In light of the economy, how will your holiday season be different this year?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
A Merry Christmas may be harder to come by this holiday season for millions of Americans in light of the slumping economy.
A new CBS News poll shows one in two Americans are concerned they won't be able to afford the holiday gifts they would like to buy.
One-third say they're feeling more stress about holiday spending this year than they have in years past.
And overall, 4 in 10 people say they plan to spend less money on gifts this year than last.
For sure, the holidays are about much more than gift-giving, but how's this for a sign of the times:
Santa Clauses are learning how to lower children's expectations when it comes to their wish lists.
The New York Times has a terrific piece on a well-known Michigan school for Santa Clauses.
The Santas talk about how they size up a family's finances and then try to scale back the child's gift requests.
They talk of parents standing off to the side and shaking their heads no - while the kids sit on their laps asking for expensive toys.
One Santa says the bottom line is to "never promise anything," while others tell the children about slower toy production at the North Pole - or that Santa rarely brings everything on a list.
These Santas are also learning how to answer a question they're hearing more often this days: Can you bring my Mom or Dad a job?
Other children's expectations are running smack into today's economic reality. One boy recently asked a Santa for only one thing - a pair of sneakers that fit.
Here’s my question to you: In light of the economy, how will your holiday season be different this year?
Tune in to the Situation Room at 5pm to see if Jack reads your answer on air.
And, we love to know where you’re writing from, so please include your city and state with your comment.
Is Newt Gingrich's momentum for real?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
The tea leaves are starting to suggest that Mitt Romney might lose yet again. After being the presumed nominee for the past four years and the front-runner among the Republican candidates for the past several months, suddenly he's breathing Newt Gingrich's exhaust fumes.
Take Florida, where Gingrich has shot to the top of the GOP pack. A new poll conducted for the Florida Times Union newspaper in Jacksonville shows Gingrich at 41% - that's as much support as the next four candidates combined. Romney places a distant second in this Florida poll at 17%.
And Gingrich is coming on strong in several of the early voting states as well. In Iowa, one poll shows Gingrich ahead of Romney by seven points. In South Carolina, Gingrich tops Romney by 11 points.
And in New Hampshire, where the former Massachusetts Gov. Romney is a favorite son - Gingrich is also picking up steam. Romney still leads there, but Gingrich is closing the gap.
Meanwhile Gallup polling shows Gingrich's positive intensity score is the highest of any Republican candidate right now, while Romney's is his lowest of the year.
Washington Times columnist Charles Hurt writes that getting Republicans to line up behind Romney is "like trying to stuff a cat into a trash can ... at least one claw always manages to reach out at the last second and cling desperately to the rim."
Hurt suggests the only thing Republicans can agree upon is that they don't want Romney. But it's too soon to know if Hurt is right or wrong.
Here’s my question to you: Is Newt Gingrich's momentum for real?
Tune in to the Situation Room at 4pm to see if Jack reads your answer on air.
And, we love to know where you’re writing from, so please include your city and state with your comment.
What does it mean if Democrats are giving up on white, working class voters?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty
A dramatic change in the face of the Democratic Party: The New York Times "Opinion Pages" reports that for the first time in next year's election the party will "explicitly abandon the white working class."
This is huge.
According to plans by party operatives, Democrats hope to cobble together a center-left coalition made up of highly educated voters such as lawyers, professors and teachers - along with African-American and Hispanic lower-income voters, according to the Times.
As for whites without college degrees, Democrats are giving up on trying to win a majority, the paper reports. Instead they hope to keep the Republican winning margins to “manageable levels” - less than 15%, according to the Times. In 2010, Democrats lost the white-working class vote by a whopping 30-point margin, according to the paper.
One Democratic analyst told the Times that "the Republican Party has become the party of the white working class."
This is pretty stunning. Republicans were traditionally the party of the wealthy, while Democrats were the friend of the working man.
It was Franklin D. Roosevelt who put together the New Deal coalition that included unions, blue-collar workers, farmers, blacks, people on government assistance and intellectuals without money.
Fast forward to today - it's interesting that at a time when unemployment is holding at 9%, the Democratic Party is choosing to give up on these core voters and go in another direction.
Meanwhile, a recent poll spells trouble for President Barack Obama when it comes to blue-collar Democrats. The CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey shows nearly half of all white Democrats with no college education say they don't want Obama heading the party's ticket.
Tune in to the Situation Room at 4pm to see if Jack reads your answer on air.
And, we love to know where you’re writing from, so please include your city and state with your comment.
The U.S. is 28th in life expectancy. What's killing America?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
What's wrong with this picture?
The United States ranks 28th in life expectancy, yet we pay more for health care than any other country in the industrialized world.
The 34-nation Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development is out with a stunning report.
It shows 27 nations live longer than we do - led by Japan. Yet Americans pay nearly $8,000 per person for health care each year. More than any other country in the report.
Only a handful of countries in this report have a lower life expectancy. They include Mexico, Estonia and Turkey.
