Obama Job Approval Slips to 58 Percent

PRINCETON, N.J. (June 21) - President Barack Obama's job approval rating fell to 58% in Gallup Poll daily tracking from June 16-18 -- a new low for Obama in Gallup tracking, although not dissimilar to the 59% he has received on four other occasions.
Thirty-three percent of Americans now disapprove of the job Obama is doing as president, just one point shy of his record-high 34% disapproval score from early June.

Since Obama took office in January, his approval rating in Gallup tracking has averaged 63%, and most of his three-day ratings have registered above 60%. Approval of Obama did fall to 59% in individual readings in February, March, April, and early June; however, in each case, the rating lasted only a day before rebounding to at least 60%.

The latest decline in Obama's approval score, to 58%, results from a drop in approval among political independents as well as among Republicans. Democrats remain as highly supportive of the president as ever.
Obama's approval rating was 60% from June 13-15, at which time 88% of Democrats, 60% of independents, and 25% of Republicans approved of the job he was doing. In the June 16-18 polling, Democrats' approval of him stands at 92% -- up slightly -- whereas approval is down among both independents (by seven points) and Republicans (by four points).

Since February, Obama's weekly approval ratings from Republicans have consistently averaged close to 30% and from independents, close to 60%. With Republican approval now down to 21% and independent approval down to 53%, Obama's overall job approval has dipped to a new low for his presidency.
It is not clear what's behind the decline, but two issues have received considerable play in the news this week, and could be contributing factors. On Monday, the president received bad news on health care reform from the Congressional Budget Office, whose estimate of the cost of one reform plan caused sticker shock on Capitol Hill. This may be feeding into public concerns about the administration's deficit spending.
At the same time, the disputed Iranian presidential election has been front-page news. Obama's cautious response has sparked sharp criticism from Republican Sen. John McCain and many on the political right who are eager for him to declare the election a "fraud," and to show more solidarity with the Iranian protesters.

Quote:

---

It is not clear what's behind the decline,

---

:lol yeah suddenly it's a big mystery.

http://www.thoughttheater.com/upload...pideconomy.jpg

*yawn*

People thought the economy could recover overnight and its been five months now. Give it some time damnit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DunParGin

*yawn*

People thought the economy could recover overnight and its been five months now. Give it some time damnit.

---

:lol That dumb shit Obama had the stimilus bill passed without even reading it. It's done nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

:lol That dumb shit Obama had the stimilus bill passed without even reading it. It's done nothing.

---

Jack's also holding out hope the economy never recovers because he knows if it does Obama and his policies are going to get the credit..

Quote:

---

39% Now Blame Bad Economy on Obama’s Policies
Monday, June 22, 2009

While most U.S. voters still blame the Bush Administration for the nation’s economic problems, a growing number are inclined to blame President Barack Obama.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 39% of voters now say the country’s economic problems are caused more by the policies Obama has put in place. That’s a 12-point jump from a month ago.

Fifty-four percent (54%) still say the country’s economic woes are due to the recession Obama inherited from President Bush. That figure is down eight points from 62% from early June.

By a two-to-one margin, voters also have more confidence in themselves than in the president when it comes to the economy. This marks a significant shift from just after Obama took office.

Sixty percent (60%) of voters now trust their own economic judgment more than the president’s. In early February, 49% had more trust in themselves while 39% trusted the president more.

Now only 30% trust Obama more when it comes to the economic issues facing the nation.

Younger voters are more likely than their elders to blame the current economic situation on the recession that began under Bush. The majority of middle income voters place more of the blame on Obama’s policies.

Eighty-two percent (82%) of Democrats see the economic problems as ones largely inherited from the previous administration, while 61% of GOP voters point the finger at the actions of the new president. Unaffiliated voters are almost evenly divided on the question.

Men are more likely than women to trust themselves rather than the president when it comes to the economy. Middle-income voters have more confidence in themselves than those who earn more and less.

The partisan split is predictable. Republicans trust themselves more than Obama by a whopping 75% to 19% margin. The findings for voters not affiliated with either major party are virtually identical. But Democrats are much more closely divided, with nearly half trusting the president more.

Obama’s ratings slipped to new lows at the end of last week in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll, but he continues to be more popular than many of his policies.

Despite strong public opposition, the president has pushed hard for bailouts for General Motors and Chrysler, both now in structured bankruptcies aimed at keeping them in business. The government has taken substantial ownership stakes in both companies in exchange for federal bailout money, but 80% of U.S. voters want the government to sell its stake in GM and Chrysler as soon as possible.

