Of course. I stop to think what would have happened if congress and President Obama hadn't stepped in, how much worse the recession and unemployment would have been.
I consider the stimulus and other steps an investment. I do hope that Congress reinstates Glass Steagel to keep the banks from being too big to fail. More help should be given to main street, instead of Wall Street. If GM had gone out of business, hundreds of thousands more people would have been unemployed and it would have cost more for the unemployment insurance than the loan that went to GM.
On balance, the spending has been necessary to keep even worse economic events from happening. I think it would have been better if the stimulus had been bigger and had fewer tax cuts in it, as do most economists, especially once unemployment continued to climb.
We are in a far better place than where we would have been had Republicans been in charge, that I know for sure.
What did Obama say unemployment % wouldn't go past if we didn't do the Porkulus bill? They also said it would effect the economy right away didn't they? And that no bill would have pork in it. Bwaaaahahahahaha. Sorry that just came out. And that there would be no back dooring and that they would be on C-Span for all the bills. He said he would close GITMO and stop the wars. It looks like this guy thought hem could do a lot of things he couldn't. In fact what has he done that has gone even remotely as planed?
Chris, economic forecasting is inexact to be sure. I think the economy was worse than they thought. Gitmo is getting closed, maybe a little later than predicted.
Nothing is ever exactly the way candidates say it will be, Democrat or Republican.
He did say he would focus on the war in Afghanistan and he has, even though I disagree with his putting more troops in.
Given the circumstances he was handed, he's doing pretty well.
Well at least Bushes name was NOT used BUT there any way!
The One Termer has DONE nothing to Help the Citizens unless You Consider SPENDING more Tax Payers Money than ALL other Presidents Combined,and what do WE have to show for it!
Nobama Care Bill going through Congress that if Passed WE will Never be able to Pay For BUT since he is a ONE TERMER he dont Care. Nobama is NOT yet done APOLIGIZING but NEXT time it will be to Citizens and VOTERS. Just like the World Community,Aint going to WORK!
Who do you think elected President Obama by a landslide, non-citizens? 69 million people voted for President Obama and his approval rating is still 56%, so a lot of people must disagree with you.
The current health care bill is paid for and hopefully will put us on a path to single payer and more efficient health care than the current bill.
Who are the Republicans going to run, Sarah Palin? What a joke the Republican party is
Well, yes, the money does come out of the taxpayer’s pocket but in a way that most people don’t recognize. Bubbles and bailouts are not paid for with gold and silver. They are paid for with printing press money, which dilutes your savings and retirement funds.
So who are the heroes of bubbles and bailouts? The short answer is, the money creators. They are presiding over and benefiting from the greatest transfer of wealth in history, with the almost certain guarantee that they will never be found out, because they are operating above the threshold of perceived reality.
I am telling you something that is not taught in any school in America.
Of course we should know that every new dollar that the money creators create dilutes every dollar already created. They are using non-substance fiat that cost them nothing and exchanging it for substance in the form of capital assets. This is a transfer of wealth by definition. This depreciating fiat is impoverishing all who hold dollar assets.
We live in a pro-collectivist, pro-government age. The government can get away with virtually anything if allegedly done in the collective interest of the “public,” with scarcely any media or public voice raised in criticism. Yet the same action by an individual or private company is attacked viciously and denounced as immoral and against “public policy.”
Fraud is so big at the highest levels in government and business that the very magnitude of it serves as part of the defrauders’ protection.
All fraud begins and ends with fiat. Fiat is not money. It is a substitute that has been placed in peoples minds and they think of it as money.
The most important thing that people can understand today and should understand before they become completely impoverished is that we have arrived at where we are today, simply because of the inability of people to differentiate between money and money substitutes which allows them to be continually swindled. This seems to be something that the money creators behind government have done over and over to swindle the population and the citizens never catch on.
We are about to enter a period of serious inflation. And it may even be hyperinflation.
There is absolutely no mystery about this inflation to come, as it will come because of excess printing of paper money.
Inflation is not as most people think, increasing prices. Inflation is depreciation of paper money. And the people who do the creating are the ones who benefit.
Bruce Fealk said... Chris, economic forecasting is inexact to be sure. I think the economy was worse than they thought. Gitmo is getting closed, maybe a little later than predicted. How about the worst recession since the Great Depression. How in the world can there be worse then the Great Depression? You 'Progressives' make stuff up way too much. Why do you lie so much? Or is it just bending the truth for you 'Progressives'? Why is most of the Porkulus Bill still not spent? It conveniently starts moving along right around the time elections come up. Playing politics with the lives of Americans so that the Democrats can win in the elections of 2010 is as low as they can go. And now they want to take more money from our future generations to make another porkulus bill for the people. I'm sure that one will start to roll out around re election time 2012. As if the Democrats don't have enough money they are going to pave their future with our money. What are we going to do when there are no more bailouts to the fiscally liberal states? No problem because we are doing a fine job of educating our future generation the liberal way. Thanks to the liberals all our kids are educated to the level of the kid that licks the bus windows. There are no losers in the liberal world.
