Has anyone seen these polls?
 

I very rarely look at political polls, but I heard a few days ago that President Obama's poll numbers had slipped quite a lot.

Take a look at these few graphs I pulled from Rasmussen Reports:







I don't mean to insinuate anything from this, but I was thoroughly surprised at these numbers.

Re: Has anyone seen these polls?
 

Fox News is probably to blame. :p

Re: Has anyone seen these polls?
 

Approx 65% of Americans approved of what Obama was doing... Before he even did anything.
That statistic is dropping, you say? Surprising.

Re: Has anyone seen these polls?
 

So American people are showing that they would rather Pres. Obama did nothing than anything he's done so far. Interesting.

Re: Has anyone seen these polls?
 

I actually thought the first graphic was the most interesting. Generic Democrat / Republican polling shows Republicans ahead in every major category except Gov't Ethics (tied on Iraq).

Re: Has anyone seen these polls?
 

The American people dont know whats good, They Elected president Bush twice, proving my point.

And the fact that Nickelback is popular also proves my point.

Re: Has anyone seen these polls?
 

Thats why they elected Obama? :lolz:


You cant say that without de-validating every choice they have made.

You cant have your cake and eat it too.

Re: Has anyone seen these polls?
 

Ah, Fox 6, I love you for pointing out fallacious arguments.

Anyway, don't ALL presidents see a dip in approval rating after they get elected? This isn't all that surprising...especially when you consider what is on Obama's plate compared to some other points in history with less wars, less economy crisis, etc..

Re: Has anyone seen these polls?
 

Re: Has anyone seen these polls?
 

But he can have his crow and eat it too.

Zing!

Re: Has anyone seen these polls?
 

President ratings always seem to drop like that within the first part of their terms. Reason being that the population seems to give them a grace period - even people who didn't vote for him will be like "Well he's a knew guy coming in, might as well give him a chance." It's impossible to actually please everyone, though, so that will drop. I saw some poll results recently that showed the number of American's which approved of him at the some percent of those which voted for him, so I think that says some good things.

But yes, the majority of Americans are pretty stupid, so approval polls aren't a good way to judge how good a job someone is doing, either for good or bad.

Re: Has anyone seen these polls?
 

Thats an interesting point.

Bond, are there any comparisons on Rasmussen comparing Obama's drop in popularity to other past Presidents? That would likely be a more telling statistic.

That aside, the number regarding his disapproval and the sudden drop in approval do seem to coincide with the ramping up of the Healthcare Debate with a side of continued job losses, but without comparison thats more logical conjecture than real correlative evidence.

EDIT: I found a neat article on this very subject. I recommend reading the whole thing.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...ter_97703.html

Stupid enough to vote for Obama, I guess?

Americans like Obama = American smart!
Americans angry at Obama = Americans STUPID!
Who run Bartertown = Master Blaster run Bartertown!

Re: Has anyone seen these polls?
 

Yeah I was going to point out that Obama started his presidency with rather high approval rating so his drops seem bigger even though it is about the same (numerical as past Presidents)

Also, I had a discussion with Bond on the polls itself... and welll...

Re: Has anyone seen these polls?
 

I honestly just added in the Obama-centric polls because they were on the same page on Rasmussen's website as the first graphic. I found the first graphic to be more interesting. Only months after Democrats were elected by huge majorities, Republicans, generically, out poll Democrats on almost every major issue. That is, at the least, odd.

Personally, I don't pay polls much heed, or regularly follow them, or endorse their selective methodology. Rather, I just found this specific poll thought provoking.

Re: Has anyone seen these polls?
 

I don't pay attention to polls of any nature, really.
But I took it upon myself to conduct my own survey.
Conveniently, I forgot to copy my source link. ;)

Re: Has anyone seen these polls?
 

To me these numbers are meaningless and not shocking at all. The reason that his approval rating was so high to start is because it was weighed against Bush and Mccain. People wanted a president with brains.

How does Obama's approval rating compare to Bush's when he left office? If he ever gets that low then I'd be shocked.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/...n4728399.shtml

Re: Has anyone seen these polls?
 

Well, Jimmy Carter had a very high approval rating at the start too...

Re: Has anyone seen these polls?
 

Hehe, I never called the American's who voted for Obama smart - I'm just happy they voted to my preference this time.

And I read the article...not sure it really says anything meaningful. I still think a lot of American's are buying into the idea that Obama is a communist or wants to burn all of their money. They think he has nationalized half the American economy.

Seriously, most American's think of things in extremes like that. For some reason they have trouble understanding mediums. And what does an approval rating buy you, anyway? The only power American's have at this point is to urge their congressmen to vote how they want, and it just depends on who speaks loudest, and if that congressmen will even listen.