Even as Obama announced earlier this month his intention to speed up the pace of stimulus spending, the plurality of Americans (45%) said the rest of the new government spending authorized in the $787-billion economic stimulus plan should be canceled.

In fact, most voters (53%) continue to believe increases in government spending hurt the economy. Fifty-one percent (51%) favor an across-the-board tax cut for all Americans to stimulate the U.S. economy.

While the president last week was aggressively campaigning for the creation of a government-run health insurance company to compete with private insurers, Americans are evenly divided now over whether that’s a good idea.

Americans are similarly divided on the urgency of moving ahead with health care reform right now given the state of the economy.

---

Blaming Bush days are coming to a end. Atleast for those that have any common sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

Blaming Bush days are coming to a end. Atleast for those that have any common sense.

---

forgetting when it happened would equal common sense?

are you bound by some kind of cheerleading contract?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clambake

forgetting when it happened would equal common sense?

are you bound by some kind of cheerleading contract?

---

Common sense would be worrying about fixing things instead of worrying about whether or not you're getting blamed for them. Obama wants to keep blaming everything on Bush because Bush is the only thing less popular than Obama's ideas on how to fix the mess Bush left him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clambake

forgetting when it happened would equal common sense?

are you bound by some kind of cheerleading contract?

---

Dumbass, all of congress was to blame for years. The American businesses were to blame for years. Not one person. Watching the Obama's cheerleaders chant "blame Bush,blame Bush" every freaken day was the joke. People like you actually fell for it. Here we sit twice as much in debt because Obama and his democratic congress in just a few weeks put together a "stimilus" package that just had to be passed in days without anyone reading the damn thing. 8,000 earmarks later people are starting to wonder what the fuck did this douche bag do to our country. He is the blame for that money. Noone else.

He is a politician, a dirty one at that. He used that money to pay back the groups that made him president. Keep defending him, keep calling people like myself a "cheerleader", a cheerleader for what, I have no clue what you are talking about but if that makes you sleep at night or feel better about yourself go for it. Fact is people are waking up. The guy sucks period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

Common sense would be worrying about fixing things instead of worrying about whether or not you're getting blamed for them.

---

he's trying to fix it and make sure that people don't forget. thats what i'd do.

Quote:

---

Obama wants to keep blaming everything on Bush because Bush is the only thing less popular than Obama's ideas on how to fix the mess Bush left him.

---

i wouldn't let a day go by without calling out the leader responsible for this meltdown.

58% is still pretty damn good. I think he will continue to be popular because he has a pretty likable persona. But, once people wise up to the effects of his policies, ...

Why is it okay to say that Bush inherited a recession from Clinton (which I actually believe he did even if it technically started after Bush took office, it was a ticking time bomb) and not that Obama inherited a recession from Bush? Fuck, conservative's are still bringing up the bad economy Reagan inherited from Carter(which he did). When the economy got worse in 82 or 83 they were still blaming Carter.

Now barely 6 months after Obama's taken office it's all his fault now? That's pretty laughable. If you're gonna be a blind partisan robot... at least be a fair blind partisan robot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clambake

i wouldn't let a day go by without calling out the leader responsible for this meltdown.

---

Please humor me. What the fuck are you talking about? How is Bush to blame for the economic meltdown?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

58% is still pretty damn good. I think he will continue to be popular because he has a pretty likable persona. But, once people wise up to the effects of his policies, ...

---

Beckel predicted that he'll be in the high 40's come this fall/winter. Then it'll pick back up in the spring when things really start to get noticeably better. I think that's a pretty fair assessment. I can't wait for the "Impeach Obama" threads that are gonna pop up after he get to 49.5%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

Dumbass

---

thats mean. you shouldn't be coaching kids......or raising them.

Quote:

---

all of congress was to blame for years. The American businesses were to blame for years. Not one person. Watching the Obama's cheerleaders chant "blame Bush,blame Bush" every freaken day was the joke.

---

i haven't heard you laughing....so...i don't think you know what a joke is.

Quote:

---

People like you actually fell for it. Here we sit twice as much in debt because Obama and his democratic congress in just a few weeks put together a "stimilus" package that just had to be passed in days without anyone reading the damn thing. 8,000 earmarks later people are starting to wonder what the fuck did this douche bag do to our country. He is the blame for that money. Noone else.

---

it had to be done. i don't expect you to understand. it's beyond your capabilities....and your earmarks complaint is the joke here.

Quote:

---

He is a politician, a dirty one at that.

---

wow, you act like he sent american kids to their deaths for no reason.

