For those of you who put so much reliance on polls. It Bush years to drop below 50% in the polls while Obama has managed to do it in six months.
Below are some excepts, but you can read the full report here:
| Quote: |
| The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 30% of the nation's voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-eight percent (38%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -8 (see trends). |
| Quote: |
| Just 25% believe that the economic stimulus package has helped the economy. |
| Quote: |
Overall, 49% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. Today marks the first time his overall approval rating has ever fallen below 50% among Likely Voters nationwide. Fifty-one percent (51%) disapprove. |
| Quote: |
Fifty-three percent (53%) now oppose the Congressional health care reform package. |
| Quote: |
Nationwide, 72% don’t want the federal government determining what type of light bulbs they should purchase. |
| Quote: |
Thirty-one percent (31%) now say the U.S. is heading in the right direction. That’s down nine points from the 2009 peak. Republicans continue to enjoy a slight edge on the Generic Congressional Ballot. |
Source for all = http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll Maybe that Obama was a bit too much in the media and that the Americans are a bit tired of his appearance. The other reason could be that people don't trust him any more because of his 'inability' to resolve the financial crisis. And Bush did not have to solve one of the worst financial crisis ever.
Obama is showing too much of himself. It's like a picture that has no space around the main subject and lacks a background to it. He is trying to do too many things much too quickly. On top of it there really is no money, and to artificially create money has to be an art as well. I wonder how long the trillions in loans are going to last? It just does not make any sense. First a bail out session based on an economy that is in trouble, then trying to put a healthcare bill through, a few months after when clearly the economy is not out of the red yet.
Well but that was predictable... Obama was and is nothing. What has he done in the past? What do you know about his life? Please don't say he was a Senator, he stood up in office for 173 days. He is just a vehicle of false hope.
YES WE CAN...
You don't actually know how he is. Why are his studies in college, his phd work sealed? No one could see what that writings are really about. If you get, please post in here.
Where did he grow up? Did he really applied and got dismissed from army?
One last thing: where exactly was he born? If you say it was Honolulu, I would understand, that's what you'vê been told, and, unless there is a suspicion, there is no point in asking him or anyone to prove which city did he see the light for the first time... but please, not even his birth certificate has been seen by anybody!
So this can't explain it all, but helps to understand why he's a flaw in so short time.
| Da Rossa wrote: |
Well but that was predictable... Obama was and is nothing. What has he done in the past? What do you know about his life? Please don't say he was a Senator, he stood up in office for 173 days. He is just a vehicle of false hope.
YES WE CAN...
You don't actually know how he is. Why are his studies in college, his phd work sealed? No one could see what that writings are really about. If you get, please post in here.
Where did he grow up? Did he really applied and got dismissed from army?
One last thing: where exactly was he born? If you say it was Honolulu, I would understand, that's what you'vê been told, and, unless there is a suspicion, there is no point in asking him or anyone to prove which city did he see the light for the first time... but please, not even his birth certificate has been seen by anybody!
So this can't explain it all, but helps to understand why he's a flaw in so short time. |
Do you think any President would have a good approval rating right now? *Not an excuse, not a defense; sheer curiosity*
You know as much about him as the rest of us do (how could you know more, according to you everything that would say anything about who he really is has been kept sealed), so the arrogance doesn't seem too well placed. The implication that he's a brainless, empty vessel spouting random junk from his book of "100 Optimistic Things To Say As US President" just because you haven't personally seen his academic file or birth certificate is pretty goofy to say the least. | liljp617 wrote: |
| Da Rossa wrote: | Well but that was predictable... Obama was and is nothing. What has he done in the past? What do you know about his life? Please don't say he was a Senator, he stood up in office for 173 days. He is just a vehicle of false hope.
YES WE CAN...
You don't actually know how he is. Why are his studies in college, his phd work sealed? No one could see what that writings are really about. If you get, please post in here.
Where did he grow up? Did he really applied and got dismissed from army?
One last thing: where exactly was he born? If you say it was Honolulu, I would understand, that's what you'vê been told, and, unless there is a suspicion, there is no point in asking him or anyone to prove which city did he see the light for the first time... but please, not even his birth certificate has been seen by anybody!
So this can't explain it all, but helps to understand why he's a flaw in so short time. |
Do you think any President would have a good approval rating right now? *Not an excuse, not a defense; sheer curiosity*
You know as much about him as the rest of us do (how could you know more, according to you everything that would say anything about who he really is has been kept sealed), so the arrogance doesn't seem too well placed. The implication that he's a brainless, empty vessel spouting random junk from his book of "100 Optimistic Things To Say As US President" just because you haven't personally seen his academic file or birth certificate is pretty goofy to say the least. |
With respect Da Rossa and liljp617 if his ratings dropped it has not been because of his qualifications and experience before he was elected, but his experience after he got elected. I still maintain he is talking too much, he is too much of a visible commodity right down to the new puppy in the house. If he wants his personal life to be detailed by the media as he obviously is allowing them to do, then one has to accept that his ratings will vary a lot. Having said that, I don't want to nix him completely, as those same ratings have a chance to go up again, and his progress will be progress for the United States as well, since he is in the leadership position right now. He and his wife are super intelligent people (I have my money more on his wife than I do on him), somewhere along the lines I hope they can figure this out. One of the issues is that he is doing too much at the same time. Instead of healthcare his focus at this time of the year has to be the budget. He probably needs an indaba with his advisors, i.e. congregate on a mountain top somewhere private and work through the priorities. He got behind on Healthcare, and really should drop it for now, until the budget and economy are under control. The latter two have to be the highest priorities.If he drops the health care efforts, it's not as if people are just going to let it slide like nothing happened. They'll say he's not dedicated to his policies, or whatever other random stuff people convince themselves of constantly. More stupid spinning of issues will continue. People (his opposition) wouldn't let the health care stuff just die immediately even if he dropped the issue for the time being.
Popularity polls vary so muc according to whatever the latest highlighted news item is. If any official does something worthy of note, and it is popular...they go up in the polls. The obverse is also true.
| liljp617 wrote: |
| If he drops the health care efforts, it's not as if people are just going to let it slide like nothing happened. They'll say he's not dedicated to his policies, or whatever other random stuff people convince themselves of constantly. More stupid spinning of issues will continue. People (his opposition) wouldn't let the health care stuff just die immediately even if he dropped the issue for the time being. |
He does not have to drop this, all he needs to do is go back to the drawing board and rethink it. Time out for now. This is a huge battle and perhaps it is going to take a number of drafts before he can get to one that is acceptable to the legislators.I believe Obama is trying to do too much at one time. He needs to slow down and take his time, he's got 4 years to make things work.
| Nick2008 wrote: |
| I believe Obama is trying to do too much at one time. He needs to slow down and take his time, he's got 4 years to make things work. |
A number of citizens do not have 4 years of patience. Nor 4 years of trying to live paycheck to paycheck while trying to support a family of five.
| deanhills wrote: |
| liljp617 wrote: | | If he drops the health care efforts, it's not as if people are just going to let it slide like nothing happened. They'll say he's not dedicated to his policies, or whatever other random stuff people convince themselves of constantly. More stupid spinning of issues will continue. People (his opposition) wouldn't let the health care stuff just die immediately even if he dropped the issue for the time being. |
He does not have to drop this, all he needs to do is go back to the drawing board and rethink it. Time out for now. This is a huge battle and perhaps it is going to take a number of drafts before he can get to one that is acceptable to the legislators. |
The same people who oppose his current universal health care proposal would oppose just about any proposition. They simply do not believe it's the government's responsibility to provide health care to everyone who desires it.