The only thing it really counts for is his chances of re-election. But unless something crazy happens, I think America will re-elect him instead of changing things up in a scary economic time.

Re: Has anyone seen these polls?
 

Yup haha.

The higher you start the more room there is to fall.

Re: Has anyone seen these polls?
 

The only problem with your chart is... you don't know which way the proximity to the South goes... is it getting closer or further as you move right?

Re: Has anyone seen these polls?
 

You do realize that if single payer Healthcare Insurance is passed, as Pres. Obama has stated he preferred prior to his election, we would actually be kind of close to 50% (not really, but closer than we've ever been, probably about 25-20% at most).

- We've already nationalized/socialized America's largest employer - GM
- One of their competitors - Chrysler
- The legal contracts to their stakeholders were broken with no legal basis so that unions/labor could be paid first
- This government gives marching orders to every company that took bailout money
- And we're working towards nationalizing much if not all of our healthcare insurance, 1/6 of our economy.

Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with any of these decisions, they are at least socialist inspired in practice (GM), if not fascist (bailout money leading to company control/veto power). These policies meet the exact definitions of these ideologies.

So my questions is, is this whole socialism/fascism accusation getting old just because it's repeated ad nauseum, or is it repeated ad nauseum because it's getting more accurate over time?

Like a said during the election, I'm not saying that Pres. Obama is a socialist, but he believes in and has now instated many socialist and fascist policies. Maybe he believes these are necessary evils for these hard times and will work to unload this power he has assumed when the economy improves, but that does not redefine the nature of the policy. We can only judge someone based on what they do.

I tend to agree that critics need to get away from the word socialism, but not because it's not accurate. Because people dismiss you when you use the term.

Re: Has anyone seen these polls?
 

I think that the health care debate is actually pretty hilarious. I saw an article recently that had a few picture of protesters. One had liberals protesting the war, and the other had conservatives protesting universal health care.

The idea that people are okay with spending money on killing other people (because America's tough and has to show them who's boss!) but would not be okay with their tax money being spent to help other people is just mind boggling.

I mean, I read all of these articles and opinions from people who are against health care. The reasoning is just so hard to understand. People don't want to support it because they don't want their hard earned money "wasted" on some poor person's health.

Other people say that they don't like it because they never go to the doctor, so they wouldn't benefit.

I just don't understand this line of thinking. I have never had to go to the doctor for anything serious - I've never even broken a limb or had a bad infection. But I support universal health care - I don't mind paying for other people, because I know if something bad ever did happen to me, those same people could be paying for me.

The level of selfishness involved with the argument against universal health care is just insane.

Re: Has anyone seen these polls?
 

That's a rather misleading graph... only analyzing hard assets does not paint the most comprehensive picture of the government's role in the economy.

Of course, the United States is not a socialist country.

Edit: To be more precise on my first point, you have to look at government intervention and regulation in relation to the overall economy, as the government is such a unique financial creature. Analyzing hard assets isn't quite adequate enough.

Re: Has anyone seen these polls?
 

Well I'm all for regulation. :)

Since Obama has taken office I have also seen a lot of people throwing around the words "socialist" and "fascist" without really stopping to consider what they really mean, or if Obama is really behaving that way. They just hear people on the news using those words and regurgitate them.

I don't think one man can flip the style of our economy, but some aspects of socialism are not bad, and in my opinion are needed.

Re: Has anyone seen these polls?
 

An article on what we mean by 'America is stupid'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-m..._b_253996.html

Yes, it's Bill Maher, but it's a fun read.

Re: Has anyone seen these polls?
 

Well, lets that that chart in all seriousness if you like and pretend it is a true measurement of government control. If single payer universal healthcare is passed, that .21% figure would increase by about 8,000% (thats based on calculations, not hyperbole). Does that sound like capitalism to you, or something else that dare not speak it's name?

If this is all you've taken from the debate, you aren't paying attention to what people are saying, here on this forum or elsewhere. This sort of "they hate poor people" or "they;re just greedy bastards" argument is so tiring and false, it becomes pointless to argue against because it's based more on faith than fact.

If you wish to create your own fiction to free yourself from thinking critically on such a complicated and impactful subject, feel free, but making such outlandish, pejorative statements about the opposition enlightens nothing.

Re: Has anyone seen these polls?
 

You're failing to realize that the majority of average Americans really are against it for those reasons.

But enlightened me, why is universal health care a bad idea?

Just about every other nation that isn't a third world country has it, and they seem to be doing pretty well. :ohreilly:

Re: Has anyone seen these polls?
 

Fascism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

Specifically


Socialism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Specifically


I think we can agree that President Obama isn't what you would call a capitalist. So, looking at these two models, which of these seems more appropriate?

