Has anyone seen these polls?

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

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.

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.

Obama began his presidency at 68. He hit 69 the following day. That means he's dropped 16 points since day one.

So in less time than Carter, Obama has fallen more.

And Obama's bad numbers are fairly uniform. In the past day alone, NBC News/Wall Street Journal and the Pew Research Center have shown similar results.

Both W. Bush and Bill Clinton reached the low 50s sooner than Obama. W. Bush hit 53 in March; Clinton hit 51 within a month of his inauguration. But W. Bush and Clinton began their presidencies with approval ratings about 10 points lower than Obama. And indeed, Obama has therefore fallen faster than W. Bush as well.

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

But yes, the majority of Americans are pretty stupid...

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!

[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.

[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.

[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

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.