Gallup: Obama's job approval tumbles

[Sbane]

Sure, let's blame the guy who has no control in letting legislation get through and is actually willing to compromise.

I swear, politics here is making me incredibly cynical.

Who's willing to compromise?  I haven't seen anyone put forward a compromise.  Obama is insisting on a tax hike and the GOP is insisting on using only spending cuts.

I don't understand how they are equivalent. The GOP is saying no tax hikes on anyone, whereas the Democrats are asking for both taxes and spending cuts. Now, some on this forum don't want any spending cuts at all, but that is not the position of the national Democratic party. They are moderates. The current GOP party is extremist.

Oh yeah, the GOP should be the ones proposing the entitlement cuts, if they really want it, just like the Dems should propose the tax hikes/reform/whatever the hell you want to call it. The GOP ran against the Dems for cutting Medicare in 2010. Why should the Dems just bend over and take it again?

You're reminding me of the infamous Monty Python SPAM sketch.  That's not got MUCH tax hike in it.

Hmm? I think we need a healthy helping of tax hikes/tax reform. I would raise revenues, but by instituting a very tight deduction cap so it only helps the middle class. And of course a good helping of spending cuts as well (which is opposed by some here apparently), with a big focus on the military. Raising co pays in Medicare and putting a limit on how much supplemental insurance can cover co pays would help as well, but the GOP decided to play with fire in 2010. Oh well.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Of course, I'm highly dubious not just of Gallup overall, but any polling firm which shows a 6% swing in a single set of polling.

[AkSaber]

Sounds too good to be true.

[Indy Texas]

Sure, let's blame the guy who has no control in letting legislation get through and is actually willing to compromise.

I swear, politics here is making me incredibly cynical.

Obama has some responsibility for this situation. He should have made getting rid of the sequester a precondition for a fiscal cliff deal back in December. He had a much better hand back then and could have forced the Republicans into a much better deal than whatever comes now if a deal is reached. And even if that failed, I would rather have gone over the cliff (which would have led to higher taxes for the wealthy) than fix the revenue part of it without addressing the cuts, like the democrats did.

How would he have made getting rid of the sequester a precondition for a fiscal cliff deal when he supported the sequester when it was created in 2011?

The whole situation is unfortunate, but the reality is that he has offered options that include spending cuts, entitlement reforms and tax loophole closures. The Republicans have made it clear by rejecting these that they aren't interested in cutting spending, reforming entitlements or closing tax loopholes - they only want to ensure that the amount of taxes paid grows infinitely smaller and that wealthy people get yet another round of tax cuts.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Obama and the Dems aren't insisting on a tax hike, that's the GOP's current spin.

Obama and the Dems now want tax reform... closing loopholes, getting rid of or limiting some deductions and credits. You know, what Romney and Boehner and McConnell and Coburn etc have been saying they want. Obama has said before that he could agree to lowering the corporate tax rate if the loopholes he particularly doesn't like are closed.

Call it a tax hike or a tax reform, the fact is that the Dems want to increase total tax revenue.  

They could have fooled me. The fiscal cliff deal was one of the largest tax cuts in history.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Oh, I agree we need to increase tax revenues as part of a deficit cutting package, but politically that can only be done in conjunction with cuts in entitlement spending.  There's no way such a package can be negotiated as part of the sequester mess and the GOP would be idiots to concede that a tax hike is acceptable in exchange for spending cuts unless it is locked down that those are cuts in entitlement spending.  Discretionary spending cuts are too easily reversed through the use of "temporary" supplemental spending bills.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Why the obsession with cutting the deficit when the economy is still on fragile ground?

Oh right, because the ideological consensus in Washington is that austerity for the masses is a good thing (but don't you dare hike up taxes on wealthy Americans any further now!)

American politics are exceedingly terrible, but what else is new?

[Indy Texas]

Oh, I agree we need to increase tax revenues as part of a deficit cutting package, but politically that can only be done in conjunction with cuts in entitlement spending.  There's no way such a package can be negotiated as part of the sequester mess and the GOP would be idiots to concede that a tax hike is acceptable in exchange for spending cuts unless it is locked down that those are cuts in entitlement spending.  Discretionary spending cuts are too easily reversed through the use of "temporary" supplemental spending bills.

You're in the minority, then. What package have the House Republicans proposed that doesn't require loophole closures come with rate cuts that would effectively lower revenue? "Broadening the base and lowering the rates" as they call it isn't going to raise revenue - it's just going to shift more tax burden away from the rich and onto everyone else and yield less revenue in the process. As for entitlement spending, the Republicans don't want to cut entitlement spending. They want to want to cut entitlement spending. Because they get elected by the people at the town hall meetings who holler about how "I earned my Social Security/Medicare! I paid into it and those benefits are mine!" without understanding how much more money they get out of those programs than they ever paid into them, and without understanding that their payments were given to people who were retired when they were still working - it didn't go into some little piggy bank with their name on it.

[Sbane]

Oh, I agree we need to increase tax revenues as part of a deficit cutting package, but politically that can only be done in conjunction with cuts in entitlement spending.  There's no way such a package can be negotiated as part of the sequester mess and the GOP would be idiots to concede that a tax hike is acceptable in exchange for spending cuts unless it is locked down that those are cuts in entitlement spending.  Discretionary spending cuts are too easily reversed through the use of "temporary" supplemental spending bills.