Quote:

---

He used that money to pay back the groups that made him president.

---

show me what groups got money, what they did with it, who is rich because of it, and how they are the only reason he was elected.....i'll wait.

Quote:

---

Keep defending him, keep calling people like myself a "cheerleader", a cheerleader for what, I have no clue what you are talking about but if that makes you sleep at night or feel better about yourself go for it.

---

i'd sleep better if i knew you would never have any involvement with children.

Quote:

---

Fact is people are waking up. The guy sucks period.

---

sure.....the people in an eight year comma.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jman3000

Why is it okay to say that Bush inherited a recession from Clinton (which I actually believe he did even if it technically started after Bush took office, it was a ticking time bomb) and not that Obama inherited a recession from Bush? Fuck, conservative's are still bringing up the bad economy Reagan inherited from Carter(which he did). When the economy got worse in 82 or 83 they were still blaming Carter.

Now barely 6 months after Obama's taken office it's all his fault now? That's pretty laughable. If you're gonna be a blind partisan robot... at least be a fair blind partisan robot.

---

I agree with alot of what u are saying. Fact is Obama passed a bill to double our debt and it has done nothing to fix the problem and it will do nothing. That is on him. Not Bush,not Clinton,Reagan,Carter, etc.... My God man, they didn't even read the freaken thing. That is irresponsiblity at it's highest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clambake

thats mean. you shouldn't be coaching kids......or raising them.

i haven't heard you laughing....so...i don't think you know what a joke is.

it had to be done. i don't expect you to understand. it's beyond your capabilities....and your earmarks complaint is the joke here.


wow, you act like he sent american kids to their deaths for no reason.

show me what groups got money, what they did with it, who is rich because of it, and how they are the only reason he was elected.....i'll wait.

i'd sleep better if i knew you would never have any involvement with children.

sure.....the people in an eight year comma.

---

You just reply to reply. STFU man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

You just reply to reply. STFU man.

---

so...you can't show me.

shocking.

I think they rushed it and that it was bloated by a couple hundred billion dollars, but I think the expediency which they craved was more for confidence reasons than anything else.
Wall Street are a bunch of shit heads who are scared of their own shadows and trillions of dollars of wealth were disappearing.
Things were spiraling quickly downward and SOMETHING had to be done. It was a mess and there were a lot of stupid things in it, but I believe things would have gotten a lot worse if it wasn't.

I'll pass judgment when the dust settles... as of now we're still in this shit storm. I'll be as loud as any complaining about this shit if it doesn't work... but I'm gonna give him the benefit of the doubt for now. This was an unprecedented event and mistakes were gonna be made.

If it was so urgent to do something why did Obama & congress push through a bill where 90% of the money doesn't even get spent until fiscal year 2010 and beyond? Even then the majority of the package is a variety of welfare programs that won't stimulate the economy. All Obama is doing is being a political opportunist using an economic crisis to push through hundreds of billions of dollars of giveaways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jman3000

I think they rushed it and that it was bloated by a couple hundred billion dollars, but I think the expediency which they craved was more for confidence reasons than anything else.
Wall Street are a bunch of shit heads who are scared of their own shadows and trillions of dollars of wealth were disappearing.
Things were spiraling quickly downward and SOMETHING had to be done. It was a mess and there were a lot of stupid things in it, but I believe things would have gotten a lot worse if it wasn't.

I'll pass judgment when the dust settles... as of now we're still in this shit storm. I'll be as loud as any complaining about this shit if it doesn't work... but I'm gonna give him the benefit of the doubt for now. This was an unprecedented event and mistakes were gonna be made.

---

From reports they say only 6 percent has been spent. I wonder if they can say "fuck it" and cancel the bill.

he diverted an unimaginable collapse.

it's not likely the jacks of this world can avoid dumbing down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clambake

he diverted an unimaginable collapse.

it's not likely the jacks of this world can avoid dumbing down.

---

The stimulus money hasn't even been spent yet. If you want to credit a government program that diverted an unimaginable collapse it would have to be TARP and that's a program Obama has to share credit with Bush on. All Obama has done is divert a collapse by continuing Bush's economic policies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clambake

he diverted an unimaginable collapse.

it's not likely the jacks of this world can avoid dumbing down.

---

GM says hello.

I heard somewhere that it would've been cheaper to bail out California than to bail out GM. I'm skeptical, but anyone else hear that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

GM says hello.

---

GM said "Fuck you" to consumers for decades.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

I heard somewhere that it would've been cheaper to bail out California than to bail out GM. I'm skeptical, but anyone else hear that?

