted out of Science Magazine, which last I heard was an acceptable scientific journal. So, I was rather shocked that their response was they did not accept some of those viewpoints.”

“To say you don’t accept it, when it’s been published in peer-reviewed scientific literature, usually means that you need some kind of a counter argument to say that there’s also evidence published in peer-reviewed literature that would refute that,” he added. “But [they offered] nothing of that sort...."

“We scientists commonly are criticized for not going the extra step in education, and this was my way of doing that outreach, to write an article that is not directed at the scientific community,” Anderson concluded. “To then have those very policymakers turn around and say we refuse to accept any of this… is quite discouraging. I refer to Texas as a state of denial, and I don’t think we’re the only coastal state that’s in denial.”

“These people have a responsibility to look out for, not just the voters, but the future voters,” he said. “There the ones who are going to have to pay the tab. As long as we live in the state of denial, we’re just passing the check to our grandkids to deal with.”

To see what was censored in Anderson’s article, which is no longer part of the TCEQ’s “The State of the Bay 2010″ report, click to the Raw Story article.

‘Occupy Wall Street’ A Turning Point For The Left

Dorian Warren, assistant professor of political science and public affairs at Columbia University, appeared Monday on Democracy Now to discuss the ongoing “Occupy Wall Street” protests in Manhattan and other cities across the United States.

Watch video, courtesy of Democracy Now

“This is an incredibly significant moment, I think, in U.S. history,” he told Amy Goodman. “In fact, it might be a turning point, because this is the first time we’ve seen the emergence of a populist movement on the left since the 1930s.”

“So I think when you think about that long stretch of time, especially in this moment where we’ve been growing more unequal as a country for the last 30, 40 years, the fact that this movement has emerged at this moment, I think, is quite significant.”

Warren explained that starting in the 1950s, conservatives began to co-opt the label of populist and eventually changed the entire political discourse of the United States.

The new sort of populism that has emerged with the “Occupy Wall Street” movement does not only criticize large corporations and powerful banks, but the U.S. political system as well, he said.

11 Facts You Need to Know About the Nation’s Biggest Banks

Here’s the goods, via ThinkProgress’ Pat Garofalo:

The Occupy Wall Street protests that began in New York City more than three weeks ago have now spread across the country. The choice of Wall Street as the focal point for the protests — as even Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said — makes sense due to the big bank malfeasance that led to the Great Recession.

Economist Blasts GOP’s Seven Biggest Economic Lies

By Robert Reich

The President’s Jobs Bill doesn’t have a chance in Congress — and the Occupiers on Wall Street and elsewhere can’t become a national movement for a more equitable society – unless more Americans know the truth about the economy.

Here are the seven lies told by those who want to take America backwards:

1. Tax cuts for the rich trickle down to everyone else.
Baloney. Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush both sliced taxes on the rich and what happened? Most Americans’ wages (measured by the real median wage) began flattening under Reagan and has dropped since George W. Bush. Trickle-down economics is a cruel joke.