Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Obama's approval rating

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by robrecht View Post
    I think that's debatable. Unemployment may have been worse, but a different scale was being used at the time. If I recall correctly, inflation was higher, but much of the economic problems at the time were attributable to a temporary shift in our oil supply and cost. From World War II until 1980, our deficit as a percentage of GNP had been steadily shrinking so the underlying strength of the economy really was relatively healthy. Reagan's tax cuts did indeed help stimulate the economy, but was that more of a temporary solution as opposed to a long-term strategy of growth? In some ways, Bush and Obama both inherited the long-term consequences of overuse of short-term solutions like tax cuts, and that has only continued to get worse. By the end of Bush's term, we were facing a fundamental collapse of our economy, the stock market cut in half, huge amounts of paper wealth also being lost in a nationwide housing bubble collapse, brought on by insane gambling by the banking industry, and hundreds of thousands of jobs being lost each month. I'm not saying that Obama fixed all that, far from it; there's still hugely unsustainable deficit spending more or less doubling of the debt every 8 years or so, as with Bush, but my recollection of the economy under Carter was nothing as dangerous as we've been looking at more recently. I'm not an economist, by the way, just speaking as someone who lived through the recession of the early 80s and the near collapse of the world economy in 2008. They didn't seem all that comparable to me, but 2008 was a heck of a lot scarier than 1979.
    Both unemployment and inflation were in double digits and interest rates were over 20%. It was unquestioningly the worst economy since the Depression. The reason the 2008 recession may seem worse is partially because it is fresher in our memories and lasted longer considering that Reagan turned it around in two years.

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Starlight View Post
      Sorry good point, careless phrasing in the extreme on my part. His party (dems) lost the election to Eisenhower as a result of Truman's cabinet scandals. Eisenhower being the only Republican president in a 36 year period where it was otherwise under Dem control.
      I don't think that had much to do with Truman. You point to it as a 36-year period, but you need to remember the first 16 years were all FDR (okay, Truman took office during FDR's fourth term, but the election itself was won by FDR). He won not because the Democrats were so popular, but because he himself was so popular... except for maybe his first term, which he won because Hoover was really unpopular. Regardless, I wouldn't really consider the reign of a hugely popular president to be all that indicative of his party being that powerful, outside of being powerful by being affiliated with the popular guy.

      And the 1952 election wasn't between two random guys. It was between Eisenhower and some random guy. Eisenhower was regarded as such a strong candidate that both the Republican and Democratic parties tried to get him to run for their ticket. If he had chosen to run as a Democrat instead, they likely would've won.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
        Both unemployment and inflation were in double digits and interest rates were over 20%. It was unquestioningly the worst economy since the Depression.
        Inflation and interest rates are essentially the same thing. Not a good thing, I am not arguing that point, but was it a structural, long-term problem or relatively easy to address? Then you have to ask about the long-term costs of addressing it. As for unemployment, as I mentioned it was measured differently than today so not strictly comparable. Look rather at the rate of job-loss? I don't recall--was there anything like hundreds of thousands of jobs being lost every month for nearly a year? Was the stock market cut in half? Was there a national housing bubble bursting, with huge numbers of families losing their homes?
        βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
        ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

        אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by robrecht View Post
          Inflation and interest rates are essentially the same thing.
          Not really. After the 2008 recession unemployment rose above 10% but interest rates remained at record low levels.

          I'm always still in trouble again

          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
            Not really. After the 2008 recession unemployment rose above 10% but interest rates remained at record low levels.
            I said inflation and interest rates are essentially the same thing, not that unemployment and interest rates are the same thing.
            βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
            ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

            אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by robrecht View Post
              I said inflation and interest rates are essentially the same thing, not that unemployment and interest rates are the same thing.
              My bad.

              I'm always still in trouble again

              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
              "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                My bad.
                OK. So now, to support your claim, how about looking for some more or less comparable criteria? What was the rate of job loss per month in 1980? How far did the stock market drop? How many foreclosures? If you do want to look at interest rates apart from inflation, consider the fact that short-term credit markets were essentially frozen in 2008. What is that in terms of short-term interest rates, an asymptote approaching infinity?
                βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by JimL View Post
                  Reagan didn't have to spend 900 billion to bail out the banks the day he took office,
                  Neither did Obama. He CHOSE to. Several world-renown economists were actually recommending letting the large banks fail.

                  he didn't have to save the automobile industry,
                  HAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!! Obama didn't save GM, much less the entire automobile industry. Ford Motor, for instance, didn't take a dime.

                  he didn't have 2 wars which were costing trillions of dollars to contend with,
                  Deceptive math is used to make them "trillions of dollars wars", including estimated future budget and disability compensation. The overall actual operating cost of both wars was 1.7 Trillion through 2016 (for 15 years).

                  The calculations by Dr. Neta Crawford extend beyond the typical accounting of overseas contingency operations for the Defense and State Departments, which amounts to $1.7 trillion through 2016, according to her report issued late last week. http://www.military.com/daily-news/2...rs-so-far.html

                  So, deceptively calling the 2 15 year wars "trillions of dollars" is a blatant lie.
                  That's what
                  - She

                  Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                  - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                  I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                  - Stephen R. Donaldson

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                    Neither did Obama. He CHOSE to. Several world-renown economists were actually recommending letting the large banks fail.
                    Of course he chose to, and so did Congress. The fact is that what he chose worked, and most if not all the TARP money whether form the banks or the auto industry was returned, so, win win. Point is Reagan wasn't faced with these same conditions to have to deal with on day one.