---

It's true. California's budget deficit is $40 billion and we've spent $80 billion on GM & Chrysler so far.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clambake

GM said "Fuck you" to consumers for decades.

---

And now Obama is saying "Fuck you" to taxpayers by making them bail out GM.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

It's true. California's budget deficit is $40 billion and we've spent $80 billion on GM & Chrysler so far.

---

do you guys think GM and Chrysler is just about GM and Chrysler?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clambake

do you guys think GM and Chrysler is just about GM and Chrysler?

---

Of course not. It's about paying back the UAW who have been loyal democratic campaign donors for years. The UAW has invested millions into democrats and now the democrats are paying them back by giving them taxpayer billions.

I'm optimistic we'll end up close to breaking even when it comes to GM and Chrysler. If not... we fucked up and it was a horrible job done by all the players involved.

The alternative was pretty bleak... hopefully the government doesn't play too big a hand in running of their day to day operations.

The auto makers are another coin which has yet to drop. Again, I'll withhold judgment until I see if it works or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

Of course not. It's about paying back the UAW who have been loyal democratic campaign donors for years. The UAW has invested millions into democrats and now the democrats are paying them back by giving them taxpayer billions.

---

oh, come on. is that all you have?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jman3000

I'm optimistic we'll end up close to breaking even when it comes to GM and Chrysler. If not... we fucked up and it was a horrible job done by all the players involved.

The alternative was pretty bleak... hopefully the government doesn't play too big a hand in running of their day to day operations.

The auto makers are another coin which has yet to drop. Again, I'll withhold judgment until I see if it works or not.

---

Chrysler has already said they're not paying the money back.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/05/news...oans/index.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clambake

oh, come on. is that all you have?

---

It's all that I need. It's true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

It's all that I need. It's true.

---

so...you think it's just about GM and Chrysler and UAW?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

Chrysler has already said they're not paying the money back.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/05/news...oans/index.htm

---

While that's fucked up... reading something like this kinda assuages that. Like I said... I'll reserve judgment once it's all said and done.


"The reality now is that the face value [of the $4 billion bridge loan] will be written off in the bankruptcy process," said the official, who added that the 8% equity stake that Treasury will be receiving as part of the company's reorganization is meant to compensate taxpayers for the lost money.

"While we do not expect a recovery of these funds, we are comfortable that in the totality of the arrangement, the Treasury and the American taxpayer are being fairly compensated," said the official.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clambake

so...you think it's just about GM and Chrysler and UAW?

---

Yep. If you disagree, I'd like to hear who else Obama is thinking about here.

The millions of workers who are employed both directly and indirectly from the day to day operations of GM / Chrysler.

Truck drivers / part dealers / mechanics / ALL the dealers as opposed to just some / the people who make those stickers with that boy pissing on a Ford sign / the Jesus fish and Darwin fish car ornament manufacturers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

Yep. If you disagree, I'd like to hear who else Obama is thinking about here.

---

you need obama to inform you about all the satellite companies and their employees that are tied to the success and failure of the auto industry?

...and all the mortgages, loans, business notes that will turn to shit?

There are millions of workers who are, or were, employed directly or indirectly in the housing industry, retail industry and financial industry. All 3 of those industries employ(ed) far more people than GM, Chrysler and their affiliates do(did). Yet for some reason their jobs are not as important as auto industry jobs. Why is that? Carpeters losing jobs = okay. Sales people losing jobs = okay. Bankers losing jobs = okay. UAW memebers losing jobs = not okay. Hmm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

There are millions of workers who are, or were, employed directly or indirectly in the housing industry, retail industry and financial industry. All 3 of those industries employ(ed) far more people than GM, Chrysler and their affiliates do(did). Yet for some reason their jobs are not as important as auto industry jobs. Why is that? Carpeters losing jobs = okay. Sales people losing jobs = okay. Bankers losing jobs = okay. UAW memebers losing jobs = not okay. Hmm.

---

hey, you're right!!! who needs a manufacturing base! :lol

ehhh... apples and oranges. You can't really restructure the housing market or retail industry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clambake

hey, you're right!!! who needs a manufacturing base! :lol

---

Homes are part of that manufacturing base. Tech companies and chip makers count as manufacturing jobs too. The petrochemical industry has a bunch of manufacturing jobs too. Where's their bailout?

Home manufacturing jobs = not important.
Tech manufacturing jobs = not important.
Petrochemical manufacturing jobs = not important.
Auto manufacturing jobs = very important.

Hmm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jman3000

ehhh... apples and oranges. You can't really restructure the housing market or retail industry.

