Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Apparently so.
Reagan was at 40% when the economy finally started turning around.
Obama is at around 50% as the economy is starting to turn around.
Pretty darned good actually.
The fact is ANY TIME the country goes through a severe recession the President's approval rating (WHOEVER he is) suffers.
As the recovery takes hold, that approval rating recovers.
It will be the same this time around.
Ken
And when the deficit chickens come home to roost the ratings will be where? I mean after all zero is as low as he can go I guess.
Apparently so.
Reagan was at 40% when the economy finally started turning around.
Obama is at around 50% as the economy is starting to turn around.
Pretty darned good actually.
The fact is ANY TIME the country goes through a severe recession the President's approval rating (WHOEVER he is) suffers.
As the recovery takes hold, that approval rating recovers.
It will be the same this time around.
Ken
Actually, for the most part I agree with you. The only point of divergence is as to whether the economy is already turning around. You seem to say yes but I am, at this point, doubtful.
And when the deficit chickens come home to roost the ratings will be where?
Well, that all depends that what the Administration does once the economy recovers. If they continue to add to the deficit - then yeah his ratings will be low (and it will be deserved), but if Obama begins working on reducing the deficit once the economic crises is past (as Clinton did) - then his ratings will be just fine. I'm not expecting him to eliminate the deficit - but I do expect him to start working on reducing it at that time.
The deficit is an important issue to be sure - but right now it has to take a back seat to getting the economy up and running again - THEN we can start doing what's necessary to address it (as Clinton was doing). You folks act like Obama invented the deficit - well I got news for you, EVERY President since Reagan (and INCLUDING Reagan) except for Clinton has just pushed the deficit higher and done NOTHING to reduce it. This is a problem that grown for the last 30 years and it's NOT going to be fixed overnight. Sometimes (like now, in the midst of a MAJOR economic crises) we really have little choice but to add to it with economic stimulus (as EVERY major country in the world has done). The time to REDUCE the deficit is when the economy is humming along - like for example the last 8 years.
Where were all your complaints about the deficit then?
Seems to me you folks were strangely silent.
Well, that all depends that what the Administration does once the economy recovers. If they continue to add to the deficit - then yeah his ratings will be low (and it will be deserved), but if Obama begins working on reducing the deficit once the economic crises is past (as Clinton did) - then his ratings will be just fine. I'm not expecting him to eliminate the deficit - but I do expect him to start working on reducing it at that time.
The deficit is an important issue to be sure - but right now it has to take a back seat to getting the economy up and running again - THEN we can start doing what's necessary to address it (as Clinton was doing). You folks act like Obama invented the deficit - well I got news for you, EVERY President since Reagan (and INCLUDING Reagan) except for Clinton has just pushed the deficit higher and done NOTHING to reduce it. This is a problem that grown for the last 30 years and it's NOT going to be fixed overnight. Sometimes (like now, in the midst of a MAJOR economic crises) we really have little choice but to add to it with economic stimulus (as EVERY major country in the world has done). The time to REDUCE the deficit is when the economy is humming along - like for example the last 8 years.
Where were all your complaints about the deficit then?
Seems to me you folks were strangely silent.
Ken
Ken,
You are not like some of the liberal sheep and thank God there are some like you still around.
Now back to the problem.
1. Liberals never control spending. Fact (that applies to most politicians today unfortunately)
2. Liberals have never seen a social program they won't fund. Fact
3. Liberals love Pork in their budgets. Fact (#1 applies here too)
4. The kicker. Liberals are historically the Tax and Spend Party. Fact
The above are facts. That being the case Obama will wake up someday and see that the deficit is destroying the country. He may or may not want to reduce the deficit. The problem will be that he won't be able to. The best thing we can hope for is that the Republicans will win back the Senate and or House in the next 4 years. Then and only then we might be okay. I am not a fan of either party but as shown by history, Bill Clinton, we do best when we have checks and balances and worse when we don't, GWB, Obama.
