Obama's Approval Rating

[brutalbhuler]

Let the fun begin. Who doesn't like Obama and why? I'll start:

I'm a conservative and he spends too much.

Attachments:

[reezhyro]

I don't like him because he is black! Jkjk Actually race has nothing to do with it since I think black people are alright. I just don't like how effed up his policies are. I mean he cut funds for college education scholarship/grants in a country where you need a freaking degree to do anything at all. That makes no sense.

P.S. is there anyone that even likes this guy anymore? I mean all of the people I know that voted for him (myself included, ashamed to say) regret that decision now. He won't make it next term.

P.S.S. I am not liberal or conservative. I just go for whoever I think is best at the time. I made the wrong decision last time >.<'

[bb5mes]

Apr 10, 2011 15:21:49 GMT -5 @reezhyro said:

P.S.S. I am not liberal or conservative. I just go for whoever I think is best at the time. I made the wrong decision last time >.<'

Honestly, I don't know that McCain would have been any better. Right now, the biggest issue is spending, and there's no way the liberals are going to cut down very much on it, so we really do need a conservative president, and since everyone is starting to hate Obama, that's probably what we'll get next term. However, if we had elected McCain, idk how much he could have done, and then the conservatives would have been blamed for it, and we'd either end up with Obama next term or someone just as bad.

I don't have a political party, and I would definitely consider myself liberal in most issues, however, I think we do need someone conservative in charge to resolve the spending crisis we have right now.

[brutalbhuler]

I'm conservative but as for political parties, i am kinda Communist, and Libertarian. Yeah ik Oxymoronic. But i think the Government should have either TOTAL control, or little to NO Control. But when it comes to politics you can't pick and choose what you screw with because it's a ripple effect. Either you got a pool with no ripples or an ocean that is nothing but waves. PICK ONE DAMNIT!!!

[Boodle]

Ehh no matter who is president, someone will have something to bit*h about. As soon as he became president my biggest hope was that we COMPLETELY withdraw from the middle east and cut any sort of aid money we give them. Billions and billions of dollars going to countries who we bombed and invaded in the first place? The U.S. shouldn't be trying to play "world police" and instead of giving billions of dollars to some foreign country who pretty much despises western culture, it would have been better to put that money into education or to pay back to national deficit. Politics has become too childish where situations like "if you aren't one of us... then fu*k your ideas" are all too common. Nothing is ever going to get resolved when people refuse to think rationally and cooperate. It's not Obama I don't approve of... it's dumb*ss politicians in general.

[reezhyro]

I want waffles.

[Mellainius]

According to Politifact.com, the President has a list of 506 substantial campaign promises on which he was elected. He has addressed 77.67% of them, factoring in promises he kept, compromised on to pass, or has them in the works of legislation. In fact, he broke less than 10% of these promises. Under the lens of an Obama voter in 2008, one is getting that for which one asked.

Social issues, for me, are based more on personal philosophies and spirituality than academic studies, e.g. the issues of what constitutes a "right." Therefore, I wish to focus on Obama's tackling of the economy, as it seems to be the more arguable issue. I am not a student of economics, and my understanding of government spending is limited, so please take what I say with a grain of salt. I have included references in my response to show where I received my information, as I do not have any mentally available information from which to draw, other than my historical knowledge of the Federal Reserve (a controversy in its own right).

As for the idea that liberals are spending hawks and conservatives spend less, do consider history. Until Obama, Republican presidents since the 20th century's latter half have added considerably more to the deficit than their more liberal counterparts (http://obamadiary.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/debt.png?w=770&h=593). Also take note of the fluctuations in spending: www.truthfulpolitics.com/images/us-size-spending-by-president.jpg. What matters is not the amount of spending, but how the government offsets it or plans to use it.

In February 2009, Congress passed the $700+ billion stimulus package with which we should be familiar (http://useconomy.about.com/od/usfederalbudget/a/Economomic_Stimulus_Package_in_Detail.htm). Such measures, I believe, are to account for the large spending we've seen in the Obama era. The recession saw a severe surge in unemployment, increasing the demand for food stamps and unemployment insurance--both programs which the government provides. Ergo, these services combined with the stimulus plan led to the massive spending we see today (http://www.cbpp.org/files/4-14-08tax.pdf). I find services such as food stamps and unemployment insurance necessary and thus not the fault of the President; these are programs which most Americans would not want to see attacked. As for the stimulus, a study conducted by Northern Trust, a financial management company, asserts economic experts found a consensus in favor of the stimulus (http://mediaserver.fxstreet.com/Reports/c9c6414b-2317-4ebc-8734-4b6d7f422fef/fc6e9484-5ca5-421f-8f07-63dc6bce74d9.pdf). As a believer in the power of intellectualism, I would have supported the stimulus in accordance with this consensus.

As we quickly approach the discussion of new budgetary options, it's important to see the pattern in the President's acknowledgment of the substantial Bush-era spending; he created a fiscal commission to address just that. Last year, Obama rejected the proposal of his fiscal commission which would cut federal borrowing by 4 trillion dollars. This proposal, however, would have doubled our debt for at least 10 years. Thus, we see acumen in balancing his focus on trumping over the borrowing problem and the debt issue.

