Has anyone seen these polls?

[TheGame]

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

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by TheGame

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

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

[Vampyr]

Originally Posted by Professor S

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!

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.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Professor S

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

Yup haha.

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

[BreakABone]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

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.

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?

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

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.

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.

[Vampyr]

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.

[Bond]

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.

[Vampyr]

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.

[Vampyr]

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.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

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?

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.

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.

[Vampyr]

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.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

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.

Fascism

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

Specifically

Fascists explicitly promoted their ideology as a "Third Position" between capitalism and communism.[124] Italian Fascism involved corporatism, a political system in which economy is collectively managed by employers, workers and state officials by formal mechanisms at national level.[125] Fascists advocated a new national multi-class economic system that is labeled as either national corporatism, national socialism or national syndicalism.[24] The common aim of all fascist movements was elimination of the autonomy or, in some cases, the existence of large-scale capitalism.[126]

Socialism

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

Specifically

Economically, socialism denotes an economic system of state ownership and/or worker ownership of the means of production and distribution. In the economy of the Soviet Union, state ownership of the means of production was combined with central planning, in relation to which goods and services to make and provide, how they were to be produced, the quantities, and the sale prices. Soviet economic planning was an alternative to allowing the market (supply and demand) to determine prices and production. During the Great Depression, many socialists considered Soviet-style planned economies the remedy to capitalism's inherent flaws – monopoly, business cycles, unemployment, unequally distributed wealth, and the economic exploitation of workers.

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...

[Vampyr]

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.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

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.

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.