The greatest transfer of wealth may be right, but not from people to government, from the poor to the rich.
The top 1% have 80% of the wealth. That's just not right in our system. In order for the country to prosper, there has to be a vibrant middle class and it's the middle class that the conservatives have screwed for decades.
President Obama's job approval rating has fallen to 47 percent in the latest Gallup poll, the lowest ever recorded for any president at this point in his term.
Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford and even Richard Nixon all had higher approval ratings 10-and-a-half months into their presidencies. Obama's immediate predecessor, President George W. Bush, had an approval rating of 86 percent, or 39 points higher than Obama at this stage. Bush's support came shortly after he launched the war in Afghanistan in response to the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said he doesn't "put a lot of stock" in the survey by Gallup, which has conducted presidential approval polls since 1938, longer than any other organization.
"If I was a heart patient and Gallup was my EKG, I'd visit my doctor," Gibbs said in response to questions from Fox. "I'm sure a six-year-old with a Crayon could do something not unlike that. I don't put a lot of stake in, never have, in the EKG that is daily Gallup trend. I don't pay a lot of attention to the meaninglessness of it."
Gallup Editor-in-Chief Frank Newport responded: "Gibbs said that if Gallup were his EKG, he would visit his doctor. Well, I think the doctor might ask him what's going on in his life that would cause his EKG to be fluctuating so much. There is, in fact, a lot going on at the moment -- the health care bill, the jobs summit, the Copenhagen climate conference and Afghanistan."
The new low comes as Obama struggles to overhaul the nation's health care system and escalates America's involvement in the Afghanistan war. He is also presiding over a deep and prolonged recession, with unemployment at 10 percent.
"There's no doubt Obama's 47 percent is mainly a result of the continuing bad economy," said Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics. "But there is also a growing concern about government spending and debt, and a sense that Obama is trying to do too much, too soon."
He added: "President Obama has reason to be concerned about his ratings. Even in tough times, presidents have usually been able to stay above the critical 50 percent mark in the first year, when the public is most inclined to give the new incumbent the benefit of the doubt."
Obama officials have not always shown disdain for Gallup. During last year's presidential campaign, Obama adviser David Plouffe, trumpeted "the latest Gallup poll" to reporters because it showed that 53 percent of Americans did not find Obama Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, "trustworthy."
When Gallup began taking presidential approval polls 71 years ago, Franklin Roosevelt had been president for more than five years. During his remaining time in office, his job approval rating never fell below 48 percent.
The next 11 presidents, both Democrats and Republicans, all had higher job approval ratings than Obama at this stage of their tenure. Their ratings were:
-- George W. Bush, 86 percent -- Bill Clinton, 52 percent -- George H.W. Bush, 71 percent -- Ronald Reagan, 49 percent -- Jimmy Carter, 57 percent -- Gerald Ford, 52 percent -- Richard Nixon, 59 percent -- Lyndon Johnson, 74 percent -- John Kennedy, 77 percent -- Dwight Eisenhower, 69 percent -- Harry Truman, 49 percent
The poll is an average of a three-day tracking of 1,529 adults taken Dec. 4-6. It has a margin of error of 3 percentage points.
Bruce that is a far cry from 56%. I also notice you are the only person that is willing to say they agree with the spending Congress and Obama have done so far. I bet you love our national debt. And that we owe our kids future to a communist nation? How can anyone take you serious Bruce?
Bruce what have the Democrats done for the middle class? Most of our money is going to bailout everyone but the middle and lower class. Where are all those jobs they talked about? Oh they went to SEIU govt workers. You want to spread the wealth? Why don't the unions ever want to give up their wealth for what they will benefit most from? Why wont the union members get payed a little more so that there could be more new hires? Why is it the small business' most Americans work for get the tax increases for healthcare and all the other BS you labor unions want? Why are the unions bitching about paying their fair share of the healthcare bill? They all get the 'cadilac' insurance but refuse to pay like the rest of us. I know you gave big money to get these guys elected and this is your payoff. The Democrats screwed the share holders of GM and gave it to the unions. Those people retired on that money and the Democrats played political games with those poor 'fat cats' money. No wonder no one is for the Democrats spending. Most people realize that they will be the ones paying for this mess. Get ready for inflasion welcome back Carter.
Bruce, all of your numbers are total bullshit. Back it up with links like the rest of us do Bruce. Even Joey is happy to supply links/sources. Not you. And we all know why, because you are a total Hypocrat LIAR.
So Bruce, you think it was right to give GM billions and then have them file bankruptcy, instead of just letting them file and not lose all that taxpayer money? And that is just the tip of the iceberg of your idiotic statements.