I don't know what change he could make that would convert people to his point of view if the overarching theme remains that the government is going to foot the bill. | liljp617 wrote: |
A number of citizens do not have 4 years of patience. Nor 4 years of trying to live paycheck to paycheck while trying to support a family of five.
|
We had 8 years of patience with George Bush, I can wait for 4 years for a health care system that truly works instead of a horrible system that fails within a year. | Quote: |
You know as much about him as the rest of us do (how could you know more, according to you everything that would say anything about who he really is has been kept sealed), so the arrogance doesn't seem too well placed. The implication that he's a brainless, empty vessel spouting random junk from his book of "100 Optimistic Things To Say As US President" just because you haven't personally seen his academic file or birth certificate is pretty goofy to say the least. |
I never said I know more than you. I indeed know as much as you do, and that's the problem. And please, if you're bothered with my arrogance, then it seems that you're not concerned about the problem discussed in here. You, thinking clearly, should not even observe the way I say, but what I say. And I never implied that he's brainless either; I explicited, not implied, that his work is concealed so no one can even know what is his real political orientation. And on the contrary, he's indeed an intelligent man.
| Quote: |
| empty vessel spouting random junk from his book of "100 Optimistic Things To Say As US President" |
Sorry but I don't know what you're talking about. The thing is that I haven't personally seen his academic file, and I don't wanna see either; the thing is that no one has seen.
About the birth certificate: too bad I don't know even how to find specifics of a ongoing lawsuit filed by a military, in which he asks for the suspension of the obligation to follow the presidential orders on the grounds of the uncertainty of his citizenship. He's not from Hawaii, but from Kenia.[quote="Nick2008"We had 8 years of patience with George Bush, I can wait for 4 years for a health care system that truly works instead of a horrible system that fails within a year.[/quote]
Oh sooo true about the patience with Bush. Between the 2 of them I almost gave up voting altogether.
| liljp617 wrote: |
The same people who oppose his current universal health care proposal would oppose just about any proposition. They simply do not believe it's the government's responsibility to provide health care to everyone who desires it.
I don't know what change he could make that would convert people to his point of view if the overarching theme remains that the government is going to foot the bill. |
Quite so.
Government-run health care is in the opposite interest of anyone who wants small government.
Reform with a minimum of government involvement is the ideal.I think that Obama won the election because he made people feel good. Remember: 'Yes we can!" and "Change you can believe in!"? Don't forget how many celebrities publically announced that is was about time we had a black president. Couple this feel good campaign with a brainwashed media desperate to elect Obama and you have our new president.
Unfortuntely, elections have consequences. Now we are finding out that Obama and the Democrats have an agenda that is unsupportable even by the largest economy in the world. His popularity is falling because Americans are finally understanding the Democrat and Obama agenda: spend like there is no tomorrow to create a population dependant on government support. The problem is that America was founded on self reliance and a strong belief in small government.
The Democrats and Obama want a nation of sheeple. Luckily for America, we are not a nation of sheeple, humbly begging the government for our healthcare, lining up for pensions, and willing to turn our lives over to the government.
| Voodoocat wrote: |
The Democrats and Obama want a nation of sheeple. Luckily for America, we are not a nation of sheeple, humbly begging the government for our healthcare, lining up for pensions, and willing to turn our lives over to the government. |
That's where you're wrong though... The nation is full of 'sheeple'. That's the scary part.It was bound to happen. He is presiding over some of the most fickle people in the world.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| That's where you're wrong though... The nation is full of 'sheeple'. That's the scary part. |
Sheeple and Microserfs. 
| Voodoocat wrote: |
| The Democrats and Obama want a nation of sheeple. Luckily for America, we are not a nation of sheeple, humbly begging the government for our healthcare, lining up for pensions, and willing to turn our lives over to the government. |
We are very much a nation of sheeple, on all points of the political spectrum (yes, even the beloved Republicans) and on a great number of things outside of politics. Politicians, not just Democrats and not just a single individual as Obama is, want sheeple. They get elected primarily through that method alone, as most people are too lazy or incapable of doing any research of their own. To my somewhat limited historical knowledge, that's how it's been for a hell of a long time. | liljp617 wrote: |
| Voodoocat wrote: | | The Democrats and Obama want a nation of sheeple. Luckily for America, we are not a nation of sheeple, humbly begging the government for our healthcare, lining up for pensions, and willing to turn our lives over to the government. |
We are very much a nation of sheeple, on all points of the political spectrum (yes, even the beloved Republicans) and on a great number of things outside of politics. Politicians, not just Democrats and not just a single individual as Obama is, want sheeple. They get elected primarily through that method alone, as most people are too lazy or incapable of doing any research of their own. To my somewhat limited historical knowledge, that's how it's been for a hell of a long time. |
Ha! Just learned another new word, sheeple. Looked it up, and the meaning given to it below I thought would be appropriate for the overwhelmingly majority of people in the world, not just in the United States:
| Quote: |
Sheeple is a term of disparagement, in which people are likened to sheep.
It is often used to denote persons who voluntarily acquiesce to a perceived authority, or suggestion without sufficient research to understand fully the scope of the ramifications involved in that decision, and thus undermine their own human individuality or in other cases give up certain rights. The implication of sheeple is that as a collective, people believe whatever they are told, especially if told so by a perceived authority figure believed to be trustworthy, without processing it or doing adequate research to be sure that it is an accurate representation of the real world around them. The term is generally used in a political and sometimes in a religious sense.
|
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheeple
Isn't this how we are taught to be though? We are taught that some people just know better than we do, are more bright, more beautiful, more specialist, etc. etc. The system teaches us to be sheeple. As if one really looks at it, that is how it gets its support and can maintain and expand its support. This is how our parents and teachers get us to "shut up" when we have bright ideas and only those with enormous persistence, energy and drive get to pursue those ideas, realize them, and then get compensated and appreciated when they finally make the light of day. They went against "sheeple" and "made it".
Last edited by deanhills on Tue Jul 28, 2009 1:24 pm; edited 3 times in total | liljp617 wrote: |
| We are very much a nation of sheeple, on all points of the political spectrum (yes, even the beloved Republicans) and on a great number of things outside of politics. Politicians, not just Democrats and not just a single individual as Obama is, want sheeple. They get elected primarily through that method alone, as most people are too lazy or incapable of doing any research of their own. To my somewhat limited historical knowledge, that's how it's been for a hell of a long time. |
In Obama's defense he is not doing anything any other leader of any political system has tried to accomplish...to have a complacent constituency, or population, that just does what it's told and picks up the bills. | Vrythramax wrote: |
| liljp617 wrote: | | We are very much a nation of sheeple, on all points of the political spectrum (yes, even the beloved Republicans) and on a great number of things outside of politics. Politicians, not just Democrats and not just a single individual as Obama is, want sheeple. They get elected primarily through that method alone, as most people are too lazy or incapable of doing any research of their own. To my somewhat limited historical knowledge, that's how it's been for a hell of a long time. |
In Obama's defense he is not doing anything any other leader of any political system has tried to accomplish...to have a complacent constituency, or population, that just does what it's told and picks up the bills. |
Correct. However people elected Obama as he was pretty convincing in promising them: Yes we can. So disappointments when they realized that he is just a President like everyone else used to be, and perhaps inexperienced, and making mistakes, and still learning on the job, may be greater.A lot of people seem to think here that Obama hasn't accomplished anything, but he has done quite some things already. (http://www.vistaheads.com/forums/microsoft-public-nl-windows-vista/295043-speech-recognition-software.html)
Of course his big plans (financial crisis, health care) will take some time to be realised. He's only president for a few months so expecting that he would have 'changed' a lot is a bit short minded.
| deanhills wrote: |
| Vrythramax wrote: | | liljp617 wrote: | | We are very much a nation of sheeple, on all points of the political spectrum (yes, even the beloved Republicans) and on a great number of things outside of politics. Politicians, not just Democrats and not just a single individual as Obama is, want sheeple. They get elected primarily through that method alone, as most people are too lazy or incapable of doing any research of their own. To my somewhat limited historical knowledge, that's how it's been for a hell of a long time. |
In Obama's defense he is not doing anything any other leader of any political system has tried to accomplish...to have a complacent constituency, or population, that just does what it's told and picks up the bills. |
Correct. However people elected Obama as he was pretty convincing in promising them: Yes we can. So disappointments when they realized that he is just a President like everyone else used to be, and perhaps inexperienced, and making mistakes, and still learning on the job, may be greater. |
Frankly, I can't really imagine a President NOT learning on the job. There isn't a position or education in the world that could prepare any single individual for the levels stress, decision making, and plain requirement of determination that come along with governing 300 million quite different people, along with being held responsible for almost anything that happens in the world.