I know you a smart enough to know this to be the truth.
BTW I did have extreme problems with the way the Republicans spent like Democrats. That is why I did not vote for either major party and am a big fan of blowoutcongress.com
You are not like some of the liberal sheep and thank God there are some like you still around.
Now back to the problem.
1. Liberals never control spending. Fact (that applies to most politicians today unfortunately)
2. Liberals have never seen a social program they won't fund. Fact
3. Liberals love Pork in their budgets. Fact (#1 applies here too)
4. The kicker. Liberals are historically the Tax and Spend Party. Fact
The above are facts. That being the case Obama will wake up someday and see that the deficit is destroying the country. He may or may not want to reduce the deficit. The problem will be that he won't be able to. The best thing we can hope for is that the Republicans will win back the Senate and or House in the next 4 years. Then and only then we might be okay. I am not a fan of either party but as shown by history, Bill Clinton, we do best when we have checks and balances and worse when we don't, GWB, Obama.
I know you a smart enough to know this to be the truth.
BTW I did have extreme problems with the way the Republicans spent like Democrats. That is why I did not vote for either major party and am a big fan of blowoutcongress.com
Don
Don,
I don't think any particular party has "lock" on the title of "big spender". It IS true that there has been mostly Democratic control of Congress during this long period of deficit spending - but it's also true that in the relatively short time the GOP has controlled the Congress their fiscal discipline has been pretty darned poor as well. While they started out pretty well in that regard under Clinton, it didn't take them very long to start spending like drunken soldiers just as the Democrats were doing - only in their case, rather than "Tax and Spend" their philosophy seemed to be "borrow and spend". Seems to me the 2nd is even worse than the first.
Which brings me to my main point. It's not that one party is better than another in this regard - it's that the amount of time a party spends in power the more their fiscal discpline deteriorates and the more self-serving they become. This trait is not limited to either the Right or the Left - it is human nature.
Look what happened to all the idealistic incoming members of Congress during the "Republican Revolution" of the 1990's. Didn't most of those incoming Senators and Congressman come in on a platform of fiscal restraint and term limits?
How many of those folks actually stepped down when they said the would?
How many actually maintained that sense of fiscal discipline?
The answer is very few.
Once they came into power, the corruption process began and they became more and more self-serving and subjecting themselves to less and less fiscal restraint - until (rather than stepping down as they said they would when they were talking up term limits) they ended up being thrown out on their ear last year.
The fact is, ANY party that's in power for an extended period of time tends to spend more and care less and less about the people that put them there - and that's a fact.
That's why I don't think ANY party should remain in power for too long - that's true of the Democratic Party AND the Republican Party.
Regarding shared control of government (one party controlling Congress and the other the Presidency) - I generally agree with you. My issue with the GOP right now is that the GOP doesn't stand for anything anymore. I'm a Left-Center voter (generally fiscally Conservative and socially Liberal), am not a member of either party and (though I tend to vote Democratic) have voted for GOP from time to time (I strongly supported Reagan) - but during the Clinton years, I became totally disgusted with the GOP. They came in on a good note when they took control of Congress, but quickly deteriorated into a "let's get Clinton" mentality - and once Bush came in (was CLEARLY a very poor choice) they essentially became a "do nothing" Congress.
EVENTUALLY, I WILL vote for the GOP again - but right now, they are a party that's appealing to the lowest common intellectual denominator - who's political stars and "face to the nation" are dimwits like Palin and antagonist blowhards like Rush - instead of smart, reasonable, and sensible people like Reagan and William F. Buckley. Is it any wonder the William F. Buckley Jr backed Obama in the last election? The GOP has become the party of anti-intellectual "talk radio rabble-rousers". I don't really want any one party controlling the government for too long, but until the GOP cleans up it's act and takes control of the asylum back from the inmates, I'm sticking with the Democratic party.
Once (and IF) the GOP does that, THEN I will switch who I support (at least for a while).
Ken
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