Hmmmm... maybe Obama isn't a socialist after all... :lol:

Re: Has anyone seen these polls?
 

Haha, yes, but sighting one example where we have done this in extreme circumstances doesn't make us socialist or fascist. It just means we did something that was socialist or fascist in nature. We could argue all day if it was the right thing to do.

Re: Has anyone seen these polls?
 

1) I'm glad you and Bill Maher can speak for the average American who is against this.

2) As I stated, I and I know Bond have gone over it to the point of exhaustion. I'd ask you to do a forum search. Wouldn't be hard to find.

3) Well is a statement of relativity that we examine in point number two. Healthcare is a huge and complicated issue. The solution to every problem doesn't have to be "socialize it!" I'm more for re-regulation.

Re: Has anyone seen these polls?
 

I cited 5 examples. It's only been 6 months or 1/8 of his first term.

I never said he was a socialist or fascist. I said he has enacted policies that are. There is no argument about this because the definitions are pretty by the book. It's pointless to argue people's thoughts or feelings, you can only argue what they do. And so far...

Re: Has anyone seen these polls?
 

There are a lot of programs in america that are very sucsessful that are socialist in nature. But people don't fight them because they feel that its something that's needed for society to function better. (i.e. Public schooling and Fire dept.s) Apparently giving people an affordable health insurance option is just a luxury and won't work towards the greater good of the country.

Re: Has anyone seen these polls?
 

I'm just judging from my personal interactions with people I know and see from day to day. Maybe it has something to do with where I live, eastern Kentucky is not exactly a hub of social progression.

But since you guys have highlighted the evils of universal health care somewhere else and I don't want to track them all down and read them, I'll just pour through the reasons I think universal health care is good:

1. It would encourage people with long term chronic health conditions to seek care for something they may have been neglecting too because of cost.

2. France spends about $569 LESS per person for health care than the United States. France has universal health care, the US doesn't.

3. It would help get rid of evil insurance companies. I guess this is arguable, but I don't understand why health insurance companies have the right to invade your privacy on matters of your health.

4. Surveys have shown that the majority of Americans, both democrat and republican, would prefer universal health care to what we have now.

5. Administrative costs of the current US health system (overhead, paperwork) constitutes about 25% of health care spending in the united states. This is much, much higher than it is in other countries with universal health care.

6. In most cases it won't even raise your taxes!!! As it stands now, about 59% of the US health care system is funded by public money. About 20% is paid for by individuals, through deductibles, co-pays, the uninsured paying directly, etc. 21% is funded by private employers. In a new universal system all of that tax money being funneled into medicare/caid would be retained. Employers would pay about a 7% payroll tax, and people would pay a 2% income tax. The payroll tax would replace all other employer expenses for employees’ health care, which would be eliminated. The income tax would take the place of all current insurance premiums, co-pays, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket payments. For most people, that 2% is less than what they pay now for out of pocket expenses, especially if someone in your family is seriously ill.

Obviously, employers who don't offer any coverage will be paying more with this system, but most employers who do offer coverage will be paying -less-. People without insurance will be paying more, but people with insurance will be paying less.

As it stands now, about 47 million people are uninsured. Hundreds of thousands of people who actually are insured are still bankrupted when something serious happens.

7. Labeling it 'socialized medicine' is false, it's actually 'socialized healthcare'. The government doesn't own the hospitals or manage them, contrary to a popular belief.

8. It would increase competition among doctors for patients. Doctors would no longer be guaranteed patients just because they belong to a provider group. This would probably increase the quality of care since they would be competition for patients. Man, competition. That's almost a free market word!

9. America spends a much higher GDP on health care than any other country, but we have worse ratings on quality of care, efficiency of care, access to care, safe care, equity, and wait times.

10. Last but not least, regardless of what anyone says, health care is a basic human right.

Re: Has anyone seen these polls?
 

Actually a lot of people are against public schooling. I'm not one of them, but I certainly see their point. Americans schools are 20 years behind the curve right now.

Well I'm glad we're finally starting to see some really detailed, comprehensive answers and ideas and not just borderline retarded accusations... :drool:

And Vampyr, I'm not saying there aren't problems with healthcare (if you'd care to research anything we've said to this point you'd see that and most of your points are directly addressed in our previous posts), all we're saying is that complete government control is NOT the answer. 70% of Americans polled like their healthcare, but everyone seems willing to throw out 70% to try and make the 30% happier. Can't there be a better solution that works with the private sector to improve healthcare for everyone and bring the 30% up closer to the 70% instead of lowering the level of care to one common denominator?

Re: Has anyone seen these polls?
 