They all make mistakes in some people's eyes. Everything is always "wrong" in the eyes of many...we have a two party system that wants to claw each others eyes out, we have regions of our nation that, culturally, could probably be considered countries of their own, etc. Nothing is ever completely "accepted." You're going to 'upset' some people no matter what decision you make, and it's probably going to be a pretty large number of people given the vast differences of perspectives held in the US.
And perhaps we can be honest. Sure, a great number of people voted for Obama because of his race (a great number voted against him for it). A great number voted for him because of his constant, perhaps empty, attempts to be optimistic and put hope in the people. What else? Oh, right, they didn't want another 4-8 years of a Republican who voted up to 95% of the time with Bush. People can blame Obama's victory on his "empty" speeches. It still comes back to Bush's Presidency in the end. That is the primary reason Obama won, for better or for worse.
Either way, I'm still of the opinion that it's much too early to judge the Presidency of Obama or the man that he is (meaning his character). No poll after six or seven months holds much significance and I'm not sure it represents much of anything.@liljp617
If he's NOT learning on the job, then we certainly hired the wrong man for the job. The ability to learn and adapt to/from any given situation shows flexibility at the very least. I should think that ability would be a pre-requisite to the job.
| liljp617 wrote: |
| Frankly, I can't really imagine a President NOT learning on the job. There isn't a position or education in the world that could prepare any single individual for the levels stress, decision making, and plain requirement of determination that come along with governing 300 million quite different people, along with being held responsible for almost anything that happens in the world. |
Agreed completely, however relative to the older and more experienced Presidents who served before him, he has to learn more than they had to. For starters he had not been a Senator for that long either and has decades less experience than they had. | liljp617 wrote: |
| Sure, a great number of people voted for Obama because of his race (a great number voted against him for it). A great number voted for him because of his constant, perhaps empty, attempts to be optimistic and put hope in the people. What else? Oh, right, they didn't want another 4-8 years of a Republican who voted up to 95% of the time with Bush. People can blame Obama's victory on his "empty" speeches. It still comes back to Bush's Presidency in the end. That is the primary reason Obama won, for better or for worse. |
Agreed with the reasons you quoted why he got voted in, however that has to be history by a number of months now. None of that matters anymore. What matters is his performance today. People are really fickle creatures, and I'm almost certain most people have almost forgotten what they had thought in November of last year.
| liljp617 wrote: |
| Either way, I'm still of the opinion that it's much too early to judge the Presidency of Obama or the man that he is (meaning his character). No poll after six or seven months holds much significance and I'm not sure it represents much of anything. |
Agreed. One has to give him a fair chance. Although one can't be blind to his actions of the last six months either. I for one hope that he will succeed. He has a lot going for him. | deanhills wrote: |
| Agreed completely, however relative to the older and more experienced Presidents who served before him, he has to learn more than they had to. For starters he had not been a Senator for that long either and has decades less experience than they had. |
Actually you are very far off the mark here...not very many of the US's presidents served 2 or more terms...so very FEW of them had any experience at being president at all. It was all "on hte job training". As for political experience, he (obama) has at least as much, and in many cases much more experience in that area. | Vrythramax wrote: |
| deanhills wrote: | | Agreed completely, however relative to the older and more experienced Presidents who served before him, he has to learn more than they had to. For starters he had not been a Senator for that long either and has decades less experience than they had. |
Actually you are very far off the mark here...not very many of the US's presidents served 2 or more terms...so very FEW of them had any experience at being president at all. It was all "on hte job training". As for political experience, he (obama) has at least as much, and in many cases much more experience in that area. |
I was obviously not talking about presidential experience. I was talking about savvy political experience, the "get the hands dirty" kind of experience that can only come over a long period of time. With those years come the bonding of links with political allies and perhaps also enemies, like in a family of friends and foes that one grows into over a period of time. Obama obviously had some of that, but not to the same equivalent. He is a fast learner however, and a hard worker so imagine that he will catch up sooner than most but obviously while he is learning, there has to be some people who will have to carry the cost of his tuition.The latest...
Perhaps he needs to take a holiday break, including a complete break from the media. I'm almost certain the ratings would show different trends when he returns. This sounds like nonsense, but people opinions are probably as fickle as that .... 
| deanhills wrote: |
| Perhaps he needs to take a holiday break, including a complete break from the media. I'm almost certain the ratings would show different trends when he returns. This sounds like nonsense, but people opinions are probably as fickle as that .... |
It's telling that as people get to know Obama and his far-left ideas that they begin to dislike him more and more. Here's another poll from CNN that found that at this point in his presidency GW Bush was more popular than Obama.
| Quote: |
After 6 Months, More View Obama's Presidency as a 'Failure' Than Bush's
A rather surprising finding from the newly released CNN poll. Question three on the national survey of 1,136 adults (which includes an oversample of African-Americans) asks, "Do you consider the first six months of the Obama administration to be a success or a failure?"
Thirty-seven percent (37%) said they believe the Obama administration is a "failure," while 51% consider it a "success" and 11% say it's still "too soon to tell."
An identical question was asked of the Bush administration in an August 2001 CNN/Gallup/USA Today survey. At the time, 56% said the Bush administration was a "success" while only 32% considered it a "failure." Link
|
Source = http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2009/08/06/after-6-months-more-view-obamas-presidency-as-a-failure-than-bushs/I am almost certain that his taking sides in the Gates incident had to have done the greatest damage of all. That showed complete lack of finesse of an executive statesman, that is supposed to be completely unbiased. Worst part is that Gates apparently was a friend of his and he acted without having full information in front of him. I'm sure he must have lost a great number of supporters in this one act, especially ones who were on the borderline.
| jmi256 wrote: |
| Quote: |
After 6 Months, More View Obama's Presidency as a 'Failure' Than Bush's
A rather surprising finding from the newly released CNN poll. Question three on the national survey of 1,136 adults (which includes an oversample of African-Americans) asks, "Do you consider the first six months of the Obama administration to be a success or a failure?"
Thirty-seven percent (37%) said they believe the Obama administration is a "failure," while 51% consider it a "success" and 11% say it's still "too soon to tell."
An identical question was asked of the Bush administration in an August 2001 CNN/Gallup/USA Today survey. At the time, 56% said the Bush administration was a "success" while only 32% considered it a "failure." Link
|
Source = http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2009/08/06/after-6-months-more-view-obamas-presidency-as-a-failure-than-bushs/ |
Keep in mind, that at this point in Bush's presidency, 9/11 hadn't even happened yet. The 6-month-old Bush presidency hadn't encountered any huge crises yet, while the Obama administration inherited crises from the beginning. | ocalhoun wrote: |
| Keep in mind, that at this point in Bush's presidency, 9/11 hadn't even happened yet. The 6-month-old Bush presidency hadn't encountered any huge crises yet, while the Obama administration inherited crises from the beginning. |
I can't agree completely with this. Those crises all started during Bush's presidency, and were fully accountable to him, even during the time when Obama became President. Bush had also worked on the solutions of those crises, long before Obama became President, and Obama seems to be cashing in on those solutions as well. The crises tested quite a lot of leadership in Bush, and he stood fast in making decisions, even at the risk of being unpopular as a result. Obama is still cashing in on that unpopularity of Bush, but probably for just so long. Examples I would use would be the Iraq war, which Bush had elected to stay in Iraq, and actively assist with transition. Now Obama seems to be taking credit that he has "ended the war and evacuated Iraq". That was what Bush had been working on and had almost completed by the end of his Presidency. Ditto Gitmo. At least by the time when Bush had left, detainees were being processed, but that processing has almost come to a complete halt when Obama became President and needed fact finding investigations and postponements after postponements to deal with Gitmo, probably realizing that solutions are just as complicated as it had been during Bush's last part of his Presidency. Quite a large portion of Obama's popularity was that he was NOT Bush. That can only last for that long however, as people begin to notice that possibly Obama is not that perfect either. Bush had to deal with enormous crises and got defined by that. Obama is still trying to define it by Bush's actions, but at some or other time he will have to take responsibility for his share of managing those "inherited" crises.Obama hits an all-new low...