And now we all see what a communist you are Bruce. You want to redistribute the wealth. You said so right here in this blog comment section. Well Bruce, we're all ears about what you think a good wealth distribution should be. Lay it on us commie. How much is making too much? You are just repeating the same old liberal BS. You say the conservatives answer is less government, well we know what the only answer you Hypocrats have, and that is more taxes.
You have no idea what you are talking about Bruce. No clue at all. It's astounding to me how idiotic you really are, and it's a relief to me that nobody reads your blog or takes your comments seriously.
I don't make a ton of money, but I am happy with what I make and I sure don't begrudge someone who works hard for what they earn, and I sure don't want the government to take from them to give to me just because I F**KED off in high school and the only job I could get was a court stenographer/liberal weasel.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/susan-wilson-solovic/unions-and-small-business_b_407603.html Unions and Small Business Are Like Oil and Water
Anyone who understands the reality of what it takes to run a successful small business knows that unions and small business are like oil and water. But the politicians in Washington DC don't get it. Why? Because they've never had to make payroll. Allow me to share a brief story and I'll explain.
My mother's family owned a small furniture manufacturing company in a rural southern-Missouri town. When union organizers appeared on the scene, the employees were told if they chose to vote for the union, the business would close down, and they'd all be out of jobs. Unfortunately, no one believed the owners would really lock the doors so they voted in favor of the Union. The next day when the employees arrived to work, the doors were locked ... never to re-open again.
When I was a child, my mother took me to visit that old plant. As I stood on my tiptoes peering in the windows of the dilapidated building, I saw furniture pieces in various states of completion, sitting just where the workers had left them - eerily waiting for their return.
I was far too young to understand the reasons why my family decided to lock the doors of their business instead of working with the union. But now as a small business owner, I bristle at the thought of what unionization would do to my small firm. In fact, I would be tempted to do the same thing my family did in the 1940s: Lock the doors and move on.
You would think in this day and age, that unionization would be a remote concern for a small business owner, but thanks to the Obama Administration, it is real and imminent. Leaders of unions spent $450 million electing President Obama and Congressional Democrats so now that the health care legislation is near completion, union leaders expect to see action on the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), commonly known as the card-check law, early this year. Briefly, the legislation makes it easier for unions to organize, and experts predict that it will pass this year.
A small business faced with unionization would be seriously impacted by higher wages, higher business operation/legal costs, and the loss of flexibility over employee selection based on business needs. All of this at a time when small businesses are struggling to keep their doors open and their staff employed.
If the government truly believes that small business is the engine that will drive this country out of a recession, then why in the world would they consider placing yet another cumbersome, costly, deterrent in its way?
My recommendation is to ask the President and members of Congress to walk a mile in our shoes - the shoes of small business owners who are just trying to survive. Give these politicos the opportunity to experience what it feels like to risk your life-savings on a business venture; to do without so your employees will be paid; to work 24/7 with no guarantee there be anything to show for your efforts; to be unable to access the capital you need to grow; and to pioneer innovations that give the U.S. a global competitive advantage.
Small business is the American dream. But if the government continues to ignore the realities small business owners face, it will successfully extinguish the dream.
All these Socialist programs and that is what they are is for ONE Reason and that is Making as many Citizens as Possible Dependant on Government! Libs are attempting to KILL OUR Economy. Why else Spend OUR Great Grand Childrens Future or Actually their Non Future on Trillion Dollar Programs that as in the PAST under Government Control have ALWAYS Failed BADLY!
All thats NEEDED to see Libs IDEAS for OUR Future is LOOK at OUR Big Cities plane and SIMPLE! LIB Run,LIB Controlled! Any Body that says LIBS Care About POOR Citizens look at the FAILURE of LIB Feel Good Programs that have done NOTHING to better POOR Citizens Education or Welfare. All they have Accomplished is to Make the POOR more BEHOLDING to Government!Entitlements ,Breed Entitlement Mentalities and so far LIBS MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
Middle Class Conservatives/Independants along with some Democarts Starting in November will make MANY Politicans also UNEMPLOYED but the Difference is Politicans have made their FORTUNES on the Backs of the Citizens!
Fiscal conservatives across the country have blasted the $871 billion healthcare bill passed by the Senate on Christmas Eve for its potential to increase medical costs, as well as for the earmarks won by several lawmakers in exchange for their support.
Many Republicans have taken issue with the fact that the bill is set to be financed through taxes on high-priced insurance plans, which they say will boost, rather than reduce, healthcare costs.
According to John H. Sununu, chairman of New Hampshire State Committee, "Senate Democrats enthusiastically supported a healthcare bill that will bankrupt our country and saddle future generations with crippling deficits," quoted by Seacoastonline.com.
