Obama Approval Rating Falling!

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by Mafishioso, Feb 25, 2009.

Loading...
  1. Mafishioso

    Mafishioso New Member

    I was surprised to see this graph from Rasmussen that shows Obama's approval rating slowly but steadily FALLING:

    Some people are confident that Obama's approval rating will be below 40% by August.

    I think Obama is a good man surrounded by a corrupt party. Pelosi's the problem, but by the end of this year everyone (except MSNBC) will be blaming Obama for it.
     
  2. Randell1234

    Randell1234 Moderator

    I would say Obama's the problem but that has been covered already.
     
  3. Angie1313

    Angie1313 New Member

    I think obama, pelosi and reid are the problem. Let's face facts though, in a few months they'll still be blaming bush for everything. lol
     
  4. BDev

    BDev New Member

    I think Obama, Pelosi, and Reed were made for each other. His approval ratings will pick back up. We'll start coming out of this recession in Jul, Aug, or Sep-like the CBO predicted last summer and his sheeple will attribute it to his divine "wisdom".
     
  5. Gin Ichimaru

    Gin Ichimaru New Member

    Maybe some people are impatient. It took eight years for Dubya to wreck the US economy and few realize that it is not something that can be fixed overnight.

    One thing I do hope is that Obama will put back the safety nets for the people who lost work that Bush and the Conservatives took down.

    I think something good may come out of this. With Obama in charge there will be healthcare reform, if not national health care. We will see the very rich pay their fair share of the taxes and the infrastructure of the US roads, rails and waterways will be rebuilt.

    The fix will not happen overnight but God willing it will come.

    At the very least the US has a President who talks in complete and coherent sentences. :cool:
     
  6. BDev

    BDev New Member

    "At the very least the US has a President who talks in complete and coherent sentences."

    And he says nothing. It's funny to me how the left seems to think that Bush policies wrecked the economy....Facts are, both parties are to blame and according to former President Clinton, the dems are responsible for the majority of it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJWiysm67xA . I don't agree with him often but this is one of those rare occasions.

    I wish our gifted orator of a President would explain the history (that he contributed to) to the people instead of playing on the people's ignorance.
     
  7. BDev

    BDev New Member

    "We will see the very rich pay their fair share of the taxes and the infrastructure of the US roads, rails and waterways will be rebuilt."

    Do you really believe that they don't pay their "fair share"? The only examples that I've been seeing of this are Obama cabinet appointees; total hypocrisy. Hope and change indeed.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 27, 2009
  8. Randell1234

    Randell1234 Moderator

    There was on link on Yahoo (can't find it now) regarding his speech earlier this week and everything that was not factual. It is easy to make a great speech and whip the crowd into a frenzy when you don't tell the truth...watch this-

    These are tough times and everyone should have a free education. I have a plan to make every DL institution tuition free for hardworking people.

    See, that was easy :cool: :rolleyes:
     
  9. airtorn

    airtorn Moderator

    I hoped for a change and there it is. Now I won't have to worry about how I am going to pay for my babies to go to school.
     
  10. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    It's all predictable.

    Bush was extremely unpopular and perceived by many (including some Republicans) to be a failed President. The Republican leadership appeared incapable of leading, divided mong themselves and short of creative new ideas. The economy was unraveling in the worst possible way for the Republicans, since it appeared to have been systematically looted by rich arrogant corporate and wall-street assholes - after the Republicans had been loudly promoting the self-regulating powers of the unregulated free-market.

    The Republicans handed the country to Nancy Pelosi on a silver platter.

    It didn't help much that the big-city and national (aka New York) media are overwhelmingly liberal Democrats and they openly favored Obama this electon in a totally shameless way. That's dramatically lowered my opinion of the journalistic profession. I don't need self-serving partisan idiots telling me what to think. I'm extremely cynical these days.

    So the media and the situation whipped the country (and the world) into a mindless frenzy of messianic expectation, with Barack Obama cast as Jesus Christ and the promised Kingdom about to dawn here on earth. A left-wing black man had been elected President! How could the heavens fail to open?

    Well... Obama was elected and so far he's proven totally incapable of walking on water. He's a young and politically inexperienced human being who is facing a very nasty economic situation that's only getting worse by the day. And he will soon have to deal with a nuclear-armed Iran too. Another spectacular mass-casulty terrorist attack is a very real possibility on his watch.

    He's being tested and the tests will only get harder. Obama's true-believers will uncritically cheer anything he does, just as Bush's dwindling band cheered him. But the middle, the swing voters who put Obama in office are apt to be a tougher audience to please. They are going to want to see strong, effective yet moderate leadership that the whole world can ge behind and support. Obama's going to have to unify his own divided party and tame its aggressive special interests. He's going to have to be able to say 'no' to Nancy Pelosi when he has to, he has to be able to strong-arm Congress into supporting him and not her. He has to be strong enough to say 'no' to greedy Democratic power-bases like the labor unions and local government machines.