Meanwhile, despite sky-high spending on health care in the U.S., Americans actually receive less care than other nations.
Our primary care system suffers from shortages of family doctors along with high rates of avoidable hospital admissions for common illnesses like asthma, diabetes or high blood pressure.
America also leads all nations when it comes to expensive medical procedures like knee replacements, MRIs and CT scans.
As for pharmaceuticals, they cost about 60% more in the U.S. than in most European countries.
There are some positives for the U.S. health care system here: We have among the world's highest survival rates for breast and colorectal cancer. Also, Americans generally receive good acute hospital care.
But overall there's no doubt our health care system is broken. And that along with questionable lifestyle choices means we're not living as long as we could.
Here’s my question to you: The U.S. is 28th in life expectancy. What’s killing America?
Tune in to the Situation Room at 5pm to see if Jack reads your answer on air.
And, we love to know where you’re writing from, so please include your city and state with your comment.
Will Bill Clinton's praise help Newt Gingrich win the nomination?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
In politics, timing is everything - and Newt Gingrich might have it. Just as the former U.S. House speaker surges in the polls, he's also nabbing some key endorsements.
For starters, the influential New Hampshire Union Leader editorial board is backing Gingrich. They say he's improved Washington before and in this race, he has the best shot of doing it again.
This conservative stamp of approval could go a long way in helping Gingrich, especially at a time when many conservatives are taking aim at his views on immigration. Meanwhile, another influential conservative, Sarah Palin, could throw her support behind Gingrich as well. One report suggests aides to Palin say Gingrich is the most likely to score her endorsement.
And it's not just conservatives who have nice things to say about Newt Gingrich.
Former president Bill Clinton praises him in an interview with the website Newsmax. Clinton calls Gingrich "articulate" and says he tries to think of a "conservative version of an idea that will solve a legitimate problem."
Clinton suggests that Gingrich's approach will make independent voters take a hard look at him.
All of this has got to be keeping Mitt Romney up at night. However it's yet to be seen if Gingrich will peak in the polls only to fade away like other Republican candidates before him have done, but so far he seems to have some momentum the others lacked.
As for Gingrich, he may have his eyes set on another opponent, the one in the White House. As the nominee, Gingrich says he would challenge Obama to Lincoln-Douglas style debates. And he says Obama can use a teleprompter.
Here’s my question to you: Will Bill Clinton's praise help Newt Gingrich win the nomination?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
When it comes to being president, which is more important: the ability to solve the country's problems or personal character?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
As Newt Gingrich continues his meteoric rise in the polls, there's one key issue that could hold him back: Character. Or will it?
A new Quinnipiac Poll shows the former House Speaker scores higher than Mitt Romney on most key leadership traits - except for personal character.
For example: Republican voters say Newt Gingrich is a stronger leader than Romney - by 34% to 24%.
They say he's stronger on foreign policy... 46% to 16%.
And they say Gingrich has the right "knowledge and experience" to be president - by 48% to 22%. These are huge margins.
But Gingrich trails Romney 32% to 9% when it comes to who has a "strong moral character."
A lot of that likely goes back to Gingrich's personal baggage, including his three marriages and his infidelity.
Overall, Gingrich places at the top of the Republican pack in this survey, with 26% compared to Romney's 22%. In a head-to-head match-up, Gingrich does even better, topping Romney by 10 points.
But it might not matter. Even though Republicans find Gingrich competent and ready to deal with the nation's problems, they worry about his character.
And this is at least part of the reason why: By a double-digit margin, Republicans say Romney has the best chance of beating President Obama; and by an overwhelming margin, they say Romney is most likely to be the Republican nominee.
It's interesting that at a time when our nation is facing a boatload of very serious problems - from the national debt to the economy, unemployment, ongoing wars, etc. - a lot of people are more hung up on personal character than about the ability to lead.
Here’s my question to you: When it comes to being president, which is more important: the ability to solve the country's problems or personal character?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Do members of the super committee deserve to be re-elected?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
The super committee is a disgrace, and there should be a price to pay for their negligence. Their failure will cost all of us. The national debt continues to spiral out of control, and they did nothing. They knew the consequences of their actions and still chose to do nothing.
They were charged with agreeing on $1.2 trillion in cuts to the national debt over 10 years. Congress borrowed $1.3 trillion just this year alone. It wasn't too much to ask.
Actions are supposed to have consequences. Most of the time they do, unless you're a member of the federal government.
The super committee is just the latest group of politicians to lie to us about reducing government spending. The Simpson-Bowles commission put forth a program for cutting the debt. It was ignored. Likewise the Gang of Six.
Even before the super committee failed, one poll showed Congress' approval rating at an all-time low of 9%. It was the first time Congress scored in the single digits in this poll since the question was first asked in the 1970s.
This same survey shows Americans have less trust than ever in government to do the right thing. And with good reason.
The members of the super committee didn't even have the guts to face the public and tell us they failed. They handed reporters a piece of paper announcing their failure and then disappeared into the woodwork like so many cockroaches.