---

Why not? What can't you do in those industries that you can do with autos?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jman3000

Why is it okay to say that Bush inherited a recession from Clinton (which I actually believe he did even if it technically started after Bush took office, it was a ticking time bomb) and not that Obama inherited a recession from Bush? Fuck, conservative's are still bringing up the bad economy Reagan inherited from Carter(which he did). When the economy got worse in 82 or 83 they were still blaming Carter.

Now barely 6 months after Obama's taken office it's all his fault now? That's pretty laughable. If you're gonna be a blind partisan robot... at least be a fair blind partisan robot.

---

Good post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

Why not? What can't you do in those industries that you can do with autos?

---

That question should be flipped. Like I said... they're apples and oranges. Heavy industry is on a whole 'nother level than light manufacturing.

whole nother level doesn't even make sense. whole another level. gay.

anyways.... "slipping to 58%" is still really really good. That means that about 4% of the people who didn't vote for him still give him approval. Not bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jman3000

That question should be flipped. Like I said... they're apples and oranges. Heavy industry is on a whole 'nother level than light manufacturing.

---

Seems like a distinction without a difference to me. Manufacturing is manufacturing. Is there a nuance I'm unalive to here jman, or are you just splitting hairs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jman3000

whole nother level doesn't even make sense. whole another level. gay.

---

Weak...whole nother level doesn't even make sense.

It's back up to sixty one day later -- why no update?

It's at 99.9% approval now. Please update this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Weak...whole nother level doesn't even make sense.

---

It does in Texas. Kinda like "fixing to" do something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

It's at 99.9% approval now. Please update this thread.

---

It's not at 99.9%.

That is a lie.

Thanks for adding a lie to the thread.

You are really adding to the discussion here.

How do we know it's not really 59.8%?

You are free to download the data from Gallup's site.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Seems like a distinction without a difference to me. Manufacturing is manufacturing. Is there a nuance I'm unalive to here jman, or are you just splitting hairs?

Weak...whole nother level doesn't even make sense.

---

Manufacturing isn't just manufacturing. All heavy industry is industry, but not all industry is heavy industry. The domestic auto industry has been in peril ever since the Asian invasion. It has massive underlying issues and needed to be restructured. The housing industry has been booming my entire lifetime and is experiencing a bubble being burst. The auto industries decline has been more akin to an inflatable mattress being deflated over 20 years.

There's really nothing inherently wrong with the way blue jeans are made. All major clothes manufacturers have pretty much shipped off to East Asia the last 20 years or so anyways. So the argument is that this should be the same in the autos? I'm all for capitalism and would agree if we can't make them here we should make them elsewhere if it's in the interest of the company... but if we can restructure and perhaps safe those jobs? Give it a try. Saying there is no difference is a bit myopic. It may not be as cliche as apples and oranges... maybe granny smiths and fujis.



and I was critiquing my own statement. After I typed "whole nother level" I realized it how little term makes sense.

It's "fixun" not "fixing"

Obama said we HAD to pass the stimulus bill or unemployment would hit 10%. Well, now they say they're expecting it to hit 10% or higher by year's end. And their excuse for the inaccuracy? Oops - my bad, we guessed wrong.

The states are angry and frustrated because they can't even get the stimulus funds released and there are so many strings attached to the funds, it's almost impossible to spend the money. And where are all the "shovel ready" projects Obama promised were ready to go? The stimulus has done NOTHING to help the economy or create jobs. All it did was put our children and grandchildren into such deep debt, they'll never recover.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jman3000

It's "fixun" not "fixing"

---

I thought fixuns are all the things you can put on a hot dog, burger, or baked potato.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crookshanks

Obama said we HAD to pass the stimulus bill or unemployment would hit 10%. Well, now they say they're expecting it to hit 10% or higher by year's end. And their excuse for the inaccuracy? Oops - my bad, we guessed wrong.

The states are angry and frustrated because they can't even get the stimulus funds released and there are so many strings attached to the funds, it's almost impossible to spend the money. And where are all the "shovel ready" projects Obama promised were ready to go? The stimulus has done NOTHING to help the economy or create jobs. All it did was put our children and grandchildren into such deep debt, they'll never recover.

---

[/pointless rant]

Doesn't every President's approval rating normally drop off anyway? Why is this a big surprise?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

I thought fixuns are all the things you can put on a hot dog, burger, or baked potato.

---

they are... but you can be fixun to do something and have fixuns all over your food.

the english language is a bitch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by florige

Doesn't every President's approval rating normally drop off anyway? Why is this a big surprise?