    Right now, it's way too early to announce how he's doing with everything that's crammed onto his heaping plate. He's a skinny guy, but sometimes they are the biggest eaters. Maybe he will rise to the challenge and be a great President. It's too early to say. But the bloom is off the rose, that's for sure.

    No mortal could meet those expectations.
     
  11. skidadl

    skidadl Member

    Yup. I think you are right.
     
  12. BDev

    BDev New Member

    I think people tend to forget that Obama isn't the only recent President to inherit a recession. Bush had to deal with the tech bubble bursting. Add to that, 9-1-1, and then all of the corporate scandals that came to fruition at the beginning of his first term in office and I am pleasantly surprised that Bush was able to keep things afloat. The economy did well until somewhere in 2006 I believe. I don't think Bush was as bad as he was perceived but it was the MSM shaping that perception. I do think he fell asleep at the helm in 2008 but...that's one for another day.

    These same WallStreet types that you say were looting us, seemed to throw their weight behind Obama when he was running but now that he is the POTUS, the stock market is in steady decline. That indicates to me that they don't have much faith in him (which makes me wonder why they threw so much money/support behind him in the first place).

    Obama is a smart person. I'll never doubt that but...it's unrealistic to elect this guy as our President based on his oratory skills and expect that he will lead us out of this mess. This was a very odd election. Somehow, the populace equated oratory skills to experience. My pastor is a great public speaker and I know that doesn't qualify him to do anything other than speak publicly (and my pastor doesn't associate with racists or former terrorists).

    Having said that, I don't think the Republicans were as bad as they were perceived either. It's one heck of a coincidence that the economy started tanking when the Dems took control of the Congress in 2006. Most people that I spoke with (before the election) didn't even know that the Dems were in control of the Congress. They figured that since we had a Republican President, Congress had to be too but then again, these are the same people that drew a correlation between speaking skills and experience. This was a perfect storm for them...the expectation is that Obama will walk on water (because he gets to blame Bush for everything) so while he's riding out this storm, I certainly hope he doesn't drown the rest of us.

    I refuse to deal with the MSM right now. They owe the American people an apology. Obama was their boy and they shoved him down our throats. They had an agenda and it's unfortunate that most of the populace refused to even acknowledge it. I'll choose experience over "making history" any day of the week.

    I was a little boy when Jimmy Carter was the President and I perceived him to be very weak...Obama is like Jimmy Carter part II to me and I absolutely feel less safe with him in office. This is what America wanted though, right?

    I'm trying not to act like the left acted with Bush...I'm trying to give Obama a chance but it is really hard.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 28, 2009
  13. The other irony is that of the top ten states with family earnings over $250k 9 of them overwhelmingly voted for Obama during the election.

    I support our President, regardless of my personal political position. I also expect him, and Congress, to do their jobs.

    My biggest concern is how he plans to pay for his programs - through increased taxation of the higher earners, not only through higher income taxes but through lower deduction amounts for charitable and mortgage deductions. For people subject to the AMT already these are the ONLY deductions possible, and for families in high cost of living states (like those same ones who voted for Obama, like California and urban New York) this is a double whammy which will probably hit in the same year or consecutively.

    Add this to an uncertain job market and a continuing recession and what does it mean?

    These same families, who spend a lot of their money with local small businesses will be saving it instead.

    Where will the people at the lowest end spend their newfound money? McDonald's and Wal-Mart.

    I love how the media brand higher earners as "rich", "wealthy" or "affluent". While my wife and I collectively EARN a good living, I think of us as "leveraged", "middle class" and "highly taxed". I see no boat in my driveway, have no investment account beyond my "101k", and have no holiday house. That kind of money goes to day care, exorbitant property taxes and the mortgage on my average-sized house in a decent school district. And New York wants to take yet another chunk if the unions get their wish. Sorry Gin, but not everyone getting impacted is "very rich" about to pay their "fair share". Trust me when I say that I already pay my fair share as the AMT ensures that. If Obama wants to be truly fair then raise cap gains to the same rate as the marginal tax rate and see who screams then.

    Enough is enough. Tax me more and pay for infrastructure, fine. Tax me more and give it to people who pay no taxes, no way.
     
  14. BDev

    BDev New Member

    " I love how the media brand higher earners as "rich", "wealthy" or "affluent". While my wife and I collectively EARN a good living, I think of us as "leveraged", "middle class" and "highly taxed". I see no boat in my driveway, have no investment account beyond my "101k", and have no holiday house. That kind of money goes to day care, exorbitant property taxes and the mortgage on my average-sized house in a decent school district. And New York wants to take yet another chunk if the unions get their wish. Sorry Gin, but not everyone getting impacted is "very rich" about to pay their "fair share". Trust me when I say that I already pay my fair share as the AMT ensures that. If Obama wants to be truly fair then raise cap gains to the same rate as the marginal tax rate and see who screams then.