Meanwhile, congressional GOP members, led by Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.), have blasted the special deals the Democratic leadership offered to some members of their caucus in exchange for votes.
For example, Senator Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) won the concession under which the federal government will pay for all of the new Medical enrollees in the state, instead of sharing the cost with the state government as will happen in the rest of the country, according to USA Today.
The source also reports that Senator Mary Landrieu (D-La.) obtained a $300 million bump in Medicaid funding for her state.
"Passage of this bill is an indication of the Chicago-style sleazy sausage-making that’s been going on around here," McCain said.
"The lobbyists and special interests have won [and the] American people have lost," he added.
A constitutional historian says American courts would have to overturn their last 80 years of jurisprudence to uphold the constitutionality of the healthcare bill in Congress.
Thirteen Republican attorneys general are threatening to file a lawsuit against the Democrats' healthcare bill if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) refuse to remove a provision being called the "Cornhusker Kickback" -- the nearly $100 million Medicaid deal Democratic Senator Ben Nelson secured for his home state of Nebraska. Ostensibly, the deal was in exchange for Nelson's vote -- the 60th of 60 needed -- favoring the legislation. As reported earlier, the senator's decision has angered many Nebraskans.
In a letter sent last week, the 13 attorneys general argue the provision is "constitutionally flawed" and violates the U.S. Constitution's protection against "arbitrary" legislation. Constitutional historian David Barton, the president of WallBuilders, also believes the provision is unconstitutional.
"I think there's huge constitutional problems with this thing," exclaims Barton, "and it may be that we see the power of Congress limited constitutionally through a number of different venues by these various lawsuits that are out there."
Barton notes that court challenges are looming over the bill's individual mandate, as well as its anti-trust provision that forces a government monopoly. Texas Governor Rick Perry has also threatened to file a lawsuit, arguing the bill violates states' rights outlined in the Tenth Amendment.
Just before Christmas, The Heritage Foundation also questioned the constitutional legality of the healthcare legislation, publishing a legal memorandum charging that the individual mandate "takes congressional power and control to a striking new level."
The letter to Senator Reid and Congresswoman Pelosi was signed by top prosecutors in Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Washington state. Four of the Republican attorneys general are running for governor in their respective states.
Healthcare reform could lead to court battles if the Senate bill becomes law.
Steve Crampton of Liberty Counsel believes that many members of Congress have not read the 2,200 page healthcare bill, and he regards apprehension accompanying an extensive 383-page adjustment filed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada).
"We are most concerned by the latest so-called 'Manager's Amendment,' which invokes deep concerns concerning the violation of the principles of the Hyde Amendment, namely the public funding and forced taxpayer funding of abortion," Crampton explains.
Surveys show the vast majority of people are against using tax dollars to support abortions. Concern also arises with the fact that people may be forced to obtain health insurance.
"Our federal government, contrary to popular belief, really is a government of limited powers, and there is nowhere in the Constitution that gives Congress such incredible authority to require every citizen over the age of 18 to purchase healthcare," the attorney contends.
Crampton further adds that all members of Congress should raise and answer that question before imposing it on the people. Those two provisions, if passed into law, will be challenged in court.
A regulatory policy expert says the Obama administration is pursuing an odd strategy designed to prop up the housing market -- make even more bad mortgage loans.
Quietly on Christmas Eve the Obama administration lifted caps on how much federal bailout money mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac can receive from the U.S. Treasury.
The previous bailout limits for the two government-controlled firms were set at $200 billion each, but now there are no limits.
James Gattuso, a senior research fellow in regulatory policy at The Heritage Foundation, says the Obama administration either anticipates that Fannie and Freddie will report an especially poor financial performance for the fourth quarter that will require a massive new bailout, or the two firms will be asked to take on a much larger role.
"Bad scenario number two is the possibility than Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are going to become providers of bailout money to the rest of the housing industry and to the mortgage industry - to essentially become extensions of the TARP program through purchases of bad loans to try and prop up the rest of the financial sector," Gattuso notes. "That is, in my view, the more likely scenario and in fact would be an extension of what these government-run organizations have been doing for the past year anyway."
The research fellow says that if the Obama administration believes more housing subsidies are needed, then that should be announced directly and debated on its merits, rather being done indirectly through firms that are under government conservatorship.
I do.
ReplyDeleteBruce I am Shocked that YOU would Agree on HOW Congress SPENDS OUR Money,Simply SHOCKED!
ReplyDeleteBut I will say that COMMENT was one of your BEST,just a little to LONG!
Just for my own info Bruce you DO pay Taxes Right,just Wondering
Of course. I stop to think what would have happened if congress and President Obama hadn't stepped in, how much worse the recession and unemployment would have been.
