Obama's ratings

[lorene]

The news today said even though obie's team)dem's) seem ot be bailling out of politics quickly, the presidents approval ratings are still around fifty percent even with his agenda ratings falling fast sooooo...

Why has not this president been attack personally like the ones in the past would be by now had they failled to do....well...anything, in their first year of office as he has done?

Could it be because of race? Perhaps people will only say they do not like his agenda and not him because they are afraid of being called racist? Or is he as a persn really that likable that no matter how much he messes up or little he accomplishes, we still love him?

[JoeyKnothead]

O'Reilly did an informal poll right before the 2008 election and found the FOX staff was split about 50/50 between Obama and McCain, while the other network staffs were about 90% for Obama. And FOX is the biased network?

I challenge these numbers. Given they were gathered, counted, and distributed by Fox employees leaves the issue of bias open. Where is the independent verification for these numbers?

What do the employees have to do with the content of FOX News?
Are they running the show?

I gotta 'pologize there, I was thinking Bill-O, not the pollsters.

I still note it was an informal poll.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 20:

So it was bad when Bush did it, but good when Obama did? When have we ever spent our way out of a deficit? Reagan used exactly the opposite approach and ignited the 80s boom.

My point was that Obama inherited deficits, and an economy bordering on complete collapse. Had he (and others) not acted to shore up the economy we'd be in worse shape than we are now.

I note the "80's boom" was a time of increasing personal, and national debt.

I contend there is never a "right time" for the economy to collapse.

Agreed, but it was the right time for the Obama campaign.

That's just too simplistic an answer. There are more reasons than just the economy involved in people's votes.

Many people, myself included were tired of the empericist attitude of the Bush administration. Many of us thought McCain was okay, but old, and Palin was absolutely incapable of leading a nation should it be required.

On September 14, the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll showed McCain up by three points. Then Lehman Brothers collapsed and the Wall Street debacle began to dominate the news. McCain’s lead disappeared almost immediately.

My point is that Palin, in the few interviews she did, showed herself incapable of running the nation.

I consider McCain a great man who is not such the maverick he purported to be.

So that's what bothers you about Republicans. Now it all makes sense. Does the religious left irk you also?

Any who seek to restrict my (and others') rights and thoughts irk me. I just don't see the religious left as such a threat in this regard.

Obama has the highest desapproval rating ever recorded for an elected president beginning his second year. No other president has seen his Gallup job-approval rating drop as far as Obama's has (21 points) in his first year. And the public strongly opposes his favorite hobby-horse of socialized medicine.

To the best of my knowledge every president since at least Reagan has seen their poll numbers drop in their first year.

Do you object to "socialized roadways"? Do you object to the "socialized internet"?

I notice conservatives consider anything they oppose as "socialist". Are only conservative programs good for people?

Is it not rationing when the poor aren't allowed access?

When I've been to the ER, there were so many poor people there I almost wasn't allowed access.

When the poor have no other options, what do you expect them to do?

I challenge this "almost wasn't allowed", and consider perhaps your "emergency" wasn't as important as you thought.

What good does it matter comparing cancer rates,

Huh?

I consider that a clear example of quote mining. Let's put that sentence back together and see your response...

What good does it matter comparing cancer rates, when the poor will be denied service for their cancer?

The poor are getting treatment, at taxpayer expense...

Poppycock. The cancer survival rates between rich and poor continue to expand.

We should adobt the GOP common-sense proposals for health care, and treat the few that are left who don't have coverage like regular welfare cases.

I agree in principle. I'd need more details to really know if this isn't a typical political ruse (such as Dems or Repubs have done before).

I consider the "common-sense" modifier useless without such details. I consider insuring every American the most "common-sense" approach.

Why do the majority of Americans disagree with you about FOX news?

Doesn't matter. It says nothing about the accuracy of their reporting.

What, you think conservatives shouldn't be allowed? What about Juan Williams, Bob Beckel, Alan Colmes, and other liberals regularly on FOX?

I simply noted when you said Fox was so "civil" regarding debate that Glen Beck and Bill O'Reilly don't fit that claim.

OK, if you have different ones let me know. Here are some facts about media presidential voting: http://www.mrc.org/static/biasbasics/Ex ... Elite.aspx In 1992 91% of journalists voted for Clinton vs. 43% of the public.

I-n-f-o-r-m-a-l. When you can present peer reviewed scientific data let me know.

Given they were gathered, counted, and distributed by Fox employees leaves the issue of bias open.

I feel the same way whenever I hear the 'mainstream' media opine on anything.

I'm with ya there. There's very little media I trust, and I try my best to separate fact from opinion.

That said, I do need to retract that claim. I was thinking Bill O'Reilly, and not the pollsters.

[Goat]

O'Reilly did an informal poll right before the 2008 election and found the FOX staff was split about 50/50 between Obama and McCain, while the other network staffs were about 90% for Obama. And FOX is the biased network?

I challenge these numbers. Given they were gathered, counted, and distributed by Fox employees leaves the issue of bias open. Where is the independent verification for these numbers?

