Overall, 45% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President’s performance. That’s down a point from yesterday and the lowest level of total approval yet measured for Obama. Fifty-three percent (53%) now disapprove. See recent demographic highlights from the tracking polls.
Long Time Gone
Again, I find it funny that you cite these polls now when the same polls had Bush W. at about a 29 percent approval rating.
I’m going to give the guy one year before I decide how he’s doing. So far I’d give him a C+.
Maybe I should make it a higher grade since, even without Dick Cheany, he has kept us safe from terrorist attack his entire term.
Kevin: That would be all of 7 months. No one on here to my knowledge has said they agreed with Bush even 70%. But, Obama has an agenda that the citizens of this country do not agree with either. 9 trillion defict over the next 10 years. That means in order to even keep up taxes are going to go through the roof. He is going to cripple my ability to save for retirement. Then he is going to give me “voluntary” end-of-life counciling. Not very attractive.
Haha…Frank, that sounds like a typical Canadian’s attitude: “The government did this and that to me, and I can’t do anything about it…why isn’t the government helping me more…it’s all the government’s fault!”
As for the “7 months”, I guess it was about 9 months after Bush was sworn in before the 9-11 attacks, so you’re right…it is a couple of months too early to tell.
Yes, Frank, fight this health care reform and you will NEVER have to face death or talk about what will happen when you die. You will live forever. Don’t let Obama kill you!
Too funny. I like you Frank.
Kevin hasn’t revealed his political bias has he?
What is a performance rating for a President based on? Is it based on how he addresses solutions to the problems besetting the nation on their own merit, or is it rather based on how he does this in comparison with past Presidents. I tend to think it should be without the comparison with past performers because that, while a perhaps a valid separate discussion, would only tend to obscure the issues. But then, what do I know?
He gives Obama a C+ overall rating for things like hiring 20 Czars who report directly to him, many of whom have seriously flawed views, backgrounds and resumes. Of note here, a person trying to get into the military, get any kind of responsible government job or even the lowest security clearance would be outright rejected instantly with any of these details in their background. What’s up with that double-standard? Moreover, if on active duty and such was discovered post-entry they would be unceremoniously yanked out of the service instantly. Quite a commander-in-chief we have here isn’t it?
Hoz this for a solution to a problem. Let the Obama administration give us back all the money we’ve paid in to social security and stop with drawing it from our pay. Let us invest it ourselves and not rely on the government for any retirement benefits, the same social security benefits that went into a gov’t slush fund and were totally used up long ago and won’t be available to anyone in a few years anyway. But even knowing that, the SS contributions are still being withdrawn from everyone’s pay, even knowing the funds are gone and won’t be available at all within a very few years. Very interesting set of circumstances, huh – continuing to take a substantial hunk of your pay based on the subterfuge of giving it back to you later, knowing it’s already used up and won’t be available at all.? And of course, the Messiah, Obama has jumped right on that problem hasn’t he? This issue alone would seem to qualify for mass demonstrations across the nation, but where is the outrage?
And Frank, of course, again is right as far as his discussion goes. But a far greater complication for the future, IMV, will be when the dollar is externally devalued which is coming pretty soon (inevitable with a 9 trillion debt which can’t be paid) – it will be ‘externally devalued’, BTW, from outside the country when no one else will want dollars any more which should be any day now. This, of course, is not rocket science, it is simple Econ 101, and will be followed inevitably by rampant inflation on a scale we haven’t seen for a very long time, if ever, when at that point, virtually anything manufactured abroad will not be affordable for the long distant foreseeable future, regardless where it’s made (and given our long since dismantled manfacturering capability here in the US, we sure won’t be able to make it ourselves) . How much will we be worried about saving for retirement at that point, I wonder? And I wonder further if this is perhaps reminiscent of the old joke, worrying about draining the swamp when there’s a big hole in the sinking boat?
But Charlie Rangel isn’t worried about saving for retirement. He’s got funds and property stashed all over the place. Most notably, yesterday he is quoted as saying that the investigators appointed to look in to his situation aren’t intelligent enough to ask any question he would choose to answer. That’s not arrogance is it? And of course, that’s not Democrat is it?