ReplyDeleteI consider the stimulus and other steps an investment. I do hope that Congress reinstates Glass Steagel to keep the banks from being too big to fail. More help should be given to main street, instead of Wall Street. If GM had gone out of business, hundreds of thousands more people would have been unemployed and it would have cost more for the unemployment insurance than the loan that went to GM.
On balance, the spending has been necessary to keep even worse economic events from happening. I think it would have been better if the stimulus had been bigger and had fewer tax cuts in it, as do most economists, especially once unemployment continued to climb.
We are in a far better place than where we would have been had Republicans been in charge, that I know for sure.
What did Obama say unemployment % wouldn't go past if we didn't do the Porkulus bill? They also said it would effect the economy right away didn't they? And that no bill would have pork in it. Bwaaaahahahahaha. Sorry that just came out. And that there would be no back dooring and that they would be on C-Span for all the bills. He said he would close GITMO and stop the wars. It looks like this guy thought hem could do a lot of things he couldn't. In fact what has he done that has gone even remotely as planed?
ReplyDeleteChris, economic forecasting is inexact to be sure. I think the economy was worse than they thought. Gitmo is getting closed, maybe a little later than predicted.
ReplyDeleteNothing is ever exactly the way candidates say it will be, Democrat or Republican.
He did say he would focus on the war in Afghanistan and he has, even though I disagree with his putting more troops in.
Given the circumstances he was handed, he's doing pretty well.
Well at least Bushes name was NOT used BUT there any way!
ReplyDeleteThe One Termer has DONE nothing to Help the Citizens unless You Consider SPENDING more Tax Payers Money than ALL other Presidents Combined,and what do WE have to show for it!
Nobama Care Bill going through Congress that if Passed WE will Never be able to Pay For BUT since he is a ONE TERMER he dont Care. Nobama is NOT yet done APOLIGIZING but NEXT time it will be to Citizens and VOTERS. Just like the World Community,Aint going to WORK!
Who do you think elected President Obama by a landslide, non-citizens? 69 million people voted for President Obama and his approval rating is still 56%, so a lot of people must disagree with you.
ReplyDeleteThe current health care bill is paid for and hopefully will put us on a path to single payer and more efficient health care than the current bill.
Who are the Republicans going to run, Sarah Palin? What a joke the Republican party is
Well, yes, the money does come out of the taxpayer’s pocket but in a way that most people don’t recognize. Bubbles and bailouts are not paid for with gold and silver. They are paid for with printing press money, which dilutes your savings and retirement funds.
ReplyDeleteSo who are the heroes of bubbles and bailouts? The short answer is, the money creators. They are presiding over and benefiting from the greatest transfer of wealth in history, with the almost certain guarantee that they will never be found out, because they are operating above the threshold of perceived reality.
I am telling you something that is not taught in any school in America.
Of course we should know that every new dollar that the money creators create dilutes every dollar already created. They are using non-substance fiat that cost them nothing and exchanging it for substance in the form of capital assets. This is a transfer of wealth by definition. This depreciating fiat is impoverishing all who hold dollar assets.
We live in a pro-collectivist, pro-government age. The government can get away with virtually anything if allegedly done in the collective interest of the “public,” with scarcely any media or public voice raised in criticism. Yet the same action by an individual or private company is attacked viciously and denounced as immoral and against “public policy.”
Fraud is so big at the highest levels in government and business that the very magnitude of it serves as part of the defrauders’ protection.
All fraud begins and ends with fiat. Fiat is not money. It is a substitute that has been placed in peoples minds and they think of it as money.
The most important thing that people can understand today and should understand before they become completely impoverished is that we have arrived at where we are today, simply because of the inability of people to differentiate between money and money substitutes which allows them to be continually swindled. This seems to be something that the money creators behind government have done over and over to swindle the population and the citizens never catch on.
We are about to enter a period of serious inflation. And it may even be hyperinflation.
There is absolutely no mystery about this inflation to come, as it will come because of excess printing of paper money.
Inflation is not as most people think, increasing prices. Inflation is depreciation of paper money. And the people who do the creating are the ones who benefit.
Bruce Fealk said...
ReplyDeleteChris, economic forecasting is inexact to be sure. I think the economy was worse than they thought. Gitmo is getting closed, maybe a little later than predicted.
How about the worst recession since the Great Depression. How in the world can there be worse then the Great Depression? You 'Progressives' make stuff up way too much. Why do you lie so much? Or is it just bending the truth for you 'Progressives'? Why is most of the Porkulus Bill still not spent? It conveniently starts moving along right around the time elections come up. Playing politics with the lives of Americans so that the Democrats can win in the elections of 2010 is as low as they can go. And now they want to take more money from our future generations to make another porkulus bill for the people. I'm sure that one will start to roll out around re election time 2012. As if the Democrats don't have enough money they are going to pave their future with our money. What are we going to do when there are no more bailouts to the fiscally liberal states? No problem because we are doing a fine job of educating our future generation the liberal way. Thanks to the liberals all our kids are educated to the level of the kid that licks the bus windows. There are no losers in the liberal world.