Has to be the healthcare bill no doubt. Time to give it a break and concentrate on the budget.
| deanhills wrote: |
| Has to be the healthcare bill no doubt. Time to give it a break and concentrate on the budget. |
I'm not sure that would help him. People are finally seeing the link between Obama's government-run healthcare scheme and higher taxes. From today's (9 September) Rasmussen Reports polls:
| Quote: |
Rasmussen Reports will be tracking this question daily for the next several days to measure the response to the presidential address intended to relaunch the troubled health care initiative.
Voters are concerned about a number of factors. Eighty percent (80%) believe passage of the current plan will likely lead to higher middle class taxes, and 68% believe it will increase the deficit. Fifty-two percent (52%) of those with health insurance say it’s likely they will be forced to change coverage. That’s a problem because voters with insurance overwhelmingly rate their own coverage as good or excellent.
Hardly anybody believes the proposed legislation will lead to lower costs or better quality of care. In fact, about half the nation’s voters believe just the opposite - that it will lead to higher costs and a lower quality of care.
|
Source = http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/a_review_of_public_opinion_on_health_care_reform_prior_to_the_president_s_speech | jmi256 wrote: |
I'm not sure that would help him. People are finally seeing the link between Obama's government-run healthcare scheme and higher taxes. From today's (9 September) Rasmussen Reports polls:
|
Maybe you are right. Just found a Yahoo News Report on a poll by Associated Press GfK:
| Quote: |
Public disapproval of President Barack Obama's handling of health care has leaped to 52 percent, according to Associated Press-GfK poll that underscores the country's glowering mood as the White House made a renewed pitch for an overhaul.
Just 42 percent approve of the president's work on the high-profile health issue. |
Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090910/ap_on_re_us/us_ap_poll_health_careIt's really sad to see such a vehement want-the-US-president-to-fail person go on and on in these forums. You have hated Obama since day one, if not before. And you've been wrong so very often and persistently untruthful enough to get topics locked, and still you go on.
I'm curious, since if I'm right you have said you are a member of the armed forces, why you feel it's okay to mock your commander-in-chief during wartime? I am not talking about political disagreements, I am talking about your posting of his face made up like the murderous clown from a movie, or you're thoroughly disproven "Obama thugs" thread.
| handfleisch wrote: |
It's really sad to see such a vehement want-the-US-president-to-fail person go on and on in these forums. You have hated Obama since day one, if not before. And you've been wrong so very often and persistently untruthful enough to get topics locked, and still you go on.
|
Just because it's your opinion and want that I have been wrong, doesn't make it so. I enjoy our debates, Handfleisch, I really do. So if you want to continue debating on the issues instead of trying to attack my character I welcome it. But given the pattern I've seen I have a feeling you'll stick to your usual MO. And I invite anyone to review the topic that was locked and judge for themselves if it was my "untruthful" position that caused the topic to be locked. If you want, create another thread that addresses these issues since Bikerman locked the one below where I argued for parents’ right, and I'll gladly respond to the other issues.
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-110081.html
| handfleisch wrote: |
I'm curious, since if I'm right you have said you are a member of the armed forces, why you feel it's okay to mock your commander-in-chief during wartime? I am not talking about political disagreements, I am talking about your posting of his face made up like the murderous clown from a movie, or you're thoroughly disproven "Obama thugs" thread. |
Just to clarify, I am no longer in the active military. I was in the Marines and got out several years ago. But even if I was still in active service, it's not a crime to disagree with the president during personal time. There is a need to be respectful and professional to your superiors and follow their orders, but that doesn't mean you have to agree with all their positions wholeheartedly. Besides, didn't you hear from the White House? The War on Terror is over. As far as the clown face created by a left-winger, I think it's funny that you of all people would object to an image when it seems that's all you could post in response to debates for the longest time. BTW, exactly how have I been "thoroughly disproven"?My position is perfectly clear and consistent. If postings contain unsupported statements of a 'serious' nature about ANY person (whether it be a member here or the President of the US) then I will give one chance for the poster to support that accusation and, failing that, I will either delete the posting or lock the thread depending on what I judge to be most appropriate action at that time. The same think applies to postings containing grossly offensive generalisations.
Repeat offenders will be issued with official warnings, and possibly further action depending on the circumstances.
If people think I have behaved unfairly then they are free to pm me and ask me to reconsider. I will not, however, be holding a debate on the matter in public.
PS - by all means start another thread discussing parent's rights - but I suggest that it would be better to do so in the philosophy/religion forum rather than this forum.
| jmi256 wrote: |
| handfleisch wrote: | It's really sad to see such a vehement want-the-US-president-to-fail person go on and on in these forums. You have hated Obama since day one, if not before. And you've been wrong so very often and persistently untruthful enough to get topics locked, and still you go on.
|
Just because it's your opinion and want that I have been wrong, doesn't make it so. I enjoy our debates, Handfleisch, I really do. So if you want to continue debating on the issues instead of trying to attack my character I welcome it. But given the pattern I've seen I have a feeling you'll stick to your usual MO. And I invite anyone to review the topic that was locked and judge for themselves if it was my "untruthful" position that caused the topic to be locked. If you want, create another thread that addresses these issues since Bikerman locked the one below where I argued for parents’ right, and I'll gladly respond to the other issues.
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-110081.html
| handfleisch wrote: |
I'm curious, since if I'm right you have said you are a member of the armed forces, why you feel it's okay to mock your commander-in-chief during wartime? I am not talking about political disagreements, I am talking about your posting of his face made up like the murderous clown from a movie, or you're thoroughly disproven "Obama thugs" thread. |
Just to clarify, I am no longer in the active military. I was in the Marines and got out several years ago. But even if I was still in active service, it's not a crime to disagree with the president during personal time. There is a need to be respectful and professional to your superiors and follow their orders, but that doesn't mean you have to agree with all their positions wholeheartedly. Besides, didn't you hear from the White House? The War on Terror is over. As far as the clown face created by a left-winger, I think it's funny that you of all people would object to an image when it seems that's all you could post in response to debates for the longest time. BTW, exactly how have I been "thoroughly disproven"? |
As usual, you're all over the map here. It's not a character attack to say you have been wrong, very wrong, absurdly wrong. It's not a character attack to say you are spouting lies (for example, there were no union thugs sent out to attack opponents by Obama. ) Though maybe you're doubting your own character at this point.
| jmi256 wrote: |
| it's not a crime to disagree with the president during personal time. |
See, this is the kind of lie that the right wing fringe does habitually, so maybe you don't realize when you're doing it. They charge opponents with trying to criminalize their speech, and it leads to whines about "censorship". But I never said it was a crime to disagree; far from it, I said political disagreements are fine. I said, clearly, that you are mocking the commander in chief during wartime, when men and women in uniform are fighting and dying for this country. You should be ashamed (and since you condemned as disrespectful the Congressman who yelled "you lie" during Obama's speech, and I give you credit that, deep down, you probably are).Presidential poll numbers really don't mean all that much. They dip and sway more than a drunken salsa dancer. The numbers will eventually come back up. These polls are unreliable, and based on opinion(read - emotionally charged answers). Just because the polls are down, doesn't mean people are seeing through any veil of BS that they didn't see before. Conversely, just because polls are up, doesn't mean he is doing a bang-up job either. It just means that people either like or dislike him at that very moment when they were asked a few questions about him.
But since dissent was brought up(somebody was allegedly mocking Obama)...
Bush as wartime President - Dissenters are shouted down as unpatriotic, treasonous scum.
Obama as wartime President - Dissenters(the same ones who lambasted the Bush dissenters) are painted as the very picture of patriotism.
Does this seem right?