But the real crime in all this is that most of these 12 people on the committee will probably be re-elected the next time they run for office. And that's something of which we should all be ashamed.
If you or I failed so miserably at our jobs, we would be out on the street. And that's exactly where these folks belong along with the rest of their colleagues who make up our broken government.
Here’s my question to you: Do members of the super committee deserve to be re-elected?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Should Pres. Obama hand the reins of the Democratic Party to Hillary Clinton?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
It's time for President Obama to step aside and hand the reins of the Democratic Party to Hillary Clinton.
This rather radical idea is coming from two Democratic pollsters in a Wall Street Journal piece called "The Hillary Moment."
Patrick Caddell and Douglas Schoen argue that Obama should follow in the footsteps of Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson. Both presidents "took the moral high road" and abandoned a run for a second term when they realized they could not effectively govern.
Caddell and Schoen say that never before has there been such an "obvious potential successor" as Hillary Clinton. They say she would save the Democratic Party and be able to get things done in Washington. They think Clinton is the only leader capable of uniting the country around a bipartisan economic and foreign policy.
They point to Clinton's experience as first lady, senator and now secretary of state - suggesting she is more qualified than any presidential candidate in recent memory, including her husband.
Although Clinton says she's not interested in running, polls suggest she might do pretty well:
In September, her approval rating was at an all-time high of 69%. Another poll shows Clinton leading Mitt Romney by 17 points in a hypothetical matchup.
Caddell and Schoen say Obama could still win re-election in 2012, but only by waging a negative campaign, which would ultimately make the gridlock in Washington even worse.
If Obama isn't willing to step aside, they think Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi should urge him to do so.
The pollsters say they're writing as "patriots and Democrats," have had no contact with Clinton's people, and don't expect to play a direct role in any potential campaign.
Here’s my question to you: Should President Obama step aside and hand the reins of the Democratic Party to Hillary Clinton?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Should Ron Paul launch a third party run if he doesn't win the Republican nomination?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Keep your eyes on Ron Paul...
Because the Texas Congressman could have a major effect on the 2012 presidential race - whether or not he's the nominee.
Paul - who probably has the most passionate supporters of all the Republican candidates - is not ruling out a third party run.
He says he has no intention of mounting a third party bid for the White House, but - and it's a big but - he's not ruling it out.
A recent poll shows Paul getting 18% of the vote in a three-way contest against President Obama and Mitt Romney. And most of Paul's support would come at the expense of Mitt Romney.
That's why some Republicans call it a "nightmare scenario." They worry that a Ron Paul run would benefit President Obama - maybe even securing him a second term.
We've seen it before: When Ross Perot ran as a third party candidate in 1992 - the conventional wisdom was he handed Bill Clinton the election. Without Perot in the race, President Bush would have likely won re-election. Ralph Nader has also made several third party runs.
Plus, it's worth pointing out that our electoral system is stacked against a third party ever winning the White House.
Meanwhile - don't count Ron Paul out of the race for the Republican nomination quite yet.
Some say he could be a real threat in the early voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire.
One poll shows Paul in a virtual four-way tie for first place in Iowa... and he's polling in the top three in New Hampshire.
Some experts say they wouldn't be surprised if Paul wins the Iowa caucuses and then shakes up the race even further in New Hampshire.
Ron Paul has been talking sense for a long time.... with the country now circling the drain, maybe more people are ready to listen.
Here’s my question to you: Should Ron Paul launch a third party run if he doesn't win the Republican nomination?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
What does it mean when a quarter of middle class Americans plan to work until 80, longer than most people live?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
So much for the golden years. A new survey shows one fourth, 25% of middle-class Americans, say they plan to delay retirement until at least 80.
That's two years longer than most people in this country live.
It's just another depressing effect of this economy - where unemployment, stock market swings and plunging home prices have taken a huge toll on many Americans' savings.
The Wells Fargo retirement survey shows on average, Americans have only saved 7% of the retirement money they hoped to put aside.
Survey respondents had a median savings of $25,000 while their median retirement savings goal was $350,000.
It gets worse.
About one-third of those surveyed in their 60s had saved less than $25,000 for retirement. Easy to see why retiring at the traditional 65 is a pipe dream for millions of Americans.
Experts say having large numbers of middle class Americans working past 65 raises many questions. Like, will people be physically and mentally able to work as they age? And what will it mean for young people entering the workforce?
Meanwhile another new study on the vanishing middle class helps explain why many Americans plan to work into their 80s.
Consider this: In 2007, 44% of families lived in middle class neighborhoods - that's down from 65% in 1970.
And almost a third of families lived in either rich or poor neighborhoods in 2007... that number is up from 15% in 1970.
In other words, the great middle class neighborhoods that used to define this country are disappearing.
Here’s my question to you: What does it mean when a quarter of middle class Americans plan to work until 80, longer than most people live?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
@jackcafferty on Twitter
Recent Comments