---

Bingo.

I was more surprised at the results for the tobacco bill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jman3000

they are... but you can be fixun to do something and have fixuns all over your food.

the english language is a bitch.

---

fuckin-a


"sentuous" -- Sentuous up, get me a beer.

I get that the auto bailouts are part of Obama's *industrial policy*, but it's hardly an accident that the high wage jobs the bailouts save are by and large union jobs.

You're right to emphasize the importance of manufacturing, but CG is also right to point out that Obama is staking out his political loyalties, and also that the distinction you're making between various kinds of manufacturing may appear arbitrary to others.

It certainly seems arbitrary to me. While I can understand the difference between heavy and light industry, I'm not sure I get why one should be considered intrinsically more valuable than the other.

(Is it b/c of the capital/labor-intensive nature of heavy industry and the corresponding high-dollar value of the manufactures and the labor?)

National security factors as well. You can't have foreign companies running all of our heavy manufacturing base. I know the world doesn't work like it did during WWII when we used our auto plants to help churn out endless waves of tanks/planes/ships... but it's certainly not a bad policy to keep those same factories from being totally liquidated.

Just wait until we start taxing the crap out of heavy industry so we can save the planet from a trace gas that makes up 3% of the atmosphere. And humans only contribute 3% of that 3%.

.03 * .03 is a pretty small number.

I would argue that Northrup Grumman, McDonnell Douglass, Boeing, General Dynamics, Lockheed, Pratt & Whitney, Raytheon etc. etc., are all propped up by our perpetual war footing. What the car companies have to do with national security frankly eludes me.

bleh here we go.

I don't even think global warming is much of an issue. If we are effecting the planet it's something that won't really take hold for a loooong time. I'm no expert, so whatever.

I'd rather look at it from an air pollution point of view. That is something that 100% of both sides can say is a problem. It does cause health problems. The smog actually does make areas hotter. Giving companies a green light to pollute as much as they want is a bad policy period.

The ol "well they're doing it so we should do it" argument is just plain short sighted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jman3000

Manufacturing isn't just manufacturing. All heavy industry is industry, but not all industry is heavy industry. The domestic auto industry has been in peril ever since the Asian invasion. It has massive underlying issues and needed to be restructured. The housing industry has been booming my entire lifetime and is experiencing a bubble being burst. The auto industries decline has been more akin to an inflatable mattress being deflated over 20 years.

There's really nothing inherently wrong with the way blue jeans are made. All major clothes manufacturers have pretty much shipped off to East Asia the last 20 years or so anyways. So the argument is that this should be the same in the autos? I'm all for capitalism and would agree if we can't make them here we should make them elsewhere if it's in the interest of the company... but if we can restructure and perhaps safe those jobs? Give it a try. Saying there is no difference is a bit myopic. It may not be as cliche as apples and oranges... maybe granny smiths and fujis.

and I was critiquing my own statement. After I typed "whole nother level" I realized it how little term makes sense.

---

Industry is industry. There's nothing special about the auto industry other than the fact that they're politically connected. Besides, automobiles aren't the only heavy industry we have in this country. They are the only heavy industry being given $100 billion dollars specifically for the purpose of saving jobs. Jobs that just so happen to belong to a favored voting block.

I'm all for American manufacturing. I oppose cap and trade specifically because of the effect it will have on American manufacturing. I want the government to cut corporate tax rates in half specifically to help American manufacturing. But when it comes to our government selectively playing God as to which industries shall be saved and which shall die based on who's making the campaign contributions that's an incredibly offensive misuse of power. Especially when in GM & Chrysler's case where their troubles are self inflicted, yet were ignored because they knew the politicians they had bought and paid for would not allow them to suffer the consequences of their incompetence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jman3000

National security factors as well. You can't have foreign companies running all of our heavy manufacturing base. I know the world doesn't work like it did during WWII when we used our auto plants to help churn out endless waves of tanks/planes/ships... but it's certainly not a bad policy to keep those same factories from being totally liquidated.

---

If it came to that, there's plenty of auto factories in the southern states that would gladly support that endeavor. The fact that there's a Toyota logo out front instead of a GM one makes no difference.

I don't think anyone disagrees that we should limit pollution.

Funny thing is, when they invented the catalytic converter to convert carbon monoxide to water and CO2, everyone thought it was a good thing. They never realized that, one day, a gas necessary for all life on the planet would be considered a pollutant.

