|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 09, 2020, 06:26:39 am
News:
If you are having trouble logging in due to invalid user name / pass:

Consider resetting your account password, as you may have forgotten it over time if using a password manager.

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 61 62 63 64 65 [66] 67 68 69 70 71 ... 410 Print
Author Topic: The Official Obama Approval Ratings Thread  (Read 1031371 times)
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,100
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1625 on: July 26, 2009, 08:09:45 am »

We are likely to have a slow recovery. The easy gains from real estate speculation and from predatory or destructive activities (subprime lending, export of jobs) are no longer available. Obama will be unable to impose some economic magic that cuts unemployment levels to the point that inflation becomes a genuine threat, as he does not have command of the economy.

Silly Keynesian, inflation is a monetary phenomenon.  Inflation can occur even without meaningful growth (See: Zimbabwe).

Silly deflationist, deflation is also a monetary phenomenon. It always results in extreme hardship for any debtor. The Bush Administration and Big Business pushed debt as a surrogate for income, and deflation would make things far worse. Even we Americans have our limits of tolerance for personal ruin and for economic subjection.

And you are right that the recovery will be slow.  It will take up the lions share of this decade, I'm afraid.  That is one of the main reasons I do not see Obama being re-elected: Recovery will not be obvious enough fast enough.

Much as in the 1930s. Reality has set in, and nobody reasonably expects a return to the speculative binge that created the illusory prosperity of the 1920s this decade.

Nor are Obama's programs likely to make things better.

What did the GOP have to offer? Lower wages, tax cuts directed at the super-rich, big cuts in government spending except on defense, subsidies to the well-connected? Deflation to more thoroughly ruin those who had borrowed money for college loans to keep kids from becoming paupers?

Right-wingers are just lucky that the US doesn't have  a strong socialist movement. 

Any recovery in America is going to depend upon import substitution, formation of small businesses, and the likely recovery of industries that have recently had hard times (like the auto industry). Much of this will happen without him doing anything, and he will derive political gain from it.

I agree that growth will need to be driven by small businesses.  But you can't grow small businesses by raising taxes on small businesses or by mandating employer helath coverage.

Small businesses cannot afford to insure their employees because their small workforces give them little pricing power.

Most countries rely upon sales taxes to support their healthcare system. The US makes employees veritable hostages of their employers who offer health insurance out of some supposed pangs of charity.  Whether one buys an all-you-can-eat  buffet meal at some restaurant that pays its employees little or retains a high-priced law firm such a healthcare system ensures that because one has work one can get medical care.

Obama's promised tax increase on the rich is actually a tax increase on small businesses.  Small businesses pay what's called pass through taxation.  That menas taxes are not levied directly on the business' profits, but rather on the income the owner earns from his business.  Tax increases on the top marignal rate hit small businesses primarily, a fact that is apparently not known by the White House.  50% of the top 5% are small business owners and 75% of the top 1% are small business owners.  The owner recieves his share of the profits and pays income tax on his share.  This is how small businesses are taxed.

Most of the small businesses that you describe seem to be professional practices and large family farms -- not the mom-and-pop business struggling for survival on minuscule earnings.


Government activity must be effective and economical; it must create wealth (think of highway projects, conservation, retrofitting buildings for savings of energy, and the like).

When Obama starts building highways, be sure to notify me.

Government may retrofit its own buildings, but this is a tiny protion of our energy consumption.  If we end up saving money by retrofitting buildings, it will be because individuals and businesses chose to do it, not government.

Tax breaks. People got tax breaks for installing new windows with better insulation. 

So far I consider it blasphemous to compare Obama to FDR -- but Obama knows his US history. Note well that FDR won a huge landslide victory in 1936 even though the economy had yet recovered the 1929 level of prosperity -- but enough people seemed to believe that America was headed in the right direction.

That will be enough in 2012 to win, if not in a spectacular landslide.

Look at the actual data from FDRs first term.  There is a startling rapid improvement in every meaningful stat.  Where do people get this idea that FDR got re-elected without serious recovery?