What do the employees have to do with the content of FOX News?
Are they running the show?

No. Actually not. The one running the show for Fox news is the overseas management. The number one owner for News Corp is Rudolf Murdock, and the number 2 influence for News Corp is the Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal.

So, all those tea party folks are getting their opinions spoon fed to them via a News organization with a huge influence from the Saudi royal family.

[Wyvern]

So it was bad when Bush did it, but good when Obama did? When have we ever spent our way out of a deficit? Reagan used exactly the opposite approach and ignited the 80s boom.

Why is it you keep misrepresenting deficit spending by saying we are trying to spend our way out of a deficit? Actually Reagan did the very same thing by initiating massive spending programs to expand the navy and SDI. Reagan pumped billions of dollars into the economy which we didn't have, the very definition of deficit spending.

I would contend they were leading right up till Palin spoke.

On September 14, the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll showed McCain up by three points. Then Lehman Brothers collapsed and the Wall Street debacle began to dominate the news. McCain’s lead disappeared almost immediately.

The margin of error of these polls is three points so if you want to be truthful he did not have a real lead in the first place. Hmm, who would have thought that the party in power might be held accountable for little things like the economy collapsing. Palin did not help one bit either, if she could get flustered by a reporter that doesn't speak well for what might happen when talking to foreign dignitaries about important things.

Is it not rationing when the poor aren't allowed access?

When I've been to the ER, there were so many poor people there I almost wasn't allowed access.

And there is an example of the health care the poor are getting that you say they are happy with.

when the poor will be denied service for their cancer?

The poor are getting treatment, at taxpayer expense. We should adobt the GOP common-sense proposals for health care, and treat the few that are left who don't have coverage like regular welfare cases.

Actually they are getting treatment at hospital expense, hospitals are required to give treatment regardless of ability to pay. Hospitals then have to increase fees across the board in order to recoup their costs. If you were really interested in decreasing health costs you would see that having universal health care would in fact turn it into taxpayer paid healthcare instead of the current system of hospital paid healthcare.

[East of Eden]

That's just too simplistic an answer. There are more reasons than just the economy involved in people's votes.

Generally speaking, in times of security threats the GOP get the benefit, in bad economic times the Democrats do, not that it makes sense.

Many people, myself included were tired of the empericist attitude of the Bush administration. Many of us thought McCain was okay, but old, and Palin was absolutely incapable of leading a nation should it be required.

I would rather have Palin as president than Obama, and think she had more real-world experience. Better her accomplishments than Obama's rhetoric.

Funny how some pick on Palin for gaffes while ignoring our gaffe-o-matic sitting VP, Biden.

My point is that Palin, in the few interviews she did, showed herself incapable of running the nation.

And Obama once said we have 57 states. So what?

I consider McCain a great man who is not such the maverick he purported to be.

Agreed. I don't quite get my conservative friends who can't stand him.

Any who seek to restrict my (and others') rights and thoughts irk me. I just don't see the religious left as such a threat in this regard.

I'll leave the strange statement that the religious right is restricting your thoughts to another thread. They're certainly not doing it on this forum.

To the best of my knowledge every president since at least Reagan has seen their poll numbers drop in their first year.

Not to the degree Obama's have.

Do you object to "socialized roadways"?

No, that is something you and I couldn't do on our own privately, unlike healthcare.

Do you object to the "socialized internet"?

My internet bill goes to Comcast, not the government (not counting taxes).

I notice conservatives consider anything they oppose as "socialist". Are only conservative programs good for people?

You need to be more specific.

I challenge this "almost wasn't allowed", and consider perhaps your "emergency" wasn't as important as you thought.

Chances are mine was more important, since I was paying for mine. People who don't pay for it tend to go in for the sniffles.

Poppycock. The cancer survival rates between rich and poor continue to expand.

Unfortunately, health care is a commodity like many other things in life. Should we give poor people who can't afford it houses - wait, we already tried that.

The 'conservative program' you mentioned earlier is to get people off welfare and earning their own way in life, not create a permanent class of dependents a certain political party can use as a bank of votes. Welfare is supposed to be a temporary helping hand, not a hammock for three generations. The GOP welfare reform from the '94 congress did a great job of this, despite the dire predictions of the left. Obama wants to reverse it.

Doesn't matter. It says nothing about the accuracy of their reporting.

But if FOX was so widely inaccurate, wouldn't people figure it out?

I simply noted when you said Fox was so "civil" regarding debate that Glen Beck and Bill O'Reilly don't fit that claim.

....in your opinion. You prefer Keith Olbermann for civility?

I-n-f-o-r-m-a-l. When you can present peer reviewed scientific data let me know.

There are plenty of studies showing the MSM are overwhelmingly liberal Democrats. I posted one such study.

[East of Eden]

Why is it you keep misrepresenting deficit spending by saying we are trying to spend our way out of a deficit? Actually Reagan did the very same thing by initiating massive spending programs to expand the navy and SDI. Reagan pumped billions of dollars into the economy which we didn't have, the very definition of deficit spending.