Honestly, I don't trust any politician. I think they are all out to make themselves rich and powerful, so I don't care who you want to protest or defend. But if it was OK to dissent against Bush, it should be OK to dissent against Obama. And if those who protest Obama see themselves as uber patriotic, then those who protested Bush should be extended that same courtesy.
| Ophois wrote: |
Presidential poll numbers really don't mean all that much. They dip and sway more than a drunken salsa dancer. The numbers will eventually come back up. These polls are unreliable, and based on opinion(read - emotionally charged answers). Just because the polls are down, doesn't mean people are seeing through any veil of BS that they didn't see before. Conversely, just because polls are up, doesn't mean he is doing a bang-up job either. It just means that people either like or dislike him at that very moment when they were asked a few questions about him.
|
I'd say Bush's poll results were pretty accurate, though I at all times dislike the use of polls.
Is it unpatriotic to disrespect the president?
I'll use the old military standby: "It doesn't matter if you respect the person or not, but respect the office." | ocalhoun wrote: |
| I'd say Bush's poll results were pretty accurate, though I at all times dislike the use of polls. |
I'm not saying polls aren't accurate, I just think they are useless. | Quote: |
Is it unpatriotic to disrespect the president?
I'll use the old military standby: "It doesn't matter if you respect the person or not, but respect the office." |
Disrespect... I don't know. If the leader is corrupt or drunk with power, how much respect should they get from me? They represent that office, and if they disrespect that office through corruption or criminal behavior, then the office(at least while they are in it) should not be automatically, unquestioningly respected either.
On the other hand, if the President seems to be doing their job, following the the laws, then they should be respected. Even if you disagree with their policy.
Now, respecting the office does not mean dissent should be stifled. I am a big fan of dissent. I am also a big fan of revolution, when necessary. Under normal sircumstances, yes, I think the office and the person occupying it should both be respected, unless and until they do something to change the circumstances. | Ophois wrote: |
| Presidential poll numbers really don't mean all that much. They dip and sway more than a drunken salsa dancer. The numbers will eventually come back up. These polls are unreliable, and based on opinion(read - emotionally charged answers). Just because the polls are down, doesn't mean people are seeing through any veil of BS that they didn't see before. Conversely, just because polls are up, doesn't mean he is doing a bang-up job either. It just means that people either like or dislike him at that very moment when they were asked a few questions about him. |
I agree totally with this. If one check up on the Internet at end of July the President's ratings were down, now they are going up again. Nonetheless, looks as though the media and politicians like their polls. It is a fact of life, and maybe helpful like the weather, to check what the mood is like when decisions are being made.
| Ophois wrote: |
| ocalhoun wrote: | | I'll use the old military standby: "It doesn't matter if you respect the person or not, but respect the office." |
Disrespect... I don't know. If the leader is corrupt or drunk with power, how much respect should they get from me? They represent that office, and if they disrespect that office through corruption or criminal behavior, then the office(at least while they are in it) should not be automatically, unquestioningly respected either. |
If the person is corrupt, he should be immediately impeached. There are avenues for that. That would actually be an act of respect of the office by the people of the country, as the people would not wish that office to be tainted in any way, given that it is the highest office of Government. I still can't understand that when people were clearly convinced that Bush was so corrupt, that no one had worked on impeaching him. Was he really that corrupt? The last President that got impeached as far as I know was Clinton, and he was blamed for much less than Bush had been. So who is more to blame, a President who was democratically elected and who turned into a choice that did not work out for the people, or the people who elected him failing to take responsiblity for their choice, and to impeach him for what they thought he had been guilty off? Argument being, Bush did not elect himself as President, the people did. So if he failed as President, and they allowed that to happen, then it has to be their own failure as well? | deanhills wrote: |
| If the person is corrupt, he should be immediately impeached. |
I agree. This is not an easy thing to do, however. To impeach a President, you end up working against most of the government, which will fight you tooth and nail the entire way. Clinton was impeached because it was scandalous, and people bought into the whole "family values" BS that the far right was selling. But this is a conversation for another thread.
As far as respect for the President or the office goes, neither one of them automatically get's my undying, unquestioned respect. Like any other person I meet, they need to earn it. That goes for the office as well as the man. If the office were to be populated with crook after crook, how long do we sit on our hands saying "the office is still respectable"? Now, as I said, there is a clear difference between disrespect and dissent. I respect Obama as President, so far. But I exercise my right to dissent, and disagree with him and work against some of his policies. | Ophois wrote: |
| deanhills wrote: | | If the person is corrupt, he should be immediately impeached. |
I agree. This is not an easy thing to do, however. To impeach a President, you end up working against most of the government, which will fight you tooth and nail the entire way. Clinton was impeached because it was scandalous, and people bought into the whole "family values" BS that the far right was selling. But this is a conversation for another thread. |
I agree that it cannot be easy to impeach a President, especially when you have to find direct links between where the problem is and the White House. With regard to Clinton, I thought he was impeached because he had done something legally wrong, i.e. perjured himself, rather than the scandal itself, although the scandal did lead to it:
| Quote: |
| Bill Clinton, President of the United States, was impeached by the House of Representatives on December 19, 1998, and acquitted by the Senate on February 12, 1999. The charges, perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power arose from the Monica Lewinsky scandal and the Paula Jones lawsuit. The trial proceedings were largely partisan, with no Democratic Senators voting for conviction and only five Democratic Representatives voting to impeach. In all, 55 senators voted not guilty, and 45 voted guilty on the perjury charge. The Senate also acquitted on the charge of obstruction, with 50 votes cast as not guilty, and 50 votes as guilty.[1] It was only the second impeachment of a President in American history, following the impeachment of Andrew Johnson in 1868. |
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton
| Ophois wrote: |
| As far as respect for the President or the office goes, neither one of them automatically get's my undying, unquestioned respect. Like any other person I meet, they need to earn it. That goes for the office as well as the man. If the office were to be populated with crook after crook, how long do we sit on our hands saying "the office is still respectable"? Now, as I said, there is a clear difference between disrespect and dissent. I respect Obama as President, so far. But I exercise my right to dissent, and disagree with him and work against some of his policies. |
I would be inclined to separate the two, as the office of the President does not belong to the person who occupies it, but to the people of the United States, who elect the person to serve in that office for four years. Hopefully there would be checks and balances to ensure that the office is served with dignity and conduct becoming that office. Presidents come and go but the office remains. | deanhills wrote: |
| I would be inclined to separate the two, as the office of the President does not belong to the person who occupies it, but to the people of the United States, who elect the person to serve in that office for four years. Hopefully there would be checks and balances to ensure that the office is served with dignity and conduct becoming that office. Presidents come and go but the office remains. |
I more or less agree. Though I think it's possible for the office to be tarnished, and lose the respect of the people.
I'm not saying that one corrupt President would warrant a loss of respect for the office itself. But if we had ten Presidents in a row, all serving one term each(40 years), and they were all corrupt and crooked, the people to which the office supposedly belongs would be very disillusioned and would no longer respect the office. Even if a good President were to come along, who the people respected, it would be an uphill battle to regain the respect for the office. | Ophois wrote: |
| Though I think it's possible for the office to be tarnished, and lose the respect of the people. |
On reflection and the way you put it, I have to agree with you. For example if one would have a string of Presidents who are not that effective, people would tend to rate the office with the Presidents' collective negative ratings. Bush had been in the seat for eight years, so there would be a good chance that some of the negative ratings would have rubbed off on his office.To be fair it looks like Obama's negative numbers are improving, but I would still be worried if I was him.
It looks like the debate over healthcare is still fueling the public's disapproval of Obama, however.
| Quote: |
Forty-four percent (44%) now favor the President’s health care plan. That’s unchanged from before the speech…and from July. Public opinion on the issue appears to be hardening. A Rasmussen video report notes that 53% of those with insurance believe they would be forced to change coverage if the proposed health care reform is approved. |
And I don't think all the claims that racism is at the core of opposition to Obama is helping, except with the fringe left or course.
| Quote: |
Just 12% of voters nationwide believe most opponents of the President’s plan are racists. Republicans and unaffiliated voters overwhelmingly reject that notion but Democrats are more evenly divided. |
Source = http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll It looks like Obama is holding at about steady with his poor poll numbers. At least he's up one point in his negative/positive from last month.
Can someone help me find the official Hate Obama So Bad I Want America to Fail thread? It's around here somewh--- oh, wait. Nevermind.
| handfleisch wrote: |
| Hate Obama So Bad I Want America to Fail thread |
No one, not even the talk show pundits, has said they want America to fail.