                    HAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!! Obama didn't save GM, much less the entire automobile industry. Ford Motor, for instance, didn't take a dime.
                    Ha Ha Ha!!!! Yes he did. The manufacturers are still here and people remained employed and the money was returned. Ford Motor didn't need the assistance, good for them. You and Forbes can monday morning quaterback all you want, but Obama's decision to bail them out worked.


                    Deceptive math is used to make them "trillions of dollars wars", including estimated future budget and disability compensation. The overall actual operating cost of both wars was 1.7 Trillion through 2016 (for 15 years).

                    The calculations by Dr. Neta Crawford extend beyond the typical accounting of overseas contingency operations for the Defense and State Departments, which amounts to $1.7 trillion through 2016, according to her report issued late last week. http://www.military.com/daily-news/2...rs-so-far.html

                    So, deceptively calling the 2 15 year wars "trillions of dollars" is a blatant lie.
                    Oh okay, so Obama had wars to contend with which Reagan didn't, wars that would end up costing nearly trillions of dollars. Btw Reagan tripled the debt without all of that to contend with coming in. He called it his biggest regret!

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by JimL View Post
                      Of course he chose to, and so did Congress. The fact is that what he chose worked, and most if not all the TARP money whether form the banks or the auto industry was returned, so, win win.
                      Really?

                      Ford, which didn't receive a dime during the bailout bounced back just as strong as GM and Chrysler did drawing into question whether the bailout helped at all. All that Obama rescued were members of a key voting block (union workers) by screwing creditors and bondholders.

                      If GM and Chrysler had filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy, they wouldn't have been liquidated as some liberal economists contend but rather nearly all of their factories would have stayed open during that time and they would have continued making and selling cars and trucks. Bankruptcy would have permitted them to abstain from paying interest and dividend payments for awhile, and to renegotiate union contracts. Under bankruptcy laws, while stockholders would have lost the value of their stocks, bond owners (who have first claim to company assets and profits) would have been paid off[1].

                      The main result of the bailout that Obama oversaw was that union workers were able to keep their uncompetitively high rates of pay and benefits[2] continuing to handicap the companies as they compete with foreign manufacturers and the whole thing besides robbing Peter (bond holders and creditors) to pay Paul (United Auto Workers union) and shaking confidence in the bond market, ended up costing taxpayers $9.2 billion (all other bailouts by the government ended up turning a profit for the taxpayers).

                      As for your "win win" claim, one big loser were the American taxpayers who lost nearly $9.3 billion whereas in previous bailouts the taxpayers actually turned a profit.













                      1. An act that resulted in creating a great deal of insecurity in the bond market which are -- or were -- a safer investment.

                      2. A study conducted by the Heritage Foundation concluded that the preferential treatment the United Auto Workers got during the bailouts of GM and Chrysler "redistributed $26.5 billion more to the UAW than it would have received had it been treated as it usually would in bankruptcy proceedings."

                      I'm always still in trouble again

                      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by JimL View Post
                        Of course he chose to, and so did Congress. The fact is that what he chose worked, and most if not all the TARP money whether form the banks or the auto industry was returned, so, win win. Point is Reagan wasn't faced with these same conditions to have to deal with on day one.
                        Rogue handled that pretty well.

                        Ha Ha Ha!!!! Yes he did.
                        No he didn't! He helped GM. Not Nisan, Toyota, Hyundai, Ford, Fiat, Volkswagen, BMW, Lamborghini, and the other car companies. Obama did not "rescue" the auto industry. He gave a wad to GM so that their executives could keep their bonuses, the unions could keep their salaries at ridiculous amounts, and taxpayers would be left with the losses.

                        The manufacturers are still here and people remained employed and the money was returned.
                        No. The taxpayers lost 11 Billion dollars.

                        Ford Motor didn't need the assistance, good for them.
                        Proving the "auto industry" was not saved by Obama.

                        You and Forbes can monday morning quaterback all you want, but Obama's decision to bail them out worked.
                        At a cost of $11B to the taxpayers, and despite clear evidence that GM would have survived without it.
                        That's what
                        - She

                        Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                        - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                        I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                        - Stephen R. Donaldson

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          And look what happened to Detroit despite the "bailout" - bankrupt and turned into a post-apocalyptic nightmare of poverty. Yay Obama!

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Investor's Business Daily just mentioned the poll and noted the total MSM blackout of it

                            Source: Here's One Poll The Press Doesn't Want You To See


                            That sounds newsworthy, doesn't it? But you'd never know this if you relied on the mainstream press for information. That's because not one of them reported on Gallup's finding.

                            It took the conservative CNS News to break the media embargo. It reported on Gallup's findings on Monday, and its story got picked up by the influential Drudge Report. After that, a few other conservative news and blog sites reported the findings.

                            Beyond that: total media blackout.


                            Source

                            © Copyright Original Source



                            Another thing that the MSM hasn't covered is that Trump now has a 59% approval rating after starting out not even a week ago at 45%. They remain fixated on the latter point and ignore how quickly that changed as Americans saw what he is doing rather than being continually warned about what the left said he might do.

                            I'm always still in trouble again

                            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Breitbart's picture accompanying this story is hilarious.

                              obama-angry-getty-640x480.jpg

                              Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                              But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                              Than a fool in the eyes of God


                              From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                              16 responses
                              163 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post One Bad Pig  
                              Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                              53 responses
                              400 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Mountain Man  
                              Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                              25 responses
                              114 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                              33 responses
                              198 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Roy
                              by Roy
                               
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                              84 responses
                              382 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post JimL
                              by JimL
                               
                              Working...
                              X