Deficits happen in wartime, even a cold one. Had he not won the cold war, we would have spent billions more in the interim. Reagan fixed Carter's broken economy by cutting taxes and regulation.

[Wyvern]

Why is it you keep misrepresenting deficit spending by saying we are trying to spend our way out of a deficit? Actually Reagan did the very same thing by initiating massive spending programs to expand the navy and SDI. Reagan pumped billions of dollars into the economy which we didn't have, the very definition of deficit spending.

Deficits happen in wartime, even a cold one. Had he not won the cold war, we would have spent billions more in the interim. Reagan fixed Carter's broken economy by cutting taxes and regulation.

Yes we have seen the outcome of having extremely low taxes along with little regulation in the financial sector. Both our current situation and the years leading up to the great depression saw a greatly lessened tax burden from previous years along with little regulation in the financial sector, a coincidence I don't think so.

The cold war was no more a war than the war on drugs is a war. Using Gorbachevs words that you used earlier he stated the soviet system was crumbling and the building program only exacerbated the problems but was by no means the cause of the fall. Considering the military spending programs did not decrease after the fall of communism debunks your argument of even greater military spending. The peace dividend everyone was looking for after the fall of the Soviet Union never came.

[East of Eden]

Yes we have seen the outcome of having extremely low taxes along with little regulation in the financial sector. Both our current situation and the years leading up to the great depression saw a greatly lessened tax burden from previous years along with little regulation in the financial sector, a coincidence I don't think so.

Huh?

"While Fed policy was undoubtedly important, it was not the primary cause of the Great Depression or the economy's relapse in 1937. The Smoot-Hawley tariff of June 1930 was the catalyst that got the whole process going. It was the largest single increase in taxes on trade during peacetime and precipitated massive retaliation by foreign governments on U.S. products. Huge federal and state tax increases in 1932 followed the initial decline in the economy thus doubling down on the impact of Smoot-Hawley. There were additional large tax increases in 1936 and 1937 that were the proximate cause of the economy's relapse in 1937.

In 1930-31, during the Hoover administration and in the midst of an economic collapse, there was a very slight increase in tax rates on personal income at both the lowest and highest brackets. The corporate tax rate was also slightly increased to 12% from 11%. But beginning in 1932 the lowest personal income tax rate was raised to 4% from less than one-half of 1% while the highest rate was raised to 63% from 25%. (That's not a misprint!) The corporate rate was raised to 13.75% from 12%. All sorts of Federal excise taxes too numerous to list were raised as well. The highest inheritance tax rate was also raised in 1932 to 45% from 20% and the gift tax was reinstituted with the highest rate set at 33.5%.

But the tax hikes didn't stop there. In 1934, during the Roosevelt administration, the highest estate tax rate was raised to 60% from 45% and raised again to 70% in 1935. The highest gift tax rate was raised to 45% in 1934 from 33.5% in 1933 and raised again to 52.5% in 1935. The highest corporate tax rate was raised to 15% in 1936 with a surtax on undistributed profits up to 27%. In 1936 the highest personal income tax rate was raised yet again to 79% from 63%—a stifling 216% increase in four years. Finally, in 1937 a 1% employer and a 1% employee tax was placed on all wages up to $3,000.

Because of the number of states and their diversity I'm going to aggregate all state and local taxes and express them as a percentage of GDP. This measure of state tax policy truly understates the state and local tax contribution to the tragedy we call the Great Depression, but I'm sure the reader will get the picture. In 1929, state and local taxes were 7.2% of GDP and then rose to 8.5%, 9.7% and 12.3% for the years 1930, '31 and '32 respectively.

The damage caused by high taxation during the Great Depression is the real lesson we should learn. A government simply cannot tax a country into prosperity."

Arthur Laffer

The cold war was no more a war than the war on drugs is a war. Using Gorbachevs words that you used earlier he stated the soviet system was crumbling and the building program only exacerbated the problems but was by no means the cause of the fall. Considering the military spending programs did not decrease after the fall of communism debunks your argument of even greater military spending. The peace dividend everyone was looking for after the fall of the Soviet Union never came.

Defense spending fell in the '90s.

[Wyvern]

Yes we have seen the outcome of having extremely low taxes along with little regulation in the financial sector. Both our current situation and the years leading up to the great depression saw a greatly lessened tax burden from previous years along with little regulation in the financial sector, a coincidence I don't think so.

Huh?

Why do you continue trying to blame tax increases for the great depression when those tax increases went into effect only after the depression had hit bottom.

[East of Eden]

Why do you continue trying to blame tax increases for the great depression when those tax increases went into effect only after the depression had hit bottom.

I'm not saying tax increases were the sole reason for the depression, but they worsened and prolonged it. In 1937, the American economy fell, lasting through most of 1938. Production declined sharply, as did profits and employment. Unemployment went from 14.3% in 1937 to 19.0% in 1938.

What country has taxed and spent its way into prosperity?