Wanting Obama to fail in specific pet-policy issues is not the same thing as wanting America to fail. | ocalhoun wrote: |
| handfleisch wrote: | | Hate Obama So Bad I Want America to Fail thread |
No one, not even the talk show pundits, has said they want America to fail.
Wanting Obama to fail in specific pet-policy issues is not the same thing as wanting America to fail. |
That's wrong, and it's been shown before, and the evidence has only mounted up even higher lately. The whole right wing glee over losing the Olympic bid was the final proof. The icing on the tasteless cake were their shrieks of pain -- instead of simple pride -- over an American president receiving a major accolade. These people will apparently celebrate any misfortune the country might experience if it can be blamed on Obama, while posting Republican-oriented polls of joy about typical fluctuations in presidential popularity. Nattering nabobs of negativism, indeed. | handfleisch wrote: |
That's wrong, and it's been shown before, and the evidence has only mounted up even higher lately. |
Since the evidence is piling up so high, can you show me an example of Americans wanting America to fail (not Obama, America, please do try to keep the difference in mind)?
In your example of the Olympic bid, that was viewed by them as an effort of Obama, not America, especially since the city in question was his hometown.
(Remember, since it's their attitudes we're discussing, it only matters what they see it as.) | handfleisch wrote: |
| ocalhoun wrote: | | handfleisch wrote: | | Hate Obama So Bad I Want America to Fail thread |
No one, not even the talk show pundits, has said they want America to fail.
Wanting Obama to fail in specific pet-policy issues is not the same thing as wanting America to fail. |
That's wrong, and it's been shown before, and the evidence has only mounted up even higher lately. The whole right wing glee over losing the Olympic bid was the final proof. The icing on the tasteless cake were their shrieks of pain -- instead of simple pride -- over an American president receiving a major accolade. These people will apparently celebrate any misfortune the country might experience if it can be blamed on Obama, while posting Republican-oriented polls of joy about typical fluctuations in presidential popularity. Nattering nabobs of negativism, indeed. |
What was the difference with Bush and wanting Bush to fail? One could have equally argued then that it would have been a very unpatriotic act by the people. Bottomline Presidents in the United States get to be criticized and criticism would be relative to their political sentiment. Since yours is squarely and passionately behind Obama, it is logical that you would view anyone critical of Obama as less than patriotic. However Bush was fair game for everyone? Even when he was serving in the office of the President of the United States? | deanhills wrote: |
| handfleisch wrote: | | ocalhoun wrote: | | handfleisch wrote: | | Hate Obama So Bad I Want America to Fail thread |
No one, not even the talk show pundits, has said they want America to fail.
Wanting Obama to fail in specific pet-policy issues is not the same thing as wanting America to fail. |
That's wrong, and it's been shown before, and the evidence has only mounted up even higher lately. The whole right wing glee over losing the Olympic bid was the final proof. The icing on the tasteless cake were their shrieks of pain -- instead of simple pride -- over an American president receiving a major accolade. These people will apparently celebrate any misfortune the country might experience if it can be blamed on Obama, while posting Republican-oriented polls of joy about typical fluctuations in presidential popularity. Nattering nabobs of negativism, indeed. |
What was the difference with Bush and wanting Bush to fail? One could have equally argued then that it would have been a very unpatriotic act by the people. Bottomline Presidents in the United States get to be criticized and criticism would be relative to their political sentiment. Since yours is squarely and passionately behind Obama, it is logical that you would view anyone critical of Obama as less than patriotic. However Bush was fair game for everyone? Even when he was serving in the office of the President of the United States? |
+100. You sir see the entire picture! Yeah some of the stuff surrounding Obama is crazy. It
was just as bad if not worse surrounding Bush. But as one wise person once told me
'It depends on whose ox is being gored'. If it's 'your' guy, being criticized, people tend to see it as unreasonable. If it's the 'other' guy, being criticized, people tend to see it as being totally
OK.....or even good.
Last edited by Alaskacameradude on Fri Oct 16, 2009 12:24 am; edited 1 time in total | Alaskacameradude wrote: |
| deanhills wrote: | | handfleisch wrote: | | ocalhoun wrote: | | handfleisch wrote: | | Hate Obama So Bad I Want America to Fail thread |
No one, not even the talk show pundits, has said they want America to fail.
Wanting Obama to fail in specific pet-policy issues is not the same thing as wanting America to fail. |
That's wrong, and it's been shown before, and the evidence has only mounted up even higher lately. The whole right wing glee over losing the Olympic bid was the final proof. The icing on the tasteless cake were their shrieks of pain -- instead of simple pride -- over an American president receiving a major accolade. These people will apparently celebrate any misfortune the country might experience if it can be blamed on Obama, while posting Republican-oriented polls of joy about typical fluctuations in presidential popularity. Nattering nabobs of negativism, indeed. |
What was the difference with Bush and wanting Bush to fail? One could have equally argued then that it would have been a very unpatriotic act by the people. Bottomline Presidents in the United States get to be criticized and criticism would be relative to their political sentiment. Since yours is squarely and passionately behind Obama, it is logical that you would view anyone critical of Obama as less than patriotic. However Bush was fair game for everyone? Even when he was serving in the office of the President of the United States? |
+100. You sir see the entire picture! Yeah some of the stuff surrounding Obama is crazy. It
was just as bad if not worse surrounding Bush. But as one wise person once told me
'It depends on whose ox is being gored'. If it's 'your' guy, people tend to see it as unreasonable.
If it's the 'other' guy, people tend to see it as being despicable. |
I agree as well. In fact, that's sort of my goal in creating and posting to this thread. I think it's funny when certain people get their panties in a bunch at mere mention that their Anointed One isn’t as holy as they claim, despite the fact that they used the same if not worse tactics to smear others.Looks like Obama is doing even worse in the polls than usual. I don't think he's been in the media any more than usual, however, to attribute the increasing decline.
An excerpt from today's tracking poll continues to show that most Americans are opposed to Obama and the Democrats' government-run health care scheme:
| Quote: |
Support for the health care plan proposed by the President and Congressional Democrats is down to 42%. Fifty-four percent (54%) are opposed.
|
Source = http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll | jimi256 wrote: |
| I agree as well. In fact, that's sort of my goal in creating and posting to this thread. I think it's funny when certain people get their panties in a bunch at mere mention that their Anointed One isn’t as holy as they claim, despite the fact that they used the same if not worse tactics to smear others. |
I'm just curious... where did the whole "Anointed One" and "holy" references come from? Was that a media nickname? Or is it a smear tactic on your part because it's not "your guy"? | Ophois wrote: |
| I'm just curious... where did the whole "Anointed One" and "holy" references come from? |
Liberals. See below.
But back on topic, it looks like Obama's slide continues and he hit a new low today.
| jmi256 wrote: |
|
Nice photo of Obama. Nice poster. Am curious, what is the meaning of this poster?So... by this logic, if I post a few photos of fringe Righties with their crazy signs, that somehow translates to all conservatives idol-worshiping Bush?
| jimi256 wrote: |
| despite the fact that they used the same if not worse tactics to smear others. |
I wonder if you have ever thought to point that accusing finger inwards when you use insulting terms to "smear" your opponent. Or does this road only go one way? | Ophois wrote: |
| jimi256 wrote: | | despite the fact that they used the same if not worse tactics to smear others. |
I wonder if you have ever thought to point that accusing finger inwards when you use insulting terms to "smear" your opponent. Or does this road only go one way? |
For most people, yes, it only goes one way.@Ophois. It goes both ways. A little while ago we had plenty of posters smearing Bush, much in excess of what he had deserved. Now the shoe is on the other foot. Clinton also went through lots of "smearing". I must say I have seen much worse about Bush, than about Obama. There were movies as well mocking Bush and Clinton. So does one get all upset about them and get ruffled feathers, or do you just accept that this is what comes with the territory? If one looks at all the TV news casts, the ones with the very highest ratings are the ones with the greatest drama and mud slinging attached. Viz FOX. What I am trying to say is that people love to dramatize their President, some in the positive, some in the negative. And it has been around for a very long time.