Entitlement changes with increased revenue coming from tax reform would be the best. Unfortunately politics gets in the way.

[Sbane]

Oh, I agree we need to increase tax revenues as part of a deficit cutting package, but politically that can only be done in conjunction with cuts in entitlement spending.  There's no way such a package can be negotiated as part of the sequester mess and the GOP would be idiots to concede that a tax hike is acceptable in exchange for spending cuts unless it is locked down that those are cuts in entitlement spending.  Discretionary spending cuts are too easily reversed through the use of "temporary" supplemental spending bills.

You're in the minority, then. What package have the House Republicans proposed that doesn't require loophole closures come with rate cuts that would effectively lower revenue? "Broadening the base and lowering the rates" as they call it isn't going to raise revenue - it's just going to shift more tax burden away from the rich and onto everyone else and yield less revenue in the process. As for entitlement spending, the Republicans don't want to cut entitlement spending. They want to want to cut entitlement spending. Because they get elected by the people at the town hall meetings who holler about how "I earned my Social Security/Medicare! I paid into it and those benefits are mine!" without understanding how much more money they get out of those programs than they ever paid into them, and without understanding that their payments were given to people who were retired when they were still working - it didn't go into some little piggy bank with their name on it.

It depends on how its done. Instituting a deduction cap without touching rates would be great. Even if rates are reduced, the top rate should remain the same and the rates of the middle class go down a little.

[jaichind]

Obama and the Dems aren't insisting on a tax hike, that's the GOP's current spin.

Obama and the Dems now want tax reform... closing loopholes, getting rid of or limiting some deductions and credits. You know, what Romney and Boehner and McConnell and Coburn etc have been saying they want. Obama has said before that he could agree to lowering the corporate tax rate if the loopholes he particularly doesn't like are closed.

To me that is a tax increase.  Sorry for sounding like the GOP spin machine, but I am fine with reducing/limiting deductions and credits as long the extra revenue gained is returned in the form of lower rates so the act itself is revenue neutral.  The sequester cuts should all be in the form of spending cuts and not net revenue.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

What package have the House Republicans proposed that doesn't require loophole closures come with rate cuts that would effectively lower revenue?

As I already said, the House GOP is being as uncompromising as Obama and the Democrats have been.  My point has not been that the House GOP has been reasonable, but that the Democrats are being equally unreasonable politically.  Right now, both sides agree that the sequester is a bad thing, but the other side is proposing something even worse.  I don't see that changing any time soon.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

If the Democrats were being as unreasonable as the GOP, they would be proposing only tax increases and not a dime of spending cuts.

[Lief 🗽]

The majority of the country supports the Democrats centrist position of a combination of tax increases and spending cuts. It's the extremist GOP who is refusing to pass anything but 100% spending cuts, a position held by only about one third of Americans.

[fezzyfestoon]

As it should. But not in favor of Republicans, that's insane. Like tossing Mussolini in favor of Hitler.

[Brittain33]

If the Democrats were being as unreasonable as the GOP, they would be proposing only tax increases and not a dime of spending cuts.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Sure, let's blame the guy who has no control in letting legislation get through and is actually willing to compromise.

I swear, politics here is making me incredibly cynical.

Obama has some responsibility for this situation. He should have made getting rid of the sequester a precondition for a fiscal cliff deal back in December. He had a much better hand back then and could have forced the Republicans into a much better deal than whatever comes now if a deal is reached. And even if that failed, I would rather have gone over the cliff (which would have led to higher taxes for the wealthy) than fix the revenue part of it without addressing the cuts, like the democrats did.

How would he have made getting rid of the sequester a precondition for a fiscal cliff deal when he supported the sequester when it was created in 2011?

Obama never supported the sequester. It just turned out to be the only way to get Republicans to raise the debt ceiling. If the house GOP didn't engage in constant blackmailing, none of these "fiscal crises" would have ever happened.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

And Romney will win the election by 7%. I'm sure Obama's approvals are sliding, but I'm no longer taking Gallup seriously.

[John Dibble]

The sequester fight just makes everyone look bad, and the American people are just plain TIRED and bored and beyond-annoyed of budgetary politics.

From my very cynical point of view, I like this.  Since I reject government solutions, a situation where the population views politics and government as dysfunctional will lead them not to look to government for solutions to problems is the political situation I very much would like.

You're not cynical enough. We live in a representative democracy where two parties have dominated throughout its history - they will continue looking for government solutions in all likelihood, and that solution will be to elect new politicians who are in all likelihood not all that different from those that they are replacing. Only a few will be replaced, so the dysfunction is not wiped away, and any new pols who might actually want to affect real change will be unable to do so.

[King]

His approval swung up 5 points on lolGallup today

[Lief 🗽]

And that's why you never take Gallup seriously.

[Linus Van Pelt]

It would actually be more alarming if there weren't the occasional random outlier in a tracking poll like this.

[jaichind]

Gallup approval back to 47

[Paul Kemp]

Has the deluge come?

[HoosierPoliticalJunkie]

2014 midterms could be brutal for Dems.