Division of a small number by a much smaller number gets a big number. If a country like Burma or Laos ever gets its economic act together then it could easily have a spectacular growth rate. FDR had a huge growth rate for the economy because the 1929-1932 meltdown had utterly ravaged the US economy.

This gives some idea of how badly the valuations of common stock went in 1929, 1973, 2000, and 2007:



I can't tell you whether the current improvement is the start of something big -- or a suckers' rally (the 1929-1933 meltdown had one that looks much like the current gain in stock values)... but we seem to be in better shape than we were in a couple moths ago.

Don't fool yourself; the 2007-2009 Bad Bear followed the decline curve of the 1929-1933 bear for a couple of months, even going below in some weeks. This is a really bad one, and everyone knows it.
Logged
FloridaRepublican
justrhyno
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 455
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1626 on: July 26, 2009, 08:26:04 am »

"The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that 29% of the nation's voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -11. Thatís the first time his ratings have reached double digits in negative territory" -- Rasmussen Reports, Sunday, July 26, 2009
Logged
DS0816
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,173
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1627 on: July 26, 2009, 11:58:18 am »
« Edited: July 26, 2009, 12:03:06 pm by DS0816 »


Can Obama fail? Sure. His judgment could prove faulty, and his liberalism can conceivably go too far. He could be the recipient of some incredible misfortune. That said, his personality seems right for the role, and he gets much leeway after a bad President. Right now it seems just as likely that Obama will win re-election in an Eisenhower-style landslide or be defeated.
Take 100 electoral votes from Obama's 2008 victory and he ends up with 265 EV and a loss; add 100 and he ends up with 465 EV and a huge landslide.

You're a smart individual.

The changing demographics. The 18-29 voters. Part of that group that will, for Election 2012, move into 30-44 while new 18-29 voters emerge. The fact that all age groups except those 65 and over Ö voted, in Election 2008, for Barack Obama. Men, too. And, yet, reduced overall support in party indentification for the GOP who were exposed, via the Bush administration, for the empty shells they areÖ

Some people here are doing a whole lotta fantasizing. They're dreaming there's a movement back to Republican Party rule while the country is realigning against the GOP.


Logged
Zarn
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,820


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1628 on: July 26, 2009, 12:12:55 pm »


Can Obama fail? Sure. His judgment could prove faulty, and his liberalism can conceivably go too far. He could be the recipient of some incredible misfortune. That said, his personality seems right for the role, and he gets much leeway after a bad President. Right now it seems just as likely that Obama will win re-election in an Eisenhower-style landslide or be defeated.
Take 100 electoral votes from Obama's 2008 victory and he ends up with 265 EV and a loss; add 100 and he ends up with 465 EV and a huge landslide.

You're a smart individual.

The changing demographics. The 18-29 voters. Part of that group that will, for Election 2012, move into 30-44 while new 18-29 voters emerge. The fact that all age groups except those 65 and over Ö voted, in Election 2008, for Barack Obama. Men, too. And, yet, reduced overall support in party indentification for the GOP who were exposed, via the Bush administration, for the empty shells they areÖ

Some people here are doing a whole lotta fantasizing. They're dreaming there's a movement back to Republican Party rule while the country is realigning against the GOP.




It's no longer Nov 2008.
Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,625
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1629 on: July 26, 2009, 12:28:15 pm »

"The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that 29% of the nation's voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -11. Thatís the first time his ratings have reached double digits in negative territory" -- Rasmussen Reports, Sunday, July 26, 2009

All that tells me is this president is being held to a very high standard. Even post-Katrina, I can only recall Bush's strongly disapprove rating hovering around 46% and pretty much staying there

While the economy remains as it is, the trajectory for this president seems likely to echo Reagan's. He, of course, was saved by robust growth, and falling unemployment, in the later period of his first term after what was a pretty nasty recession. Unfortunately, for this president, capitalism is more universal nowadays and, consequently, there are more significant players out there

Bottom-line, if people are expecting miracles seventh months into the Obama presidency, then that is wishful thinking and the challenge is for the president to prove his doubters wrong. Healthcare, for a start, would be an easier sell were the economy not as it is. And like all those faced with challenging times before him, he is going to have to be bold. FDR, of course, never had such the wide range of special interests lined up against him, while both he and LBJ had been given thumping mandates bty the electorate