    Enough is enough. Tax me more and pay for infrastructure, fine. Tax me more and give it to people who pay no taxes, no way."


    He was successful in pitting the "have nots" against the "haves" (Gin's statement is proof of that). I hoped this was purely campaign rhetoric but....Alinsky would be proud. I have my moments where I am really angry about this but...I do wish him well. If he does well, America does well.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 28, 2009
  15. AV8R

    AV8R Active Member

    Why, pray tell, do you think that full-on nationalized health care is a good thing? When have you ever seen an efficient government run operation? Have you ever had to do any business at the DMV? Is this the type of efficiency you really want for your healthcare?
     
  16. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    Obama didn't pit the "have nots" against the "haves". He didn't need to. The "haves" managed it all by themselves. Obama simply surfed the national wave of anger into the White House.

    Here's the deal: The baby-boomers are approaching 60 and would normally be expected to be the country's more conservative voters at this point, favoring experience and stability over grandiose adolescent schemes. But they have just watched all of their retirement assets evaporate. Many were thinking of taking an early retirement, but that's impossible now. Others don't know how they will ever be able to retire, if it takes a decade or more for their investments to come back. They fear losing their jobs, which would put them in deep deep trouble.

    So there isn't a great deal of popular sympathy right now when the high-level executives and traders who accomplished all of these wonders use their golden parachutes and float away to their horse-country estates.

    The country is angry. That's the public mood. People feel totally ripped off and they don't want to see the people that they hold responsible profiting from it.

    Obama and Pelosi didn't do all that. The Democrats only exploited it. And the result is the final reductio-ad-absurdem end of the Reagan-revolution and America's lurching towards, if not flat-out socialism, at least something resembling a Prussian-style managed economy.

    The US is on its way to becoming something perhaps very like what the UK was before Margaret Thatcher. Not very inspiring and not likely to be very successful either.

    So basically, what we are watching in the news every day is just another big ratcheting downwards in the continuing decline of the Western world.
     
  17. Abner

    Abner Well-Known Member

    Hmmm. Before my time in State service, Gov. Pete Wilson decided conduct private pilot DMV offices and prisons. At that time, the State DMV charged $5 or $10.00 for a license renewal. The private DMV version was charging $120.00. While that was happening, the private pilot prison was having a field day. The private guards were busy having sex with the inmates (male and female), and dealing drugs on the side to supplement their low wages. Suffice it to say these pilots were swifly killed and swept under the rug.

    Having said all that, is government perfect? No. But the present state of affairs demonstrates private enterprises are sure as hell not perfect either. In the end, where do Americans go for help in the most dire of situations? The government. The fancy "free enterprise MBA's" quickly go crying to Washington when they need help. What happened to their efficient textbooks principles? Cold sterile textbook principles cannot control human greed and behavior, trusting people to do the right thing is no way to do business. The same rascals who decry government, quickly resort to corporate welfare, while trying to maintain the appearance it is not welfare.

    So keep your chones on gents. Obama is just starting out. Regardless of what you think of him personally, as Americans let's hope things turn around. Will it be easy? Fuck no. If he does not make at least a small dent, you will all have your chance to vote him out.

    I must go enjoy the lovely California day!

    Good day gents!

    Abner :)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 28, 2009
  18. thomaskolter

    thomaskolter New Member

    All I know is Obama wants to take money from successful producers, the rich. And give it to the middle class which shockingly includes incomes up to $90k a year which I don't feel is Middle Class. If anyone else stole money like that they would be in prison don't most people earning $250k or more have a right to not be singled out many restaurant owners, contractors and small business owners plus farmers fall in that range and they hire people and are productive. I can see a modest tax increase but I would apply that to anyone earning of $60k a year to be fair and spread the impact.

    And I think he is an idiot pushing too many projects that are controversial at once he should just focus on the economy, health care reforms and maybe adult education with sensible spending plans on these.
     
  19. The challenge is that there is a HUGE difference in cost of living. In St. Petersburg, FL, the average home price is around $150k currently (and unfortunately due to the downturn), and zero income taxes. In suburban areas around NY City, the average home price is around 3x that with potentially 5% income tax or more.

    There is no "one size fits all" approach to declaring personal wealth or the "middle class".
     
  20. What is disturbing is that he's already reneging on campaign promises barely 30 days into his term.

    "NEW YORK (Fortune) -- During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama tempered his pledge to substantially raise taxes for high earners with an important proviso: He'd simply restore rates to their levels during the Clinton Administration. The implication was that families in the upper brackets would see their total tax bite go back to the levels of the 1990s, but no higher.

    Now, it sure looks like Obama is reneging on that promise. The burden will indeed go far higher than in the Clinton years via a technicality -- one that will come as a rude shock even to the taxpayers already braced for a soaking. "

    http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/27/magazines/fortune/obama_budget_tax.fortune/index.htm

    It's the first article I've seen that clearly delineates the difference between a high earner and the wealthy.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 1, 2009

Share This Page