People really need to stop blaming Bush for everything. He's not the president anymore. Lord Obama is the president. He knew that he when he became president that things weren't great in America. Everything is on him now. If he doesn't like that then he should resign. Besides, how long can Obama keep blaming Bush for everything that goes wrong under his presidency?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jacob1983

People really need to stop blaming Bush for everything. He's not the president anymore. Lord Obama is the president. He knew that he when he became president that things weren't great in America. Everything is on him now. If he doesn't like that then he should resign. Besides, how long can Obama keep blaming Bush for everything that goes wrong under his presidency?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jman3000

Why is it okay to say that Bush inherited a recession from Clinton (which I actually believe he did even if it technically started after Bush took office, it was a ticking time bomb) and not that Obama inherited a recession from Bush? Fuck, conservative's are still bringing up the bad economy Reagan inherited from Carter(which he did). When the economy got worse in 82 or 83 they were still blaming Carter.

Now barely 6 months after Obama's taken office it's all his fault now? That's pretty laughable. If you're gonna be a blind partisan robot... at least be a fair blind partisan robot.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

58% is still pretty damn good. I think he will continue to be popular because he has a pretty likable persona. But, once people wise up to the effects of his policies, ...

---

That's really not that true...likeable Presidents are pretty much bulletproof, regardless of their policies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jacob1983

People really need to stop blaming Bush for everything. He's not the president anymore. Lord Obama is the president. He knew that he when he became president that things weren't great in America. Everything is on him now. If he doesn't like that then he should resign. Besides, how long can Obama keep blaming Bush for everything that goes wrong under his presidency?

---

Let's see. 9/11 occurred eight months AFTER Bush had taken office, and several months after he had been warned by the intelligence agencies that there was a threat that planes might be hijacked and flown into important buildings in America. Every Republican in America blamed the 9/11 attacks on Bill Clinton. Sooo, the answer to your question is, what, maybe another three months or so?

Seriously, the honeymoon for Obama is ending, and it is ending right on time. While I have heard Republican apologists claim that Obama promised to have everything fixed one month after he took office, the fact is that he has consistenly claimed that it would take years to get out of the mess that it took years to get into. But by the end of the summer (or thereabouts) Obama will have to "own" the economy, and I think that's about right.

The reason that Bush is blamed for the economic mess is that it occurred on his watch. That's the way political leadership works in this country. The bailout of the financial industry cost two or more times as much as the stimulus bill. It was a hard, but necessary decision for the Bush administration to take. Then Bush et. al. led the auto industry bailout during his last months, to "turn it over to Obama". Those are facts. So the statement that Obama "inherited" the economic mess from Bush is right. He started from ground zero, which means his initiatives are gonna take longer than if they were continuations of prior existing policies.

I never said anything about Obama fixing all of America's problems during his first month as president. I do think it's lame, lazy, and convenient of Obama to blame Bush for everything that has gone bad under Obama's watch. I just think that people need to move on from the Bush presidency. He was a sucky president and he fucked up America but bitching about it isn't going to change what happened. Move on. Obama is the president now. It's on him. Besides, Obama shouldn't bitch at all about blaming Bush for everything. If Obama didn't want the responsiblity and critcism that come with being the president then he shouldn't have ran for president in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jacob1983

I never said anything about Obama fixing all of America's problems during his first month as president. I do think it's lame, lazy, and convenient of Obama to blame Bush for everything that has gone bad under Obama's watch. I just think that people need to move on from the Bush presidency. He was a sucky president and he fucked up America but bitching about it isn't going to change what happened. Move on. Obama is the president now. It's on him. Besides, Obama shouldn't bitch at all about blaming Bush for everything. If Obama didn't want the responsiblity and critcism that come with being the president then he shouldn't have ran for president in the first place.

---

It's nice to hear a conservative say that Bush has full responsibility for 9/11! :tu Good on you Jacob! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

It's nice to hear a conservative say that Bush has full responsibility for 9/11! :tu Good on you Jacob! :D

---

Responsible for 9/11. That is straight up weird. Please don't bore me with ur conspiracy theory.

Bush was a good President. Jacob, you don't need to say Bush was a sucky President to get these fags to listen to any criticism of Obama. Obama is a shitty human being and a terrible President. It's hard for these fags to admit this because 1) the are idiots 2) they are hardcore democrats 3) they hate Bush. Forget Obama has zero expierence. He is President for 3 1/2 more years. Look at what this dildo has done so far in office. It's dispicable.