It ain't easy being a Democrat considering the ideological nature of America, especially given the recalcitrant nature of the Right, for whom Bush's only folly was to spend too much
Logged
FloridaRepublican
justrhyno
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 455
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1630 on: July 26, 2009, 12:29:36 pm »

"The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that 29% of the nation's voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -11. Thatís the first time his ratings have reached double digits in negative territory" -- Rasmussen Reports, Sunday, July 26, 2009

All that tells me is this president is being held to a very high standard. Even post-Katrina, I can only recall Bush's strongly disapprove rating hovering around 46% and pretty much staying there

While the economy remains as it is, the trajectory for this president seems likely to echo Reagan's. He, of course, was saved by robust growth, and falling unemployment, in the later period of his first term after what was a pretty nasty recession. Unfortunately, for this president, capitalism is more universal nowadays and, consequently, there are more significant players out there

Bottom-line, if people are expecting miracles seventh months into the Obama presidency, then that is wishful thinking and the challenge is for the president to prove his doubters wrong. Healthcare, for a start, would be an easier sell were the economy not as it is. And like all those faced with challenging times before him, he is going to have to be bold. FDR, of course, never had such the wide range of special interests lined up against him, while both he and LBJ had been given thumping mandate

It ain't easy being a Democrat considering the ideological nature of America, especially given the recalcitrant nature of the Right, for whom Bush's only folly was to spend too much

You can't even compare Obama to Reagan or FDR or even LBJ.  And if anything, it's the left that's recalcitrant.  Or at least they were when Bush was president.  The right is only giving them a taste of their own medicine.
Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,625
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1631 on: July 26, 2009, 01:47:09 pm »

"The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that 29% of the nation's voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -11. Thatís the first time his ratings have reached double digits in negative territory" -- Rasmussen Reports, Sunday, July 26, 2009

All that tells me is this president is being held to a very high standard. Even post-Katrina, I can only recall Bush's strongly disapprove rating hovering around 46% and pretty much staying there

While the economy remains as it is, the trajectory for this president seems likely to echo Reagan's. He, of course, was saved by robust growth, and falling unemployment, in the later period of his first term after what was a pretty nasty recession. Unfortunately, for this president, capitalism is more universal nowadays and, consequently, there are more significant players out there

Bottom-line, if people are expecting miracles seventh months into the Obama presidency, then that is wishful thinking and the challenge is for the president to prove his doubters wrong. Healthcare, for a start, would be an easier sell were the economy not as it is. And like all those faced with challenging times before him, he is going to have to be bold. FDR, of course, never had such the wide range of special interests lined up against him, while both he and LBJ had been given thumping mandate

It ain't easy being a Democrat considering the ideological nature of America, especially given the recalcitrant nature of the Right, for whom Bush's only folly was to spend too much

You can't even compare Obama to Reagan or FDR or even LBJ.  And if anything, it's the left that's recalcitrant.  Or at least they were when Bush was president.  The right is only giving them a taste of their own medicine.

Can you read or not? I'm not comparing Obama to Reagan, FDR or LBJ. As for Bush, my criticism only ever centred on the man's ineptitude

This president hasn't been bequeathed a robust economy that had generated 23 million jobs or a federal government living well within its means, which means that about the only certainty is that Obama has a steep climb ahead of him, which, sooner or later, will require bold, and not necessarily popular, action - and that, in my book, is leadership. The action taken in respect of General Motors, for example, has hardly proven to be the most popular decision the president has made, now has it?
Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,242
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1632 on: July 26, 2009, 02:04:59 pm »

You can't even compare Obama to Reagan or FDR or even LBJ.  And if anything, it's the left that's recalcitrant.  Or at least they were when Bush was president.  The right is only giving them a taste of their own medicine.