Heh, polls I was looking at actually show those numbers almost flipped.

Also, most Western European nations that have universal health care also have private health care that is available for those who want it.

Also, like I said, it wouldn't be "complete government control".

The government doesn't control it, the government pays for care which is delivered in the -private- sector, like how Medicare works now. Doctors are paid on in a fee-for-service model.

Re: Has anyone seen these polls?
 

People, or politicians? I don't remember anyone having any speeches about how they need to shut down all the public schools or stop building them.

lol?

Where did you get those poll numbers?

Re: Has anyone seen these polls?
 

The thing I don't understand is that people are trying to shoot the healthcare plan down without presenting any better options. Obviously the current system isn't great, and if you disagree with the current plan, then instead of just decrying "death panels" and "you're going to kill my grandpa" rhetoric, why don't you bring something to the table? Something has to change in healthcare, and I would have much more respect for the other side if they were trying to help make it better fit so everyone is pleased with the idea rather than derailing the plan completely.

Re: Has anyone seen these polls?
 

A lot to respond to here, so I'll try and move in order and be brief.

1) Polls

This is what I was referring to:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ..._recent_months

There is a lot in there, but to sum it up about half of Americans considered their care good or excellent, but only 18% considered it poor. Those numbers don't exactly confirm or deny the 70% numbers I had seen bandied about, but it definitely shows many more Americans consider their healthcare to be good or better than those who consider it bad. When it comes to healthcare, I just don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Now if the questions in the polling were do you think America has good healthcare, those numbers would be significantly different, and they always have been. People always think things are much worse for others than they are for themselves.

I also ignored the overly positive numbers solely from those with insurance, because they are irrelevant to this discussion.

2) Control - If you control the money, you control the care. I see little difference in getting a paycheck or a reimbursement. In the end it's quibbling over small points. Money = Control and if the government has the money they control your healthcare and can dictate how you are treated by dictating what they'll pay for.

As for the "optional" nature of this, well thats more of a myth than anything. I detailed this in previous posts.

3) Public Schools - I never said people talked about shutting down public schools, but A LOT of people want their money to follow their child to a private school due to the poor nature of many public schools, especially in inner cities. There was actually a huge debate about this from a voucher program in DC:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...060802041.html

4) Other options - The Republicans do have a platform to address healthcare, but no one seems to listen or care. Much of this is a procedural problem because the Republicans have a pretty severe minority right now and Nancy Pelosi simply son't allow most of these ideas to be discussed on the floor of the house.

Here is a link to the Republican Healthcare Platform, much of it I support, some I don't entirely. I'll quote some important parts. The whole thing is a pretty good read, however, whether you agree with it or not, and please try and read it with an open mind.

http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/HealthCare.htm

Re: Has anyone seen these polls?
 

That poll really just proves some of my points.

This in particular. I stated earlier that people not wanting to pay money for universal health care was the reason they didn't want it, and this proves that. However, these people are misguided in their information. I posted an explanation in an earlier post about how people with insurance would likely be paying less, and this poll seems to have surveyed mostly people -with- insurance.

These people hear the words "universal health care" and "taxes" in the same sentence and nearly have a heart attack, which is what I said earlier and the response was "no no, this 'people don't care' argument is false and is getting old".

As for the 74% rating their quality of care as good or excellent...that has little to do with coverage and more to do with your experience at the hospital.

Just to drive my point home:

It's all about the cost to people, even though they will probably be paying less. If you don't have insurance then yes, you will obviously be paying more, but the reason you don't have health insurance right now is because it's too expensive. With a 2% income tax, people will be able to afford it.

Also, the points you quoted for the Republican plan don't seem likely to work. They are all abstract ways of helping people with health care that seem nice in theory, but with results that will be difficult measure. And why are we ok with implementing a plan where a 'pro' is that you can buy policies across state lines?

And "We salute those Republican governors who are leading the way in demonstrating ways to provide affordable health care options"? That line doesn't sound bias at all. XD

edit: I guess those people are techincally correct - taxes will be higher. But I get the feeling that they don't realize it will be lower than their current insurance premiums, copay, deductibles, etc, etc.

Re: Has anyone seen these polls?
 

It is very difficult to have a frank and honest discussion about health care if the scope of the discussion is not narrowed. Also, we have covered a lot of these same points ad nauseam in previous threads.

The moral justification of capitalism does not lie in the altruist claim that it represents the best way to achieve “the common good.” It is true that capitalism does—if that catch-phrase has any meaning—but this is merely a secondary consequence. The moral justification of capitalism lies in the fact that it is the only system consonant with man’s rational nature, that it protects man’s survival qua man, and that its ruling principle is: justice.

—Ayn Rand