Today's poll results. Looks like Obama is holding at his low "popularity." Maybe he'll start to take the hint and back off on trying to force policies down the throats of Americans that they have clearly said they don't approve of.
An excerpt from today's poll:
| Quote: |
For the first time during Obama’s time in office, the Approval Index has been in negative double digits for seven straight days.
|
Source = http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
Looks as though he can't count on all his Democrat votes for the healthcare legislation. Article in Yahoo (Associated Press) tonight on "Key senators may rebuff Obama on health care"
| Quote: |
The Democrats' control of a hefty majority in the Senate — plus the House — would suggest that President Barack Obama is within reach of overhauling the nation's health care system this fall.
But the numbers mask a more complicated reality: Obama and Democratic leaders have modest leverage over several pivotal Senate Democrats who are more concerned about their next election or feel they have little to lose by opposing their party's hierarchy.
One is still smarting from being forced to abandon next year's election. Another had to leave the Democratic Party to stay in office. And some are from states that Obama lost badly last year.
These factors will limit the president's ability to play his strongest card — an appeal for party loyalty and Democratic achievement — in trying to muster the 60 votes his allies will need this fall to overcome a Republican filibuster in the 100-member Senate. |
Definitely time to scrap this plan, and start working on three separate plans:
1: Cost reductions- make medical care less expensive, regardless of who's paying for it. (Many ways exist to help do this.)
2: Coverage reform- Fix the problems about insurance companies dropping sick patients and denying risky people coverage. (It would take some creativity, but surely this can be done without a government takeover of the insurance industry.)
3: Care reform- Improve the quality of care and access to it. (Reduce malpractice, improve survival rates and patient treatment, get care to rural areas where people can't get care even when they can afford it.) | ocalhoun wrote: |
Definitely time to scrap this plan, and start working on three separate plans:
1: Cost reductions- make medical care less expensive, regardless of who's paying for it. (Many ways exist to help do this.)
2: Coverage reform- Fix the problems about insurance companies dropping sick patients and denying risky people coverage. (It would take some creativity, but surely this can be done without a government takeover of the insurance industry.)
3: Care reform- Improve the quality of care and access to it. (Reduce malpractice, improve survival rates and patient treatment, get care to rural areas where people can't get care even when they can afford it.) |
Good plan! I would give this job to the States to do using Massachussetts as a model. As well as develop a federal Remote Area Medical (RAM) system such as what has already been seen on a "voluntary" basis. They could perhaps separate the dental and medical care services in RAM, and RAM would assist in identifying people who need medical care and have to be referred to nearby towns or cities.
I would invest lots of money in preventive medical care, work on taxing food that is obviously not good for human consumption, or at the minimum advertise that which is bad for human health. These are the factors that would help to bring medical costs down. Encourage people to lead healthier and more productive lifestyles, not only in terms of preaching, but for example have more social programmes in local Government for encouraging both adults and children to get out and about, develop hobbies that get them away from their television sets. Bottomline should be for all individuals to be made aware that their health is their responsibility, and what they do on a day to day basis, is what will affect their long term health.
Insurance companies should have less power to make life and death decisions. There should be some investigation in their decisions about coverage so that it would be more equitable. There should also be some investigation into unnecessary medical testing, and the costs of medical tests. Perhaps some of the tests can be conducted by people themselves. I'm almost certain medical tests have to be one of the most expensive components and due to the existence of insurance, it could be liable for abuse. For example if it had been an individual who had to pay for medical tests, he/she would have thought twice before they would go for every conceivable test available. | Quote: |
If the person is corrupt, he should be immediately impeached.
|
I don't think that Obama is corrupt | amorphius wrote: |
| Quote: |
If the person is corrupt, he should be immediately impeached.
|
I don't think that Obama is corrupt |
While a good idea in theory, impeaching all the corrupt politicians would be problematic in practice.
After you were done, there wouldn't be much of a government left! | amorphius wrote: |
| Quote: |
If the person is corrupt, he should be immediately impeached.
|
I don't think that Obama is corrupt |
Agreed. Only concern I have is that he is spending too much money that does not belong to him. Not only did he move into trillions of debt, but Government is now shifting debt into trillions. Maybe if one does an analysis of this, depending on the definition of corruption, Government could be regarded as a corrupt institution, robbing money not only from its present tax payers, but tax payers in the future who could not have been consulted regarding the Government's accumulation of large debts.It looks like Obama is staying in familiar territory with his low approval ratings, which have shown a historic drop. I don't know why he refuses to listen to what the American people are telling him with their rejection of his complete and disastrous government-run healthcare scheme that will mean more costs, less services and lower quality. He should work on real reform instead of trying to push his and the Democrats' pet projects down everyone's throats. Maybe he'll wise up soon, but probably not.
All he needs to do is stay quiet for a while. I'm almost certain there has to be a correlation between when he has been making too many speeches over a short period of time, or had been "overkilled" in the media. There has to be a certain saturation point beyond which poll ratings tend to drop, and I'm certain if he were to stay quiet for a while, that his ratings would go up as a sort of human response.
| deanhills wrote: |
| All he needs to do is stay quiet for a while. I'm almost certain there has to be a correlation between when he has been making too many speeches over a short period of time, or had been "overkilled" in the media. There has to be a certain saturation point beyond which poll ratings tend to drop, and I'm certain if he were to stay quiet for a while, that his ratings would go up as a sort of human response. |
I tend to agree. However, I think he's been forced into this position due to his misunderstanding what the 2008 election meant and what the public was saying. I have always said the 2008 election was more about anti-Bush rhetoric rather than some type of mandate for the irresponsible policies Obama has set out. That’s why there was no real discovery or debate during campaign on what his policies would be. Basically anyone without an “R” behind their name would have been given a pass. Obama has fundamentally misinterpreted this, however. And because of his disconnect with the American public, he tried and failed to ram his agenda through in the first few months without building a case. Instead he set unrealistic goals that were more deadline (which he has failed to adhere to) driven than driven by commonsense or consensus building. And now he’s placed himself in a difficult position where he has try to recover what face he can following his so-far failed agenda. He has to get out there and try to build a case, but he’s now doing so after the fact and when it’s clear he has planned and analyzed very little. In elections throughout the country (NJ, Virginia, NYC, etc.) that take place in just a week and a half, he has placed his name on the line and needs to campaign and put himself out there to try to curtail the damage. It’s been said that Obama is not more than an empty suit that gives good, rousing speeches when he’s in front of a teleprompter. If those elections don’t go his way, there will be even more political fallout as even the most liberal Democrats will start to distance themselves from Obama as he’s perceived as damaged goods. | jmi256 wrote: |
| I tend to agree. However, I think he's been forced into this position due to his misunderstanding what the 2008 election meant and what the public was saying. I have always said the 2008 election was more about anti-Bush rhetoric rather than some type of mandate for the irresponsible policies Obama has set out. That’s why there was no real discovery or debate during campaign on what his policies would be. Basically anyone without an “R” behind their name would have been given a pass. Obama has fundamentally misinterpreted this, however. And because of his disconnect with the American public, he tried and failed to ram his agenda through in the first few months without building a case. |
Although I do agree that a large portion of the landslide election in Obama's favour would be due to anti-Bush sentiment, his election campaign had been most thorough and something of a genius. Regardless of anti-Bush sentiment, and in absence of a good Republican campaign, Obama deserved to win. Obama in my view does not easily misinterpret the sentiment of the public, or even the sentiment of the members of his own party. Since marketing and election campaigns are his strong points, he would be very good at guaging sentiment. For me that is his weakness as well however as ratings would then mean more to him than for example Bush who obviously could not care very much about ratings. It also has to be detrimental for the military, as McCrystal must be pretty anxious by now to get a decision from Obama regarding more troops needed for Afghanistan. Obama no doubt is trying to get his "ducks" (lefties in his party) in a row, before coming to some sort of decision that pleases most of the people around him.
| jmi256 wrote: |
| And because of his disconnect with the American public, he tried and failed to ram his agenda through in the first few months without building a case. |
Agreed. I also see him as "ramming" agendas through without building a case. Also, failing to take a few steps back from the battle ground when it is necessary to do so. I wonder whether this could also be because of a very carefully planned Presidency and realizing he effectively only has 18 months to do everything he set out in his campaign "to do" before he has to start his re-election campaign again.Today's poll.