As Walter Williams (who is a black Economist and professor at George Mason University in Fairfax County, VA – nice place) observed just this afternoon. It is praiseworthy indeed when one reaches into his own pocket to help the needy. Conversely, it is despicable without measure and worthy of condemnation when one reaches into another’s pocket without permission to do the same. He also observed that to accept such aid, assistance or gratuity knowing it came from other’s who do not approve of the act, is likewise despicable on the same scale. I don’t know about you other commenter’s, but that makes good sense to me.
He also quoted from long established US law regarding health care practices where the government is specifically prohibited from meddling in health care practices, personal and otherwise. Yet here we are, with a President and administration who is in the process of ignoring established law and attempting to install a government established and regulated health care system for the entire nation. And in the process, do the above as well, e.g., take from those who do not agree or approve and give to those to whom the government deems are worthy.
This, BTW, is exactly what Ted Kennedy and his liberal minions did throughout his and their careers…….. assigned funds without permission, taken from the public coffers, from contributors who did and do not agree or approve, and assigned and or gave it to whom they considered worthy. This is the same point I made earlier about TK, (before I heard the Walter Williams quote, BTW) that he didn’t give his own money to the causes he receives such vaunted praises for, he gave yours and mine, without our permission.
How the hell can anyone of sound mind, regardless of political affiliation countenance such practices or behavior from an individual or a government? Yet the liberals have no problem with this wanton disregard for the law or with illegally taking what doesn’t belong to them and giving it to whomever they please – and indeed it is standard practice (root differences between Republican philosophy and Democrat philosophy is in here, BTW).
I don’t mean to make this anti-Democrat or anti-liberal but the evidence speaks for itself. Walter Williams further commented that, hence, virtually every major issue before congress is, at bottom, a moral issue because it invariably involves expenditure of public funds, but that the liberals in congress (but not always just the liberals, my comment added) routinely and without exception ignore and disregard that fact.
Further, if you don’t buy this, he gave the following example.
Suppose someone is walking down the street and they encounter a homeless person laying on a grate who is quite ill. You happen to be passing by and this person who sees the homeless guy pulls out a gun and demands of you your money, which which he then uses to provide assistance to the homeless person. Would this guy who robbed you be culpable for committing a moral crime and of robbery? He then explained that this is morally identical to what the government is doing to us, one and all. He then added that amazingly the congressmen then have the arrogance to stand before us and try to explain to us why we should be happy what what he has illegally done with our money.
Wow. Wish I was that good.
Comments please.
Dennis. Good analogy / moral dilemma. All we need to do now is take that a few steps further and decide which level of being taxed is government robbery? Only taxes related to health and well-being of a country’s citizens? How many Americans had a “choice” in the matter of spending their tax dollars on war / weapons? Isn’t that also a case of “assign[ing] funds without permission, taken from the public coffers, from contributors who did and do not agree or approve, and assigned and or gave it to whom they considered worthy”? Why is spending tax dollars on health so much worse than spending to on damaging peoples’ health?
Everything from utilities to having to wear a seatbelt in a car is controlled by some level of government, and nobody seems to care that much. The fire truck will show up at your house no matter what…your tax dollars at work…no complaints there. But, it seems obvious that the HMO set up in the US is a cash grab, but because it is a “corporation” ripping people off, it is somehow okay?
Good points, VJ. And note, Walter Williams, though conservative, in my experience listening to him doesn’t play favorites. He was hammering Geo Bush Jar today for something about the No Child Left Behind thing, along with calling out Congress in general.
Well, some of what you speak of is local – such as utilities, seat belts and fire department stuff…….. probably a whole lot of it is – but then those examples don’t fit the first analogy anyway, which was taking money from you and giving it to someone not of your choice and against your desires and legitimizing it because ur a Senator without ever having asked in the first place. That was the real original issue. But plenty of examples of both kinds to go around, actually.
Also, some of what you speak is national defense. That’s a real thorny issue but most people would agree that it’s not something we can take chances with, pacifists not included. In any case, it’s not an easy issue to define very completely or very well and even thornier to solve.
Thanx for your comments.