The greatest transfer of wealth may be right, but not from people to government, from the poor to the rich.
ReplyDeleteThe top 1% have 80% of the wealth. That's just not right in our system. In order for the country to prosper, there has to be a vibrant middle class and it's the middle class that the conservatives have screwed for decades.
President Obama's job approval rating has fallen to 47 percent in the latest Gallup poll, the lowest ever recorded for any president at this point in his term.
ReplyDeleteJimmy Carter, Gerald Ford and even Richard Nixon all had higher approval ratings 10-and-a-half months into their presidencies. Obama's immediate predecessor, President George W. Bush, had an approval rating of 86 percent, or 39 points higher than Obama at this stage. Bush's support came shortly after he launched the war in Afghanistan in response to the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said he doesn't "put a lot of stock" in the survey by Gallup, which has conducted presidential approval polls since 1938, longer than any other organization.
"If I was a heart patient and Gallup was my EKG, I'd visit my doctor," Gibbs said in response to questions from Fox. "I'm sure a six-year-old with a Crayon could do something not unlike that. I don't put a lot of stake in, never have, in the EKG that is daily Gallup trend. I don't pay a lot of attention to the meaninglessness of it."
Gallup Editor-in-Chief Frank Newport responded: "Gibbs said that if Gallup were his EKG, he would visit his doctor. Well, I think the doctor might ask him what's going on in his life that would cause his EKG to be fluctuating so much. There is, in fact, a lot going on at the moment -- the health care bill, the jobs summit, the Copenhagen climate conference and Afghanistan."
The new low comes as Obama struggles to overhaul the nation's health care system and escalates America's involvement in the Afghanistan war. He is also presiding over a deep and prolonged recession, with unemployment at 10 percent.
"There's no doubt Obama's 47 percent is mainly a result of the continuing bad economy," said Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics. "But there is also a growing concern about government spending and debt, and a sense that Obama is trying to do too much, too soon."
He added: "President Obama has reason to be concerned about his ratings. Even in tough times, presidents have usually been able to stay above the critical 50 percent mark in the first year, when the public is most inclined to give the new incumbent the benefit of the doubt."
Obama officials have not always shown disdain for Gallup. During last year's presidential campaign, Obama adviser David Plouffe, trumpeted "the latest Gallup poll" to reporters because it showed that 53 percent of Americans did not find Obama Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, "trustworthy."
When Gallup began taking presidential approval polls 71 years ago, Franklin Roosevelt had been president for more than five years. During his remaining time in office, his job approval rating never fell below 48 percent.
The next 11 presidents, both Democrats and Republicans, all had higher job approval ratings than Obama at this stage of their tenure. Their ratings were:
-- George W. Bush, 86 percent
-- Bill Clinton, 52 percent
-- George H.W. Bush, 71 percent
-- Ronald Reagan, 49 percent
-- Jimmy Carter, 57 percent
-- Gerald Ford, 52 percent
-- Richard Nixon, 59 percent
-- Lyndon Johnson, 74 percent
-- John Kennedy, 77 percent
-- Dwight Eisenhower, 69 percent
-- Harry Truman, 49 percent
The poll is an average of a three-day tracking of 1,529 adults taken Dec. 4-6. It has a margin of error of 3 percentage points.
Bruce that is a far cry from 56%. I also notice you are the only person that is willing to say they agree with the spending Congress and Obama have done so far. I bet you love our national debt. And that we owe our kids future to a communist nation? How can anyone take you serious Bruce?
Bruce what have the Democrats done for the middle class? Most of our money is going to bailout everyone but the middle and lower class. Where are all those jobs they talked about? Oh they went to SEIU govt workers. You want to spread the wealth? Why don't the unions ever want to give up their wealth for what they will benefit most from? Why wont the union members get payed a little more so that there could be more new hires? Why is it the small business' most Americans work for get the tax increases for healthcare and all the other BS you labor unions want? Why are the unions bitching about paying their fair share of the healthcare bill? They all get the 'cadilac' insurance but refuse to pay like the rest of us. I know you gave big money to get these guys elected and this is your payoff. The Democrats screwed the share holders of GM and gave it to the unions. Those people retired on that money and the Democrats played political games with those poor 'fat cats' money. No wonder no one is for the Democrats spending. Most people realize that they will be the ones paying for this mess. Get ready for inflasion welcome back Carter.
ReplyDeleteBruce, all of your numbers are total bullshit. Back it up with links like the rest of us do Bruce. Even Joey is happy to supply links/sources. Not you. And we all know why, because you are a total Hypocrat LIAR.