Jack, you have very poor reading comprehension. Let me make it more clear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jacob1983

I never said anything about Bush fixing all of America's problems during his first month as president. I do think it's lame, lazy, and convenient of Bush to blame Clinton for 9/11/terrorism that has gone bad under Bush's watch. I just think that people need to move on from the Clinton presidency. He was a sucky president and he fucked up America but bitching about it isn't going to change what happened. Move on. Bush is the president now. It's on him. Besides, Bush shouldn't bitch at all about blaming Bush for everything. If Bush didn't want the responsiblity and critcism that come with being the president then he shouldn't have ran for president in the first place.

---

There, I made it easier for you.

Shit. It's 61% now.

That's a shame.

I think that Bush wasn't the best president ever but he wasn't the worst one either. He had a lot of bad things happen and a lot of bad luck when he was president. I think Bush shares some of the blame for 9/11. I would put some of it on Clinton too. I'm not one of those nutjobs that thinks that Bush and his cronies were behind the 9/11 attacks. Obama needs to get his act together. People are already starting to see that he's overrated and is more hype than hope. And I don't give a crap if he's only been a president since mid-January. Obama promised change and a million other things. Where's the change, Barry? And you know it's bad when Ahmadinejad compares you to Bush. I wonder how Obama felt about that. Obama compared McCain to Bush numerous times during the campaign last year and now he's the one being compared to evil Hitler Bush.

Quote:

---

And you know it's bad when Ahmadinejad compares you to Bush.

---

Because you respect Ahmadinejad's views so much.

So should we, apparently.

Hope he didn't hurt Obama's feelings.

Keeps slipping. National average of polls is 53 percent. Rasmussen Reports 48 percent approve. He will be at Bush marks this time next year. Yikes!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

Keeps slipping. National average of polls is 53 percent. Rasmussen Reports 48 percent approve. He will be at Bush marks this time next year. Yikes!

---

I will laugh my ass off so hard if his disapproval match president Bush's, especially since he's the media's Golden Child!

I guess the honeymoon is over.

http://people-press.org/report/532/obamas-ratings-slide

http://people-press.org/reports/images/532-1.gif

http://people-press.org/reports/images/532-2.gif

The American Idol presidency.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

The American Idol presidency.

---

Obama is the Taylor Hick of Idol. Everyone voted for him because they thought he was different,wanted a change and he was a nice guy. He sucked cock and disapeared.

Oh noes!

This is a country persuaded by style rather than substance in its politics. It started with JFK, showed up again with Reagan, then Clinton, and then Obama. We end up with dreadfully dull presidents only when their opponent is someone even more dreadfully dull.

Our politics is the fascism of action, style, and the now. Every election is an over the top, end of the world, drama, followed by four years of dithering and partisan circle jerks. Not that I don't mind the dithering, for at least our liberty isn't further eroded to satisfy some scheme designed by ideological jackasses. Of course, that merely preserves the prior schemes designed by ideological jackasses which have resulted in the mess known as the federal government.

Obama sucking so much ass is making me miss Bush as president.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jacob1983

Obama sucking so much ass is making me miss Bush as president.

---

it's 7 months in... maybe he'll start an unecessary war to perk you up?

Well, he hasn't abandoned the Afghan War.

In the beginning I was fine with Obama winning over McDumbDumb. The thought of McCain being president would get a chuckle out of me. As fast as America was sliding into the abyss, I was glad McCain was not running the show.

Now that I think about it, the President of the United States, as much damage as the mf'er would do, should at least ultimately care about his country. He should in the end want America to recover and succeed. Obama obviously does not. It's all about Obama to Obama. It's all about AGENDA, long term negative effects on the only people who keep this country working be damned. McCain at least put his life on the line for this country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

58% is still pretty damn good. I think he will continue to be popular because he has a pretty likable persona. But, once people wise up to the effects of his policies, ...

---

Yeah, but some of his policies are beginning to become less and lees popular.

http://www.examiner.com/x-2547-Watch...l-numbers-drop
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25189.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123690358175013837.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SonOfAGun

In the beginning I was fine with Obama winning over McDumbDumb. The thought of McCain being president would get a chuckle out of me. As fast as America was sliding into the abyss, I was glad McCain was not running the show.

Now that I think about it, the President of the United States, as much damage as the mf'er would do, should at least ultimately care about his country. He should in the end want America to recover and succeed. Obama obviously does not. It's all about Obama to Obama. It's all about AGENDA, long term negative effects on the only people who keep this country working be damned. McCain at least put his life on the line for this country.

---

SOG, you took the words right out of my mouth, seriously...:toast

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spursmania

SOG, you took the words right out of my mouth, seriously...:toast

---

Why would Obama not want the country to succeed? What would he get out of that?