As for the current budgetary issue, I am content with the current compromise between the President and the Republican House. In his initial budget, the Pell Grant program (for which I rely on a hefty amount of scholastic-financial help) would be doubly increased; taxes on the wealthiest Americans would be increased by expiring tax cuts; many government agencies would experience a spending freeze to attack the deficit; NASA would no longer see the lunar expeditionary funding of the Bush era; and large banks would be expected to provide a fee for the stimulus, which saved them, discussed above (http://www.savingtoinvest.com/2010/02/obamas-2011-budget-business-tax-cuts.html). It focuses on trimming 1-trillion dollars from the deficit over the course of a decade. Although the Republican Path to Prosperity budget offers much more money in deficit cuts, it assumes the privatization of Medicare--a move which I would not even consider until we fix our health insurance regulation issues first. Obama's budget focuses on removing the extended, upper-class Bush tax cuts (a move I would support), whereas Ryan's budget wishes to make them permanent (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sc-dc-0411-budget-2012-20110410,0,7835212.story).

The President's substantial spending suggests using the government to respond to the financial crisis of 2008. Secondly, it appears as though he is attempting to now react to the spending itself. Since politics calls for choosing between a rock and a hard place, I would say recent history suggests Obama to be less of a spending hawk than what one would label; in fact, the recent GOP support for the Tea Party, rejection of the 9/11 health care bill, disapproval of the financial reform, and desire to privatize health care suggest irresponsibility on their part. It's certainly difficult to prove his actions were the best for our situation, but that's something neither side can either defend or criticize in the short run. I'm not going to call Obama a saint; no president in the history of the United States can be considered as such. However, I am willing to deem him an average one. He has been able to visit both sides of the political aisle--to no avail. I do not think this failure is necessarily his fault, considering the "Just Say No" Policy of the GOP for the past two years.



In response to the job approval rating picture in the first post of this thread, here's a site tracking his approval rating; currently, its polling data chart suggests a nearly 50/50 percent approval/disapproval average (40% something against 40% something): www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

Referencing a point made earlier, I don't feel McCain could have done better. Having lived in Arizona, the state he serves, I can say he isn't popular with the state's intelligentsia due to his populism. Here's his voting record along with the President's: www.ontheissues.org/Senate/John_McCain.htm | www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm



TL;DR[/i][/u]

• Obama has kept the majority of his promises. For the most part, what Obama voters were promised, they either received or have assurance that they will receive through pending legislative enactments.
  
• The government spending was necessary and not a "liberal" or "Obama" trait. Research shows much of it went to stimulating the economy, and in substantial cases, through welfare programs not created by the administration (such as food stamps and unemployment insurance).
  
• TARP, a program passed by Bush, saw its final stages and later enactment in 2009, an Obama year. TARP is worth at least 300-billion dollars and appears under the Obama budget even though it is a Republican program. Per the 2010 Congressional Election, the GOP did not fail in attempting to distance itself away from TARP and put economic blame on the President.
  
• The Obama budget considered in Congress this year focuses on spending cuts. Although the Republican budget houses more spending cuts, it focuses on privatizing Medicare and cutting education to do so. According to the Financial Times's chief economic advisor, the Ryan plan would "mean the U.S. going back to the sort of country it was in 1900" (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1104/10/fzgps.01.html) in terms of its power. This effect means getting rid of many 20th-century programs which we currently hold dear.
  
• If one were to compare Obama's approval rating today to other presidents since Eisenhower, one would find that it is most similar to Clinton's before his re-election (http://www.gallup.com/poll/116479/barack-obama-presidential-job-approval.aspx). Thus, approval rating does little at this point to make election forecasts. In fact, without a candidate to which GOP supporters can rally, it appears as though Obama is likely to win again. Although this point says little of his administration's efficacy, it does demonstrate that other factors must be considered before saying "the President is unpopular, therefore he is bad." Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon were experiencing similar numbers in their third years, and both were strong Republican leaders. As corrupt as the latter was, I would argue he was historically one of the most positively effective conservative presidents. Once more, unpopularity does nothing to dispel the administration's efficiency.
  

[brutalbhuler]

^ faaaaaaaar to much to read. Don't care about Obama enough XD

[Q]

I'm Canadian.

[Mellainius]

Apr 11, 2011 5:33:46 GMT -5 brutalbhuler said:

^ faaaaaaaar to much to read. Don't care about Obama enough XD

In essence, the spending didn't become an issue of "too much" until the GOP made it one. In fact, the Obama stimulus was regarded as not having enough spending (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/28/ftn/main4688594.shtml).

Also, take note that "spending" also encompasses tax cuts. Congress extended the Bush tax cuts last year to appeal to conservatives (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/16/AR2010121606200.html). This also counts as "government spending." The Bush tax cuts, worth 858 billion each year, are as unpopular in liberal circles as it gets. Therefore, Obama isn't really as liberal as many paint him to be. If anything, I would argue that, as a liberal, I'm critical of him in this respect.

[iHospitaller]

This is why I love Mexico =)