ReplyDeleteSo Bruce, you think it was right to give GM billions and then have them file bankruptcy, instead of just letting them file and not lose all that taxpayer money? And that is just the tip of the iceberg of your idiotic statements.
And now we all see what a communist you are Bruce. You want to redistribute the wealth. You said so right here in this blog comment section. Well Bruce, we're all ears about what you think a good wealth distribution should be. Lay it on us commie. How much is making too much? You are just repeating the same old liberal BS. You say the conservatives answer is less government, well we know what the only answer you Hypocrats have, and that is more taxes.
You have no idea what you are talking about Bruce. No clue at all. It's astounding to me how idiotic you really are, and it's a relief to me that nobody reads your blog or takes your comments seriously.
I don't make a ton of money, but I am happy with what I make and I sure don't begrudge someone who works hard for what they earn, and I sure don't want the government to take from them to give to me just because I F**KED off in high school and the only job I could get was a court stenographer/liberal weasel.
Get a life you F**KING loser Bruce FAILk.
Up to 1919, it cost $20/person, on average, to run the federal government (in TODAY'S dollars). Now it is $10,000.
ReplyDeleteThere is something terribly wrong with this government.
From the HuffPo of all places:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/susan-wilson-solovic/unions-and-small-business_b_407603.html
Unions and Small Business Are Like Oil and Water
Anyone who understands the reality of what it takes to run a successful small business knows that unions and small business are like oil and water. But the politicians in Washington DC don't get it. Why? Because they've never had to make payroll. Allow me to share a brief story and I'll explain.
My mother's family owned a small furniture manufacturing company in a rural southern-Missouri town. When union organizers appeared on the scene, the employees were told if they chose to vote for the union, the business would close down, and they'd all be out of jobs. Unfortunately, no one believed the owners would really lock the doors so they voted in favor of the Union. The next day when the employees arrived to work, the doors were locked ... never to re-open again.
When I was a child, my mother took me to visit that old plant. As I stood on my tiptoes peering in the windows of the dilapidated building, I saw furniture pieces in various states of completion, sitting just where the workers had left them - eerily waiting for their return.
I was far too young to understand the reasons why my family decided to lock the doors of their business instead of working with the union. But now as a small business owner, I bristle at the thought of what unionization would do to my small firm. In fact, I would be tempted to do the same thing my family did in the 1940s: Lock the doors and move on.
You would think in this day and age, that unionization would be a remote concern for a small business owner, but thanks to the Obama Administration, it is real and imminent. Leaders of unions spent $450 million electing President Obama and Congressional Democrats so now that the health care legislation is near completion, union leaders expect to see action on the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), commonly known as the card-check law, early this year. Briefly, the legislation makes it easier for unions to organize, and experts predict that it will pass this year.
A small business faced with unionization would be seriously impacted by higher wages, higher business operation/legal costs, and the loss of flexibility over employee selection based on business needs. All of this at a time when small businesses are struggling to keep their doors open and their staff employed.
If the government truly believes that small business is the engine that will drive this country out of a recession, then why in the world would they consider placing yet another cumbersome, costly, deterrent in its way?
My recommendation is to ask the President and members of Congress to walk a mile in our shoes - the shoes of small business owners who are just trying to survive. Give these politicos the opportunity to experience what it feels like to risk your life-savings on a business venture; to do without so your employees will be paid; to work 24/7 with no guarantee there be anything to show for your efforts; to be unable to access the capital you need to grow; and to pioneer innovations that give the U.S. a global competitive advantage.
Small business is the American dream. But if the government continues to ignore the realities small business owners face, it will successfully extinguish the dream.
By the way FAILk, Obama was elected with only 52.9% of the vote. Hardly the landslide that you proclaim it to be. Idiot.
ReplyDeleteAll these Socialist programs and that is what they are is for ONE Reason and that is Making as many Citizens as Possible Dependant on Government! Libs are attempting to KILL OUR Economy. Why else Spend OUR Great Grand Childrens Future or Actually their Non Future on Trillion Dollar Programs that as in the PAST under Government Control have ALWAYS Failed BADLY!
ReplyDeleteAll thats NEEDED to see Libs IDEAS for OUR Future is LOOK at OUR Big Cities plane and SIMPLE! LIB Run,LIB Controlled! Any Body that says LIBS Care About POOR Citizens look at the FAILURE of LIB Feel Good Programs that have done NOTHING to better POOR Citizens Education or Welfare. All they have Accomplished is to Make the POOR more BEHOLDING to Government!Entitlements ,Breed Entitlement Mentalities and so far LIBS MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
Middle Class Conservatives/Independants along with some Democarts Starting in November will make MANY Politicans also UNEMPLOYED but the Difference is Politicans have made their FORTUNES on the Backs of the Citizens!
Fiscal conservatives across the country have blasted the $871 billion healthcare bill passed by the Senate on Christmas Eve for its potential to increase medical costs, as well as for the earmarks won by several lawmakers in exchange for their support.