Probably time for a speech again. Let us guess. Probably about his decision regarding troops for Afghanistan. Wonder how that is going to affect his ratings? And what it will be.
lol, i only wish people could have had a screen capture of this page handed to them directly after they exited the polling booths on election day........
Today's poll. It'll be interesting to see if Obama's support helped or hindered Democrats in tomorrow's election.
Key elections include:
-- NJ Governor’s race
-- Virginia Governor's race
-- NYC Mayoral race
I'm looking forward to the NYC Mayoral race. Especially given the current economic tough times that everyone in NYC is facing. It would appear however that people are apathetic and that there may be a low turnout in voting. I enjoyed the following from a New York Times article about the election:
| Quote: |
With the election entering its waning hours, the two men crisscrossed the city to drum up support, but in very different styles that seemed to reflect their standing in the polls (up for Mr. Bloomberg, down for Mr. Thompson).
Mr. Thompson displayed the urgency of an underdog, cramming his schedule with rallies, neighborhood walks and rides on the back of a pickup truck. Mr. Bloomberg, seeming confident and relaxed, mixed official and campaign events, traveled with his two yellow Labradors and found time to watch the Yankees World Series game aboard the U.S.S. New York off the coast of Long Island.
Mr. Bloomberg, who was taken to the ship by hovercraft and handed out Yankees caps to the Marines and sailors, was asked by a reporter if this visit should be considered a campaign stop.
“This has nothing to do with the campaign,” the mayor said. “This is New York. This is America.”
|
Good contrast? Who do you think will win the race? It looks like Obama is doing slightly 'better,' but still not so hot. I have noticed that he hasn't been in the media as much in the last week or so, which may be helping him. It seems to be an interesting correlation.
I am somewhat surprised that Obama's approval did not increase much more: after all, the House passed one of Obama's main priorities, a health reform bill. If Obama was not able to get a boost from that, I think he is in real trouble.
I must say I was surprised as when the news was released by the media about the health care bill being passed, the media focus was on Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats, not Obama.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/nancy-pelosi-democrats-pass-sweeping-health-care-reform/story?id=9027367 I would have thought this would have been a much needed photo opportunity for him. | deanhills wrote: |
| I would have thought this would have been a much needed photo opportunity for him. |
Maybe he wants to distance himself from such a controversial subject... Which may have been the same reason the white house made it known that a public option was not a 'must have'.
Ideally for him, he could claim credit for it while talking to liberals, and blame congress while talking to conservatives. | Voodoocat wrote: |
| Don't forget how many celebrities publically announced that is was about time we had a black president. |
Celebrities aside, I have heard a lot of people say this, as well as the media. The stupid factor is, it doesn't matter Who the president is, What color he is, or if the president is a man or woman. The only thing we need a president to be is an intelligent and honest ruler. I have never been for Obama. As for his current progress, I personally am still against him. If he can figure things out and start to do some good for this country in ANY shape or form, then of course I'll start to gain faith in him. If a president sucks I'm not going to root for him. If a president is good I'll begin to take his side. It angers me to even think for a second that he was elected by Anyone because he is "black." That is the stupidest reason to give anyone power over an entire country.
Looking from the start, what cold hard FACTS do we know about this guy that can be proven 10 fold? oh um, probably only that he breathes air, is a sweet talker, makes big promises, and is now ruler over the most powerful country in the world today. That is about it. (Not implying or accusing anything in these following comments) Is he a Man? Was he born a man? i would assume so, but we don't have his birth certificate to prove it. How long has he been a citizen of the US? Oh.. well i don't know that either. No one does. Where did he grow up? Where did he attend school? What did he go into college for? How much experience in politics does he Really have?
The only Major Cold Hard Fact we have about this guy is that he is protecting (hiding, or doesn't have, who knows) his private life and background. Am I wrong?
Aside from what we may or may not know now, How much did we know during elections? little to none right? sooo.. with so much crisis going on, and ESPECIALLY after 9/11, with everyone being so cautious about who in the world to trust, how did the greater population of the country vote for a guy they don't know at all??
How could America be so dumbfounded? If I'm 20 and America is this ridiculous already, I just might begin to believe the Mayan's and the Chinese about 2012. (hey, isn't that the last year of Obama's reign?...) | taytay wrote: |
| How could America be so dumbfounded? If I'm 20 and America is this ridiculous already, I just might begin to believe the Mayan's and the Chinese about 2012. (hey, isn't that the last year of Obama's reign?...) |
Looking from the outside in, perhaps guys like you have to put your actions where your words are. People hated Bush right from the beginning of his first term as President, with a GREAT passion, however they VOTED him for a second term. Maybe there is so much reliance on "the other guy" coming up with the solutions whereas it is every voter's responsibility to look for a better deal, not only "in words" but "in action" as well.
There seems to be this expectation of someone else who has to take care of things. Who is this someone else? Maybe now is the time to take responsibility and speak out, as when the campaign for the next election starts towards the end of next year, there may be no other candidate available other than the "criticized" one. Bottomline being on focussing and taking charge of solutions rather than contributing passive arm-chair criticism.Bullshit, manipulative right-wing polling. Obama still has a majority of Americans supporting him according to most polls. (Not that I am an Obama fan, but I'd take him any day over the current bunch of Republican lunatics who care more about corporate issues and social conservative issues then actually being what Conservatives/Republicans once were and should be - Freedom fighters, defenders of liberty and choice. Maybe they'll be smart enough and take a chance on Ron Paul over Sarah Palin in 2012. At least then they'd at least have a chance.)
| gandalfthegrey wrote: |
| Bullshit, manipulative right-wing polling. Obama still has a majority of Americans supporting him according to most polls. |
Because most polls are either 'do support' or 'do not support'.
This particular report, you'll notice, only pays attention to those who feel 'strongly' about their opinion.
Obama has a lot of strong supporters, slightly more strong detractors, a HUGE amount of half-hearted supporters, and only a very small amount of half-hearted detractors. | ocalhoun wrote: |
| Obama has a lot of strong supporters, slightly more strong detractors, a HUGE amount of half-hearted supporters, and only a very small amount of half-hearted detractors. |
This is a brilliant observation Ocalhoun. Maybe the polls are brainwashing people as well, as they are only focussed on "either" and "or" in two main directions, yet the public may be in a million more directions if they would be asked different questions, such as perhaps an "other" or "neither". The brainwashing sets people up to only think along the lines of Obama and the one party in opposition. It serves to close and not open minds to other alternatives. So by harping on only Obama "for" and "against", this puts only one real picture in people's minds when the next presidential election campaign starts. Even though this poll is used in the "negative", it may be working to Obama's advantage, not his disadvantage. As there are no other options in the polls that highlight the alternative thinking of political leaders.
Perhaps that is the reason how Bush got to be elected a second time, even when he was so much hated. | deanhills wrote: |
| Maybe the polls are brainwashing people as well, as they are only focussed on "either" and "or" in two main directions,. |
Indeed.
To quote Jesus:
| Quote: |
He who is not with me is against me |
This kind of attitude is not a recent development.The lastest poll. It looks like Obama is staying steady with a -10 rating.
| jmi256 wrote: |
| The lastest poll. It looks like Obama is staying steady with a -10 rating. |
I would imagine that it should be going up with his travels overseas. He and his wife seem to be good with the hobnobbing shoulder rubbing kind of diplomacy that comes with international travel. They make positive impressions. | deanhills wrote: |
| jmi256 wrote: | | The lastest poll. It looks like Obama is staying steady with a -10 rating. |
I would imagine that it should be going up with his travels overseas. He and his wife seem to be good with the hobnobbing shoulder rubbing kind of diplomacy that comes with international travel. They make positive impressions. |
It doesn't look like Obama's groveling for the sake of being accpeted by the international community is translating into success here at home. He's hit a new low.