Yeah, it's all the fault of the recalcitrant left who voted against Bush's tax cuts, the Patriot Act, the Iraq War, Bush's Prescription Drug Benefit, etc.
Logged
FloridaRepublican
justrhyno
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 455
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1633 on: July 26, 2009, 02:19:26 pm »

You can't even compare Obama to Reagan or FDR or even LBJ.  And if anything, it's the left that's recalcitrant.  Or at least they were when Bush was president.  The right is only giving them a taste of their own medicine.

Yeah, it's all the fault of the recalcitrant left who voted against Bush's tax cuts, the Patriot Act, the Iraq War, Bush's Prescription Drug Benefit, etc.

Actually the Iraq War would have went much smoother had the left not kept getting in the way of Bush's actions and constantly criticizing him.
Logged
You kip if you want to...
change08
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 8,943
United Kingdom
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1634 on: July 26, 2009, 02:30:02 pm »

You can't even compare Obama to Reagan or FDR or even LBJ.  And if anything, it's the left that's recalcitrant.  Or at least they were when Bush was president.  The right is only giving them a taste of their own medicine.

Yeah, it's all the fault of the recalcitrant left who voted against Bush's tax cuts, the Patriot Act, the Iraq War, Bush's Prescription Drug Benefit, etc.

Actually the Iraq War would have went much smoother had the left not kept getting in the way of Bush's actions and constantly criticizing him.

Where are those WMDs again?
Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,625
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1635 on: July 26, 2009, 02:42:33 pm »

Gallup 7/26/09

Approve 56% (+1)

Disapprove 37% (-2)

http://www.gallup.com/poll/politics.aspx
Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,242
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1636 on: July 26, 2009, 03:13:34 pm »

You can't even compare Obama to Reagan or FDR or even LBJ.  And if anything, it's the left that's recalcitrant.  Or at least they were when Bush was president.  The right is only giving them a taste of their own medicine.

Yeah, it's all the fault of the recalcitrant left who voted against Bush's tax cuts, the Patriot Act, the Iraq War, Bush's Prescription Drug Benefit, etc.

Actually the Iraq War would have went much smoother had the left not kept getting in the way of Bush's actions and constantly criticizing him.

Tell me again why you hate Chavez, Putin and Ahmedinejad?
Logged
FloridaRepublican
justrhyno
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 455
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1637 on: July 26, 2009, 03:26:57 pm »

You can't even compare Obama to Reagan or FDR or even LBJ.  And if anything, it's the left that's recalcitrant.  Or at least they were when Bush was president.  The right is only giving them a taste of their own medicine.

Yeah, it's all the fault of the recalcitrant left who voted against Bush's tax cuts, the Patriot Act, the Iraq War, Bush's Prescription Drug Benefit, etc.

Actually the Iraq War would have went much smoother had the left not kept getting in the way of Bush's actions and constantly criticizing him.

Tell me again why you hate Chavez, Putin and Ahmedinejad?

Because they're tyrannical dictators
Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,242
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1638 on: July 26, 2009, 03:46:35 pm »

You can't even compare Obama to Reagan or FDR or even LBJ.  And if anything, it's the left that's recalcitrant.  Or at least they were when Bush was president.  The right is only giving them a taste of their own medicine.

Yeah, it's all the fault of the recalcitrant left who voted against Bush's tax cuts, the Patriot Act, the Iraq War, Bush's Prescription Drug Benefit, etc.

Actually the Iraq War would have went much smoother had the left not kept getting in the way of Bush's actions and constantly criticizing him.

Tell me again why you hate Chavez, Putin and Ahmedinejad?

Because they're tyrannical dictators

Thanks for the clarification.
Logged
War on Want
Evilmexicandictator
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 7,647
Uzbekistan


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -8.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1639 on: July 26, 2009, 04:12:38 pm »

You can't even compare Obama to Reagan or FDR or even LBJ.  And if anything, it's the left that's recalcitrant.  Or at least they were when Bush was president.  The right is only giving them a taste of their own medicine.

Yeah, it's all the fault of the recalcitrant left who voted against Bush's tax cuts, the Patriot Act, the Iraq War, Bush's Prescription Drug Benefit, etc.