ReplyDeleteMany Republicans have taken issue with the fact that the bill is set to be financed through taxes on high-priced insurance plans, which they say will boost, rather than reduce, healthcare costs.
According to John H. Sununu, chairman of New Hampshire State Committee, "Senate Democrats enthusiastically supported a healthcare bill that will bankrupt our country and saddle future generations with crippling deficits," quoted by Seacoastonline.com.
Meanwhile, congressional GOP members, led by Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.), have blasted the special deals the Democratic leadership offered to some members of their caucus in exchange for votes.
For example, Senator Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) won the concession under which the federal government will pay for all of the new Medical enrollees in the state, instead of sharing the cost with the state government as will happen in the rest of the country, according to USA Today.
The source also reports that Senator Mary Landrieu (D-La.) obtained a $300 million bump in Medicaid funding for her state.
"Passage of this bill is an indication of the Chicago-style sleazy sausage-making that’s been going on around here," McCain said.
"The lobbyists and special interests have won [and the] American people have lost," he added.
So much waste in so little time.
A constitutional historian says American courts would have to overturn their last 80 years of jurisprudence to uphold the constitutionality of the healthcare bill in Congress.
ReplyDeleteThirteen Republican attorneys general are threatening to file a lawsuit against the Democrats' healthcare bill if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) refuse to remove a provision being called the "Cornhusker Kickback" -- the nearly $100 million Medicaid deal Democratic Senator Ben Nelson secured for his home state of Nebraska. Ostensibly, the deal was in exchange for Nelson's vote -- the 60th of 60 needed -- favoring the legislation. As reported earlier, the senator's decision has angered many Nebraskans.
In a letter sent last week, the 13 attorneys general argue the provision is "constitutionally flawed" and violates the U.S. Constitution's protection against "arbitrary" legislation. Constitutional historian David Barton, the president of WallBuilders, also believes the provision is unconstitutional.
"I think there's huge constitutional problems with this thing," exclaims Barton, "and it may be that we see the power of Congress limited constitutionally through a number of different venues by these various lawsuits that are out there."
Barton notes that court challenges are looming over the bill's individual mandate, as well as its anti-trust provision that forces a government monopoly. Texas Governor Rick Perry has also threatened to file a lawsuit, arguing the bill violates states' rights outlined in the Tenth Amendment.
Just before Christmas, The Heritage Foundation also questioned the constitutional legality of the healthcare legislation, publishing a legal memorandum charging that the individual mandate "takes congressional power and control to a striking new level."
The letter to Senator Reid and Congresswoman Pelosi was signed by top prosecutors in Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Washington state. Four of the Republican attorneys general are running for governor in their respective states.
Healthcare reform could lead to court battles if the Senate bill becomes law.
ReplyDeleteSteve Crampton of Liberty Counsel believes that many members of Congress have not read the 2,200 page healthcare bill, and he regards apprehension accompanying an extensive 383-page adjustment filed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada).
"We are most concerned by the latest so-called 'Manager's Amendment,' which invokes deep concerns concerning the violation of the principles of the Hyde Amendment, namely the public funding and forced taxpayer funding of abortion," Crampton explains.
Surveys show the vast majority of people are against using tax dollars to support abortions. Concern also arises with the fact that people may be forced to obtain health insurance.
"Our federal government, contrary to popular belief, really is a government of limited powers, and there is nowhere in the Constitution that gives Congress such incredible authority to require every citizen over the age of 18 to purchase healthcare," the attorney contends.
Crampton further adds that all members of Congress should raise and answer that question before imposing it on the people. Those two provisions, if passed into law, will be challenged in court.
A regulatory policy expert says the Obama administration is pursuing an odd strategy designed to prop up the housing market -- make even more bad mortgage loans.
ReplyDeleteQuietly on Christmas Eve the Obama administration lifted caps on how much federal bailout money mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac can receive from the U.S. Treasury.
The previous bailout limits for the two government-controlled firms were set at $200 billion each, but now there are no limits.
James Gattuso, a senior research fellow in regulatory policy at The Heritage Foundation, says the Obama administration either anticipates that Fannie and Freddie will report an especially poor financial performance for the fourth quarter that will require a massive new bailout, or the two firms will be asked to take on a much larger role.
"Bad scenario number two is the possibility than Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are going to become providers of bailout money to the rest of the housing industry and to the mortgage industry - to essentially become extensions of the TARP program through purchases of bad loans to try and prop up the rest of the financial sector," Gattuso notes. "That is, in my view, the more likely scenario and in fact would be an extension of what these government-run organizations have been doing for the past year anyway."
The research fellow says that if the Obama administration believes more housing subsidies are needed, then that should be announced directly and debated on its merits, rather being done indirectly through firms that are under government conservatorship.