Actually the Iraq War would have went much smoother had the left not kept getting in the way of Bush's actions and constantly criticizing him.
No.
Logged
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 9,354


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1640 on: July 26, 2009, 06:19:48 pm »

We are likely to have a slow recovery. The easy gains from real estate speculation and from predatory or destructive activities (subprime lending, export of jobs) are no longer available. Obama will be unable to impose some economic magic that cuts unemployment levels to the point that inflation becomes a genuine threat, as he does not have command of the economy.

Silly Keynesian, inflation is a monetary phenomenon.  Inflation can occur even without meaningful growth (See: Zimbabwe).

Silly deflationist, deflation is also a monetary phenomenon. It always results in extreme hardship for any debtor. The Bush Administration and Big Business pushed debt as a surrogate for income, and deflation would make things far worse. Even we Americans have our limits of tolerance for personal ruin and for economic subjection.

What I'm telling you is not that deflation is good.  I don't know how you got that idea.

What I am telling you is that:
a) The Fed should be tasked with handling the recovery because only they have the tools and expertise to control price level
b) The stimulus ties the Fed's hands by forcing them to monetize more debt than they want to and
c) If you force the Fed to monetize more debt than they want to you can get inflation without growth

You seem to be under the impression that we won't have inflation period.  I think that view is tragically mistaken.  The Fed has managed to keep price level steady, avoiding deflation or inflation, since the crash began.  How much longer will they be able to keep price level steady with our current fiscal policy?  The only way for them to keep price level steady will be to raise interest rates, which will slow the recovery further.

Shoulda let the Fed do its job, guys.
Logged
Kaine for Senate '18
benconstine
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,348
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1641 on: July 26, 2009, 06:24:27 pm »

Actually the Iraq War would have went much smoother had the left not kept getting in the way of Bush's actions and constantly criticizing him.

Really?  Was it the Left's fault that Rumsfeld badly mismanaged the War, or that Bush didn't have a plan for the post Hussein era?
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,100
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1642 on: July 26, 2009, 08:18:34 pm »

We are likely to have a slow recovery. The easy gains from real estate speculation and from predatory or destructive activities (subprime lending, export of jobs) are no longer available. Obama will be unable to impose some economic magic that cuts unemployment levels to the point that inflation becomes a genuine threat, as he does not have command of the economy.

Silly Keynesian, inflation is a monetary phenomenon.  Inflation can occur even without meaningful growth (See: Zimbabwe).

Silly deflationist, deflation is also a monetary phenomenon. It always results in extreme hardship for any debtor. The Bush Administration and Big Business pushed debt as a surrogate for income, and deflation would make things far worse. Even we Americans have our limits of tolerance for personal ruin and for economic subjection.

What I'm telling you is not that deflation is good.  I don't know how you got that idea.

What I am telling you is that:
a) The Fed should be tasked with handling the recovery because only they have the tools and expertise to control price level
b) The stimulus ties the Fed's hands by forcing them to monetize more debt than they want to and
c) If you force the Fed to monetize more debt than they want to you can get inflation without growth


a) I agree.

b) If the debt results from government spending in an under-heated economy, then such is simply arithmetic. The debt may do no obvious immediate good -- let us say, that it pays off foreign creditors  -- in which it "simply" realizes the worthlessness of what we borrowed for. Going heavily into debt to keep up appearances or to go on spending binges has always been bad economy for a person -- and a people. 

c) You are discussing destructive inflation -- the sort that makes a mockery of thrift. The government $crews its creditors -- bond-holders -- through a repudiation of debt in all but name. Assets go into inflation-dodges, and people think only of the short term. Savings accounts, government and industry bonds,  and insurance policies (the usual means of financing long-term investments) lose their value or become extremely unpopular. People with money to lend do what they can to lend outside their economy.   But John Maynard Keynes  explained that situation very well, too, and he offered an obvious solution: raise taxes, cut spending, and shrink the money supply.

It is unwise to confuse fiscal policy and monetary policy. Government spending does not itself create inflation -- so long as the government is able to cut consumption (the least of our problems right now, thank you).

The quantity theory of money, prices, and exchange is a basic equation of economics:

   MV  = PT

M is the money supply, V is the velocity of money, P is the price level (not an inflation rate!), and T is the real value of transactions. It's easy to believe that V and T are fixed -- but toward the Keynesian "liquidity trap" (people are hoarding cash because they dare not take any risks of consuming more than the bare minimum), an increase in the money supply might be completely ineffective in getting people to spend more because PT is fixed and the velocity of money shrinks to accommodate the increased amount of money in hoards.  With an overheated economy an increase of the money supply leads to a similar increase in the price level (a/k/a inflation); thus a 5% increase in the money supply leads to roughly a 5% increase in the price level. When the money-issuing authority goes wild with the printing press, things really go bad -- current Zimbabwe, Germany in the 1920s, China and Hungary in the late 1940s.  Because creditors are the most reliable conservers of wealth, such inflation implies big trouble.

Zero inflation is an impossible goal if one wants to reduce unemployment, but even worse than a minuscule amount of inflation is the effort needed to achieve it. 

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Shoulda let the Fed do its job, guys.
[/quote]

Monetary policy can precipitate economic collapses, but no evidence exists that it can get a nation out of a depression or even a recession.
Logged
Smash255
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,954


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1643 on: July 26, 2009, 11:27:25 pm »

You can't even compare Obama to Reagan or FDR or even LBJ.  And if anything, it's the left that's recalcitrant.  Or at least they were when Bush was president.  The right is only giving them a taste of their own medicine.

Yeah, it's all the fault of the recalcitrant left who voted against Bush's tax cuts, the Patriot Act, the Iraq War, Bush's Prescription Drug Benefit, etc.

Actually the Iraq War would have went much smoother had the left not kept getting in the way of Bush's actions and constantly criticizing him.

Ok so wait.  Your attempting to argue that the Iraq war went the way it did because of people who held protests and not  because of the people within the Bush administration who made the decisions and  'planning'  (cough)??  Is that what your trying to argue here??
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,409
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1644 on: July 26, 2009, 11:53:03 pm »

pbrower is in fantasyland.  A lot of Dems are.

Comparing Obama in 2012 to Reagan in 1984?

Reagan's "morning in America" campaign worked because the economy was growing.  I fhe had said it was morning in America and unemploymnet had been at 12%, people would have thought he had a screw loose.  Reagan won because he ran on his record.

What was Reagan's record in July 1981?  Was it the same as it was in November 1984?

I don't think so.
Logged
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 9,354


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1645 on: July 27, 2009, 01:19:46 am »

Sigh.  No one said all government spening is inflationary.  But if government spending forces the central bank to monetize debt (as is happenning now) it will be inflationary.
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,786
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1646 on: July 27, 2009, 07:40:11 am »

Arizona (Rasmussen)Sad

46% Approve
53% Disapprove

(Gov. Jan Brewer)

48% Approve
48% Disapprove

Generally speaking, do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and the congressional Democrats?

45% Favor
52% Oppose

This statewide telephone survey of 500 Likely Voters in Arizona was conducted by Rasmussen Reports July 21, 2009. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 4.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_state_surveys/arizona/toplines/toplines_arizona_july_21_2009
Logged
Hash
Hashemite
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,885
Cuba


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1647 on: July 27, 2009, 07:53:07 am »


Let them be sick and die then.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,100
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1648 on: July 27, 2009, 08:12:47 am »

New poll in Arizona:



It replaces an old one, and nothing really changes. It's Rasmussen's "likely voters" screen which likely underestimates younger potential voters. 
Logged
Dan the Roman
liberalrepublican
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,858
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1649 on: July 27, 2009, 08:14:25 am »


And let them be unemployed. The whole reason the US manufacturing sector has been collapsing for the last ten years is because of the lack of government healthcare which makes it impossible to compete with what is a massive government subsidy anywhere else in the world.

Granted Obama deserves his approval rating for badly mismanaging the healthcare debate and not casting it in economic terms where there is no sane opposition.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 61 62 63 64 65 [66] 67 68 69 70 71 ... 410 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines